From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Dr. Puthoff: Information Wanted About His Past Work in PSI
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:24:49 GMT

In article <15917@bunny.GTE.COM>, dir2@gte.com (Dean Radin) writes:
|> In article <e6sViB4w164w@cellar.org>, revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
|> > 
|> > noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
|> > > 
|> > > However, several physicists have commented to me that Dr. Puthoff also was
|> > > involved in PSI research several years ago while he was at SRI, and alluded t
|> > > the possibility that he (or his associates) may have faked data.  Whatever
|> > > happened, it sure must have been controversial.
|> > > 
|> >         Well, having 'faked' data is a pretty strong charge; let's just say 
|> > that Puthoff was a little less than forthcoming when critics requested 
|> > material regarding his experiments.
|> > 
|> Flame on...
|> 
|> It is fascinating to watch revisionist history in the making.  
|> Normally I don't comment on things that appear in sci.skeptics or 
|> alt.paranormal because email is the worst possible medium in which
|> to discuss controversial topics.  However, as I am well acquainted 
|> with Hal Puthoff and his psi research (I worked with Hal at SRI), it
|> pains me to read such distortions.  I will not repeat what I know
|> about this research because no one is likely to believe me anyway.  
|> 
|> Instead I will simply assert that Marks and Kammann's style of
|> "investigation," which nicely reflects the standard CSICOP mentality, is an 
|> **extreme position** and should be recognized as acknowledged as such.  The 
|> extremist view of the world is about as far as one can get from a neutral 
|> or balanced position, and re-interpretations of history and science 
|> methodology are as susceptible to extremist revisions as anything else.
|> 
|> Some day I may be enticed into setting the record straight, but I have
|> better things to do.
|> 
|> Flame off.
Flame on.
It truly is interesting to see revisionist history in the making by Radin.
It pains me to see such distortions by Radin.  

This comments are simply mud-slinging, with the clever twist that 
you don't even have the guts to state clearly what you claim is true 
and what you claim is false.   This kind of argument by inuendo is 
sleazy and gutless.

Maybe you'd like to make a comment on the following relevant points:

1.  Just what is it about the M & K investigation which is "extremist"?
	I've read what they said and they sure seemed balanced to me.
	In the absence of justification from you, this looks like slander 
	to me.

2.  Regardless of the "style" of K & Ms investigation, just what is it
 	that makes their conclusions invalid?  Or are the valid but
	you just don't agree with them?  Just what is it you are trying
	to say about M & K, anyway?

3.  I've read the claims and counter-claims about the availability of
	the SRI data.  The facts, as I understand it, are that only part 
	of the data has ever been made available to outside investigators,
	even when repeated reasonable requests were made.  If this is
	true, then this is "less than forthcoming".  Just what are the
	facts, in your estimation?

And while we are at it, the statements
|> I will not repeat what I know
|> about this research because no one is likely to believe me anyway.  
and
|> Some day I may be enticed into setting the record straight, but I have
|> better things to do.
are DEFINITELY "less than forthcoming"!

OK, listen you know-it-all, non-extremist, big deal insider, tell me 
something to make me believe you, or go home.  Don't waste my time with 
gutless trashing of the reputations of legitimate researchers.

Flame off.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu