Text Size

Stardrive

Mar 21
Thanks for the book The Reality of ESP Russell. :-)
While I agree with your empirical evidence for ESP especially BACK FROM THE FUTURE (retro-causal) signaling, I have never really been able to understand your complex relativity model to explain it. I think the theory for remote viewing hinges on the entanglement signal nonlocality issue wonderfully summarized in the Peacock paper that Ruth Kastner sent me.


My own thoughts on how it all works is here http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf


On Mar 19, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Russell Targ wrote:

Dear Jack,
The on-going no-signaling arguments seem to me to fly in the face of existing data.

Elizabeth Rauscher and I published a paper in the Proceedings of the First Retro causality Conference, which you have.
It dealt with the question of the speed of thought in remote viewing experiments.

Can we measure the speed of a signal traveling from a hostage in Iran to a viewer in California?
No! That velocity is undefined, if we get the signal before the event takes place.

In designing such an experiment, we realized that there is abundant experimental evidence that the perceiver (remote viewer) in California will frequently be aware of events which have not yet happened to the poor hostage.
For example, in this case where we did not know anything about our target person. The viewer saw him walking out of a dark basement in poor physical condition, and flying on a plane to Germany.  That was recorded and handed to our Navy sponsor two days before Ambassador Richard Queen was released because of MS, by the Iranian hostage takers.
Elizabeth and I realized that the time it took for that signal to reach us was minus two days, yielding a negative velocity.
From two decades of remote viewing, all researchers are confident that it is no more difficult to describe event that is a few days in the future, than one which is contemporaneous. We published these data for the first time in our IEEE paper in 1976.
Yours in science,
Russ