You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
Cleve also undertook GSR experimentation using semen. Why...!? What was he thinking...?
The mind boggles.
This has puzzled me for years.
I look at him and my mind wanders. I picture him sitting there, in his greenhouse, talking dirty to the plants. " Who's your daddy, daisy" I wonder who he tested first; the plants or the semen? Was the bio-feedback he referred to , the....the...Nope. I cant bring myself to say it.
The mind boggles.
Posted by: Marty Posted on: Sep 7th, 2006 at 8:06pm
From what I have read, techniques developed by Cleve Backster, such as ZCT (Zone Comparison Test), are still widely used in polygraphy. This is the same Cleve Backster who also used polygraphs to "prove" bio-communication with plants, in a widely criticised article entitled Primary Perception.
While I already had great doubts about the scientific validity of polygraphs, I was astonished to learn this information.
I am surprised his psuedo-scientific research (both with polygraphs and psychic plants) aren't prominently featured on this web site.
Why isn't this used to further attack the credibility of polygraphs?
That has long been my sig reference. "Leaf my Philodenrons alone."
Backster's plant experiments are mentioned, without aspersion, in the front of the Matte's text on polygraphy.
I think James Randi's million dollar challenge would be applicable but the testing could raise a ruckus with PETP (People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants).
Posted by: techfan Posted on: Sep 7th, 2006 at 7:24pm
From what I have read, techniques developed by Cleve Backster, such as ZCT (Zone Comparison Test), are still widely used in polygraphy. This is the same Cleve Backster who also used polygraphs to "prove" bio-communication with plants, in a widely criticised article entitled Primary Perception.
While I already had great doubts about the scientific validity of polygraphs, I was astonished to learn this information.
I am surprised his psuedo-scientific research (both with polygraphs and psychic plants) aren't prominently featured on this web site.
Why isn't this used to further attack the credibility of polygraphs?