User talk:Ersby

Hello Ersby. Added requested quote at for 2% above chance on Remote viewing discussion page. Paper had been cited and was listed in references with link. User:Kazuba 30 Sept 20

Hello Ersby. I beg to differ with you. The paper I cited is a later study than the one you mention. At first they got about 5-15% about the same as the Ganzfeld eperiments. It looks like they did a later study. This paper is also cited by the Parapsychological Association at Member line articles. Chance has always been 25% even in the Ganzfeld experiments. You are picking one out of four. The hit rate has never been large numbers. It has always been close to chance. I do not think 2% OVER CHANCE is easily confused with 2%. If it is, perhaps it can be spelled out to make it clearer, rather than deleting the figures all together. There should be figures here. User:Kazuba 7 Oct 2006

Hi Ersby, Thanks, if it was you, for restoring the GCP entry after someone blanked it. Your change removing the sentence that says the deviation on 9/11 was greater than any in three years is fine. But in fact the analyses we did for the Foundations of Physics Letters paper revealed that the day produced several statistics that represent bigger deviations than any previous day. Since these analyses are not part of the formal hypothesis testing series you looked at, your removal of the statement is formally correct, but I thought you might be interested to know the background for that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerDNelson (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)