The researchers knew that it has been clearly demonstrated that information about the future can be shared with the present. They felt that independent confirmation studies were critical for demonstrating the reality of precognition. The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group conducted a series of studies of whether people can know about events before they happen. "Their results confirm that . . . many of the phenomena that were referred to as "anomalies" are a normal part of the way the universe operates.
PEAR has duplicated the initial SRI Remote Viewing experiments including
successful predictions of target sites before they were randomly chosen (precognition).
The account of their findings follows.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Program:
QUESTION: Why does the universe permit information to be retrieved from the
ANSWER: Why not? Scientific research has demonstrated
that information about the future can be shared with the present. . . . PEAR has duplicated the initial SRI Remote Viewing experiments including
successful predictions of target sites before they were
randomly chosen, i.e. precognition. PEAR calls their work "Remote
Perception" and they showed probabilities against chance ranging from 1 out of a
million to 1 out of a trillion. Details are here. An abstract of the
precognitive work concludes that "Overall results are unlikely by chance to
the order of 10E-10."
Their conclusion concerning replication, using their experimental database,
follows from a paper entitled, Precognitive Remote Perception: Replication of
Thus, these databases, comprising one of the largest
accumulations of relevant experiments performed under consistent and well
controlled experimental protocols, have already provided robust evidence that the
findings in the SRI/SAIC Remote Viewing experiments can be replicated in
independent, but essentially similar designs.
Human consciousness (and the more subtle subconscious) has capabilities far
greater than previously imagined by science. Science has now shown this
capability and is very uncertain on how to proceed.
Studies of precognition at Boeing Research Laboratories
Source: Connections Through Time, Issue 3: April
- June 1999. "Intuition Precognition - Information from the Future"
Helmut Schmidt designed a machine to test the existence of precognition. The machine had four lamps of different colors, which were the "targets." Participants attempted to predict which lamp would light up next by pressing one of four buttons. The machine was designed so that the target displays were completely random. Shortly after pressing, one of the lamps would light up to indicate whether or not the participant had guessed correctly. Counters in the machine registered the number of attempts and number of correct hits.
The results of the studies follow.
Schmidt tested approximately 100 people. It was found that a few individuals were able to predict the target correctly a lot more often than would be expected by chance. Three of these took part in the first main experiment. A simple table shows the findings:
Hits above average
6.5 to 1
27,000 to 1
94,000 to 1
Schmidt designed a second experiment in which the participants had the option of either constantly predicting which lamp would light next (to obtain a high score), or to constantly choose a lamp that they thought wouldn’t light next (aiming for a low score). 20,000 trials were made in total. The number of successful predictions was 410 above what would be expected by chance, which is odds of greater than 10 to the power 10 against chance (Hansel, 1980).
Studies of precognition using brain scans
Source: Dr. G.M. Bierman
Dr. Bierman is a university lecturer, computer laboratory, University of Cambridge. fellow and director of studies at St John's College, Cambridge. Director of studies at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. Click the blue link to see more details.
Dr. Bierman studied precognition by having subjects involved in brain scan experiments. The subjects had their brains scanned while they were shown randomly mixed images, some emotionally stimulating (either violent or erotic), and others neutral. The result was that their brains were reacting to the pictures before they were being shown.
The results of the studies follow.
fMRI is a type of brain scan used to highlight activity of the brain cells that give rise to perceptions and emotions. It is often used to measure emotional reactions to specific stimuli. Where Bierman’s research differs from the conventional studies is that he is interested in emotional response before the participant is subjected to the stimulus.
Ten participants had their brains scanned while they were shown randomly mixed images, some emotionally stimulating (either violent or erotic), and others neutral. The fMRI scans were then analysed for a reaction of some kind. Bierman found that areas of the brain that responded to emotional stimuli reacted about 4 seconds before the image was presented – and that this reaction was greater when the image was emotionally stimulating. This phenomenon has appeared often in existing, published research.
Copyright © 2006 greaterreality.com