cal peccancies, shuffle the 25 card pack and pipce it before the sender. He concentrates unon the first design he turns over. Then he taps once upon the key. In a distant room tne sounder clicks. The receiver calls out a design. It's one chance in five. BUT, immediately the words leave her lips (supposing it to be a woman) she starts a MENTAL count of 1-2-3-4-5-1-2-3- etc., while, upon hearing the selection, the sender ALSO STARTS A MENTAL COUNT in the same tempo as previously learned by both with the aid of a metronome, or loud ticking clock. During this mental counting, which takes longer than reading about it, the sender turns up his next design. He looks at it. The count between both continues. AND HE PUSHES DOWN THE KEY WHEH NEXT HE IS AT THE NUMBER (from 1 to 5) REPRESENTING THE DESIGN AT WHICH HE IS LOOKING!

The receiver csn stall a3 long as she likes. That's for effect. Scientific investigators will stand for plenty of that — but don't try it in front of audiences wanting to be entertained. They want results in time to make the 5:15 for home.

When she does call the design, the mental count starts again between both to the same end. So it continues through the 25 cards. Theoretically, 24 cards should be named correctly with a 1 out of 5 chance on the first. Practically there is a slippage. HOWEVER, THE RECORDS WILL SHOW AN AMAZING LIFT OVER WHAT IS CONSIDERED NORMAL, normal being but 5 out of 25.

The mental count was originated by Charles Morritt, of England. He used it for many complicated tests, but almost Immediately it fell into disuse because few couples could master the unison angle up to the excessive counts necessary. For years this principle has been bandied about but never professionally. Such performers HAVE to be right consistently. Rhine pupils are only WANTED to be above the l/5 average. The mental count thus can come into its own.

Has it? The mental count is one of the very few mystical principles not to be challenged. Only the operators can. give thé answer. We may assume - we cannot prove. In the Zirkle-Ownbey experiments stimulants and depressants played (what was considered) an important part. According to the book, such drugs were given only to one of the two at a time. Sodium amytal is a depressant (it tends to dissociate a subject) so therefore would act as a break on the mental counting and throw the system out of gear. A stimulant would act the opposite, liihat we would like to know is the result of BOTH subjects getting the SAME drug at the SAME time. It may or may not be significant that in other tests with the same (Zirkle-Ownbey) subjects, but under radically differemt conditions, the tabulations dropped far below what was recorded under the above conditions. Why? No chance to cheat a bit, and giggle about it later over the acceptable two-burner in a couple of rooms for two but not run as cheaply as for one?

Dr. Steuart Henderson Britt of George Washington University has publicly stated that while he is willing to leave the mathematics of ESP to the matheiwiticians, he is not willing to overlook the 'act that Prof. Rhine has not published all his scores, or the possibility that SOME OF HIS SUBJECTS HAD JUGGLED THE RESULTS TO PLEASE THEIR MENTOR (caps are mine. Ed.).

Knowing that it is possible, we heartily subscribe to that viewpoint. Has Professor J.B.Hhine been hoodwinked????????????????????t







0 0

Post a comment