Tellefsen and I hoped that our report on the Psi Track would inspire other
researchers to do similar experiments. For many years, nothing seemed to
happen. I did get messages from different countries of groups who had been
successful, but nothing was formally reported.
have argued that our field work was not enough to give any scientific
interest to the Psi Track. Only laboratory test under stringent
double-blind conditions would be satisfying, they said. I can partly agree.
Our aim was not to once and for all “prove” the Psi Track. Rather, our
first question was: Is there a phenomenon to investigate? Second, does it
work? We were satisfied that the Psi Track did work to find hidden objects
under field conditions. Several spontaneous reports have also confirmed
that it can be used to find objects that were lost under real-life
conditions. So I hold the concluding opinion in my second report still
valid: Until confirmatory studies are reported, the psi track may continue
to be regarded as scientifically unproven but useful in practice.
recently Professor Friedrich Balck of the Technological University
in Clausthal, Germany has reported extensive work on the Psi Track. Here
are links to his primary report, a second report where the Psi Track is
also discussed, and three related works.
So far these
reports are available only in German, but Professor Balck has kindly
provided English translation of important parts
of the text. (Not yet in the pdf. article, which is coming later in
following report in English gives a general view of Professor Balck’s fascinating
work on “biosensors”:
if the Psi Track is still not proven in the strict scientific sense, it
has shown itself to be practically useful in many cases. It should be of
interest that also professional treasure hunters have used it with success.
This is the subject of next page:
Psi Track in treasure hunting