duendy "ok, te subjct of psychic power. one poster her said they ha an interest in the occult. i am curious. in wat regard if you dont believe in psychic phenomena....?"
I'm guessing you're talking about me. I did not have an "interest" in the occult. I used to practice it. I've been there, done that. None of it has stood up to the scientific process (with one exception). Yes, my heart was in it. Yes my divinations often bore themselves out. Yes, I scored high with Zener cards (not consistently, but more often than not). Yes, I was actually with a group that practiced mind-reading and telekinesis. Nothing occured that didn't owe itself to either good playing of the odds or near-imperceptible clues in the environment. There's also the problem with people who so desperately want to believe that they will look for the slightest clue that such things are true and go on that as solid evidence.
For example, tarot cards. Just a psychological tool. You mention something like "an influential, older woman is holding you back", and your client will dig through their mental files until they find someone who fits that purpose. The hardest part about tarot reading was getting the client to shut up. I did cold readings, no knowledge of the client's past, or even wanting to know what their question was. Too many clues can be given away with the voice, let alone body language.
Had a strange event with a ouija board once, but that was it. I still study ghosts and I choose to believe in reincarnation (for lack of solid evidence one way or the other), but all of the psychic and paranormal phenomena I grew up with (yes, I grew up with this stuff and started putting it to the test at age 8 when I wanted to see how my family's religion worked) has failed to pass any test of validity past "good playing of the odds or near-imperceptible clues in the environment" with only one exception that I intend to get back to when I can get things set up again.
I'm not someone who discovered the occult in her teenage years and got into it because the imagery was cool (it is cool, I'll give you that) or because it freaked out my parents. Au contraire, I was raised on this stuff. We put up a Roman Catholic front when my dad's family visited, but he and my mom were really into this. My skepticism stems from the fact that the paranormal lacks the mystical allure for me because I grew up with it.
That's why I feel qualified to be the subject of a test. I don't want to hammer away at an event until I can force it to fit into a mundane explanation. That's no better than claiming that everything you can't readily explain must be psychic phenomena. I want to see if any of it holds up under mutually agreed upon conditions (scientists vs. psychics).
Let's try something easy. Remote viewing. Above the light switch in my computer room is a drawing that a friend of mine made for me. There are three elements in this drawing, each with distinctive features. The subject matter is something I have never discussed either on this board or anywhere on the internet except through e-mails to my brother, who does not have his own computer, using only the one at his local library for e-mail access. To my knowledge (and because he would insist I join him if he did), he does not visit forum sites at all.
Scientists-How many of the three elements must be described and to what level of accuracy?
Psychics-There is an item very near the picture that is pretty distinctive itself. Should I move it, or can you distinguish between the picture and the object?
All-Is this test acceptable at this point? Again I declare that my integrity on this matter can be counted on.
