My Library

As to the results. Only the target thermistors were influenced, albeit sometimes weakly so, but majorly so in the preponderance of the trials. Glass, walls, nearness or farness from the targets made no difference. In the abstract of her formal paper, Schmeidler phrased the success as: "Significant PK changes in continuous, automatic recordings of temperature were repeatedly produced." Embedded in the paper's text is presented the fact that the experiment was repeatable at the direction of the experimenter. [See PK EFFECTS UPON CONTINUOUSLY RECORDED TEMPERATURE published in THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, Vol. 67, October 1973, No. 4.] Drafts of her paper were almost immediately in circulation in December 1971, since the paper was widely circulated for peer review and Xerox copies of which were distributed by the peer reviewers in all sorts of directions. And a tremendous ruckus now ensued, one which reached from the bowels of parapsycholgy to the guts of science proper -- and from those venerable, if murky, realms -into the guts of the MEDIA! The focus of the ruckus had not much to do with the experiment itself. What the focus was can best be explained as follows.