PDA

View Full Version : CIA - Telepathy works but where is scientific evidence?



medistud6
2011-Oct-19, 07:34 PM
1. Vinko Rajic is talking about in his videos on YouTube that he can use telepathy all the time and 100% correct on few kilometer.
Uri Geller could give evidence for telepathy at Stanford University.

2. At Edinburgh University, experts conducted controlled experiments to see if telepathy is possible.
The Edinburgh University Koestler Lab could never confirm if telepathy works but they never did any experiment on Vinko Rajic
or Uri Geller, maybe they do not want to find that what are they looking for.


3. James Randi offer 1000000$ for any paranormal evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?

4. CIA's "remote viewing" , "Stargate Project", the ability to psychically "see" events, sites,
or information from a great distance.
Actually there is not evidence that this would be possible. Telepathic people like Vinko Rajic never know who is
sending to them. Human brains have not any number and is maybe impossible to know from which head you are receiving and to
which head you are sending. Theoretical this is impossible to localize someone on very long distance and connect it.

5. Grigori Rasputin , "the Mad Monk". There is evidence that he could use paranormal mind control.
Rasputin's influence over the royal family was used against him and the Romanovs by politicians and journalists who
wanted to weaken the integrity of the dynasty, force the Tsar to give up his absolute political power and separate the
Russian Orthodox Church from the state.
On November 19, 1916, Purishkevich made a rousing speech in the Duma, in which he stated,
"The tsar's ministers who have been turned into marionettes, marionettes whose threads have been taken firmly in hand by Rasputin
and the Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna , the evil genius of Russia and the tsaritsa .

6. What is Schizophrenia? Schneider's symptoms of the first rank:

- Audible thoughts
- Voices heard arguing
- Voices heard commenting on one’s actions
- The experience of influences playing on the body
- Thought withdrawal and other interference with thought
- Diffusion of thought
- Delusional perception
- Feelings, impulses and volitional acts experienced as the work or influence of others

Using telepathy you can create most of "Schneider's symptoms of the first rank" on Vinko Rajic.


Why they do not do research on Vinko Rajic or on some other telepath and publish that?
Also telepathy is possible???????????

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-20, 02:48 AM
1. Vinko Rajic is talking about in his videos on YouTube that he can use telepathy all the time and 100% correct on few kilometer.
Uri Geller could give evidence for telepathy at Stanford University.


I'm not familiar with Vinko Rajic, but YouTube claims aren't evidence. I am familiar with Uri Geller's claims, however, and he has been caught repeatedly doing stage magician tricks.



2. At Edinburgh University, experts conducted controlled experiments to see if telepathy is possible.
The Edinburgh University Koestler Lab could never confirm if telepathy works but they never did any experiment on Vinko Rajic
or Uri Geller, maybe they do not want to find that what are they looking for.


Or maybe there's nothing to find. There have been many experiments by many scientists testing for telepathy, and there still is no good evidence. However, there are many cases where scientists have been fooled by trickery. For instance, in the case of Uri Geller, nobody wants to test him anymore. There were some very embarrassed scientists when James Randi and others showed how Geller was using magic tricks (and Geller isn't even that skilled - he typically does his tricks poorly).

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-20, 01:16 PM
Why they do not do research on Vinko Rajic or on some other telepath and publish that?
Probably because Vinko or Uri will not submit to research because they have something to hide.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 02:13 PM
3. James Randi offer 1000000$ for any paranormal evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?

Obviously not, otherwise one of them would be $1,000,000 better off. Although, I assume Geller already makes quite a lot from his stage magic and other self-promoting ideas.


Using telepathy you can create most of "Schneider's symptoms of the first rank" on Vinko Rajic.

Or maybe you can explain his claims as schizophrenia; Some people with schizophrenia hear voices shouting obscenities at them continuously. I know which sounds more plausible to me.


Also telepathy is possible???????????

No its not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-20, 02:42 PM
Also telepathy is possible???????????
No its not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

of course, it is possible! i have experienced it quite a few times in my life and many people i know have as well.
you may be compelled to discard it as "coincidence" or whatever you need it to be. but i am in no such need. because i have experienced dozens of incidents where there was a direct communication between me and somebody else.

i know hardly anything about the people mentioned in the op. i am very skeptical about the claim of being able to reproduce it 100%. i don't know anybody else who has made that claim. such a claim should be easily testable then.

my experiences were not reproducible. i have tried with a few people but it never worked. that doesn't mean much, tho. achievements at the edge of human possibility can rarely be reproduced. very few world class athletes (for example) can reproduce world records or other unique achievements, yet we know of them because a world audience is interested in sports and they capture those rare events with cameras, etc. but bring an athlete into a controlled scientific experiment and it's very likely (s)he'll fail to reproduce.

i have personally experienced it dozens of times and i have no doubt that telepathy is real.
that it may not be reproducible in a scientific experiment doesn't mean much. it certainly does not mean that it is not a real.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-20, 03:03 PM
because i have experienced dozens of incidents where there was a direct communication between me and somebody else.
Please elaborate on that. How do you identify it as telepathy and what makes it "direct"?

Perikles
2011-Oct-20, 03:13 PM
that it may not be reproducible in a scientific experiment doesn't mean much. it certainly does not mean that it is not a real.I'm really surprised that you make that statement, considering your signature line. Clearly, you can never prove it does not exist, but as ever, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it does. Until then, I'll remain a sceptic and assume it does not.

Strange
2011-Oct-20, 03:19 PM
of course, it is possible!

OK. I'll take your word for it; no evidence needed. (My comment was mainly directed at the excessive punctuation rather than the semantics of the statement/question.)

Ivan Viehoff
2011-Oct-20, 03:38 PM
of course, it is possible! i have experienced it quite a few times in my life and many people i know have as well.
you may be compelled to discard it as "coincidence"
...
achievements at the edge of human possibility can rarely be reproduced. very few world class athletes (for example) can reproduce world records or other unique achievements, yet we know of them because a world audience is interested in sports and they capture those rare events with cameras, etc. but bring an athlete into a controlled scientific experiment and it's very likely (s)he'll fail to reproduce.
...
that it may not be reproducible in a scientific experiment doesn't mean much. it certainly does not mean that it is not a real.
And you say you are a scientist?

Obviously extremities cannot be reproduced on demand, they are extremities. But they can be recorded, and extremities, whether meteorological or sporting, are subject to authentication, or risk of not being recognised. Fraud will be suspected if records are materially outside the range of what can be reproduced. Cycling performance is currently substantially below the range of what was previously achieved, providing substantial evidence that it is harder to cheat with doping. See reports here http://www.sportsscientists.com/

There are no incidents of telepathy being adequately recorded. There are numerous records of people attempting to give the impression of it by fraudulent means. Therefore the scientific approach is to assume all incidents are either coincidence or fraud, without convincing demonstration.

Claims for telepathy are not an extremity of something easily observed, it is a process, and therefore should be detectable. Whatever it means, it involves information transfer from one person to another. Unless you believe in magic, information transfer requires energy. Therefore if you believe a human body can receive energy/information from another human body by a means of transmission not yet acknowledged, we can build a scientific instrument to observe the emission of that energy, and use scientific instruments to confirm the receipt of that information/energy. If it happens, it can be scientifically observed, not just as the "I thought 'boomerang' and you knew I thought 'boomerang'" type of evidence, but direct evidence of the emission and receipt of the information/energy by some means.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-20, 05:50 PM
my experiences were not reproducible. i have tried with a few people but it never worked. that doesn't mean much, tho. achievements at the edge of human possibility can rarely be reproduced. very few world class athletes (for example) can reproduce world records or other unique achievements, yet we know of them because a world audience is interested in sports and they capture those rare events with cameras, etc. but bring an athlete into a controlled scientific experiment and it's very likely (s)he'll fail to reproduce.
You're utterly failing to understand something here.

Record breaking running is well known and documented to happen and is the extreme end of a continuum of running speeds that are well documented and known to be possible, almost everyone is capable of running.
Telepathy has never been confirmed in a controlled situation and isn't part of a continuum of anything that's been confirmed in a controlled situation.

The sense or being in telepathic communication on the other hand is well documented but it hasn't been shown to correlate to any external stimulus, there's nothing being sent at the time of experiencing the reception.

It's another case of yes there is a real experience but no it isn't what it's interpreted to be.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Oct-20, 08:30 PM
I saw Uri Gellar mentioned in the first sentence so I identified the claim as one to dismiss.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-20, 09:11 PM
i have personally experienced it dozens of times and i have no doubt that telepathy is real.

Interesting but irrelevant...


that it may not be reproducible in a scientific experiment doesn't mean much. it certainly does not mean that it is not a real.

Well, no one else is going to take the idea of telepathy seriously unless/until it becomes scientifically reproducible in a controlled setting.

Ara Pacis
2011-Oct-21, 01:24 AM
That assumes that it can be scientifically reproducible, or detectable by interception of a signal or other mechanism as opposed to merely observing a result.

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-21, 02:36 AM
as long as you are stuck in scientific materialism telepathy, premonitions and similar psychic phenomena probably don't make much sense and you will remain limited to disbelief or rejection.

once you realize the primacy of consciousness there is no more problem with such phenomena. it is basically consciousness communicating with different instantiations of itself. no mystery there.

science is a very limited set of tools. it works quite well with some phenomena but fails to grasp many others. to then conclude that there is no reality to such phenomena (or otherwise not take them seriously as most here suggest) is utterly misguided and artificially limiting.

Noclevername
2011-Oct-21, 03:32 AM
as long as you are stuck in scientific materialism telepathy, premonitions and similar psychic phenomena probably don't make much sense and you will remain limited to disbelief or rejection.

once you realize the primacy of consciousness there is no more problem with such phenomena. it is basically consciousness communicating with different instantiations of itself. no mystery there.

science is a very limited set of tools. it works quite well with some phenomena but fails to grasp many others. to then conclude that there is no reality to such phenomena (or otherwise not take them seriously as most here suggest) is utterly misguided and artificially limiting.

If it interacts with the material brain then it is part of the material universe and subject to scientific analysis. If it doesn't, then it has no substance and is irrelevant.

Ivan Viehoff
2011-Oct-21, 08:55 AM
You say you are a philosopher by nature. I think you ought to check out what the philosophers tell us about knowledge, especially Karl Popper. The one sentence summary is that if it is not testable (he used the unfortunate word "falsifiable", but "testable" is clearer), it is irrelevant. This ought to be self-evident. What he is saying is, yes, you can, if you choose, believe in things that are not testable. But such beliefs will not enable you to make material predictions about the world we live in which are detectably different from predictions made by those who reject those beliefs. If you are claiming detectability, realise that it will be rejected until demonstrably detected. If you are not claiming detectability, realise that it is essentially irrelevant. We do "get it"; we realise that we can choose to reject things that are irrelevant.

This is a scientific forum. We are not interested in people's beliefs in things that are not material and not testable. Indeed it is against the rules of the forum to discuss them. The R word.

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-21, 11:02 AM
...if it is not testable ... it is irrelevant. This ought to be self-evident.

If you are not claiming detectability, realise that it is essentially irrelevant.

that is just sad. seriously, that is really sad. (no sarcasm here.)

so, love is irrelevant since it ain't testable - not scientifically anyways?
that satisfying sense of beauty you feel when you listen to special music or look at the beauty of nature - it is irrelevant?
compassion is irrelevant?
consciousness is irrelevant?
basically the entire subjective world is irrelevant according to your pov?

i feel sorry for you, i really do (again: no sarcasm here).
why would you limit yourself like that?

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-21, 12:36 PM
so, love is irrelevant since it ain't testable - not scientifically anyways?
that satisfying sense of beauty you feel when you listen to special music or look at the beauty of nature - it is irrelevant?
And there is always arguments among people who think they are in love, and what is considered beautiful or not.

They are also quantifiable and testable in numerous studies about art appreciation, popularity, divorce, marriage and birth rates, etc.
They also produce measurable and predictable changes in the body.


compassion is irrelevant?
But has measurable effects.


consciousness is irrelevant?
That one I'll give you. It's been a philosophical struggle from the start.

So; in the same way that emotions can be identified and produce statistically measured results, we should be able to apply some kind of identification to telepathy.

Besides, telepathy does not work like an emotion. Telepathy is between people, emotions are very personal things (even in the case of love between 2 people). Telepathy also implies a result, two things have to match. So; there are ways to determine a match.

I agree that we can't apply scientific principles to everything, but telepathy does have some characteristics to test.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Oct-21, 12:49 PM
that is just sad. seriously, that is really sad. (no sarcasm here.) [Snip]

Good grief, I thought I'd blundered into a Doctor Who episode where the Doctor berates the Cybermen for their lack of emotion.

I think it's pretty obvious that Ivan is talking about relevance in the context of a scientific discussion.

When supposed telepaths start showing convincing results, I expect there will be a surge of interest. It hasn't happened yet.

Stubby Boardman
2011-Oct-21, 12:54 PM
...When supposed telepaths start showing convincing results, I expect there will be a surge of interest. It hasn't happened yet.

Right. When you have something that supposedly exists, but unfortunately under controlled circumstances shows exactly the same results as if it didn't exist, what are you supposed to do about it?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Oct-21, 03:01 PM
Right. When you have something that supposedly exists, but unfortunately under controlled circumstances shows exactly the same results as if it didn't exist, what are you supposed to do about it?

It depends on how much you want it to exist. If you want it to exist a lot, the correct course of action is to start a series of threads, present non-evidence as if it were evidence, deliver poorly-reasoned arguments in favour of it existing, ignore or deliberately misunderstand well-written objections, and promise to deliver compelling evidence in a week or so. When you get tired, become abusive, because then you'll get suspended. While suspended, catch up on your sleep. When your suspension is over, continue in the same vein.

You knew I was going to write that, didn't you? You read my mind! What more proof do you need???

Swift
2011-Oct-21, 03:40 PM
We are closing this thread.

The OP seems to have come and gone (there is evidence he is spamming the web with this stuff) and even if he or PaulLogan wish to advocate it, there is no place for such topics on BAUT. ATM is for non-mainstream ideas that relate to space/astronomy/physics and this doesn't seem to fit. JREF might be a better place for such a discussion.

If someone has compelling reasons to reopen this thread, Report this post and state your reasons.