“Soviet & Czech 9-75 Parapsychology Research, DST-18105-387-75”

(U) During the past 25 years, Soviet and Czechoslovakian parapsychologists
have reported that paranormal phenomena such as extrasensory perception
(ESP), telepathy, and psychokinesis (PK) have been demonstrated under
rigorously controlled laboratory conditions. Skeptics in both nations
have attacked the study of such phenomena on both scientific and political
– ideological grounds. Criticism based on political ideology has stemmed
from the fact that much past research has been non-materialistic in the
sense that results have not been reported in terms of contemporary conven-
tional science. Thus the critics feel that parapsychology has fostered
continued belief in mysticism, occultism, and religion.

(U) In order to rebut the skeptics’ contentions that psychic phenomena do
not fit accepted scientific and political thought, Soviet and Czech sci-
entists now argue that there are many well established “facts” which remain
as anomalous to scientific paradigms as extrasensory perception (ESP). ESP
refers to information which is not received via the usual senses, and as
a general term, includes telepathy (the Soviet “biocommunication”) and
psychokinesis or PK (the Soviet “bioenergetics”). Communist parapsycho-
logists argue that after decades of research, conventional science still
has no satisfactory neurophysiological explanation of memory, nor is there
any appropriate model for explaining how raw data impinging on man’s senses
are transformed into a conscious experience. They also point to the dema-
terialized character of contemporary physics, a science filled with such
bizarre components as advance potential (waves of electrons perceived be-
fore they are generated) , tunneling effects (electrons penetrating barriers
which, by the laws of probability, should be impenetrable), and tachyons
(particles traveling faster than light, and thus implying the possibility
of a backward flow of time). In short, they conclude that “hard” science
no longer offers a secure rationale for the denial of the possibility of
any noncausal event.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s