rigorousintuition.ca

justdrew wrote:I think it's possible he wrote a decent book on mkultra and is also not a good-guy. he was totally against the FMSF at one point, and now he's a member of it?

Noted psychiatrist and author Colin A. Ross, M.D., has published experimental data that supports his scientific hypothesis that the eyes emit energy that can be captured and measured. Dr. Ross' paper, "The Electrophysiological Basis of Evil Eye Belief," is published in the current issue of Anthropology of Consciousness, a journal of the American Anthropological Association. The full paper is available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... /HTMLSTART.

Although nearly everyone has experienced the sense of being stared at only to find that a person or animal really was looking, Western science has long rejected that the human eye can emit any form of energy. Dr. Ross says his findings move "human ocular extramission," which he also refers to as an "eyebeam," from the realm of superstition to science.

"We used our patent pending Electromagnetic Beam Detection System, which includes modified EEG neurofeedback equipment, to prove that the human eye emits an electromagnetic signal that can be measured scientifically," said Dr. Ross. "I hope that future experiments will determine why energy emitted from the eye is so strong and whether it can be harnessed through focused attention."

A series of videos in which Dr. Ross discusses the paper can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 82619EEF4D.

Dr. Ross has been researching a new science and medicine focused on the human body's electromagnetic field, which he detailed in his 2009 book, Human Energy Fields (ISBN-13: 978-0-9821851-0-0).

Dr. Ross previously made headlines by applying to the $1 Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge administered by the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) (http://www.randi.org). Although Dr. Ross can prove that his eyebeam can make a tone sound out of a computer, JREF insists that no energy can be emitted from the eyes and mocked Dr. Ross with its Pigasus Award. JREF has not responded to Dr. Ross' test protocol.

Dr. Ross is the author of 140 papers in professional journals and 23 books. He has lectured widely in North America, Europe, China, New Zealand and Australia, has reviewed for many different psychiatry journals, and received a number of research grants. His writing also includes short stories, poems, aphorisms, plays and essays on a wide range of topics. For more information about Dr. Ross and the Colin A. Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma, visit http://www.rossinst.com.

"We used our patent pending Electromagnetic Beam Detection System, which includes modified EEG neurofeedback equipment, to prove that the human eye emits an electromagnetic signal that can be measured scientifically," said Dr. Evil (Eye).

...but then most of the audience seems armed with tomatoes.

jingofever wrote:Although Dr. Ross can prove that his eyebeam can make a tone sound out of a computer, JREF insists that no energy can be emitted from the eyes and mocked Dr. Ross with its Pigasus Award. JREF has not responded to Dr. Ross' test protocol.

we now understand that light emitted or reflected by external objects enters the eye, and that's how we see. But Dr. Ross claims to have reversed this process, and not only can he send EM beams from his eyes, but he has rigged up a system to detect it.

Shello wrote:In questionnaire surveys about the details of these experiences I carried in Britain, Sweden and the United States, more women (81%) thanmen (74%) said they had felt they were being stared at. This experience occurred most commonly with strangers in public places, such as streets and bars. Also, significantly more women (88%) than men (71%) said they had found they could stare at others and make them turn around.
[...]
If the sense of being stared at really exists, then it must have been subject to evolution by natural selection. How might it have evolved? The most obvious possibility is that it evolved in the context of predator–prey relations. Prey animals that could detect when predators were looking at them would probably stand a better chance of surviving than those that could not.
[...]
Altogether, there have been tens of thousands of direct-looking trials. The results are remarkably consistent. Typically, about 55% of the guesses are right, as opposed to 50% expected by chance. Repeated over tens of thousands of trials this result becomes astronomically significant statistically.
[...]
The data in Table 1 include the results from all 21 experiments of my own, in 20 of which the outcome was positive. They also include the results from 37 independent investigations in schools and colleges. Thirty-six of these investigations showed a positive effect, but one did not.

stefano wrote:
To conclude, a quote by Craig Murray that I really like: "If we shy away from recording events we cannot explain for fear of ridicule, we will not help to advance the cause of human understanding."

Hammer of Los wrote:The guy could make out like frickin' Cyclops and Randy would still deny it constituted proof.

Anyone ever seen this?