This is ersby's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following ersby's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Interesting post. Psychic detectives can be difficult subjects to research, given the often subjective nature of fitting the psychic statements to the events as they happened. For example, I went back and looked through some newspaper archives (not for the Sunday People, which would've been most pertinent) and I read that on the day of Gaby Maerth's release Cracknell is quoted as saying the kidnappers would be caught in two weeks. As it turned out, the first one of the gang was caught after four weeks. Now, is this a hit or not? I suspect that the way people answer that question depends on whether or not they already believe in psychic detectives. In other words, a “near miss” (if you can call it that) can reinforce the beliefs of people holding completely opposing views. There are other aspects of Cracknell's claim which seem a little odd, but I don't want to get bogged down into a discussion about this case, given the lack of first-hand documentation. This quote from the leader of the Como police squad caught my eye, though: “We received a lot of reports: from psychics, seers, mystics, the desperate. We checked about five hundred homes. Someone reported that Gaby was in a village in the province of Asti, and so we raided the entire area.” (My translation. From La Stampa, 3 October, after Gaby was released) Lastly, just a quick note to say that Wiseman isn't the only person to test psychic detectives and find them wanting. O'Keeffe and Klyver & Reiser have also looked into it with negative results.
Toggle Commented Mar 25, 2013 on Psychic Detectives at Paranormalia
I have some doubts on some of those solid RV successes. Like I said, I've only had the archive a couple of months, and while I've found several good hits these mostly appear to have happened before 1979, which is before the coverage of sessions becomes more complete, or have occurred during a training session. There are undoubtedly more, but bear in mind that during the operational remote viewing sessions, the interviewer is usually not blind to the nature of the target and sometimes neither is the viewer. I am still to find many of the sessions relating to most of the hits I've seen described in books and articles, but the URDF-3 result is not the only story to have grown in the telling. And the problem is not that session notes are missing but that there are session notes that directly contradict the version of events. As far as I can tell, the many attempts to remote view hostages were mostly met with negative results. Certainly, the account that states that remote viewers had focused in on Dozier's location but the data had not reached the authorities in time would appear to be wrong. Indeed, quite the opposite. I write about it in more detail in the link below, but in summary: data from remote viewers were passed on and it was acted upon twice with negative results. It will take a while for me to have a better idea of the quality of data in the archive as a whole. Part of the problem is that evaluations are either still classified or that two different evaluations of the same data come to different conclusions. I shall keep ploughing through to see what I can uncover. But first impressions suggest that, while there are some good hits suggestive of ESP, the final conclusion that the data was not suitable for operational use appears to be reasonable.
Toggle Commented Mar 14, 2013 on Russell Targ's The Reality of ESP at Paranormalia
Robert, I put a link to the 1975 report in my second reply, so I hope you get a chance to read it. Obviously, the secret services needed information they could act upon, and having one or two correct pieces of data hidden amongst many mistakes may be evidence of ESP but it's not much use to them. I'm not convinced that it is reasonable to say that one good hit is equally evidential, no matter how many misses accompany it. If you've read Targ then I'm sure you'll notice, there is one hit in the report that the author misses. At the beginning, Pat Price identifies URDF-3 as being linked to the space program (possibly influenced by news stories about the Soviet space program in the previous few days: a successful docking of the Salyut space station). The author, believing it to be a nuclear testing area says this is wrong, but many years later it was discovered that it was indeed concerned with researching nuclear rockets for space travel. Mind you, in day four Pat Price said that he realised he was wrong about it being connected with space and retracted it. Still, worth noting.
Toggle Commented Mar 11, 2013 on Russell Targ's The Reality of ESP at Paranormalia
I think it is important. Commonly, the account given is that Pat Price was given only a set of co-ordinates and then drew a huge crane. But this is wrong. On the first during during a session lasting two hours, Pat Price started well with describing the first impressions you'd get from looking at URDF-3, but then went on to view nine elements which weren't there. In amongst this, he mentions a gantry crane. Since this was one of the features that the CIA was interested in, they asked for more details. Effectively, they told Price that he was right about there being a crane. It was only after being prompted by someone who was not blind to the target did Price draw the crane and then describe it as being very big. The impression given by the first version compared to the second is quite different. One is far more impressive than the other. Above, Robert McLuhan wrote that "critics artfully raise the level of noise to the point where the existence of any actual signal becomes impossible to determine," which I'm sure is what some people think I'm doing now. It may be that, even knowing that the correct data were in a small minority compared erroneous data, you still think that the crane drawing is proof enough of remote viewing. That's fine, but it's a good idea to understand the context in which these hits took place. The original report of Price's remote viewing is online here
Toggle Commented Mar 10, 2013 on Russell Targ's The Reality of ESP at Paranormalia
A couple of months ago I received the Star Gate archive from and even with the extensive indexes supplied by Tamra Temple, it can be difficult to find what you want. There are hits, of course, but there are also misses. Interestingly, some of these misses have been described as hits in books and articles. Pat Price's remote viewing of URDF-3 is a case in point. He did draw a large gantry crane, but that was after he mentioned a gantry crane in passing and the people who commissioned the remote viewing sessions (ie, the CIA) then asked him for more detail about the crane. That evening Pat Price drew a gantry crane. In other words, he did not produce the drawing spontaneously during a session. Regarding the size, Pat Price described everything as big during his sessions as if he had guessed that they were working from satellite/aerial photographs. But like I said, I've not had these documents for long, and I feel as if I'm just scratching the surface. Nevertheless, there are plenty of erroneous data, especially with regards to their attempts at remote viewing hostages. Again, some of these sessions have later been written up as successes, which is cause for concern. By the way, it seems there aren't any massive gaps in the archive. The idea that the best sessions are still classified is possible, but it is probably a handful of sessions rather than a vast number. There are two documents listing operational remote viewing sessions and, although the target has been blanked out on some of them, all of the sessions appear to be present in the archive.
Toggle Commented Mar 10, 2013 on Russell Targ's The Reality of ESP at Paranormalia
ersby is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 10, 2013