[DMJessup]

Hello Beth, glad you got the message. And, thanks for the link. At least this will update the next folks landing here.
I hope you graduated and your paper was a success!

[DMJessup]

Hey, if you are still out there, how is it going now?

I would suggest learning the Bengston method, since my loose connection brain finds that this method is exactly a distraction system like you describe.

What people likely need to understand about much of how Psi works, is why the frontal lobes and the engaged thoughts there are keeping you from information or Psi skill.
A more recent study showed that blocking the frontal lobes with TMS (magnetic temporary shut down) allowed people to perform better in PK experiments (moving objects).

The Frontal Lobe is Blocking Psychic Abilities

[DMJessup]

There is the empath connection, and herd poisoning, and distant intent. Dr. Stephen Porges calls it neuroception. Some people think it is a guardian angel, and it can just be another extension of telepathy.

I can think of one perfect example. I’m not a paranoid or fearful person, and one day I was suddenly very paranoid and I was peeking from behind curtains, thinking my own intuition was trying to tell me that I was in danger. After there was no danger, I meditated on it, and my niece appeared in my mind’s eye. I popped back out of meditation and texted her “Wassup?” and she responded that she was hiding behind the Disney display at the mall where she works because there was an active shooter. Relative, active emotional connection, family, etc.
I believe that there are a lot of our daily moods, emotions, and thoughts that are likely not our own. The energetic clarity of what is happening is often missing and people don’t know how to separate what is self, and what is not.

Glad to supply my form of meditation if it interests you. Hypnagogic meditation, or awareness in the fulcrum.

[DMJessup]

This study is also closed, and the link is dead with a redirect to Noetic.

[DMJessup]

This link is also dead, with zero feedback from ECH-DHP, which makes people like myself avoid ever taking part in future calls for research participants. Talk about feeling ‘used’ by others who are getting paid for research… geez.

[DMJessup]

The usual lack of follow-up.

Who’s Calling? Evaluating the Accuracy of Guessing Who Is on the Phone

Some people claim to occasionally know who is calling them without using traditional means. Controlled experiments testing these claims report mixed results. We conducted a cross-sectional study of triads examining the accuracy of knowing who was calling using two randomly selected designs: 1) a web server randomly chose the caller before the callee’s guess (telepathic/pre-selected trials), and 2) a web server randomly chose the caller after the callee’s guess (precognitive/post-selected trials). We also performed exploratory multilevel mixed-effects logistic regressions on the relationship of genetic relationships, emotional closeness, communication frequency, and physical distance data with accuracy. A total of 177 participants completed at least one trial (105 “completers” completed all 12 trials). Accuracy was significantly above chance for the 210 completers telepathic/pre-selected trials (50.0% where the chance expectation was 33.3%, p<.001) but not the 630 completers precognitive/post-selected trials (31.9% where the chance expectation was 33.3%, p = .61). We discuss how these results favor the psi hypothesis, although conventional explanations cannot be completely excluded. Genetic relatedness significantly predicted accuracy in the regression model (Wald χ2 = 53.0, P < .001) for all trials. Compared to 0% genetic relatedness, the odds of accurately identifying the caller was 2.88 times (188%) higher for 25% genetic relatedness (Grandparent/Grandchild or Aunt/Uncle or Niece/Nephew or Half Sibling; 𝛽 = 1.06, z = 2.10, P = .04), but the other genetic relatedness levels were not significant. In addition, communication frequency was significant (𝛽 = 0.006, z = 2.19, P = .03) but physical distance (𝛽 = 0.0002, z = 1.56, P = .12) and emotional closeness (𝛽 = 0.005, z = 1.87, P = .06) were not for all trials. To facilitate study recruitment and completion, unavoidable changes due to persistent recruit difficulties to the protocol were made during the study, including changing inclusion/exclusion criteria, increasing total call attempts to participants, adjusting trial type randomization schema to ensure trial type balance, and participant compensation. Thus, future research will be needed to continue to improve the methodology and examine the mechanism by which people claim to know who is calling, as well as factors that may moderate the effects.

[DMJessup]

I will reply to my own post this time. We need more constructive involvement of the Psi community, those with skills.
We should also realize how hypocritical science has become. They can measure a one-time gravitational wave, and have a one-time particle appear in the particle accelerator, both are things that they can’t repeat, and these one-time examples are sufficient for them, even when they can’t replicate it. Science can’t really define gravity. Science can precisely describe and calculate the effects of gravity, but it cannot yet define what gravity is in a fundamental, comprehensive way. While Einstein’s general theory of relativity defines it as the curvature of spacetime, and quantum theory searches for particles like gravitons, a definitive, unified theory remains elusive. Results are all that really matter in Psi testing, and we have evidence and veridical evidence of plenty of results. So what if we lack theories that satisfy current science? We all need to move beyond this nonsense mentality and show what we can do, when we can do it, and what we require to do it. And then, our scientists need to start listening to us and stop with the echo chamber nonsense discussions. ‘Circular or echo chamber discussions, where viewpoints are reinforced and opposing views are excluded, are primarily called echo chambers. Other common terms include filter bubbles (algorithm-driven insulation), epistemic bubbles (omission of opposing voices), or colloquially, circle jerks. These environments create insulated, polarized, or “homogenized” communication.’
Ask us how to design the correct experiments. Go ahead.

[Author]

Posts