Michael Cremo - Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative To Darwin's Theory

In 1997, dean Radin published the results of his study of 34 card guessing experiments carried out with high levels of security. The experiments were conducted by two dozen researchers during the years 1934–1939, and involved 907,000 separate trials. The chance expectation would be correct guesses in one out of five trials, for a hit rate of twenty percent. Radin (1997, p. 96) arranged the studies in four groups, according to the kinds of security measures employed, and found that the hit rates were significantly above chance for all four groups. critics propose that these hit rates might be the result of selective reporting. In other words, for every published report with favorable results, there might have been other studies with unfavorable results that the experimenters did not publish but kept in their file drawers. This is called “the file drawer problem.” But in order to eliminate the positive results from the 34 published reports, there would have had to have been at least 29,000 unpublished studies, a ratio of 861 to 1 (Radin 1997, p. 97). Such a massive number of unpublished studies is exceedingly unlikely. Radin further noted: “If we consider all the ESP card tests conducted from 1882 to 1939, reported in 186 publications by dozens of investigators around the world, the combined results of this four-million trial database translate into tremendous odds against chance—more than a billion trillion to one.” To eliminate this positive result, the number of unpublished studies in the “file drawer” would have to have been 626,000, for a ratio of more than 3,300 unpublished reports for every published report (Radin 1997, p. 97).

In 1974, nature, the world’s foremost scientific publication, printed a paper by physicists Harold Puthoff and Dr. Russell Targ, about paranormal experiments carried out at the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory of the Stanford Research Institute, associated with Stanford University. Targ and Puthoff sought to test the ability of a subject to give information about drawings of objects or scenes shielded from ordinary sense perception. The subjects included Uri Geller, whose psychic achievements were surrounded by accusations of fraud. Whatever one may think about those accusations, one should still be prepared to independently judge particular experiments as to whether or not adequate precautions were taken to prevent deception. Targ and Puthoff stated (1974, p. 602): “We conducted our experiments with sufficient control, utilising visual, acoustic and electrical shielding, to ensure that all conventional paths of sensory input were blocked. At all times we took measures to prevent sensory leakage and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional.” Thirteen remote perception experiments were carried out with Uri Geller. In the first ten, either Geller or the researchers were placed in a shielded room. In the majority of cases, Geller was in the acoustically and visually isolated room, which had double steel walls with double locking doors. Only after this isolation procedure was carried out were target drawings made by the researchers and selected for Geller to identify. Geller did not know the identity of the researcher selecting the target or the method by which targets were selected. In most cases, the target drawings were made by SRI scientists who were not part of the experimental group. The target drawings were kept in a variety of locations, ranging from 4 meters to 7 miles away from the viewing site. Experimenters provided Geller with a pen and paper, and asked him to reproduce the target drawing, giving him the option to pass if he felt he could not detect the target. If he did produce a drawing, the researchers collected it before Geller was allowed to see the target drawing. In an additional three cases, drawings were made by computer. In one case the drawing was visually displayed on a computer screen. In another case it was kept in computer memory but not displayed on the screen. In the final case the target drawing was displayed on the screen but the contrast was adjusted so that the image was not actually visible to the human eye. during these three computer-screen tests, Geller was kept isolated in a faraday cage, designed to weaken electrical signals. Geller gave responses to ten of the thirteen tests. To evaluate how well Geller’s drawings matched the targets, they were submitted to two SRI scientists not part of the research team. The judges were asked to match subject drawings with target drawings. Targ and Puthoff (1974, p. 604) said, “The two judges each matched the target data to the response data with no error. for either judge such a correspondence has an a priori probability, under the null hypothesis of no information channel, of P = (10!)-1 = 3 × 10-7.” In other words, in each case he submitted a drawing, or set of drawings, Geller was able to match the target.

In another set of remote viewing experiments, an SRI scientist made 100 target drawings, which were placed in double envelopes with black cardboard. Each day, twenty target drawings were selected for the experiment. Geller again had to try to make drawings that corresponded with the targets. The experiment was run once a day for three days. Targ and Puthoff (1974, p. 604) said, “The drawings resulting from this experiment do not depart significantly from what would be expected by chance.” In a final set of ten experiments, Geller was presented with a closed metal box containing a die. Before presentation to Geller, the box was vigorously shaken. In each trial, Geller would write down which surface of the die was facing up. In two of the trials, Geller declined to write an answer. Targ and Puthoff reported (1974, p. 604): “In the eight times in which he gave a response, he was correct each time. The distribution of responses consisted of three 2’s, one 4, two 5’s, and two 6’s. The probability of this occurring by chance is approximately one in 106 [1 in 1,000,000].”

In another set of experiments with a new subject, Targ and Puthoff attempted to determine whether the subject, Pat Price (a former city councilman and police commissioner in california), could identify geographical features several miles distant. Twelve locations within 30 minutes driving time of SRI were chosen by the director of the SRI Information Science and Engineering division. The director also prepared travel directions for each of the selected locations. The set of locations and directions was not known to the experimenters and was kept under the director’s control. for each trial, the director would give one of the sets of travel directions to a team of two to four experimenters, who would then proceed to the site. Price and another experimenter remained behind at SRI, and Price would provide a description of the target site to the experimenter. The descriptions were recorded on audio tape. Price took part in nine such trials. Targ and Puthoff (1974, p.605) stated: “Several descriptions yielded significantly correct data pertaining to and descriptive of the target location . . . Price’s ability to describe correctly buildings, docks, roads, gardens and so on, including structural materials, colour, ambience and activity, sometimes in great detail, indicated the functioning of a remote perceptual ability.” five independent judges from SRI visited the sites and examined transcripts of Price’s descriptions. They then attempted to match the descriptions to the target sites they had visited. Targ and Puthoff (1974, p. 606) reported: “By plurality vote, six of the nine descriptions and locations were correctly matched.” The probability of this occurring by chance was P =5.6 × 10-4.

In a final set of experiments, subjects (receivers) were tested to see if their brain wave activity could be correlated with that of persons (senders) being subjected to flashing lights at remote locations. In each trial, the sender would be subjected to ten seconds of flashing lights (at six or sixteen flashes per second) or ten seconds of no flashing lights. The receiver, in a visually and electrically isolated room, would hear a tone, indicating that a trial had begun. But the receiver would not know whether the trial involved flashing lights or not. The sequence of flashing or not flashing trials was random. The degree of correlation between the brain of the sender and the brain of the receiver was judged by measuring alpha waves in the brain of the receiver. Under normal circumstances, persons subjected to flashing lights show a decrease in the amplitude of alpha brain waves. So if the sender was exposed to flashing lights, the brain of the receiver should also show a decrease in the amplitude of alpha waves. One receiver’s brain did show alpha waves that decreased in amplitude each time the sender was exposed to flashing lights. This subject was then selected for further testing, with the same result. The average power and peak power of alpha waves was consistently less in this receiver when the sender was being exposed to lights flashing sixteen times per second (Targ and Puthoff 1974, p. 607).