Loyd Auerbach

[SillyRaabit]

I enjoyed listening to Auerbach and the hosts discuss the issues with the ghost hunter shows (admittedly, I was a fan of them a few years ago, but never took them very seriously). I've known a few ghost hunters (amateurs) who essentially mimic the SyFy show (while disparaging it), but their methods are sloppy and their results are highly questionable (points to anyone who gets the reference). The evidence presented is inevitably orbs in photographs, "fog" in photos, garbled EVPs, and personal anecdotes.

Auerbach strikes me as someone who is genuine and wants to move the field in a more scientific direction.

I did take issue with his dismissal of the theological implications of his case studies. He said something to the effect of "one man's demon is another man's angel", making them gods or god-like, and therefore unapproachable. That seems like a very limiting mindset. That breaks down to: "It can't be this, because I don't believe in / understand this / it seems confusing."

He was quick to endorse the existence of poltergeists, PK activity, and ghosts. Aren't those phenomena, because they cannot be quantified, equally unknowable? Shouldn't the approach be "This is what the entity claims to be, this is the evidence related to the events, this is what the witnesses believe it to be" juxtaposed against a contextual cultural study?

 

[Burnt State]

Yes to the contextual cultural study - that's the Jaques Vallée way, gosh darn it! But upper level perspectives of paranormality don't always come so often. I think that because faith tends to split people into two directions, the faithful and people who make fun of the faithful, some will be very quick to dismiss the angel/demon personal interpretation. Usually we tend to see what we expect to see based on the cultural frontloading we've been impregnated with. Those who have recovered from faith impregnation tend to be a little more understanding, while others are filled with vitriol and categorically reject god and satan with equal doses of vim and vinegar.

Ghosts, by nature, and if you're a Keelian or Djinn supporter, always tend to be more scary than friendly, hence good horror movies like The Haunting (the original only, shot lovingly by James Wong Howe) & The Haunting of Julia (Richard Loncraine's first movie). But I liked the stories of Casper the Friendly Ghost and the helpful deceased family members who appear to contentedly wander around like nice smelling lost farts who still want to give the rest of the living good advice.

 

[SillyRaabit]

Thanks for the response, Burnt State, especially considering your standing with the show.

Full disclosure: I am a Christian, and I have a certain worldview. I see things through that lens. That said, I maintain an open mind about events, and don't want to pigeonhole high strange phenomena into neat little boxes for dismissal. While I believe in the truth of the Bible, I recognize its limitations: it is not an encyclopedia, but a manifesto of man's relationship with God. That means that I don't dismiss things that exist outside of it, but do recognize the truths within it.

The idea of ghosts, higher dimensional beings, Satanic / demonic forces, supernatural events, and unexplainable phenomena all fit within a Christian context, if one is willing to take the text seriously, and recognize the limitations (that being, it is not a supernatural encyclopedia) of the scriptures.

I understand that being beholden to this worldview is unpopular among the paranormal community, but I've found it to be a liberating stance when examining various high strange events--whether the more famous cases, or simply the weird experiences of family, friends, and community. The world is a fantastic, frightening, and awe-inspiring place, if we but open our eyes to the possibilities.

 

[SRL+]

My impression from listening to this interview is that Mr. Auerbach has a genuine investment in the fringe sciences, and at the least may be able to assist in providing some type of meaningful scaffold for the advancement of accredited methodology for his particular field of expertise. Unfortunately, as of yet there has been very little to present thru use of the scientific method to mainstream science. Or, it just may be, (as Mr. Auerbach has suggested), that mainstream science wants nothing to do with the fringe. Puzzling, is that Mr. Auerbuch hasn’t seemed to have followed the lead of other researchers in which have suggested that the aerial anomaly phenomenon may interpenetrate other paranormal phenomena, as finding his reasoning somewhat awkward. Perhaps he’ll surface again, as a decent interview always seems to beg for additional answers to probing questions.

 

[Randall]

Good show, but I question the wisdom of making one of the "starting points" of an investigation into paranormal phenomena, the assumption that an apparition is someone's consciousness that has survived the death of the body ( 1:02:42 ); and that such an apparition might be responsible for the reported phenomena.

There is overwhelming evidence connecting consciousness to living humans with functioning brains, and virtually no substantial evidence for the continuity of consciousness after death. Every claim I've looked at so far is based on fleeting, tenuous and often indirect evidence that leads people who want to believe that explanation into believing it.

However it was encouraging to hear that about 50% of the people in the field ( of parapsychology ) don't believe in life after death. I have no doubt that there is phenomena that appears to mimic the traits associated with some deceased people. But it's a leap of logic to conclude that simply because there are some bits of information that seem to match, that what the witnesses are experiencing is the actual presence of those same dead people.

An aside on @Christopher O'Brien's account of the video footage that failed to initialize: If that footage is still available, there are forensics labs that can recover data off virtually anything. Why not have them take a crack at it? For that matter there are some decent consumer grade data recovery tools and you may even be able to do it yourself.

A lot of really good commentary on the way that the media portrays parapsychology ( and UFOs ). I believe that very entertaining and accurate portrayals of real life cases is possible ( at least with UFO cases ). However it would require an adequate budget for high quality special effects, actors, sets, script writing, storyboarding, & research ( basically, just put me in charge OK ) .

Skeptometer Alert! On the OOBEs: I've looked for the kind of experiments that Loyd says had "some success". However I have never seen any such claim turn out to have any verifiable definitive evidence, and that includes the video Loyd mentioned. What we see there is a subject with extensive experience performing experiments getting a certain number of test questions partially right. However given the subject's extensive experience, it's likely that he is familiar with how the test is conducted. So out of 4 possible colors in 4 positions combined with common shapes, it's only natural to obtain some partial matches and possibly even some exact matches. Once again, this is far from definitive evidence!

No commentary would be complete without mentioning that if it's true that he created a psychic experiment back in the early 1990s that definitively proves that 52 people can psychically move small rotating targets ( 2:19:40 ), then by now Loyd should have been able to win James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. Also, if "seeing is believing", then where's the video and documentation for that experiment? Why aren't people all over the world recreating that experiment and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that telekinetic power is for real? It sounds like more urban myth than substantial evidence to me.

 

[SRL+]

Perhaps, into the not so distant future, this study may shed some light onto this most contentious subject. Dr Parnia gives AWARE Study Update 2014

By the looks of it, there seems to be a lot of qualified folks taking this subject seriously.

“Active Researchers and Scientific Advisory Group for the Human Consciousness ProjectSM



UNITED KINGDOM

University of Southampton: Dr Sam Parnia (Chairman, Respiratory); Professor Stephen Holgate (Respiratory Medicine); Dr Peter Fenwick (Psychiatry); Professor Robert Peveler (Psychiatry); Ms Niki Fallowfield (Resuscitation); University of Cardiff: Professor Douglas Chamberlain (Cardiology & Resuscitation); Hammersmith Hospital: London, Mr. Ken Spearpoint (Resuscitation); University of Cambridge: Ms Susan Jones (Resuscitation); University of Oxford: Ms Sue Hampshire (Resuscitation); Northampton Hospital: Ms Celia Warlow (Resuscitation); St Georges Hospital: London, Ms Leanne Smythe (Resuscitation); St Peters Hospital: Mr. Paul Wills (Resuscitation); Mayday Hospital: London, Mr. Russell Metcalfe Smith (Resuscitation); Royal Bournemouth Hospital: Ms Hayley Killingback (Resuscitation); Morriston Hospital: Dr Penny Sartori (Critical Care Nursing); Stevenage Hospital: Ms Salli Lovett (Critical Care); Salisbury Hospital: Mr. Iain Maclean (Resuscitation); Swindon Hospital: Mr. Jon Taylor (Resuscitation); University of Birmingham: Dr Peter Doyle (Emergency Medicine); Ms Tina Millward (Resuscitation); James Paget Hospital: Ms Pam Cushing (Resuscitation); East Sussex Hospitals: Dr Harry Walmsley (Anaesthetics & Resuscitation).



UNITED STATES
Indiana State University: Dr Mark Farber (Pulmonary & Critical Care); University of Chicago: Dr Eric Gluck (Pulmonary & Critical Care); Brooklyn Medical Center: Dr Juan Acosta (Emergency Medicine); University of Virginia: Professor Bruce Greyson (Psychiatry), Professor Robert O Connor (Emergency); Albert Einstein Medical College: Dr Gabriele DeVos (Research Methodology & Immunology); New York University: Dr Nonkulie Dladla (Research Methodology & Internal Medicine); University of Berkeley: Dr Henry Stapp (Quantum Physics).
CANADAUniversity of Montreal: Dr Mario Beauregard (Neuroscience)
AUSTRIAUniversity of Vienna: Professor Roland Beisteiner (Neurology), Dr Fritz Sterz (Emergency Medicine), Dr Michael Berger (Neuroscience)

For more information please visit www.mindbodysymposium.com “

 

[marduk]

Great show, far more here than I expected to be honest.

Good show, but I question the wisdom of making one of the "starting points" of an investigation into paranormal phenomena, the assumption that an apparition is someone's consciousness that has survived the death of the body ( 1:02:42 ); and that such an apparition might be responsible for the reported phenomena.

I believe his point was that he was going in with this as the basis of the operating model to start the investigation.

Like setting up a chemistry experiment or whatever, you create a hypothesis, then create an experiment to test the hypothesis. My impression was he was following a similar line of thinking with his investigations. As you state however this would colour thinking... but cognitive bias is pretty hard to get rid of.

He did seem pretty open to different interpretations or models if he were to be pushed off of his starting point by evidence.

Skeptometer Alert! On the OOBEs: I've looked for the kind of experiments that Loyd says had "some success". However I have never seen any such claim turn out to have any verifiable definitive evidence, and that includes the video Loyd mentioned. What we see there is a subject with extensive experience performing experiments getting a certain number of test questions partially right. However given the subject's extensive experience, it's likely that he is familiar with how the test is conducted. So out of 4 possible colors in 4 positions combined with common shapes, it's only natural to obtain some partial matches and possibly even some exact matches. Once again, this is far from definitive evidence!

I was thinking the exact same thing. 1/16 odds leads to a 6.25% chance of success per trial. You could probably get to 10% or so within your error bars/statistical margins.

A thought occurred: would someone with color blindness be able to see color in an OOBE? Would they be able to articulate it?

No commentary would be complete without mentioning that if it's true that he created a psychic experiment back in the early 1990s that definitively proves that 52 people can psychically move small rotating targets ( 2:19:40 ), then by now Loyd should have been able to win James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. Also, if "seeing is believing", then where's the video and documentation for that experiment? Why aren't people all over the world recreating that experiment and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that telekinetic power is for real? It sounds like more urban myth than substantial evidence to me.

I had a similar visceral response here as well.

I did find this response by Randi regarding what seems to be a similar (if not the same) experiment:
Randi's Geller Hotline for 1994: The PSI Breakthrough, At Last?

Here's the pertinent parts edited for clarity:

"I'm informed that California parapsychologist Loyd
Auerbach is touring his current guru, science fiction author
Martin Caidin, around the USA claiming that Caidin can teach
people to make a paper vane turn on a needle-point by
psychokinetic power.[...] Auerbach is telling anyone who will listen
that Caidin has had as many as 18 vanes moving at one time
via his personal PK powers, and has even made one thus move
in an evacuated bell jar[...]

It appears that Loyd Auerbach chooses to believe and
accept anything and everything that any colorful character
tells him. I can confidently bet that he did not see the 18
targets moving, nor did he witness the vane in the evacuated
bell jar spinning. I'll bet he was told all this by Martin
Caidin, and he simply believes it. I don't at all think
that Auerbach is a scam artist, I think he is just a
gullible type.[...]

I theorized that he was setting up a room
full of paper vanes and claiming success when one or more
started moving. Indeed, upon hearing more about the claimed
"miracle," that turned out to be the case, though on a
bigger scale than I'd imagined. After all, the greater the
number of vanes, the better the chance that a few will start
moving through perfectly well understood physical forces,
not PK.

[...]

I will accept Caidin's claim (and his disciple's
validation) if he will make ONE paper (or other) vane move
by psychokinetic power while it is sealed in a bell jar. Of
course precautions against volatile substances, static
electricity, etc. would have to be taken. That is easily
done, and would cost very little; it could be done easily
and definitively. My prediction: that Auerbach and Caidin
will refuse such a test, for reasons such as "no time," "no
interest," "not needed," etc. They have a good gag going,
teaching this "power" at $80 a pop, and I think they'll not
want anything to interfere with that."
​

That actually seems like a reasonable request from Randi on this one.

 

[Burnt State]

/\ Once again collaborative critical responses provide an alternative forum perspective and drain just a little more blood out of what was comfortably mysterious, even enough to numb some. But then some folk gotta go poking around here and there and with their whole critical reasoning thing...well, you just seem to get out that old skeptical hypodermic and fill in the nebulous edges of paranormality with a little more specific doubt. I suppose that's what drew me to the forum as a reader initially and continues to keep my Zetetic pressure at a reasonable level. So much for reveling in ghosts and PKE.

Still, the mind space remains a strange space.

 

[marduk]

/\ Once again collaborative critical responses provide an alternative forum perspective and drain just a little more blood out of what was comfortably mysterious, even enough to numb some. But then some folk gotta go poking around here and there and with their whole critical reasoning thing...well, you just seem to get out that old skeptical hypodermic and fill in the nebulous edges of paranormality with a little more specific doubt. I suppose that's what drew me to the forum as a reader initially and continues to keep my Zetetic pressure at a reasonable level. So much for reveling in ghosts and PKE.

Still, the mind space remains a strange space.

Oh, I think the evidence is there. I've had a few "ghostly" type encounters myself so I think there's something to it.

Had more than a few precog-like anecdotal family evidence that I actually believe as well.

I think some of Radin's work has been pretty good, even caught the eye of some of the established community (even if it was to question it but that's part of the process).

Auerbach is fighting the good fight as far as I'm concerned... but the jury's far from out on what is causing this stuff.

 

[Randall]

... I believe his point was that he was going in with this as the basis of the operating model to start the investigation.

Like setting up a chemistry experiment or whatever, you create a hypothesis, then create an experiment to test the hypothesis. My impression was he was following a similar line of thinking with his investigations. As you state however this would colour thinking... but cognitive bias is pretty hard to get rid of.

He did seem pretty open to different interpretations or models if he were to be pushed off of his starting point by evidence ...

I was also encouraged by Loyd's openness to alternative explanations, but still question the wisdom of using disembodied consciousness as a starting point. If we were to use your chemistry experiment analogy, it's like the search for the philosopher's stone. Modern chemistry has determined that the search for the philosopher's stone is a fool's errand, so why would any serious chemist insist on pursuing it?

Mind you there are still people who want to believe that the philosopher's stone exists, just like there are people who want to believe that consciousness can survive the death of the body. But let's not confuse these two pursuits with genuine science. At best they're points to ponder and eventually come to the realization that although useful as metaphor, neither is possible, and while we're on the topic of metaphor and the Philosopher's Stone, I cannot help but digress into a most excellent live version of:

Van Morrison - Philosopher's Stone

 

[marduk]

I was also encouraged by Loyd's openness to alternative explanations, but still question the wisdom of using disembodied consciousness as a starting point. If we were to use your chemistry experiment analogy, it's like the search for the philosopher's stone. Modern chemistry has determined that the search for the philosopher's stone is a fool's errand, so why would any serious chemist insist on pursuing it?

I'm of the bent that you can believe whatever you want, but don't tout it as fact until you can prove it.

Go ahead and hypothesize that the philosopher's stone exists, but create a method to test your hypothesis. If you do not find evidence to support your hypothesis, or find evidence to contradict your hypothesis then you have to let go of your hypothesis. That's science.

I've seen UFOs. I have no idea what they are, where they come from, what they want, or if they run on unleaded. I have yet to see a solid experiment that can say much more than there are unexplained objects flying in the sky.

I think we're at a similar place with PK, ghosts, psi, and the rest of it. Enough empirical/anecdotal evidence to say that there's something there, but not enough to say what it is.

The cool thing about the Philip experiment is that it's repeatable.

The uncool thing about the Philip experiment is that it was pretty much uncontrolled and therefore it's results are up for debate. Very easy to rinse your hands of the matter and say it was overactive imaginations.

I for one would like to see that experiment repeated in a laboratory setting.

 

[flipper]

Your right Gene: excellent guest and a great show

 

[Jimi H.]

..
One of the things I found quite puzzling about the show was the notion that many ghost experiences are internal events, not able to be externally recorded and are simply immeasurable.
..
Even the dusussion of ghosts and clothes seems to have way more to do with the observer than the ghost. As with the Philip experiment, are these just things we invent in the mind?

.. I believe that Philip, like Heather, Sebastian and other group creations are nothing more than the products of the collective. You can call it groupthink or the delusions of crowds, but I do feel that these experiments produce results that are shared creations, unconscious manouevres and the unspoken will of the group is solely responsible for the impressive visible effects...

Good points.

Yea, I also sense (I don't know) that paranormal events are typically psychological in origin. If these events were 'material' or otherwise truly seperate from the observer, I imagine there'd be more actual evidence to support it.

A friend of mine is into stuff like lucid dreaming, and he's told me that in lucid dreaming you are basically in two states at one time, in a dream state, and an awoken state. Thus, reality and dream become the same. Who is to say that people don't experience such states at times, while being completely unaware of it? Our minds are capable of much trickery. Similar to sleep paralysis where people experience various things related to paranormal experiences. In such cases, I'd claim that they are psychologically induced, with no outside agent at play whatsoever.

I'm really not a dogmatic, but I think the burden of evidence rests with the proponents of true seperate paranormal events, not the sceptics (and I do mean sceptics, not dogmatic opponents).

And this leads me to the rather dry observation that while Auerbach was well-spoken and sounded like a level-headed guy, he failed to provide at least references to evidence for his many statements and conclusions.
Most notably, he described an experiment where a large number of people were supposedly moving solid objects with telekinesis. Honestly, if he could make it happen just like that, I think the least he could do was to do it again, and turn on a goddamn camera, you know? Until then, I have a really hard time matching his claim to science with actual science. He has poor scientific instincts if he doesn't do his utmost to document what can be documented, and something like that could be documented.

Like I've said before about similar claims, he could probably make a mill., become world famous and revolutionize the textbooks at the same time if he recorded a video that actually showed such telekinesis in action, - so I cannot figure out why he doesn't? I'll have to conclude that he doesn't because he can't. And so, as usual there is a big discrepancy between the good stories and the amount of evidence, regardless if he speaks well and seems rational.

 

[Jimi H.]

..

No commentary would be complete without mentioning that if it's true that he created a psychic experiment back in the early 1990s that definitively proves that 52 people can psychically move small rotating targets ( 2:19:40 ), then by now Loyd should have been able to win James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. Also, if "seeing is believing", then where's the video and documentation for that experiment? Why aren't people all over the world recreating that experiment and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that telekinetic power is for real? It sounds like more urban myth than substantial evidence to me.

I replied before I read the whole thread, but yea, I agree

 

[Burnt State]

Two people I'm interested in for different reasons, both believe there is ample evidence of UFO's with alien technology presenting themselves on earth. @ufology firmly believes that it's e.t. and his conviction level is pretty high in this area. Now Ray Stanford, whose colorful personal history involves all the major themes and subsets of Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon: Hynek, Adamski, McDonald, Jesus Christ and Dinosaurs, states he's actually holding the goods. He has high res imagery of five different species as seen in various films and photos - mind blowing, apparently but currently unavailable to the general public. Neither convinces me.

So, where does that leave paranormality, its proof of existence and the transmitting of conviction and belief to the masses? Well apparently it is something that is most often relayed by a messenger or prophet, someone who has witnessed the events, has investigated, researched and queried witnesses. They have the knowledge and the power. This may sound like it has Christian overtones, but let's face it, as much as Stanford and Auerbach believe and claim science, for some reason the majority remains unconvinced. It took a long time for microscopic reality to be believed. So are these guys pioneers and are we just too doubtful? Better proof is definitely needed and it needs to be made visible to common folk through a mechanism that can unquestionably provide evidence that is reasonable.

If we can't photograph ghosts, bigfoot or ufo's in a convincing manner then maybe thinking that these are internal experiences makes more sense. Is the stimulus just a culturally programmed event ( we make it all up - waking dreams, night terrors, brain farts etc.) or is it something real that is culturally translated (something really weird that's part of our reality but we can't fully perceive or understand it so we call them greys because of Strieber's book cover)?

I don't want to reject it all because reality is pretty odd at times, or at least our experience and perception of it can get pretty wild so I remain doubtful, quizzical and hopeful of breaking through the barriers of current human perception so we can greet other ways of being and perceiving.

Still, after having seen what I would categorize as flying saucers flying visibly above me with other witnesses, I'm still pretty damn confused about it all and the messengers do not have me convinced of much. They may be in fact messengers of deception or soothsayers, but for now, i remain curious about it all.

 

[Randall]

Two people I'm interested in for different reasons, both believe there is ample evidence of UFO's with alien technology presenting themselves on earth. @ufology firmly believes that it's e.t. and his conviction level is pretty high in this area ...

To clarify this issue one more time, while I think the ETH is the most rational explanation for the presence of alien craft, the word alien doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial. When I use the word "alien", I mean from outside the boundaries and constructs of the civilization we are part of on its grandest scale, including any secret governmental or private sector projects. This generally assumes we're speaking of our global civilization, but for the sake of illustration, if we had colonies in space or on other planets, for something to be alien, it would have to come from someplace else besides those colonies too.

So hypothetically, something alien could come from some as of yet unexplored place on Earth, or if sci-fi time travel were possible ( which it's not ), alien craft ( UFOs ) might come from there. Or perhaps they're a manifestation of a universal construct, a Matrix-like system that is responsible for our very existence. Or if one is religious, then transports from Heaven or Hell would also be technically alien. But like I said, I tend to find these other suggestions implausible or unlikely compared to the ETH.

So when it comes right down to it, what I personally believe is that UFOs ( alien craft ) are exactly that ( alien ). The specifics I might be willing to bet a steak dinner on, not much more ( but a really nice steak dinner though; one even @Christopher O'Brien might possibly approve of . )

 

[red_pill_junkie]

It's been a while since I've logged into the forums. I just wanted to say you guys have knocked it out of the park with the trifecta of awesome guests.

Now Loren & Ray are always great to listen to, but I must say I was deeply impressed with Lloyd Auerbach. His is the kind of voice I'd like to hear more often when discussing what is woefully considered 'the paranormal'.

One final thing: I believe Auerbach briefly mentioned Jeffrey Mishlove, as the only second person who ever received a PhD in parapsychology. I first heard of him when my friend Mike Clelland introduced his Hidden Experience readers to the wonderful treasure trove that is the Youtube channel of Thinking Allowed, which posts excerpts of the TV program of the same name, who was conducted by Mishlove from 1987 to 2002.

I cannot recommend enough that you subscribe to this channel IMMEDIATELY.

Here's a little sample to whet your appetite

And if you could possibly get Mishlove to appear as a future guest on The Paracast, that would be muy bueno

Saludos,

RPJ

 

[Burnt State]

...
Thinking Allowed, which posts excerpts of the TV program of the same name, who was conducted by Mishlove from 1987 to 2002.

I cannot recommend enough that you subscribe to this channel IMMEDIATELY.

Here's a little sample to whet your appetite.

That was really interesting especially the section on channelling and the channels as a multiple personality disorder, a set of distinct identities inside a mind, each presenting their own unique brain wave pattern. I also liked the idea of the Ouija as a self-created channel and its addictive qualities both as opener of the channel and as listener of the channel. Try listening to number stations religiously and see where it takes you.

I think those channelling moments are like any meditation that alters your state of mind and perhaps may even allow the mind to access information in a different manner. I don't subscribe to communicating with the dead, but I can see how in the same way meditation alters brain chemistry that persistent channelling would also alter one's mind and perhaps create the stage for really strange things to happen. That's how I see most of paranormality working - weird brain practices.

 

[Polterwurst]

Here's a little sample to whet your appetite

I think we should send these guys the video link, and point them to the part where Dr. Hastings says (something like) "playing with the ouija board is like opening your door on a dark night". I mean, on the one hand it's a nice surprise that the "InnerIntel" scientists don't just wave it off and do the old patronizing "you realize it's just a toy, don't you?" routine, on the other hand I wonder if it's a good idea to tell people "explore the subconscious, use the ouija". I'm still looking for the part where they tell people who want to try this at home, that they should be mature, mentally stable and absolutely certain that none of the participants is secretly planning to creep the others out (btw., shame on you, Mr Auerbach ) .

Here's a Youtube vid from the project:

... at first I was like "is this a viral marketing campaign for the next Panormal Activity / found footage movie?" but it seems they're really serious about this..

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I think we should send these guys the video link, and point them to the part where Dr. Hastings says (something like) "playing with the ouija board is like opening your door on a dark night". I mean, on the one hand it's a nice surprise that the "InnerIntel" scientists don't just wave it off and do the old patronizing "you realize it's just a toy, don't you?" routine, on the other hand I wonder if it's a good idea to tell people "explore the subconscious, use the ouija". I'm still looking for the part where they tell people who want to try this at home, that they should be mature, mentally stable and absolutely certain that none of the participants is secretly planning to creep the others out (btw., shame on you, Mr Auerbach ) .

Here's a Youtube vid from the project:

... at first I was like "is this a viral marketing campaign for the next Panormal Activity / found footage movie?" but it seems they're really serious about this..

I take it then you won't be buying this lovely pink Ouija board for your daughter?

I dunno, I confess the Inner Intelligence Project sounds interesting, and a bunch of undergrads playing (or experimenting) with cardboard boards & plastic planchettes, sounds a lot less disturbing than a bunch of bored teenagers looking to get spooked by spirits.