HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blackwlf@blackwlf.gwinnett.com (Greg Johns (Sysop))
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: {Tele|Pyro}kinesis
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:09:52 -0500
Organization: BlackWolf's Den (404)642-9933 v.32bis v.42bis 12/24/96/14.4

In <1992Dec14.192515.13806@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
>I've witnessed a couple of different forms of telekinesis actually.

Could you describe it?

-- 
           Greg Johns, BlackWlf@BlackWlf.Gwinnett.Com, sysop:
      BlackWolf's Den 404-642-9933 12/24/96/14.4 (v.32bis v.42bis)
         Usenet Newsgroups and Internet Email BBS, open to all.

Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: forrie@morwyn.uucp (Forrest Aldrich)
Subject: {Tele|Pyro}kinesis
Organization: Vision Graphics
			  Dover, NH
			  USA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:35:52 GMT

I just got done watching "Firestarter", which was a really neat flick.

It did, however, raise some questions in my mind about the paranormal
in this respect.  It has long been claimed that we as a species had,
long ago, a much higher ability in the psychic areas, but were somehow
lost (evolution?).  

I wonder if the concept introduced in this movie could be perhaps a
little realistic.  I wonder if a chemical stimulation of some sort
could in fact 'wake up' certain abilities within the mind.  I had
never heard of the "SHOP" before, but given all the other governmental
conspiracies and experimentations, I would doubt if they were working
at/with something of the sort, somewhere.

I personally have never witnessed anything representing any type of
Telekinesis, but think the concept to be very interesting.

What do others think?

-- 
	   -----------	      Forrest Aldrich	      -----------
	   -------     morwyn!forrie@unhtel.unh.edu	  -------
	   ----						     ----
	   --	     VISION GRAPHICS --	Dover, NH - USA	       --
	   ------------------------------------------------------
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Piper Sitting sample, and Response to Mr. McGrath
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:24:30 GMT

In article <1goq4nINNnls@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes in part:
|> What do you mean "we can only
|> hash over what other people have said"?  isn't this the nature of
|> scientific evidence on the whole of it, how scientific theories are
|> created?  
Definitely not.  This is the nature of philosophy and history!  As
you note, "another part
|> of science is replicating the known facts in laboratories .
But science also collect "facts" that contradict theories, and
collect "facts" not anticipated by any theory.

Yes observational science such as filed biology, paleontology,
and astronomy have to deal with unique cases.

And so does history, anthropology, and psychology.  Your comments 
indicate you are not very familiar with how these fields approach
historical and case studies.

|> >> See Ruth Brandon, "The Spriritualists" for a discussion of the
|> >> James/Piper stuff which indicates the weaknesses in James'
|> >> claims that she was a "White Crow".
|> 
|> I am much interested in what Ruth Brandon claims as the weakness in
|> the Piper material.  In the spirit of this discussion, I am willing
|> to read any posts you can send, which quote Mrs. Brandon, to support
|> your contention that the "White Crow" was not really white after all.
|> I am extremely interested.  I like yourself, seek truth (I believe)
|> so could you post a summary of her argument perhaps?
Sorry, to time for this way of doing business.  I suggest you
read Brandon and tell me where she is wrong.

|> Taken from "On Psychical Research, William James" by Gardner Murphy
|> and Robert O. Ballou.
A analysis of a historical event requires examination of the ORIGINAL
materials.  You provide a third-hand account of the event, which
is so far from the "best evidence" to be nearly useless.  This is
especially true, as we need to reconstruct as well as possible
from independent sources what REALLY happened so we can evaluate the
completeness and accuraccy of the account offered.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:30:20 GMT
Subject: No, Friday night
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal

Sorry, someone informed me that Sightings is Friday Night...
From: Danni_Brewi@f812.n202.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: The Devil's Footprints
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:19:47 GMT
Distribution: fidonet
X-Fidonet-Comment-To: Danni_Brewi@f812.n202.z1.fidonet.org
X-FSC-PATH: 202/812 805 701 217
X-FSC-EID: f76c 1991a277

I happen to keep all books I get..I have a 1970 copy of a magazine
called "Occult"..lots of interesting stuff in the old books..anyhow
they published about one year and dissapeared. In the December issue of
this magazine there is an article called "The Hoofprints of Satan" I
surely can't print the pages of info in the net (I'd get killed) but if
you want I'd be happy to send you a photocopy of the article. Skimming
it, it looks like it may be what you are looking for. If you have a
P.O. Box or want to post your address I'll send it to you or if you
want you can send your address to me at our P.O. 689 Palm Springs, CA
92263.. It is about 6 or 7 pages...the pages are yellow almost but
should be able to copy it..


--- QM v1.00
 * Origin: ParaNet ALPHA-THETA(sm) (619)778-1866 (1:202/812.0)
From: REBECCA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Rebecca Drayer)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Jung Recounts Experience with Freud
Date: 15 Dec 92 05:25:40 GMT
Organization: Yale University

In article <1gjpfqINNb3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes:
 
>Interesting.  Have you read Jung's semi-autobiographical book "Memories,
>Dreams, and Reflections?"  In it, Jung recounts Freud's early
>opposition to the paranormal, although Jung himself was convinced of its
>validity.  In fact, in his Sigmund Freud chapter, Jung writes:
>
>"It interested me to hear Freud's views on precognition and on
>parapsychology in general.  When I visited him in Vienna in 1909 I
>asked him what he thought of these matters.  Because of his materialistic
>prejudice, he rejected this entire complex of questions as nonsensical,
>and did so in terms of so shallow a positivism that I had difficulty in
>checking the sharp retort on the tip of my tongue. It was some years
>before he recognized the seriousness of parapsychology and acknowledged
>the factuality of "occult" phenomena."
>
>Then Jung goes on to describe an actual paranormal event that occurred
>while he was with Freud!
                       (Long description deleted)
 
Heh.  I can't remember whether it was my professor (Peter Gay) or Ernest
Jones who  first    brought this incident to my attention.  Whoever it was
was a confirmed unbeliever and claimed that bumps and creaks were common
occurrences, hardly to be accepted as proof of the supernatural.  As for
myself, I'm maintaining my neutrality and saying that I don't know what
to make of it.
 
>But I myself did not know Freud actually came to support
>paranormal phenomena on the whole of it.  I am interested in your
>article, please post.
 
I'm not really sure that he did.  To quote Ernest Jones, for every
passage of Freud that can be cited as evidence for his belief in the
paranormal, there exists one that can be cited as evidence for his
rejection of it.
 
 
 
*************************************************************************
Rebecca A. Drayer, EMT-A        |   Rebecca@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
(a.k.a Organic Lass of the LNH) |   Computing Assistant
                                |   Silliman College, Yale University
 
"You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."
                                                    - Anonymous
*************************************************************************
From: ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Robert McGrath, more Skepticism, and Another Reply
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:34:47 GMT
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young

>In article <1gj9teINNpi5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes in part:
>|> In fact, I noticed you have completely ignored my previous post which
>|> I directed to your attention if no one else.  Here, I presented what
>|> you yourself have been demanding in this newsgroup from every other
>|> person that has posted:  proof, references, to what you claim there
>|> is not a shred of evidence for.  Well, Mr. McGrath I responded to your
>|> cry, and the post is still there.  What is your response sir?  

In <BzBBu3.Ist@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) responds:
>My response is direct and to the point:  What are you talking about?
>I haven't seen such a post.  Sorry.

I have a copy of John Amenta's article (titled: "_Response_to_Robert_McGrath_").

If Robert wants to read it and John voices no opposition, I will repost it
under the title "Repost: was _Response_to_Robert McGrath_".

Please confirm by posting it or by e-mailing it to me (ladislas@sobeco.com).
If Robert and John confirm by e-mail, I will add their comments in full to
the repost.

Ladislas.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Request for information.
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:39:06 GMT

In article <277.1631.uupcb@synapse.org>, steve.crabtree@synapse.org (Steve Crabtree)  writes in part:
|> To my dismay, it did not provide this balance. It seems to exist solely
|> to promote the secular humanist disbelief in all things supernatural,
...its main value is that SI is the ONLY source of such debunking.
If you were expecting a totally neutral balance, I'm not surprised
you were unhappy.  Without SI there would be no voice at all for
the debunkers, so don't tell me about 'balance'.

|> The magazine is not peer reviewed and I have never seen pro-paranormal
|> viewpoints given space, even to rebut a criticism. 
Letters of rebuttal have frequently been printed.

|> CSICOP, the
|> sponsoring organization, is not open to the public for membership but is
|> run by a self-appointed committee.
All magazines are run by appointed committees.  There is no such thing
as "membership" in CSICOP.  There is no such thing as "membership"
in the Republican Party either.  So?

|> According to George Hansen, only
|> one member of the policy board is a scientist (Alcock), 
False.

|> and most of the
|> eminent scientists who lend their names and credibility to the
|> organization play virtually no role in directing the activities of the
|> organization.
True.  They lend their name because they agree with its activities.
Isaac Asimov, L. Sprague de Camp, and B. F. Skinner's names are (were)
on the list because they want you to subscribe to this magazine.
Penn and Teller want you to, also.  ("Or else", in their case. :))

|> Put simply, it seems to me that the only purpose of the magazine is to
|> discredit pro-psi or pro-paranormal claims 
True.

|> and that they will use any
|> tactics necessary to achieve that goal.
False.  Blatantly and flagrantly false.  You might not like the
magazine, but impugning the integrity of it's authors is a lie 
and an insult.

There are many things wrong with CSICOP and SI (and you haven't hit
all of them yet), but the use of unfair tactics is NOT one of them.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: jswyt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John T Swyt)
Subject: Re: Ouija board
Keywords: Ignore this fool, he knows not what he thinks!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:52:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.182223.20933@utagraph.uta.edu> rlantham@utagraph.uta.edu
(Russell Dean Lantham) writes:
>I saw a Ouija board in a toy store the other day,
>and was wondering why the name William Fuld is printed
>on it.  Also, it says registered with the patent office,
>any ideas on what could be patented on it?  There are no
>patent numbers on the game.  How does this thing REALLY
>work anyway?

I appears to work on the principle that nobody, if they relax, can
keep completely still. If you have ever used one with a group, they
tell you to relax, and try to keep your hands on the pointer, and not
to resist. Well, try hold your hand steady...if you watch closely it will
move ever so slightly. If anyone were to feel this movement they would
attempt to "move with it".  And, suddenly, the Ouija is talking to you.
I have never been able to get anything intelligable from it, of course
I have a hard time attribute any magical medium powers to something
produces in the hundreds of thousands by Parker Brothers.

Then again, my uncle, a man of logic, I like to believe, used one when he
was down in Columbia.  He asked the "medium" what his mother said to him
on her death bed, and the Ouija board spelled it out.  The creepy thing is
he was the only one in the room when his mother died!

In conclusion, I can neither confirm, nor deny that the so called Ouija
boards will, work as expected or not.
                                        The Dog

     We're wanted men,
     We'll strike again,
     But first, let's have a beer!
               -J. Buffett
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (Cameron Newham)
Subject: spectrograph of ghost
Organization: Australian Defence Industries
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 01:45:11 GMT

Can anyone tell me if someone has ever taken a spectrograph of a ghost?

email answers prefered.

thanks,
  cameron.
From: don@perseus.spk.wa.us (Donald Byrne)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: re:request for information/S.I.
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:13:36 GMT

I'm sorry Mr. Mcgrath but I have to aggree with steve on his aprasial of 
the S.I. I found it after a year of subscription of little value in the 
judging of science verse the rest of the world. It would only use it's 
pages to convay it's views. As to the opposite it always went into a 
view that it was right and the other side was always wrong. 

D.E.Byrne
From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Jung Recounts Experience with Freud
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:00:46 GMT
 <168BE609.REBECCA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <168BE609.REBECCA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, REBECCA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
(Rebecca Drayer) says:
>
>In article <1gjpfqINNb3@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
>wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes:
>
>>But I myself did not know Freud actually came to support
>>paranormal phenomena on the whole of it.  I am interested in your
>>article, please post.
>
>I'm not really sure that he did.  To quote Ernest Jones, for every
>passage of Freud that can be cited as evidence for his belief in the
>paranormal, there exists one that can be cited as evidence for his
>rejection of it.
>
Indeed.  To apply a Freudian concept to Freud, perhaps he felt
ambivalence toward the paranormal.

For additional material on the matter, one might consult *Freud
and the Jewish mystical tradition* by David Bakan.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Robert McGrath, more Skepticism, and Another Reply
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:10:51 GMT

In article <1gj9teINNpi5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes in part:
|> In fact, I noticed you have completely ignored my previous post which
|> I directed to your attention if no one else.  Here, I presented what
|> you yourself have been demanding in this newsgroup from every other
|> person that has posted:  proof, references, to what you claim there
|> is not a shred of evidence for.  Well, Mr. McGrath I responded to your
|> cry, and the post is still there.  What is your response sir?  

My response is direct and to the point:  What are you talking about?
I haven't seen such a post.  Sorry.

|> I would like to here what you have to say about William James'
|> research of Mrs. Piper.  Unless, you are unaware who William James
|> was, then indeed you are not worth my time.

I am well aware of who William James was.  It is impossible to say
anything useful about Mrs. Piper, as no further evidence can be 
obtained, we can only hash over what other people have said.
See Ruth Brandon, "The Spriritualists" for a discussion of the
James/Piper stuff which indicates the weaknesses in James'
claims that she was a "White Crow".

Please stop insulting me.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: {Tele|Pyro}kinesis
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:21:25 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Dec12.033552.4327@morwyn.uucp>, forrie@morwyn.uucp (Forrest Aldrich) writes...
>I just got done watching "Firestarter", which was a really neat flick.
> 
>It did, however, raise some questions in my mind about the paranormal
>in this respect.  It has long been claimed that we as a species had,
>long ago, a much higher ability in the psychic areas, but were somehow
>lost (evolution?).  
> 
>I wonder if the concept introduced in this movie could be perhaps a
>little realistic.  I wonder if a chemical stimulation of some sort
>could in fact 'wake up' certain abilities within the mind.  I had
>never heard of the "SHOP" before, but given all the other governmental
>conspiracies and experimentations, I would doubt if they were working
>at/with something of the sort, somewhere.

I saw a great movie called Lawnmower Man.  It was really interesting..
I'd *love* to have a vitual reality machine like that one.  They mention
the "shop' in the movie.  If the 'shop' has a machine like that one, I'd
volunteer to play on it... and I tend to agree with you that they (the
proverbial 'they') are probably working at/with something of the sort
somewhere... wish I knew where ;-)


> 
>I personally have never witnessed anything representing any type of
>Telekinesis, but think the concept to be very interesting.
> 
>What do others think?

I've witnessed a couple of different forms of telekinesis actually.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Mind as a computer
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:59:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.113526.21863@cs.ruu.nl>, jjevissc@cs.ruu.nl (Jeroen Visscher) writes:
|> I suggest that all people who believe that the mind is
|> a computer read the book "The Emperor's New Mind" by
|> R. Penrose
|> 
|>        Jeroen Visscher              
|> 
|> -- 
|>        Jeroen Visscher              
|> 
|> Email: jjevissc@cs.ruu.nl       Mail: Van Lieflandlaan 12  (04)
|>        				      3571 AB Utrecht (Holland)

I agree.  Very good book.  What has that got to do with proposition
that the BRAIN is a computer?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
From: REBECCA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Rebecca Drayer)
Subject: Re: Robert McGrath, more Skepticism, and Another Reply
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 22:20:14 EST

In article <1gj9teINNpi5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
wjames@cse.ucsc.edu (John Amenta) writes:
 
>
>
>>> "Psychical research" is hardly new.  It is an attempt to provide
>>> secular explanations for well-known phenomena that are traditionally
>>> given mystical or religious explanations, and it has been going
>>> on for some 150 years (not counting the millenia of frankly mystical
>>> exploration).
>
>I was referring to the relatively newness of Psychical Research, 150
>years really is not that old for a Science at all.  And Psychical
>Research is still to be whole heartedly accepted by many hardline
>scientists - it is still in its relative youth.  However, I believe
>in another 50 years, it will be a pretty much established branch
>of psychology (if it is not already).
>
>>> In that time physiological, psychological, and sociological explnations
>>> people when someone who knows nothing at all about these theories
>>> and findings rejects them out of hand in favor of warmed over mystical
>>> ideas that have long been known to be untenable.
>
>I agree.  Many mystical conceptions I feel have distorted the basic
>truth of paranormal events.  However, in recent time, this has changed,
>after such men as William James, F.W.H. Myers, and Murphy Gardner
>approached the phenomena in a most serious manner.
>
Even Sigmund Freud approached the phenomena in a relatively serious manner.
True, he did not perform many experiments himself (although he did engage
in a few, particularly with his daughter Anna and his colleague Ernest Jones).
He did, however, submit allegedly paranormal experiences of his patients to
psychoanalytic scrutiny.  Some he found to be proof of the paranormal, others
he rejected as products of either coincidence or the unconscious mind.
 
This was the subject of a term paper I wrote for a history class on Freud.
If anyone is interested, I can post it here after the Christmas break.
(Presuming, of course, that it doesn't receive an F!  :-))
 
 
 
 
*************************************************************************
Rebecca A. Drayer, EMT-A        |   Rebecca@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
(a.k.a Organic Lass of the LNH) |   Computing Assistant
                                |   Silliman College, Yale University
 
"You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much."
                                                    - Anonymous
*************************************************************************
From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: Theoretical Computer Science
Date: 14 Dec 1992 18:15:33 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft math/inf, Uni Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: irau31.ira.uka.de

In article <Bz3xox.6Gy@cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.062028.2444@sobeco.com>, ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes in part:
>...
>|> First postulate:  men can solve complex mathematical equations.
>|> Second postulate:  computers can solve complex mathematical equations.
>|> Conclusion:  therefore, computers are men.
>|> 
>|> This sounds like the reasoning you use.
>Change the conclusion to:
>Conclusion:  human equation solving is similar and possibly fundamentally
>  identical to machine equation solving.
>A reasonable conclusion, that might be empirically right or wrong.

But holds only for the domain of *equation solving*. Nothing more.

>Your claims that I am wrong are based on your claims to "know" how
>ESP/telepathy/precognition work.  Since you are completely mistaken
>in those claims, you have hardly refuted my claims.

Rather they are based on the claim that *you* do *not* know how ESP
works.

>Rather than pound away on the same issues, perhaps it would be
>better to take what YOU say precognition is and see what its
>implications for the TOC.

Although I must admit that I don't know what precognition is, I
clearly the implications of it on TOC: there are NONE.

Olaf
-- 
| Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student  |   o     | uknf@dkauni2.bitnet | old address |
| univ. of karlsruhe - germany |  _>\ _  | s_titz@ira.uka.de   | is still    |
| +49-721-60439                | (_)<(_) | praetorius@irc      | valid       |
  "My heart is human - my blood is boiling - my brain IBM" - Mr. Roboto
From: steve.crabtree@synapse.org (Steve Crabtree) 
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: {Tele|Pyro}kinesis
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.crabtree@synapse.org (Steve Crabtree) 

To: alt.paranormal
From: steve.crabtree@synapse.org
Subject {Tele}kinesis

stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:

S > I've witnessed a couple of different forms of telekinesis actually.

I'd love to see large scale PK. Can you describe what you saw?