My Library

left. I was certainly familiar with this because of my research on the creative processes, especially those of artists who painted images. Here, then, was a very subtle "artifact" within the overall experimental design. The OOB subject was supposed to see the images. But after doing so it was taken for granted that the subject should verbalize what had been seen. Furthermore, some of the items used as targets were so nonsensical that even when viewing them with my physical eyes I did not understand what they were supposed to be. After all, most people have difficulty in verbalizing what they don't understand. Parapsychologists often used nonsensical targets (1) to guard against the mind filling in unexpected parts with imagination, and (2) that if the subject correctly identified something that didn't fit or was unexpected or nonsensical, then that was a better "hit." At that point I had not achieved the power to suggest that a target had to be sensible and recognizable to enable the cognitive mind to make adequate sense of it. But if you think this through, nonsensical psi targets (or nonsensical ANYTHING) do induce mental confusions -- and so the processes of articulating what one thinks one is seeing becomes more difficult. Even THIS was understood by perceptual psychologists by 1971. With all this in mind, I now made a simple suggestion. But it was one which barely nine months later, and when more fully understood and fleshed out, was to produce a type of