Science in Parapsychology

Which post # in that thread contains the most convincing evidence?
Skinwalker,
The ganzfeld experiments are an example of evidence of psi. If you want to see my defense of the experiments then look in the psipog thread starting at post 38. Basically, what it boils down to this - the Ganzfeld experiments produced positive results and have yet to be falsified.
 
Do not worry about skinwalker. (poor guy)... There will be evidence of all sorts of psychic sorts within the next several years. When this happen, there will be thrreads stating "Skinwalker, which post number would you like to see ourside aganist yours?" The controversy will be huge. It will be a field day for psychics, and sorta like the movie X Men....

dun dun dun.... * * *

:D
 
On a more "positive note"...

Kwhilborn i must say, has presented himself and the side very well, and has taken much attack on his trail , or way, which ever wordying you prefer. I think he is doing a fantastic job. Does anyone else agree? (aside from the stupid funny things every once in a while, which make you want to throw up). ...
 
Skinwalker you are full of it. !

I'm still waiting for someone to offer the # of the post that offers the most convincing evidence for telepathy.
Have you seen my first post to this thread?

Have you read the thread "proving 'telepathy' exists"?
The first post of that thread, if you wouldn't mind me saying, bring out the most controorsial statements within that first post and we can discuss them here?
?

What else are you asking for but a denial to even discuss the issue?

You skinwalker, are simply making bogus claims, not unlike what kwihlborn is saying. His side however seems much more logical as you have yet to make a straight claim. Anything can be discussed. Anything can be talked about. There is a thing that could potentially exist as telepathy, even in your mind. You simply refuse to talk about these things.

My how 'open minded' this
ENTIRE
forum is!!!
 
Ahh. The Ganzfeld studies. What's interesting is how the believers, who have preconceived conclusions about "psi" often quote these studies without ever looking at the many problems that were associated with them, published in the very same journals that Honorton, Sargent, Utts, et al published their results.

Among the serious issues with the Ganzfeld studies is the very nature of Honorton and Utts' statistical analyses. I remember looking at one study and noticing that the critical region seemed a bit inflated (that introduces bias in the statistical test, increasing the risk of Type I error). Moreover, Honorton made use of meta-analysis, which has the draw back of being seriously problematic if the statistical testing isn't precisely the same in each study. It wasn't. Different binomial tests were used, different critical regions, different p and q values, etc.

It doesn't strike any of you as a bit odd that, assuming the Ganzfeld studies were valid, there aren't any recent studies that have duplicated their results? I expect this probably has occurred to Grover -he seems to have a rational streak in him. But I'm not surprised that it never occurred to kilborn and existebrent. Their minds aren't nearly as "open" as they hypocritically claim.
 
Ahh. The Ganzfeld studies. What's interesting is how the believers, who have preconceived conclusions about "psi" often quote these studies without ever looking at the many problems that were associated with them, published in the very same journals that Honorton, Sargent, Utts, et al published their results.
After the initial rounds of the Ganzfeld studies Hyman (I think he was president of CSICOP at the time) pointed out the methodoligical errors and the tests were repeated accordingto his specifications. The tests still produced statistically significant results similar to the first ones.
It doesn't strike any of you as a bit odd that, assuming the Ganzfeld studies were valid, there aren't any recent studies that have duplicated their results?
Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that none of the sceptics ever falsified the results? That is the normal procedure in science ins't? Why is sceptical speculation in psi considered proof? The main reason, in my opinion, that psi remains a controversial topic that seems to refuse to get proved or disproved one way or the other is because the sceptics dont actually take the required step of actually falsifying the experiments but instead seem to think that mere speculation somehow is an acceptable stand-in for the scientific method.
 
Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that none of the sceptics ever falsified the results?

Lets be specific. Which results. Please post the data sets here so that we might look them over. A simple bivariate table should suffice as well as the statistical tests used by the specific study. There were a lot of the Ganzfeld tests that were specifically refuted, so it isn't sufficient to simply ask, "why didn't the skeptics falsify the results?" Moreover, it may not be a question of 'falsification' but rather one of genuine statistical significance. These were statistical studies, so it was up to the researchers to demonstrate, successfully, that there was, indeed, statistical significance that could not be explained by chance alone. It was also their responsibility to ensure that the methodological details were sound. I've yet to see the Ganzfeld study that lived up to these requirements.

But surprise me. Show me which, specific, results we are referring to. Its hard to discuss an hypothetical study to which hypothetical skeptics failed to 'falsify.'
 
But I'm not surprised that it never occurred to kilborn and existebrent. Their minds aren't nearly as "open" as they hypocritically claim.
Ok. You are funny. How can we take your bastardly claims seriously?

It doesn't strike any of you as a bit odd that, assuming the Ganzfeld studies were valid, there aren't any recent studies that have duplicated their results? I expect this probably has occurred to Grover -he seems to have a rational streak in him.
You don't even know me and yet you are speaking as if you know me.

Ok. Sure.
I will strike.

~
It is sort of funny to me. You, skinwalker the openminded god of gods, have not replied to my thread proving telepathy exists, which I mentioned, nor have you said anything about it or any of my words. I am considering starting a thread "proof that telepathy exists" or something along these lines. I am asking you now if you have the can have the courage to participate in that thread.

The choice is yours, of course. Of course it will have skinwalker in the title.
 
Ok. You are funny. How can we take your bastardly claims seriously?

Hey. I know who my father is. Don't project.

You, skinwalker the openminded god of gods,

Gods damned right.

have not replied to my thread proving telepathy exists, which I mentioned, nor have you said anything about it or any of my words.

I'm busy. Please link to the most convincing post that contains the most convincing evidence. Of any thread.

I am considering starting a thread "proof that telepathy exists" or something along these lines. I am asking you now if you have the can have the courage to participate in that thread.

Its not a matter of courage at this point, its a matter of time. But start it. I'm interested to see the 'evidence.' If I don't reply right away, I will within a week or so.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Back on topic. Now, will someone please show what the 'science' is in parapsychology. That was the topic of the thread, yes?

I assert that wherever there has been science, there has been no support for the various claims of parapsychology, such as psi, remote viewing, ESP, etc. Indeed, a major parapsychology research group -perhaps the only legitimate one- shut down. Closed their doors. They've thrown in the towel. Surely they wouldn't do this if there was any viable and productive directions their 'research' could take them.
 
Skinwalker you make a good point....

But possibly this view is mistaken.
There are many points one could make.
Possibly the people testing for telepathy today could achieve success if they follow a different aim. This aim is: prove telepathy exists. If the paitent needs to be at a different environment or any setting, this should be fine, as what these people are looking for is more important than it being in a specific setting.

There is something to parapsychology. It is a necessary attachment to science.
 
As with Nicola Tesla's "free energy". There is simply no money to be made by companies, and thus will not be recieving scientific funding any time soon.

Tesla continued his "free Energy" experiments with funding from JP MORGAN. He got it under the guise that he was researching communications. Once Morgan was told the truth he removed all funding.

Teslas alternating current was purchased by Westinghouse, and it was measureable and billable. Free energy was not. If you could just go and plug your toaster into the ground outside your home (kind of the theory), then there would be no way to meter your usage, and thus no way to make money from it.

The same is currently true about parapsychology fields. There is no potential to make money, and will be condemned to be researched by "garage" scientists for a while. Let us hope that some rich benifactors will lead the way with overly large contributions to the research, and perhaps then we may achieve some quantifying results.
 
Could not find your wiki link and tried to educate myself that theory does not mean the following Websters definition:

Websters schmebsters. Pick up a science text book. Or, look at the link created using the last word of Post # 17. Websters dictionary gives definitions of common usage. My Websters collegiate dictionary makes a specification: that the term theory is, in fact, a very different one when dealing with scientific issues. This is a science message board, thus we use the scientific definition of the word. If you chose do use the colloquial version, it will be you that looks ignorant and undereducated.


English is my first language skinwalker;

How embarrassing for you. Until now, I actually assumed that you were doing very well as a non-native speaker. I now revise my opinion -since I'm open-minded.

and by implying or actually stating that the word "Theory" implies fact is very wrong, and you further embarrass yourself each time you do this.

No. I'm afraid you're projecting. Theories (in science) are comprised of facts, tested hypotheses, successfully demonstrated experiments on research hypotheses, laws, and data that, together, offer an explanation of a phenomenon, event, effect, etc. Theories are always provisional and, at least potentially, revisable. It only takes new data.

So, when the pseudoscience woo-woo and the crackpot go on about "theories," they rarely have "theories" that contain any of the above. Their "theories" are, in fact, guesses; assumptions that have little or no supporting data; wild speculations; hypotheses, but often times the type that have not the chance of being falsified, and are thus dismissed in any real scientific endeavor until such time as they are potentially falsifiable.

Thus, its quite obvious where the embarrassment lies, which would explain why you keep going on and on about the word "theory," each time allowing for your definition to come closer to the real one. You started out defining theory as a wild speculation. Now you're including hypotheses and "bodies of principles." We'll educate you yet.

In science journals and everywhere you will hear phrases such as
Einstein's theory 'may be wrong'....

And it is a marvelous thing to hear! That all theories might be wrong! But it will take more than the spurious data of significance-junkies and mystery-mongers to correct them, I assure you. Indeed, researchers work tirelessly day and night to revise and correct many theories. Most of the time, a theory is only strengthened by revision -the gaps in data reduced; showing more and more of the "why" involved with things such as gravity, evolution, geology, and physical anthropology.

Skinwalker. please do not embarrass yourself further trying to correct my english. I do not think there is a a non scientific application for the word really, however I could be wrong there.

You are definitely wrong if you're still referring to the word theory. You cited the non-scientific as well as the scientific applications of the word above. Moreover, English is a capitalized word, so I doubt I'm in any danger of embarrassing myself. Thank you, kindly, for your consideration, however.

In your interpretation of the word "Theory"
"The theory of evolution" would be an accepted scientific fact, as would "The Theory of intelligent design". Yet we know that it is impossible for both to be true.

This argument suffers from a false premise, but the conclusion is true. Evolution is a theory. And a fact. "Intelligent" design is neither theory nor fact.

If we "KNOW" something is true, then it no longer becomes "Theory" it becomes fact. This must be done through experimentation which is "later on" in the scientific method.

a) A theory b) hypothesis to test theory c) experiment d) conclusions

that is grade 6 science skinwalker. Grade 6....

It would seem that this is where your science education trails off then. The myth of a hierarchical progression the way you mentioned above does not exist. You are ignorant. Again: ignorance is not something to be ashamed of unless you refuse to educate yourself. Get a science text book. A college level one. Read the intro material regarding theories, hypotheses, etc. You'll see what I'm talking about. Or, you can click the link in Post #17

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1379159&postcount=17

Click the very last word: "theory."

IF it is an accepted fact then it may be called such, or a theory may turn ito a "Law of"

Again, more evidence of your own ignorance. And I'm starting to feel somewhat embarrassed as you stated above for picking on you. So, let me just point out that many scientific theories include laws through necessity. That there is a hierarchical progression of theory, hypothesis, law is a myth. One that gets dispelled in a decent science class. Probably after the sixth grade.

So Skinwalker; tell me again how my use of the word "Theory" is wrong. If you have been accepting "Theory" as fact all these years, it would explain a few things.

I did. I hope you obtain an education. It will take a courageous man to come back and admit he was wrong and that he's revised his opinion, but, I assure you, it will score many points in my opinion of you should you rise to the occasion.

Its easy for someone educated in science and comfortable with the terminology and concepts to criticize and belittle those that aren't. Perhaps I was wrong for that and I'm tempted to edit this post to eliminate it. But you're own posts haven't been civil nor have they been kind. So I'm less inclined to do so. But, like I said, should you choose to revise and publicly admit your error, I will certainly be willing to revise my opinion of you.
I told you before also that "colloquial" refers to words with broken syntax such as "I'm gonna" instead of "I am going to", but since you are acting like a broken record with your "Theory" definition, then I will also dwell on your misuse of words. Here is a colloquialism in a sentence.

"Shan't" instead of "shall not" is a colloquialism

You're wrong. But since you're a fan of dictionary definitions, I'll correct you. Yet again.

Colloquial adj. Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language. (The usual sense.)

Source: Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 1989.

But you are correct that "shan't" is a colloquial contraction of "shall not."


FURTHERMORE: ALL I DID WAS SUGGEST THERE MIGHT BE A THEORY OUT THERE THAT COULD CONTAIN PARAPSYCHOLOGY INFORMATION.

NOWHERE IN THAT SUGGESTION DID I SAY THERE WAS OR WAS NOT A THEORY. I SIMPLY SUGGESTED THAT THERE MAY BE.

And all I did was ask that you clarify whether you were using the colloquial version of "theory" or the scientific version. I also stated that I should be happy to see actual theories (the scientific version) since they include tested hypotheses, facts, laws, etc. This is a sign of being open-minded, by the way: being "happy to see" such things.

Now how can you assume (skinwalker) what context I was referring.

No, I prefer not to assume. In Post #17, I was asking questions for clarification. I would add, however, that it is very interesting to see how you almost accept the scientific version (the relevant version on a science message board) of the word "theory," yet you still display partial ignorance to the term. In your post above, you still haven't demonstrated a full understanding of it, so one is left to assume that you didn't actually read fully the Wikipedia link you cited (which, ironically, is the very link you claimed you couldn't find). In the last paragraph: "Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[3] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics." I will add, that most decent science text books will mention that theories often include laws as well facts, tested hypotheses, etc.
 
As with Nicola Tesla's "free energy". There is simply no money to be made by companies, and thus will not be recieving scientific funding any time soon.

[...]

The same is currently true about parapsychology fields.
And the evidence is...?
 
It does not bother me the use of the word, however it does bother me that I let the challenge of it bother me. So I am removing my that post.

The evidence is. For the last question.
Once Morgan was told the truth he removed all funding.

I am sure you could double check that in the history Forum. The point I was making however is that most research is in areas funded in areas with the most potential for financial gain.
 
The evidence is. For the last question.


I am sure you could double check that in the history Forum. The point I was making however is that most research is in areas funded in areas with the most potential for financial gain.

I saw no discussion in the history forum about JP Morgan or Tesla. Certainly no primary sources that provide evidence to the claim that "free energy" means no one would be able to make money from the technology (should it exist -which, to date, hasn't been shown possible). The "free" in "free energy" refers to the work done to create it, not the financial gain -at least, that's the context I've always read it. In other words, there is much energy used to create energy today. Even hydrogen energy is not feasible because it requires tremendous amounts of electricity to produce the hydrogen. Wind energy, likewise, isn't free because it requires work to push the turbine.

Even if one were able to tap a genuine, free energy source, there would still be a need for infrastructure and metering to get that energy to the consumer. It wouldn't simply appear in their toasters and televisions -those things still need to be plugged into the wall. The wall is plugged into the grid, and the grid would, ostensibly, be plugged into the "free energy" source. That very fact leaves a tremendous opportunity for any company involved in the free market to reap unheard of profit.

So, when I asked for evidence, I was actually asking for a valid and sound argument as to why "free energy" is not only free of work in physics, but also free in cost to the consumer and why a company that is able to tap into isn't able to exploit a profit.

The "free energy" claims and the proponents of the concept that go on and on about how "the man" suppressed the technology because there's no profit don't exhibit basic understanding of market forces and I've never seen one of these conspiracy theorists ever successfully demonstrate that their arguments are sound.
 
Hmmm. Yes, Teslas free energy refers to a radical theory on how it is created, however he also created a free distribution network without wires/grids/meters. The mechanics of which are easily obtainable and too much information to attempt here.

I did not realize I was a conspiracy theorist until now. I guess if I am suggesting that marketing influences research and suppresses inventions contrary to the companies "agenda" then that makes me one.

I will now try to successfully argue for "The conspiracy theory".

I love talking about "Nicola Tesla", as it was his story that made me interested in science way back when. I may be a little more versed in the life of Tesla than many due to this fact; and his is a story worth telling.

Tesla was the world's most famous man at the turn of the 19th century. His best friend was Mark Twain, and had a rivalry with Thomas Edison. He is the forgotten electrical genius of our modern Space Age. Every time we turn on a light, start up a car, use a computer, or watch television, it is thanks to Tesla. He invented AC electricity and power plants, the electric motor, radio, loudspeakers, the Tesla coil, vacuum tubes, x-rays, remote control, radar, robots, ignition systems, the speedometer, fluorescent lights, neon, particle beams and registered over 1000 patents.

Yes. Skinwalker. I see your point about needing walls, and wires, and grids. This is how we think of energy arriving through our homes, and quite frankly the idea Tesla was proposing does seem rather dangerous to me, but none-the-less Tesla devised a system to transmit electricity through the air, and with better results through the ground. Quite literally you would be plugging your toaster into the ground if Nicola Tesla had gotten his way.

There are many Movies and Videos about this, and here are a few good ones. They are very short, but explain his successes far better than I can do with mere words.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2024408465029239288&q=nicola+tesla&hl=en


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=448493458864593229&q=nicola+tesla&hl=en

The academy award winning movie "the prestige" won an academy award for their portrayal of the sticking lightbulbs in the ground experiment wich operates under the "energy transmitted through the earth" I was referring to with the toaster in the ground.

This belongs in the history forum more than here (maybe later), but as you know I am attempting to prove a "conspiracy theory"

Tesla was crazy. He was also absolutely a brilliant engineer, but a nutbar none-the-less. He would always do things in multiples of threes, like eating, chewing or walking. He measured the volume of his food before he ate it. He liked to wow guests by running electrical current through his body to light lamps. His weirdness caused him problems with his various employers and landlords over the years. He died surrounded by pigeons in a New York apartment.

A century later, many of his discoveries are just beginning to see the light of day. His real secrets, however, are still classified under the National Security Act of 1947. He invented a air defence beam that he tried to sell to the british government that would destroy 300 planes simultaneously.

His radical ideas for free energy are just being theorized as possible now.

In the summer of 1931, Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current and the holder of some 1000 other U.S. patents, along with his nephew Peter Savo, installed a box on the front seat of a brand new Pierce-Arrow touring car at the company factory in Buffalo, New York. The box is said to have been 24 inches long, 12 inches wide and 6 inches high. Out of it protruded a 1.8 meter long antenna and two ¼ inch metal rods. Inside the box was reputed to be some dozen vacuum tubes -- 70-L-7 type -- and other electrical parts. Two wire leads ran from the box to a newly-installed 40 inch long, 30 inch diameter AC motor that replaced the gasoline engine.
As the story goes, Tesla inserted the two metal rods and announced confidently, "We now have power" and then proceeded to drive the car for a week, "often at speeds of up to 90 mph." One account says the motor developed 1,800 rpm and got fairly hot when operating, requiring a cooling fan. The "converter" box is said to have generated enough electrical energy to also power the lights in a home.
The car is said to have ended up on a farm 20 miles outside of Buffalo, "not far from Niagara Falls."
So what was the power source? Some charged "black magic", while others remained naturally skeptical. Tesla is reputed to have removed the box and returned to his New York City laboratory without revealing how he did it, though the suspicion lingers to this day, on the 150th anniversary of his birth in Smiljan, Croatia on July 9/10, 1856, that he had somehow tapped into the earth's magnetic field or perhaps even more exotically, zero point energy or gravitation waves.

The Tesla shield is supposedly designed to protect us from electromagnetic radiation (radio waves).

He attended the University of Prague and worked as an electrical engineer in Germany, Hungary and France before emigrating to the United States in 1884. He got off the boat with 4 cents in his pocket and was working for Thomas Edison within a few months.

He did not get along with Edison. Their colossal egos collided. So he quit or was fired with Edison still owing him about $50,000 (depending on your political allegiances.) Just to piss off Edison he chose this time to debut his invention of alternating current. (which was vastly superior to Edisons Direct Current.) His writing suggest he had envisioned it a decade earlier. In 1885, George Westinghouse, bought patent rights to Tesla's system of alternating-current. Edison was peeved.

He developed in rapid succession the induction motor, new types of generators and transformers, a system of alternating-current power transmission, fluorescent lights, and a new type of steam turbine... (whew, busy dude) then about 1898 he suddenly became interested in radio.

He was obsessed with his idea of transmitting energy through the air. When his finances dried up, he continued his research pretending to be working on wireless communications. He lied to the most powerful financier in the world.
On Long Island he began construction of a wireless broadcasting tower. The project was funded with $150,000 capital from financier J. P. Morgan. After a long time with no obvious success in communications Tesla admitted that his primary research was his free energy, and his "through the earth" transmission system. Morgan was furious. The project was abandoned when Morgan withdrew his financial support. He relocated to Colorado Springs, Colorado. Upon his arrival he told reporters that he was conducting experiments transmitting signals from Pikes Peak to Paris. He was developing a system for wireless telegraphy, telephony, and the transmission of power. He got his American citizen ship and I guess he started to relax, because this is when the real weirdness began to flow.

In the Colorado Springs lab, he "recorded" signals of what he concluded were extraterrestrial radio signals. His announcements and data were rejected by the scientific community without any investigation of the validity of his data. He noted measurements of repetitive signals from his receiver which are substantially different from the signals he had noted from storms and earth noise. Specifically, he later recalled, that the signals appeared in groups of clicks 1, 2, 3, and 4 clicks together. Tesla spent the latter part of his life trying to signal Mars.
And why not, he'd been totally dicked over by the patent office. He'd patented several fudamental nuts& bolts in radio and the US Government wanted to avoid having to the pay royalties that were he claimed for their use. Edisons and his backers applies pressure on the state department to award many of these patents to Marconi. For the backers, it was about money. They'd been funding Marconi and Edison for years. For Edison was personal. He just hated Tesla.
Later in life, Tesla announced to the media that he had developed a "Death-Ray" it was supposedly capable of destroying 2000 airplanes at a 250 mile distance. Although Tesla did allow photographs to be taken of a small-scale prototype in action, he withheld much of the information that would allow others to understand his design. Might have been real, might not (depending on your political allegiances.) but you can read about it . Tesla tried to sell his death ray to Great Britain for $3,000,000 and promised to make the British Isles invulnerable within three months. They didnt bite. Russia did, but he didnt deliver. Possibly becase he was becoming psychoticly paranoid and was convinced that the US government was making unsuccessful attempts to break into his hotel room.
His death ray was not all sci-fi. His idea was to use a gigantic electrostatic generator run by one of his turbines to acccelerate tiny particles of mercury until they became a stream of super high-powered bullets of several million volts. Since they were accelerated in a vacuum, Tesla needed a way to spit them out of the accelerator sphere without letting air in.
In the end, Marconi hit up the government for too much royalty cash during WWI. The patent office vindictively reinstated most of the patents to Tesla. Tesla was an american citizen. Marconi was not. So they waited until he died, so that it would be free. So in 1943, months after his death, Tesla patent number US645576 was reinstated's by the US Supreme Court, making the now deceased Tesla the official inventor of the radio.

O.K. if you have gotten this far then you must agree that financial backing and purchasers, such as Westinghouse and JP Morgan were very influential in Nicola Teslas life.

Imagine: Alternating current,electric motor,neon lights,remote control, and the radio. Plus many more. All from one mans mind. If he had financial backing for the "free energy" project, then perhaps his mind could have made it work.

If all a car needed to run was a small 24 inch box on the front seat who would suffer? Gas companies/stations, electrical companies, and that is just the tip of it. I am not saying it is possible, but I am saying "Nicola Tesla" said it was possible, and the man was a genius probably centuries ahead of his time.

O.K. that's the best argument I can give as to how the withdrawel of JP Morgans money hurt Tesla.

Other aspects of this argument are just common sense.

a) if you asked a cigarette company to back you, because you had a good idea for a non addictive cigarette. Would they want to help you create such a thing.

b) would Esso help you design a car that ran on solar power?

Not that these ideas would work, but if they stood a chance you'd be stuck inventing them in your garage.

Sorry to go off topic, but I think Nicola Tesla should be studied far more than what he has been. Everyone hears of Thomas Edison, but.....
 
It wouldn't simply appear in their toasters and televisions -those things still need to be plugged into the wall. The wall is plugged into the grid,

Actually it would simply appear without wires, without grids, and without meters. It sounds like a weird story, and it is.

Hmmm. Yes, Teslas free energy refers to a radical theory on how it is created, however he also created a free distribution network without wires/grids/meters. The mechanics of which are easily obtainable and too much information to attempt here.

I did not realize I was a conspiracy theorist until now. I guess if I am suggesting that marketing influences research and suppresses inventions contrary to the companies "agenda" then that makes me one.

I will now try to successfully argue for "The conspiracy theory".

I love talking about "Nicola Tesla", as it was his story that made me interested in science way back when. I may be a little more versed in the life of Tesla than many due to this fact; and his is a story worth telling.

Tesla was the world's most famous man at the turn of the 19th century. His best friend was Mark Twain, and had a rivalry with Thomas Edison. He is the forgotten electrical genius of our modern Space Age. Every time we turn on a light, start up a car, use a computer, or watch television, it is thanks to Tesla. He invented AC electricity and power plants, the electric motor, radio, loudspeakers, the Tesla coil, vacuum tubes, x-rays, remote control, radar, robots, ignition systems, the speedometer, fluorescent lights, neon, particle beams and registered over 1000 patents.

Yes. Skinwalker. I see your point about needing walls, and wires, and grids. This is how we think of energy arriving through our homes, and quite frankly the idea Tesla was proposing does seem rather dangerous to me, but none-the-less Tesla devised a system to transmit electricity through the air, and with better results through the ground. Quite literally you would be plugging your toaster into the ground if Nicola Tesla had gotten his way.

There are many Movies and Videos about this, and here are a few good ones. They are very short, but explain his successes far better than I can do with mere words.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2024408465029239288&q=nicola+tesla&hl=en


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=448493458864593229&q=nicola+tesla&hl=en

The academy award winning movie "the prestige" won an academy award for their portrayal of the sticking lightbulbs in the ground experiment which operates under the "energy transmitted through the earth" I was referring to with the toaster in the ground.

This belongs in the history forum more than here (maybe later), but as you know I am attempting to prove a "conspiracy theory"

Tesla was crazy. He was also absolutely a brilliant engineer, but a nutbar none-the-less. He would always do things in multiples of threes, like eating, chewing or walking. He measured the volume of his food before he ate it. He liked to wow guests by running electrical current through his body to light lamps. His weirdness caused him problems with his various employers and landlords over the years. He died surrounded by pigeons in a New York apartment.

A century later, many of his discoveries are just beginning to see the light of day. His real secrets, however, are still classified under the National Security Act of 1947. He invented a air defence beam that he tried to sell to the british government that would destroy 300 planes simultaneously.

His radical ideas for free energy are just being theorized as possible now.

In the summer of 1931, Nikola Tesla, the inventor of alternating current and the holder of some 1000 other U.S. patents, along with his nephew Peter Savo, installed a box on the front seat of a brand new Pierce-Arrow touring car at the company factory in Buffalo, New York. The box is said to have been 24 inches long, 12 inches wide and 6 inches high. Out of it protruded a 1.8 meter long antenna and two ¼ inch metal rods. Inside the box was reputed to be some dozen vacuum tubes -- 70-L-7 type -- and other electrical parts. Two wire leads ran from the box to a newly-installed 40 inch long, 30 inch diameter AC motor that replaced the gasoline engine.
As the story goes, Tesla inserted the two metal rods and announced confidently, "We now have power" and then proceeded to drive the car for a week, "often at speeds of up to 90 mph." One account says the motor developed 1,800 rpm and got fairly hot when operating, requiring a cooling fan. The "converter" box is said to have generated enough electrical energy to also power the lights in a home.
The car is said to have ended up on a farm 20 miles outside of Buffalo, "not far from Niagara Falls."
So what was the power source? Some charged "black magic", while others remained naturally skeptical. Tesla is reputed to have removed the box and returned to his New York City laboratory without revealing how he did it, though the suspicion lingers to this day, on the 150th anniversary of his birth in Smiljan, Croatia on July 9/10, 1856, that he had somehow tapped into the earth's magnetic field or perhaps even more exotically, zero point energy or gravitation waves.

The Tesla shield is supposedly designed to protect us from electromagnetic radiation (radio waves).

He attended the University of Prague and worked as an electrical engineer in Germany, Hungary and France before emigrating to the United States in 1884. He got off the boat with 4 cents in his pocket and was working for Thomas Edison within a few months.

He did not get along with Edison. Their colossal egos collided. So he quit or was fired with Edison still owing him about $50,000 (depending on your political allegiances.) Just to piss off Edison he chose this time to debut his invention of alternating current. (which was vastly superior to Edisons Direct Current.) His writing suggest he had envisioned it a decade earlier. In 1885, George Westinghouse, bought patent rights to Tesla's system of alternating-current. Edison was peeved.

He developed in rapid succession the induction motor, new types of generators and transformers, a system of alternating-current power transmission, fluorescent lights, and a new type of steam turbine... (whew, busy dude) then about 1898 he suddenly became interested in radio.

He was obsessed with his idea of transmitting energy through the air. When his finances dried up, he continued his research pretending to be working on wireless communications. He lied to the most powerful financier in the world.
On Long Island he began construction of a wireless broadcasting tower. The project was funded with $150,000 capital from financier J. P. Morgan. After a long time with no obvious success in communications Tesla admitted that his primary research was his free energy, and his "through the earth" transmission system. Morgan was furious. The project was abandoned when Morgan withdrew his financial support. He relocated to Colorado Springs, Colorado. Upon his arrival he told reporters that he was conducting experiments transmitting signals from Pikes Peak to Paris. He was developing a system for wireless telegraphy, telephony, and the transmission of power. He got his American citizen ship and I guess he started to relax, because this is when the real weirdness began to flow.

In the Colorado Springs lab, he "recorded" signals of what he concluded were extraterrestrial radio signals. His announcements and data were rejected by the scientific community without any investigation of the validity of his data. He noted measurements of repetitive signals from his receiver which are substantially different from the signals he had noted from storms and earth noise. Specifically, he later recalled, that the signals appeared in groups of clicks 1, 2, 3, and 4 clicks together. Tesla spent the latter part of his life trying to signal Mars.
And why not, he'd been totally dicked over by the patent office. He'd patented several fudamental nuts& bolts in radio and the US Government wanted to avoid having to the pay royalties that were he claimed for their use. Edisons and his backers applies pressure on the state department to award many of these patents to Marconi. For the backers, it was about money. They'd been funding Marconi and Edison for years. For Edison was personal. He just hated Tesla.
Later in life, Tesla announced to the media that he had developed a "Death-Ray" it was supposedly capable of destroying 2000 airplanes at a 250 mile distance. Although Tesla did allow photographs to be taken of a small-scale prototype in action, he withheld much of the information that would allow others to understand his design. Might have been real, might not (depending on your political allegiances.) but you can read about it . Tesla tried to sell his death ray to Great Britain for $3,000,000 and promised to make the British Isles invulnerable within three months. They didnt bite. Russia did, but he didnt deliver. Possibly becase he was becoming psychoticly paranoid and was convinced that the US government was making unsuccessful attempts to break into his hotel room.
His death ray was not all sci-fi. His idea was to use a gigantic electrostatic generator run by one of his turbines to acccelerate tiny particles of mercury until they became a stream of super high-powered bullets of several million volts. Since they were accelerated in a vacuum, Tesla needed a way to spit them out of the accelerator sphere without letting air in.
In the end, Marconi hit up the government for too much royalty cash during WWI. The patent office vindictively reinstated most of the patents to Tesla. Tesla was an american citizen. Marconi was not. So they waited until he died, so that it would be free. So in 1943, months after his death, Tesla patent number US645576 was reinstated's by the US Supreme Court, making the now deceased Tesla the official inventor of the radio.

O.K. if you have gotten this far then you must agree that financial backing and purchasers, such as Westinghouse and JP Morgan were very influential in Nicola Teslas life.

Imagine: Alternating current,electric motor,neon lights,remote control, and the radio. Plus many more. All from one mans mind. If he had financial backing for the "free energy" project, then perhaps his mind could have made it work.

If all a car needed to run was a small 24 inch box on the front seat who would suffer? Gas companies/stations, electrical companies, and that is just the tip of it. I am not saying it is possible, but I am saying "Nicola Tesla" said it was possible, and the man was a genius probably centuries ahead of his time.

O.K. that's the best argument I can give as to how the withdrawel of JP Morgans money hurt Tesla.

Other aspects of this argument are just common sense.

a) if you asked a cigarette company to back you, because you had a good idea for a non addictive cigarette. Would they want to help you create such a thing.

b) would Esso help you design a car that ran on solar power?

Not that these ideas would work, but if they stood a chance you'd be stuck inventing them in your garage.

Sorry to go off topic, but I think Nicola Tesla should be studied far more than what he has been. Everyone hears of Thomas Edison, but.....

I highly recommend the following video to anyone who does not know much about the life and times of NICOLA TESLA.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1959451995748125186&q=nicola+tesla&hl=en

He has proven many, many of his theories, he was quite an inspiration to any interested in science, and this video will leave you spellbound.
 
Last edited:
Crunchy you just dont accept the evidence when its shown to you. That simple. The Ganzfeld experiments constitute evidence which have yet to be falsified. Period.

The ganzfeld/autoganzfeld data is simply untrustworthy.

Exactly. Your comment is nothing more than dogmatic bullshit and to you it doesn't matter. In your mind the case is closed and there is no reasoning with you. Its actually pretty comical. I didn't no there were people like you that literally can't accept the possibilty that psi might be real.

This isn't a matter of putting an idea through the reason mill. This is a matter of making a claim and showing the proof. At a generic level I have no idea of psi is possible. I suspect it is with technology and maybe life exists elsewhere that is capable of it naturally. What I do know is that the claim of human psi is fantasy. Read the psipog owner's last blog and it's chalk full of evidence backing that assertion up.

No, silly the knowns are that there are many scientific studies that show evidence for psi that have yet to be falsified by actual scientific tests. Many sceptics av especulated about the results but have not actually falsified the tests. Thats how science works.

When a claim is made of something's existence, it or its effects have to be made instantiatiable, reproducible, and evident. That is how reality works.

It doesn't take psi to see that you You don't want psi to be true so you refuse to accept any evidence just like Christian fundamentalists don't want evolution to be true so refuse to accept any evidence. What is it about a non-psi universe that you have to cling to it so badly? What dark little secrets are your in head that you are afraid could get out?

I don't want psi to be true? I would bet all humans do. Who wouldn't want psi abilities? psi is immensly attractive and cool. I think you have a hard time understanding that people can value truth over their own desires.
 
Back
Top