The problem is that anyone who is totally opposed to any experimental findings can always find some reason to reject them. Often this is a matter of moving the goal posts, or picking minor issues to dissect in ludicrous detail. The question is whether these people apply the same criteria to articles about research in less contentious areas. If they don't, then they are showing bias. I recall an incident decades ago when I was working for the DHSS Social Research branch, and as part of my job reviewing applications for financial support. My boss came to me with an application from someone who had, a few years previously, written an absolutely vicious review of a book written by -- my boss. He never actually asked me to do a hatchet job on the application, but I knew what he wanted. The rather disturbing thing is that it was so easy to find minor details, miniscule faults in the applicant's past work, and often wholly insignificant reasons why the proposed research would be no good. Fortunately there were two or three genuine faults that I could focus on, so I didn't have to feel too guilty afterwards, but it showed just how easy it is to treat a rival's work with something close to contempt, and to fill pages with spurious and unreasonable comments. Yes, more experimentation is needed, but not because the evidence is not convincing, but because we need to find out more about these phenomena.
The SRI project began with co-ordinate viewing but they then switched to a more telepathic methodology, sending people to secret locations and seeing if the viewer could detect which. I did some very casual experiments with my mother, who was very sensitive, with several remarkable results. I wrote the co-ordinates on cards so she could keep them with her and note down any imprsssions she got. One morning she told me that when she had entered the living room and glanced at the pile of cards she saw a small pyramid on them. I quickly checked the co-ordinates of the card on top, and as I'm sure you can guess, it was the Great Pyramid.
It also fits in well with Vallee's theory about coincidences in Messengers of Deception. A universe based on information rather than matter.
UFOs for example live in a higher information universe and seem in some cases to be made of programmable matter. Information..What is it really?
Good question. You can measure it but not really define it -- same as time, I suppose. What is matter, come to that? I recall a very odd little off-the-cuff comment in one of Wellesley Tudor Pole's letters to the effect that, "The experiment with matter hasn't been very effective, so it will be
