It is amusing how scientists could be fooled by the stories of the Psychics and in turn how their beliefs harm the gullible people at large. The article "What you think, I think" by Gayatri Murti in Times of India dated 26.4.1990 is a proof to the gullibility of the scientists.

We have published in our July issue the investigations on the claims of Gerard Croiset of his clairvoyant powers. The author has carried the story of Croiset telling on 6.1.1969 as to who would occupy certain seats at a lecture in Denver on 23.1.1969 It is significent that he could see only two persons when he looked into the future of the conference at Denver on 23.1.1969. If he was clairvoyant he would have seen all the participants. The question is why he did not do it? The answer is simple: No one can predict without previous information, and it is not difficult to predict two people who would attend the conference as his prediction was only 3 weeks ahead and it is possible to know who surely would attend.

Regarding Sheila Ostrander and her book on Psychic Experiences Behind the Iron-Curtain these were just stunts - psychological weapon - to defeat Hitler. Lots of scientists have gone through the researches of Dr. J.B.Rhine and found them faulty. When it was discovered that one of his assistants manipulated the instruments to obtain positive results, the Duke University closed down the Para Psychology department. As there are lots of money in parapsychology research, Dr. Rhine started his own private Research Institute "Stanford Research Institute," which has nothing to do with Standford University.

Though the author of the article believes that there are ample indications to prove that those who practice certain forms of "Hatha Yoga", acquire Siddhis (psychic powers), she has not cared to mention the names of such persons who had acquired these powers through Hatha Yoga.

She says that para psychology has been accepted as a science by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. To accept something as science it has to go through the method of science. I would request Gayatri Murti to produce evidence by way of experiments, which has validated Para psychology as a science. Researches conducted so far and future researches does not raise the belief in Para psychology to that of a science.

About Einstein's belief in Para psychology we have published two of his letters in August 1990 issue.

Nelya Mikhailova's mental tricks have already been duplicated like the moving of objects by mind power, stopping frog's heart, causing burns of skin, seperating yolk from the white of an egg and interfering on medical and scientific equipments. While Sergeyev Detectors detected energy fields around Nelya's body and they began to pulse in rythm with her heart beat and brainwaves, it has not been possible to monitor the energy fields around the objects when she directed her energy fields towards the objects nor upto the objects when the energy fields passed from her body to the objects.

Uri Geller when he visited United States for test at Stanford Research Institute he refused investigation by CSICOP and he said that his powers won't work with negative thoughts around. But without the knowledge of Uri his entire demonstration was filmed on hidden video cameras and proved the fraud behind his mental powers.

The Rajasthan University had to close down its para-psychology department, as the research done by Dr. Banerjee were fraudulent. It was also found that he had a fraudulent degree in psychology. I have personally studied the research paper on re-incarnation phenomena of Dr. Pasricha sponsored by Dr.Ian Stevenson. They were not research, but just collecting stories from the persons who claimed to be re-incarnations. The story of Miss.Uttara Hudder a Maharashtrian, and a College Lecturer in Nagpur University who claimed to be a nineteenth century Bengali Brahmin lady was considered by Dr. Ian Stevenson as the most definitive cases of re-incarnation.

When I was in United States, I was to encounter Dr. Ian Stevenson on this story and though he fixed a date and time at New York for debate, in the end he did not turn out on a vague excuse that his wife did not find time to drive him to New York! So I myself went to Washington D.C., where the local CSICOP arranged a talk by me and Dr. Stevenson was invited there. I talked of the mistakes in his findings in the case of Uttara Hudder as Sarada of West Bengal. What really had happened was, she was in love with the Bengali Homoeo Doctor and used to visit his hospital on pretensions of sickness. Later when she found that he was having an affair with a female assistant, she was shocked and started acting as Sharada a Bengali Lady who had died and claiming that the Homoeo Doctor was her husband in her previous life. After my explanation to the behaviour of Uttara Huddar as Sharada Dr. Ian Stevenson did not have a single question to ask me nor argued to prove his findings.

The fact that Voltaire University in Andhra closed their para-psychology department points to the futility of the research done there.

I would request Dr. M.S.Thimmappa, Professor of Psychology, Bangalore University to send me the complete papers on the researches done by him on para-psychology to establish his theory of arousal through relaxation, intense activity and to prove that moderate arousal is conductive to ESP. That it is in the period of subjugation and persecution of thinkers that people were able to give full expression to their intuitive abilities. As an example he names Nostradamus. But Nostradamus prophecies do not prove anything nor his intuitive ability. His pointing to Edgar Kaycee of America as to how these powers could be used in diagnosis and treatment of diseases and accurate weather forecasts points to his ignorance. Edgar Kaycee was exposed as a fraud. If you do not send me your research papers and prove that your conclusions are based on method of science we can only conclude that you have been fooled by the stories of these psychics and what you have narrated in the article are only your beliefs. If that be so please do not confuse the gullible public.

The University of Regensburg neither approves nor disapproves of the opinions expressed here. They are solely the responsibility of the person named below.

Last update: 21 July 1998