🚀 go-pugleaf

[]

Karl W. Z. Heuer (haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com) suggests some
precautions which Russell Brand should take in his first participatory
experiment.  Unfortunately I missed the original posting (our gateway was
out for a while).  On the basis of what Karl posted, however, I must
strongly agree. 

Unless the stated precautions are taken, virtually nothing, pro or con,
can be concluded from the test.  It is known that well understood,
conventional (i.e., non-paranormal) mechanisms will sometimes result in
"hits" if those controls are not in place.  Simply telling the percipients
the location would be more effective, but not fundamentally different. 

I am speaking not as a critic of parapsychology, looking for reasons to
dismiss such research, but as a serious amateur parapsychologist, active in
the scientific parapsychology community. 

Both remote-viewing experiments and group testing are deceptively difficult
to do correctly.  This experiment combines both.  Without having seen the
original protocol, I cannot comment on whether or not there are other flaws
in the procedure (but are you aware of the stacking effect, and have you
taken it into account?  It is a frequent source of error in group testing). 

		Topher Cooper

USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!pbsvax.dec.com!cooper
INTERNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.dec.com

Disclaimer:  This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for
them.