◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 206A68/A861 EIAIRDP96-00792R000600350001-3 DST-1810S~-387-75 September 1975 Hl d studies were made privately they could simply be ignored. Such criticisns, however, are aired publicly in the press by people of. incontestable auth- ority in other fields. What happened to genetics and cybernetics is now being repeated again and again. One can no longer remain silent, but must take the full responsibility of stating that "criticism" of telepathy is tantamount to militant obscurantism."' Zigel's words did not go unheeded because by 1968 the Soviets already had: (1) established several research centers specializing in telepathic experiments on an academic and scientific level; (2) organized teams of scientists--physiologists, physicists, psychol- ogists, mathematicians, cyberneticians, neurologists, and electronic engin- eers--to investigate telepathy, find out how it works, and devise means of practical application; and (3) conducted experiments involving long-range thought transference (Leningrad-Moscow (600 km); Moscow-Tomsk (4,000 km)). (U) Without actually taking an gyneduivocal stand on the controversial issue of telepathy, Ye. Parnov, in 1966, cited at least three parodoxes: (1) telepathic communication is independent of distance; (2) telepathic communication is achieved without the use of the known sensies and has no apparent relation to electromagnetic waves; (3) some cases of spontaneous telepathy and clairvoyance contradict the law of causality. It should be mentioned that if Parnov had stated his third paradox a few years sooner it would have meant certain scientific and intellectual exile. However, Parnov attempted to ascertain the extent to which these paradoxes might fit into the fundamental laws of natural science, and thereby remained a, somewhat within the bounds of traditional dogmatic, materialistic princi- ples. . (U) Parnov felt that the first paradox might be resolved if: (a) the material carrier of the telepathic effect is some type of energy unlikely to dissipate in space, or (b) all people are linked together by a special "telepathic field." In the first case, the material carrier could con- ceivably be the neutrino which, at least within the earth's biosphere, is not absorbed by matter. In the second case, it might be surmised that, in addition to the inductor and percipient, telepathic phenomena involve an unspecified number of people for amplification of the telepathic signal, just as a photomultiplier amplifies light. (U) A similar explanation was applied to the second paradox; the "neu- trino hypothesis," however, has its drawbacks. It is not quite clear, for instance, which type of neutrino is responsible for the transmission of telepathic signals. It is possible that all people are interlinked by a neutrino field, and this would support the amplification theory. (U) The third paradox is the least palatable to traditional scientists and the most susceptible to criticism by opponents of telepathy. Its ex- planation requires, by implication, the breakdown of well-established concepts regarding time and space. One of the ideas advanced by some 18 ~ Approved For Release 2004/99/02 1-14, RDP96-00792R000600350001-3