Designing The Perfect Coil?

[Ron Hubbard]

I want to do an experiment in brainwave entrainment by making a 7 Hz
sine wave oscillator out of an XR2206 frequency generator IC and a
LM386 amplifier feeding a six inch diameter coil-- which should
probably fit around my fat head. ;-)

The LM386 has an 8 ohm output, so it shouldn't be hard to find a
speaker, if I wanted to use one; but I don't know how to make a good 8
ohm coil to radiate a nice clean undistorted signal-- how many turns,
what size wire to use, etc. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Ron


_____________

"There are special people in this world. We don't ask to be special.
We're just born this way. We pass you on the streets every day,
unnoticed by most. "

-- Cassie Holmes (Push) --

[George Herold]

Nothing is 'perfect' Ron. But making a coil about right is pretty
easy. I start with the coil resistance. You want ~8 ohms so you have
that number. You then have to know the size of the B field you want.
This (with the current.) gives you the number of turns you need. Then
I usually just take a guess at some wire size.. so many turns at some
radius to get the total length. Is the resistance of that length of
wire the desired 8 ohms? Adjust till it is.

George H.

[Ron Hubbard]

> George H.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Uh, probably a silly question but I guess I gotta ask: how would I
know the current? Any value I coulld think of now would really be
random and meaningless....

Ron


______________

“Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. “

— Richard Tyler (The 4400) ––

[Bob Myers]

On Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:26:58 PM UTC-6, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
> Uh, probably a silly question but I guess I gotta ask: how would I
> know the current? Any value I coulld think of now would really be
> random and meaningless....

OK, so first things first: exactly what sort/intensity of a field are you wishing to create?

Bob M.

[Ron Hubbard]

I had to take a look at this article again--

http://www.elfis.net/elfol8/e8elfeeg2.htm

-- as I am the kind of guy who would rather build something first and
worry about the mathematics behind it later (if at all). Trial and
error is fun, but sloppy engineering I'm afraid. :-)

But it seems like a radiated field of 100 nanoteslas should do the job
well, assuming my little project will work at all.

Ron

[Bob Myers]

So if you know the strength of the field you're trying to produce, and presumably this is the field within a loop of wire that is placed around the head, the next place you need to go is:


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/curloo.html#c2

Bob M.

[George Herold]

>  — Richard Tyler (The 4400)  ––- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, the current just comes from Ohm's law. If you know the
resistance you want, then you've got some amp, with a power supply.
That supply sets your maximum current.

George H.

[Phil Hobbs]

Sounds like just the sort of project for someone with a 6-inch diameter
head. Maybe make it cone-shaped. ;)

Cheers

Phil

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[John G]

Phil Hobbs explained :

> On 04/01/2012 04:42 PM, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 6:25 pm, Bob Myers<bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:26:58 PM UTC-6, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uh, probably a silly question but I guess I gotta ask: how would I
>>>> know the current? Any value I coulld think of now would really be
>>>> random and meaningless....
>>>
>>> OK, so first things first: exactly what sort/intensity of a field are you
>>> wishing to create?
>>>
>>> Bob M.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had to take a look at this article again--
>>
>> http://www.elfis.net/elfol8/e8elfeeg2.htm
>>
>> -- as I am the kind of guy who would rather build something first and
>> worry about the mathematics behind it later (if at all). Trial and
>> error is fun, but sloppy engineering I'm afraid. :-)
>>
>> But it seems like a radiated field of 100 nanoteslas should do the job
>> well, assuming my little project will work at all.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>
> Sounds like just the sort of project for someone with a 6-inch diameter head.
> Maybe make it cone-shaped. ;)
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil

Is the OP Ron Hubbard related to L Ron Hubbard? :-?

--
John G

[amdx]

On 4/2/2012 3:54 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 04/01/2012 04:42 PM, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 6:25 pm, Bob Myers<bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:26:58 PM UTC-6, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uh, probably a silly question but I guess I gotta ask: how would I
>>>> know the current? Any value I coulld think of now would really be
>>>> random and meaningless....
>>>
>>> OK, so first things first: exactly what sort/intensity of a field are
>>> you wishing to create?
>>>
>>> Bob M.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had to take a look at this article again--
>>
>> http://www.elfis.net/elfol8/e8elfeeg2.htm
>>
>> -- as I am the kind of guy who would rather build something first and
>> worry about the mathematics behind it later (if at all). Trial and
>> error is fun, but sloppy engineering I'm afraid. :-)
>>
>> But it seems like a radiated field of 100 nanoteslas should do the job
>> well, assuming my little project will work at all.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>
> Sounds like just the sort of project for someone with a 6-inch diameter
> head. Maybe make it cone-shaped. ;)
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>

I was going to suggest he ask for advice when he starts trying to get
the 6 in coil of his head.
Mikek

[Chiron]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:14:53 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> I want to do an experiment in brainwave entrainment by making a 7 Hz
> sine wave oscillator out of an XR2206 frequency generator IC and a LM386
> amplifier feeding a six inch diameter coil-- which should probably fit
> around my fat head. ;-)
>
> The LM386 has an 8 ohm output, so it shouldn't be hard to find a
> speaker, if I wanted to use one; but I don't know how to make a good 8
> ohm coil to radiate a nice clean undistorted signal-- how many turns,
> what size wire to use, etc. Does anyone have any suggestions?
>
> Ron
>

Before you invest a whole lot of time and energy into this project, you
might want to do some research into the topic, which is currently under
intense investigation. The technique is called "transcranial magnetic
stimulation," or TMS. Google will reveal endless information about it,
some of it highly detailed medical, neurologic, or psychiatric stuff.
You may do better checking out the patent applications for the various
types of coils that are being used.

From what I've read, low-intensity field have almost no discernible
effect. Not sure how this would relate to your project. It seems
difficult to reconcile the fields used by these researchers (in the range
or 1 to 2 T) to one in the nano-T range. You'd think that if people were
sensitive to nT intensities, they'd be thoroughly overwhelmed by a tesla
or two, if not actually injured.


--
Some men rob you with a six-gun -- others with a fountain pen.
-- Woodie Guthrie

[Winston]

Chiron wrote:

> Before you invest a whole lot of time and energy into this project, you
> might want to do some research into the topic, which is currently under
> intense investigation. The technique is called "transcranial magnetic
> stimulation," or TMS. Google will reveal endless information about it,
> some of it highly detailed medical, neurologic, or psychiatric stuff.
> You may do better checking out the patent applications for the various
> types of coils that are being used.
>
> From what I've read, low-intensity field have almost no discernible
> effect. Not sure how this would relate to your project. It seems
> difficult to reconcile the fields used by these researchers (in the range
> or 1 to 2 T) to one in the nano-T range. You'd think that if people were
> sensitive to nT intensities, they'd be thoroughly overwhelmed by a tesla
> or two, if not actually injured.

Also check out the work of Dr. Ross Adey.

--Winston

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-04-02, John G <gree...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
> Is the OP Ron Hubbard related to L Ron Hubbard? :-?
>

He's posted here before without mentioning Theremins.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[George Herold]

On Apr 2, 4:54 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net>
wrote:

> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dang, Now we know what was in those conehead rings!
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77nconeheads.phtml
Brain stimulating coils!

George H.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 2, 9:55 pm, Chiron

As a certain James T. Kirk says, "We learn by doing."

Ron




___________________

“This is the school in which we learn… time is the fire in which we
burn.”
–– Delmore Schwartz ––

[Winston]

Ron Hubbard wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:55 pm, Chiron
> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:

(...)

>> From what I've read, low-intensity field have almost no discernible
>> effect.

Suggest read further, then. :)

>> Not sure how this would relate to your project. It seems
>> difficult to reconcile the fields used by these researchers (in the range
>> or 1 to 2 T) to one in the nano-T range. You'd think that if people were
>> sensitive to nT intensities,

I don't know about nT, but people are very sensitive to
*electromagnetic* power. Say 100 W/ m^2, and far less
provided the carrier is modulated properly.

>> they'd be thoroughly overwhelmed by a tesla
>> or two, if not actually injured.

It doesn't take nearly as much as that to put someone
on the ground or deny them use of their muscles.

The most dangerous stimulation is electromagnetic, done via
microwave carrier, not purely magnetic.
See Dr. Ross Adey's work, for example.
Also patents 3973290, 5675103, US 2007/0249959 A1

--Winston

[Ron Hubbard]

>
> Before you invest a whole lot of time and energy into this project, you
> might want to do some research into the topic, which is currently under
> intense investigation.  The technique is called "transcranial magnetic
> stimulation," or TMS.

I already did the research--

http://www.elfis.net/elfol8/e8elfeeg2.htm


which is why I want an effective coil whose impedance matches the
amplifier though maybe I might just do what th author did and screw
the math...

Ron


_________________

“Logic is the science of being wrong with certainty.”

–– The Doctor (Ketterling’s Law) ––

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:07:27 -0700, Winston wrote:

> Ron Hubbard wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 9:55 pm, Chiron
>> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> From what I've read, low-intensity field have almost no discernible
>>> effect.
>
> Suggest read further, then. :)
>

Suggest you do so as well.

The fact that I disagree does not mean that I haven't read. Perhaps I
should have qualified my statement to read, "From what I've read in
*credible* sources..." Sorry if I didn't make this clear. I wasn't
talking about the endless Websites claiming to have discovered brand-new
physics, perpetual motion, free energy, and so on. I meant articles
about research done following such things as the double-blind protocol,
accurate measurements, that sort of thing.

>>> Not sure how this would relate to your project. It seems difficult to
>>> reconcile the fields used by these researchers (in the range or 1 to 2
>>> T) to one in the nano-T range. You'd think that if people were
>>> sensitive to nT intensities,
>
> I don't know about nT, but people are very sensitive to
> *electromagnetic* power. Say 100 W/ m^2, and far less provided the
> carrier is modulated properly.
>

I think perhaps you do not understand the subject matter. For one thing,
what we're discussing *is* electromagnetic. That's what you get when you
pass a current through a coil - an electromagnetic field. AFAIK, if you
get the electro part, you automatically get the magnetic part; and vice
versa.

I'm not sure where you get the values in W/m^2, but you're comparing
apples and oranges. As any physics teacher will drum into your head, the
units have to match. Finally, no mention was made by the OP of any
carrier.

The OP was talking about intensities in the nanotesla range (abbreviated
nT). Actually, Dr. Pirsinger (the "God" helmet) was using intensities of
around a thousand times that - microteslas. Even so, the point still
stands. If you're getting a response at this intensity, then increasing
the intensity a million-fold is likely to be overwhelming. This is not
seen in practice.

> >> they'd be thoroughly overwhelmed by a tesla or two, if not actually
> >> injured.
>
> It doesn't take nearly as much as that to put someone on the ground or
> deny them use of their muscles.
>

It doesn't happen. People are routinely subjected to electromagnetic
fields of this intensity during MRI's. Unless they've got metal in their
bodies, they're just fine. I am not aware of any *credible* studies that
show anyone gets harmed by exposure to electromagnetic fields of this
intensity. If you are, then I suggest you cite to them rather than
telling me to "read further."

> The most dangerous stimulation is electromagnetic, done via microwave
> carrier, not purely magnetic. See Dr. Ross Adey's work, for example.
> Also patents 3973290, 5675103, US 2007/0249959 A1
>

All well and good, but the OP was talking about a frequency of around 7
Hz. That's not microwaves. He said nothing about ELF modulation of a
microwave carrier, which in any case wouldn't be feasible with the
components he listed. Neither the XR2206 nor the LM386 is capable of
working at such high frequencies. IIRC, the XR2206 works up to 1 or 2
MHz. The LM386 is an audio amplifier.

Despite repeated efforts, Dr. Adey's work has not been confirmed by other
scientists. At most there are a few studies that seemed to suggest that
there might possibly be *some* effect from low-intensity microwave
exposure. However, most studies failed to duplicate Adey's results.

Dr. Adey's work follows some of the classical signs of pathological
science, as laid out by Dr. Irving Langmuir. I highly recommend Dr.
Langmuir's lecture (Google "Pathological science" to find various
transcripts of it).

But of course, as I said, the OP wasn't talking about modulating a
microwave carrier, or anything remotely like that. He was talking about
using an ELF sine wave to energize a simple coil.

--
Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this--
no dog exchanges bones with another.
-- Adam Smith

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-04-05, Ron Hubbard <or...@dslnorthwest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Before you invest a whole lot of time and energy into this project, you
>> might want to do some research into the topic, which is currently under
>> intense investigation.  The technique is called "transcranial magnetic
>> stimulation," or TMS.
>
> I already did the research--
>
> http://www.elfis.net/elfol8/e8elfeeg2.htm
>
>
> which is why I want an effective coil whose impedance matches the
> amplifier though maybe I might just do what th author did and screw
> the math...

Solid-state audio amplifiers have very low output impedance, I suspect that
instead you want to match the design load of the amplifier.

Look at a wire table to get the resistance per length and then compute
the mass and bulk of 8 ohms worth of that wire, thicker wire, having
less resistance per length will allow more turns in the coil (thus
stronger magnetic field) but it will be heavier, bulkier, and more
expensive too

[Winston]

Chiron wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:07:27 -0700, Winston wrote:
>
>> Ron Hubbard wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 9:55 pm, Chiron
>>> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>> From what I've read, low-intensity field have almost no discernible
>>>> effect.
>>
>> Suggest read further, then. :)
>>
> Suggest you do so as well.
>
> The fact that I disagree does not mean that I haven't read. Perhaps I
> should have qualified my statement to read, "From what I've read in
> *credible* sources..." Sorry if I didn't make this clear. I wasn't
> talking about the endless Websites claiming to have discovered brand-new
> physics, perpetual motion, free energy, and so on.

? What do any of these things have to do with brainwave
entrainment via an electromagnetic field?

> I meant articles
> about research done following such things as the double-blind protocol,
> accurate measurements, that sort of thing.

I really do suggest you read further.
I'm not going to create a bibliography for you.

>>>> Not sure how this would relate to your project. It seems difficult to
>>>> reconcile the fields used by these researchers (in the range or 1 to 2
>>>> T) to one in the nano-T range. You'd think that if people were
>>>> sensitive to nT intensities,
>>
>> I don't know about nT, but people are very sensitive to
>> *electromagnetic* power. Say 100 W/ m^2, and far less provided the
>> carrier is modulated properly.
>>
> I think perhaps you do not understand the subject matter. For one thing,
> what we're discussing *is* electromagnetic. That's what you get when you
> pass a current through a coil - an electromagnetic field. AFAIK, if you
> get the electro part, you automatically get the magnetic part; and vice
> versa.

Good, we agree that we are talking largely about the
same effect, brought about using different tools.

> I'm not sure where you get the values in W/m^2, but you're comparing
> apples and oranges.

Suggest you look at the patents I cited, particularly
US 2007/0249959 A1.

> As any physics teacher will drum into your head, the
> units have to match. Finally, no mention was made by the OP of any
> carrier.

The OP mentioned the use of close-coupled electromagnets
in the extreme near field. Ya don't need no carrier under
those circs. Heck, you don't even need magnets of any
sort if you can put electrodes into the customer's brain.

Unless the customer is unconscious, he's got
nothing to fear from an almost pure magnetic field because
he can step out of the way before someone clamps a helmet
on him.

Microwaves? Not so much. They are very 'equal opportunity'
and are used at much further distances.

> The OP was talking about intensities in the nanotesla range (abbreviated
> nT). Actually, Dr. Pirsinger (the "God" helmet) was using intensities of
> around a thousand times that - microteslas. Even so, the point still
> stands. If you're getting a response at this intensity, then increasing
> the intensity a million-fold is likely to be overwhelming. This is not
> seen in practice.

It is not *discussed* in practice.

>> >> they'd be thoroughly overwhelmed by a tesla or two, if not actually
>> >> injured.
>>
>> It doesn't take nearly as much as that to put someone on the ground or
>> deny them use of their muscles.
>>
> It doesn't happen. People are routinely subjected to electromagnetic
> fields of this intensity during MRI's. Unless they've got metal in their
> bodies, they're just fine. I am not aware of any *credible* studies that
> show anyone gets harmed by exposure to electromagnetic fields of this
> intensity. If you are, then I suggest you cite to them rather than
> telling me to "read further."
>
>> The most dangerous stimulation is electromagnetic, done via microwave
>> carrier, not purely magnetic. See Dr. Ross Adey's work, for example.
>> Also patents 3973290, 5675103, US 2007/0249959 A1
>>
> All well and good, but the OP was talking about a frequency of around 7
> Hz. That's not microwaves. He said nothing about ELF modulation of a
> microwave carrier, which in any case wouldn't be feasible with the
> components he listed. Neither the XR2206 nor the LM386 is capable of
> working at such high frequencies. IIRC, the XR2206 works up to 1 or 2
> MHz. The LM386 is an audio amplifier.

One needs to amplitude-modulate the microwaves at
specific low frequencies to get the necessary entrainment.

The OP does not need that technique. He's using
electromagnets on a volunteer, presumably with a
signed consent form and participation of professional
medical folks. Others have done it by implanting
electrodes into the customers head.

http://bipolarnews.org/?tag=deep-brain-stimulation

If your customers have not signed a consent form, you
have to bombard them with modulated microwaves if you
want the desired effect.

> Despite repeated efforts, Dr. Adey's work has not been confirmed by other
> scientists. At most there are a few studies that seemed to suggest that
> there might possibly be *some* effect from low-intensity microwave
> exposure. However, most studies failed to duplicate Adey's results.

Cite?

> Dr. Adey's work follows some of the classical signs of pathological
> science, as laid out by Dr. Irving Langmuir. I highly recommend Dr.
> Langmuir's lecture (Google "Pathological science" to find various
> transcripts of it).
>
> But of course, as I said, the OP wasn't talking about modulating a
> microwave carrier, or anything remotely like that. He was talking about
> using an ELF sine wave to energize a simple coil.

Now you understand why the OP was talking about
'pop guns' and Ross Adey was talking about
'shot guns'. Don't concern yourself too much about
the kid with a spitwad if the guy behind him is aiming
a Mossberg at your head.

--Winston

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:50:52 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:


>> Before you invest a whole lot of time and energy into this project, you
>> might want to do some research into the topic, which is currently under
>> intense investigation.  The technique is called "transcranial magnetic
>> stimulation," or TMS.
>
> I already did the research--
>
> http://www.elfis.net/elfol8/e8elfeeg2.htm
>
>
> which is why I want an effective coil whose impedance matches the
> amplifier though maybe I might just do what th author did and screw the
> math...
>
> Ron
>

I don't think you would have too many problems by ignoring the math in
this case. I think that if you're concerned about the *efficient*
transfer of power between the circuit and the coil, it matters. Since it
appears that you don't have such a concern, you probably aren't going to
lose too much. Also, what you're investigating may not follow the math
anyway, if it's some unknown phenomenon.

Of course, if you get some sort of an effect, your results will be less
useful since you won't be able to quantify them. If you're just
experimenting to see whether there's any effect at all, this won't be too
important.

The reason I mentioned TMS was because of the intensity of the fields
used. Your experiments appear to be working with very low-intensity
magnetic fields. The page you cited says 100 nT. TMS uses fields of 1-3
teslas, or 1-10 million times that. The frequencies TMS uses are often
in the kHz range, but they also have tried very low frequencies as well.
There have been some effects, but they were subtle. For example, check
out:

Sallustio, F., S. Di Legge, B. Rizzato, P. Stanzione, and G. Koch.
“Changes in Cerebrovascular Reactivity Following Low-frequency Repetitive
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.” Journal of the Neurological Sciences
295, no. 1–2 (2010): 58–61.

Google for more of the same...

So my point was basically that if you don't get major effects at a field
intensity of a tesla or two, the effects you'd get at a millionth of that
intensity would likely be even less noticeable. Or conversely, if there
*were* effects at 100 nT, then you'd expect for these effects to be
severe at a full tesla - which isn't observed.

This comment doesn't *prove* anything, of course. Maybe there is some
sort of effect that doesn't scale along with the stimulus. Still, that is
one of the cardinal signs of "pathological science" as mentioned by
Langmuir, as I pointed out in a separate post.


--
Your mileage may vary.

[Ron Hubbard]

>
> But of course, as I said, the OP wasn't talking about modulating a
> microwave carrier, or anything remotely like that. He was talking about
> using an ELF sine wave to energize a simple coil.

That might be a project for another day. Theoretically, .E.E. "Doc"
Smith's "mechanical educator" is feasible, but it wouldn't work the
way it does in the Skylark books-- you might be able to transfr the
equivalent of thoughts, but not a whole language in thirty seconds.
That would require microwaves--- at 166 GHz if the reearch is right.
Not nearly as cheap a project as this one.

Ron


______________

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:44:52 -0700, Winston wrote:

>> talking about the endless Websites claiming to have discovered
>> brand-new physics, perpetual motion, free energy, and so on.
>
> ? What do any of these things have to do with brainwave
> entrainment via an electromagnetic field?

Nothing. However, these topics and "brainwave entrainment via an
electromagnetic field" fall into a common category which could be at the
most charitably characterized as "non-mainstream science" - but which I
tend to view as bullshit. It's not that I reject the possibility that
there remain undiscovered forces, energies, and other phenomena. It's
that 99.9% of the information about such alleged phenomena is crap -
vague, pseudo-scientific jargon claiming to explain things that no one
has observed, endless tirades about how the hidebound scientific
community refuses to listen to the lone inventor, a voice crying in the
wilderness, or how Big Oil or Big Government or the Military is trying to
suppress the discoveries, and yadda-yadda-yadda. There is no lack of
information on all these topics. What is missing is evidence that the
phenomena actually happen.

Oh, yeah. Another favorite is for people to claim that they don't need
math to understand science. The fact is, yes, they do need it. There is
precious little science that can be understood in any detail without math.

If there are some real phenomena that really are happening, they're
completely lost amongst all the noise.

>> I meant articles
>> about research done following such things as the double-blind protocol,
>> accurate measurements, that sort of thing.
>
> I really do suggest you read further. I'm not going to create a
> bibliography for you.
>

You don't actually know what I've read, so your suggestion is based
either on ignorance or arrogance. If you object to double-blind
experiments, quantifying of stimuli and effects, basic physical laws, and
so on, then I can't help you.

By refusing to offer even a single reference, you are protecting yourself
from any possibility of being shown to be wrong. No matter how many
sources I read, you will always be able to claim I didn't read the one
source that would confirm your view. No thanks. I'll stick with
physics, math, engineering, evidence, and plain, old common sense.

<snip>

>>>
>> I think perhaps you do not understand the subject matter. For one
>> thing, what we're discussing *is* electromagnetic. That's what you get
>> when you pass a current through a coil - an electromagnetic field.
>> AFAIK, if you get the electro part, you automatically get the magnetic
>> part; and vice versa.
>
> Good, we agree that we are talking largely about the same effect,
> brought about using different tools.
>

No, actually we aren't talking about the same thing at all. You're
talking about power or radiant flux. I'm talking about magnetic flux
density. You're talking about the projection of ELF signals on a
microwave carrier, transmitted over considerable distances. You're
talking about the energies that may be imparted to the brain as a result
of these alleged signals. Neither the OP nor I ever mentioned any of
these things.

>> I'm not sure where you get the values in W/m^2, but you're comparing
>> apples and oranges.
>
> Suggest you look at the patents I cited, particularly US 2007/0249959
> A1.

Any asshole with a confusing paper and a few thousand bucks can get a
patent. That doesn't mean the patent has anything whatsoever to do with
science. I don't need to refer to a patent to know that W/m^2 don't
compare with teslas.

You're talking W/m^2, which has nothing to do with anything I was
referring to. You're talking about some obscure and discredited research
that has nothing to do with what the OP mentioned, to which I was
responding.

If you intended to discuss Wb/m^2, then you're talking about teslas; but
now you're talking about a hundred teslas, which is not used in any
medical situation of which I am aware.

>
>> As any physics teacher will drum into your head, the units have to
>> match. Finally, no mention was made by the OP of any carrier.
>
> The OP mentioned the use of close-coupled electromagnets in the extreme
> near field. Ya don't need no carrier under those circs. Heck, you don't
> even need magnets of any sort if you can put electrodes into the
> customer's brain.

This is pure bullshit. You're trying to apply research that (supposedly)
deals with microwave radiation to a situation where there is no microwave
radiation. Not surprisingly, this doesn't work. Your comments are
mostly inapplicable to the discussion at hand.

And sure, if you can stick electrodes into someone's brain, you probably
already control him enough anyway. I would not be surprised to find that
when you stick *anything* into someone's brain, bad things can happen.
But again - not what the discussion was about.

>
> Unless the customer is unconscious, he's got nothing to fear from an
> almost pure magnetic field because he can step out of the way before
> someone clamps a helmet on him.
>

If you're talking about permanent magnets, they don't oscillate.
Otherwise, there isn't anything like an "almost pure" magnetic field.
It's electromagnetic, regardless of what frequency or wavelength it is -
from nearly DC to ultra-hard gamma rays and everything in between.

> Microwaves? Not so much. They are very 'equal opportunity' and are used
> at much further distances.
>

Maybe so; but as I said, the OP wasn't discussing microwaves. He made no
mention of them, nor did I. You're the only one trying to bring them
into the discussion, and they really have no place there. Maybe you
should start a thread about them, if you want to discuss them.

>> The OP was talking about intensities in the nanotesla range
>> (abbreviated nT). Actually, Dr. Pirsinger (the "God" helmet) was using
>> intensities of around a thousand times that - microteslas. Even so,
>> the point still stands. If you're getting a response at this
>> intensity, then increasing the intensity a million-fold is likely to be
>> overwhelming. This is not seen in practice.
>
> It is not *discussed* in practice.
>

Let me guess: There's a widespread, sinister conspiracy of silence
surrounding this research, because [the government | the terrorists | the
Illuminati | the aliens | the drug cartels | the oil cartels | whoever ]
are using it to further their nefarious ends, which generally involve
total world domination or destroying humanity or some such. Innovative
scientists lose funding or are discredited. Persistent researchers
disappear, or die in mysterious "accidents." Entire editions of
publications discussing the research vanish or become "classified." All
sorts of insider information comes to light, but it is always anonymous,
so as to prevent "them" from seeking revenge. Did I miss anything?

It is not *seen* in practice. There is no credible source that claims
there is a million-fold increase in subtle EEG effects when a person is
subjected to a 1 T field. There is a considerable body of knowledge that
clearly shows that patients who undergo TMS or MRI treatments do not
experience anything untoward (barring, as I said, the presence of metal
in the body).

>>> >> they'd be thoroughly overwhelmed by a tesla or two, if not
>>> >> actually injured.
>>>
>>> It doesn't take nearly as much as that to put someone on the ground or
>>> deny them use of their muscles.
>>>
>> It doesn't happen. People are routinely subjected to electromagnetic
>> fields of this intensity during MRI's. Unless they've got metal in
>> their bodies, they're just fine. I am not aware of any *credible*
>> studies that show anyone gets harmed by exposure to electromagnetic
>> fields of this intensity. If you are, then I suggest you cite to them
>> rather than telling me to "read further."
>>
>>> The most dangerous stimulation is electromagnetic, done via microwave
>>> carrier, not purely magnetic. See Dr. Ross Adey's work, for example.
>>> Also patents 3973290, 5675103, US 2007/0249959 A1
>>>
>> All well and good, but the OP was talking about a frequency of around 7
>> Hz. That's not microwaves. He said nothing about ELF modulation of a
>> microwave carrier, which in any case wouldn't be feasible with the
>> components he listed. Neither the XR2206 nor the LM386 is capable of
>> working at such high frequencies. IIRC, the XR2206 works up to 1 or 2
>> MHz. The LM386 is an audio amplifier.
>
> One needs to amplitude-modulate the microwaves at specific low
> frequencies to get the necessary entrainment.
>

Yes, I'm familiar with AM transmission, carrier waves, all that good
stuff. I understood that you were talking about that. Apparently you
still don't understand that you're the only one who *is* talking about
that; neither the OP nor I mentioned it.

> The OP does not need that technique. He's using electromagnets on a
> volunteer, presumably with a signed consent form and participation of
> professional medical folks. Others have done it by implanting electrodes
> into the customers head.
>

No doubt. Still, the point stands. No microwaves were hurt during this
experiment, nor were any used (nor were any contemplated by the OP).

> http://bipolarnews.org/?tag=deep-brain-stimulation
>
> If your customers have not signed a consent form, you have to bombard
> them with modulated microwaves if you want the desired effect.
>

Umm... if they haven't signed a consent form, and you still want to
bombard them, that suggests that they're not the real customer, no?
Unless you're talking about involuntary psych patients, and even there
AFAIK the patient has the right to refuse treatment.

>> Despite repeated efforts, Dr. Adey's work has not been confirmed by
>> other scientists. At most there are a few studies that seemed to
>> suggest that there might possibly be *some* effect from low-intensity
>> microwave exposure. However, most studies failed to duplicate Adey's
>> results.
>
> Cite?
>

"I really do suggest you read further. I'm not going to create a

bibliography for you." Sound familiar? Just keep reading. I'll tell
you when you've read enough.

>> Dr. Adey's work follows some of the classical signs of pathological
>> science, as laid out by Dr. Irving Langmuir. I highly recommend Dr.
>> Langmuir's lecture (Google "Pathological science" to find various
>> transcripts of it).
>>
>> But of course, as I said, the OP wasn't talking about modulating a
>> microwave carrier, or anything remotely like that. He was talking
>> about using an ELF sine wave to energize a simple coil.
>
> Now you understand why the OP was talking about 'pop guns' and Ross Adey
> was talking about 'shot guns'. Don't concern yourself too much about
> the kid with a spitwad if the guy behind him is aiming a Mossberg at
> your head.

I don't recall the OP ever talking about pop-guns... must have missed it.

There is no credible evidence that there is any sort of spitwad, much
less a Mossberg. Unless your only sources of information are Websites
like Above Top Secret (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/). In that case,
get out your aluminum foil and start making hats. Lots and lots of hats.

But I recommend copper foil, now that I think of it. It's very difficult
to solder to aluminum, and you'll want to be grounding your foil hats.
Just thought I'd mention it...

--
Pyros of the world... IGNITE !!!

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:48:30 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> hat might be a project for another day. Theoretically, .E.E. "Doc"
> Smith's "mechanical educator" is feasible, but it wouldn't work the way
> it does in the Skylark books-- you might be able to transfr the
> equivalent of thoughts, but not a whole language in thirty seconds. That
> would require microwaves--- at 166 GHz if the reearch is right. Not
> nearly as cheap a project as this one.

Just wondering - wouldn't that kind of frequency tend to cook the
brains? I wouldn't even know how to begin making an oscillator that
could run at such a speed...

I don't know whether it will ever be possible to transfer thoughts, as I
understand the word. If anything, I would expect that it would be more
likely for emotions to be transferred - something without words, anyway.
Hunches, intuitions, feelings, that sort of thing.

My guess is that in order to learn, you have to rewire the brain, and
that this would require time for the cells to move and grow, to form and
break connections. Something tells me there's no easy way to acquire
learning. OTOH, it's never a good idea to claim that something is
impossible, because people have an annoying habit of then going out and
doing whatever it was you said couldn't be done.

I remember reading an intriguing science fiction story that was done as a
sort of "review" of "mind tapes" (or whatever). Recorded thoughts/
feelings/etc. No clue who wrote it, but the idea has always fascinated
me.

BTW, your post here has inspired me to do some experimenting of my own
with this stuff (low-frequency electromagnetic fields around the head and
body). No microwaves... I'll be glad to share anything I learn with you.

--
Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed.
-- Irene Peter

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 5, 3:44 pm, Winston <Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
> Chiron wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:07:27 -0700, Winston wrote:
>
> >> Ron Hubbard wrote:
> >>> On Apr 2, 9:55 pm, Chiron
> >>> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com>   wrote:
>
> >> (...)
>
> >>>>    From what I've read, low-intensity field have almost no discernible
> >>>> effect.
>
> >> Suggest read further, then.  :)
>
> > Suggest you do so as well.
>
> > The fact that I disagree does not mean that I haven't read.  Perhaps I
> > should have qualified my statement to read, "From what I've read in
> > *credible* sources..."  Sorry if I didn't make this clear.  I wasn't
> > talking about the endless Websites claiming to have discovered brand-new
> > physics, perpetual motion, free energy, and so on.
>
> ?  What do any of these things have to do with brainwave
>     entrainment via an electromagnetic field?

If you want to altr your brainwaves, entrain them, to get rid of ADD
or develop telekinesis or learn remote viewing, whatever, there are
only a few limited ways of going about it: 1) biofeedback, 2) binaural
beats, 3) photo-entrainment with a strobe light, and magnetic
entrainment-- the project I'm working on now.

Biofeedback is slow (and costly).

There's an article which shows that binaural beats are ineffective
despite all the products out there. They also don't work on everybody
(they don't do **** for me).

Photo-entrainment is unpredictable; the reason why all of those light
& sound devices produc so little results is that LEDs are so weak as
to be useless. One would need a good medical strobe like the kind used
in eeg tests and even then the results can be variable,

Magnetic entrainment shows a lot of promise: it uses a magnetic field
to get the brain to lock onto a particular frequency and has the
advantage that the technique requires very little equipment that costs
only a few bucks.

Oh, and of course there's also yoga & meditation-- if one has a few
years to spare. :-)

Ron


_____________

“Space having four dimensions. Psiontists working through that fourth
dimension. Subspace itself-- why not many spaces existing in subspace?
Perhaps an infinite number of spaces with subspace a separating yet a
containing medium? He groped for an analogy-- found none. But the
staggering thought seemed strangely logical.”

–– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Encounters) ––

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:09:20 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

<snip>

I think that *all* of these techniques are either ineffective, or highly
variable. My suspicion is that each of these techniques has a group of
people who may benefit from them, but that no technique is effective to
everyone or even a majority of people. That could be why experiments
have been so inconclusive... So some folks do seem to respond to
binaural beats. I know people who swear by them. They never did
anything for me, though. I can't say that this wasn't some sort of
placebo effect, but... isn't the placebo effect something worthwhile? If
there's no objective way to evaluate a situation, is there a difference
between feeling good, and just thinking you feel good? If you've got a
physical illness that can be demonstrated objectively, maybe there is.
If a tumor is growing, thinking you're better might be fatal if it causes
you to skip other treatment for it. But when it comes to the mind,
things are not so certain.

You might reconsider the light experiments. There are all kinds of LED's
out there now. I was researching something and came across information
suggesting that the wavelength of light was important. If memory serves
(it might not) I think something like 450 nm or so - blue light. There
are now high-intensity, blue LED's available for not much money.

But I do like the idea of playing around with low-frequency, low-
intensity EM fields. Sounds like it might have interesting results,
without being very risky.

--
Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 5, 6:33 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:48:30 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > hat might be a project for another day. Theoretically, .E.E. "Doc"
> > Smith's "mechanical educator" is feasible, but it wouldn't work the way
> > it does in the Skylark books-- you might be able to transfr the
> > equivalent of thoughts, but not a whole language in thirty seconds. That
> > would require microwaves--- at 166 GHz if the reearch is right. Not
> > nearly as cheap a project as this one.
>
> Just wondering - wouldn't that kind of frequency tend to cook the
> brains?

Smith's educator was said to transfer visual images because his
characters found the frequency of cerebrin-- "a cerebroside peculiar
to the thinking structure of the brain" which was supposedly opaque
to a particular frequency and that it was a microwave frequency. Oddly
enough, some years ago I came across an article mentioning that people
exposed to 166 Ghz "saw" visual images. It need not be a powerful
source of microwaves; nothing dangerous.

> I wouldn't even know how to begin making an oscillator that
> could run at such a speed...

When I first got the idea I asked around and found that a klystron
tube could be made to work at 166 GHz-- if I wantd to pay a shitload
of money for it. That was twenty years ago.

> I don't know whether it will ever be possible to transfer thoughts, as I
> understand the word.

People have been working on "electronic telepathy" for years with
varying degrees of success as well as using EEG hook-ups to the brain
as a hands-free control interface such as in jet fighters also with
some success. Ever play the game Mindflex? Think "up" enough times and
the fan comes on and the little ball goes up; think "down" and the fan
cuts off so the ball falls. Not exactly real TK, but fun nonetheless.
Anyway, *in theory* electrical brainwave activity could represent a
thought-- If I saw an ugly looking girl and thought she had a face
like five miles of bad road, and if I was telepathic, she might
recieve that thought as words in her head. So is thought something
different and independent from electrical activity? I don't know for
sure and as far as I know, nobody has ever connected one person to
another via an EEG arangement.

But like I said, it's theoretically feasible; a lot of things that are
around now began as silly sci-fi concepts in somebody's brain and / or
a book, or TV show or a movie-- until somone tries to turn it into a
reality, sooner or later... :-)


Ron




_______________

“Data, something is only impossible until it is not!”

–– Jean- Luc Picard ––

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:05:06 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

<snip>
>>

>> Just wondering - wouldn't that kind of frequency tend to cook the
>> brains?
>
>
> Smith's educator was said to transfer visual images because his
> characters found the frequency of cerebrin-- "a cerebroside peculiar to
> the thinking structure of the brain" which was supposedly opaque to a
> particular frequency and that it was a microwave frequency. Oddly
> enough, some years ago I came across an article mentioning that people
> exposed to 166 Ghz "saw" visual images. It need not be a powerful source
> of microwaves; nothing dangerous.
>

True, but I'm kind of leery about exposing myself to high-frequency
signals, even if they're very weak. It doesn't seem that we know enough
about the effects - and reassurances that they're "harmless" are
meaningless. Scientists have been saying that for hundreds of years, all
the while frying brains and causing cancer and such. My attitude is, let
someone else be the beta-tester...

>
>
>> I wouldn't even know how to begin making an oscillator that could run
>> at such a speed...
>
>
> When I first got the idea I asked around and found that a klystron tube
> could be made to work at 166 GHz-- if I wantd to pay a shitload of money
> for it. That was twenty years ago.

I wonder what frequencies a microwave oven uses... of course, that's
around 1 kW, which would be way too strong.

Also, I think at that frequency, the wavelengths you're talking about are
small enough to screw up the usual equations for reactance and such. In
fact, as I understand it, much attention needs to be given to the lengths
of signal paths, parasitic capacitance, and all sorts of other
complications.

>
>> I don't know whether it will ever be possible to transfer thoughts, as
>> I understand the word.
>
>
> People have been working on "electronic telepathy" for years with
> varying degrees of success as well as using EEG hook-ups to the brain as

<snip>

> *in theory* electrical brainwave activity could represent a thought-- If
> I saw an ugly looking girl and thought she had a face like five miles of
> bad road, and if I was telepathic, she might recieve that thought as
> words in her head. So is thought something different and independent
> from electrical activity? I don't know for sure and as far as I know,
> nobody has ever connected one person to another via an EEG arangement.

Well, don't think thoughts like that. Uglier than the backside of a
wombat... But what if she's really pretty?

I'm not sure what you mean by connecting people via EEG arrangement. Do
you mean, connecting similar locations to each (right forehead to right
forehead, etc.)? Would you amplify the signals first?

I would assume that since the EEG signals are taken through the skull,
they are probably highly distorted from what they might be at the surface
of the brain. Also, you're getting signals from fairly wide regions of
the brain, whereas I'm sure thoughts would be coming from smaller
regions. I doubt there would be any specificity, for this reason.

But maybe some day, given enough research and technological progress,
they'll be able to do something... maybe by using a whole lot of
electrodes, running them through a massive supercomputer to analyze the
signals, etc., then transmitting them. Who knows?

I could see a potential for serious misuse, but also to help people -
say, those who are quadriplegic, who can't otherwise communicate. Maybe
even help people who have psychological disorders.

>
> But like I said, it's theoretically feasible; a lot of things that are
> around now began as silly sci-fi concepts in somebody's brain and / or a
> book, or TV show or a movie-- until somone tries to turn it into a
> reality, sooner or later... :-)
>

See, this is the kind of stuff I love to investigate. What *is* thought
- is it just electrical signals, or is there some other component to it?
We don't know squat about it. The current assumption is that the "mind"
is an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, but... there's nothing to
confirm that.

I remember reading a sci-fi story by Asimov (maybe in the Foundation
trilogy?) where the hero is talking about math. He whips out a hand-held
computer and shows the calculus to whoever he's talking to. I got really
annoyed with Asimov for coming up with such a stupid idea, like this
could ever happen. For crying out loud, I know sci-fi is fiction, but it
should at least be plausible. Blah, blah, blah.

So, OK, now I have one of those computers, called a programmable
scientific calculator. My apologies to Dr. Asimov. Experiences like
these make me reluctant to say that something just can't happen.

A whole lot of sci-fi is now old news, stuff we take for granted. Lasers
and space travel, heart transplants, home computers, cell phones...

And you know, I have to tell you. I remember when lasers were first
developed, articles all talking about death rays and blasters and stuff.
NO ONE imagined what most lasers would be used for - which was, amusing
cats with the little red dots.

> _______________
>
> “Data, something is only impossible until it is not!”
>
> –– Jean- Luc Picard ––

Great sig.



--
Love is the only game that is not called on account of darkness.
-- M. Hirschfield

[Chiron]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:05:06 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> electrical activity? I don't know for sure and as far as I know, nobody
> has ever connected one person to another via an EEG arangement.

Oh, I just had another thought... if you *did* amplify the signals, and
if each brain was responsive to what the other was thinking, you'd
(apparently) get a positive feedback effect. A thinks of X; B receives
that, so he also thinks of X; which gets transmitted back to A,
reinforcing his original idea of X; and so on. I wonder where that would
all go...

But now I'm going to try to get some sleep. Not likely, with all these
ideas floating around. Oh, well...

--
Now I'm concentrating on a specific tank battle toward the end of World
War II!

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 5, 9:54 pm, Chiron

> you don't keep your thoughts to yourself, you still get slapped in the face. ;-)

> I could see a potential for serious misuse, but also to help people -
> say, those who are quadriplegic, who can't otherwise communicate.  Maybe
> even help people who have psychological disorders.

Hmmm, I don't remember the name but there was an original Outer Limits
story where an Army psychologist invented a similar device for that
purpose but bcause of an earthquake, his mind got swapped into the
body of a psychotic soldier and the soldier's mind ended up in the
body of the psychologist.

If you are interestd in th original story (stories, actually) both
Skylark of Space and Skylark Three ar available in pdf versions all
over the web There's a particularly good description of the efucator
in Skylark Three where the lead character, Seatons, makes a new and
improved model with a 5 kW power tube that he discovered could be used
to take another person's thoughts by force; that power tube burning
away any conceivable resistance if the need arose. :-)


Ron


___________

"My life is a Testament to all the things one can do-- when you don't
listen to other people."

– Brian Walker –

[Michael A. Terrell]

Chiron wrote:
>
> I wonder what frequencies a microwave oven uses... of course, that's
> around 1 kW, which would be way too strong.

They operate in the 2.4 GHz range.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 5, 9:59 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:05:06 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > electrical activity? I don't know for sure and as far as I know, nobody
> > has ever connected one person to another via an EEG arangement.
>
> Oh, I just had another thought... if you *did* amplify the signals, and
> if each brain was responsive to what the other was thinking, you'd
> (apparently) get a positive feedback effect.  A thinks of X; B receives
> that, so he also thinks of X; which gets transmitted back to A,
> reinforcing his original idea of X; and so on.

Not necessarily. Some while ago the people at the Monroe Institute did
a [controversial] neurological study on a bunch of psis to see if
there was a definitive difference between the brainwaves of people
with various 'wild talents" and those people without gifts and /or if
thre was a definitiv diffrnce between people with different gifts.
They found that certain abilities were activated by certain specific
frequencies-- and probably the only reason why there are so few true
telepaths in the world is simply because the active frequncy for
telepathy is 4 Hz. Most folks are sound asleep at 4 hz and are
probably on the edge of REM sleep... But if you can figure out a way
to reach the lower edge of theta and still be awake, you can prove
that line in the movie Scanners about telepathy being a "linking of
nervous systems" to be bogus. :-)

Ron



________________

"Cheer up, Trigger! It really isn't all that bad, being a functioning
psi."

–– Telzey Amberdon (The Symbiotes) ––

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 5, 7:48 pm, Chiron

The problem with all of those light & sound devices is that there is
essentially a threshold valu befor photo-ntrainmnt can take effect--
which is why a medical strobe light (1 watt/second or greater) is far
more efficacious than LEDs and even then you might or might not b abl
to lock onto a dsired frequency. I've had five EEG over the years and
I was inadvertently entrained just twice (at 4 Hz and at 8 Hz-- well,
flashes per second)-- why, who knows?

Biofeedback is much more reliable but it has its drawbacks: it's slow
and you have to keep at it or lose whatever success you might get.
Magnetic entrainment seems to be far more reliable-- at least
according to the article I cited earlier, and is far more cheaper
paying for two ICs and som wir as opposd to a $1200 biofeedback
machine. But what nobody has yet answered me, is whether a prson xposd
to a particular frquncy for long periods can later on get into that
freqeuncy later on *without* a field generator being on? I guess i'll
find out.... :-)


Ron

[Chiron]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:50:58 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> The problem with all of those light & sound devices is that there is
> essentially a threshold valu befor photo-ntrainmnt can take effect--
> which is why a medical strobe light (1 watt/second or greater) is far
> more efficacious than LEDs and even then you might or might not b abl to
> lock onto a dsired frequency. I've had five EEG over the years and I was
> inadvertently entrained just twice (at 4 Hz and at 8 Hz-- well, flashes
> per second)-- why, who knows?

You know, it looks like your keyboard's 'e' isn't working well...

Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment. Whatever
the appropriate wavelength may be - even white - you can get LED's that
are close enough. Single LED's aren't powerful enough, but they can
easily be connected in parallel to any desired intensity. Flashing them,
if anything, would be much simpler than the usual strobes, which require
high voltages to initiate the breakdown of gas within the bulb (at least,
the ones I've seen were such). With LED's, the voltages would be very
low. A simple 555 timer, with some circuitry to boost current, would be
enough and it would let you vary the frequency through a huge range of
values if desired.

I've tried biofeedback. I had little success, but I am not convinced
that the device was actually functional. I don't see why you couldn't
build your own biofeedback machine, for way less than $1200. Since it
would be detecting signals in the microvolt range, it would have to be
quite sensitive and have excellent noise rejection, but this wouldn't be
beyond the possibility of an amateur. OTOH, the magnetic device you are
talking about is much simpler...

I have no idea whether a person exposed to a frequency would eventually
become able to reproduce that frequency on his own without equipment.
From what you've said about biofeedback (time-consuming and needs to be
reinforced), it would seem that no, a person using just magnetic
entrainment wouldn't be able to produce it on his own. OTOH... if you
are exposed long enough, perhaps the brain would change...

Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
usually equivalent to "damage." Attaining some specific frequency may be
good, but getting stuck there might not... You're in unknown territory
when it comes to stuff like this.

--
NEWS FLASH!!
Today the East German pole-vault champion became the West German pole-
vault champion.

[Winston]

Chiron wrote:

(...)

> Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
> usually equivalent to "damage."

Most of the changes our brains make are the result of learning
or in coping with damage. An unchanging brain is a brain in real
trouble, IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity


--Winston

[Chiron]

I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
changes that occur as a result of natural processes. This should have
been clear from the context.

>
> --Winston





--
A pat on the back is only a few centimeters from a kick in the pants.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 10, 12:14 am, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:50:58 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > The problem with all of those light & sound devices is that there is
> > essentially a threshold valu befor photo-ntrainmnt can take effect--
> > which is why a medical strobe light (1 watt/second or greater) is far
> > more efficacious than LEDs and even then you might or might not b abl to
> > lock onto a dsired frequency. I've had five EEG over the years and I was
> > inadvertently entrained just twice (at 4 Hz and at 8 Hz-- well, flashes
> > per second)-- why, who knows?
>
> You know, it looks like your keyboard's 'e' isn't working well...

Yah, I know: my "e" is in bad shape and a few other keys are missing
too, but it'll have to be a while before I can get a new one. Sigh...

> Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.  Whatever
> the appropriate wavelength may be - even white - you can get LED's that
> are close enough.  Single LED's aren't powerful enough, but they can
> easily be connected in parallel to any desired intensity.

In theory maybe, but the problem is that people buy those light &
sound products but hav no real way to s if thy are working as
subjective opinions are meaningless from most people. From what I've
read thtough, the dynamics behind photo-entrainment aren't as simple
as brighter lights.I'm not sure of the exact mecanisms involved, but
back in the day Melvin Powers-- a famous hypnotist-- had a kind of
strobe unit that could be synchronized to alter brainwavs for better
hypnosis. I don't know if it worked as advertised, but I suspect it
was better than any LED product. Maybe, just MAYBE, it's not only a
matter of flash rate but also flash duration-- I dunno, that's maybe a
matter for physiologists to discover. Or if somebody wanted to do a
little experimentation in this area, one could probably build a fancy
strobe with both adjustable flash rate and an adjustable flash
duration maybe by switching in more capacitance or more inductace
somwhere. Say, aren't there commercial strobes with these features?

> if anything, would be much simpler than the usual strobes, which require
> high voltages to initiate the breakdown of gas within the bulb (at least,
> the ones I've seen were such).  With LED's, the voltages would be very
> low.  A simple 555 timer, with some circuitry to boost current, would be
> enough and it would let you vary the frequency through a huge range of
> values if desired.

Sure, but I would want what works, not what's easier or cheaper to
build--- although I wouldn't mind if there was something that worked
and was cheap too. <w>

> I've tried biofeedback.  I had little success, but I am not convinced
> that the device was actually functional.  I don't see why you couldn't
> build your own biofeedback machine, for way less than $1200.  Since it
> would be detecting signals in the microvolt range, it would have to be
> quite sensitive and have excellent noise rejection, but this wouldn't be
> beyond the possibility of an amateur.  OTOH, the magnetic device you are
> talking about is much simpler...

LOL. Yes, I tried making my own biofeedback machine (BFM) a long time
ago whn circuit diagrams were in electronics magazines all during the
late '70s and the '80s; that was a comparatively "simple" circuit that
had a number of op-amps for filters and had no fancy programmable ICs.
All EEG devices are complicated, complex, sophisticated devices that
*are not* easy to make and are not for your casual hobbyist: it takes
a lot of time, money, and skill because you are working with micro-
voltages and impedances that are critical-- not like building a
shortwave set or a better burglar alarm.

However, there is a group dedicated to making cheap EEGs using
sophisticated digital circuitry. If you decide to go that route, I
wish you luck. It took me nearly two years to design a working sonic
screwdriver, and that turned out to be a lot easier than putting
together a BFM.

As for cheaper BFMs, the WaveRider Jr is probably the best BFM around
and should be less expensive at $1200 but connected to a laptop or
other computer, it works nearly as well as medical units. It's only
problem is that there's too little support programming. The price is
so high you know because there isn't a great market for this kind of
equipment. You'd think the new generation games like Mindflex and the
Star Wars force trainer would help to reduce the cost of new EEG
devices but that didn't happen. Pity...


As for my gadget, I'm relying on someone else's claims in an area
where there's too litte available data and what I have in mind is a
somwhat simpler design than what was usd in the original experiments,
but should work anyway if the theory is sound. It's a bitch that the
XR2206 has been discontinued and isn't as cheap and readily available
as it used to be since I use that IC in many-- if not most-- of my
projects. Oy..

> I have no idea whether a person exposed to a frequency would eventually
> become able to reproduce that frequency on his own without equipment.
> From what you've said about biofeedback (time-consuming and needs to be
> reinforced), it would seem that no, a person using just magnetic
> entrainment wouldn't be able to produce it on his own.  OTOH... if you
> are exposed long enough, perhaps the brain would change...
>
> Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
> usually equivalent to "damage."  Attaining some specific frequency may be
> good, but getting stuck there might not...  You're in unknown territory
> when it comes to stuff like this.

Hmmm, not exactly. There's a lot of useful information out there but
on has to have an open mind as to it's value; what many people would
consider to be "pseudo-science" can have great validity but it gets
passed up because mainstream researchers haven't bothered to look at
it or it gets into areas where the Establishment tends to keep its
collective head up its collective ass. But as Max Planck once said,
"A 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.”

But to your point, of course I wouldn't want to be in theta all day
and night, but the current view that theta is an abnormal activity in
waking adults is wrong: the fact is, highly creative people like
Nikola Tesla as wll as many strongly psychic people such as Karl Jung
et al produce considerable amounts of theta activity. While it could
conceivably cause ADD/ADHD and night terrors in some, for the most
part the advantages far outweigh the few disadvantages in trms of
healing, learning, and psi potential (if you believe in that sort of
thing). :-)


Ron

________________

“…Considering what the ordinary human being intrinsically is. By
‘ordinary’ is meant, of course, the person to whom the entire field of
psionics is a sealed realm; the person in whose tightly closed and
rigidly conventional mind no supra-normal phenomenon can possibly
occur or exist.”

–– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Explorers) —

[Winston]

Chiron wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:28:30 -0700, Winston wrote:
>
>> Chiron wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
>>> usually equivalent to "damage."

(...)

> I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
> changes that occur as a result of natural processes.

?

Chiron > Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.

Built-in, self grown LEDs? Doesn't sound too natural to me. :)

I agree that given enough force, an external LED *could*
damage the brain, at least in theory. This is new
territory for me though.

(...)

Chiron > I've tried biofeedback.

Built-in biofeedback device? :)

Is the use of a biofeedback device that exists outside the
brain particularly hazardous to brain health? I dunno.

Chiron > OTOH, the magnetic device you are talking about is much simpler...

Growing one naturally inside your brain will be problematic. :)

Chiron > I have no idea whether a person exposed to a frequency would
Chiron > eventually become able to reproduce that frequency on his own
Chiron > without equipment.

They did it to begin with, so why shouldn't they be able to
do it once more?

Clearly from the context of your statements here, these
stimuli are all "normal changes that occur as a result of
natural processes" and are not "changes imposed from outside
the brain", yes?

Otherwise, these stimuli from external LEDs, biofeedback
device, Magnetic stimulation, imposed as they are from
outside the brain are likely equivalent to brain damage.

Have I got that right at last?

:)

I think we are getting somewhere.

I figure the jury is still out on the hazards of stimulation
from blinking LEDs, the tone of a biofeedback device
or that of D.C. magnetic flux. I doubt that otherwise
healthy individuals would suffer brain damage from the
first two.

I agree with your implication that microwave power
impinging on the living brain from without is likely
to cause damage, however.

It is a credit to our physiology and neuroplasticity
that we recover from microwave exposure as well as we do.

> "I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
> changes that occur as a result of natural processes."

But of course. :)


--Winston

[Winston]

Ron Hubbard wrote:

(...)

> the fact is, highly creative people like
> Nikola Tesla as wll as many strongly psychic people such as Karl Jung
> et al produce considerable amounts of theta activity.

Less now, though.

--Winston

[Ron Hubbard]

Well, *did* anyway... :-)

Ron

[Jamie]

so you're saying a couple of beers now and then to kill off a few
cells is actually beneficial?


Jamie

[Winston]

I didn't say *all* the changes our brains make are beneficial,
now did I? :)

--Winston<-- And I should know, too.

[Winston]

I'll take your word for it, though I'm dubious that he would've
taken the necessary time off his projects to get an EEG.

--Winston

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:16:53 -0700, Winston wrote:

> Chiron wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:28:30 -0700, Winston wrote:
>>>> Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
>>>> usually equivalent to "damage."
>
> (...)
>
>> I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
>> changes that occur as a result of natural processes.
>
> ?
>
> Chiron > Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.
>
> Built-in, self grown LEDs? Doesn't sound too natural to me. :)
>

Could you point out to me where I spoke of "self grown LED's"?

> I agree that given enough force, an external LED *could* damage the
> brain, at least in theory. This is new territory for me though.
>

Winston, WTF are you talking about? If you were to actually read the
exchange between me and Ron, you would see that he was talking about
*external* magnetic fields, *external* strobes, and an *external*
biofeedback machine. When I comment about changes to the brain typically
being damage, I was also referring to *external* causes of changes to the
brain, in particular an unnatural stimulus that would not have been
something the human brain would have had time to deal with through
evolution.

My comment about the (possible) brain damage was in reply to Ron's
wondering whether a person who used magnetic fields to attain
entrainment, would eventually be able to accomplish this without the
field.

I have no idea whether intense lights could result in any brain damage.
Since it sometimes happen that flashing lights trigger convulsions, the
possibility seems to exist; but I don't know of any experiments that
confirm this. However, I wasn't talking about LED's when I spoke of the
possible damage. I was referring specifically to the use of magnetic
fields.

My only comment about the LED's was that I don't see why they wouldn't be
just as effective as medical strobes, assuming sufficient brightness and
proper wavelength.

> (...)
>
> Chiron > I've tried biofeedback.
>
> Built-in biofeedback device? :)

Kindly point out where I talked about a built-in biofeedback device.

>
> Is the use of a biofeedback device that exists outside the brain
> particularly hazardous to brain health? I dunno.
>

Probably not. You're using your own resources, not receiving external
energy.

> Chiron > OTOH, the magnetic device you are talking about is much
> simpler...
>
> Growing one naturally inside your brain will be problematic. :)
>

I would assume so. Of course, I wasn't talking about any such thing, nor
was Ron. I'm not sure how you got onto the subject.

> Chiron > I have no idea whether a person exposed to a frequency would
> Chiron > eventually become able to reproduce that frequency on his own
> Chiron > without equipment.
>
> They did it to begin with, so why shouldn't they be able to do it once
> more?
>

No, they didn't. They were exposed to an external magnetic field that
caused their brain waves to become "entrained." Nothing about this
implies that a person could do this without the external field.

> Clearly from the context of your statements here, these stimuli are all
> "normal changes that occur as a result of natural processes" and are not
> "changes imposed from outside the brain", yes?
>

Uh, no. None of these stimuli are normal changes occurring through
natural processes. I don't know how you arrive at this conclusion, but
you are mistaken. In case I'm not clear: LED's are not natural,
internal devices. Biofeedback machines are not natural, internal
devices. ELF magnetic fields generated by IC's and copper wire are not
natural, internal devices. So, no, these are all changes imposed from
outside the brain.

> Otherwise, these stimuli from external LEDs, biofeedback device,
> Magnetic stimulation, imposed as they are from outside the brain are
> likely equivalent to brain damage.
>
> Have I got that right at last?
>

No, actually, you haven't. Let me try to spell it out for you.

Various *external* stimuli may affect the brain in different ways. One
possible way might be entrainment of brain waves, having them fall into a
particular pattern or frequency. This can apparently happen through
flashing lights, biofeedback, and magnetic fields. These would all be
*external* stimuli, not built in LED's, etc. Keep this in mind - we're
still talking *external* here.

Entrainment does not appear to have any deleterious effects. That is, as
far as I know, researchers do not find that when entrainment occurs, the
brain or other parts of the organism are damaged.

So far, so good. Now, work with me on this, Winston, and maybe you'll
understand.

I replied to Ron's post in order; that is, he spoke of three issues, and
I replied to them in the order he presented them. His first comment was
concerning photo-entrainment, which he said had a "threshold" effect and
LED's wouldn't be effective. I commented that LED's probably *would* be
effective, if you used enough of them, since there is nothing preventing
you from firing off dozens of them if you need higher intensity. Please
note that we're still talking about *external* stimulation here, LED's
that are *external* to the subject.

Ron's next comment was concerning biofeedback. Ron was talking about
*external* biofeedback, a $1200 machine in fact. I commented that a) I'd
tried it without much success; and b) I thought it might be possible to
build your own biofeedback machine (again, an *external* biofeedback
machine). Nothing much to all this, just kind of tossing out a
possibility.

Then I moved on the the magnetic stimulation, which is what Ron is
currently working on (and which is, again, an *external* device). Sorry
if I repeat myself, but I want to be very clear that we're talking about
*external* devices here. Moving right along...

Ron wondered whether a person who had undergone magnetic stimulation or
magnetically-induced entrainment, would eventually be able to attain that
frequency by himself, without an *external* device to help him accomplish
it. I expressed my doubts.

Now here's where we might get into the real confusing part. I did say
that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."' You correctly pointed
out that the brain, in order to function properly, *must* change. So my
statement, taken in isolation, was incorrect. The brain is always
changing, and must do so to remain healthy.

However, in the context of the discussion, I had assumed it would be
clear that I was referring to the specific situation in which changes to
the brain were imposed from an *external* source, that being the magnetic
field. This was, in fact, a hypothetical question to begin with, because
I don't know whether long-term entrainment would even cause any lasting
changes to the brain. What I meant was that *if* long-term (or repeated)
*externally* induced entrainment did result in lasting changes to the
brain, it is likely that those changes would be injurious.

In general, changes to the brain that don't result from its natural
functioning (that is, changes that result from *external* causes) are
considered damage.

> :)
>
> I think we are getting somewhere.
>

We?

> I figure the jury is still out on the hazards of stimulation from
> blinking LEDs, the tone of a biofeedback device or that of D.C. magnetic
> flux. I doubt that otherwise healthy individuals would suffer brain
> damage from the first two.
>

I agree.

> I agree with your implication that microwave power impinging on the
> living brain from without is likely to cause damage, however.
>

Winston, I am not talking about microwaves. Ron isn't talking about
microwaves. The only one talking about microwaves is you. I don't know
where you get this whole thing about microwaves.

I'm not being snotty, but are you using the term "microwaves" correctly?
Are you referring to high-frequency (short wavelength) electromagnetic
radiation? Because Ron's experiment isn't using anything like that.

But perhaps what you intended to talk about were micro-power waves? In
that case then yes, maybe there is a risk of some sort. I don't know.

When it comes to messing with the brain, I feel that it is best to err on
the side of caution.

> It is a credit to our physiology and neuroplasticity that we recover
> from microwave exposure as well as we do.
>

An alternative theory is that we're not actually being exposed to those
microwaves in the first place, or that their intensity is too low to do
much damage.

> > "I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
> > changes that occur as a result of natural processes."
>
> But of course. :)
>

Well, why did you then keep referring to "internal" LED's, etc.?


--
Don't speak about Time, until you have spoken to him.

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:14:42 -0400, Jamie wrote:

> so you're saying a couple of beers now and then to kill off a few cells
> is actually beneficial?

It turns out that the old "fact" that you destroy so many brain cells
with each drink, is incorrect. What happens is that when a person
drinks, especially if he drinks a lot, his brain shrinks. The assumption
was that the brain cells were killed. Mostly what happens is that the
cells lose a bit of water. Once a person stops drinking, the brain tends
to recover.

Of course, severe drinking does cause cell death, and prolonged abuse can
result in irreversible damage. But it's not quite as bad as we've been
told...

--
<liiwi> so, what's the official way to get buildd to retry a package? prod
it with a stick?
<Joey> prod neuro
<liiwi> with a stick?
<Joey> yes.

[Ron Hubbard]

Pity Tesla died in 1943 before electroencehpalography (sp?) came about
as he himself acknowledged that he had a strange condition where he
would imagine something with such clarity that the imagined object
would stay in front of him and he could walk around it as if it was
his own personal hologram. Even Tesla knew this was abnormal and
wanted to know the whys and hows behind that phenomenon

Tesla was born July 10, 1856 and I was born July 6, 1956-- like
Michael Crichton who had a fascination for mysticism (he even learned
spoon bending / telekinesis) I'm pretty sure that if the science was
there, Tesla would have had a strong interest in anything that would
help him understand himself better and what the mind could do, and
espcially what *his* mind could do. :-)

Ron


_________________

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:46:51 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> On Apr 10, 12:14 am, Chiron
> <chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.  Whatever
>> the appropriate wavelength may be - even white - you can get LED's that
>> are close enough.  Single LED's aren't powerful enough, but they can
>> easily be connected in parallel to any desired intensity.
>
>
> In theory maybe, but the problem is that people buy those light & sound
> products but hav no real way to s if thy are working as subjective
> opinions are meaningless from most people. From what I've read thtough,
> the dynamics behind photo-entrainment aren't as simple as brighter
> lights.I'm not sure of the exact mecanisms involved, but back in the day
> Melvin Powers-- a famous hypnotist-- had a kind of strobe unit that

I remember Melvin Powers. I had some of his books, back in the day...

> could be synchronized to alter brainwavs for better hypnosis. I don't
> know if it worked as advertised, but I suspect it was better than any
> LED product. Maybe, just MAYBE, it's not only a matter of flash rate but
> also flash duration-- I dunno, that's maybe a matter for physiologists
> to discover. Or if somebody wanted to do a little experimentation in
> this area, one could probably build a fancy strobe with both adjustable
> flash rate and an adjustable flash duration maybe by switching in more
> capacitance or more inductace somwhere. Say, aren't there commercial
> strobes with these features?
>

There are commercial strobes available. Among other things, they use
them for photography, in discos, and other things. No clue how much they
cost, other than "more than I can afford." OK, I just checked on E-Bay.
They're around $100 and up; what I saw didn't allow flashes below 50
Hz... so maybe that wouldn't work out so well...

As for LED's - again, I see no reason why they wouldn't work just as
well. Maybe they wouldn't - but I haven't seen anything that says so.
Duration probably isn't an issue. The eye and nervous system have a
certain latency that is far longer than that of the strobe or LED.

>
>
> Sure, but I would want what works, not what's easier or cheaper to
> build--- although I wouldn't mind if there was something that worked and
> was cheap too. <w>
>

Agreed. But the way I look at it, if something costs more than I can
afford, and if there's some chance that a project I make would work -
assuming it wouldn't be a difficult project - it's worth giving it a
shot. So maybe I'll work on this little idea, see what I come up with.

But of course - how do I tell whether I'm getting an effect, or whether
it's just the placebo effect? OTOH, if I'm happy, does it matter??

>
>> I've tried biofeedback.  I had little success, but I am not convinced
>> that the device was actually functional.  I don't see why you couldn't
>> build your own biofeedback machine, for way less than $1200.  Since it
>> would be detecting signals in the microvolt range, it would have to be
>> quite sensitive and have excellent noise rejection, but this wouldn't
>> be beyond the possibility of an amateur.  OTOH, the magnetic device you
>> are talking about is much simpler...
>
>
> LOL. Yes, I tried making my own biofeedback machine (BFM) a long time
> ago whn circuit diagrams were in electronics magazines all during the
> late '70s and the '80s; that was a comparatively "simple" circuit that
> had a number of op-amps for filters and had no fancy programmable ICs.
> All EEG devices are complicated, complex, sophisticated devices that
> *are not* easy to make and are not for your casual hobbyist: it takes a
> lot of time, money, and skill because you are working with micro-
> voltages and impedances that are critical-- not like building a
> shortwave set or a better burglar alarm.
>

The technology has changed radically since then. There are
instrumentation amplifiers with a CMRR of 120 dB, input impedances of
10^12 ohms, all kinds of neat stuff.

I'm not claiming the effort would be trivial. You still have to consider
filtering, amplification, shielding, and so on. But it's not as hard as
it used to be.

But I'm not convinced biofeedback is even useful for this sort of thing.

>
> As for my gadget, I'm relying on someone else's claims in an area where
> there's too litte available data and what I have in mind is a somwhat
> simpler design than what was usd in the original experiments, but should
> work anyway if the theory is sound. It's a bitch that the XR2206 has
> been discontinued and isn't as cheap and readily available as it used to
> be since I use that IC in many-- if not most-- of my projects. Oy..
>

There should still be a lot of XR2206's floating around. If not, you can
always use a 555-type chip and filter the hell out of the square wave to
make it a sine. Not ideal, of course...

>
>
>> Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
>> usually equivalent to "damage."  Attaining some specific frequency may
>> be good, but getting stuck there might not...  You're in unknown
>> territory when it comes to stuff like this.
>
> Hmmm, not exactly. There's a lot of useful information out there but on
> has to have an open mind as to it's value; what many people would
> consider to be "pseudo-science" can have great validity but it gets
> passed up because mainstream researchers haven't bothered to look at it
> or it gets into areas where the Establishment tends to keep its
> collective head up its collective ass. But as Max Planck once said, "A
> 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.”
>

There is a pervasive notion that science refuses to look at new ideas.
Hidebound establishment scientists, this notion goes, are afraid of
having their beliefs challenged, they try to suppress or ignore new ones,
and on and on and on. This isn't generally true.

For example, look at how the scientific community dealt with the news
that researchers had evidence that neutrinos were traveling faster than
the speed of light. This idea (faster-than-light speed) violates one of
science's basic tenets, the teachings of St. Albert. So what happened?
Other scientists sought to confirm the findings. No one tried to
suppress them. No one tried to cover it all up, or discredit the guys
who made the initial observations, or criticized them for heresy (or was
it blasphemy? I never can keep them straight). They said, in effect,
"OK, let's have a look. Probably nothing to it, but you never know... if
you're right, you've just helped rewrite physics (again)."

What is correct is that science won't *accept* new ideas, without
subjecting them to serious examination and testing. And this is where so
many would-be inventors and discoverers go wrong. They don't produce
results that are clear and that can be duplicated. Without that their
discoveries are not useful to science.

The problem isn't that there's no useful information out there. The
problem is that there is no way to distinguish useful information from
bullshit, once you leave the formal structure of science. It's hard
enough to do even within that structure - and there are always errors and
frauds being uncovered in science. Still, there are even more errors and
frauds committed outside of science.

> night, but the current view that theta is an abnormal activity in
> waking adults is wrong: the fact is, highly creative people like Nikola
> Tesla as wll as many strongly psychic people such as Karl Jung et al
> produce considerable amounts of theta activity. While it could
> conceivably cause ADD/ADHD and night terrors in some, for the most part
> the advantages far outweigh the few disadvantages in trms of healing,
> learning, and psi potential (if you believe in that sort of thing). :-)
>

I don't think we have any idea what's "normal" when it comes to the mind
or the brain. Our society still punishes mental illness and even
originality. We still don't know how to heal a person's psychological
illnesses or wounds, except to drug them. In my lifetime psychiatrists
thought that a good way to treat mental illness was to shove an ice pick
into the brain (called a lobotomy or leucotomy).

so most people don't show theta during waking hours - doesn't mean that
would be abnormal. And I'm not even convinced that theta would cause
night terrors or ADHD. For all we know, maybe theta is how the brain
tries to deal with these problems. We haven't yet begun to learn about
our minds and brains...

But I guess that's what you're trying to do.

--
Growing old isn't bad when you consider the alternatives.
-- Maurice Chevalier

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:38:45 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

>
> Pity Tesla died in 1943 before electroencehpalography (sp?) came about
> as he himself acknowledged that he had a strange condition where he
> would imagine something with such clarity that the imagined object would
> stay in front of him and he could walk around it as if it was his own
> personal hologram. Even Tesla knew this was abnormal and wanted to know
> the whys and hows behind that phenomenon

Electroencephalography was invented in 1924 by Hans Berger, so it's
possible that Tesla could have had an eeg. However, there is nothing in
any of his biographies that I've read that suggest he ever had one.




--
Take it easy, we're in a hurry.

[Winston]

Chiron wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:16:53 -0700, Winston wrote:
>
>> Chiron wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:28:30 -0700, Winston wrote:
>>>>> Unfortunately, with something as complex as the brain, "change" is
>>>>> usually equivalent to "damage."
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> I'm talking about changes imposed from outside the brain, not normal
>>> changes that occur as a result of natural processes.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Chiron> Anyway, I don't see why you can't use LED's for entrainment.
>>
>> Built-in, self grown LEDs? Doesn't sound too natural to me. :)
>>
> Could you point out to me where I spoke of "self grown LED's"?

My comments were an attempt to understand how
brain changes prompted by totally external stimuli could only be
considered harmless in your world view if they were instead the
result of completely internal, natural stimuli; that brain changes
that were the result of external stimuli were highly likely to be
damaging.

I was trying to envision what would have to be true in order for
all stimuli to be considered harmless, given the internal, natural
constraint we were discussing.

Obviously, my three examples were ridiculously incorrect.
No one yet grows LED's, biofeedback devices or inductors
organically in their noggin, to my knowledge, yet.

I provided a couple examples of things that complied with
your observation about dangerous external stimuli.
One, a physical LED at sufficient velocity could possibly cause
brain damage; I admitted that I had no data on the subject.

Two, that microwave radiation of correct power is an external
stimulus that is highly likely to be dangerous and indeed life-
threatening to any brain unfortunate enough to be targeted.

I admit I was thinking about the chemical and physical changes
brought about in the food cooking process to support that hypothesis.

I now understand you better after your clarification:

Chiron > I did say that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."'
Chiron > You correctly pointed out that the brain, in order to function
Chiron > properly, *must* change. So my statement, taken in isolation,
Chiron > was incorrect. The brain is always changing, and must do so
Chiron > to remain healthy.

That makes much more sense to me. It places an overwhelming majority
of external brain stimuli into the 'completely harmless and probably
highly edifying' category, which, IMHO is where they belong.

Thank you for clarifying that. I can stop eying my collection
of LEDs with such trepidation. :)

> Various *external* stimuli may affect the brain in different ways. One
> possible way might be entrainment of brain waves, having them fall into a
> particular pattern or frequency.

I agree. There's good science backing that up.

> This can apparently happen through flashing lights, biofeedback, and
> magnetic fields.

And other stimuli as well, yes.

> These would all be *external* stimuli, not built in LED's, etc.
> Keep this in mind - we're still talking *external* here.

Yes.

> Entrainment does not appear to have any deleterious effects. That is, as
> far as I know, researchers do not find that when entrainment occurs, the
> brain or other parts of the organism are damaged.

'Difficult to make that call based on no information however. :)

Second order effects come into play when you deny an animal
of the use of their brain and muscles. Damage does not have to
be limited to that directly caused by cooking brain tissue.

> So far, so good. Now, work with me on this, Winston, and maybe you'll
> understand.

Here's hoping.

> I replied to Ron's post in order; that is, he spoke of three issues, and
> I replied to them in the order he presented them. His first comment was
> concerning photo-entrainment, which he said had a "threshold" effect and
> LED's wouldn't be effective.

In Dr. Adey's work, he reveals a real stunner <G>.

That is, power levels *exceeding* a threshold actually affected
his subjects far less than some of the *lower* power levels
he tried. I don't understand that, but then I don't understand
the basis of much of what he said either. I do understand the
larger picture, however.

> I commented that LED's probably *would* be
> effective, if you used enough of them, since there is nothing preventing
> you from firing off dozens of them if you need higher intensity. Please
> note that we're still talking about *external* stimulation here, LED's
> that are *external* to the subject.

Indeed.

> Ron's next comment was concerning biofeedback. Ron was talking about
> *external* biofeedback, a $1200 machine in fact. I commented that a) I'd
> tried it without much success; and b) I thought it might be possible to
> build your own biofeedback machine (again, an *external* biofeedback
> machine). Nothing much to all this, just kind of tossing out a
> possibility.

Sure! Steve Ciarcia's HAL EEG Brain-Wave Monitor published
in the June, July 1988 issue of _Byte Magazine_ is a good
example; was available in kit form IIRC. See _Computers
on the Brain_ Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, Volume 7

There are other examples, too.
http://openeeg.sourceforge.net/doc/links-biopsy.html

> Then I moved on the the magnetic stimulation, which is what Ron is
> currently working on (and which is, again, an *external* device). Sorry
> if I repeat myself, but I want to be very clear that we're talking about
> *external* devices here. Moving right along...
>
> Ron wondered whether a person who had undergone magnetic stimulation or
> magnetically-induced entrainment, would eventually be able to attain that
> frequency by himself, without an *external* device to help him accomplish
> it. I expressed my doubts.

I agree with your doubts.

> Now here's where we might get into the real confusing part. I did say
> that '"change" is usually equivalent to "damage."' You correctly pointed
> out that the brain, in order to function properly, *must* change. So my
> statement, taken in isolation, was incorrect. The brain is always
> changing, and must do so to remain healthy.
>
> However, in the context of the discussion, I had assumed it would be
> clear that I was referring to the specific situation in which changes to
> the brain were imposed from an *external* source, that being the magnetic
> field. This was, in fact, a hypothetical question to begin with, because
> I don't know whether long-term entrainment would even cause any lasting
> changes to the brain. What I meant was that *if* long-term (or repeated)
> *externally* induced entrainment did result in lasting changes to the
> brain, it is likely that those changes would be injurious.

Ah. Now I see.

> In general, changes to the brain that don't result from its natural
> functioning (that is, changes that result from *external* causes) are
> considered damage.

Well, I thought I saw, anyway.

>> I figure the jury is still out on the hazards of stimulation from
>> blinking LEDs, the tone of a biofeedback device or that of D.C. magnetic
>> flux. I doubt that otherwise healthy individuals would suffer brain
>> damage from the first two.
>>
> I agree.
>
>> I agree with your implication that microwave power impinging on the
>> living brain from without is likely to cause damage, however.
>>
> Winston, I am not talking about microwaves. Ron isn't talking about
> microwaves. The only one talking about microwaves is you. I don't know
> where you get this whole thing about microwaves.
>
> I'm not being snotty, but are you using the term "microwaves" correctly?
> Are you referring to high-frequency (short wavelength) electromagnetic
> radiation?

Yup. I figure around 900 MHz is the sweet spot, though Dr. Adey
found that carrier frequency was almost completely unimportant.

> Because Ron's experiment isn't using anything like that.

I get that. Near-field magnetism is just a carrier, too.

> But perhaps what you intended to talk about were micro-power waves? In
> that case then yes, maybe there is a risk of some sort. I don't know.
>
> When it comes to messing with the brain, I feel that it is best to err on
> the side of caution.

I agree with you. Many don't.

>> It is a credit to our physiology and neuroplasticity that we recover
>> from microwave exposure as well as we do.
>>
> An alternative theory is that we're not actually being exposed to those
> microwaves in the first place,

These guys want to power electronics using ambient microwave
radiation:
http://ecee.colorado.edu/microwave/docs/publications/2004/MTT_JHfhWMrzZP_Mar04.pdf

> or that their intensity is too low to do
> much damage.

Perhaps we will see in time. (Probably not, though.)

--Winston

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 10, 8:02 pm, Chiron

Hmmm... yeah... they might accept an idea like FTL neutrinos but
roundly reject the idea that telepathy is faster than light (if not
instantaneous and traveling at / in Planck time) or the notion that
some people can move books and bend forks when angry or that pople
with prcognition win the lotteries over and over again... Some
scientists like Pauli, Harold Puthoff, and a few others think outside
of the box but far too many go along with the idea that thousands of
years of psychic phenomena and abilities has been nothing but myth
rather than changing science to fit the facts. Oy. That's why I so
love engineers far more than physicists, <g.>

Ron


__________________

“Non-psionicists believed, then as now, that all psionics was fakery,
imagination, and crackpotism; that what actuality, if any, it had was
witchcraft and black magic and must be stamped out wherever and
whenever found.”

— E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Encounters) —

[Chiron]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:14:43 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> Hmmm... yeah... they might accept an idea like FTL neutrinos but roundly
> reject the idea that telepathy is faster than light (if not
> instantaneous and traveling at / in Planck time) or the notion that some
> people can move books and bend forks when angry or that pople with
> prcognition win the lotteries over and over again... Some scientists
> like Pauli, Harold Puthoff, and a few others think outside of the box
> but far too many go along with the idea that thousands of years of
> psychic phenomena and abilities has been nothing but myth rather than
> changing science to fit the facts. Oy. That's why I so love engineers
> far more than physicists, <g.>
>

They *didn't* accept the idea of FTL neutrinos. They simply
*investigated* it. The jury is still out about them, though apparently
they've discovered some issues with the setup that might explain the
results. As I understand it, they're going to do some more experiments.

They would reject the idea that telepathy is FTL, mainly because there is
no convincing evidence that telepathy exists. Believe me, lots of
scientists would just LOVE to find out that telepathy did exist; it would
open up all sorts of new vistas. Unfortunately, the evidence does not
support the idea.

The most compelling evidence - or perhaps I should say, the least
inadequate evidence - is probably the work done by JB Rhine at Duke
University. He did thousands of experiments with Zener cards, dice, and
other things trying to ascertain the existence of clairvoyance,
telepathy, psychokinesis, precognition, anything. He had some intriguing
results.

Unfortunately, Rhine began to try to explain disappointing results with
various ad hoc ideas such as "subject fatigue." That meant that as a
subject repeated experiments, he'd become bored, unmotivated, and
eventually any psi talent he exhibited would fail. The problem with this
explanation is that there is nothing it offers, that isn't already
covered by the idea that the odds will tend to average out. You'll get
some streaks of hits, and some streaks of misses, and - barring some sort
of psychic ability - your results will average out. In other words,
Rhine was trying to find a psi explanation for why his results tended
towards average.

No one else has done any better in demonstrating the *existence* of
telepathy. Until that happens, there is no reason to try to establish
whether it's faster than light. In fact, I would suggest that since
we're talking about human response times and distances of far less than a
light second (about 40 msec if the subjects are on opposite sides of the
planet), it isn't possible to show that telepathy is FTL or
instantaneous. But that's a whole other issue.

I actually believe in psi phenomena; I've experienced them and seen them,
and after doing my very best to "explain them away" a very few resist any
such explanations. But that's not scientific evidence. It's not
repeatable, not quantifiable, and that's what science needs.

If psi phenomena are somewhat spiritual or non-material, then science may
not be an appropriate tool for examining them. Science deals with things
that can be measured in some way, quantified, weight, whatever. It
requires repeatable experiments or observations. Sometimes people
consider this a flaw of science. Not so. It's what makes it science; it
is the strength of science. But science doesn't cover everything.

Science can measure hormone levels, sexual responses, heart rates, etc. -
the physical manifestations of lust or love. But science cannot measure
love. In fact, science cannot even prove that such a thing exists.

Most scientists, despite their cold reputations, have experienced love,
so they believe in it even if they can't prove its existence
scientifically. Most scientist, however, have not experienced psi
phenomena. They don't believe in it, and nothing in their armamentarium
is useful for investigating psi. They have no reason to believe in psi.

It is unfortunately true that some scientists claim that whatever can't
be investigated with science doesn't exist. That's not true. What can't
be investigated with science, cannot be discussed scientifically, that's
all.

Understand, too, that anecdotal evidence is entirely useless to science.
No matter how many people see - or think they see, or *say* they see -
something, it doesn't come under the purview of scientific investigation
until there is some way to reliable witness the phenomenon.

Take Bigfoot for example. Thousands of sightings, hundreds or maybe
thousands of photos; videos, footprints, and so on. Some of these turned
out to be admitted hoaxes. Some were hoaxes that weren't admitted. Some
may have been mistakes - bears or humans at a distance. Maybe there is a
Bigfoot tribe out there somewhere. But until there is some way to
reliably see them - or to find bones, a living Bigfoot, something -
science can do nothing about it. It has no basis for investigating.

With psi things are even more muddled. Quite often, there are things
going on like selection bias, where you remember the rare hits and forget
the numerous misses. Many times someone will ask, "What are the odds?"
assuming they're rare; when in fact, they're not. Not to mention error,
wishful thinking, and fraud. Many of the stories I had heard as a kid,
that convinced me there was psi, turned out to be hoaxes. The Fox
sisters - a hoax. The Cottingley fairies - hoax. Many, many psychics
turned out to be hoaxers. Maybe they were driven to fakery when they
felt they *had* to produce results, but weren't able to. Maybe they
started out honestly and went bad. I don't know - but there were many
hoaxes, all the same.

Dr. Rhine's experiments have two strikes against them. First, Dr. Rhine
went astray with his ad hoc explanations for poor results. Eventually he
was trying to claim that above-average hits indicated psi; and below-
average hits also indicated psi, but that the person was unconsciously
but deliberately missing because he was bored.

Second, no one else has been able to duplicate the experiments.

Sure, it may very well be true that psi doesn't do well in a laboratory
setting. People would rarely fall in love under such conditions; perhaps
psi works the same way. That doesn't prove that psi exists. It only
explains why psi might not be a suitable subject for scientific
investigation.

Hmm... seems I've run on quite a bit.



--
Are you ever going to do the dishes? Or will you change your major to
biology?



--
Graduate life: It's not just a job. It's an indenture.

[Ron Hubbard]

.


>
> Dr. Rhine's experiments have two strikes against them. First, Dr. Rhine
> went astray with his ad hoc explanations for poor results. Eventually he
> was trying to claim that above-average hits indicated psi; and below-
> average hits also indicated psi, but that the person was unconsciously
> but deliberately missing because he was bored.
>
> Second, no one else has been able to duplicate the experiments.
>
> Sure, it may very well be true that psi doesn't do well in a laboratory
> setting. People would rarely fall in love under such conditions; perhaps
> psi works the same way. That doesn't prove that psi exists. It only
> explains why psi might not be a suitable subject for scientific
> investigation.

Mainstream science has a vry major bias because *if* psi is real and
bhavs th way popl have reported for th last couple thousands of years,
then there is a force or form of energy that violates established laws
for EM energy (travels faster than light, does not lose strength with
disatance, goes through everything with no known shielding, etc)--
which to many, if not most-- think is all there is.

The second bias is that psi is biological and as far as anyone knows,
can not be generated with batteries and elctronics or motors. If
telepathy or remote viewing was something *everybody* could do with a
little effort, thn medical scienc would have nailed it first and the
physical sciences would grudgingly follow behind. But when you are
dealing with a small (well, comparatively small-- say 12 to 15 per
cent of the world's population-- group of people, mostly undr crtain
cicumstances, it's easir to just dismiss psi phenomena and abilities
as rubbish. And it isn't only with psi but with any oddity or
anomalies that dosn't fit current theories, they get swept under the
rug. Why do fish and dead flesh suddenly fall out of somtimes clear
skies? Why do some people (as wll as cars and planes) suddenly
disappear, sometimes vn front of witnesses? Who really made
stonehenge and the 99 other stone circles throughout the UK? And why?
When there are no immediate answers, science ignores the questions--
unless somebody starts making money somehow, then there's immdiate
interest and people start saying "You know, I always believed in
[whatever]..." Yeah, sure.;

And of course that ***hole Randi doesn't help things by claiming
everybody from Nina Kulagina to Uri Gellar and everyone-- *everyone*--
ls are frauds. Yes, Santa, we know that not all of those folks on
Youtube are real, but some are. There are *some* pople who can control
telepathy, telekinesis, and the many of the other 75 or so known psi
gifts through either meditation, biofeedback, or just being freaks--
but Randi doesn't acknowldge the real people; to him, there are no
real psychic people and never have been . You have to wonder about a
guy who goes after a group of people with such burning hatred; it sure
isn't unbiased "debunking," it's personal. TV Tropes & Idioms says,
"Arbitrary Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific
phrase such as ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’
to back up their dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the
goalposts. In reality, no claim requires 'extraordinary proof', just
sufficient proof.” Unfortunately, too few understand that becaus there
is more than sufficient proof that psi exists.

Michael Crichton learned to bend spoons through TK because he had a
keen desire to understand. It's a pity he never made a video for
Youtube heh heh. Still... even when you can show the real frelling
thing it looks fake. Bummer.

Ron


________________

"Some success, some failure; but either way the gnawing hunger to know
is never sated, and the road to the Unknown continues to be dark and
strange."

–– Control Voice (The Outer Limits) ––

[Chiron]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:04:51 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

>
> Mainstream science has a vry major bias because *if* psi is real and
> bhavs th way popl have reported for th last couple thousands of years,
> then there is a force or form of energy that violates established laws
> for EM energy (travels faster than light, does not lose strength with
> disatance, goes through everything with no known shielding, etc)-- which
> to many, if not most-- think is all there is.
>

But as I said, there is no (scientifically) useful evidence that there is
any psi phenomenon. Also, there is no evidence that psi phenomena, if
they exist, are FTL. There is no way to measure such a thing because
you're relying on human reaction times. The greatest distance you can
separate two people (practically, at this time) is the diameter of the
earth. A light signal takes 40 msec to travel that distance, which is
shorter than our ability to respond to a stimulus. That being the case,
it is not possible to measure the speed of psi "signals" at the moment,
if they travel at or faster than the speed of light. We'd either need to
separate the two subjects by millions of miles, or find some physical
(that is, some mechanical or electronic) way to detect a psi "signal."

More to the point, there is no reason to think that psi phenomena has
anything to do with energy, movement, time, etc. If time and distance
are illusory - a claim made by many mystics and others who accept psi
phenomena - then there is no space for a signal to travel. It's all
"here," meaning our concepts of signal speed or distance are also
illusory. In fact, the notion that our various minds have location may
be illusory. And so on.

Trying to cram psi effects into the notions of current physics is
possibly futile. In fact, as I said, trying to use science to
investigate the phenomena may be futile, because of its reliance on
concepts that, in psi, simply might not apply.

> The second bias is that psi is biological and as far as anyone knows,
> can not be generated with batteries and elctronics or motors. If
> telepathy or remote viewing was something *everybody* could do with a
> little effort, thn medical scienc would have nailed it first and the
> physical sciences would grudgingly follow behind. But when you are

Exactly my point. That's why I made the comparison to the emotion of
love. Love is sufficiently common that people generally accept that it
exists, even if science can't demonstrate it. When an effect is only
perceived by a minority of people, the general tendency is to dismiss it
as not existing.

> dealing with a small (well, comparatively small-- say 12 to 15 per cent
> of the world's population-- group of people, mostly undr crtain
> cicumstances, it's easir to just dismiss psi phenomena and abilities as
> rubbish. And it isn't only with psi but with any oddity or anomalies
> that dosn't fit current theories, they get swept under the rug. Why do

The reason they're swept under the rug is not because they don't fit
accepted theories. The reason they're swept under the rug is because
these phenomena do not produce effects that can be subjected to
scientific investigation. For something to be an appropriate subject for
scientific investigation, it needs to be something that either occurs in
some predictable manner, or occurs frequently enough, or that can in some
way be examined, or produces some effect that can be quantified or
measured somehow.

Anecdotal evidence is useless for this. It is a well-know phenomenon
that multiple witnesses to an event produce multiple, often mutually
contradictory reports of that event. This has been *scientifically*
investigated, by the way. For example, during a class lecture, someone
comes into the class, does something startling and memorable, and
leaves. The class is asked to describe what they just saw (the event
being deliberately staged for this purpose). The descriptions are so
varied that, relying only on them, it would be impossible to guess what
actually happened.

> fish and dead flesh suddenly fall out of somtimes clear skies? Why do
> some people (as wll as cars and planes) suddenly disappear, sometimes vn
> front of witnesses? Who really made stonehenge and the 99 other stone
> circles throughout the UK? And why? When there are no immediate answers,
> science ignores the questions-- unless somebody starts making money
> somehow, then there's immdiate interest and people start saying "You
> know, I always believed in [whatever]..." Yeah, sure.;
>

But there are *always* immediate answers. The animals falling from the
sky are said to be ones sucked up by tornadoes and such, carried aloft,
and dumped sometimes thousands of miles away, outside the weather
patterns that caused the even. And so on. There is never any shortage
of answers. That is not why science doesn't investigate.

As for funding, sure. Scientists need to eat. Much of the equipment
used by scientists is expensive, utterly beyond the ability of individual
scientists to buy. Just like anyone else, scientists go where the jobs
are, where there is some way of earning a living - and of having the
equipment they need.

Your complaint about stonehenge, etc., isn't quite accurate. Scientists
have been investigating these megaliths for over a hundred years.
They've got a good idea who made it. They're working on the "why" - last
I heard, some were thinking it was a place of healing, among other things.

I think what you're complaining about (If I understand you correctly) is
that scientists aren't investigating some of the New Age claims of
mysterious energies there. Again - lack of evidence.

> And of course that ***hole Randi doesn't help things by claiming
> everybody from Nina Kulagina to Uri Gellar and everyone-- *everyone*--

While I find Randi's arrogance annoying, he's got several good points.
As a magician, he's in a much better position than most to detect fraud,
since magic is fraud (I mean magic for entertainment, not Lord of the
Rings sort of stuff). Magicians are tricksters. Similarly, many
tricksters are magicians, and many so-called psychics are tricksters.
Randi has been helpful in uncovering these frauds.

More to the point, he's offered a large financial reward to anyone who
can produce psychic phenomena in laboratory conditions. No one has
claimed this prize. Why is that?

Randi's conclusion is that psi simply doesn't exist. He may be right,
but I disagree.

Another conclusion may be that psi phenomena are not amenable to being
produced under laboratory conditions. Going back to my love analogy, if
you offered people money to fall in love under laboratory conditions, it
probably wouldn't happen, either.

However, in either case, if psi cannot be reproduced under laboratory
conditions, it cannot be investigated scientifically.

> ls are frauds. Yes, Santa, we know that not all of those folks on
> Youtube are real, but some are. There are *some* pople who can control
> telepathy, telekinesis, and the many of the other 75 or so known psi
> gifts through either meditation, biofeedback, or just being freaks-- but

So - how do you know this? I believe what you are doing is making a
statement of faith. Like you, I believe in psi. I believe there's
*something* there, even if it's not what Madame Zona claims. But I don't
have any useful evidence of it. Personal experience, personal
observations, sure. Useful evidence? No.

> Randi doesn't acknowldge the real people; to him, there are no real
> psychic people and never have been . You have to wonder about a guy who
> goes after a group of people with such burning hatred; it sure isn't

Look, I agree that Randi is biased. Anyone who claims to be a "debunker"
has already decided; all he's looking for is more evidence to back up his
prejudice. But that doesn't mean all skeptics are biased.

I consider myself a skeptic, yet I keep an open mind about stuff. I just
don't accept claims until I've seen some evidence to support them.

> unbiased "debunking," it's personal. TV Tropes & Idioms says, "Arbitrary

There is no such thing as unbiased debunking. Debunking begins, not with
the attitude of "I don't know, let's find out" but rather, "this is
bullshit, let's prove it's bullshit."

> Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific phrase such as
> ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ to back up their

But it does. If you are claiming an unknown phenomenon, you are going to
have to show something compelling to back it up.

> dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the goalposts. In
> reality, no claim requires 'extraordinary proof', just sufficient
> proof.” Unfortunately, too few understand that becaus there is more than
> sufficient proof that psi exists.
>

First of all, there is no proof. Outside of mathematics, proof is almost
impossible. What you may have is evidence, which is entirely different.

Second, as I have often repeated, there isn't any *useful* evidence.

> Michael Crichton learned to bend spoons through TK because he had a keen
> desire to understand. It's a pity he never made a video for Youtube heh
> heh. Still... even when you can show the real frelling thing it looks
> fake. Bummer.
>

OK, here's a good question. Have you actually seen Michael Crichton bend
a spoon? Or anyone else, for that matter? Has anyone, anywhere, ever
been seen to bend a spoon he wasn't holding? I haven't. How do you know
Crichton can bend a spoon? Did he make the claim? Or is your evidence
anecdotal - someone said it, somewhere?

As for YouTube, please. There is no way to distinguish between real and
faked videos (or photographs). Even I can make a fake video, and I have
no particular skills with video.

I've got a photo of my cat climbing the Andromeda Galaxy. I found a
photo on the Internet showing John Paul II holding Paris Hilton in one
hand, a bottle of Jack Daniels in the other.

So, OK. Let's say that you've convinced a scientist to take these claims
seriously - not to *accept* them (that wouldn't be objective), but simply
to maintain an open mind. Dr. Von Mitterschmerz is willing to set aside
any biases he has and have a sincere look. Where does he begin?

All the anecdotal evidence is suspect. How can you tell who's telling
the truth, who's lying, who's simply mistaken? How can you tell
clairvoyance from telepathy, psychokinesis from precognition? In fact,
how can you tell whether it was a psi phenomenon, or intervention by some
spiritual entity - God, angels, demons, etc.? Points off if you tell me
angels aren't real. There are as many angelic sightings as psi events,
or near to it. And for that matter, how can you tell whether some of
these psi events were caused by aliens using highly advanced science?

Anecdotal evidence is useless for this investigation, for the reasons I
just cited. So we need to go to the lab.

Dr. Rhine's experiments, while intriguing, have not been duplicated. My
own experiments, using Zener cards, were inconclusive. But of course,
perhaps my subjects simply weren't psychic - I didn't try thousands of
people, only a small handful.

So Dr. Von Mitterschmerz needs to set up an experiment of some sort,
screening large numbers of people for psi abilities. With any large
number of people, there will be a few who have a high number of hits,
apparently showing some talent. So we focus on those.

Is he expected to try to repeat Rhine's experiments? Others have done
so, with negative results. Why should Dr. Von Mitterschmerz pursue such
an unpromising course?

So I'm asking you, what experiments should scientists perform, in order
to properly investigate psi phenomena? What *should* they be doing, that
they are supposedly refusing to do?

They are not, in general, going to try to reproduce experiments that
others have already tried to reproduce, if there was a negative result.

You complain of scientists moving the goalpost. "Believers" do this all
the time. When Rhine's experiments proved inconclusive, people started
talking about the laboratory being unsuitable for delicate psychic
temperaments. Probably true, but this wasn't mentioned *before* the
experiments.

Whenever an experiment has an undesired result, someone is likely to
start moving goalposts. It's human nature.

What is needed is to come up with an experiment that would seem likely to
test the phenomenon, and to agree *beforehand* on what would be
acceptable as evidence - and what wouldn't.

I don't have any ideas for this. Do you?

--
The best thing that comes out of Iowa is I-80.

[Ron Hubbard]

>
>
> More to the point, there is no reason to think that psi phenomena has
> anything to do with energy, movement, time, etc.

Really? How can you have precognition and premonition, prcognitive
telepathy, retrocognition, and psychometry if there is no connection
to time?

>
> Trying to cram psi effects into the notions of current physics is
> possibly futile.  In fact, as I said, trying to use science to
> investigate the phenomena may be futile, because of its reliance on
> concepts that, in psi, simply might not apply.

That's true, so you need a new paradigm and a new psience-- uh, sorry
about that-- a new science; actually, psionics has been around for a
while but only a few schools teach it or any courses that are a part
of it.

> > fish and dead flesh suddenly fall out of somtimes clear skies? Why do
> > some people (as wll as cars and planes) suddenly disappear, sometimes vn
> >  front of witnesses? Who really made stonehenge and the 99 other stone
> > circles throughout the UK? And why? When there are no immediate answers,
> > science ignores the questions-- unless somebody starts making money
> > somehow, then there's immdiate interest and people start saying "You
> > know, I always believed in [whatever]..."  Yeah, sure.;
>
> But there are *always* immediate answers.  The animals falling from the
> sky are said to be ones sucked up by tornadoes and such, carried aloft,
> and dumped sometimes thousands of miles away, outside the weather
> patterns that caused the even.  And so on.  There is never any shortage
> of answers.  That is not why science doesn't investigate.

They don't investigate because they think the answer is so immediately
obvious, why bother to look into it. But when coins, pieces of metal,
strange fungal spores, and sometimes organic matrial that can't be
identified fall out of thin air, the idiotic excuse that a whirlpool
sucked thm from some place nearby becomes patently absurd.

But there are some amazing possibilities that the science people got
their heads too stuck up in their asses to explore, and i'm not just
bing cynical here: the whol history of science-- all 300 years of it--
has been basically advances made because lone people exploring into
areas others didn't give a crap about. Roentgen discovered x-rays by
accident, Messier discovered numerous celestial bodis-- not because he
was interested in them, but because he liked comets and he wrote down
all the things he didn't want to see. My point bing, most of our
gratest discovries have been by pople in fringe aras who didn't accept
the stock answrs thir colleagus were happy to believe.

It might sound too much like sci-fi, but what if there are sporadic
wormholes or dimensional rifts-- new aras of science, but not when
nobody gives a crap.

> Your complaint about stonehenge, etc., isn't quite accurate.  Scientists
> have been investigating these megaliths for over a hundred years.
> They've got a good idea who made it.

No, they have come to a logical, yet stupid conclusion: that hundreds
or more people spent *generations* hauling multi-ton rocks from
distant quaries and managd to lift them-- by hand! whn vn modern crans
would hav a problem-- just to make a calendar. Some of ston circles
are in such isolated places in the British Isles that dragging rocks
there would be virtually impossible. That's not science, that's coming
to quick answer because when you give the matter some serious thought,
you have some serious enigmas to be explained that *can't* be
explained by conventional and easy answers.

I don't want to go into this, but there are ancient cities in isolated
places all over this planet that shows some exceptionally
sophisticated engineering techniques whre science can xplain them away
by saying th ston slabs wr on wooden rollers and blah blah blah... but
those answers are bogus. Many of the things in science books that are
accepted as truths are just plain WRONG.

> While I find Randi's arrogance annoying, he's got several good points.
> As a magician, he's in a much better position than most to detect fraud,
> since magic is fraud (I mean magic for entertainment, not Lord of the
> Rings sort of stuff).  Magicians are tricksters.  Similarly, many
> tricksters are magicians, and many so-called psychics are tricksters.
> Randi has been helpful in uncovering these frauds.
>
> More to the point, he's offered a large financial reward to anyone who
> can produce psychic phenomena in laboratory conditions.  No one has
> claimed this prize.  Why is that?

Okay, here is a FACT that far too many people just do not want accept:
Randi is a stage magician whose very livelihood is illusion,
misdirction, and lies. He has said on occasion that the way his
"offer" was written, nobody could ever collect on it. That's probably
the only true thing about it. Randi's FAQ also said-- though it may
now have been rewritten-- that 1)just becaus somone may have a [valid]
claim, randi has the right to reject it. So if i had all the
telekinetic powrs of Richard Tyler and Jean Grey, I could be rejected.
2) Many people hav to re-apply and re-apply bfor being tested. If you
have been turned down four times, are you gonna waste your time a
fifth or a sixth time to be tested? 3) Even beore being tsted, a
claimant must have a recommendation from an "approved" source,,, and
so on! The whole thing is a scam, a PR trick that nobody could ver win
but randi can always sit back-- just like you-- and say, "See, i made
the offer, but nobody has ever won; proof there aare no psychic
people, no psi." This, of course is bullshit, but many people don't
look beneath the surface of his supposed offer and fall for the crap.
I can offer any NBA player 10 megabucks if he can sink a basket on
only one tiny condition: he needs to wear a straight-jacket, that's
all... Can anybody win that money?

That's what Randi does: effectively straight-jackets anybody who taks
his offer, if they can even gt tested. Hell, he's nver gonna lose a
penny but he'll look like an honst man on th surface but any cop will
tll you, that's how any good scam works. If h was honest in his offer
he would get people to do some simple, straightforward test of whatevr
gift they claim to have; that can b done pretty easily with safeguards
to insure no cheating, but wouldn't hamper the testee-- but then that
scuzzy bastard would not only lose his money but would also have to
admit that psi abilities are real. I used to hav a friend who taught a
college course called "Altered States of Consciousness. She was
incidentally a very capable snoop; a remote viewer / clairvoyant who
could see what's going on from two cities away--- this is the kind of
thing the government loves to develop and utilize. Unlike Randi, there
viwpoint is that psi may be a rare commodity, but it can be used
nonetheless; all they needed was th right people. anyway. if honestly
tested my friend could've won that money in jiffy.

> Another conclusion may be that psi phenomena are not amenable to being
> produced under laboratory conditions.  Going back to my love analogy, if
> you offered people money to fall in love under laboratory conditions, it
> probably wouldn't happen, either.
>

You keep saying that but it's exactly true. ESP has been demonstrated,
repeatdly, in the lab; it has also bn demonstratd in th fild whn
dowsrs wer used to find hidden mins during Vietnam and in the oil
industry. But here's the thing: there is such an anti-psi bias that a
lot of the results simply don't gt publishd in scientific journals
and it's far too easy to use that old excuse "if psi is real, why
can't the subject get the right answer all the time?" In dealing with
an unique phnomna-- which by the way is MOSTLY BIOLOGICAL and
PSYCHOLOGICAL, too many skeptics and critics ignore that fact and
expect a psi to rpeat somthing over and over again, then whn it can't
happn, say "see, there's nothing to it." It's not enough that someon
can move matchs and maybe even light them, it has to b don a hundred
or a thousand tims to get validity. This indicates to m-- and many
others-- that "scintific methodology" is flawed (although I would use
word "fucked.").

It was Carl Sagan who cam up with that "extraordinary claims needing
extraordinary proof"nonsense, but it really is true that all that is
neded is *sufficient proof* and that is everywhere. I know of doctors,
psychologists, neurologists, and many othrs who have no problm of
accepting psychic abilits and phnomena-- probably because many of them
exprienced it in some way; are these expert people wrong just becaus
physicists say there is no such thing as psi? When does the word of a
small segment of science start to dominate all others? And given the
fact that the history of science shows that the physics people ar far
from infallible when coming up with conclusions, why would anyone
accept the conclusion psi is not real based solely upon scientific
dogma? That's kinda lik saying the UFO that gave you a bad burn or a
fatal case of radiation poisoning (and this happens) was not real
becaus science says UFOs are not real. Like that old joke, who do you
trust: me, or your lying eyes?

> However, in either case, if psi cannot be reproduced under laboratory
> conditions, it cannot be investigated scientifically.

Oh, nonsense!

All that's needed is a desire to do it and probably a shitload of
money. Biofeedback guru Elmer Greene did research on a yoga swami who
did demonstrations of psychokinesis in front of witnesses and the
Monroe institute did neurological and EEG research on a bunch of psis
to see if there was a qualitative difference between each type of psi
(telepath, clairvoyant, telekineticists, precogs, etc) and between
psis and norms, The results were surprising: the norms-- uh, the
average control group-- showed the usual beta activity but the psis
showed unique brainwave patterns: 4 Hz for telepaths (sending), 6 hz
for telepath recievers as well as astral & mental projection, 7 Hz for
the teeks (telekineticists), and 8.3 Hz for the clairvoyants and
precogs; only one psi gift was upper beta at 21 Hz thus proving that
there were indeed definitive physiological differences that people
could point at. Of course the skeptics say ther's nothing to it, but
that is some rather exceptional data.If you want to make a psionics a
true science, you have to start somewhere. <w>

> > ls are frauds. Yes, Santa, we know that not all of those folks on
> > Youtube are real, but some are. There are *some* pople who can control
> > telepathy, telekinesis, and the many of the other 75 or so known psi
> > gifts through either meditation, biofeedback, or just being freaks-- but

> So - how do you know this?

Research. Years and years of research. There are a few psi lists out
there-- ironically, because I wrote the original list and many have
copied it, lol. While there is a strange anti-psi bias out there-- as
well as a lot of nonsense-- there is a lot of valid information; all
anyone has to do is look for it.

> I believe what you are doing is making a
> statement of faith.

LOL. No, I don't have faith in anything! Well, I take that back; like
Einstein, I have faith in human stupiidity and that's all.

>  Like you, I believe in psi.  I believe there's
> *something* there, even if it's not what Madame Zona claims.  But I don't
> have any useful evidence of it.  Personal experience, personal
> observations, sure.  Useful evidence?  No.

Why, I thought personal observation was the very key to science and
without it, there wouldn't be any advances at all. As Orville Wright
once said, "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted
as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."

And since science has turned it's nose up at psi, how could one ever
learn the true nature of it or how it behaves if not through the
experiences of others? And BTW, much of medicine is fundamentally
based upon the experinces of others. When sombody staggers into a
hospital with a pain in their side, doctors don't hav to do new
research as nough pople rportd similar pains to lt them know that
appendicitis is the probable cause. Don't sneer at personal experience
and anecdotal accounts; these are the basis for learning.

> > Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific phrase such as
> > ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ to back up their
>
> But it does.  If you are claiming an unknown phenomenon, you are going to
> have to show something compelling to back it up.

Hmmm, maybe if sombody said there was an eight foot tall BHM (big
hairy Monster) running around in my neighbor's back yard. I would
indeed like more than his word; a few foot prints might be nice. But
psi stuff is not new: people have used crystal balls for scrying a
thousand years ago, while poltergeists have been around ever since the
first homes-- so on the face of it there is far more proof that
something extraordinary is going on. A couple of yars ago there was a
national *news report* about a woman who had the sudden urge to get
herself and her daughter out of their house; a few moments latter a
small plane crashed into it, destroying it completely. And we all
know of the woman who wakes up in the middle of the night when her son
gets killed half a world away in a war What more evidence do you
want? If I said that the numbers 4-8-5 was going to come in at the
lottery tomorrow and lo and behold it does, is that enough proof? It
is for most people...

> > dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the goalposts. In
> > reality,  no claim requires 'extraordinary proof',  just sufficient
> > proof.” Unfortunately, too few understand that becaus there is more than
> > sufficient proof that psi exists.
>
> First of all, there is no proof.  Outside of mathematics, proof is almost
> impossible.  What you may have is evidence, which is entirely different.
>
> Second, as I have often repeated, there isn't any *useful* evidence.

That depends upon your definition of "useful." But there is more than
sufficient evidence for the existnce of psi as all the books, movies,
TV programs, internet articles, et al shows. You won't find many
pople who can tell you about protons, but ask if they have ever had a
hunch (premonition,) or if they knew what sombody ls was thinking,
(telepathy) or was really good with animals (telempathy) -- while they
may not know the precise name for it, most people have had some kind
of direct or even indirct exprince with ESP, psi, laran, granny magic,
or whatever anyone wants to call it across the world. Only someone
with a closd mind would say that there was "no evidence."

> > Michael Crichton learned to bend spoons through TK because he had a keen
> > desire to understand. It's a pity he never made a video for Youtube heh
> > heh. Still... even when you can show the real frelling thing it looks
> > fake. Bummer.
>
> OK, here's a good question.  Have you actually seen Michael Crichton bend
> a spoon?  Or anyone else, for that matter?  Has anyone, anywhere, ever
> been seen to bend a spoon he wasn't holding?  I haven't.  How do you know
> Crichton can bend a spoon?  Did he make the claim?

You know a lot of writers are-- or were-- closet psis, or even openly
psi. Author James H, Schmitz wrote mostly "psi-fi" because he believed
in writing what he knew about: he was a known telepath who had his own
circle of like people back in the 60s; E.E. "Doc" Smith wrote mostly
psi stories, Marion Zimmr Bradley, Susan Cooper, Robert A. Heinlein,
Karl Jung, and vn Freud in his latr years cam to blive intelepathy and
was said to have had a few incidents. but ys, in his latr years,
Chricton learned th art of spoon bending through telekinesis as did
author Martin Cadin (Cyborg and The Six Million Dollar Man).

>> So, OK.  Let's say that you've convinced a scientist to take these claims
> seriously -

I wouldn't have to "convince" anyone. Even physicist Wolfgang Pauli
believed in psi; google the "Pauli Effect." Many other prominent
scintists also believe. ;-)

> not to *accept* them (that wouldn't be objective), but simply
> to maintain an open mind.  Dr. Von Mitterschmerz is willing to set aside
> any biases he has and have a sincere look.  Where does he begin?

My friend taught remote viewing and spoon bending can also be learned
by low-levl psis on up; it's just a matter of brainwave states. People
in the East acquire all kind of skills due to mditation but it takes a
long time. despite Doc Smith's comment to the contrary---


“Psychokinetics-- sometimes called psychodynamics or telekinetics-- is
a subject to which very few nonpsis have given serious consideration.
Nothing worthwhile concerning it is in general circulation, since it
can be handled only in the esoteric symbology of paraphysics and
paramechanics; both of which disciplines are closed books to non-
psionic minds.”

–– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Encounters) —


-- there actually is a lot of info on telekinesis if you look for it--
although much of that 411 is crap. The same applies to current
viewpoints on telepathy which in my opinion is a sub-space phnomenon,
but what the hell do I know about anything?

> All the anecdotal evidence is suspect.  How can you tell who's telling
> the truth, who's lying, who's simply mistaken?

Some things go beyond coincidence and becom psi manifestations: books
suddenly jump off of a solid, stable, shelf or somone wins the lottery
five or six times in a row or everywhere you go elevator doors are
open (thre's a story I could tell you about *that* but you're not the
anecdotal type)-- thre was the girl who was always involved in
spontaous fires wherever she went and the guy who caused storms not to
mntion th family whre almost every member was hurt or killed by
lightning. Events that defy statistical probabilities are usually psi.
How often do you see a missing videotape fall out of thin air?

> How can you tell
> clairvoyance from telepathy, psychokinesis from precognition?

LOL. for the record, telekinesis comes under the general heading of
psychokinesis which also includes telekinesis, parakinesis,
cryokinesis, pyrokinesis, EPK (electro-psychokinesis), storm control,
bio-psychokinesis, thought photography, levitation, and SLI (street
lamp interference). All aspects of psychokinesis control matter and /
or nergy in some way; levitation controls or neutralizes gravity while
parakinesis neutralizes inertia. In theory, if you can do TK at 7 Hz
theta it should also work for all the other gifts in this group.

Clairvoyance and precognition are "visual gifts" and work at a
slightly higher 8.3 Hz alpha frequency as does retrocognition and just
maybe psychometry as well. Precognitive telepathy presents a bit of a
problem though.

You ought to see Stephen King's movie, Rose Red: a college professor
gets together a bunch of psis to investigate a haunted house.

>  In fact,
> how can you tell whether it was a psi phenomenon, or intervention by some
> spiritual entity - God, angels, demons, etc.?

You can't; too many things in the universe are inexplicable and psi
has a way of making the strangest, the most bizarre kind of things
happen... including contact with the supernatural. And in fact, being
a psi maks one a certified weirdness magnet

> Points off if you tell me
> angels aren't real.  There are as many angelic sightings as psi events,
> or near to it.  And for that matter, how can you tell whether some of
> these psi events were caused by aliens using highly advanced science?

I was at the very beginning of the Heavens Gate movement when it
started here in the Northwest; Applewhite wasn't as crazy as people
thought he was and there's more to the story than most people will
ever know.

> Anecdotal evidence is useless for this investigation, for the reasons I
> just cited.  So we need to go to the lab.
>
> Dr. Rhine's experiments, while intriguing, have not been duplicated.  My
> own experiments, using Zener cards, were inconclusive.  But of course,
> perhaps my subjects simply weren't psychic - I didn't try thousands of
> people, only a small handful.

James H. Schmitz proposs three kinds of psis: Class I folks who only
have only sporadic incidents and who aren't aware of being psychic;
the Class II people who are aware of their abilities and have some
degree of control, and the Class III psis who are also called
"Unpredictables" because they can have abilities that can come and
go...well, unpredictably, and with unpredictable control. Probably the
class 2s are the most common. It's kind of hard not to know it when
strange things keep happening throughout your life

> So Dr. Von Mitterschmerz needs to set up an experiment of some sort,
> screening large numbers of people for psi abilities.  With any large
> number of people, there will be a few who have a high number of hits,
> apparently showing some talent.  So we focus on those.

Good luck!

> Is he expected to try to repeat Rhine's experiments?  Others have done
> so, with negative results.  Why should Dr. Von Mitterschmerz pursue such
> an unpromising course?

I never read Rhine's experiments but I can probably see why any less
than dedicated experimnter had negative results. if you do them, I
hope you get better results. Better than Peter Venkman anyway heh heh.

> So I'm asking you, what experiments should scientists perform, in order
> to properly investigate psi phenomena?  What *should* they be doing, that
> they are supposedly refusing to do?
>
> They are not, in general, going to try to reproduce experiments that
> others have already tried to reproduce, if there was a negative result.

Oh, i don't see why not. If ya go about it the right way you can point
to your results and explain why you did better than anyone else. This
is called making a discovery... :-)

> You complain of scientists moving the goalpost.  "Believers" do this all
> the time.  When Rhine's experiments proved inconclusive, people started
> talking about the laboratory being unsuitable for delicate psychic
> temperaments.

Okay, that attitude will shoot you in the foot from the very
beginning.

> What is needed is to come up with an experiment that would seem likely to
> test the phenomenon, and to agree *beforehand* on what would be
> acceptable as evidence - and what wouldn't.
>
> I don't have any ideas for this.  Do you?

*Which* phenomena do you want to test. There are over six dozen
abilities and phenomenon ranging from astral projection to xeno-
telepathy, the ability to understand alin or foreign thoughts-- not to
be confused with xenoglossy (the "gift of tongues"). If all you want
is somthing easy to do, buy a pair of dice and see who can make them
consistently come up sixes or something or lookup "psi wheel" in the
Wikipedia, which, BTW, I wrote that entry. A psi wheel is easy to make
and once covered by a transparent bowl or something, is an immensely
easy way to test for telekinesis. It's also an easy way to develop TK,
too.

Have fun. <w>

Ron

________________

“Space having four dimensions. Psiontists working through that fourth
dimension. Subspace itself-- why not many spaces existing in subspace?
Perhaps an infinite number of spaces with subspace a separating yet a
containing medium? He groped for an analogy-- found none. But the
staggering thought seemed strangely logical.”

–– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Encounters) ––


"Those whom heaven helps they call the sons of heaven. They do not
work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let
understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment.
Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."

–– Chuang Tse ––

[Bob Masta]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:34:52 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard
<or...@dslnorthwest.net> wrote:

<snip>

>> While I find Randi's arrogance annoying, he's got several good points.
>> As a magician, he's in a much better position than most to detect fraud,
>> since magic is fraud (I mean magic for entertainment, not Lord of the

>> Rings sort of stuff). =A0Magicians are tricksters. =A0Similarly, many

>> tricksters are magicians, and many so-called psychics are tricksters.
>> Randi has been helpful in uncovering these frauds.
>>
>> More to the point, he's offered a large financial reward to anyone who

>> can produce psychic phenomena in laboratory conditions. =A0No one has
>> claimed this prize. =A0Why is that?

This is a complete misrepresentation of Randi and his offer.

The basic idea is that when someone comes forward with a
claim to be tested, they work out an agreement with Randi's
institute on exactly how the test will be performed, what
will constitute success, etc. *BOTH* parties agree to this
plan before any testing, so there will be no back-pedalling
afterward, from either side. The only "straitjacket" is
that claimants have to stick to the terms they themselves
agreed to. And yes, there are some pretty simple tests of
most of these claims, with safeguards that don't hamper the
testee. That's not the problem. The problem is that the
testees either won't agree to any safeguards, or they do
agree and fail.

The hucksters and con artists of course don't even apply,
usually with some lame excuse if they are asked about it.

The claimants that really believe in their own powers are
different. They are often simple souls who just don't
understand how easily people can fool themselves, and are
surprised to discover that their "talent" doesn't appear
when actually tested objectively.

And then there are those who prefer to bad-mouth Randi
instead of examining their own biases, and contributing
something useful to the discussion.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

[Ron Hubbard]

You go on thinking that. And believing in Santa Claus and the Easter
Bunny, too. But not evrybody is foold by his bogus claim. The man is
slick, like all good con men. But I really thought there were smarter
people in the world but now I have to think that Einstein was right
again when he said “Only two things are infinite: the universe and
human stupidity—and I’m not sure about the former.”

Ron

[Ron Hubbard]

> Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


And for those who can't think it through for themselves and are
blinded by Randi's great "integrity:"



"The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10
years supports any statement that psi does
not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd
on many levels. The procedures for the
Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple
"outs" for Randi and the JREF that any
discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary
human performance would think twice about
(and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like)."

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge


Ron


_____________________

‘Arbitrary Skeptics occasionally invoke an entirely unscientific

phrase such as ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’

to back up their dismissal and justify their constant shifting of the
goalposts. In reality, claim requires

'extraordinary proof', ' just sufficient proof.”

–– TV Tropes & Idioms ––

[Chiron]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:51:28 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:

<snip>

>
> This is a complete misrepresentation of Randi and his offer.
>
> The basic idea is that when someone comes forward with a claim to be
> tested, they work out an agreement with Randi's institute on exactly how
> the test will be performed, what will constitute success, etc. *BOTH*
> parties agree to this plan before any testing, so there will be no
> back-pedalling afterward, from either side. The only "straitjacket" is
> that claimants have to stick to the terms they themselves agreed to.
> And yes, there are some pretty simple tests of most of these claims,
> with safeguards that don't hamper the testee. That's not the problem.
> The problem is that the testees either won't agree to any safeguards, or
> they do agree and fail.
>

I have no idea how Randi actually implements his offer - whether he does
so fairly or not. I simply don't know. I do know, though, that what you
say here - agreeing on the significance of results *before* conducting
the experiment - is part of what a well-designed experiment should do.
Once you've decided on how to interpret the outcome, it's much more
difficult to weasel out of it if it doesn't go your way (for *both*
sides).

> The hucksters and con artists of course don't even apply, usually with
> some lame excuse if they are asked about it.
>
> The claimants that really believe in their own powers are different.
> They are often simple souls who just don't understand how easily people
> can fool themselves, and are surprised to discover that their "talent"
> doesn't appear when actually tested objectively.

You seem to exclude the possibility that some may believe in their
powers, and actually possess such powers.

One simple and wholly adequate explanation for no one being able to claim
Randi's prize is that psi events simply don't work under laboratory
conditions. This can obviously always be claimed, and there's no way to
prove whether it's true or not. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't
be happening.

But as I've been saying, such a case would mean that, while psi events
might still exist, they would not be amenable to *scientific*
investigation.

There are many common human experiences that are not amenable to
scientific investigation. There are likely also some *uncommon* human
experiences that are similarly not amenable to such investigation.

--
This login session: $13.99

[Chiron]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:24:11 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:


Ron, how do you know that this Website is presenting accurate information?

I looked at both Randi's site (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-
challenge/challenge-faq.html), and the one you posted. Randi's site is
reasonable. It does not speak of disproving anything. It speaks of
confirming - or failing to confirm - a class of phenomena.

The site you posted makes all sorts of claims against Randi, claiming
that he has thrown up obstacles to anyone trying to meet the Challenge,
denied people from even applying, and so on. If true, these are serious
accusations that would definitely weaken Randi's claims. But... how can
we know they *are* true?

Again, I don't care for Randi's arrogance, his attitude that psi is all
fraud or ignorance or mental illness, and all that. He's NOT objective
in his attitude. Nevertheless, his offer and his stated requirements are
completely reasonable, and are nothing more or less than good, solid,
scientific procedure.

Do you have any links to specific incidents that are documented? It's
kind of hard to accept anecdotal evidence (part of the entire problem
here, of course). So-and-so wasn't allowed to move to the next test,
because Randi was being a jerk (or whatever). Maybe so, but really I
need more than that.

From what I can see here, it looks like Randi's offer is legitimate and
reasonable. The problem, as I have said more than once, is that psi
phenomena are fragile and don't survive well in laboratory conditions -
much as many other human experiences. That does NOT mean they don't
exist, or that they're not valid. It may only mean that they're not
amenable to scientific examination.

Randi's challenge was not to determine the existence (or not) of psi
phenomena. Nowhere did I find him talking about disproving them.
Everywhere, he spoke of confirming or not confirming them, which is not
at all the same as proving or disproving them.

As I said, I believe in some psi phenomena - personal experiences and
personal observations. Because of this, I believe Randi is wrong to
claim (if he does) that they don't exist.

However, Randi has one very important point that I think is vital. He
claims, with complete justification, that people just accept claims
without any sort of discrimination, no critical thinking. Doing this is
simply a bad idea. If you accept any claim that comes along, you have no
way of knowing what's true and what's not.

I think that the issue of whether psi phenomena exist is relatively
unimportant, when compared to the issue of whether people are equipped to
examine the evidence. They're not, in general. You have the Faithful
and the Infidels, the Believers and the Skeptics, and a lot of holy war
going on, and very little intelligent discussion in most places.

If a belief in psi is based on faith, there's nothing wrong with that -
as long as we acknowledge that it's based on faith. If it's supposedly
based on reason, then the reasons should be ... well... reasonable.

So for example, my belief in psi is based on personal observations. Yes,
I might have been fooled or mistaken, though I took great care to ensure
this didn't happen. Maybe I had some bout of temporary (or permanent)
mental illness. And so on. It's always possible to dismiss my
experiences as based on fraud, error, or pathology. Nevertheless, given
that I am convinced these experiences were real, and that other
explanations don't fit, it is reasonable for *me* to conclude that psi
exists.

I didn't just accept some claim from people I never met, or from someone
who makes money out of producing amazing effects (magician, professional
psychic, professional preacher, etc.). In fact, I didn't just accept the
events that I witnessed, without giving a whole lot of thought to how
they might have transpired through more ordinary means. If there were
*any* reasonable explanation that would do away with psi, I considered it
inconclusive and didn't accept it as a psi event. Even so, I still had a
handful that I couldn't eliminate. So I accept them.

That's not useful for scientific investigations, at least by others.
It's only useful to me; but it's enough.

Finally, just kind of wondering - so what if Randi is a fake? At the
very most, if he got his way completely, all he could ever show is that
no one was able to demonstrate psi phenomena under the circumstances he
required. He could not prove they don't exist - that isn't possible. He
couldn't even show that they can't exist under his conditions. All he
could ever show is that no one was able to demonstrate them.

So what? Do you see Randi as actually being harmful? Arrogant, snotty,
maybe. Wrong, yes, as far as my experiences have indicated. But where's
the harm in what he's doing?

If people have psi experiences, they'll know Randi is wrong. If they
don't, then ... what difference does it make whether they believe he's
right or not?

I hope it's clear that I'm asking a question here, not trying to be
clever with rhetorical questions. I honestly don't see where it matters
whether people believe in psi or not.

--
I owe, I owe,
It's off to work I go...

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 12, 1:19 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:24:11 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
> Ron, how do you know that this Website is presenting accurate information?

Look, i never met the man personally (I did see Uri Gellar in action
whn I was younger, but that's a bit beside the point) so I, like
everyone else, must make up my mind from the facts:

1. That "offer" has been around for over ten years or more and no
psi-- no one-- has vr won it.

2. There are some powerful psis around who can do some truly amazing
things, and if the offer was real, would have won
by now.

3. Randi has *said* he has made that offr so h would never have to pay
out-- and no one has won.

4. Randi is a known liar, adjusting the truth to met his own agenda.
And,

5. Not just on or two people claim they wr turnd down or th testing
procss wnt on for years, but MANY PEOPLE have claimed that they applid
ovr and ovr again but either got no reply or were turned down. i don't
know if there diffrent vrsions of the challnge FAQ but the version I
read had so many loopholes and catchs that anyon with two cnts worth
of brains would doubt the intentions of the offer. only somon havily
biased in Randi's favor would s nothing wrong with it. Thr ar lawyers
who lookd it over and said it was bogus-- so I may hav troubl doing
calculus but I *can* add 2 plus 2 and com up with th conclusion that
randi's offer is a scam. The only psi-- the only ones-- who might
possibly win with all of those boobytraps are Jean Grey of the X-Men,
Richard Tyler of the 4400, Wolf Messing, and God; and I evn hav doubts
about them as well.

> I looked at both Randi's site (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-
> challenge/challenge-faq.html), and the one you posted.  Randi's site is
> reasonable.  It does not speak of disproving anything.  It speaks of
> confirming - or failing to confirm - a class of phenomena.

Of course, what would you expect? "Hi, I am a con man and a fraud, but
I want all of you idiots to sriously believe me whn i say that my
offer is ral and that I honestly will pay a million dollars to anyon
who can prove som paranormal ability at a hundred to one odds to begin
with and a 100,000 to 1 odds later on. You have nothing to lose heh
heh?" Seriously?.

> The site you posted makes all sorts of claims against Randi, claiming
> that he has thrown up obstacles to anyone trying to meet the Challenge,
> denied people from even applying, and so on.  If true, these are serious
> accusations that would definitely weaken Randi's claims.  But... how can
> we know they *are* true?

Gee, how do you know Randi is true? And I don't mean all the
unthinking hero worship that so many people fall down at his feet and
kiss his ass with, but with critical objectivity that would stand
rigorous analysis? Who has something to lose: the guy who made the
megabuck offer or the many people who said they applied and wasn't
tested? Who wrote the offer with 100,000 to 1 odds built-in if the
intent was to honestly prove the paranormal-- but to disprove it, now
that so-called offer is just perfect. Oh, puh-leeze!

Besides I don't have to prove Randi is a fake; Randi has to prove that
he isn't. Have you ever heard ONE SINGLE PERSON ever say that they
applied, took the test in a timely manner, and failed but they thought
it was a honst tst nonetheless? Just one?

> Again, I don't care for Randi's arrogance, his attitude that psi is all
> fraud or ignorance or mental illness, and all that.  He's NOT objective
> in his attitude.  Nevertheless, his offer and his stated requirements are
> completely reasonable, and are nothing more or less than good, solid,
> scientific procedure.

I'm not going to address this cuz I *know* you won't like my answer.
Blieve what you will; most people do.

> Do you have any links to specific incidents that are documented?  It's
> kind of hard to accept anecdotal evidence (part of the entire problem
> here, of course).  So-and-so wasn't allowed to move to the next test,
> because Randi was being a jerk (or whatever).  Maybe so, but really I
> need more than that.

You know, you really do use "anecdotal evidence" like a crutch. One
day it will be your undoing.

>
> From what I can see here, it looks like Randi's offer is legitimate and
> reasonable.  The problem, as I have said more than once, is that psi
> phenomena are fragile and don't survive well in laboratory conditions -
> much as many other human experiences.  That does NOT mean they don't
> exist, or that they're not valid.  It may only mean that they're not
> amenable to scientific examination.

Okay, as evil-Willow once said, "Bored now." I've losing my patience
with anyone who the psi community would definitely consider to be
"head-blind" and / or a victim of the Sunnydale syndrome; you're a
waste of time. If you believe Randi's offer is so fair, take his test
and when you get the million, give me a call.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
> “…Considering what the ordinary human being intrinsically is. By
> ‘ordinary’ is meant, of course, the person to whom the entire field of
> psionics is a sealed realm; the person in whose tightly closed and
> rigidly conventional mind no supra-normal phenomenon can possibly
> occur or exist.”
>
> –– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Explorers) —

Smith wrote much better Science Fiction than Hubbard.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Chiron]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:06:29 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

Sorry, Ron, but it is reasonable to ask how you know a source of
information is reliable.

"Randi is a known liar." OK, then it should be a simple matter to find
evidence to support that. Randi makes a statement or offer; someone
takes him up on that claim or offer; Randi doesn't come through. Very
simple.

"Randi's offer must be unfair, because there are known psi talents out
there who would otherwise have claimed the prize." That is only one
possible reason why the prize was never claimed. Another possibility is
that none of these psi talents were able to perform. Without additional
knowledge, there is no basis for forming a conclusion.

I don't see why you are so hostile to me. I am doing nothing more
terrible than asking you (or anyone) "How do you know?" This is always a
reasonable question.

I don't "use" anecdotal evidence as a crutch. I simply reject it as
generally not useful for trying to find the truth about a topic.

And you conveniently ignored my final question, which is "who cares if
Randi is a liar?" So he's a fake. He refuses to pay off, refuses to
perform a fair test, and so on. Maybe some people who might otherwise
consider the possibility of psi events, now are convinced they don't
occur. So what?

Are you trying to make converts? Are you proselytizing? Are you
accepting things on faith? If you are, that's fine, but then we're not
talking about science. We're talking about religion, which is a whole
other topic.

In my experience, when a person gets upset about having a statement
challenged, it is often a sign that his thinking is not sound, that there
are some holes in his arguments. You might do well to consider this
possibility.

--
Driver does not carry cash.

[Chiron]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:06:29 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's
the things we know that ain't so."
-- Artemus Ward



--
I tripped over a hole that was sticking up out of the ground.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 12, 7:47 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
> > “…Considering what the ordinary human being intrinsically is. By
> > ‘ordinary’ is meant, of course, the person to whom the entire field of
> > psionics is a sealed realm; the person in whose tightly closed and
> > rigidly conventional mind no supra-normal phenomenon can possibly
> > occur or exist.”
>
> > –– E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Explorers) —
>
>    Smith wrote much better Science Fiction than Hubbard.

*Everybody* wrote better sci-fi than L. Ron Hubbard.

Ron

[Bob Masta]

Not at all, just reporting what has happened with actual
claimants.

>One simple and wholly adequate explanation for no one being able to claim
>Randi's prize is that psi events simply don't work under laboratory
>conditions. This can obviously always be claimed, and there's no way to
>prove whether it's true or not. However, that doesn't mean it couldn't
>be happening.

This has been called the "shyness effect". It's a classic
dodge, a way for claimants to never have to deliver the
goods except when among "friendly" (read: "gullible")
audiences.

It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
"laboratory". If you claim your powers only appear on the
corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
that.

>But as I've been saying, such a case would mean that, while psi events
>might still exist, they would not be amenable to *scientific*
>investigation.

This implies there there is some class of phenomena that
will always be "beyond science". But that's not a
supportable position; all we can say is that there are some
things that science doesn't have a handle on at this moment
in time. But there are no a priori restrictions on what
science is ultimately capable of investigating. And please
note that by "science" I only mean "application of reason",
not confined to degree-holders.

>There are many common human experiences that are not amenable to
>scientific investigation. There are likely also some *uncommon* human
>experiences that are similarly not amenable to such investigation.

It would be hard to come up with a common or uncommon human
experience that is *in principle* not amenable to scientific
investigation. Sure, there may be limits in current
techniques, but that doesn't mean there is a *fundamental*
limit. This same story has played out repeatedly over the
history of science, where prior mysteries eventually become
well-understood. Predicting a limit to the process would be
risky indeed.

[Chiron]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:31:40 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:

>
>>One simple and wholly adequate explanation for no one being able to
>>claim Randi's prize is that psi events simply don't work under
>>laboratory conditions. This can obviously always be claimed, and
>>there's no way to prove whether it's true or not. However, that doesn't
>>mean it couldn't be happening.
>
> This has been called the "shyness effect". It's a classic dodge, a way
> for claimants to never have to deliver the goods except when among
> "friendly" (read: "gullible") audiences.
>
> It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that could only
> appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because there are no

Falling in love. Singing, for some people. Public speaking, for many
people. Any sort of artistic endeavor requiring inspiration. All kinds
of activities are subject to "shyness."

Yes, it's often used as a dodge; but there may still be something to it.

>
>>But as I've been saying, such a case would mean that, while psi events
>>might still exist, they would not be amenable to *scientific*
>>investigation.
>
> This implies there there is some class of phenomena that will always be
> "beyond science". But that's not a supportable position; all we can

Not really. I'm describing things as they are, not necessarily as they
always will be. In my opinion, it is *never* a good idea to claim that
anything is impossible. The minute you say that, some putz will come
along and do it, making you look like an idiot.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin, 1895

"The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances,
known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a
practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the
air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the
demonstration of any physical fact to be." - astronomer Simon Newcomb,
1906

"Space travel is bunk" - Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of
Britain, 1957

So yeah, I'm not about to sit here and claim I know what is impossible
for science to attain.

But at the moment, psi phenomena - if they exist - are not amenable to
scientific investigation. And I guess they're also not amenable if they
*don't* exist... hmm...

> say is that there are some things that science doesn't have a handle on
> at this moment in time. But there are no a priori restrictions on what
> science is ultimately capable of investigating. And please note that by
> "science" I only mean "application of reason", not confined to
> degree-holders.
>

I understand. I still doubt whether it will ever be possible to measure
or quantify *everything* in human experience. Whatever cannot be
quantified (and whatever doesn't follow the rules of logic) aren't going
to work with science. Of course, I have no way to *prove* my doubt.
That's OK. I don't insist on it. I'm not very attached to my notions,
and I may wind up arguing against them the next time the topic is
mentioned.

>>There are many common human experiences that are not amenable to
>>scientific investigation. There are likely also some *uncommon* human
>>experiences that are similarly not amenable to such investigation.
>
> It would be hard to come up with a common or uncommon human experience
> that is *in principle* not amenable to scientific investigation. Sure,
> there may be limits in current techniques, but that doesn't mean there
> is a *fundamental* limit. This same story has played out repeatedly
> over the history of science, where prior mysteries eventually become
> well-understood. Predicting a limit to the process would be risky
> indeed.
>

But what does "in principle" mean? Sure - anything that can be
quantified and that follows the rules of logic, can be dealt with using
science. However, in physics there is a limit to the accuracy of
measurements. You cannot, even in principle, obtain measurement of
arbitrary precision. There is a limit, a *fundamental* limit that won't
allow it. I'm referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Of course, measuring the momentum and position of subatomic particles
isn't exactly a "common human experience," but it does suggest that there
may, indeed, be things that will remain beyond the reach of science.

But as I say - I don't insist on it. And I wouldn't dare try to name any
particular phenomenon as being beyond its reach, because if I do,
tomorrow's headlines will prove me wrong.

Be well.

--
Keep on keepin' on.

[Ron Hubbard]

Psi is essentially a proprty of living things, and if you think
otherwise. go build a psi generator; you'll be rich byond your wildest
dreams! But if someone gave you unlimited funding and all the state-of-
the-art quipment in the world, you may come up with something but it
sure as hell won't produce a psi effect.

And now we get to the crux of things: you die-hard skeptics are so
determined to say that psi is not real pulls out the specious
smokescreen argument "if anyone has an ability, they must be able use
it under any circumstances-- in a lab (or anywhere else). That's an
incredibly stupid argument, as anyone who would use it would know. Can
anyone do a complicated algebra problem in their head while bright
flashing lights and loud sirens are going off in their face? Of course
not! But a psi-gifted person is expcted to perform under equivalent
circumstances and when they can't some yokel yells "See, I told you
there was nothing to it!"

Your statemnt is of course, rhetorical bull shit.

There have been numerous demonstrations of psi in labs all around the
world and th us military ven has protocols for technical remote
veiwing. But like anything psychological / physiological there has to
be some real motivation to perform, Now if somebody got five dollars
for every right answer, the test scores would go way up. But hell,
it's asir for me to go and play that same $5.00 at the lottery and
walk away with $3,000; I've done that several times before-- ya can
find my picture on the wall of Winners at a little grocery store in
Vancouver, WA. Nah, psi ain't real...

But then, maybe that's what scares you. You'r scard that there ar
people who can do things you can't and it's just ating you up ain't
it?


Ron


_________________

“Hard-headed, practical people, luckily, were inclined to consider
stories about psis to be at least ninety-nine percent superstitious
nonsense. However, the ones who didn't share that belief sometimes
reacted undesirably.”

–– Telzey Amberdon (Company Planet) ––

[Chiron]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:50:07 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> But then, maybe that's what scares you. You'r scard that there ar people
> who can do things you can't and it's just ating you up ain't it?

Ron, it is entirely possible for someone to disagree with you, without
them having to be stupid, crazy, stubborn, frightened, or whatever. In
fact, the might not even be wrong, but even if they are - it needn't be
because of any deficiency in their reasoning ability or their willingness
to entertain new ideas.

You are resorting to "ad hominem" arguments, trying to prove your
position by attacking the person you are debating with, instead of
limiting your comments to the statements the person is making. This is
never appropriate. Some might say that a person resorts to it when he
has no other points to make; I don't go quite that far, but it's a
logical fallacy nonetheless.

Right now the energy of psi - assuming it has anything whatsoever to do
with energy - is unknown, and has not been shown to exist outside of
living things. That could always change. I don't see why it is
impossible for this hypothetical energy to be identified, understood, and
perhaps even generated by non-biologic means.

You appear to be confusing the statement "psi is not amenable to
scientific investigation" with "psi is bullshit." The two statements are
not equivalent. You yourself admit that a person isn't likely to be able
to exhibit psi talent under lab conditions, and that's fine. Psi can
still exist, but in this case, it can't be investigated scientifically.

This is not saying it's bullshit, nor is it anyone being "afraid" of it
or whatever.

--
The groundhog is like most other prophets; it delivers its message and
then
disappears.

[Ron Hubbard]

> It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
> could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
> there are no particular limits on what can be used for the
> "laboratory".  If you claim your powers only appear on the
> corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
> the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
> that.

Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
nature can't be tested in a lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_light_interference_phenomenon

http://paranormal.about.com/od/telekinesispsychokinesis/a/aa052508.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/966/can-some-people-extinguish-streetlamps-by-means-of-their-bodily-emanations

http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/SLI.html


Ron



_________________

"As a scientist I must be mindful of the past; all too often it has
happened that matters of great value to science were over -looked
because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook
of the time."

-- Allen J. Hynek --

[Bob Masta]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard
<or...@centurylink.net> wrote:

>> It's pretty hard to imagine a legitimate phenomenon that
>> could only appear under *non*-laboratory conditions, because
>> there are no particular limits on what can be used for the

>> "laboratory". =A0If you claim your powers only appear on the

>> corner of Fifth and Main at rush hour on the 2nd Tuesday of
>> the month, somebody can work out a protocol to investigate
>> that.
>
>
>Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
>bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
>others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
>nature can't be tested in a lab.

You seem ot have missed my point, which was that a
"laboratory" is not needed for a scientific investigation.
And yes, street light interference is a good example, and
yes, it has been studied "on the street". And no, there is
no compelling evidence of anything paranormal.

Wikipedia calls it "confirmation bias", but that is only the
tail end of the story. Confirmation bias is when you pay
more attention to events that confirm what you already
expect. But until recently nobody had any expectation of
SLI, so how could they have a confirmation bias?

There's another phenomenon going on, which is that we tend
to relate external events to ourselves. That's perfectly
normal, and probably at the root of many psi claims. So when
you are driving along and a light goes out just as you get
near it, you don't stop and think about what the light does
when you are *not* near it. And what about when *other*
people are near it? So if you have a lamp that is "cycling"
(typically because it is near the end of its life) such that
it goes off and on frequently instead of just staying on,
then the odds are pretty good that when it goes off
*somebody* will be near it, and that if nobody is near it
then nobody remarks about it. (Duh!)

So once you have it in your mind that the cycling is all
about *you*, then the confirmation bias comes into play.
The next time, the light may go off when you are a
half-block away, but you will still count it as a "hit". And
so on.

If you really believe it is something about *you*, or even
about humans in general, consider setting up a video camera
that can view one of these magical lights and the traffic
below it, and see what happens.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 5:33 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Ron Hubbard
>

> >Her's somthing totally unlik any other psi gift in that it hasa only
> >bn around within the last thirty years and not for ages like all the
> >others: SLI (street light interference)-- an ability by it's very
> >nature can't be tested in a lab.
>
> You seem ot have missed my point,

No, I didn't miss your point, I *ignored * it. Do you honestly think I
haven't heard all of this before? And I do mean ALL of it before. Gee,
you would think the world was getting just a little bit smarter now
that it's the 21st century, but Ripley was right: IQs *are^ dropping.
Oy.

Look, I automatically tune out and quickly walk-- somtimes even run--
from anyone who sides with Randi or who seriously thinks his scam of
an offer has any validity. That shows that there is a defenitve
shortage of critical thought and a prejudice that I have encountered
far too often. It's sad that some people can't see the forest for the
trees, but still somtimes I try to spread just a little enlightenment.
I try to get pople to think if only a little bit, My bad!

Ron


___________________

Hubbard’s First Law of Perversity: "We all pay a high price for
stupidity."

-- Orion. Hubbard --

[Chiron]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:33:44 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:

> Wikipedia calls it "confirmation bias", but that is only the tail end of

This is probably one of the major sources of error in investigations. It
applies to such varied activities as psi, gambling, and relationships.
We tend to focus on the events that support what we believe, and to
filter out the stuff that we don't believe or that we don't like.

This can't be used to explain all mysteries, of course. However, it is
something we tend to do unconsciously and automatically, so we are not as
aware of it as it influences our fact-finding. It affects us far more
than we like to admit.

My career was as legal secretary, where I saw firsthand how utterly
unreliable eyewitness testimony is. The only time two people ever agree
on what happened during an emotionally-laden situation (e.g., an
accident) was when they'd been carefully coached as to what "really"
happened. People just don't experience events - at least, not the scary
or upsetting ones - in the same way.

Another major source of error - possibly even more serious - is our
intense desire to know, to be certain about something. Many of us would
rather be wrong, than in doubt. But that's not a good way to learn
anything.

Most of the time when people get annoyed with me over a discussion, it's
not because I dare to disagree with them. It's because I ask them, in
all seriousness, "how do you know?" In all fairness to me, I ask the
same question of myself. Most of the time I have to admit that basically
I *don't* really know; I've accepted something based on guessing who's a
more reliable witness, or whether it's anything I've experienced or heard
of, stuff like that. My information is no more reliable than anyone
else's. Possibly my only advantage is that I accept this and work around
it...

And yet... there *was* this one street light, decades ago... I could see
it from many blocks away. It would shine steadily until I got within a
few feet of it, then suddenly start blinking. And when I got past it, it
would stop again. I wonder...

At this late date I can't say whether it blinked even when I was far from
it, and I simply didn't notice it as much. I certainly can't produce the
effect at will. Still...

--
Read terms and conditions.

[Winston]

Bob Masta wrote:

(...)

> There's another phenomenon going on, which is that we tend
> to relate external events to ourselves. That's perfectly
> normal, and probably at the root of many psi claims. So when
> you are driving along and a light goes out just as you get
> near it, you don't stop and think about what the light does
> when you are *not* near it. And what about when *other*
> people are near it? So if you have a lamp that is "cycling"
> (typically because it is near the end of its life) such that
> it goes off and on frequently instead of just staying on,
> then the odds are pretty good that when it goes off
> *somebody* will be near it, and that if nobody is near it
> then nobody remarks about it. (Duh!)
>
> So once you have it in your mind that the cycling is all
> about *you*, then the confirmation bias comes into play.
> The next time, the light may go off when you are a
> half-block away, but you will still count it as a "hit". And
> so on.

Not necessarily. :)

Our city controls the street lights near the supermarket
in my neighborhood to discourage pedestrians in favor of
vehicular traffic.
(No license plates on peds, ya see.)

All along the street, each street light in turn will shut
off as I approach within ~half a block. A couple don't
but the lights owned by the city do. It's a little eerie.

If I travel by car, the street lights generally behave themselves.
(I did see one shut off whilst I was driving, but I also
saw a pedestrian heading for it a couple hundred feet
later!)

I will have to test the lights by bicycle at some point.

> If you really believe it is something about *you*, or even
> about humans in general, consider setting up a video camera
> that can view one of these magical lights and the traffic
> below it, and see what happens.

That'd require a compatriot.
I wouldn't want them to get into trouble
with the city and their Corporate Masters.

:)

--Winston

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 5:33 am, N0S...@daqarta.com (Bob Masta) wrote:

Sigh...

Okay, prmonition and prcognition, clairvoyance and even telekinesis
has ben noted for hundreds of years but SLI is a brand new item not
seen until maybe the eighties. You might ask why? Streetlights have
been around a long time; decades.

But lt's get real: yes, lights do go out once in a while-- it's both
natural and a statistical probibility. But how statististical is it
for nine streetlights to go out in sequence?

And think it through: do you think somone could mistake walking down
the street and hav two streetlights go out just so they can be almost
hit by a car in the sudden darkness or have the light overhead go out
suddenly while crossing the street and stumble over the curb, braking
an ankle? Misidentification of some nataural occurnce? Hahahaha!

As for other people, some of them have actually recorded this stuff on
videotape. But of course, if somebody recorded a real flying saucer
land in their yard, the first response for far too many people is to
label it fake. We live in such sad times when Photoshop and other
programs has made video and photographic evidence almost usless as
proof of anything! And perhaps as a worse social phenomena, it has
gotten so many morons making fake video that all the real evidence of
psi or any paranormal/unusual event gets swamped in the fake crap. Oy.

Ron

[Ron Hubbard]

Funny thing, that started happening to me for a while then it stopped
for almost two whole years; somtims those "weak" lights would go out
as I pass by then come back on again as I get further away. But
probably the freakiest is when I walk by a house and th lights go out
at the samw time... Coincidence? Maybe once, even twice-- but numrous
of times becomes a pattern.

Physicist Wolfgang Pauli had that kind effect on things so some of the
people around began calling it the "Pauli effect" although there is a
proper name for it; they wouldn't let him come around if they were
working on critical experiments. Say, have you ever noticed other
things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by? <g>

Ron

[Chiron]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:46:24 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> Physicist Wolfgang Pauli had that kind effect on things so some of the
> people around began calling it the "Pauli effect" although there is a
> proper name for it; they wouldn't let him come around if they were
> working on critical experiments. Say, have you ever noticed other things
> like elevator doors being open all the time you come by? <g>

I think the "Pauli Effect" may actually be a proper name for it. It's
supposed to occur when certain powerful intellects are near labs working
on things these intellects have an interest in. I don't know if it seeps
over to other labs (or elevators).

This effect made it into at least one science fiction short story from
around the Sixties or so...

--
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a
necessity."
-- Oscar Wilde

[Winston]

Ron Hubbard wrote:

(...)

> Say, have you ever noticed other
> things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by?<g>

Well, no. :)

I notice elevator doors remaining shut for a loooong
time (nearly) every time I come by.

--Winston

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 14, 3:17 pm, Chiron

Okay, you have a problem. There are more people in the world with type
B blood than thre ar psi-gifted people and many of those have no idea
that they are indeed psi-gifted. When weird shit happens, its seldom
in front of audiences and all you hav are anecdotal accounts. I was
forced to take a comprhensive psych exam on an unbearably hot day so I
could get disability. I was hot, sick, bored, and did not want to b
there, so I was thinking about a story I had heard about how Jung trid
to convince Freud there wa something to the paranormal by making a
loud noise in Freud's bookcase.through psychic means.

I wanted something to happen...

While idly answring the qustions ther wasa a rumbling noise and
suddenly the picture on the wall just exploded. The psychologist
looked at it for a few momenets in silnce, thn turnd to m and askd me
if I believed in ESP; considering th circumstancs, I was afraid to
give him an honest answer so I lied and said no. He stard at me a
moment, then wrot somthing down and continued the exam. A few weeks
later yhy approved m for disability and I got all of the paprwork from
all the doctors I had seen and thir comments, among them was the
psychologist's report to the Social Security Administration that said:
"Subject dos not blieve in ESP." My jaw dropped; why would he actually
note that on such a rport? And more curiously, why would th SSA even
care? Here in Orgon, most of the people accepts psi as normal and as
believable as gravity-- doctors, psychologists, neurologists,
therapists, pharmacists, peope lin grocery stores--- but the SSA?
Freaky.

Anyhoo, anecdotal information often times has as much value as
anything else. This is not generally well known, but Freud had during
his later years come to accept telepathy-- he was one of the few
famous people who validated Wolf Messing's abilities as a pusher --
but his colleagues feared that if the psychological community became
aware of his views it would hurt the then infant practice of psycho-
therapy so his belief in things psychic was suppressed. Had Frued not
died prematurely of cancer, he might have made parapsychology
"respectable."


Ron


__________________

"No I don't believe in luck. No I don't believe in circumstance no
more. Accidents never happen in a perfect world, so I won't believe in
luck. After all accidents never happen-- could have planned it all;
precognition in my ears. "

–– Blondie ––








sII

[Jamie]

That's the same as street lights and people in front of you
trying to get that last word in on the cell phone as they
are fumbling to put everything down, including their coffee,
make up kit, and hope the police didn't see them do all of this
and get moving before the light turns RED again. Meanwhile the
whole line behind them are blowing their horns.

I just love cell phoners in a crowded lane when you need to get
somewhere. Maybe that, too, can fit this subject!

Jamie

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 16, 3:50 pm, Jamie

<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> Winston wrote:
> > Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
> > (...)
>
> >> Say, have you ever noticed other
> >> things like elevator doors being open all the time you come by?<g>
>
> > Well, no. :)
>
> > I notice elevator doors remaining shut for a loooong
> > time (nearly) every time I come by.

when I was taking college classses I started to notic that very time I
arrivd an levator car would b ther with it's doors opn. First two or
thre times i thought it was coincidence but eight times?

So I started to wondr, what would happn if i was putting the "mojo" on
an elevator that had somebody in it... it wasn't until winter that I
went up north to Vancouver on a short vacation when one cold evening I
came into the hotel and once again there was a car with the doors
open. I walked in and pushed the button for my floor when I heard from
behind me a voice yelling "It was you! It was waiting for you! I
pushed all of the buttons and it wouldn't go; it was waiting for you!"
Bhind m was an old lady I didn't s before. Sh was sverely freaked
out; since sometimes it's hard enough to explain some psi-stuff to
other psis, it can be next to impossible to explain it to a... uh...
norm... so i didn't even try. I don't know whether she got off on her
floor, or if she got off on any floor just to get away from me, but
either way she got off before i did. I was both amused and amazed with
myslf as I had affected a mechanical device from what had to be a
hundred feet away or so, and through solid steel and granite (but I
always known that psi gos through everything) but I was still pretty
impressed with myself.

But once i had the answer to the big question, I found that I couldn't
whammy elevators for a long time; I had to stand around and wait just
like anyone else. It was about three years before elevators started
waiting for me again. Like SLI, I couldn't do that sort of thing if I
tried but at least I can't get killed by an open elevator door heh
heh. .

Ron


_____________________

"Those whom heaven helps they call the sons of heaven. They do not
work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let
understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment.
Those who cannot do it, will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."

–– Chuang Tse ––

[Chiron]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:32:27 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> Okay, you have a problem. There are more people in the world with type B

Actually, that's not a problem. We seem to be talking at cross-purposes
here, which is kind of ironic because I probably agree with you more than
I disagree.

Anecdotal data or information is perfectly acceptable, in my book. There
are people I know who, I believe, would not lie to save their lives, who
are sober and drug-free, etc. - and who insist that they've seen things.
I believe these people. I totally accept what they say. They have
absolutely no reason to lie to me about this stuff, nothing to gain, and
they're not seeking my approval. They've just had strange things happen,
things that absolutely don't fit into our usual conceptions, and that's
that.

I have also had some remarkable personal occurrences that, despite my
best efforts to find more ordinary explanations, remain unexplained.
Just a handful of anecdotes, but highly convincing to me, and to those
who know me to be honest.

Of course, if I don't personally know someone, I am less likely to accept
everything they tell me. But that's a reasonable caution. Not everyone
is honest.

To my way of thinking, psi phenomena certainly exist. I am convinced of
it. When it comes to the existence of psi phenomena, we are probably on
the same page - we apparently both believe in them.

My seemingly skeptical comments were not addressed to the reality of
these phenomena, but rather to whether they were appropriate subjects of
*scientific* study. Science examines only a small subset of reality,
using only a small subset of the tools available to us. They are limited
to phenomena that can in some way be measured (as I keep saying). They
also require that the phenomena be somehow repeatable.

This doesn't happen with psi, as far as I can see. All the limited
*scientific* tests have come up dry.

Here in the West (I assume you're in the West) we often tend to equate
reality with scientific fact, but of course the two have little in
common. Most of reality is simply beyond the ability of scientists to
evaluate. Maybe this will change some day, but for now most of reality
is simply outside the domain of science.

But those things are real, all the same. Even if science never can deal
with them, they're real.

If I was unclear about that, I apologize. I never intended to say that
psi phenomena are false, just that they're more than science can handle
at the moment.

As for Freud - I didn't know he was accepting telepathy. I read
something by him about parapsychology, and it seemed he would twist
everything in order to do away with the possibility. I never knew he was
changing his opinion. Too bad he didn't live long enough to weigh in on
the topic.

--
An ounce of mother is worth a ton of priest.
-- Spanish proverb

[Ron Hubbard]

> My seemingly skeptical comments were not addressed to the reality of
> these phenomena, but rather to whether they were appropriate subjects of
> *scientific* study.

LOL. Don't tak this the wrong way but that kind of reasoning has been
the underlying theme for the last 300 years of science. Thn 99 per
cent of the mainstram folks follow traditionally accpted rasoning whil
that other 1 pr cnt is out there discovering grms, curare and
digitalis, and most of all the advances we have today. They should
make science students study the history of science, too.

But if ya need motivation-- and I honestly don't car on way or th
other-- thr are innumrabl rasons to study psi: it travels faster than
light, thus seggesting the current paradigm is ither wrong or
incomplete. How does a signal travel faster than light if nothing is
supposedly abl to do that? Is Einstin wrong or is psi operating in a
subspace manifold? if subspac is a real medium, can it indeed be used
for FTL communications using electronics? At least one person started
to patent a method for FTL communications-- unforyunately it would
take a lot of mony to test that idea.

What is time? How does precognition and retrocognition work through
time? Are there multiple realities and is predestination an inevitable
aspect of this one?

there ar ovr six dozn different psi gifts and each one affects our
reality in some unique way that mainstream science doesn't have a clue
about, whil tchnology is rushing headlong towards th future, w don't
know any more about the fundamntal nature of rality than we did when
Lonardo Davinci was dropping balls off the tower of Pisa, What is
gravity? Inertia? How does psi affect those properties when nothing
else does? Should psi be investigated? Really?

> This doesn't happen with psi, as far as I can see.  All the limited
> *scientific* tests have come up dry.

No, that's the lie. Randi and others are always doing their best to
make that bullshit claim and suppress whatevr they can. But to be
honst, i really don't see the why of that! Are these people really so
afraid to acknowlege psi-- they sure go about denying it with the zeal
usually found in bigots and rascists. Even th Wikipedia is biased:
quick to bring up how nobody has vr "won" Randi's bogus offer but not
objective nough to look at that so-called offer in an unbiased way.

> Here in the West (I assume you're in the West)

Oregon is in the land of confusion usually called the Northwest. <g>

> we often tend to equate
> reality with scientific fact, but of course the two have little in
> common.  Most of reality is simply beyond the ability of scientists to
> evaluate.  Maybe this will change some day, but for now most of reality
> is simply outside the domain of science.

Oh, puh-leze! Get off their asses and get over the notion that
Einstein's word is God, thn thr can be progress. oh, and forget
applying an outdated methodology that demands repetition of something
that is by it's nature not [easily] repeatable-- that's idiocy. The
Monroe Institute made the most advances in parapsychology and psionics
when it did it's neurological studies on a group of psis, And yet that
great bit of research has gone all but completly unnoticed.

> As for Freud - I didn't know he was accepting telepathy.  I read
> something by him about parapsychology, and it seemed he would twist
> everything in order to do away with the possibility.  I never knew he was
> changing his opinion.  Too bad he didn't live long enough to weigh in on
> the topic.

And so it goes. Wiki will go out of its way to dlete any relevant
positive information when it comes to psi even when it comes to
pioneers in biofeedback, parapsychology hypnotism, and all the related
fields who have studied psi-- giving the impression that there is
nothing to it. It took a lot of effort just to get my own tiny entry
from being deleted;n anyone who says there isn't an anti-psi
conspiracy is either lying, stupid, or both. ;-(

Ron


____________________

“Non-psionicists believed, then as now, that all psionics was fakery,
imagination, and crackpotism; that what actuality, if any, it had was
witchcraft and black magic and must be stamped out wherever and
whenever found.”

— E.E. “Doc” Smith (Subspace Encounters) —


"Strange and bizarre things happen to you with alarming frequency. You
are the one with whom demons will stop and chat. Magic items with
disturbing properties will find their way to you. The only talking dog
on 20th-century Earth will come to you with his problems. Dimensional
gates sealed for centuries will crack open just so that you can be
bathed in the energies released... or perhaps the entities on the
other side will invite you to tea. Nothing lethal will happen to you,
at least not immediately, and occasionally some weirdness will be
beneficial. But most of the time it will be terribly, terribly
inconvenient."

— "Weirdness Magnet" disadvantage from GURPS













, ,

[Chiron]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:55:15 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

>> My seemingly skeptical comments were not addressed to the reality of
>> these phenomena, but rather to whether they were appropriate subjects
>> of *scientific* study.
>
> LOL. Don't tak this the wrong way but that kind of reasoning has been
> the underlying theme for the last 300 years of science. Thn 99 per cent
> of the mainstram folks follow traditionally accpted rasoning whil that
> other 1 pr cnt is out there discovering grms, curare and digitalis, and
> most of all the advances we have today. They should make science
> students study the history of science, too.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those past 300 years coincided almost
exactly with the enormous leap in material benefits we've experienced.
That was science talking. The discovery of germs, curare, digitalis, and
various other such was a result of careful scientific evaluation. It was
not done by intuition, nor was it accepted because of anecdotes. The
germ theory of disease was produced and furthered by Louis Pasteur (among
many others). Pasteur was a careful experimenter. He wouldn't accept
that a microscopic entity could cause disease unless: it was found in an
animal who had the disease; it could be cultured outside the body; it
would cause disease when introduced to another animal; and it could be
isolated from the second animal. These are all repeatable experiments.

Science has its limits, which we in the West tend to forget, and which
some arrogant scientists try to deny. Within those limits, it is the
single most effective way of acquiring knowledge and understanding
things. When you want to build a bridge or an airplane, you want it to
be done scientifically, not artfully (or rather, your main goal is
effectiveness and safety, not esthetics). When you're talking about the
physical world, science is the way to go.

Outside those limits, science must remain silent - though it often
doesn't. Nothing says that science can't grow to include stuff that is
presently beyond it, but until that happens, those things will be beyond
it. That's not really a problem. It's just the way it is right now.

>
> But if ya need motivation-- and I honestly don't car on way or th

I don't see why you think I need motivation. I've been studying this
stuff for over 50 years now, ever since I was in grade school. I've read
everything I could get my hands on about these topics, attended lectures,
gone to seances, sat in at "laying on of hands" services, spoken to
psychics and "gypsies" and tarot card readers and anyone who might have
some inkling about psi.

> other-- thr are innumrabl rasons to study psi: it travels faster than
> light, thus seggesting the current paradigm is ither wrong or
> incomplete. How does a signal travel faster than light if nothing is
> supposedly abl to do that? Is Einstin wrong or is psi operating in a
> subspace manifold? if subspac is a real medium, can it indeed be used
> for FTL communications using electronics? At least one person started to
> patent a method for FTL communications-- unforyunately it would take a
> lot of mony to test that idea.
>

There is no evidence to suggest that psi goes faster than the speed of
light. Since psi relies on humans to be detected (and perhaps to be
generated as well), we are always limited in estimating the speed of any
signal by the reaction times of the subjects. Even at the farthest
distance on earth, the time require for light to travel it is around 10
msec (if memory serves). That's far shorter than even the fastest human
reflexes. Because of this, we can't estimate the speed of psi. Maybe
someone on the moon - lag time of 1.5 seconds or something - could do it.

Yes, psi is said to operate independently of any shielding, be it lead,
brick, water, earth, etc.

But you are making an assumption here, that psi is some sort of signal
that travels. This may not be the case. We may experience psi because
(for example) we all share the same mind at some fundamental level. Or
Mind may be all there is. Or whatever. No need to impose limitations on
what psi is or can do.

> What is time? How does precognition and retrocognition work through
> time? Are there multiple realities and is predestination an inevitable
> aspect of this one?
>

Beats me. I'm still trying to figure out how I got old so fast. I was
just getting the hang of this being human stuff, and now it's almost time
to go home. Bummer...

> there ar ovr six dozn different psi gifts and each one affects our
> reality in some unique way that mainstream science doesn't have a clue
> about, whil tchnology is rushing headlong towards th future, w don't
> know any more about the fundamntal nature of rality than we did when
> Lonardo Davinci was dropping balls off the tower of Pisa, What is
> gravity? Inertia? How does psi affect those properties when nothing else
> does? Should psi be investigated? Really?
>

That was Galileo, and he mostly rolled them down inclined planes.

Psi should be investigated, in my opinion. I'm doing it; apparently you
are too.

>
>> This doesn't happen with psi, as far as I can see.  All the limited
>> *scientific* tests have come up dry.
>
> No, that's the lie. Randi and others are always doing their best to make
> that bullshit claim and suppress whatevr they can. But to be honst, i
> really don't see the why of that! Are these people really so afraid to
> acknowlege psi-- they sure go about denying it with the zeal usually
> found in bigots and rascists. Even th Wikipedia is biased: quick to
> bring up how nobody has vr "won" Randi's bogus offer but not objective
> nough to look at that so-called offer in an unbiased way.
>

Oh, fuck Randi. I'm just talking about actual scientists, not some stage
magician with a bug up his butt.

>
>> Here in the West (I assume you're in the West)
>
> Oregon is in the land of confusion usually called the Northwest. <g>
>

I saw that in another post. But I meant that we're "Westerners."

>> we often tend to equate
>> reality with scientific fact, but of course the two have little in
>> common.  Most of reality is simply beyond the ability of scientists to
>> evaluate.  Maybe this will change some day, but for now most of reality
>> is simply outside the domain of science.
>
> Oh, puh-leze! Get off their asses and get over the notion that
> Einstein's word is God, thn thr can be progress. oh, and forget applying
> an outdated methodology that demands repetition of something that is by
> it's nature not [easily] repeatable-- that's idiocy. The Monroe
> Institute made the most advances in parapsychology and psionics when it
> did it's neurological studies on a group of psis, And yet that great bit
> of research has gone all but completly unnoticed.
>

So far, there is nothing to show that any parts of Einstein's theories
are incorrect. The FTL neutrinos are the only possibility, but
experimenters are having a hard time *reproducing* the effect - so it may
be spurious.

It's not idiocy to insist on repeatability; it's how science is done.
The other alternative is to apply statistics. When you can't say whether
one person has a talent, you *can* say when thousands do. If psi existed
under scientific conditions, it would show up statistically. Dr. JB
Rhine's experiments seemed to show that in the beginning, but over time
this effect dropped down to what would be expected by chance. In other
words, no talent was detected.

Experiments that cannot be repeated, or that do not exhibit some
statistical evidence, are not accepted into science. That's how science
works. That's how it should work. What science can't grasp, is beyond
science (at least for now).

>
>> As for Freud - I didn't know he was accepting telepathy.  I read
>> something by him about parapsychology, and it seemed he would twist
>> everything in order to do away with the possibility.  I never knew he
>> was changing his opinion.  Too bad he didn't live long enough to weigh
>> in on the topic.
>
> And so it goes. Wiki will go out of its way to dlete any relevant
> positive information when it comes to psi even when it comes to pioneers
> in biofeedback, parapsychology hypnotism, and all the related fields who
> have studied psi-- giving the impression that there is nothing to it. It
> took a lot of effort just to get my own tiny entry from being deleted;n
> anyone who says there isn't an anti-psi conspiracy is either lying,
> stupid, or both. ;-(
>

Well, look. I don't go in for conspiracy theories. I don't doubt that
there are probably one or two malicious conspiracies out there; the
problem is knowing which ones are real. They are universally met with a
complete lack of information, because the conspirators actively destroy
the evidence - or else, the evidence never existed.

I have no way of telling why evidence is missing - whether it was
destroyed, or whether it never existed in the first place. I would argue
that no one has a reliable way of telling. So, since 90%+ of
conspiracies are false, and since I have no way of guessing which ones
are true, I simply choose to ignore them all.

But I'm curious about something - just why would anyone be anti-psi? I
think the topic is utterly fascinating, and could lead to whole new
worlds of discovery, if we could ever figure it out. Why would anyone,
outside of some Fundamentalists, maybe, want to ignore/suppress it?

--
MESSAGE ACKNOWLEDGED -- The Pershing II missiles have been launched.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 16, 3:22 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:46:24 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > Physicist Wolfgang Pauli had that kind effect on things so some of the
> > people around began calling it the "Pauli effect" although there is a
> > proper name for it; they wouldn't let him come around if they were
> > working on critical experiments. Say, have you ever noticed other things
> > like elevator doors being open all the time you come by? <g>
>
> I think the "Pauli Effect" may actually be a proper name for it.  It's
> supposed to occur when certain powerful intellects are near labs working
> on things these intellects have an interest in.  I don't know if it seeps
> over to other labs (or elevators).
>
> This effect made it into at least one science fiction short story from
> around the Sixties or so...
>

The proper namer name is electro-psychokinesis: the ability to
influence or control electrical, electronic, and or electro-mechanical
devices. There's about ten different forms of PK (cryokineis,
psychopyresis, storm control, telekinesis, parakinesis, levitation,
bio-pyschokinesis, cellular PK, EPK, and SLI) with the "Pauli
effect" being a type or subset of EPK--- although most people simply
say telekinesis because they don't know any better.

Ironically, most of the Stephen King has a good grasp of the psi
abilities and many of his movies like Carrie, Rose Red, Firestarter,
etc usually are centered around one of the PK gifts; Rose Red looked
at several distinct gifts but few people care as long as they are
entertained. But I think they must have really been looking over the
list when they came up with the 4400 a while back. ;-)

Ron

[Ron Hubbard]

> I have no way of telling why evidence is missing - whether it was
> destroyed, or whether it never existed in the first place.  I would argue
> that no one has a reliable way of telling.  So, since 90%+ of
> conspiracies are false, and since I have no way of guessing which ones
> are true, I simply choose to ignore them all.

LOL. The best conspiracies are the ones nobody knows about.

Ron


_________________

.“If there’s nothing wrong with me, maybe there’s something wrong
with the universe!”

–– Beverly Crusher (Remember Me) ––

[Chiron]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:37:02 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

>> I have no way of telling why evidence is missing - whether it was
>> destroyed, or whether it never existed in the first place.  I would
>> argue that no one has a reliable way of telling.  So, since 90%+ of
>> conspiracies are false, and since I have no way of guessing which ones
>> are true, I simply choose to ignore them all.
>
> LOL. The best conspiracies are the ones nobody knows about.
>

True. Those are the ones we don't know about, so we can dismiss them
from our discussion immediately.

I would refer you to a Wikipedia article I found that helps illustrate my
point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy

It discusses a (satirical) conspiracy that claims Bielefeld (a town)
exists, when it is well known that it does *not* exist.

Briefly, it asks three questions:

1. Do you know anyone from Beilefeld?
2. Have you ever been there?
3. Do you know anyone who has?

Most people will answer "no," thus proving that Beilefeld doesn't exist.
If someone answers "yes" to any of those questions, it is because they're
part of the conspiracy.

The discussion of this "conspiracy" is done in good humor, but there is a
serious point to it. With very little change, you can make the
conspiracy apply to anything.

One important reason why I tend to reject conspiracy theories is because,
while I admit some humans are capable of vicious behavior, it is almost
impossible to get a bunch of people to keep a secret.

But of course, I can't prove there's no conspiracy. Maybe there is. But
even if there is, I can't do a thing about it. All I can do is try to
keep an open mind, and try to see for myself what happens, when there are
experiments I can try on my own. I guess that will have to do.

--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Gandhi

[Chiron]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:27:03 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> The proper namer name is electro-psychokinesis: the ability to influence
> or control electrical, electronic, and or electro-mechanical devices.
> There's about ten different forms of PK (cryokineis, psychopyresis,
> storm control, telekinesis, parakinesis, levitation, bio-pyschokinesis,
> cellular PK, EPK, and SLI) with the "Pauli effect" being a type or
> subset of EPK--- although most people simply say telekinesis because
> they don't know any better.

Right, I suppose it makes sense to distinguish between the various
effects.

You mentioned storm control. I remember someone telling me that if the
sky is covered with clouds, you can stare a hole into the clouds and get
blue sky. I tried it, and it did seem to work. I was a kid at the
time. I hadn't remembered this until you brought it up.

EPK should be easy to test, I'd think. It's not at all difficult to make
an extremely sensitive amplifier that could register in the microvolt
range (from a distance). But that's not quite what happens in the Pauli
phenomenon... food for thought, anyway.

I've always had the reverse sort of thing - electronic devices seem to do
well when I'm around them. Back when I worked in an office, I'd often go
and use the photocopier, get thousands of copies made, with no problem -
all while there was a call in for repairs because no one else could use
it. This wasn't just once or twice, this was all the time. It was as
though the copier were an animal responding to my good vibes or
something. I admit, I did talk to the machine and thank it, which might
have had an effect. Sure, that was kind of a bizarre thing to do, but...
it did no harm, and it just might have made the copier work for me.

What is this 4400 you mentioned?

--
Liar, n.:
A lawyer with a roving commission.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 17, 3:36 am, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:27:03 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > The proper namer name is electro-psychokinesis: the ability to influence
> > or control electrical, electronic, and or electro-mechanical devices.
> > There's about ten different forms of PK (cryokineis, psychopyresis,
> > storm control, telekinesis, parakinesis, levitation, bio-pyschokinesis,
> > cellular PK,  EPK, and SLI)  with the "Pauli effect" being a type or
> > subset of EPK--- although most people simply say telekinesis because
> > they don't know any better.
>
> Right, I suppose it makes sense to distinguish between the various
> effects.
>
> You mentioned storm control.  I remember someone telling me that if the
> sky is covered with clouds, you can stare a hole into the clouds and get
> blue sky.  I tried it, and it did seem to work.  I was a kid at the
> time.  I hadn't remembered this until you brought it up.

Some years ago I wrote an article that listed all of the then known
psi abilities and phnomena; at that time there were about four dozen.
Over the years I updated the list to now, about 75 gifts- they were
all verified, with at least two cases for each gift. Comic book gifts
like "geokinesis" and other dubious items wre discarded.

Anyway, there is no real way to accurately say how many people have
any one particular gift but we know that telepaths are scare while
there are a lot more teeks (telekineticists) around, but even so,
storm control-- the ability to control weather, and 2nd stage storm
control, the ability to produce lightning from the earth's magnetic
field-- is not too common. There was a guy in Italy at the turn of the
century (20th century) who was known for his ability to cause rain
storms at will. Unfortunately, when a storm came up that he had a
problem controlling, he shouted "If there is a storm that I can not
control, let God kill me now" or something to that ffect. He was
immediatly hit by lightning and killed.

There was a family in California showcased on Unsolved Mysteries.
While it's statistically rare getting hit by lightning, just about
*every* member of this family was either injured or killed by
lightning. And indeed, during the funeral of one family member, the
headstone was struck by lightning! Storm control can also be a lot
less spctaacular: one rainy day I was sick, tired, on my way home with
groceries and I got off the bus forgetting my umbrella. I had walked
two blocks and was half-way hom before I remembred my umbrella and I
realized that I had walkd so far and not got wet in the pouring rain.
Damn it, the moment I realized that I had been dry for so long, I
immediately started to get soaked to the skin and I had to run the
rest of the way home. First and only time in the five plus decades
I've been around, but I have heard many other cases here and there.
Not like Storm in the X-Men movies, but close nough.

> EPK should be easy to test, I'd think.  It's not at all difficult to make
> an extremely sensitive amplifier that could register in the microvolt
> range (from a distance).  But that's not quite what happens in the Pauli
> phenomenon... food for thought, anyway.

No... I don't think so. There's a fundamental matter to be addressed:
if I wanted to test EPK using a VOM, the problem is that I might
easily pin the needle to the end of the scale with enough force to
break the meter, but that's not EPK-- just "ordinary" PK/TK. There's
an exercise for would-be and practicing teeks where ya take an
ordinary compass an make the needle spin in some other direction than
magnetic north-- while psi can affect magnetism, electricity, heat,
gravity, and other physical aspects-- that's not a magnetic influence,
just Pk moving the needle. If you were testing for magnetic changes
your test would be flawed.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who usually hav to deal
with having EPK: their light bulbs often explode, they hav an
excessively high powr bill, computrs and fax machines bhave
strangely-- either not working when they should, or suddenly working
when other people couldn't get those same devices to work, they have a
strange influence on how TV sets behave, and many many more peculiar
happenings involving electricy or electronics. Remember "the Fonz"
banging on a juke box, making it play a record? That kind of thing
goes unnoticed every day, but if you could somehow put all of those
people togther their effect would be amazing,

But think it through: you get somebody with PK, you might not get any
electrical test equipment working if that prson was nervous or
frightened,ill at ease. And hope you don't find a howler, heh
heh. .

> What is this 4400 you mentioned?

Thre was a brilliant sci-fi show a while back on one of the cable
networks, it was about how 4,400 people had ben kidnapped out of time
-- men, women, children-- from the '40s to 2004 when all 4400 were
brought back. Each of thos people had been physically altered so that
ach one had his or her own unique gift. Some were psi gifts-- a girl
with prcognition, a baseball player got telepathy, a pilot got
telekinesis-- while others got such purly physical abilities such as
the guy who got super strength, or the woman who could spread a killer
disease whenever she got nervous. Ovr the course of the series it was
shown that the world was dying and that the future survivors took the
4400 out of time, fixed them, so that they would alter what was going
to happen to make the future world hell. Of course, a lot of people
were frightened of the 4400 and all of the world governments wanted to
know if this was a threat to them.; so the sris looks at the interplay
between the public, the governmnt, and among the 4400 themselves who
sometimes had their own different agendas, as well as the people in
the future who were manipulating events. This was an amazing series
that focused on two federal agents who not only invstigated the 4400
but also had relatives who were came back among the 4400 so they had
conflicts over their duties to their superiors and jobs as well as the
loyalties to their family members. A great show; you should get it--
all four seasons are out on DVD.

Ron


_______________

“Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. “

— Richard Tyler (The 4400) ––

[Chiron]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:46:53 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> it's statistically rare getting hit by lightning, just about *every*
> member of this family was either injured or killed by lightning. And

There was one guy who was hit by lightning seven times over 30 years. He
probably should have started going to a different church or something.
He eventually committed suicide. You have to wonder whether this could
possibly be chance. Getting hit by lightning isn't common, as you said.
1 in 750,000 each year... so around 1/25,000 over 30 years. To get hit
seven times? Assuming there's no connection between strikes (that is,
the strikes are random), the odds are 1 in 6 x 10^30. You have to assume
there's some causal connection, that this guy (Roy Sullivan) somehow
"attracted" lightning - although I suppose if he did certain types of
outdoor work he might be more vulnerable.

And this is just weird - as I was looking up Roy Sullivan's info, I came
across a recent news item:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/kansas-man-hit-by-lightning-
after-buying-mega-millions-tickets/

Apparently one of the winners of the huge lottery joked, as he bought the
winning ticket, that he was more likely to get hit by lightning than win
the lottery. A few hours later he did get hit by lightning - and he also
won.

Your story about remaining dry until you realized you should have been
wet reminds me of those cartoon characters who run off a cliff and remain
suspended until they look down and suddenly realize there's nothing
holding them up. At which time they plummet to the ground and get
flattened...

You're probably right about the compass - if I could move it, it might be
PK or EPK or whatever. I'd be OK with getting even an ambiguous result,
since it would help establish that there *is* some sort of effect. I've
tried moving a compass needle, without any success.

But to restrict the effect to electromagnetic energy, maybe you could use
a Hall-effect transistor or sensor? Something to think about, anyway.

--
Men have a much better time of it than women; for one thing they marry
later; for another thing they die earlier.
-- H. L. Mencken

[Jamie]

Chiron wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:46:53 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
>
>>it's statistically rare getting hit by lightning, just about *every*
>>member of this family was either injured or killed by lightning. And
>
>
> There was one guy who was hit by lightning seven times over 30 years. He
> probably should have started going to a different church or something.
> He eventually committed suicide. You have to wonder whether this could
> possibly be chance. Getting hit by lightning isn't common, as you said.
> 1 in 750,000 each year... so around 1/25,000 over 30 years. To get hit
> seven times? Assuming there's no connection between strikes (that is,
> the strikes are random), the odds are 1 in 6 x 10^30. You have to assume
> there's some causal connection, that this guy (Roy Sullivan) somehow
> "attracted" lightning - although I suppose if he did certain types of
> outdoor work he might be more vulnerable.
>

No, He was taking to much Geritol.

Jamie

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 17, 4:04 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:46:53 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > it's statistically rare getting hit by lightning, just about *every*
> > member of this family was either injured or killed by lightning. And
>
> There was one guy who was hit by lightning seven times over 30 years.  He
> probably should have started going to a different church or something.
> He eventually committed suicide.  You have to wonder whether this could
> possibly be chance.  Getting hit by lightning isn't common, as you said.
> 1 in 750,000 each year... so around 1/25,000 over 30 years.  To get hit
> seven times?  Assuming there's no connection between strikes (that is,
> the strikes are random), the odds are 1 in 6 x 10^30.  You have to assume
> there's some causal connection, that this guy (Roy Sullivan) somehow
> "attracted" lightning - although I suppose if he did certain types of
> outdoor work he might be more vulnerable.
>
> And this is just weird - as I was looking up Roy Sullivan's info, I came
> across a recent news item:
>

> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/kansas-man-hit-by-light...

> after-buying-mega-millions-tickets/
>
> Apparently one of the winners of the huge lottery joked, as he bought the
> winning ticket, that he was more likely to get hit by lightning than win
> the lottery.  A few hours later he did get hit by lightning - and he also
> won.

I don't think he won but maybe he should have; it seems he might have
more precognition than anything else. There was a case on the news a
few years back wher a woman had a strong urge to gt out of the hous
and take her daughtr with her. once they were outside, a small plane
crashed into the house bar momnts later. When most people think of
precognition, they think of folks having sudden visions but that's not
always the case. Far too often a person can know of a future event in
such a way that they don't become aware of it until later. On day i
left out of a hardwar store and took off running but I didn't know why
or where I was going to; I got a block down street at a bus stop just
seconds before the bus I would've taken arrived. I had no conscious
awarnesss that it was coming but I reacted to an event that hasn't
hapened yet.

But consider this: if you did a study of successful gamblers, you'd
most likely find that a good portion of them is either strongly
precognitive telekinetic, or both and a much smaller number telepathic
though. most aren't aware of this. Which, probably for them as
gamblers, is a good thing-- were they awareof why th were so succssful
that would put too much strain on a gift that words well on the
subconscious level.

> Your story about remaining dry until you realized you should have been
> wet reminds me of those cartoon characters who run off a cliff and remain
> suspended until they look down and suddenly realize there's nothing
> holding them up.  At which time they plummet to the ground and get
> flattened...

Exactly! Like I said, most psi activity is as much psychological as
anything. Seldom does one really need to bend a spoon, but forks and
spoons do get bent sometimes as some people get really angry or
bored. And of course, much poltergeist activity often comes from
pubescent children who for a time are displaying uncontrolled TK..

The Monroe study showed that the activating frequency for TK is 7 Hz,
a frequency linked to such strong emotions as fear, anger, and boredom
and prsumably all the other related aspects such as storm control,
EPK, and SLI are also activatd by this same frequency that might be
easy to get into gievn a certain mental state but the moment you have
the realization that you are in that state, that cancels it. I've been
working with a psi wheel for... well, a long time. One morning I was
half-awake and had a "dream' that the psi wheel was spinning; whn I
opned my eys and looked at it, it *was* spinning very fast, then
stopped. who knows what the hell was going on there.<g> Subconscious
control over any gift can be far stronger than any degree of conscious
control. Well... to get conscious control, unless you're a freak like
Carrie who's probably in theta all the time, is like learning to stop
on's heart; it takes a lot of effort. More effort than most people
ever want to go through.


FYI: Psi-fi author James H. Schmitz was a ral-world telepath who had
his own circle of psi-gifted people back in the '60s bfore the
internet was a gleam in some engineer's eye. this probably why 85 per
cent or more of his stories are about psi. He said there were three
kinds of psis: class I psis are those folks who only occasionally and
sporadically have incidents, lik the mothr who wakes up knowing her
son has been killed during war or a sister hurt in a car crash. The
class II pople ar aware of having psi abilities and usually awar of
having gifts and oftn try to develop and use them as much as they can
(these are most common) and the class III popl who ar also called,
Unpredictables. The class IIIs can have a group of "core" abilities
that are mostly fixed, but can also have other abilities that can come
and go... unpredictabIy. Schmitz's system seems a valid one.

> You're probably right about the compass - if I could move it, it might be
> PK or EPK or whatever.  I'd be OK with getting even an ambiguous result,
> since it would help establish that there *is* some sort of effect.  I've
> tried moving a compass needle, without any success.

Sigh... There are two camps: those who say that everybody has ESP or
the potential for it and those (me included) who think that some have
it but most don't; except for maybe remote viewing or dowsing
(radiesthesia), psi gifts can't be developed in homo sapiens any more
than pigs can be made to fly.

But since you now know a very fundamental fact, if a norm *can*
develop a gift such as TK, the thing to do is to make a psi wheel and
try to lower your brainwaves down a bit to 7 Hz until you get an
effect. While much of it is really crap, there are a few good videos
of people using TK on Youtube and as admiral Kirk once said, "we learn
by doing." Gettin a psi wheel to spin is the "easiest" way to develop
TK. Actually biofeedback is better, but it's incredibly
expensive... ;-)


Ron


____________________

“This is the school in which we learn… time is the fire in which we
burn.”
–– Delmore Schwartz ––

[Chiron]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:28:32 -0400, Jamie wrote:

> No, He was taking to much Geritol.
>
> Jamie
>

Is that the stuff that has all that iron in it??



--
Q: What's the difference between a Mac and an Etch-a-Sketch?
A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.

[Jamie]

Chiron wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:28:32 -0400, Jamie wrote:
>
>
>>No, He was taking to much Geritol.
>>
>>Jamie
>>
>
>
> Is that the stuff that has all that iron in it??
>
>
>

sure is, once believed to be the cause of tiredness (Lack of Iron that
is), myself, I call it
being over worked! :)

Jamie

[Chiron]

It's pretty common. Lack of many nutrients leads to fatigue; replacing
the nutrient renews energy. Therefore, this particular nutrient "causes"
energy. QED, but wrong. It only helps if you're lacking that nutrient.

And yes, most of our fatigue seems to be caused by overwork and not
taking time during the day to just relax. I've always thought that the
Latino idea of taking a siesta in the middle of the day made a whole lot
of sense. Have fun explaining that to your boss or customers, though.


--
The only disadvantage I see is that it would force everyone to get Perl.
Horrors. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <88...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 18, 6:48 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:56:12 -0400, Jamie wrote:
> > Chiron wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:28:32 -0400, Jamie wrote:
>
> >>>No, He was taking to much Geritol.
>
> >>>Jamie
>
> >> Is that the stuff that has all that iron in it??
>
> > sure is, once believed to be the cause of tiredness (Lack of Iron that
> > is), myself, I call it
> > being over worked! :)
>
> > Jamie
>
> It's pretty common.  Lack of many nutrients leads to fatigue; replacing
> the nutrient renews energy.  Therefore, this particular nutrient "causes"
> energy.  QED, but wrong.  It only helps if you're lacking that nutrient.

LOL. Funny ya should say that because it reminded me that a couple of
years ago I came across some silly web page where the guy claimed that
telekinetic ability was determined by how much iron is in one's
system. I suppose if you were Tony Stark... Nah. :-)

Ron


____________________

"My life is a Testament to all the things one can do-- when you don't
listen to other people."

– Brian Walker –

[Ron Hubbard]

> – Brian Walker –- Hide quoted text -


I thought it would have been gone by now, but I guess garbage really
does stay around longer:

http://www.mindpowernews.com/TelekinesisEquation.htm


Ron

___________________

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."

–– Sherlock Holmes ("Occam's Razor") ––

[Chiron]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:07:14 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

<snip>

>> LOL. Funny ya should say that because it reminded me that a couple of
>> years ago I came across some silly web page where the guy claimed that
>> telekinetic ability was determined by how much iron is in one's system.
>> I suppose if you were Tony Stark... Nah.  :-)
>>
>> Ron

<snip>

>
>
> I thought it would have been gone by now, but I guess garbage really
> does stay around longer:
>
> http://www.mindpowernews.com/TelekinesisEquation.htm
>

Thanks for that, Ron. It's all so simple - all I have to do is boost my
cerebro-Iron, and I've got TK. No doubt the government wants to suppress
this to keep us all from becoming too powerful...

Did you ever come across the immortality rings of Alex Chiu (http://
www.alexchiu.com/)? He's like a combination of Edison, Tesla, and
Einstein, all rolled up into one, but much more modest.

Or the Hulda Clark zapper (http://www.drclark.net/)? This zapper (a 555
multivibrator) kills parasites, bacteria, and viruses in the body.

There's no shortage of geniuses out there who can save our planet and
guarantee us immortality and fresh breath. And free energy...

--
If *I* had a hammer, there'd be no more folk singers.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 22, 7:00 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 10:07:14 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> LOL. Funny ya should say that because it reminded me that a couple of
> >> years ago I came across some silly web page where the guy claimed that
> >> telekinetic ability was determined by how much iron is in one's system.
> >> I suppose if you were Tony Stark... Nah.  :-)
>
> >> Ron
> <snip>
>
> > I  thought it would have been gone by now, but I guess garbage really
> > does stay around longer:
>
> >http://www.mindpowernews.com/TelekinesisEquation.htm
>
> Thanks for that, Ron.  It's all so simple - all I have to do is boost my
> cerebro-Iron, and I've got TK.  No doubt the government wants to suppress
> this to keep us all from becoming too powerful...
>

> Did you ever come across the immortality rings of Alex Chiu (http://www.alexchiu.com/)? He's like a combination of Edison, Tesla, and

> Einstein, all rolled up into one, but much more modest.
>
> Or the Hulda Clark zapper (http://www.drclark.net/)? This zapper (a 555
> multivibrator) kills parasites, bacteria, and viruses in the body.
>
> There's no shortage of geniuses out there who can save our planet and
> guarantee us immortality and fresh breath.  And free energy...

Ever hear of the Hutchison effect? Canadian inventor John Hutchison
stumbled upon what might be the first step in cancelling gravity and
inertia, but his skills in kping nots wer seriously challenged: he
dosn't know what he did to gt a particular effect. This, too, is one
of those things mainstram science has turned its collctive nose at but
has tremendous potential for whoever can develop it.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_astralplane02.htm

Hutchison had created a poly-phasic force field from a combination of
Tesla coils, RF generators, magnets, and only God knows what else, but
he says he doesn't know what frequncies he used. It could take a lot
of money and a lot of time for somebody to stumble upon what he did
and re-create the effect. I have some ideas, but no mony to test them.
Pity.... :-(

Ron


__________________

“Data, something is only impossible until it is not!”

–– Jean- Luc Picard ––

[Chiron]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:03:39 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:

> Ever hear of the Hutchison effect? Canadian inventor John Hutchison
> stumbled upon what might be the first step in cancelling gravity and
> inertia, but his skills in kping nots wer seriously challenged: he
> dosn't know what he did to gt a particular effect. This, too, is one of
> those things mainstram science has turned its collctive nose at but has
> tremendous potential for whoever can develop it.
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_astralplane02.htm
>
> Hutchison had created a poly-phasic force field from a combination of
> Tesla coils, RF generators, magnets, and only God knows what else, but
> he says he doesn't know what frequncies he used. It could take a lot of
> money and a lot of time for somebody to stumble upon what he did and
> re-create the effect. I have some ideas, but no mony to test them.
> Pity.... :-(

I think I did hear about this guy. If it's the same one, he had so much
equipment, including dish antennas on his outside walls, that he got in
trouble with the building owners or something.

And he didn't understand the science behind what he did - he just did it,
somehow...

And *that* reminds me of a great science fiction story. The government
has a film of an inventor demonstrating his anti-gravity suit or jet pack
or whatever. But the invention goes haywire, the inventor falls, and
winds up dying. As he's dying, he mutters some stuff about fields, blah,
blah, but it's all very vague.

So some scientists are asked to see whether they can reconstruct the
device. They're doubtful, but give it a shot, and eventually (after much
effort) come up with some sort of huge, boxy, but workable anti-gravity
thing.

Turns out that the whole film was staged; someone figured the scientists
would be able to develop anti-gravity, if they didn't know it was
"impossible." That is, if they thought someone had already done it, so
they wouldn't have that psychological barrier holding them back.

Anyway, back to Hutchison... If he's the same guy, there's no way I'd
ever be able to collect a tenth of the stuff he's got - his whole
apartment was packed almost solid with equipment. Radio stuff, tesla
coils, electromagnets, all kinds of stuff I couldn't identify. Way
outside my budget, even if they gave it to me free (because I also have
no room for stuff like that). And to be honest, I really wouldn't even
know where to begin with that. I have not the slightest clue how anti-
gravity might work.

About all I can manage is to piddle around with relatively small coils
and stuff, maybe some op-amps and oscillators and other things that
aren't too complicated. It's not much, but it keeps me out of trouble.


--
In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is;
you're what's left.

[Ron Hubbard]

On Apr 23, 1:40 pm, Chiron

<chiron613.no.sp...@no.spam.please.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:03:39 -0700, Ron Hubbard wrote:
> > Ever hear of the Hutchison effect? Canadian inventor John Hutchison
> > stumbled upon what might be the first step in cancelling gravity and
> > inertia, but his skills in kping nots wer seriously challenged: he
> > dosn't know what he did to gt a particular effect. This, too, is one of
> > those things mainstram science has turned its collctive nose at but has
> > tremendous potential for whoever can develop it.
>
> >http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_astralplane02.htm
>
> > Hutchison had created a poly-phasic force field from a combination of
> > Tesla coils, RF generators, magnets, and only God knows what else, but
> > he says he doesn't know what frequncies he used. It could take a lot of
> > money and a lot of time for somebody to stumble upon what he did and
> > re-create the effect. I have some ideas, but no mony to test them.
> > Pity....  :-(
>
> I think I did hear about this guy.  If it's the same one, he had so much
> equipment, including dish antennas on his outside walls, that he got in
> trouble with the building owners or something.
>
> And he didn't understand the science behind what he did - he just did it,
> somehow...

Hey, that's the way a lot of new discoveries went. Very few people
ever had a theory and then set out to prove it could work.

> Anyway, back to Hutchison... If he's the same guy, there's no way I'd
> ever be able to collect a tenth of the stuff he's got - his whole
> apartment was packed almost solid with equipment.  Radio stuff, tesla
> coils, electromagnets, all kinds of stuff I couldn't identify.  Way
> outside my budget, even if they gave it to me free (because I also have
> no room for stuff like that).  And to be honest, I really wouldn't even
> know where to begin with that.  I have not the slightest clue how anti-
> gravity might work.

Nobody really knows how gravity works let alone a theory for anti-
gravity...

But just for the sake of argument, let's say that the Haisch/Rhueda/
Puthoff view of gravity & inertia is correct: that those forces are
byproducts of the zero-point field or the way the ZPF interacts with
matter.

My theory is that Huchinson's force field blocks off the ZPF so that
both gravity & inertia are effectively cut off. But as somebody onc
said, the ZPF holds matter together and with no ZPF, matter begins to
break apart. And unfortunately, that's what w see when the Huchison
field is on. If you cancel inertia, you can have star travel-- but not
a good thing if you ship falls apart. And let's say just for the hell
of it, the Philadelphia Experiment was real. According to [most]
descriptions, the field generators weren't all that complicated: a fw
RF sources and a whopping big magnetic coil. Stripping away so much
extraneous shit, those are the fundamental similarities between
Hutchison effect (HE) and the Philadelphia experiment (PE). If there's
a major difference, it's in the amount of power used in the PE;
Hutchinson uses so little power that it often took six days of field
saturation for an item to lift itself or demonstrate some other
effect. but the PE used kilowatts of power and got virtually an
instantaneous effect,

So down to basics: four RF filds and a magnetic field-- probably an
alternating one. Assuming you have worked out the frequencies, the
biggest problem is to cancel inertia but leaving nough ZPF to keep
matter together. or, how to create a secondary field that will alow
the neutralization of inertia but keep matter together at the same
time. There's been the observation that the ZPF gets more powerful
with frequency, so maybe-- just MAYBE-- it might be possible to use
lower frequencies that would allow ZPF penetration and yet allow
inertia be cancelled.... but I don't think so Or maybe it would work
the other way and one would use microwves as RF sources, but what the
hell do I know? ;-)

If I had the money, I'd see if there were different ways to get the RF
filds to interact such as maybe a field whre two wavs cancel each out
and mix that with an alternating magnetic field and see what happens.
Of cours, using enough powr to test a small area, say fifteen to
twenty watts.

> About all I can manage is to piddle around with relatively small coils
> and stuff, maybe some op-amps and oscillators and other things that
> aren't too complicated.  It's not much, but it keeps me out of trouble.

I used to win the lottery 1 out of evey 4 times that I played; my
picture is on the wall of winners up in Vancouver, WA grocery store.
But when the buses stopped running up north, I was stuck playing
Oregon's crappy games and I don't win as often as I used to. Sometime,
sooner or later, I'll get my mojo back and start winning big bucks
again. Then after buying a house (I hate living in an apartment) I'll
hav the money to do a few preliminary expriements. I know Hutchison
has a truck-load of equipment, but how much of it actually did
anything to contribute to the HE? maybe it's like coca leaves where
only a small part is active cocaine and the rest is inert materials.


Ron


____________________

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance."

-- Orville Wright —