Now, I invite you to visit my website,
http://www.williamjames.com.
There
you will learn about my forthcoming
book, THE PK MAN: A TRUE STORY
OF MIND
OVER MATTER, to be published in
a few weeks by Hampton Roads
Publishing
Company.
The foreword is written by Harvard
University psychiatrist John
Mack.
THE PK MAN is the story of Ted
Owens whose claims I researched for
over ten
years. He provided more
than 150 demonstrations supporting his
contention
that he was in telepathic contact
with alien entities whom he called
the
Space Intelligences.
These demonstrations involved climatic
changes, lightning strikes,
control
of hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanos,
UFO appearances, power
blackouts,
airplane crashes and many other
unusual events. PK is the
parapsychological abbreviation
for psychokinesis or
mind-over-matter. While
I believe that Ted Owens did, indeed,
evidence
abilities of some sort that cannot
be readily explained via
conventional,
rational means -- I have, once
again, done my best to articulate the
skeptical position.
The website contains several essays
about the Ted Owens case,
written by
independent observers. It
also contains illustrations supporting
the
remarkable claims made in the
book. In addition you will find a
link to a
web-archived, audio monolog I
created about my experiences with Ted
Owens.
I believe that our understanding
of the issues raised by Ted Owens
will be
enhanced by honest discussion
between researchers of paranormal
phenomena
and their critics.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD
Well, while I don't believe that Parapsychology is
a science,
The Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. Do you question this
fact?
I will say that I have Roots Of Consciousness sitting
in my lap while I
type this.
I'm delighted.
It took me a minute to remember where
I knew the name from until you
mentioned it, and then I realized that I had it
in my library. It has
many many pages in different sections dedicated
to Uri Geller, but only
a
tiny mention of James "The Amazing" Randi, the man
who proved beyond a
shadow of a doubt that Geller was a fraud.
I have known both Geller and Randi for a quarter of a century.
I have
investigated both the claims and counter-claims in great detail.
It is
clear to me that the evidence offered in behalf of the hypothesis that
Geller uses fraud does not begin to account for all of the well-documented
reports of authentic paranormal events. For example, my close
friend and
associate, physicist Saul-Paul Sirag, conducted an experiment with
Geller
in which he surprised Geller. He handed him a bean sprout.
Then he said,
"make the movie run backwards." Geller closed his hand over the
sprout. When he opened his hand, there was no sprout. It
was a mung
bean. Since Geller did not have a clue about what was going to
be
presented to him, there was no opportunity for him to have prepared
a trick.
But, frankly, the debate between parapsychologists and researchers is
not
limited to the Randi-Geller circus. There is a large body of
serious
literature in this field. The Roots of Consciousness (second
edition) went
to great length to fairly summarize this dialog.
(Yes, he did. I hope that at this
age you have come to grips with
this, like most of the believers.). I'm sure
you already know about
Geller's attempted come back, including his promise
to re-charge all of
the crystals sold in his "pschic power kit" every
year. I hope you can
come to grips with the fact that Geller has lost
his marbles.
The fact that Geller is engaged in business ventures involving silly
claims
hardly means he has "lost his marbles."
I mention this because, in today's media terms,
this is a
non-story. Geller made front page news for
the time when he was "in",
but
little follow up was done after he was discredited.
I have been following the case very closely. The sham, in my view,
is the
notion that he has been "discredited." It would be equivalent
to saying
that Bill Clinton has been totally discredited.
Your story may also be a non story from the start,
if the discrediting
pours in fast enough.
I welcome honest efforts to discredit THE PK MAN. Everyone will
benefit if
the critics are thorough and careful in their work -- and not, as usual,
out to do a hatchet job hoping that the uncomfortable evidence will
thereby
go away.
In Geller's case, he was allowed to get famous first.
Maybe it is more important to be accurate in one's criticisms than to
be
quick in damaging the reputations of others. I was at a meeting
of the
AAAS when James Randi stood up and accused my friend, Jean Mayo, a
research
associate at SRI International of being in cahoots with Geller and
helping
him to cheat. That was a bogus accusation. It is such over-reaching
that
has given James Randi a terrible reputation among unbiased people who
take
the time and trouble to look carefully into these disputes.
I haven't read your new book, but, as I said, I
have Roots Of
Consciousness and I'm going to re-read it thoroughly
in the next few
days
before buying the new one.
I appreciate your thoroughness. I do hope that you have the second
edition. Since major revisions were made from the original.
I can't respond to your claim, or even look up responses
to your claim,
until I can say I understand it as it was written.
I'll give it that
much.
Thank you.
But, after having read "Search For Noah's Ark",
and seen the
documentary,
which claims that pieces from the Biblical boat
have been found, having
been raised by Christian parents who made me and
my brothers read Mike
Warnke's "The Satan Seller" after having found a
Dungeons And Dragons
charactar sheet in one of our rooms, and having
believed in numerology,
crystal powers, and alot of other crap while in
my early teenage years,
I
would like to point out my obvious bias from the
start.
Fair enough. It's good to get those biases out on the table.
From what
you have said, you seem to have a penchant of going from one extreme
to the
other. I think there is more of a balanced view in the middle
-- rather
than being either a true believer of either camp.
It's not quite enough to say that you give skeptics
a fair voice in your
works. On Search For Noah's Ark, the "documentarians"
did interview
skeptics, but they just edited out the more convincing
arguments. You
sort of use a similar tactic.
I'll give it as fair of a reading as I possibly
can.
I think I really made an effort to put forward the strongest, legitimate
arguments of the skeptics
I should mention, I originally borrowed Roots Of
Consciousness from the
library, before decided to actually buy it because,
for all of it's
faults, was a very good book.
Daniel Johnson
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond to my e-mail.
I
appreciate your feedback.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey