Monday, April 14, 2014

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 phrase in the abstract reads:
"The paper reports a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 different countries which yielded an overall positive effect in excess of 6 sigma with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09, combined z = 6.33, p = 1.2 × 10e-10. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 7.4 × 10e9, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in favor of the experimental hypothesis."
In layman terms this means that according to the same standards used to evaluate evidence throughout the psychological sciences that implicit precognition is a genuine effect. This outcome, combined with a meta-analysis of presentiment effects, provides additional evidence indicating that what bothers critics is their belief about how Nature should behave, rather than how it actually does. 

We do not need precognition to predict that the new meta-analysis will not influence the critics' beliefs. Their beliefs, like those of most people, rest upon a naive realist (i.e., common sense) view of nature. 

While common sense is good enough for most basic activities of daily life (not including an understanding of how television, smartphones, GPSs, and computers work), it is not sufficient to account for the larger reality revealed by science. Nor is it capable of perceiving the far stranger and vaster realities that patiently wait for us far beyond the reach of today's science.


Update April 25, 2014. As I predicted, this meta-analysis shows no signs of influencing critics' beliefs. Instead, new objections are invented. The latest is that we shouldn't believe this analysis because Bem was one of the authors and he has a vested interest in the outcome. But based on that logic we are also justified in ignoring any meta-analysis published by avowed skeptics because they have a vested interest in their outcomes. Do vested interests pro or con influence these analyses? Undoubtedly they do. So is it even possible to craft a truly neutral assessment? Probably, but it would take some effort because the published reports would have to be carefully scrubbed clean so the analysts wouldn't know what the topic of their analysis is all about. And somehow other analysts would need to thoroughly search all published and unpublished sources to find every relevant study ever conducted.

I  haven't heard of anyone ever getting funding for this type of uber-neutral analysis, but if you do know a source of funding that might be interested in supporting such an effort, please let me know.






134 comments:

sedona1948 said...

What surprises me is that this is so surprising to others.

Rhino Chuckyh said...

Hi there, Dean. I'm a big fan of your work, and while I accept the existence of psi, presentiment etc based on personal experience, there is one problem for me, which I'm hoping you can put at ease. I understand that so-called sceptics often let their established opinions control their judgement, but when we are dealing with something as measurable as your presentiment studies, or the effect of mind on random number generators, surely a genuine, repeatable effect can be identified sufficiently to put the sceptics at ease.

Lets say we had a machine that flipped 1 billion zeros or ones, and then results are added up to create a single collective zero or one result from the 1 billion flips. Even a very small influence from mental attention will have a huge affect on the overall result. Let's then say we go a step further by repeating this whole process again and again, until we've done the entire experiment 1 million times (1 billion x 1 million flips), and from all of this we define the result as either a single 1 or 0. The result should match the intention of the thinker with 100%near 100% accuracy.

Using a process like this, we should be able to put the sceptic in chair, tell him to think of a 1 or a 0, and then let them watch their thought appear on a screen in front of them with 100% accuracy. My greater point being, if the results are so direct and measurable, it should be fairly straightforward to devise an experiment that sceptics simply can't argue with. If mental attention can influence an event generator in 0.001% of instances, we should be able to build a machine that irrefutably proves that effect in a way that no sceptic can argue with. If the effect is there, what's wrong with us if we cant build a device to prove it? How sceptical somebody is shouldn't really matter!

Simon Fraser said...

Of course the most entrenched people won't support it. Imagine if all the well known cynics who had said this was all woo-woo, who had built careers or parts thereof by calling it such, admitted they were wrong. The entire raison d'être of SGU, JREF, RDFRS, TAM Rational wiki et al would be vanish.

Dean Radin said...

> if the results are so direct and measurable, it should be fairly straightforward to devise an experiment that sceptics simply can't argue with...

You are assuming that the process of evaluating evidence is a rational process. It isn't. As Bayesian statistics shows if one's prior beliefs exclude the possibility of psi, then no amount of additional evidence will change anything. This seems ridiculous, but it's true.

It is also not the case that personal experience will necessarily change one's beliefs. Again, if one strongly holds the idea that real psi cannot happen, or one has bet one's career on that belief, then even if it does happen it won't be perceived. Or if it is perceived it won't be remembered or the event will be reconstructed in a way that maintains psychological comfort (e.g., it was a coincidence, an illusion, a trick, etc.).

I used to think that progress in science was a rational progression. That's how science is taught in school. But the history and sociology of science, as well as my own experiences, tell me that the schoolbook version of science is an ideal, and not the way the real world works.

As Max Planck said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

IreneSoldatos said...

Dean, I find it astonishing and admirable that you don't spend your life in a state of perpetual frustration-induced rage. I would! My blood pressure rockets just by looking at the results on the 1st page of a Google search for the words "Daryl Bem".

Though Max Plank is, of course, completely right, I fear that current militant sceptics are so vocal, and the support they receive from mainstream media so enormous, they continue to influence indelibly the younger generations of scientists, which will just result in a new crop of militant sceptics.

Bean Ham said...

I'm also a big fan, but I'm always disappointed that the bottom line results of the field are still numbers on a page. Until someone can provide a consistent verifiable practical application, it seems like the court of public opinion will ignore the numbers and scientists will continue to be skeptical of how the numbers were collected. Is there any reason to believe that there will be a breakthrough that can provide this type of application in the next few years?

Sylvain Frédéric Nahas said...

> If the effect is there, what's wrong with us if we cant build a device to prove it? How sceptical somebody is shouldn't really matter!

Beside cognitive dissonance, check out for "psi miss."

> or one has bet one's career on that belief,

While they are fond to raise this argument against their "opponents", it's one factor most followers of organized skepticism conveniently prefer to ignore concerning their own leaders...

Ben Steigmann said...

I've been reading really old accounts related to trance - just finished reading some discussion of "higher mesmeric phenomena" in Wallace's book looking into these issues, showing the ghettoization of them even in his time.

As a suggestion for researchers - it may be that deep trance elicits more powerful psi responses, and experimenters may want to test that theory.

Dean Radin said...

> Is there any reason to believe that there will be a breakthrough that can provide this type of application in the next few years?

Hard to say. It's always possible, but an application with the level of reliability we're used to with our electronic technologies -- that's quite a ways off in the future. Applications in the form of espionage and ways of making a bit of money in the stock market already exist.

As an analogy, we're still very much at the place where Benjamin Franklin was in flying kites in electrical storms. He knew that lightning was a startling but real phenomena, it was natural and not supernatural, and he was coming up with clever ways of studying it. But he had no viable theory for lightning, nor could he have known that one day these strange sparks would be understood well enough to form one of the fundamental engines of modern civilization.

I do expect that one day when adequate theoretical descriptions are developed for psi that new applications will arise, and when that happens it too may become one of the engines of post-modern civilization.

Simon Fraser said...

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/04/08/embracing-the-unexplained-part-2/

The comments section in this article shows what we are up against. A couple of the skeptics when presented with evidence simply ignore it and return to spouting the same rhetoric. i.e. parapsychology is like bermuda triangle, bigfoot and UFO research, it's woo, James Randi prize etc. I suppose there isn't much one can do, but you do feel like shaking them sometimes.

Simon Fraser said...

Hi Dr Radin.

A skeptic and I are having an interesting debate and I'm wondering, if you have time (if not don't worry) what you think of the fellow's objections

"The problem is that the alleged positive results you talk about cannot be replicated by scientists outside of parapsychology institutions. It's also suspicious that all the papers you cite are meta-analysis i.e. just numbers on paper. If psi effects are real why cannot they not be demonstrated in real life? Anything slightly above "chance" is considered to be evidence for "psi" but this is a fallacy because those results could be from a number of things and look closely at the numbers they are always only *just* over chance levels, never any real conclusive numbers. It's well known meta-analysis can contain uncertainty and all kinds of error and biases.

When an experiment can't be repeated and get the same result, this shows that the result was due to some error in experimental procedure (sensory leakage, methodology error etc) rather than some real process. As there is no repeatable evidence for psi after 130 year investigation on record it's safe to conclude psi probably doesn't exist. We are looking here at something else. Mostly experimental errors, magical thinking and human cognitive biases.

If psi existed people would be winning the lottery more and gambling casinos would be out of business but the earnings are exactly as the laws of chance predict. If psi existed there would be no disease, people would be just curing themselves. You need to question your paranormal belief system more because what you believe is riddled with contradictions, errors and holes.

Precognition is scientifically impossible an effect does not happen before the cause. Psychokinesis violates the inverse square law, the conservation of energy etc.

If psychokinesis existed there would be no science and no objective results because the subject would just influence the results of any experiment or test. If psychokinesis was real then no scientist would be able to trust readings on their scientific instruments etc. Dean Radin has never contemplated these facts.
All measurements in science would become falsified if psi was real because the subject would just influence all the results. There would be no objective science if psi was real. If anything psi is anti-scientific. It is the definition of pseudoscience and there is no empirical evidence it exists."

Dean Radin said...

"The problem is that the alleged positive results you talk about cannot be replicated by scientists outside of parapsychology institutions."

Not so. See the paper by Delgado-Romero & Howard and my reply on my Evidence page. It is also falsified by the many replications cited in the feeling the future MA. What is a "parapsychology institution"? A place that has ever conducted a psi experiment? Then that includes Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Duke, Cambridge, Edinburgh, etc.

> It's also suspicious that all the papers you cite are meta-analysis i.e. just numbers on paper.

This is a funny statement. All experimental reports are about numbers on paper.

> If psi effects are real why cannot they not be demonstrated in real life?

They can be, as I discuss in my book Supernormal.

> Anything slightly above "chance" is considered to be evidence for "psi" but this is a fallacy because those results could be from a number of things ...

Sigh. This is a hopelessly naive, ignorant criticism. I discuss all this in gory detail in my books and there are plenty of articles one can read.

> When an experiment can't be repeated and get the same result ...

Hence, meta-analysis is used to assess whether replication has been achieved. It has.

> If psi existed ... precognition is scientifically impossible ... psychokinesis violates the inverse square law ...

Again, hopelessly naive.

> Dean Radin has never contemplated these facts...

That's a good one.


Simon Fraser said...

Thank-you for your time, I realise you've gone through this stuff before ad infinitum. I guess I'm trying to win the argument with this guy, but that is probably a losing battle. Again thank-you and happy easter.

Ben Steigmann said...

Chris Carter's "Science and Psychic Phenomena" addresses these issues. Regarding one of them, he states, "Skeptics of psychokinesis are fond of pointing out that there are well established
laboratories for testing PK in Reno, Las Vegas, and Monte Carlo.
So, could PK be used to beat the odds in the casinos? Not likely. The PK effects observed in the laboratories are simply far too weak. Physicist Nick Herbert has calculated that the odds in favor of the house on even the most favorable casino games are about one hundred times larger than most of the deviations from chance observed in the PK experiments. Even the most gifted micro-PK subjects do not even come close to displaying results that would allow them to consistently beat the house. Furthermore, even if some forms of the PK, telepathic, or precognitive effects displayed in laboratories were strong enough
in theory to beat the casinos over a long run, it is highly unlikely they would work in practice. First, psi researchers, aware of their subjects’ potential for
boredom and fatigue, typically limit experimental sessions to only 15 to 30 minutes. However, in order to beat the casinos over the long run, people would need to perform consistently at an optimal level, perhaps over a period of months, or even years. Second, conditions in psi experiments are designed to be as psi-conducive as possible, and so are generally quiet and relaxing with few, if any, distractions. On the other hand, casinos are designed to be distracting and to prevent careful thought and concentration, with bright lights, loud music, scantily clad women, and free alcohol. Replications in science are meant to be conducted in experimental conditions as nearly identical to the original experiment as possible, not wildly different."

The "130 years" statement rests from a coverup by Hyman and Alcock discussed in that text. Other arguments of the critic are refuted in "Science and Psychic Phenomena", ch. 11 and 12.

Debbie said...

'In layman terms this means that according to the same standards used to evaluate evidence throughout the psychological sciences that implicit precognition is a genuine effect.'

We might consider three possibilities:
1. The paper presents evidence of precognition.
2. There is an error in the analysis.
3. There is an issue with the evidential standards used in the psychological sciences.

If possibility 1 or 3 turns out to be true, the paper would be a major contribution to the field. Let's wait and see.

Leif

Ben Steigmann said...

Dean Radin has dealt with many of these critics, noted, by sourcing quality sources, the inaccuracies of Zusne and Jones, etc: http://survivalafterdeath.info/articles/other/skepticism.htm

Other critics have been similarly rebutted. It is impossible at present to correct wikipedia on this, since people are attacked for merely attempting to challenge their vitriolic tone - see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parapsychology/Archive_18&diff=603751035&oldid=599068096#Unexplained_Deletions

(most of the criticisms of Rhine are refuted in Carter's book - I will get other items - Hansel's account was noted by Marcello Truzzi to be seriously erroneous).

Rhine exposed fraud amongst parapsychologists - saying he suppressed exposure of it is inaccurate - for another take on this from a more conservative parapsychologist,see: http://jeksite.org/psi/misconduct.htm

I would not at all be surprised if the 1974 article is being used in a misleading way - I will have to obtain it - Rhine's critics like Martin Gardner and also Wheeler have been seriously misleading when discussing him: http://jeksite.org/psi/skeptic81.pdf

And as Brian Josephson noted, "I.J. Good's review of Radin's survey of the evidence for paranormal phenomena, The Conscious Universe [1], misleads by its selective approach to parapsychological research, combined with claims of error on the author's part that are invalid. As the book indicates, possibilities for fraud and unintentional error are much reduced by present day techniques so that what may or may not have happened in the case of Soal is essentially irrelevant (unless one believes in extensive collusive cheating among apparently reputable individuals, a hypothesis I find implausible). For example, readings are nowadays normally not written down by the experimenter, but recorded and analysed automatically. Such improvements have not made the effects go away, giving one some reason to consider that they are real."

but at any rate,these people ignore those from their own ranks like Chris French, who repudiate the charge that parapsychology is a pseudoscience: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2013/04/show-me-evidence.html?showComment=1395422400685#c8120650415580834742

Ben Steigmann said...

For Truzzi's reply to Hansel, see p. 5 of this: http://tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNo7.pdf

Terry the Censor said...

Isn't it a conflict of interest for Bem to be evaluating the work of Bem?

Rhino Chuckyh said...

Hello again Dean. Thank you so much for your generous and lengthy response to my original question posted on Wednesday. It is appreciated. This follow-up question should be a bit simpler I hope...

How much money would you estimate it would cost to design & build an apparatus (such as the one described) that could essentially use the effect of mental intention on matter to predict the intention of a volunteer with near 100% accuracy. For clarity lets say 99%+.

(BTW that pseudo million dollar challenge has nothing to do with my asking of the question.) Thanks again!

jamesrav said...

Although it will never happen, it would almost make sense for skeptics to admit this 'force' exists and tell the proponents to go play with their shiny new toy and report back when they find something it can be used for. I think people who study PSI primarily want respectability, and that means "give me money to study it". Well find some rich benefactor out of the 12 million millionaires around the world to bankroll the tests - seems hard to believe not one is willing to lend his/her name and money to a paradigm-shift discovery. The heady days of the 50's and 60's when people like Nina Kulagina were (apparently) moving objects by PK have been replaced with pre-sentiment on the order of milli-seconds, with a 'success' rate just over chance.

Buzz Ambient said...

@IreneSoldatos: "Dean, I find it astonishing and admirable that you don't spend your life in a state of perpetual frustration-induced rage."

Dean Radin as a lecturer and scientist is cool as a cucumber ... He deals in facts and sober questions, in contrast to those who believe that "It can't be, therefore it isn't!"

@Simon Fraser: "If psi effects are real why cannot they not be demonstrated in real life?"

It is likely that we all use psi frequently in real life, but do not recognize when we are doing it. I invite you to learn Remote Viewing, in which you can demonstrate to yourself, not "Psychic Powers" to alarm James Randi, but the simple, natural and repeatable ability to obtain accurate information about a subject to which you have no ordinary access.

You may find, as I did, that having positive results in your "real life" is convincing and profoundly broadening.

You could also persuade yourself that it didn't happen, that there is no mechanism, and that psi practitioners and researchers are chasing rainbows. For some, the latter option is more comforting.

Dean Radin said...

> have been replaced with pre-sentiment on the order of milli-seconds, with a 'success' rate just over chance.

The presentiment effect is comparatively robust and can be detected up to 10 seconds in advance of a random stimulus, depending on the physiological measure that one uses. There are organizations interested in potential applications.

Dean Radin said...

> How much money would you estimate it would cost to ... predict the intention of a volunteer with near 100% accuracy.

Many millions. This is still very much a basic science experiment. Transitioning it into a technology would require an enormous R&D effort. By analogy, someone might have asked Marie Curie how much it would take to transition the radioactive rocks she was studying into mega-watt power stations. It took dozens of decades, thousands of people, and billions of dollars.

Dean Radin said...

> Isn't it a conflict of interest for Bem to be evaluating the work of Bem?

The paper was co-authored. Unlike Wikipedia, science values expertise.

Terry the Censor said...

Terry said: "Isn't it a conflict of interest for Bem to be evaluating the work of Bem?"
DR said: "The paper was co-authored."

If the paper has sufficient co-authors, then Bem can safely recuse himself.

Science values objectivity, not self-dealing.

Stephen Baumgart said...

I had never realized how spoiled I was researching high-energy physics until I read skeptical critiques of presentiment.

For high-energy nuclear and particle physics,

1) There are no practical applications.

2) It often takes enormous amounts of data - years of running colliders collecting millions/billions/or more of collisions - to see a statistically significant result.

3) Many discoveries become apparent only after careful statistical analysis.

If the psi-skeptics were at all fair, they would have thrown out all evidence for the Higg's boson (and most of the rest of the field) and demanded that funding for the LHC be eliminated for supporting "pseudoscience". Besides, has anyone ever seen "quarks", "Higgs bosons", or any of these other "fundamental particles"? ;-)

Dean Radin said...

> Science values objectivity, not self-dealing.

This seems to imply that a scientist who makes an important discovery shouldn't publish subsequent papers on that topic, including review papers, even though he or she is the most qualified person to do so.

If that idea were enforced then journals would come to a screeching halt. In any case, the MA in question was performed with and without Bem's nine studies, and the other 81 replications stand alone.

This critique, by the way, is representative of what I predicted would happen when this paper is finally published. People who just can't stomach the idea that precognition is real will find all sorts of new reasons to ignore it.

IreneSoldatos said...

@Buzz Ambient: 'Dean Radin as a lecturer and scientist is cool as a cucumber ... He deals in facts and sober questions, in contrast to those who believe that "It can't be, therefore it isn't!" '

He is also human. ;-)
(Sorry for talking about you as if you're not here, Dean!)
I have a PhD myself, though it's in the arts; but in my life I am constantly surrounded by natural scientists (my husband is a biochemist) and I can vouch for the fact that none of them are 'cool as cucumbers', especially when their own work is attacked because of erroneous preconceptions, obstinacy, or simply because their results contradict that on which the 'attacker' has built a career; i.e. for no good reason. (Yes, this happens a lot!) What they do have is the ability to take several deep breaths, vent their frustration with friends or family, have a drink, then go back and write a calm response against the accusations. None of this means they don't get enraged and frustrated. In fact, I've often thought that the halls of Academe would provide a brilliant setting for a soap opera. ;-)

William Strathman said...

"The new meta-analysis will not influence the critics' beliefs. Their beliefs, like those of most people, rest upon a naive realist (i.e., common sense) view of nature."

IMHO the most vociferous critics are not only naive realists, but are also heavily invested in philosophical materialism, whether they realize it or not. For them, the universe in its fundamental essense consists solely of inert materials and forces. For them "mind" is an epiphenomenon ensuing from these inert materials and forces. When one presents any evidence that suggests that "mind" may be independent of inert material their insecurities get the best of them.

tyy said...

@Stephen Baumgart

High energy physics, also called particle physics, is the basis of all modern physics and our understanding of the universe and natural phenomena.

Investigating selfmade reality bubbles is of course easier and more convenient for lesser minds.

Terry the Censor said...

@Dean
> This seems to imply that a scientist who makes an important discovery shouldn't publish subsequent papers on that topic

You know that is rhetoric. Continuing one's work is not the same as pretending to objectively judge one's own work.

> This critique, by the way, is representative of what I predicted

Did you predict that Bem would validate Bem? That was indeed predictable.

If you think this is permissable, what's next? Issuing Nobel Prizes to yourselves?

Dean Radin said...

> Investigating selfmade reality bubbles is of course easier and more convenient for lesser minds.

That's what I used to think when I was deeply involved in engineering and physics. After I got a doctorate in psychology, and especially later when I became involved in consciousness studies, I realized that understanding the mind is much more difficult than physics.

All of physical theory and the mathematics it's based upon are, after all, dreamt up by the mind. Physics is merely a symbolic representation of our experience of the physical world.

Dean Radin said...

> Continuing one's work is not the same as pretending to objectively judge one's own work.

Then I suppose the following paper was equally guilty and should be tossed?

http://deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf

Or perhaps that paper is fine because those authors reached a negative conclusion?

And what about this article reporting a successful meta-analysis of presentiment experiments (a class of studies I've been conducting since 1996)? I contributed several studies toward this database, but I'm not an author of the meta-analysis. Is this one okay?

http://deanradin.com/evidence/Mossbridge2012Presentiment.pdf

Terry the Censor said...

@Dean
> Is this one okay?

There should be no conflict of interest, period.

You can obscure that point with your partisan dog whistles, but such mucking arguments don't make psi claims valid all by themselves.

Dean Radin said...

@Terry -- Concerns about conflict of interest are common, and valid, in clinical trials (drugs, therapies, etc.) because of the obvious potential for financial gain. I've never seen it mentioned as a problem in a basic science meta-analysis.

Can you provide a citation indicating that this is considered a problem in the social, psychological, or behavioral sciences?

Within parapsychology, meta-analyses published by skeptics Hyman, Wiseman, Bosch, and the aforementioned Galak, all reported negative results. All of these meta-analyses have been widely reported and discussed, and I haven't seen a single skeptic complain that those authors had a conflict of interest.

Are you suggesting that a different standard is required in this case because the topic is psi research?

If you can manage to reply without resorting to insults I would appreciate it. If you cannot manage it, then don't bother to reply.

IreneSoldatos said...

@Terry the Censor
>There should be no conflict of interest, period.

>You can obscure that point with your partisan dog whistles, but such mucking arguments don't make psi claims valid all by themselves.

Nice.

So, you are either ignorant of the peer review process, or you are being deliberately obtuse in order to mislead.

When a paper in any natural science is submitted for review, the authors also list the names of reviewers they would like the paper to go to: that is experts in the field who are sympathetic to their research. They also list those to whom the paper should not go to, because they are competitors who are likely to review the paper negatively or throw obstacles in its path, like delay the review for months in order to have the time to publish their own contradictory results first. This sort of thing happens ALL the time and anyone who says differently is simply lying -- and it is only one of the ways in which research results are distorted.

So, to suggest that Psi research is tainted by "conflict of interest", whereas "proper" science resides in some lofty sphere of pure truth unadulterated by human interests is an outright misrepresentation of facts, which I hope stems from ignorance and not from deceit.

Darkelf said...

I apologize if a similar post appears twice. I had some problems with the website the first time around.

@Terry, I am highly skeptical of Bem's results, but it is entirely acceptable for him to include his own data in a meta-analysis. It would make sense to perform a control analysis in which his data is removed though. In fact, the Galak paper did that and suggested that Bem's results drive all the significant findings in their analysis (this was only on two of the nine experiments however).

What I think is much more important but completely ignored by this entire discussion is that Bem's meta-analysis has not passed peer review. It is technically unpublished (and in fact the header of the PDF says you shouldn't quote or distribute it in this form). Yet everybody here treats it like a published paper. The final version could be quite different after peer-review or it may be rejected. It seems premature to draw major conclusions from this.

Simon Fraser said...

https://twitter.com/ThatNeilMartin/status/453208217485852672

Blimey, they're already jumping on it!

Dean Radin said...

> is that Bem's meta-analysis has not passed peer review....

True, but Daryl is a highly accomplished professor who has published many high-impact articles. The likelihood that this one will be published pretty much in its present form is very high.

It was posted pre-publication for the same reason that many papers are deposited in the physics and math-oriented arxiv.org -- for open access and discussion.

Dean Radin said...

Simon, that tweet was referring to a different paper.

Simon Fraser said...

> That tweet was referring to a different paper

Ah ok, still, I envision the same reaction all the same.

Simon Fraser said...

RE: That tweet. I'm always amazed how some skeptics complain about there being no evidence. Yet when a journal publishes evidence, they complain about it.

Terry the Censor said...

@Dean Radin

You are re-framing this as a mere partisan debate and an issue of my character.

No one will take this paper seriously because of an obvious appearance of conflict of interest. The focus of this anaysis is Bem's own work. This is not the same as a meta-analysis covering a broad range of papers by a diversity of authors.

And your responses reinforce my concern. Here in your echo-chamber, you give Bem's self-analysis a ringing endorsement; the only critical remarks are directed at "hysterical critics" and commentors who bring up valid ethical questions.

You give no indication of scientific thought, mere partisan cult-think.

Terry the Censor said...

@Darkelf

Very sensible points. Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Dean Radin said...

Terry > No one will take this paper seriously because of an obvious appearance of conflict of interest. The focus of this anaysis is Bem's own work. This is not the same as a meta-analysis covering a broad range of papers by a diversity of authors.

The point of the article that started this thread was to answer the question -- was the transparently clear experimental protocol provided by Bem successfully repeatable by other investigators?

The answer, based on the MA, is yes.

If your concern is that Bem and three colleagues somehow cooked the books to cleverly arrange for an answer that would cast Bem in a favorable light, then that accusation can easily be checked by having someone else repeat the MA. Given that you've raised the issue (which I think is entirely spurious, but nevertheless ...), I nominate you for that task, provided of course that you can persuade us that you are completely neutral about the outcome and hold no favored expectation.

Doug1943 said...

Perhaps the view of someone who is skeptical about psi, but who also believes that, in the end, evidence is everything and therefore we must remain open to changing our minds, may help.

We don't know everything about the world. The astonishing discoveries about reality at the sub-atomic level made during the 20th Century, and the very existence of consciousness, should make everyone open-minded.

However, the problem with psi, from my point of view, is that there seems to be only weak effects, which are easy to dismiss as the result of something we have overlooked in the experiments that generate these effects. There are many examples of experiments having nothing to do with psi, which were invalid because of one reason or another: measurement errors, bias, micro-level phenomena of which we were unaware...

After decades of research, we don't seem to have any general theory of what might be going on with psi effects, assuming they are valid, something with which we could make predictions.

Is psi, for instance, evidence of something analogous to the electromagnetic spectrum, some phenomenon of space/time that is mainly (at the moment) beyond our ability to detect?

That's assuming, of course, that psi, if it exists, is a phenomenon that can be investigated the way other natural phenomena have been investigated. Do experiments, accumulate evidence, form testable hypotheses, see if you can generalize these into laws which cover a lot of phenomena...

If partisans of psi would address themselves to this issue, they might make more progress among the 'orthodox'. (Or perhaps you have, and I just don't know about it. In which case, point me to the right references.)

Dean Radin said...

Doug1943, see http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm for a small slice of the relevant literature.

Are psi effects uniquely weak? No. The average effect size for some classes of psi experiments is essentially the same as the average effect size observed in the conventional social sciences.

Are the empirical effects observed in modern psi experiments plausibly explainable as design flaws, measurement errors, or etc.? Critics who have actually read the relevant modern literature cannot identify any plausible design flaws.

The remaining (valid) criticisms today center around "questionable research practices" such as selective reporting in meta-analyses and p-hacking in individual or collective analyses. These can be settled (at least in principle, and partially) through pre-registration of experiments, which is becoming common across many experimental domains.

I discuss these issues in detail in my latest book, Supernormal.

Ben Steigmann said...

@Doug1943

I am in process of refuting skeptics on older psychical research, as I think an honest history of the facts in this case is important.

With some physical phenomena, there are no accusations or indications of fraud, and skeptics ignore these - take the following, validated by a famous fraudbuster: http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/price/stellac.htm

There are suspicions of fraud on the part of Price, but ironically the only ones that hold up are re his debunkings - there is contrary affirmative testimony from magicians re his 3 major debunkings, and other items - however, there is a paper arguing that fraud was not possible on the part of Price or Cranshaw in this case - Randall, J. L. (2001) The mediumship of Stella Cranshaw: a statistical investigation. JSPR 65, 38-46.

For others, like Daniel Dunglas Home, skeptics have spent years trying to undermine him, and there are accusations of fraud - all of which can be refuted, but I believe I will soon be able to show that all of it is spurious. Eric Dingwall had animosity towards much of psychical research but he came to positive conclusions about Home - I provide overviews of this, and a review of a book that refutes most of the skepticism. The rest of the argument is spurious, and the wiki article has citations that might even be fabricated - e.g. - the allegation sourced to Podmore that he had a constant companion with him, when searches for relevant terms show that nothing of the kind appears in "Modern Spiritualism", which "Mediums of the 19th Century" is a reprint of. Anyway, some rebuttal to skepticism of Home is here, the book Dingwall reviews positively refutes allegations of fraud- also, Amsterdam Seances where he convinced skeptics are mentioned - from overviews I saw of them (I am obtaining the major source), he seems to have produced the same kind of phenomena that Crookes stated he recorded: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2013/04/show-me-evidence.html?commentPage=2
I have seen other misrepresentations - e.g. -in the attempt to debunk the Crookes experiments, etc, but this will be seen only by consulting the primary source literature.

Please realize that skeptics have worked for years and years to try and debunk this kind of stuff - and a person would have to spend a great deal of time in counterattack. If somebody wanted to donate me $2000 so that I might get the literature necessary, I would only spend it on this issue, but that's the amount that would be required to get all the obscure books necessary for this.

Ben Steigmann said...

Meanwhile, there is definitive proof of deception on the part of James Randi - from a prominent fellow skeptic (though I would call him a genuine skeptic, as opposed to Randi). Relevant overview is on p. 89 of Marcello Truzzi's critique of Project Alpha 'Reflections on Project Alpha....', which begins on p. 73 of the skeptical text "Zetetic Scholar", Nos. 12/13: - http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNos12-13.pdf

"Not all psi researchers were put on the defensive by Alpha. Dennis Stillings, director of a Minneapolis groupcalled the Archaeus Project, which puts out a newsletter by that name, was outraged and initiated a retaliatory hoax which started as a small joke but escalated into something more significant. Stillings felt that Randi was trying to reap advantage from lies told to the psi researchers and was, in effect, blaming the victims. Stillings believed that any parson could be deceived by lies and that Randi was just as susceptible to such human error as anyone. So, Stillings (1983a) issued a phony,one page, special issue of his group's newsletter (of which only two copies were mailed out and these to Edwards and Shaw with the expectation that they would show it to Randi). The ersatz issue contained a short, two paragraph, fraudulent announcement that the Archaeus Project had just been given "a fund of $217,000...as seed money for a program in PK research and education" It said the funds were for "grant money to PK investigators, especially those interested in 'metal bending"' and for "developing a program of educating children in the range and nature of parapsychological phenomena." Finally, it said that "Those applying for grants, as well as those gifted with paranormal abilities" should write to Stillings. Stillings also separately wrote a letter to Shaw telling him that sinceshaw was a fraud, he should not apply for any of the money.To stretch the joke even further, Stillings also published a warning "Advisory Notice (Krueger, 1983)--to parallel Randi's similar advisory notes--in a previous real issue of his group's newsletter.

Though Stillings' original prank struck me as being a bit silly (after all, Randi never claimed to be immune to trickery, and conjurors fool one another all the time), what happened next went far beyond Stillings' expectations and turned the matter into a significant episode. upon seeing the phony announcement, and apparently without properly checking things out, Randi decided to give one of his annual psi-mocking "Uri Awards" to this receipt of a phony grant. Thus, on April 1, 1983, Randi's Discover news release gave a "Uri" in the funding category: "To the Medtronics Corporation of Minneapolis, who gave $250,000 to a Mr.Stillings of that city to fund the Archaeus Project, devoted to observing people who bend spoons at parties. Mr.Stillings then offered financial assistance to a prominent young spoon-bender who turned out to be one of the masquerading magicians of Project Alpha--a confessed fake." In this incredible award statement, Randi managed to falsely identify a major corporation as the funding source (when no source was ever mentioned in the original announcement), escalated the award from $217,000 to $250,000, misdescribed the purpose of the phony award, and falsely claimed one of his associates had been offered funds!

Ben Steigmann said...

Stillings and other foes of Randi, particularly Walter Uphoff, had a field day with Randi's big blunder. With headlines in psi publications like "'Non-Magician Fools Conjuror" (New Frontiers Center Newsletter) and "Researcher Fools Randi Into Making Fictional Award" (Psychic News), the "Amazing" Randi was portrayed as merely "Amusing." Randi, however, was apparently not amused. He has thus far not publicly acknowledged his mistake, although he did write an apology to Medtronics and admitted his mistake in private correspondence (including a letter sent to Stillings which Stillings managed to get Randi to write him by posing as a third party). In fact, when his Uri Award list was reproduced in The Skeptical Inquirer, Randi's award to Medtronics was simply omitted without comment. Although Stillings had only intended his prank to demonstrate that Randi, too, could be fooled, it actually ended up displaying the fact that Randi is capable of gross distortion of facts and in this case, at least, shot from the hip (and here managed to hit his own foot). This naturally might lead some to question Randi's reporting accuracy in the past and should caution us to look more carefully at the past cries of "foul" that opponents have hurled at him."

Some of the documentation Truzzi refers to can be found here: https://ia802500.us.archive.org/30/items/ProjectROTSUCDenisStillings038/Project%20ROTSUC%20%20%28Denis%20Stillings%29038.pdf

The claim that project alpha "discredited" the field relies on omission of relevant facts, see "Science Versus Showmanship: A History of the Randi Hoax": http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

Ben Steigmann said...

RE Harry Price, who is relevant to the important Stella C investigation, there is of course this defense of him: http://www.harrypricewebsite.co.uk/Biography/price-randall.htm

I feel, and I am attempting to see if the references supporting this are sufficiently documented, and reading pro- and con- information in these cases, that Randall may have overlooked something, however, for now, the above, by default, seems appropriate. The other article, Randall, J. L. (2001) The mediumship of Stella Cranshaw: a statistical investigation. JSPR 65, 38-46., is noteworthy.

Terry the Censor said...

@Dean
> checked by having someone else repeat the MA.

You are getting closer to a valid position: someone else should have performed the meta-analysis.

Well done.

> I nominate you for that task, provided of course that you can persuade us that you are completely neutral about the outcome and hold no favored expectation.

That's right, no criticism whatsoever for the self-assessor, just partisan hackery.

You are a true-blue "eyes wide shut" advocate, Dean. You'd fit in with the MJ-12 crowd.

Dean Radin said...

Terry writes: "You are re-framing this as a mere partisan debate and an issue of my character. ..."

And now: "You are a true-blue "eyes wide shut" advocate, Dean. You'd fit in with the MJ-12 crowd...."

Now who's guilty of re-framing and character attacks?

Note that Terry has yet to provide a citation supporting his red-herring contention that Bem should be disqualified as an author on a meta-analysis related to Bem-type experiments.

Unlike a conflict of interest in analyzing medical trials, where bias can arise due to financial gain, scientists who report positive results in psi studies do not enjoy financial or any other type of gain. Instead, they become instant fodder for name-calling and accusations of bias or worse.

IreneSoldatos said...

@Terry the Censor
I don't inderstand what you want and what you are doing here, except maybe trolling.

The paper is being peer reviewed. It is not a perfect process but is what's accepted for all other disciplines so it shall have to be accepted for this one as well - assuming it passes.

Dean Radin said...

Irene, indeed. Like any controversial topic, this one attracts its share of annoying trolls, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, provocateurs and other parasites. I will henceforth adjust my "waste of time" threshold to block these people.

IreneSoldatos said...

@Dean
>"Irene, indeed. Like any controversial topic, this one attracts its share of annoying trolls, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, provocateurs and other parasites. I will henceforth adjust my "waste of time" threshold to block these people."

Sadly, on the internet all topics attract trolls - let alone controversial ones. And the only way to deal with them is to ignore them. (And block where possible).

I do however find it good (and admirable!) that you have the patience to engage in reasoned conversation with the militant skeptics of various flavours that decide they want to give you a piece of their mind. Though I do also agree that your "waste of time" threshold might benefit from being adjusted downwards by a fraction.

All these people shout very loudly. So loudly that they drown out all other voices and most people can't hear anything other but their furious hysterics. (Neither could I, for a very long time, which now actually makes me very angry!) Dampening all their noise where possible so the signal might have a chance of being heard is not a bad idea. :)

Julio Siqueira said...

Hi Radin,

It is nice to know that Bem seems to be finding support for his previous findings. I myself have not carefully read (or even merely read...) the article in question. It is good that Darkelf has pointed out that this is still pending evaluation prior to acceptance for publishing.

I would like to make a few comments on what previous commentators have said.

First, I singled out three extracts from Terry:

"If the paper has sufficient co-authors, then Bem can safely recuse himself."

"Science values objectivity, not self-dealing."

"No one will take this paper seriously because of an obvious appearance of conflict of interest."

It is good to have here someone who believes Bem's results are false. That said, I think, Terry, that there are several problems with this notion of "conflict of interest". Basically, it implies lack of honesty from the part of the researcher. Or, alternatively, it implies lack of objectivity. And remember that it is YOU who claims that science values objectivity. Yet, if the researcher IS honest and objective, why can't he simply come forward and declare that his previous findings were flawed? For example, psi researcher Adrian Parker advanced a statement in the book Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal that he later on retracted. Basically, he said he had found what seemed evidence of psi. Later on, due to further studies of his own (and of others), he concluded that the purported evidence was not there. So he was (apparently) honest and objective. Period. If he (Parker) can be considered honest and objective in this instance, and taken serious by the scientific community, why can't we grant Bem the same treatment? The issue of conflict of interest has always been a concern in science, definitely, and nowadays it is even, say, fashionable: researchers are asked to declare if they have any competing interest in the subject they are writing about, when submitting papers to scientific journals. Does that indeed guarantee much? I doubt it. What does guarantee something is heavy, well directed, and honest criticism and analysis. And this you can be sure Bem's work will be receiving (except for the "honest" part... For, unlike you said, science does not cherish objectivity much, prefering instead to adhere to the status quo as much as possible).

Also, Dean Radin said: "The likelihood that this one will be published pretty much in its present form is very high."

And this is the State of the Art we have come to in Psi Research... :-). We are hanging on the thin threads of likelihood of likelihood (the likelihood that a paper presenting the likelihood of a phenomenon will be published). Definitely unfair. Yet, the name of the game.

Best Wishes to All,
Julio
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/criticizingskepticism.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon Fraser said...

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00336/full

Speaking of the skeptics. I almost get the feeling they're fighting back against the recent evidence. Or perhaps this is purely coincidental.

Julio Siqueira said...

Just a further comment to Terry,

Imagine Ray Hyman and James Randi themselves step forward and declare they are utterly sure Bem's findings are correct, his statistics are superb, his procedures are air-tight, and his candor is indisputable, etc. What would happen? Most likely (and I say, most likely indeed!) nothing at all (except for their peers declaring the two gone nuts). There is much much more than objectivity in this issue, as is also true for most issues in...science. As Carl Sagan used to say: Science is a human endeavour.

Best,
Julio

Dean Radin said...

> I almost get the feeling they're fighting back against the recent evidence.

This looks like just one of many similar articles that have already been published. It has nothing to do with empirical psi research and from an educational standpoint it is laudable. My only complaint with such efforts is that they often fail to clearly distinguish between the genuinely anomalous and pseudoscience. There is a tendency to imply in these articles, and in courses on "critical thinking," that anything outside a thin slice of the orthodoxy is automatically pseudoscience, and that is not only wrong, it is damaging to the spirit of scientific exploration.

Simon Fraser said...

>It has nothing to do with empirical psi research and from an educational standpoint it is laudable.

Yes, I noticed with a slight satisfaction that that aspect was conspicuously absent. Moreover, I also concur that it is laudable. Pointing out frauds who exploit other people especially so, i.e. Sylvia Browne.

Ben Steigmann said...

If people have doubts about Bem's objectivity, read carefully the following from Nancy Zingrone's thesis, pp. 71-72: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/7722/1/Zingrone2006.pdf

"McConnell’s (1976) article began as a lecture to an ‘anti-parapsychology course’ in which McConnell sought to outline the points on which scientific parapsychologists and critics agreed. This particular strategy was a result of an agreement he made with his critical colleague who was the instructor for the course in which McConnell gave his talk. Amongst the points he covered were: the critical claim that if ESP was proven to be ‘real’, then our view of the world and our behaviour would be affected more profoundly by such a fact than by any other discovery in history, an argument with which McConnell agreed (p. 303); that the evidence accumulated so far was not sufficient to ‘favor the reality of ESP’, a point on which critics and parapsychologists diverged (p. 303); and that a consensus on the quality of the evidence had not been reached either amongst critics or parapsychologists (p. 304).95 To explain why divergences existed in the evaluation of the evidence for ESP, McConnell noted that scientists preferred their own beliefs (p. 305), and that parapsychology was in what Thomas Kuhn (1970) would call a ‘pre-theoretical period’ (p. 307). The course instructor who had invited McConnell felt that those individuals were not only wasting research time and resources but that they were also spending too much time attempting to draw the attention of mainstream science. McConnell, on the other hand, felt that questions being asked in parapsychology were too important to go uninvestigated and that, in any case, the cost of that research was insignificant, perhaps ‘not more than a penny or two for every citizen in the USA’(p. 308).96"

Zingrone adds in footnote 96: "The sceptical instructor was social psychologist Daryl Bem (D. Bem, personal communication, 2004) who in mid-1980s became involved in Charles Honorton’s research, joined the Parapsychological Association around the same time, and is currently both a Board member of the PA and an active researcher."

Darkelf said...

The conflict of interest issue is a red herring. There is no conflict of interest here, at least not if they conduct additional control analyses excluding all of Bem's own experiments and compare the results for skeptics and psi proponents. The Galak paper did both of these and this suggests that A) Bem's own findings pull the results up and without it the results are not significantly different from chance and B) that the effect sizes from psi proponents are greater than from skeptics. A is unlikely to make much of a difference in this case from a brief look at the database but B should be interesting. If this experimenter effect is confirmed here then this raises questions as to why that may be. Of course this doesn't mean it's evidence for psi per se but it would be a good reason to do new experiments directly exploring this problem.

Bem and co also discuss the necessity for exact replications because exact replications produce stronger psi effects in this analysis. This however ignores the fact that an exact replication will also be an exact copy of all the artifacts and errors that may have influenced the original experiments. Exact replications have their place but in a situation like this, the first question one should ask is what makes the exact and indirect replications different?

If the peer reviewers do their job right they should raise all of these questions and the paper should be modified accordingly. The notion that the paper will be published as is because of Bem's standing strikes me unlikely, especially given the controversial nature of this paper.

@Ben Steigman, this summary about James Randi may be interesting, but you did not at all answer Doug1943's very good question. If psi research were to provide explanations that can be tested experimentally so that further mechanistic evidence can be accumulated, that would convince a lot of people. But as it stands this hasn't happened. It still seems to be entrenched firmly in square one trying to prove that the observations are real. It's the equivalent of Newton repeatedly letting himself be hit on the head by apples but never writing down any applicable theories.

Finally, I am sorry if my presence here is seen as trolling. I mean no offense to anyone but I mean to ask questions. Since this conversation is about a scientific investigation it also deserves scientific scrutiny.

Dean Radin said...

> Darkelf said...

> Bem and co also discuss the necessity for exact replications ... however ignores the fact that an exact replication will also be an exact copy of all the artifacts and errors ...

True, if the methods used were proprietary or obscure. But Bem specifically created a transparently simple protocol and freely shared all the source code used in the experiment. So anyone interested in replicating his study could inspect the software line by line to look for potential artifacts.

I'm fairly sure that any software instantiation would be fine provided that the method closely copied Bem's approach. By contrast, conducting the experiment online, as Galak did, is nice for statistical power reasons, but it's also quite different from what Bem was claiming. Every time someone does what they think is a conceptual replication, they are making assumptions about what does and does not matter. Maybe they're right, but maybe not.


> [Psi research] still seems to be entrenched firmly in square one trying to prove that the observations are real.

Not really. I know how that can appear to be the case from outside the field, but within it most researchers are engaged in process-oriented research, and most of my work is theory-oriented.

> Finally, I am sorry if my presence here is seen as trolling. I mean no offense to anyone but I mean to ask questions.

I have no problem at all with sincere questions or with constructive criticism. I do have a problem when a dialog devolves into name calling, or when it becomes clear that the only purpose of the discussion is to be provocative. So far I do not see trollish behavior on your part, but for all I know nearly everyone who comments on my blog could be a sockpuppet for one person with way too much time on his or her hands. I say nearly because I do know that some of commentators here are real people.

Simon Fraser said...

I was just looking at the 'Rationalwiki' article on parapsychology. One thing I noticed is that apparently

"In practice most of the experiments are of very poor quality design. They use poor controls (if any at all), usually have small sample sizes, ill defined terms and procedures, and rarely apply the concepts of double-blind studies."

Good god.

Dean Radin said...

Yes Simon. RationalWiki is a great example of irony.

Simon Fraser said...

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332/full

Sorry to lump this on you. It appears we have a new reaction to Julia's presentiment paper.

Simon Fraser said...

Another apparent violation of the laws of physics

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1020-death-is-not-final

Dean Radin said...

Simon, the Frontiers article is generally good, however it betrays a number of common mistakes.

> future events influencing the past breaks the second law of thermodynamics...

Thermodynamics is a statistical law, not an absolute. If it wasn't for the 2nd "law" regularly being broken none of us would be here to discuss this issue. Also, the concept of "reversed time" effects is a respectable topic within physics, and not just a theoretical issue. E.g. the delayed choice entanglement experiment.

> It also completely undermines over a century of experimental research based on the assumption that causes precede effects.

There's also over a century of experimental research that challenges conventional assumptions about causation. In any case, all measurements are correlations. The direction and even the existence of causation are inferences.

> Differences in pre-stimulus activity would invalidate baseline correction procedures fundamental to many different types of data analysis.

It certainly raises questions. But assumptions are always subject to change. Check any first edition of a science textbook and compare it with the 20th revised edition.

> While the meta-analysis briefly discusses this implication... the authors are seemingly unaware of the far-reaching consequences of their claims

Seriously?

> they effectively invalidate most of the neuroscience and psychology literature ...

This expresses a common fear that "everything I know is wrong." No. All that the psi claim does is make existing knowledge more comprehensive. It tells us that what we thought was fundamental is actually a special case.

> .. this interpretation betrays a deep-seated misapprehension of the scientific method.

Who is raising this misapprehension? The author of this opinion paper, not psi researchers!

> Much of parapsychology research is concerned with proving that psi is real

No. It's not about proof.

> we should stop relying on statistics at the expense of objective reasoning.

Given unavoidable measurement error, and possibly fundamental randomness at the quantum scale, what can possibly replace the use of statistics? I would argue that it is not possible to drop use of statistical inference, especially given that science is still very much in its infancy.

Dean Radin said...

More from the first author of the presentiment meta-analysis, Julia Mossbridge, writing to the author of the Frontiers critique (reproduced here with permission):

"I wanted to let you know I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't take our conversations into account in your comment. I addressed most of these points in our emails and in our discussion on the original paper posts on the web.

However, I do see that you want to make a public pronouncement of the problems you have with this research. I think there is some merit in having this as a public discussion. I just wished that you could have made some better choices about the problems you discussed while taking into account those I'd already addressed.

Specifically, the larger ratio of neutral to emotional stimulus types is used to ensure that habituation to the emotional stimuli does not occur. As you know, this is a common practice in psychophysiology. This is not a problem unless expectation bias is present, which as you know, was examined and dismissed in 19 of the 26 papers in the meta-analysis. It certainly isn't present in single-trial experiments.

Also, as you know, I agreed with you about Bierman and Scholte. As I said, I wouldn't have included the paper in the meta-analysis if I knew then what I know now about fMRI. Of course, it is only one paper, and without it the meta-analysis stands just as well.

Also, as you know, the baselining problem can only exaggerate existing post-stimulus effects (if the baseline trend is in the opposite direction of the post-stimulus trend) or decrease them (if the baseline trend is in the same direction of the post-stimulus trend). This does not mean, as you surely know, that all of neuroscience is invalidated somehow.

As to requiring extraordinary evidence but then proclaiming statistics should not be used to determine whether an effect is real, as I've effectively stated in our previous conversations, this puts scientists into a double-bind. We can only find effects that follow from our so-called "objective" ideas about nature. I wonder what Galileo would say about that?"

Dean Radin said...

Good commentary and comment thread on this topic:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-control/

MickyD said...

Dean, regarding he Schwarzkopf opinion piece, is this a concern: "In many of these studies (Bierman and Scholte, 2002; Radin, 2004) the data are not only baseline corrected to the mean activity level prior to stimulus onset, but they are further “clamped” to a particular time point prior to the stimulus. This should not necessarily influence the results if this point is a true baseline. However, if this pre-stimulus period is still affected by the response to the previous stimulus (e.g. the signal could decay back to baseline more slowly after an arousing than a calm trial) such a correction would inadvertently introduce artifacts in the pre-stimulus period. As such it may also be a much greater problem for slow than fast physiological measures" Michael.
Ps, I hope experts in the field comment.... it's already accumulated nearly a thousand views already.

Dean Radin said...

MickyD > such a correction would inadvertently introduce artifacts in the pre-stimulus period ...

As my colleague wrote (in a post above):

"the baselining problem can only exaggerate existing post-stimulus effects (if the baseline trend is in the opposite direction of the post-stimulus trend) or decrease them (if the baseline trend is in the same direction of the post-stimulus trend)."

I.e., yes, artifacts might be introduced but they wouldn't necessarily be in favor of the presentiment hypothesis. Also, as noted it is only a potential problem for slower signals, and presentiment effects are also observed in faster signals (like EEG).

Enfant Terrible said...

Hi, Dean

about the link you suggested, the author (Scott Alexander) wrote:

I looked through his list of ninety studies for all the ones that were both exact replications and had been peer-reviewed (with one caveat to be mentioned later). I found only seven:

Batthyany, Kranz, and Erber: .268
Ritchie 1: 0.015
Ritchie 2: -0.219
Richie 3: -0.040
Subbotsky 1: 0.279
Subbotsky 2: 0.292
Subbotsky 3: -.399

Three find large positive effects, two find approximate zero effects, and two find large negative effects. Without doing any calculatin’, this seems pretty darned close to chance for me.


His conclusion:

That is my best guess at what happened here – a bunch of poor-quality, peer-unreviewed studies that weren’t as exact replications as we would like to believe, all subject to mysterious experimenter effects. [...] I think Bem is wrong.

My impression is that in a few lines Scott simply destroyed the meta-analysis!

Dean Radin said...

Enfant > My impression is that in a few lines Scott simply destroyed the meta-analysis!

Of course. Scott provided a nice demonstration that by selecting certain studies you can craft any outcome you like. That's why you have to look at the whole database and not just cherry pick to match a preferred outcome.

What might have happened if, for example, Scott were to have selected exact replications whether they had been published (yet) or not? Or only looked at studies conducted on Tuesdays? Or in Europe vs. the US. Etc. Such comparisons are often interesting and potentially instructive, but they don't address the underlying existential issue.

Ben Steigmann said...

Dean Radin,

are you aware of statistics in Brazil, Latin American countries in General, India, and Asia in general, regarding acceptance of psi by academics in those countries, and if they differ from those in the West?

IreneSoldatos said...

@Dean Radin:
>More from the first author of the presentiment meta-analysis, Julia Mossbridge, writing to the author of the Frontiers critique (reproduced here with permission): ...

Is this a personal response she has sent, or is it a public response that has been sent to the journal? And if the latter, does the journal have a policy of publishing responses of this sort?

Enfant Terrible said...

Hi, Dean
some comments:

01 - Scott provided a nice demonstration that by selecting certain studies you can craft any outcome you like.

In this case he selected the best studies (that which have peer review and were exact replications). I think Parapsychology cannot accept data which can be spurious data. See, if Bierman and Scholte' article was seriously criticized and should not be in meta-analysis (by the way, their study was peer reviewed? if not, then we really can't trust in studies which were not peer reviewed. If yes, then we have to review the peer review...) how can we trust in a database which has more than 80 studies not peer-reviewed and were not exact replications?

We can't build a Science upon spurious data (or that can be spurious data).

02 - That's why you have to look at the whole database and not just cherry pick to match a preferred outcome.

I think it is a common practice in Science to use only articles which were peer reviewed. It is not a common practice to use only studies conducted on Tuesdays. Don't you think precognition is a claim too extraordinary for we accept studies not peer reviewed?

Simon Fraser said...

I've just been reading Doug Stokes recent book, Re- imagining the soul. I don't quite get him, he seems to be a proponent and skeptic. He acknowledges that there have been some positive experiments, but then charges that experimenters may have been duplicitous. It's a bit odd I have to say.

Simon Fraser said...

Hi Dean. In the upcoming debate with Carroll and Novella, they seem be to arguing that survival violates the laws of physics. I'm just curious how, if there is any kind of survival, that this would be so.

Thanks.

Ben Steigmann said...

From the following: http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2011/03/henry-stapp-and-his-paper-entitled.html

Professional quantum physicist and researcher Henry Stapp wrote an interesting paper entitled Compatibility of contemporary physical theory with personal survival, in which he discusses if quantum mechanics is compatible or not with the possibility of an afterlife.

Stapp concludes (contrary to the propaganda of materialistic ideologues) that nothing in contemporary physics precludes the possibility of an afterlife. In other words, the best and more foundamental of our scientific theories, namely quantum mechanics, is compatible with the existence of survival of consciousness.

For Stapp (who's an open mind skeptic of survival of consciousness), if an afterlife exists or not, is a matter of scientific research and evidence. But there is not an a priori scientific reason to exclude the physical possibility of an afterlife.

Dean Radin said...

Enfant -- 56% of the studies reported by Bem et all were peer-reviewed. Of greater importance, 31 of those studies were exact replications, leaving little to no wiggle room for methodological revisions, which is where peer-review becomes more important. As Bem et al write: "Because an exact replication defines the experimental parameters and data analyses ahead of time, it provides some of the same safeguards against false-positive results that can be provided by recently established online registries for planned experiments."

The bottom line is that the exact replications were significant in the predicted direction. From an empirical perspective that answers the question about repeatability. From a sociological perspective it won't settle anything because as we've already seen, lots of people do not believe that the obtained effect is possible. So their belief will motivate them to come up with other interpretations.

Some of those interpretations may be correct. Time will tell. I suspect based on my own studies, and analysis of many similar studies, that what Bem et al report is in fact a retrocausal effect (which, contrary to what some believe, does not violate any physical laws).

Dean Radin said...

> violates the laws of physics ...

A common concern. But these laws are just mathematical models which are based on assumptions and somewhat stable regularities observed within certain environments and under certain constraints. We reify such laws and then become deified and inviolable. Silly.

Dean Radin said...

Irene: Is this a personal response ...

A personal response copied to several people that she intended to publish on the Frontiers website, but their commenting facility wasn't working.

Gianfranco Bussalai said...

<>
He forgot many others study published and peer-reviewed (i.e. Bem ES=0.290; Savva et al. ES=0.34; Savva et al. Study 1 ES=0.288; Savva et al. Study 2 Es=-0.058 etc...).
But even considering only the studies he cited, I obtain a positive complessive effect size (and not a "pretty darned close to chance" one). It's interesting to investigate the reason why people so inflexible in judging others work is so sloppy in his own considerations.

Julio Siqueira said...

Hi Simon,

You said:

"In the upcoming debate with Carroll and Novella, they seem be to arguing that survival violates the laws of physics."

I looked it up (i.e. this specific debate) on the internet, and I found:

"Make a note on your calendar: on May 7, one week from today, physicist Sean Carroll and doctor/podcaster Steve Novella will be debating Eben Alexander (author of Proof of Heaven) and doctor Raymond Moody (author of Life after Life) on the issue “Death is not final.” It’s an Intelligence-Squared debate that will be live-streamed at this site starting at 6:45 Eastern U.S. time. The moderator is John Donvan from ABC News."

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/may-7-sean-carroll-and-steve-novella-to-debate-the-woomeisters-on-life-after-death/

So, it is tomorrow! And there will transmitted real time, as they say above, at "this site", that is, the url below:

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1020-death-is-not-final

I can't miss it! :-)

Julio Siqueira
http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/criticizingskepticism.htm

IreneSoldatos said...

Apparently, the commenting facility on the journal website is now working, and Julia Mossbridge has posted a response:

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332/full

And Schwarzkopf has posted a response to her response.

Apparently, he's been reading up on the Parapsychology literature for a full three weeks!

I am a glad to see, however, that Julia Mossbridge intends to write a formal response.

Dean Radin said...

> Apparently, he's been reading up on the Parapsychology literature for a full three weeks!

Yes, impressive. It is always possible that a newcomer has spotted something that specialists have overlooked. But it doesn't happen very often.

> Julia Mossbridge intends to write a formal response.

Yes, and a number of us will be coauthors on that article.

Tony Sappanos said...

Hi there Dean. I was curious about one of the examples in the posted article called "The control group is out of control". In the article, when trying to measure the effects of people psychically "sensing" observation, the skeptic and para-physiologist researcher arrived at separate results despite employing the same method. This kinda blew my mind.

Have you observed any such effect in your research over the years, or am I just over-thinking this?

D Samuel Schwarzkopf said...

@Irene: "Apparently, he's been reading up on the Parapsychology literature for a full three weeks!"

As the author of this commentary please let me clarify one point on this. I make no allusions to being intimately familiar with all of the literature on this, especially because some of the primary studies in the meta-analysis aren't that easy to get hold of. I kept my discussion of these points fairly general but of course I can't rule out that I missed important points. If so, they neither the meta-analysis or the review article clarified this in sufficient detail (which is what Julia Mossbridge seems to also suggest in her reply).

Either way, the take-home message of my commentary has nothing to do with any particular criticism of the research but with the process of science. For that you don't have to be an expert in any particular field. It is a very general criticism which I think also applies to the wider psychology/neuroscience community. Psi research is just a very good illustration of this pervasive problem.

To be a scientist is to be a skeptic. It's easy to forget that (I am certainly no exception).

Simon Fraser said...

A thought has just struck me. If consciousness or some sort of awareness is fundamental to the universe. Surely reincarnation is a certainty. I'm not talking about personality being reborn, as that seems tied to Brain states. But surely if panpsycism or some form of awareness is in the primordial ground of the universe, which, I think you agree, the evidence for psi seems to suggest, then we will all come back in many different forms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like an interesting premise, and perhaps a motivation to treat the planet better if we're coming back sometime.

Gianfranco Bussalai said...

I think that at least one of the criticisms about PSI is founded: the majority of the researches aims to demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon rather than investigate the manner in which it manifest. Even Bem's experiments are placed in this vein, since, apart from detecting the existence of a precognitive effect, says nothing about the manner in which that effect occurs. Instead, I believe that finding elements (these really falsifiable, so accepted by science) characterizing the phenomena can also serve the purpose of convincing the skeptics, rather than the accumulation of data about the presence of an unknown phenomenon of uncertain nature.
Personally, I have developed a methodology of inquiry that allows to verify or deny assumptions about PSI, and have formulated some interesting hypotheses, now under test. For convincing someone of the existence of a dragon, you must know how to describe it in minute detail.

Dean Radin said...

> the majority of the researches aims to demonstrate the existence of the phenomenon ...

It may appear that way because that's the only thing that is mentioned in the popular press. But most of us who are actively engaged in this field are engaged in process-oriented research. Not proof-oriented.

Simon Fraser said...

To be fair, three weeks is better than most. One skeptic on fhe jeff kripal article in the chronicle stated that he'd spent half a day reading the conscious universe and decided it was on oar with UFOs and Bigfoot. A full half day!

IreneSoldatos said...

@ D Samuel Schwarzkopf said...

> As the author of this commentary please let me clarify one point on this. I make no allusions to being intimately familiar with all of the literature on this, especially because some of the primary studies in the meta-analysis aren't that easy to get hold of. I kept my discussion of these points fairly general but of course I can't rule out that I missed important points. If so, they neither the meta-analysis or the review article clarified this in sufficient detail (which is what Julia Mossbridge seems to also suggest in her reply).

Either way, the take-home message of my commentary has nothing to do with any particular criticism of the research but with the process of science. For that you don't have to be an expert in any particular field. It is a very general criticism which I think also applies to the wider psychology/neuroscience community. Psi research is just a very good illustration of this pervasive problem.

To be a scientist is to be a skeptic. It's easy to forget that (I am certainly no exception).


I'm afraid I take issue with several of these points. But I will respond only in defence of my initial remark, and I will do so with an example.

Under my real name (this is a pen name), I'm a musicologist. My field of expertise is Mahler. By extension this means I know quite a lot about late 19th early 20th c. music -- orchestral music, because I'm not really that interested in opera. I also know a fair bit about other composers that were a big influence on Mahler. I might branch out a bit more and get interested in Berlioz -- who Mahler greatly admired but who is significantly earlier. Or I might go forward in time and get interested in composers Mahler influenced. But if I want to comment meaningfully on the latest research on medieval music of the 13th century, I won't be able to do so on the basis of three weeks' reading. That is because, though the general method in the research might be the same across the board, and though it may all be music, each narrow area has its peculiarities, which set it apart from other areas and which then the method is specifically adapted to address. Moreover, there will be a great deal of information that I simply won't have the time to read, or even the access to. Finally, those writing for musicologists specialising in medieval music will necessarily assume that their readers are familiar with certain core aspects of the field. I, however, approaching this with little knowledge of the period and the research on the period, (in short, I don't know enough), might find it obscure and insufficiently explained. That would not be surprising, nor the fault, necessarily (in some cases it might be), of the authors writing for an audience of Early Music scholars. I'm a musicologist, they're musicologists, but neither side will be able to meaningfully comment on the other's research on the basis of three weeks' reading.

Now, I certainly agree that all scientists must have critical thought. Critical thought must be a way of life for all of us. But I do not want to use the word 'skeptic' because it has come to mean something which I find is the opposite of what a scientist should be.

@ Dean
> Yes, and a number of us will be coauthors on that article.

I very much look forward to reading it!

@ Simon Fraser
> To be fair, three weeks is better than most.

It is, and I should have not deleted the sentence which actually said that in my original post. :-)

Ben Steigmann said...

Dr. schwartzkopf - it can be very difficult to find good info in the current negative climate, but it does exist in mainstream publications - one source I am making a copy of currently is Child, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.
another that I have yet to access is Rao, K. R. & Palmer, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent research and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 539-551.
The first, and the second, as I have seen it cited

Bem notes in his article "Does Psi Exist", "Unfortunately, there have been no ratings of flaws by independent raters who were unaware of the studies’ outcomes (Morris, 1991). Nevertheless, none of the contributors to the subsequent debate concurred with Hyman’s conclusion, whereas four nonparapsychologists—two statisticans and two psychologists—explicitly concurred with Honorton’s conclusion (Harris & Rosenthal, 1988b; Saunders, 1985; Utts, 1991a). For example, Harris and Rosenthal (one of the pioneers in the use of meta-analysis in psychology) used Hyman’s own flaw ratings and failed to find any significant relationships between flaws and study outcomes in each of two separate analyses: “Our analysis of the effects of flaws on study outcome lends no support to the hypothesis that Ganzfeld research results are a significant function of the set of flaw variables” (1988b, p. 3; for a more recent exchange regarding Hyman’s analysis, see Hyman, 1991; Utts, 1991a, 1991b).
[...]

In 1988, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences released a widely publicized report commissioned by the U.S. Army that assessed several controversial technologies for enhancing human performance, including accelerated learning, neurolinguistic programming, mental practice, biofeedback, and parapsychology (Druckman & Swets, 1988; summarized in Swets & Bjork, 1990). The report’s conclusion concerning parapsychology was quite negative: “The Committee finds no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena” (Druckman & Swets, 1988, p. 22).

An extended refutation strongly protesting the committee’s treatment of parapsychology has been published elsewhere (Palmer et al., 1989). The pertinent point here is simply that the NRC’s evaluation of the ganzfeld studies does not reflect an additional, independent examination of the ganzfeld database but is based on the same meta-analysis conducted by Hyman that we have discussed in this article.

Hyman chaired the NRC’s Subcommittee on Parapsychology, and, although he had concurred with Honorton 2 years earlier in their joint communiqué that “there is an overall significant effect in this data base that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis” (p. 351) and that “significant outcomes have been produced by a number of different investigators” (p. 352), neither of these points is acknowledged in the committee’s report.

The NRC also solicited a background report from Harris and Rosenthal (1988a), which provided the committee with a comparative methodological analysis of the five controversial areas just listed. Harris and Rosenthal noted that, of these areas, “only the Ganzfeld ESP studies [the only psi studies they evaluated] regularly meet the basic requirements of sound experimental design” (p. 53), and they concluded that
it would be implausible to entertain the null given the combined p from these 28 studies. Given the various problems or flaws pointed out by Hyman and Honorton...we might estimate the obtained accuracy rate to be about 1/3...when the accuracy rate expected under the null is 1/4.(p.51) [ 3 ] "

Ben Steigmann said...

In contrast, I have seen reference o a positive congressional report, but I have yet to obtain it. Sources like wikipedia are not good for this - they completely distorted - the Charles Honorton article "cites" two sources fraudulently - Emily Williams Cook (November 19, 1992). "Obituary: Charles Honorton". The Independent. and John Palmer (March 8, 1987). "Pink Noise and Dice". The Washington Post., are cited to support the statement " Some statisticians argued that the meta-analysis carried out by Honorton that supported an underlying pattern behind parasychological studies was ill-conceived and ignored basic rules of mathematics." - when if you actually read the articles, they make no mention of the claim, and the opposite is shown by the 1994 Bem article. The article on a major theorist is totally distorted, and makes sources say the opposite of what they actually say: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152148242628218&id=295503008217

As far as research being process oriented, Adam Crabtree wrote a useful article: http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-0463-8_10

D Samuel Schwarzkopf said...

@Irene:
Thank you for your comments. I think you raise important points so please let me clarify.

But if I want to comment meaningfully on the latest research on medieval music of the 13th century, I won't be able to do so on the basis of three weeks' reading.

I take your point on this because I suspect the literature on 13th century music is substantially larger than on presentiment (or especially the limited database of studies included in this meta-analysis). In any case, you nevertheless have every right and the ability to research any topic you wish and having limited expertise with an area doesn't preclude you from detecting fundamental flaws or logical errors. This is what your training as an academic is supposed to prepare you for. Sometimes having a fresh look at an issue helps because those with expertise don't see the forest for the trees anymore (I suspect the history of science is full of such cases).

We should also keep in mind that it is a common logical fallacy to appeal to authority. Moreover, while I may not be an expert in presentiment, I am a neuroscientist (with a background in physiology) and these presentiment studies are essentially standard physiology experiments with one small twist. I'd argue that this enables me to make some informed commentary on this issue.

Or look at it this way: next week I will be attending a conference. While the research presented there is very broadly in my area, I am not an expert on the majority of it (in many cases I will have had no prior exposure, let alone 3 weeks' worth). Nevertheless you can still have in-depth discussions with other scientists and it frequently leads to new ideas, critical control experiments, etc. If we only valued the insights of people who have years of experience in one small area we would not get very far in science.

But I do not want to use the word 'skeptic' because it has come to mean something which I find is the opposite of what a scientist should be.

I appreciate this concern but that's only a semantic issue as far as I'm concern. I use the first definition of 'skeptic' you can find on Dictionary.com. Or you will you can use the motto of the Royal Society: "Nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it." I am saying that a scientist should remain doubtful of all interpretations, especially those based on the current body of knowledge and/or what is prescribed by the authorities but also always question what you think is true yourself.

I have noticed a tendency of many psi researchers to argue that they are doing just that, but ironically they show exactly the behaviour they criticise in skeptics. I will admit that there are many "mainstream" (I hate that word) researchers who probably dismiss psi research out of hand. In my view this is a mistake because is not in the spirit of science. But I also think that when applied properly the scientific method does not support the psi hypothesis and that the psi research community often only seems to pay lip service to alternative explanations without considering them seriously (I am not saying that there are no exceptions to this statement).

D Samuel Schwarzkopf said...

@Ben Steigman:

Thank you for your input but I fail to see the relevance of it. My commentary pertains solely to presentiment research (I have some views of precognition, too, but these are outside the scope of this discussion). I argue there are specific problems with these presentiment experiments and general philosophical ones with that area of research. I know that many parapsychologists probably believe that those other ESP phenomena are related to psi but - again - without a good testable hypothesis this remains nothing more than a statement. However, once again I notice in your comments the logical fallacy with statistics that I also criticised in the Mossbridge study:

"...and they concluded that
it would be implausible to entertain the null given the combined p from these 28 studies."


Statistics do not prove the existence of psi. They only tell you the odds that some effect didn't just occur by chance or when you perform model comparison (especially in a Bayesian framework) how consistent the data are with a particular model. The problem is that there is no psi model - all the research tests is that performance is not at chance. This does not explain why. I know I'm sounding like a broken record but that's because we are going in circles.

Anyway, I only commented here because I wanted to clarify the 3 weeks aspect of my critique. Yes 3 weeks may not be much, but it is sufficient. If I dismissed the research out of hand without bothering to do any background research on it, I think you'd be entirely justified to be outraged.

I very much appreciate Dean's tolerance in allowing this discussion here and I await their response. For your information, on my website I published a lot of additional background material I had been working on before summarising it in the small Frontiers article (you can find the link in the comments under my article - I apologise that it is still full of typos). This hopefully clarifies my points in more detail and lays out the issues I would hope any response to me should address. I will refrain from commenting here any more now as there are two many channels to monitor. You can leave me feedback on the Frontiers page or on my website (or possibly via email).

Julio Siqueira said...

Mr. Schwartzkopf,

You said: "Psi research is just a very good illustration of this pervasive problem."

I myself have not been looking at parapsychological results merely since the last three or four weeks. Instead, I have been looking at them, very meticulously, over the last ten years. And I cannot take a stand a thousandth as black/white as yours in your article. Go figure. Anyway, my view regarding your phrase that I quoted above is very different from yours (if I understood you correctly). I think the level of quality of parapsychological research is way above most ordinary sciences, and I would safely include in this list psychological studies, and biological ones (medical ones included too).

Unfortunately, I must include too the scientific level of the organized skeptic movement, and affiliates. Just yesterday I watched the streaming video showing debate between, on the one side, Eben Alexander plus Raymond Moody, and, on the other side, Sean Carroll plus Steve Novella. The skeptics' level of scientific discourse was way way below my most pessimistic expectations.

You yourself will be stunned by this example of lack of scientific sophistication from the part of atheist/materialist/activist/physicist Sean Carroll. He had the chutzpah of saying, before a crowded audience, that the afterlife, if it exists, would throw away almost all the science (or all the science indeed) that we have, i.e. would violate all scientifically established views (mainly in physics and in neurology). Now, if an experimental psychologist with three-week experience on the field of skeptical analysis of anomalous research comes up with a statement similar to this, I can understand (by the way, this recent phrase springs to mind: "It (precognition) also completely undermines over a century of experimental research based on the assumption that"). But a "seasoned" skeptic... You see, it is just like if a scientist of the not-so-long-ago past would step forward and say that both the anomaly in Mercury movement AND the anomaly of Uranus movement threw away all (or a significant part of) known newtonian physics. If you understand the chutzpah in this last statement, you will understand the chutzpah in Sean's. If you don't... well. Homework.

Best Wishes,
Julio
P.S.: Moody and Eben were even worse than the skeptics...

Julio Siqueira said...

Hi Mr. Schwarzkopf,

You said: "Moreover, while I may not be an expert in presentiment, I am a neuroscientist (with a background in physiology) and these presentiment studies are essentially standard physiology experiments with one small twist. I'd argue that this enables me to make some informed commentary on this issue."

In principle, yes your contributions may be of enormous worth. But you seem to have gone way into areas beyond your expertise, even taking stands on the causality issue (perhaps one of the most tricky areas of the human intellectual enterprise).

"But I also think that when applied properly the scientific method does not support the psi hypothesis and that the psi research community often only seems to pay lip service to alternative explanations without considering them seriously (I am not saying that there are no exceptions to this statement)."

For that I would humbly recommend more than a three-week probing into. In many situations, three weeks will do fine (your article "against" the presentiment meta analysis may even fit in this category, if we leave aside some wanderings off topic, like the causality issue and the thermodynamics stuff, etc). But not in this one. I myself had to intensely study the "current" state of the parapsychological debate for more than six months in years 2002/2003 before I could start to take stands.

Best Wishes,
Julio

IreneSoldatos said...

@ D Samuel Schwarzkopf

Thank you for responding. I completely understand that there are too many channels to monitor, so I will keep my reply brief, and try not to raise new points.

> Sometimes having a fresh look at an issue helps because those with expertise don't see the forest for the trees anymore (I suspect the history of science is full of such cases).

I agree.

> We should also keep in mind that it is a common logical fallacy to appeal to authority.

Indeed. However, no one did so. We only questioned the extent of the familiarity with a field that a relatively short time of reading can cultivate.

> Or look at it this way: next week I will be attending a conference. While the research presented there is very broadly in my area, I am not an expert on the majority of it (in many cases I will have had no prior exposure, let alone 3 weeks' worth). Nevertheless you can still have in-depth discussions with other scientists and it frequently leads to new ideas, critical control experiments, etc.

I agree absolutely. Much the same is the case for all academic conferences.

> I appreciate this concern but that's only a semantic issue as far as I'm concern.

I am of the opinion that semantics can be extremely important. They determine the way think as well as the kind of questions we ask.

> I am saying that a scientist should remain doubtful of all interpretations, especially those based on the current body of knowledge and/or what is prescribed by the authorities but also always question what you think is true yourself.

Again we are in complete agreement.

> I have noticed a tendency of many psi researchers to argue that they are doing just that, but ironically they show exactly the behaviour they criticise in skeptics.

I have been on both sides of the divide, and I have to now admit that I was less critical of what I thought was true as a materialist (a materialist despite personal experiences to the contrary), than I am now. I'm afraid I disagree with you fully on this point. In my experience, it is the skeptics and the mainstream scientists who accept unquestioningly their interpretation of reality as true.

I ask you only to consider that it requires an impressive kind of blind faith to sustain a conviction (note, I do not use the word "belief") in something as constantly attacked, scorned, and derided as parapsychology, without doubts and questions regarding one's interpretations ever arising. I find it difficult to believe that the people who have spent their lives conducting this research never doubt -- or have never doubted.

On the contrary, I submit that it is a great deal easier to sustain an unquestioning belief in what is generally considered mainstream.

> But I also think that when applied properly the scientific method does not support the psi hypothesis and that the psi research community often only seems to pay lip service to alternative explanations without considering them seriously (I am not saying that there are no exceptions to this statement).

This is something that it is best that Dean Radin and Julia Mossbridge address in their formal response, so I will make no further comment.

I would like to genuinely thank you, however, for an interesting and civilized discussion.

I would also like to thank Dean for hosting all this on his blog! The comments on this post seem to have taken over!

Ben Steigmann said...

As far as debates in parapsychology are concerned, this is a useful resource: http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2009-12-682/SMITH-DISSERTATION.pdf

People might also find something of value in Nancy Zingrone's thesis on criticism and response in parapsychology - they might want to search it: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/7722/1/Zingrone2006.pdf

One of the items it overviews is an important 1987 debate in Brain and Mind Sciences that I don't have access to, but that, as I have seen it cited, covers a lot of ground.

Ben Steigmann said...

And for the Facebook link, I was referring to the comments discussing FWH Myers, not the initial comment about Russel Targ, who had legitimate complaints, but misconstrued a temporary block from wikipedia as a ban.

I do think - since the peer reviewed articles and support from notable scientists are excluded from profiles of psi researchers, and since self published attacks on them are permitted, that they at least have incentive to have their pages removed, until there is accomplished some way of rectifying the underlying problems. I think there should be a large scale protest for this, by all affected parties.

Stephen Baumgart said...

"I ask you only to consider that it requires an impressive kind of blind faith to sustain a conviction (note, I do not use the word "belief") in something as constantly attacked, scorned, and derided as parapsychology, without doubts and questions regarding one's interpretations ever arising. I find it difficult to believe that the people who have spent their lives conducting this research never doubt -- or have never doubted."

This is very true. The good students who end up getting elite scientific educations are the ones who are best at absorbing information from their textbooks, teachers, and other sources of scientific authority. Almost all of the time, such trust is not misplaced. But working in a taboo field such as parapsychology creates dissonance with a strategy which has worked for almost two decades of formal education. I don't think Dean Radin or most other parapsychologists take their dissidence lightly.

It took a while for me to overcome my own skepticism about psi. I still would be skeptical about any individual experiment or even set of experiments demonstrating evidence for psi. It is the combination of evidence from many multiple lines of investigation (remote viewing/telepathy (Ganzfeld)/precognition/presentiment/micro-PK) which form the very strong case for psi. Even if one line of evidence might be critically flawed, the fact that they all show a consistent picture should convince a true skeptic of the reality of psi. To disprove the existence of psi, every line of evidence must be critically flawed in just the right ways and I would be very skeptical of THAT claim. Disproof would also entail that the scientific techniques used in fields from psychology to physics are also critically flawed.

It is also simply not true that our current understanding of physics precludes the existence of psi - and even if it did, then we would have to modify our understanding. Dogma has no place in science.

Mark Szlazak said...

Hi Dr. Radin.

It has been a while and I see that things have not changed with believers in the so-called skeptic community. Parapsychology is not alone in the special treatment it gets because it challenges orthodox dogma.

Look at cold fusion or what is now called LENR.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/06/infinite-energy-publishes-reviews-of-mats-lewans-an-impossible-invention/

Marcus T Anthony said...

Keep up the great work, Dean. You are an inspiration to people like me who are working in related domains. Your work always features heavily in any of my papers, books and articles.

Speaking of precognition, here's an interesting dream I had a week before mystic and author Stuart Wilde died. I wrote it down on my iPhone in the middle of the night after the dream woke me up. Then I promptly forgot about it. Even when I heard Wilde had died I didn't recall the dream. I stumbled across it a few weeks after I found out he died. Here's the dream as I recorded it.

***

I am looking in from a railway station at a pub across the road. It says “Stuart Wilde pub” on the sign. Then I look closer and see that it says: “Stu dead”. I feel great sadness.

Then I hear someone say: “Is it true?”

A little boy’s voice returns: “Yes. He had a heart attack.”

I keep hearing the song “She’s out of my life.” (Michael Jackson) It’s very sad.

Then I hear another voice. It is Stuart Wilde saying: “I’d like to thank her.”

Next I am hearing words from the Cold Chisel song “Flame Trees”:

“There’s no change. There’s no pace. Everything within its place. Just makes it harder to believe that she won’t be around”.

There is a sense of sadness and emptiness, like just after someone dies or leaves....

***

Stuart Wilde died of a heart attack a week after I had this dream.





Dean Radin said...

> I don't think Dean Radin or most other parapsychologists take their dissidence lightly.

True. It took me a while to realize that science operates just like any other realm of human affairs -- by appeal to authority and (by its close cousin) conforming to the status quo. The intensity of conformity is stronger in academia than in industrial research, but it is solidly present in both domains. Fortunately, most of science can continue to bubble along very nicely within the box of the status quo. At least for a while.

But at the ragged edge of the known, which is where all of the truly exciting science takes place, the status quo is exactly the wrong place to be.

A minority of students who haven't had their curiosity completely squashed by 20 years of education will eventually grok that conventional thinking about the far reaches of reality is far too restrictive and unimaginative. Those rare birds are going to create the world of tomorrow. Everyone else, including people who proudly wear buttons declaring that they are "skeptics," will strive to sustain the world of yesterday.

Mark Szlazak said...

Groupthink:
Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets

http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

Ben Steigmann said...

I have recently become aware that counter-advocate wiki editors have been tracking this thread, and I commend one of them for fixing the errors in the Honorton article [the claim of errors is false as was noted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ganzfeld_experiment&diff=prev&oldid=600945566#Removed_factual_errors, but that still is a correction]. I had felt, and this fueled some of my hostility, that editors were intent on using anything they could, real or false, to discredit parapsychologists and their subjects. Thus I made hostile remarks, though not with libelous intent (e.g. - if you see the Facebook comments on FWH Myers above, you will see that I have rebutted what I felt to be libelous information - for the most part this was in the disputed source material, though Alan Gauld's text, cited in the article, was misrepresented - extracts are given). It seems that this is not the case now - it could be argued that there still is the intent on omitting rebuttals to the opinions of the counteradvocates of various articles, but that is a separate matter. The following is a test to see if I am correct, here are some notable problems:

1) On the Targ page "the continued investigation of remote viewing is regarded as pseudocience" - this is not in the source texts themselves, which merely convey the view that remote viewing is a paranormal claim that has been refuted.[counters to this are not the point here, the point is that even the counter-advocate literature is being creatively interpreted, or misinterpreted]

2) On the Eusapia Palladino and Hereward Carrington pages, we find that "Frank Podmore in his book The Newer Spiritualism (1910) wrote a comprehensive critique of the Feilding report. According to Podmore the report provided insufficient information at crucial moments and the witness accounts from the investigators contained contradictions and inconsistences on who was holding Palladino's feet and hands.[34] Podmore discovered various statements by the investigators conflicted with each other on what they claimed to have observed. Some of the statements were also written days after the events took place. Podmore wrote the report "at almost every point leaves obvious loopholes for trickery." - the claim of contradictions is based on a misreading as I have shown here: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2014/02/eileen-garrett-in-wikipedia.html?showComment=1395219134682#c6816234997612691589

A better reworking of this, ignoring the fact that it could be challenged, is "Frank Podmore in his book The Newer Spiritualism (1910) wrote a comprehensive critique of the Feilding report. According to Podmore the report provided insufficient information at crucial moments.[34] Some of the statements were also written days after the events took place. Podmore wrote the report "at almost every point leaves obvious loopholes for trickery."

3) In the DD Home article, without even challenging the rest of the source literature, there is a fabricated attribution to Podmote - "Frank Podmore recorded that Home had a constant companion that sat opposite of him during his séances.[88]" - the source is Podmore "Mediums of the Nineteenth Century, Part 1." 2003 p45

According to Worldcat this is a "Reprint. Previously published: New Hyde Park, N.Y. : University Books, 1963.": http://www.worldcat.org/title/mediums-of-the-19th-century/oclc/420487500

I don't have access to the 2003 version, but I do have access to the 1963 version that this was a reprint of, and I found that this was a fabrication: https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/PodmoreMediums.pdf

Ben Steigmann said...

If people disbelieve me, try this - search both volumes of Podmore's "modern spiritualism" for "Home", "Hume", "companion", "lady", "female", "girl", or "woman" - these are available online: https://archive.org/details/modernspirituali01podm, https://archive.org/details/modernspiritual00podmgoog - it is possible I overlooked something, but I doubt others will find this. If they do, they should be able to link to the independently verifiable "modern spiritualism" reference.

4) There is [disputable] original research regarding Home vs other mediums like Palladino on the DD Home page - some of this is false, like assertions about Eglinton - counter-advocate editors might actually want to remove the reference regarding his alleged levitation with Kellar, because that if pursued, actually argues in his favor, contrary to the rendition in the article: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2014/02/eileen-garrett-in-wikipedia.html?showComment=1394359021580#c3651037954951859194 - this is on both the DD Home and Eglinton pages.

5) There is also a bunch of incorrect original research in the article -regarding Crookes and names and spirits - the first is refuted if you consider the following - near the beginning of the text, there is a sentence "The investigators present on the test occasion were an eminent physicist, high in the ranks of the Royal Society, whom I will call Dr. A. B.; a well-known Serjeant-at-Law, whom I will call Serjeant C. D.; my brother; and my chemical assistant.*" - the footnote is clickable, upon which we read "* It argues ill for the boasted freedom of opinion among scientific men, that they have so long refused to institute a scientific investigation into the existence and nature of facts asserted by so many competent and credible witnesses, and which they are freely invited to examine when and where they please. For my own part, I too much value the pursuit of truth, and the discovery of any new fact in nature, to avoid enquiry because it appears to clash with prevailing opinions. But as I have no right to assume that others are equally willing to do this, I refrain from mentioning the names of my friends without their permission."; the second is refuted if you just search for the term "phantom forms and faces": http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/crookes-researches.html

If editors correct these five errors, a simple task, it would help in exonerating them. A 2 week period should be a good enough amount of time for this. Otherwise, we could say that my original feelings were correct.

This is actually advantageous to counter-advocate editors, as whatever "trolling" they think I do in this would then be unfounded, and I would have to resort to only engaging the counter-advocate material, without reference to editors.

Blissentia said...

I will also note that people accuse "believers" of not reading the skeptic literature - however, Eric Dingwall was very familiar with this literature, having listed it in the bibliography of his "revelations of a spirit medium", yet he wrote reviews of some of these authors (like McCabe) noting their unreliability, and he wrote, with the science writer John Langdon-Davies, in "The Unknown - Is it Nearer?" an overview of the mediumship of Leonora Piper and Gladys-Osborne Leonard that is in conflict with the current wikipedia travesty on this (for the latter, the "skeptic" attacks totally fraudulently misrepresent the primary sources): http://survivalafterdeath.info/articles/dingwall-davies/mental.htm

People who pursue the Myers link will discover that some of this literature is fraudulent, producing statements in conflict with the primary sources.

CropCircleQueen said...

Being in the Internet age, where things that regularly were assailed by skeptics now are subjects on prominent display, with intelligent voices exchanging information that refutes the debunkers, I bet we are in a slow turning toward what will yield results in acceptance of cutting edge work. Surely the arrow of evolution points to greater and greater insight and awareness about how the universe works, beyond the limited concepts of the prevailing worldview, so cheers from me for all the intelligence that is rolling us toward new understandings.

Ben Steigmann said...

It would appear I was quite mistaken in my view that editors would want to correct the aforementioned errors (the companion item still appears, etc).

A couple items that may help us in deciding the authenticity of the case are as follows:
https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/DdHomeAmsterdam_Zorab_JpVolume34_pg52to68.pdf
https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/ZorabReviewOfHall_JpVolume49_pg104to106.pdf

Ben Steigmann said...

And this, too, is interesting, though not as much as the above: https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/BritishJournalofPsychologyDingwallPsychologicalProblemsArisingfromaReportofTelekinesisFebrurary11953.pdf

Enfant Terrible said...

Dean, do you already saw these articles?

a) http://www.gahmj.com/doi/abs/10.7453/gahmj.2014.014

b) http://www.gahmj.com/doi/abs/10.7453/gahmj.2014.012

Dean Radin said...

Enfant - Yes I've seen those articles.

Mark Szlazak said...

I think everyone will appreciate this presentation on group think.

Alvesson: Stupidity based organization (good on media&corps too) lth.se/fileadmin/indek2013/pro…onal_stupidity_scaIEM.pdf

IreneSoldatos said...

Dean, I was just wondering whether there are any news on the response Julia and you were going to write to the Schwarzkopf opinion piece.

Dean Radin said...

The response is completed and will be posted soon.

Larry Grant said...

Hello Professor Radin:

This is an article I would like you to read but I cannot get it into the space of your blog as it is about 13000 characters long. I’m a retired broadcast radio engineer and electronics designer and have studied something I think you should know about in relation to ’Supernormal.’ and the Siddhis.

Any way I can send you the rest of this?

---

Having just finished ‘Superpowers’ I want to congratulate you on continuing to be the Cirque du Soliel no-net high wire Psi writer par-excellence.

If you are to realize the superpowers inherent in the Siddhis, including technologising the appropriate ones we have not done already, you need to learn about the power sources used by the adepts and ancients to produce high-energy effects. In order to find those dynamos I think you might want to understand the real-estate notion of;

Location! Location! Location!

…a little better.

Certainly you are aware that some places for meditation are preferable over others, and that some temples, monasteries, castles, fortresses, towers, menhirs, dolmens, and many other ancient stone constructions are placed on sites that are almost impossible to get to, like near mountain peaks, and/or impossible to live in, far out in nasty deserts.

Let me show you a path which hopefully will describe why location is a powerful idea.

The short answer is Dark Matter/Energy Vents searched out by dowsers, seers and meditators.

(A short aside. It is not certain that these vents are actually caused by dark matter and dark energy. They are definitely real and caused by something highly unusual and outside our current science. If not dark matter or dark energy then there is still more to discover beyond those fairly new concepts. For now let’s call them dark world effects because my own study suggests the world of dark matter and dark energy, which promises physical structure and energy flow comes closest to the reality I’m trying to describe)

Dark World vents are specific real world physical locations where jets of dark matter pressurized by energy spray upward from the ground surface through something like real world holes. The most accurate analog I can find is that of high pressure steam as expressed in geysers like those in Yellowstone National Park. There are thousands of these vents globally. They range in size from Millimeters to hundreds of miles in diameter. The fundamental energy source boiling that dark matter is likely heat from the Earth’s mantle or below. The reason we don’t know about them generally is the same as the reason we know so little about paranormal activity, very few if any capable researchers will look.

I can presently distinguish two different types of vent. One appears to be an open hole which sprays something like water into the air in an undirected way. The other type of vent exhausts through a dark matter tube which can reach into the sky as far as 20 to 200 miles. The tubular type is what I have done the largest study of. This type is likely the cause of both aerial ‘sprites’ and Terence McKennas’ ‘Jungle’ in the sky and all around. I also think it is the cause of radio blocking and electrical failures.

I don’t know where you stand on ‘Crop Circles’ but I have studied this subject for some 25 years and have done field work in two U.S. west coast circles. The mind that generates crop circles appears to use the active parts of tubular vents as the source of power for creating the circles, some of which require rather massive power sources to create as they involve large area heating and boiling of water in addition to bending crops. I hope this subject doesn’t put you off because crop circles are one of the most interesting studies of paranormal effects and applications of un-described energy sources one could find. I have personally experienced the battery short-circuiting effect I describe below.

larrybgrant44@gmail.com

CropCircleQueen said...

Thinking to mention I didn't notice anyone in the comments saying anything about Russell Targ's remote viewing work, where a project to predict silver futures earned a lot of money, I had to take off to pick someone up at the airport. Turning on my car radio to the progressive L.A. station, KPFK, I didn't know Dean's voice and was just listening to someone talking my language,when, lo an behold, it was Dean. Come on. What was that all about?

Larry Grant said...

Vents Continued

Pardon my mis-naming ‘Supernormal!’

It is a good idea to keep the following image in mind because it shows just how close we sit to a really huge, quite acceptable source of energy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Earth_poster.svg

Given the size and proximity of that heat engine and the relatively tiny size that we are individually one might consider that any slight reaction that dark matter or dark energy could have to that massive amount of heat would be pretty huge and impressive to us, almost volcanic in scale. Since any such reaction could reside inside, behind or outside of Space-Time we might find it a little bizarre.

Counterintuitive even.

The combined effect of some of the largest of these tubular vents and the serpentine electric style Jacob’s ladder dark energy arcs that buzz between them is the creation of reality and life on our planet.

These are the functional parts of another accurate idea from Ancient India; that reality is a projection which has some kind of projector.

This path leads in to that huge, amazing projector. Along the path we can find that another idea from ancient India, the ‘Yuga,’ is also real. The projector is gaining strength now from the advance of our path through the positive side of the current Yuga cycle and quite unusual experiences are just ahead.

Since we seem to be fresh out of seers, we generally don’t appreciate dowsers and good meditation can take considerable time and effort to perfect we might hope for less ambiguous, more modern ways to locate and explore these vents and their peculiar effects, possibly some kind of electronic instrument with which to technologically characterize the location, intensity and other qualities of various vents.

As we might see on the path that instrument would allow us to measure the potential contact points between science and religion.

One reasonable way to find these vents examines the expensive effects they can have on radio wave propagation and electric power transmission described below.

The effects that the vents can have on radio wave propagation are what first drew my attention to them……

And the path begins.

Through the 1960’s and the 70’s I Chief Engineered for several local commercial radio stations.

Chiefly camaraderie drew my attention to the idea of dead spots, holes in coverage areas. Many of these are quite understandable, shadows from mountains, power lines, high towers, tall or large buildings with internal metal structures, all these can play a role in poor radio reception.

I also became aware of much uglier holes that were not explainable and which could seriously dent your reputation in the engineering biz because when you are on the carpet before management you never want to admit that ‘I haven’t a single clue’ as to what is wrecking their coverage.

I dodged those bullets for a few years but some wizardry demonstrated in rebuilding a broadcast studio for the owners of a chain of FM radio stations got their interest up and I soon was told a very sad story.

They owned a station which competed with many others for the attention of a huge city. In a stunning coup they had scored a mountaintop to broadcast from which promised a very solid coverage of the city from end to end and far beyond. At great expense they prepared the mountain-top, cleared a mass of permit requirements and moved their transmitter and antenna to the new spot.

A few weeks after going on the air from the new location they suddenly got a huge number of phone calls from people asking if they were off the air. A quick check at the station showed that they were certainly on the air. Then suddenly the calls stopped, leaving them totally confused.

The problem repeated again and again, suddenly their signal would go completely dead in the same large section of the city even though it was fine everywhere else.

Larry Grant said...

Vents Continues

Over time and several engineers and consulting firms they were no better off than at the start. They had a rough map of a section of the city sketched out by engineers making signal measurements and that didn’t help a thing. The best comments by the engineers were that the signal ‘sure was dead’ in that area and that it sure was normal when the deadening effect shut down.

They had also noted that you could stand with a very good receiver at many points within the dead zone and look directly at the transmitting antenna high on the mountain and see absolutely nothing unusual but there was no detectable signal being received at all. Something totally invisible could block the signal from their mountain top completely. Meanwhile all the other stations came in fine.

An enormous effort had already been put in. Many days of signal strength readings from all over the dead zone, lots of physical searching to see if anything even remotely suspect could be turned up, nothing helped. No blanking from spurious signals could be found. From time to time the phones would chorus ‘Are you off the air?’ and a quick round of antacid tablets was the only real response.

I would like to brag that I solved this impossible problem but in fact my suggestion to them today would be the same as they did not want to hear then: “Move to another mountain.” I did have the sense to quietly slink out of their lives, shunning a good job as chief for a chain and losing a bit of face but nothing like the huge amount of time I could have wasted chasing a literal Will O’ the Wisp around and around at great expense and getting no where but eventually fired.

I now know that what they were suffering from was an intermittently operative Dark Worlds vent, not unlike an invisible Yellowstone Geyser trashing their signal while it is erupting.

A few years later I found out from an engineer who installs cellphone base stations that the same kind of holes exist in some locations in cellphone networks and in at least one video studio to transmitter link. There is also a very interesting vent related electrical short circuiting effect which appears able to quite mysteriously fail any power source from batteries to power distribution lines and which is basically impossible to cure.

In fact, the easiest way to define a dark world conflict with our technologies, particularly radio communications and electric power distribution generally is:

Enormous time, effort, expertise, money and thought has been brought against the problem and everyone involved is still as stumped as at the beginning. The problem continues unaffected and the cause remains a permanent and discouraging mystery. I have a reference where it appears that an entire expensive power distribution line installation had to be taken out because the mysterious intermittent short circuiting on it could not be located or cured. That is a typical dark worlds problem.

I cannot say how widespread these problems are because the industries involved seldom if ever discuss these important internal failures but I have seen enough to suspect that the problems are fairly widespread where-ever electrical power or radio is employed.

Of course the door was always open with my sad radio folks, if only I could solve that bizarre signal blocking problem.

So I started digging for information and found that officially the data on really difficult radio propagation problems was sparse to none. Whilst scrounging in my local college library I decided to try the Parapsychology section and started reading the ‘Journal of the American Parapsychological Association.’ I didn’t find any direct help there but I did get addicted to reading that journal once I found the bit about the German law firm clerk who caused unaccountable heavy power drains, rampant unsourced telephone dialing and large hutch movement. As a lifelong energy nut case I was suddenly aware of how much energy plays a part in paranormal activity.

Larry Grant said...

Vents Continues

But not any form of energy I was aware of. So I consumed their whole journal set and a large portion of the books surrounding it. The sense of unusual energy forms continued throughout that reading and all the masses of descriptions of this energy in action formed a kind of framework to work in.

Something like five years into this casual research I found the collections of William Corliss of the ‘Sourcebook Project.’ After a while I had the answer staring me in the face, a feeling but not a detailed description. Another long period passed as I slowly narrowed my interest down to ‘Marine Phosphorescent Wheels.’ As I studied this fascinating subject through piles of reports, built careful mental pictures of what the reports were describing and combined descriptions from other reports I could see that these were no simple effect of tiny glowing phosphorescent sea critters but massive vertical beams of energy with seawater or aerial moisture acting as a revealing agent not unlike the way the phosphors on the screen of a CRT reveal the electron beam impacting on them.

My own background is in commercial radio engineering and analog/digital/hardware/software design. I manufactured early microprocessor controlled devices sold into the broadcasting and emergency services (fire and police) markets through my own company.

Mas Pronto

Larry Grant

larrybgrant44@gmail.com

Sylvain Frédéric Nahas said...

@Larry Grant

Fascinating read in any case.
Thanks.

Larry Grant said...

Part 1

So what is a ‘Marine Phosphorescent Wheel? The name says little, something round and glowing in the sea maybe.

If you study and combine the reports from both of William Corliss books; ‘Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights and Related Phenomena’
and ‘Remarkable Luminous Phenomena in Nature’ much of a complete picture can be built.

Let’s say you are a sailor high up in the crow’s nest on an old sail driven cargo ship in the South China Sea. It is a wonderful evening
with brilliant stars and endless visibility all around.

You notice that the sea around your ship begins to flicker with short, dim, almost lightning like bursts of blue light. You begin looking
down at the water surface with great curiosity.

Then suddenly a huge and brilliant spectacle appears in green, silvery white or brilliant gold light. The basic pattern is shown in the
little thumbnail of what might be called a ‘Sunburst’ or ‘Starburst’ that I use in place of my puglymug on Google,
that yellow and black wheel just to the left of the top of this text. Seen from straight above
that is the glowing pattern you would observe spinning on the sea surface below you or just above the surface by a few feet. It looks
as though your ship is sailing across this enormous, brilliant, rapidly spinning wheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVsW7V8L2_U

It’s very much like an old movie marquee that uses alternating lamp flashes to cause the sensation of smooth movement, much like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BsU-QO-S7w

The spinning wheel effect may last as much as an hour or more before flickering out. It is typically so bright that you can easily read a newspaper by it.

The sunburst is also an image of local energy intensity driving the display. Yellow is positive energy polarity, Black is, perhaps strangely, negative polarity.

The appearance of anything energetic on the sea surface that has
astonishingly neat and crisp geometry is highly unlikely but there it is in front of you. The circle has a wonderfully sharp and delineated
outer rim. The wedges from which the circle is formed have almost eerily straight sides and none of that geometry seems affected by the
low waves it is taking place among.

You may consider the idea that what you are seeing is masses of phosphorescent organisms glowing unusually brightly and in impossibly
perfect geometries and synchrony but many times the brilliant glow can be seen up to a few feet above the water’s surface where no glowing organisms exist.

While it is spinning you may realize that you can see it spin clockwise and someone standing next to you watching the display may say at
the same moment that it is spinning counterclockwise. That is a major clue about the real nature of this ‘wheel.’ The sense of movement is
false, an effect caused by rapid, synchronous oscillation of the lighted wedges. The wedges are each alternately turning bright or dark at a
frequency of 10 to 80 flashes per second.

At a very high rate of speed each glowing wedge goes bright and dark over it’s compete area at once, even in huge displays that stretch from
horizon to horizon. The alternate bright and dark wedges do not physically move, the movement is an optical illusion very much like the marquee
display.

Between the high speed of oscillation and the lack of glowing critters in the air above the water normal ocean phosphorescence is pretty
much removed from the picture. That leaves no source for the brilliant light, no explanation for the oscillation.

Some reports remark that if you look straight down from over the ship’s railing you can see what look like intense searchlights
that seem mounted on the sea bottom, one light per circle in multi-circle displays. The sense is that the lights remain columnar from sea
bottom to surface, another anomaly.

Larry Grant said...

Part 2

Other details emerge more slowly.

A bright wedge may realistically seem to be energized but it might come as a surprise that the black wedge is actually carrying a negative charge, an opposite polarity
from that of a bright wedge. Unlike a movie marquee which uses lamps which are bright or dark, on or off the oscillation in a sea wheel causes two polarities to appear, one positive,
one negative. Corliss has reports of ships crossing stable, large rectangular areas in the sea where one rectangle is ‘blacker than black’ and the next is steadily glowing a brilliant silvery
color.

Even a superficial energy analysis suggests the immense amount of raw power needed to generate these huge, sometimes horizon to horizon displays.
That power level becomes even larger when one considers that the water, an accidental revealing agent is likely fairly inefficient so that a considerably
higher level of energy is required to drive the display to the extreme brilliance it achieves.

Further research in other related areas suggests that the circularity, the outside shape of the round circular display is caused by the containment of this energy flow inside a round,
hard tube that remains invisible because it does not have enough energy flowing through the hard surface to cause it to illuminate. In another section of his books Corliss has reports of tubular
rises in sea water surface level that are steady and suggest water drawn up a tube by pressure differential. Those rises amount to several feet.

What can be extracted from the reports and descriptions is that something like pressurized steam rising very rapidly up invisible tubes breaks into oscillation at some pressure point, just
as air breaks into oscillation in a pipe organ tube. The two are not only similar but in the interesting way our real world and this dark world interact the organ pipe is truly a mimic of
these immense invisible oscillating tubes. When oscillating these tubes contain a very low single frequency note of immense power that we cannot normally hear.

While it may be particularly unusual that the energy waves inside the tube assume an axial regime, they radiate out from the center of the tube the result of this interesting
pie-wedge oscillation is quite spectacular. Changing the rough, randomized motion of the fluid whooshing up the tube into a steady oscillatory note
tends to focus the energy around a specific frequency which is a way of boosting the effective power in the oscillation by a considerable multiplier.

If we look at the positioning of each wedge it is apparent that we have areas right along the straight lines, the edges of the wedges where two opposite charges are placed very close together.
In practice even a circle many miles in diameter has a separation between what might be considered the high voltage wedges of only a few inches. This may seem counterintuitive
especially if one notices that the tube is likely to be conductive but inside waveguides for microwave transmission the same kind of situation can be set up, very high and opposite
potentials placed fairly close together on a conductive surface, but with one curious difference. In a regular wave guide the internal wave form is sinusoidal, the energy peaks are separated by areas of
lessening and lessening voltage and then reversal and a sinusoidal increase in level until the opposite peak is reached.

In the oscillation of these unusual dark world tubes the waveform appears to be a very sharp, very high speed square wave. The wedges change state virtually instantaneously. This generates a
powerful set of evenly spaced harmonic frequencies above whatever fundamental the column is oscillating at.

Larry Grant said...

Part 3

The immense energetic stress across these few inches of space between the wedges produces an astonishing result. A deep red glow begins to emit from the narrow space. That glow can usually only be perceived by ’seers’
but if the level is great enough it becomes visible to us less talented folk. I’ve observed this effect at night in a crop circle. It is an amazing sight. The straightest edge one
could possibly perceive in what looks like a very narrow brightly glowing red wall running across the circle I was standing in. It was only brief, a few seconds, but once you see it you’ll never forget it.

From my own observation any source of electricity placed in that glowing wall will be short circuited. I discharged 15 ‘AA’ batteries scattered among several different pieces of research
gear in a matter of ten seconds. Having heard that short circuited batteries could be experienced in a crop circle I was both pleased and a bit scorched as I quickly pulled the too
hot to touch batteries out of their various holders and put them in a plastic baggie I had brought just in case. Within a few minutes several of the batteries were vigorously leaking
their fluid alkaline contents, a sure sign of severe battery abuse. I had accidentally (?) laid out my gear for use right on a spot the wall passed through. The batteries in my video-cam and my SLR camera
left outside the wall were not affected. This was not a surprise, on my first visit to a crop circle one month earlier I had two ‘AA’ batteries short out in one of my two SLRs which
melted some plastic in the camera and ruined it forever. $150.00 down the drain in few smelly, scorched plastic seconds.

It was interesting to note that the red wall ran right below a power pole across the field where the farmer had previously described that the transformer atop the pole had ‘exploded’ one recent afternoon
and the fire department had to come and extinguish that corner of his wheat field. He also said that while his several harvesters were setting near the pole they all kept being found with dead batteries
each morning. He also reported that the previous evening to his finding the circle in his field he had been in his harvester maintenance shed when the lights all went out. While they were
out he heard the most ferocious crackling sound like intense electrical effects that came in through the shed door, hovered in front of him for a moment and then left the shed in the direction
of the crop circle, which he found by following the sound.

Any flat surface that will conduct electricity effectively enough to rapidly discharge batteries presents the possibility of reflecting radio waves out of their intended path.
Therefore the wall would create an effective shadow on the opposite side from any impinging radio transmission. So the appearance and disappearance of one of these walls
in the path of the radio signal from my sad radio friends transmitter would cause their ulcers and Maalox consumption by perfectly blocking their signal over a ‘shadowed’ area, intermittently.

Their antenna was about 150’ up on a tower and the wall likely appeared somewhere down their mountain side so in order to shadow their signal over an area
as big as their problem was would likely take a very, very big wall. But hey! Geology and geologically generated effects like earthquakes tend to be very big and
this red glowing wall is geologically based so I suppose the sky is the limit, if that.

So I did figure out their problem, only about 20 years to late! By then they had all died and the station had moved on to new owners who I never contacted
because I still could offer no cure and the problem was basically impossible to explain. I also did not know whether in the interim they had
moved to another mountain top.

Larry Grant said...

Part 4

But wait! There’s More!

That narrow red wall, the highest intensity portion in what can be an otherwise invisible oscillating circle was obviously highly prized by our ancestors, and others.

Straight lines and straight roads are a very big mystery globally. We mostly hear about mysterious straight roads in relation to Chaco Canyon in the San Juan basin in New Mexico.

There are many other straight roads in various countries.

Among the first authors to describe the mystery of ’Old Straight Tracks’ was Alfred Watkins in 1925.
He described how straight roads and tracks connect many of the ancient sites which are prolifically scattered about the U.K.

A good history and description of the mystery of these roads is by Paul Deveraux, it is found here:

http://www.pauldevereux.co.uk/html/body_leylines.html

Among several curiosities of these roads is that they are typically impossibly straight. They plunge ahead through mountains, streams, rivers, cliffs and over steep ridges. Nothing
diverts them. In New Mexico they run right up to the bases of bluffs and then continue perfectly on the other side as though the bluff was not even there.

Just about the biggest mystery of the straight roads is how they were made so straight for such great distances in times without any accurate surveying gear.
Especially how did the road builders manage to keep the alignments exactly straight from one side of a mountain to another where
there was no possibility of using sighting or any other visual means of aligning the road into the landscape?

Actually the layout was the easy part. If you know when a local wheel is going to be active you simply watch for and
then mark on the soil surface the narrow straight path of the red wall which, because it rises up from deep beneath the
landscape passes mountains and all other obstacles without wavering. If your path along the wall is interrupted by
any obstacle you just go around the obstacle and continue marking. Later you can follow your marks to build a
flattened path or road.

Another hint that the straight roads are not primarily for human travel is that they take absolutely none of the
common monetary or physical effort economies of road building. No short-cuts, no advantages of topology or terrain and no sweeping curves. They shoot straight
across the landscape oblivious to any common sense at all. Any turns are made up of several short, straight segments.

In the San Juan basin the roads are built with a technological structure, possibly a centering
or focussing device. The roads all have a layer of small stones under the surface. These stones are graded from
road center to the road edge, largest most plentiful stones along the road center and smaller more scattered stones toward
the edge in a measurable and consistent gradient. Watkins also notes an interesting layer of small stones under the surface of
the old straight tracks in the U.K.

So what were these roads for? There are thousands of miles of them scattered all about the globe. That much effort
is not going to be expended just for the fun of it as there is no fun in road building! So what could be so
important that such an enormous physical labor is put in over thousands of years? Additionally, examination of the sub-surface
beneath the San Juan basin roads and elsewhere on the Nazca lines shows that the present roads are underlain by previous
roads that have been built over and those roads may have further layers of roads from even farther back deep into the
mists of time.

Larry Grant said...

Part 5

The answer begins to form in a book by John Michell titled ‘Secrets of the Stones.’

In Bolivia there are vast amounts of landscape given over to the straight tracks and there you can see
in pictures from his book that the lines are along spokes of gigantic wheels just as the wheels appear
at sea. The lines in Bolivia are not as developed as in New Mexico but they are obviously the same
long distance amazingly straight artifacts as all the others. You can see a bit of this from the Amazon
snippets of his book but I was not successful in pulling out one of the best pages, page 99, for there
all is revealed. You may have to purchase this excellent book for yourself.

In the picture from page 99 we look down a long line toward a wheel hub center. There in the distance sitting on
the wheel hub center is a church.

This is fitting. The Aymara Indians in this area of Bolivia keep the lines perpetually clear of vegetation.
They state that all supernatural effects take place at spots along these straight lines and at those spots they
place various shrines. ‘Supernatural Effects’ in this case can mean Visions of a woman with 12 stars
around her head as described here:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_15_2_pandarakalam.pdf

‘Supernatural Effects’ also includes falls of fish, frogs, manna and a wide variety of
other seemingly impossible occurrences, that take place along ’narrow strips a few feet
wide traveling straight over the landscape.’

In the San Juan basin the roads have small, half circle piled-stone shrines scattered along the roads.

In India the straight lines have shrines placed along them where spirits called ‘Nagas’ dwell.

The best summary of this angle of the red-wall based lines is the following site. The site has an index which
is a bit subtle. I have included the following set of URL’s which access
the important pages. Still, there is one important picture showing the lines in a clear wheel shape but
I cannot for the world find it on this site again.

The introduction explains the scale of these lines. Be sure to click-enlarge all pictures for study.

http://cml.upenn.edu/tierrasajama/Sajama_English/intro/introindex.htm

More description and purpose of study:

http://cml.upenn.edu/tierrasajama/Sajama_English/context/contindex.htm

A most interesting page:

http://cml.upenn.edu/tierrasajama/Sajama_English/hypo/hypoindex.htm

Here is an excellent summary of info about these lines:

http://cml.upenn.edu/tierrasajama/Sajama_English/res/FAQ.htm

More tierrasajama pictorial info:

http://cml.upenn.edu/tierrasajama/Sajama_English/proc/datcon.htm

http://cml.upenn.edu/tierrasajama/sajama_english/context/sajama.htm

On a much larger scale the study of these straight lines, wheels and hubs is
called Geomancy. Here is an explanatory example of that subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j__7EdwLDyE&list=PL41F5CFCE29A4B2A7&index=14

What is being illustrated in Geomancy is not necessarily the lines from one wheel but
rather an interconnected complex of many wheels which has become known as a
‘World Grid.’

That concept is illustrated on this cover. It is possible that this cover illustration is a form of schematic
diagram of one aspect of the projector:

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Gravity-World-Science-Adventures-Unlimited/dp/0932813038/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404337381&sr=8-1&keywords=childress+world+grid

Larry Grant said...

Part 6

I tend to suggest that at one time or another in history parts of all of these straight lines have popped up
the red wall effect and that the orientations found in Geomancy are all based on those straight red walls
either becoming strong enough for the locals to see them, or dowse them or to be spotted by people who seem
to have a talent for seeing them. This form of layout avoids the need for surveying and allows peoples
in ancient times to create these gigantic, hyper-straight line patterns with no surveying tools at all.

The largest and most powerful hubs are called: ‘Flowers of Life,’ or ‘Navel of the World.”

One interesting ‘Flower of Life’ wheel hub termed the ‘Center of the Inca World’ is in Cuzco, Peru.

This is how it is represented, with the positions of shrines along each line clearly illustrated as small circles along the lines.

http://photosbyravi.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/qorikancha-the-center-of-the-seqe-system-of-the-incas.jpg

Variations on the landscape represented in this colorful diagram could be projected almost anywhere on our planet’s surface.
The power of the shrine locations and the hubs will still be there but will not be marked on maps or noted generally.

Given the density of modern housing now and again a house or other building is going to be
inadvertently placed on one of these active spots. That building has the potential to be active whenever the main wheel
is oscillating and those times will be completely unknown to the occupants. So the building very likely will be termed
‘Haunted.’ because from time to time very strange things will occur within.

That’s an important point about the red wall effect. When the wall is active reality takes a vacation and all sorts of
curiosities can take place. Additionally there appears to be a recording effect associated with these active ‘shrine’ locations
such that if a highly emotionally charged occurrence, a murder for example takes place
during oscillation a kind of playback of some piece of the occurrence
can intermittently occur for a long time after the initial incident.

What remains unrealized in these cases is that the presence of the active spot may help precipitate the highly
emotional incident in the first place, a different take on hauntings.

There was a description of a very curious house near Chicago, if memory serves, that would shoot flames from the
wall sockets now and again, setting fire to curtains and nearby objects. Nobody saw the intermittent red wall but that is the likely
cause. That house had to eventually be bulldozed.

Remembering that the red wall is not a steady current flow but is actually a low frequency (10-80 Hz) Alternating Current just like our own AC power grids
brings an explanation for the various humming sounds reported from telephones used to try and call outside during hauntings
and other paranormal activity. Rotary telephones contained several inductors, medium sized coils of wire on iron cores
that could easily be affected by the Red Wall currents, thus the hums. I would be interested to know if those humming
sounds have continued with the advent of modern inductor-less telephones and cell phones but have not seen any data.

Here is an excellent example of what can happen when the shaft energies achieve really powerful levels. Note the mentions
of cars inexplicably quitting in the tunnels under the town and of course what life in the town is like. The article also mentions a few
other places that obviously have Red Wall problems. It is interesting to note that Canneto is only a short distance from a huge and
very active volcano, Mt. Etna which effectively brings a powerful heat energy source up closer to the surface than is usual in most other places:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/13/canneto-a-double-mystery-still-unsolved/

Larry Grant said...

Part 7

After our short excursion to Sicily we return to the Cuzco wheel and hub.

The hub center for this wheel has a curious tub-like container sitting on it called the ‘Coricancha,’ shown here with
two dowsers exploring both the connected lines (actually picked out in the floor of the enclosure)
and the spin, rotation or vortex effect caused by the oscillation of the wheel which is obviously
still very active. The ‘Flower of Life’ title comes in part from the detection of curved, petal like
shapes close in to the center of this huge wheel. Watch the dowser pick out the shape of one petal (part way through video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E2LDcXi4No

While Brien notes that the container might be filled with something exotic during ceremonies it is likely
that the tub was filled with one of the most hyper-exotic substances known to history, plain tap water.
What is desired is a super-flat surface for the hub energy to exit the earth through. Flat surfaces are the
reason behind much of the ancient road construction which requires that the vegetation be held back
because it distorts the rising hub energy in some important way and that the straight road surface be as smooth as
possible. Apparently the red wall effect is required in a pure, undistorted form during professional application.

The ‘Straight Tracks’ in the U.K. apparently have the shrine spots on the tracks marked by small, perpetually rain
filled puddles with one edge a tiny bluff and the other a smooth, tapered shore. The orientation of each puddle is the
same all along the line, all tiny bluffs face the same way, for example.

What are these shrine spots about? It is sort of intuitive, at least to me, that the lines should come up from the
earth fairly evenly but that seems not to be true. These hot spots where shrines can be located may have a deeper source.

If we return to the Cuzco Wheel painting:

http://photosbyravi.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/qorikancha-the-center-of-the-seqe-system-of-the-incas.jpg

On the right side in blue note the thin blue wiggly lines joining the shrine spots together. These are ‘Serpent,’
‘Snake’ or ‘Dragon’ lines, a subject for later discussion. Note that they cross at the shrine spots. As picked
out by Hamish Miller and Paul Broadhurst in “The Sun and the Serpent” the shrine cross points have all kinds
of sacred things, from churches to holy wells placed on them. Unused ones seem to disappear under thorny
thickets as mythically exposited in “Sleeping Beauty” when she pricks her self on a ‘spinning wheel,’ falls into a deep
sleep (drifts through time without aging i.e. she has been removed to another time frame) and her magical castle is buried in thorns.

At the shrine locations Miller, the dowser, finds indications of further vent-spots with the energy going
up into the sky or down into the earth at these spots. So these shrine points along the Red Wall are places
of further vents and likely more powerful activity.

Here is another hub center which has enough energy still going that Brien remarks right at the end
that he can feel it coming up through his feet. Note the flower-petal shapes in the stones just outside the
center ring for this ancient construction. These likely visualize the flower shape for people who cannot see
or otherwise detect the circle energy directly. The part described begins at 4:58 into the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z709HAeEp_M

For an interesting experience try Google Earth buzzing around central Paris, France at an eye level of about
5000’. Paris is a whole city laid out on a plain of circle hubs. That undoubtedly plays a part in the
character of this amazing city.

Larry Grant said...

Part 8

Here are a couple of movies demonstrating how some ancients who knew perfectly well what the lines
are about and how to use them liked to brag about it. It may also be demonstrating that the lines
used this way are allowing a being from another dimension (or where-ever) to enter our own. This is
how that being might look if you were standing talking to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GifH8zOJtKg

And a movie of how the wheels appear out at sea as seen from a ship looking out onto a vast horizon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2KKQsIVShw

Note that the stub at the bottom of the display suggests the effect is coming up from under ground.

So what are the lines used for, what is all that effort aimed to produce?

The most likely possibility so far to me is as an enormous transportation system of some really
unusual purpose. Note that there are many UFO reports in which a UFO shoots up into the
air very rapidly and others where UFOs shoot off horizontally in a straight line. That straight line is
available at the top of the wheel high in the sky. In order to keep the travel smooth the straight red walls
must leave the Earth’s surface very smoothly without vegetation or overhangs to disrupt the flow and make
the ride bumpy.

A famous French UFO researcher, Jacques Vallee noted what he called a ‘falling leaf maneuver’
in which UFOs in an area of France would arrive rapidly along a straight line and stop suddenly.
Then the UFO would drop altitude in a move that looked like the side to side motion of a falling leaf.
Shortly it would seem to find what it was trying to locate, the end of another straight line from another
wheel and shoot off straight in a different direction.

Another time I’ll describe the immense torque that you can tell is produced by the Alternating Current of the Red Walls,
torque that goes both down the lines and around the circle. My guess from watching a very real Shaman tap this
spin to produce a rampant whirlwind is that he pulled about 5 to 25 horsepower out of it expressed in an amazing
blast of air.

Tapping these immensely powerful geologically based forces is of course one of the most interesting possibilities of these studies.

If you would like to get your toes wet in this research you might consider going to the U.K. during Crop Circle season and
begin that study in the fields, here is an excellent site to begin study from if you are not already using it. The site tracks the
circles year round and is usually updated daily:

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2014/2014.html

If you are on the West Coast of the USA contact me and I can tell you where a couple of hot
spots are located which have popped up crop circles over time. One is at Rockville CA and the
others are near Aloha, Oregon.

For developing instruments which can measure this previously un-described but obviously valuable
energy form my own consideration is that the easiest way to build a receiver is to have a strong
transmitter nearby, even a spark gap if that’s all you can manage in the beginning.

So managing to do your research in the most active of these locations is probably a good way to
start.

I have a full description of an electronically based research instrument written up and will be happy to
send it.

Larry

larrybgrant44@gmail.com