主题：【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪 -- 衲子
发在了<文摘版>
你有点太执着了吧？兰迪你也反对？
为什么航空技术与航天技术相比，与国外的差距那么大？
http://www.cchere.net/article/580462
根据我的经验，这是必然现象。
Puthoff, Harold and Russell Targ. "Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding" Nature, 1974, 252, 602-607.
魔术师兰迪又不是神圣的偶像,为什么不能反? 他既然可以反"伪科学", 咱们也可以反"反伪科学", 这叫否定之否定. 
什么是执着? 我每天都要吃饭, 这算不算执着? 爱迪生试验灯丝的材料, 屡败屡战, 算不算执着?
航天运载工具(火箭,导弹,...)多是一次性的, 而航空的不是. 而且在当时,前者事关战略问题,国家的投入非常大.
Correspondence
No "remote viewing"
A long drawn out controversy in Nature has followed the claim made by Puthoff and Targ(1) in 1974 that certain individuals can perceive objects or scenes blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding (the supposed phenomenon called “clairvoyance” by earlier generations). The most recent communications (2,3) raise issues about the content of Puthoff’s and Targ’s experimental records that can only be settled by direct examination of those records. However, their critic, Marks, has reported their refusal to grant him access to their records (2).
In an attempt to clarify this issue, writing as a bona fide investigator of long standing in this general area but having no prior involvement with these particular experiments, I recently requested access to the data on the Prince and Hammid series on which Puthoff and Targ based their original case for “remote viewing”. No reply has been received after an interval of two months, despite repeated approaches. It must be concluded that the evidence offered by Puthoff and Targ is not accessible to other investigators. In this sense their claim can no longer be regarded as falling within the scientific domain, and further public discussion appears unnecessary.
Christopher Scott
London N19, UK
1. Targ, R. & Puthoff, H. Nature 251, 602-607 (1974).
2. Marks, D. Nature 292, 177 (1981).
3. Puthoff, H. & Targ, R. Nature 292, 388 (1981).
大家可以去nature看看
其实不必把1974年的文章拿出来，也不必靠“CIA"来增加可信度。真的“特异功能”去拿兰迪的百万奖金就可以了，又能一劳永逸让兰迪闭嘴，又有钱收。。。
by Loyd Auerback
既然是“so what", 又何必在乎别人说什么？
大功率气体输运激光、和可调等离子振荡器的发明人。Puthoff发明了可调红外激光，他对量子真空态、零点能 所作的理论工作在学界广为人知。见《The Field》Lynne McTaggart著，里面介绍了Puthoff在量子物理方面的工作。
呵呵，不能增加可信度，但至少能说明他们的工作不是你我还有Randi这样的半瓶醋可以想当然地轻易否定的。