|
"Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof."
This statement is attributed to the astronomer and science author Carl Sagan, who points out that unusual claims should be
looked at with a skeptical eye .
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the
claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded."
Marcello Truzzi,
skeptic, In The Zetetic Scholar, 1987.
VALIDATION STATS
Training and Solo Remote Viewing Sessions
Dr. Thompson Smith attended remote viewing training sessions with Paul Smith (Remote Viewing Systems - 1998) and Lyn
Buchanan. (P<S<I - 1999). While these training sessions were not graded, Dr. Smith assessed percentages
for each session, using P<S<I's data judging system. The following is a personal transcript of sessions completed
during and after training.
RVIS Overall: 6 Training Targets 92.8%
RVIS Overall: 10 Solo Training
Targets 71.1%
PSI Overall: 5 Training Targets 57.2%
PSI Overall: 8 Solo Training Targets
72.2% Lottery ARV work with Dr. James Spottiswoode and Dr. Ed May, SAIC
- results tabulated March 27th, 1999.
16 ARV sessions with rankings converted to Z scores. Trials 2 through 6 were 4 target ARVs, the remainder were 5 target
ARVs. Total Stouffer's Z for all 16 sessions was 1.57 with a p value of 0.058 (just shy of significance).
Stock Market ARV Predictions for a Private
Client
5 ARV sessions to predict the direction of the Dow Jones
4 of the 5 were in the correct direction. 80%
success rate.
Psychokinesis data (REG Database): PEAR
Laboratory 1988-1992.
All 66 Diode REG Local sessions
Basline Intention: Z score = 0.638 p = 0.262
Low intention: Z score = 1.927 p = 0.027 (significant)
High Intention: Z score = 2.919 p = 0.002
(significant)
(In compliance with PEAR requirements Operator Number not revealed)
Psychokinesis Data Linear Pendulum: PEAR
Laboratory 1988-1992
54 Datasets. Difference between Intention and Baseline
Difference = 12.06, sd = 64.18,
T score = 1.38, p = .09
Ref: A Linear Pendulum Experiment: Effects of Operator Intention and Damping Rate. (1993), Nelson
R., and Bradish, J. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. Princeton University. Technical Note PEAR 93003.
Psychic Reward PK software distributed by
Dr. Jack Houck - 1993-1994
Score Summary 07/01/1993
ESP: Z score = -0.06 Probability 4.78%
PK:
Z score = 1.99 Probability 95.34% (significant)
Score Summary 10/26/1993
ESP: Z score =
2.21 Probability 97.28%
PK: Z score = 2.03 Probability 95.76%
TOTAL: Z
score = 2.56 Probability 98.96% (all significant)
Score Summary 12/13/1993
ESP: Z score
= 2.00 Probability 95.44%
PK: Z score = 2.13 Probability 96.68%
TOTAL: Z score = 2.59
Probability 99.04% (all significant)
Score Summary 1/12/1994
ESP: Z score = 2.00 Probability
95.44%
PK: Z score = 2.06 Probability 96.06%
TOTAL: Z score = 2.71 Probability
99.32% (all significant)
Intention work with Psychic Reward to
produce a Low score,
a Baseline score and a High score, in that order.
Low Score: Z score =
-1.12
Baseline: Z score = .54
High Score: Z score = 2.38 (significant)
Percent increase: 33% with a Z score
of 2.47 (significant)
The Psychic Reward test results listed above were documented
in research papers:
Vaughan, A., & Houck, J. (1993). A “success” test of precognition and attitude toward
the future. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 59(833), 259-268.
Vaughan, A., & Houck, J. (2000). Intuition training software: A second pilot study. Journal
of the Society for Psychical Research, 64(3), 177-184
Other Training Scores
MUFON Field Investigator Trainee Examination - 91%
In April, 1998, a colleague and investor asked
Dr. Smith to come up with a novel method to predict stock market changes, specifically the Dow Jones. As Dr. Smith was then
currently using a Random Number Generator (RNG) in her doctoral research, she decided to use this as her measuring instrument.
The RNG puts out strings of electronic ones and zeros, in a random order, that accumulate over time to an average output.
Any deviation from this average output must be due to something impinging on the data stream of ones and zeros. Data is usually
collected in a random order to exclude any existing biases within the data stream. An intent is usually written prior to data
collection i.e. to produce more ones (high output); to produce more zeros (low output); or to produce a baseline. The intent,
for this experiment was to allow the RNG to trace a random walk that would approximate the random walk of the stock market,
over the next three "quarters".
The intention was written prior to the collection of data and the RNG allowed
to run for a specified period. This was done for all three quarters. The data was then divided, into three monthly periods
and an analysis of the data made i.e. "Data rises rapidly over the first month, to a plateau over the following month,
only to fall to below its starting point in the third month." The three analyses and raw data were sent to the colleague.
A stock market analyst tracked the predictions against the actual Dow Jones outcomes. For the first quarter there was
a strong correspondence between the predictions and actual outcomes. The correspondences became weaker during the second quarter
and were off track by the end of the third quarter.
|
