主题：【衲记包子】超心理学家驳斥反伪斗士魔术师兰迪 -- 衲子

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).