Friday, February 26, 2010

The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 2)

This post is describing in greater details the proposed model to study the social dimension of psi effects, and UFO events in particular. The emphasis is placed today on the overall architecture upon which the model is built, and the rational for such architecture. The next post will look in more details at the individual elements of the model.


Split between the empirical and the interpretative
The overall architecture of the model is based on a synthetic view of a number of researches in parapsychology, and especially research on psychokinesis (PK). One important finding in parapsychology is that psi effects are most likely the outcome of unconscious mental processes. This conclusion was expressed by the founder of the discipline, J. B. Rhine, already in 1954[1], and remains one of the most enduring issue in parapsychology. The issue is that if unconscious processes are at the centre of the phenomena, then it becomes very difficult to study it. North American psychology is particularly adverse to the study of the unconscious, as cognitive psychology (emphasizing conscious perception) and behaviourist psychology (emphasizing a “black box” approach through an input-output stimulation view of the human mind) are the dominant perspectives. North American parapsychology also suffered from this problem, and it can be clearly noted by the undervaluing of researchers who focussed on the unconscious such as Fodor Nandor and Jule Eisenbuld. In spite of these internal debates within psychology and parapsychology, any models of psi (and social psi included) need to locate the most dynamic portions of the phenomena under the threshold of empirical observation.

It is for this reason that the proposed model for social psi has a built-in ontological assumption that divides between empirical sociology (i.e., what can be observed through social behaviour), and what requires interpretation to understand such behaviours. The interpretative sociology has a long history and is well-established but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to present such history here. Suffice to say that there are many sociological tools available, developed by classical sociologists such Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and more recent ones like Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer, Alfred Schutz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as well as all the research conducted in the present field of “cultural studies". The key here is to not ignore what is beyond the threshold of direct observation, which would otherwise lead one to the same trap as the one positivist psychology found itself, and in my opinion the greatest barrier to the advancement of parapsychology.

The role of consciousness
The proposed model is also synthesizing some of the key findings on PK research. If unconscious processes are at the centre of psi effects, then consciousness is very much in the way when it is time to produce psi effects. It is for this reason that most parapsychologists think that spontaneous psi effects are stronger than the ones produced in laboratory or experimental settings, and that “ongoing psi on demand” is all but an impossible task. Batcheldor[2] noted that in his group PK experiment he had to use all kind of tricks to get people mind off the experiment (like using humour, playing illusionist tricks, etc.) so that the unconscious can act without interference from the consciousness. Pamela Heath, in her extensive survey of PK research[3] found that the suspension of the intellect, altered states of consciousness, dissociation, openness to emotions, meditative states were keys to produce PK effects. Once again, the conclusion is that consciousness has to be circumvented.

This fundamental issue in parapsychology is represented in the model by the difference between the red and green lines. The red line represents spontaneous psi effects which are circumventing consciousness, while the green line represents the conscious task to produce psi effects in experimental conditions that is then setup in a way where the unconscious is given a chance afterward to circumvent consciousness. Batcheldor was able to do so in his group PK experiment, although it was not easy. It is less than clear if a social-level experiment could be produced in such a way. The fact that an action would be socially known as being “an experiment”, and then finding “social-level distractions” afterward to make the social consciousness “forget” about the experiment so that a social psi effect could occur might be impossible. In other words, given the nature of social relations and social communications, I think it is nearly impossible to do social psi experimentation. The only exception would be to use unethical deception (for instance hooking up with a group of UFO believers, feeding them with believable stories about UFOs having a very particular content, and then see if some of that content emerges in future sightings where a degree of objectivity can be assessed—like multiple unconnected observers). [4] The net result, however, is that there are serious reasons for limiting research on spontaneous social psi. In turn, this has serious consequences. Predictive statements cannot be verified experimentally (the preferred approach in Western science), but only through confirming after the fact how a social psi event unfolded. This is essentially the approach used in the 1952 Washington case study.

Circular nature
The model was not presented as circle essentially due to my very limited artistic abilities. But once a psi effect occurs, it can modify behaviour, which in turn becomes a new element of one’s memory about psi. If one sees a UFO, or has a telepathic feeling, it is very likely that he or she will have a much different attitude in the future about UFOs or ESPs. The circular nature of psi is certainly validated through the well-known notion of declining results in parapsychology. When someone tend to guess correctly more often than normal, then his or her confidence is boosted which in turn is both helping the process in reinforcing the unconscious belief in psi and disabling the process by causing stressful expectations to perform. The more loops in the circuit are completed, the less likely someone will perform because the conscious stress eventually overrides the unconscious belief. In cases where expectations to perform are neutralized, then it is boredom that replaces stress but with the same declining results in the end.

In the case of spontaneous psi, however, the circuit works somewhat differently. A psi event will reinforce the belief in the paranormal, which reinforces the unconscious belief that there is “something” to it. Yet, this “something” has to be attributed to a non-human force or entity so that there is no stress related to performing (it is not me but “it” that does that), and no boredom as it is seen as something extraordinary. This issue is clearly addressed in von Lucadou’s model with the notion of “displacement”, and discussed at length in the 1952 Washington case study. From a social psi perspective, it is critical for spontaneous social psi effects to continuing occurring to have a community of believers, be it about aliens, ghosts, demons, etc., to create such a displacement. In the proposed model, this translates in the creation of new social representations, or the reinforcement of existing representations. UFOs, which are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, were rapidly equated with extra-terrestrial visitors in spite of having very little evidence to support such a view. But without such social representations, a “semi-permanent” displacement towards the non-human to explain social psi effects cannot occur at the social level. In other words, contrary to von Lucadou’s model which is dealing with small groups of people’s (family or co-workers) belief that a ghost is responsible for the events and where the events eventually dissipates , social-scale phenomena like UFOs need to be continuously reinforced by an ongoing active belief system (what would be in von Lucadou’s terminology an “ongoing displacement”). That’s one of the key differences between the individual level and the social level.

This synthesis from parapsychology plays in particular ways at each step of the circuit, and these will be discussed in the next post.

[1] Rhine, J.B. (1954). “The science of nonphysical nature”. Journal of Philosophy 51: 801-810.
[2] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.
[3] Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse.
[4] For those who are strong believers in conspiracy theory, such an experimental scenario might be the most realistic one about UFOs, science, and governmental authorities.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Monday, February 15, 2010

The social psi circuit: A tentative model (Part 1)

This post is proposing a tentative model to explain social psi effects based on the literature surveyed up to this point, and some afterthought emerging out of the historical case studies presented here. The model is presented as a “circuit” because there is an apparent recurrent component to psi effects.

Preliminary remarks

There is one challenge linked to parasociology in general, and UFO studies in particular, that needs to be highlighted. Knowledge is usually produced by alternating between induction and deduction, or by observation and conceptualization. New data are required to validate or modify concepts and models which are necessary if one is to produce more than mere description (i.e., producing an explanation). Concepts and models are required to assess which data are relevant, as data about the entire reality cannot be collected without being quickly overwhelmed (i.e., distinguishing between the signal and the noise). Overtime, there is a synergy between more accurate observations and better conceptualization, ultimately leading to better explanations. This is the ideal model of scientific knowledge production.

The reality, however, is that there are cultural preferences within the Western world about induction and deduction. Namely, in the English-speaking world there is a clear preference for induction (i.e., the portion starting from observation and moving very slowly towards conceptualization). People who are from cultures that are linked to those of continental Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) tend to have a preference for deduction (i.e., it is more important to spend energy to have good concepts so that most of the noise is removed when it is time to observe). Deduction also means to adapt existing concepts developed and tested for comparable problems so that one avoids re-inventing the wheel. For those who are familiar with philosophy of science, it is illustrated by the David Hume versus René Descartes fault line, which has been at the source of many misunderstandings. In the end, however, both induction and deduction are needed to make sense of the world around us.

This brings us to UFO studies. In the United States, most of UFO research is very much influenced by the cultural preference for induction, sometimes taking the shape of a militant ideology. The problem of such approach is that one is at serious risks of never moving beyond description, and so never reaching a sound explanation. This problem is even further compounded if one relies on the highly speculative notion of extra-terrestrial visitations for an explanation, over which “visitations” we have no control anyway. Hence, induction would be at the mercy of somebody else’s incomprehensible idiosyncratic wishes.

Parasociology, as discussed here, is very much influenced by a preference for deduction. This may cause “cognitive dissonance” to many interested in UFOs. But this choice for a more deductive approach is not just a cultural preference. Since the late 1940s, there have been a lot of observations and reports about UFOs, probably in the hundreds of thousands. Although the quality of such observations varies considerably, it is fair to say that there is a very healthy amount of good reports out there. But the question that everyone should ask is: what kind of serious conceptualization did occur to further refine observations since? Unfortunately, the answer is not a whole lot. More observations of the same are not what is needed at this point, as it cannot bring a qualitatively different type of data. This can only serve to reinforce the present situation where many have given up and essentially camped on the position saying “what else could it be but ETs?,” and then waiting for ET to show up and or the government to “reveal everything” (assuming they really know something worth of mention). In other words, ufology is stuck, and it has been stuck for quite a while. A major dose of serious deductive work, as described above, is now required before engaging in further observations. It is how I interpret Jacques Vallée’s point stated in a 2006 interview:

“SR: What are your thoughts on the state of ufology in 2006?

JV: It’s a mess. There is valuable research going on, but it is carried out by individuals working with almost no financial or logistical resources. The few scientists who are still actively involved are forming a new version of the old “Invisible College,” communicating privately to stay away from the sensationalism that has taken over the field. As for what remains of the organized groups, they are not playing the role of disseminating information, conducting field research or encouraging critique and open debate. They are little more than lobbies for a particular point of view. This is a pity, because periods of low UFO activity like the current one present the best opportunity to do quiet research. By centering the whole discussion of the phenomenon on highly-charged, but poorly-researched issues like Roswell and abductions, ufologists have lost credibility, alienated the scientific public and opened the floodgates to hundreds of Internet sites where the wildest rumours circulate. No wonder serious researchers are going underground!”[1]

Parasociology is dedicated at getting UFO and paranormal research out of the underground, but ufology has to be ready for a new type of research. Once again, let’s emphasize that deductive work is not based on pure speculation, as most inductive-thinking people tend to believe. It is based on borrowing and adapting research on what is known about other realities that share similar characteristics to what is to be studied. This way we can move from the known and go towards the unknown, and avoid re-inventing the wheel, whenever possible. The most difficult part of all this, however, is that when “similar characteristics” are compared, it is not necessarily at the observation level, i.e., on the superficial level. It is oftentimes at the deep or “structural” level where the similarities can be found, and this requires a fair bit of lateral thinking. A simple example is the physics of weather. On the surface, snow, drizzle, fog, wind and drought have little superficial resemblance, but it is the same physics that explains them all at the deep structural level. Parasociology approaches the UFO phenomenon with the same spirit that weather physicists are approaching climate issues, (and I would say that climate issues are as controversial as UFO research...).

So, the following model should be seen as an attempt to synthesize existing knowledge established in a number of various fields where there are structural similarities with paranormal phenomena, UFO included. As well, this model should also be seen as a step towards better identifying the signal from the noise, to be verified in future empirical research. Hence, deduction, like induction, should not be an end in itself. We need both.

Foundational notions

The proposed model is based on research and observation conducted by a number of serious researchers, and is trying to move from the known in order to move towards the unknown. Without repeating the content of all previous posts dealing with reviewing the literature on the nexus paranormal-UFO phenomena, it is important to highlight what is known.

The paranormal-UFO nexus

Jacques Vallée’s research is well-known in ufology. He found that many witnesses had paranormal experience before, during and after a sighting. Furthermore, the narrative structure of encounter with what has been construed as non-human entities shares a lot of similarities with folkloric myths. John Keel, coming from a different angle, considered that UFO phenomena are difficult to distinguish from other paranormal phenomena, and that it is probably wiser to see them as part of continuum rather than being discreet realities. The younger Jerome Clark provides also an interesting overview of the observational similarities between UFOs and paranormal phenomena. On the other side of the Atlantic, John Spencer and Albert Budden also found many similarities between the two, confirming empirically the findings of Vallée and Keel. Jenny Randles is famous for her concept of “Oz Factor”, which is essentially about altered states of consciousness (ASC) found in many UFO events. According to many parapsychologists, ASC is considered a key psychological state in psi events. A few parapsychologists, in particular Scott Rogo and Manfred Cassirer also ventured in the UFO territory and found extensive similarities. French authors François Favre, Bertrand Méheust, and Pierre Viéroudy coming from very different directions also found that “paranormality” is at the centre of the UFO experience, also confirming findings by researchers in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a number of other less known researchers who came to similar conclusions, also based on empirical research.

The fact that the few researchers who cared to explore the paranormal-UFO nexus found so many similarities shows that it cannot be ascribed to coincidence or wishful thinking. There is a serious empirical base behind their assertions. Ignoring it is simply moving away from scientific work.

The social dimension

Many of the above researchers could not help but also notice that there is a social dimension to the paranormal side of the UFO experience. Once again, Vallée was deeply impressed at how the UFO phenomenon changed the life of so many people in such a deep way, and that many appeared to gain psychic abilities. The younger Jerome Clark was one of the first to push for an exploration of the social unconscious and the UFO phenomenon, as there are clearly “social constructions” embedded in the UFO experience that closely intertwined with the paranormal dimension. Randles, through her research, reinforced the notion that the apparent technology perceived in UFO tend to be just a few years ahead of technological progress on Earth, and therefore social representations seem to play a key role in the experience. Méheust provided the most serious analysis to date about the intimate link between social representation (i.e., science fiction) and UFOs. Viéroudy found a number of strong correlations between major social events and UFO waves. On the social dimension too, there are other lesser known researchers who came with similar findings.

The weaker link in this case is from parapsychology that has not spent much energy trying to understand the social dimension of psi. The notable exceptions are the small group experiments conducted by Batcheldor, Owen and Sparrow, and the Globe Consciousness Project. This last research effort has been described by leading parapsychologist Dean Radin in Entangled Minds as a first step in investigating “social psi.” However, it is fair to say that parapsychology has been able to show that there is enough evidence to seriously consider that psi effects is likely to occur at different levels: individual, small group, and large group.

Joining forces

In light of the above research about both the paranormal-UFO nexus, and social dimension of UFO and paranormal events, it appears clear that ufology would benefit from investigating in more depth how its social dimension intersects with the paranormal one. In other words, ufology, parapsychology and sociology should join forces, as existing research points towards an unexplored research potential to uncover. The question is then how to go about it? It is where a trans-disciplinary model becomes useful and critical to generate research hypotheses.

Graphic Representation

Below is the model’s graphic representation, which will be explained at length in the next post. However, let’s note that it is integrating the previously presented PEMIE model, which also take stocks of what is known about the materiality of UFOs.

[1] The rest of the interview can be found at

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Saturday, February 13, 2010

E-mail contact

Just a short notice.

Someone tried to reach me through the e-mail, and the e-mail did not reach me.

If you e-mailed me and I did not respond, it is due to the e-mail account. I respond to all my e-mails. If you experienced this problem, please re-send, or post a comment on the blog to alert me.

Thank you

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Reading Notes on Rogo’s Minds and Motion

This post is reviewing an older book about psychokinesis (PK). In spite of being written in the 1970s, much of its content remains relevant today. Rogo’s book covers mostly macro-level PK effects such as poltergeists, “thoughtography”, the Soviet experiments, the so-called Geller effect, healing, and group PK. This book constitutes a good primer for anyone interested in PK. It should be followed by reading Pamela Heath’s The PK Zone for having an updated perspective on PK. The full notice is:

Rogo, Scott.(1978). Minds and Motion: The riddle of psychokinesis. New York: Taplinger publishing.

PK as an act of creation?

It is interesting to note that Rogo came to conclusions similar to the ones of François Favre, already presented in a previous post. Favre considers that psi effects are fundamentally human acts of creation. Something new has been created, and this can be interpreted as a new information arrangement, a new node of knowledge. ESP, in this sense, is information about a person or an event (past, present, or future) that now is part of a new node (the percipient who now knows about it). As discussed previously, PK can be construed as information as well, by changing the physical information about matter (speed, size, temperature, biological functionality, etc). In this case too, a new node of information is created. For instance, the watch of a witness to an accident is stopped at the time of the accident; this is new information arrangement.

As Rogo wrote in his book, “Psychokinesis might just be the most versatile and powerful force in nature. Its range seems limitless. Just look at the effects it can produce. It can influence the fall of rolling dice and levitate tables. It can interfere with that decay rate of the piece of radioactive material and, apparently, decomposed of physical matter and then reassemble it. It can heal biological tissue yet cause burns on the skin as well. It can start fires, but grant immunity from the flames at the same time. It can knock on wood or tear it apart. It can bend metal or cause rocks to fall from the sky. It can work invisibly or appear as a mist. It can function like a lever or take on the properties of a field. It can manifest as an energy yet appear as a biological plasma. I know of no other force in nature which has so many faces, guises, or manifestations. In the universe, the only comparable phenomenon with this versatility is a man's own imagination. Perhaps this is the reason we think of PK as a mental force. It seems guided by our thoughts and even our un-verbalized desires. PK might be capable of carrying out any task we want or think it can perform. It may not necessarily be only the physical force of our will but the physical manifestation of our very imagination as well.” (p. 216)

The view of PK as an act of creation, or as a physical manifestation of our imagination, also means that PK could be considered as an idiosyncrasy. After all, if it is a physical manifestation of human creativity it is therefore part of the human realm, and the psychological, sociological, and cultural contexts leading to such a creation are key to understand the content of such manifestation. In other words, these creations are not occurring in a void; they are not pure physical effects. They are dependent on our mental constructs, i.e., the culture, historical period and society in which we are living. This view of psi, and PK in particular, is certainly congruent with a number of observations about UFOs. People see machines in the sky when it becomes possible to imagine them (i.e., airships in the late 19th century, ghost planes and ghost rockets up to the middle of the 20th century, and spacecraft just before the beginning of the space age). Similarly, apparitions of the Virgin Mary tend to occur in Roman Catholic communities; the Chuppacabra in Spanish-speaking communities. The notion of prior plausibility structure, already discussed in previous posts, should be an integral part of any study of PK.

The next logical question emerging, then, would be: how imaginable something needs to be to be imagined? Some might argue, like Carl Jung in his book Flying Saucers, that PK effects are an individual affair and can only occur in the immediate vicinity of a medium. Yet, based on our knowledge of PK, Jung`s assumption is simple wrong. If one takes the time to look at the extent of PK research, from the late 19th century to the present, one would conclude that such limitations are artificial, and are in fact only showing a limitation in Jung’s own imagination. Like Rogo wrote in answering the question “what is the range of PK? I am afraid that this question will have to remain unanswered. So far we have found no parameters or substances which can consistently inhibit its power. Nor have we found any object to small or too large to extend its influence.”(p. 233).

In view of what is known about PK presently, I think it is quite safe to say that there are no theoretical limits to PK, and the notion that UFOs are PK effects cannot be rejected on the simple basis that they are too big an object to be the outcome of PK effects. However, size may still matter.

Social dimension of PK

The most interesting chapter in Rogo’s book, from a parasociological standpoint, is the one about group PK. Rogo describes at length two classical researches involving the use of a group to produce PK: the Philip experiment[1] and the group sitter experiments conducted by Batcheldor in 1960s and 1970s[2]. These experiments are interesting in themselves, however, they also reveal a few things about the nature of collective psi. As Rogo noted, “There is another psychological factor which comes into play during group PK practices which I felt Batcheldor fails to appreciate. As Maxwell and other have argued, group-PK effects are often directed by a collective mind created by the sitters. By joining forces, several people may actually form some sort of semiautonomous will or mind which directs the PK. Now this “entity” is not “owned” by or dependent upon any single group member. It is, on the contrary, semi-independent of all of them. A PK group, therefore, can overcome ownership inhibition because the PK is really being architectured by an ego-alien personality”. (pp. 195-196)

In other words, what Rogo was saying here is that the act of creation is the one of several people, and therefore from an individual perspective, there are elements or portions of the creation that will be foreign to each specific individual. Hence, the commonly described feeling of an “alien” presence when these PK effects occur, be it a ghost, a spirit, the Virgin Mary, or aliens from outer space. The key here is to recognize that there are two levels of reality involved: the individual perception and participation in the PK effect, and the collective output. A failure to recognize that the output is actually a collective effort, a composite creation, leads people to believe that there is a non-human entity involved. In a way, group PK is like any other creative group efforts, and this can be nicely illustrated by the famous joke: “Do you know what a camel is? It is a horse drawn by a committee…”.

The content of a psi effect is not only affected by the collective nature of the creative act, but also by the strength, or numinosity, of the effect. Rogo wrote that “Despite these psychological considerations, there are probably paranormal reasons why groups are better able to develop PK than individuals are. There are two psychic factors which I believe come into play here. First, while an individual may not have any appreciable PK himself, a group of people working together might be able to build up a formidable collective PK force as each person contributes his share of psychic force to the group’s total PK output. In fact, we might expect a group of people to produce stronger PK than a randomly selected individual could.” (p. 197)

It is an extremely common phenomenon in pretty much all aspects of reality, be it physical, biological, sociological or psychological: the more energy one puts in a system, the bigger the effect is likely to be. Why should it be different for psi? Based on our existing knowledge of psi, there are no theoretical reasons to have an exception for psi in this regard. What Rogo did not discuss, however, is what happens if the collective is a large one, a social group, a large segment of a community? The logical extension would be a larger social psi effect, and one that is appearing as even more strange to any given individual, as his or her share of participation in the effect is even smaller in relative terms.

Another point that Rogo brings is that in collective psi effect, a division of labor creates synergistic outputs that are stronger. This notion is, after all, the central principle upon which modern organizations, and modern capitalism, are built on: a given number of organized individuals have more output than the same sum of disorganized individuals. It is what the military describe under the notion of “force multiplication”. As Rogo noted, “Now let’s turn to a second factor which I think contributes to the success of group-PK techniques. […] It could be that PK works best when a group of people are present who can contribute the PK while another person (or persons) is on hand who is able to manipulate it. It might be considerably harder for one single individual to contribute, generate, and channel PK all by himself. In a group setting, a division of these factors may take place. (p 197).

This comment from Rogo brings the issue of experiment-based psi effect versus spontaneous ones. In parapsychology, there is a relatively accepted notion that psi effects produced through experimentation tend to be weaker than spontaneous ones. The reason invoked is that psi, being produced through unconscious mental processes, is maximized when the unconscious is allowed to be in its normal and “natural” environment. During an experiment, people are aware that they are there to “produce”, and this creates unconscious inhibitions. That is problem is described more generally by psychologists as the “third variable” issue. Yet, group PK experiments tend to show much stronger results than individual PK ones. One can only imagine the strength of a social and spontaneous psi effect.

The experimentation problem

Rogo made an important comment that needs to be analyzed further. He wrote that “Group-PK phenomena just may be the most important aspect of psychic phenomena we can explore.” (p. 197). If it is so (and I agree with his statement), then why parapsychologists do not do more of such group PK experimental research? I think there are two reasons for that. The first one is that most people involved in parapsychology are not interested or trained to look beyond the individual. This is the individualistic reporting bias of parapsychology already discussed in a previous post. The second reason is that group PK research, in concrete terms, looks a lot like the séance of the psychical research era. Parapsychology was created by J.B. Rhine with the very intent of staying away from the séance business, as it was perceived as bringing much disrespect to serious research. This state of affair is unfortunate, as group PK research could help informing parasociology.

This difficulty is compounded by the fact that experimentation at the social level experimentation is highly problematic. One could imagine an experiment that would go as follow: find a mid-size community that is somewhat geographically isolated, and somewhat economically depressed (like a mining community in North America). Get a secret arrangement with the local cable and a TV network to insert subliminal images of UFOs (one frame out of the 25 per second) during the most watch shows for several weeks. The image should show UFOs having a liberating and positive effect so they constitute an unconscious “escape” from the economically depressed community. Also ensure that there is an airport nearby with a radar station, and ideally that the town has a UFO club. If there is an increase in quality UFO sighting reports and ideally some inexplicable radar tracings in the following weeks, then the hypothesis could be verified.

Obviously, such experiment would not pass any research ethics committee as it involves deception and there is nothing good for the community involved. As well, no cable and TV network companies would take such risk for their reputation. But it is possible to say that the UFO parasociological hypothesis is falsifiable. But better experiments will have to be found.

[1] For more see Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row.

[2] For more see Batcheldor, Kenneth. (1966). "Report on a Case of Table-Levitation and Associated Phenomena." Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 43; (1984). "Contributions to the Theory of PK Induction from Sitter-Group Work." Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78; (1994). "Notes on the Elusiveness Problem in Relation to a Radical View of Paranormality." Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 88; Batcheldor, Kenneth, and D. W. Hunt. "Some Experiments in Psychokinesis." Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 43 (1966).

Eric Ouellet © 2010