Telepathy works but where is scientific evidence?

[medixstud6]

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???????????

[ToddYoung]

You ought to have a look at the work being done by Rupert Sheldrake:

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

[ToddYoung]

There's plenty of other YouTube videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...arch_type=

[Pix]

First, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying telepathy is impossible and I would not be surprised if it's a proven fact someday (a long, long time from now). (That said, if I had to choose I'd prefer skepticism to blind faith.) All I wanted to do was to help answer your overall question (without getting into the specific cases you brought up). I think this does it good enough:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2007/0...sor_brain/

Limited resources. The complaint Layne made — about how no scientist is going to use their Magnetic Resonance Imagery equipment to examine the theory of interpsychic sexuality — is a very common one. People especially make this complaint about alternative medicine — that scientists dismiss it for not having been tested carefully, but then refuse to devote their resources to doing that testing.

And there’s some truth to that.

The problem is resources. Had they but world enough and time, I’m sure the researchers at Stanford would be delighted to use their MRI equipment for studies on telepathy in SM sex. (If for no other reason, it would be a whole lot more entertaining for the research staff than whatever they’re working on now.) But science is both ungodly time-consuming and ungodly expensive, and researchers aren’t going to put their very limited time and budget into avenues of research they think are unlikely to bear fruit. And the reality is that every single serious, careful study that’s been done on other forms of telepathy has failed to find any evidence of it.

So when there are a hundred scientists in line to use the MRI equipment and the only slot you could get was on Labor Day between two and four a.m., you’re not going to spend it testing sadomasochistic telepathy. You’re going to spend it testing your theory about calcium supplements and bone density, or brain damage in alcoholics. (And even if you do want to spend your time and budget testing sadomasochistic telepathy, the people whose job it is to allocate time slots on the equipment aren’t likely to do it — for exactly the same reason.)

To believers in paranormal phenomena, that can seem really unfair. But here’s the thing we have to remember. In the early days of modern science, metaphysical theories were considered a lot more credible, and they got a fair amount of serious scientific attention. But when they were seriously tested, those theories fell apart — and the more the scientific method improved, the harder they fell. It isn’t that scientists are unwilling to do the research because they don’t believe the theory. It’s the exact opposite — they’re unwilling to seriously consider the theory because the research doesn’t support it, and never has.

Now, obviously, there’s a limit to this “most recent result” thing. As a science professor of mine once pointed out, if one of his students got a result that the density of helium and the density of lead were identical, that professor would not be rushing off to publish the results in “Science.” He would, instead, be checking to see whether that student had turned on their scale.

That’s where the whole “extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence” thing comes in. If a theory has stood up for decades or centuries, if it’s explained all the evidence so far and done a good job of predicting new evidence, then one anomalous result won’t be enough to make everyone question the theory. And it shouldn’t. Anomalous results happen too often — and they too often turn out to be explainable by something in the “they forgot to turn on their scale” department. A really solid theory that’s held up for a long time needs a metric shitload of evidence for it to be discarded and replaced.

If you go to the blog you'll see that the parts I've quoted are filled with links that expand on what's said.

But I will say one thing many skeptics won't appreciate: I don't trust James Randi. The reason for this is I read how he "proved" that the the Cottingley fairies were fakes using string (which apparently he did more by manipulating his computer--he is a stage magician, after all--than in honestly studying them), but the later deathbed confession was that they were instead cardboard cutouts using hat pins. So I don't really trust him (though it's possible he just somehow convinced himself to see an explanation just as some devout spiritualists convince themselves they see ghosts that no one but fellow believers can). I'm certain he'll never give away his prize money but I base that more on what I perceive as James Randi's flaws rather than his views (even if his views are coincidentally correct in all ways that matter). There are also a few experiments he did to debunk belief that I was not the least bit impressed with, too (more like rolling my eyes).

That said, I believe CSI (skeptics association) provides a valuable public service and I have fond memories (along with friends who were homeschoolers and unschoolers that I got together with when I was unschooling) of Skeptic (and Junior Skeptic) magazine (in part because we were surrounded by Creationists, new agers, people obsessed with bigfoot, conspiracy theories, Y2K, etc).

As for me personally I can share puzzling personal experiences and have heard a lot weirder from others that I find credible no matter how amazing, but my brain (perhaps my being a typical Libra? ) is very much split between a Fox Mulder and Dana Scully side and I just can't really decide firmly what I believe. And for me that's ok because it's just not that important to me (though sometimes very interesting and/or entertaining).