PSI has been confirmed. The question of whether it's real or not has been answered long ago. ESP exists, precognition, telepathy, and PK exist. The real questions are to what extent these abilities manifest in a particular person or group and what is the mechanism by which it functions.

Repeatedly denying it's existence won't change the facts.

It is appreciated that some of the more vocal criticisms about psi are personal opinions and everyone is welcome to express their opinions.

However, belligerent criticisms occasionally asserted by some skeptics are put forth from such strongly held, prejudicial positions that it is clear the criticisms are being offered not as opinion, but as fact of the matter, as though the opinion is proof of the impossibility of psi.

The only opinion that can be backed up by controlled studies is the opinion that psi is real.

Most of the topics in this forum are either presented as a personal experience, or are inviting others to share particulars about experiences they may have had. In these type of topics there is no value added by posting "There is no such thing" or "That is impossible". The topic starter knows that some people have that opinion. It isn't necessary to register your opinion in each topic.

psi has not been confirmed. neither has esp, precognition, ect. People have claimed to have it but it has not been confirmed. I believe in some of that stuff.

Well would you be so kind as to provide some sort of documentation? It's not that I don't trust every word that you type, but I have no reason to trust you and every reason not to.

If it had been confirmed there wouldn't still be a debate.
You'd be hard pressed to find a self-respecting scientist/physicist/what-have-you today who would publically support those claims.

"Repeatedly denying it's existence won't change the facts."

Repeatedly accepting it's existence won't make it so, either.

Documentation has been provided many times on this forum. Real studies, by real scientists, with real results.

It seems very easy for people to simply discount out of hand anything that doesn't fit in with their beliefs.

Here is an interesting site. Have a look.

Any peer reviewed controlled study in particular you'd like to put forward as definitive proof?

I think the very essential problem being displayed here is a misunderstanding concerning the process of repeatability.

Repeatability, in regards to proving the validity of a theory, is one of the basics of scientific methodology. Any theory that would be considered credible must have a manner in which it can be reliable repeated by any independant third-party and the results must repeatedly result within the parameters of the claim. Without this, one cannot really claim to have a theory, as one cannot really claim to have an answer to a given phenomena.

But repeatability with results only matter in context of theories. When we are talking about the actual phenomena that theories explain, it is an entirely different matter. Now, it is no longer a matter of statistical acceptance. It is no longer an issue of saying that "This phenomena existed more times than not." Phenomena that seeks to be explained by scientific theories must be shown to exist without question. Not as a statistically possible event. Not as maybe some people have it and some people don't. It MUST be shown to be in continous existance at any time during a given set of circumstance.

This is a bit difficult to understand, so let me give a few examples. Gravity is a phenomena which is in undeniable existance. Anytime time you have objects of mass, there is an undeniable attraction between them. This is not a theory, this is not an experiment; this is merely the simple state of existance of the phenomena that we refer to as gravity. No matter where you go or what you do, as long as there are two objects of mass, there will be an attraction between them. That is repeatability for the existance of a phenomena.

Now, repeatability for a theory would be the experiments that one does to test the rate of fall on Earth (32 ft/s/s). Yes, this rate of descent is a theory (one that has yet to be invalidated), and it can be repeated by pretty much anyone with results that fall into a statistically acceptable range. The theory of gravity must be repeatable within statistically accepted bounds to be valid, but the actual phenomena of gravity must be repeatable without the slightest doubt. If one gets an answer other than 32 ft/s/s for the rate of fall on Earth, it might mean that the theory is oncorrect and needs to be revised; if one gets an effect other than attraction between two objects of mass, it would mean that the phenomena of gravity would not exist.

We see on these threads people repeatedly posting links to studies that allegedly "prove" the existence of psychic powers, some somewhat credible, others downright laughable, but the posting of these studies miss the point entirely, or rather, they attempt to bypass that essential first step: proving the phenomena exists. The existance of the phenomena itself is not up to statistical debate. Gravity, Evolution, chemical reactions, all of these phenomean are, without the slightest doubt, existing phenomena that are seen to occur regularly and, given the specific situations of each, repeatedly. The theories that explain these phenomena are the stuff of studies and statistics, and they may be correct or not, but they do not effect the actual existance of the original phenomena itself.

Until the phenomena of psychic powers (not explanations for it) can be shown to exist repeatedly under a set of given conditions, it cannot be considered a scientific fact.

It's no different than the fact that aspirin prevents some heart attacks. It's a fact, and has been proven statistically.

Sounds like an advertisement for penis enhancement pills: "It really works"

And what journal were these real results, from real studies by real scientist published? In fact, to be more precise, what are real studies, real scientist and real results? I am afraid they all sound like jibberish.

Not quite what I am saying. It's a statistic probability. Facts don't use words like "some". Anytime you see that, you are seeing a conclusion, and conclusions (in the realm of science) are based on statistics. What I am trying to emphasize is that there is a difference between the factual existance of a phenomena and the theories that help distinguish it. Theories are statistically based. The existance of the pheomena itself is beyond question. You can find people to argue that aspirin has no effect on heart attacks (regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect), but finding people who can credibly claim that heart attacks do not exist is going to be next to impossible.

If I'm understanding your position correctly you agree that anomalous effects have been statistically demonstrated. Further, that because we can't trace the cause and effect of these anomalies it is not appropriate to attribute them to PSI.

The difficulty in that regard is that the catalyst is non-physical. We may never have the tools to examine the nuts and bolts of this non-physical phenomena.

Anomalous effects. Great. I want to see someone use their mind with a pronounced effect. Example: actually move something, with their mind, accurately predict the future, heal a open wound. I want see these things done consistently. Random number generators.
Big deal. If that is the best there is then everyone should give up.

That's a very short sighted attitude. What you want to see is a personal issue and is not germane to this discussion.

That these phenomena do occur points to a part of reality that has been largely overlooked by science. We can only guess at what miraculous discoveries are waiting if this area of research can overcome the long standing taboos and thereby attract qualified personnel and reasonable funding.

Orgone Radionics went down the path of using technology to manipulate this energy of life, Where there is life there is orgone energy this they have proved. There is enough sh** on google so im not going to provide a link to anything, although they call it orgone energy it is essentially Psi but really just plain energy.

The government wastes enough money. To waste it on something like this would be a crime. Its just wishful thinking on your part.

they allready waste money on it, radioncs orgone energy.

the problem is that these things are not repeatable--there is no formula for creating psionic effects, you cant add a teaspoon of baking powder to sulfiric acid to get psionic effects, which means that not everybody can repeat it--so it is still debatable, there is no undeniable existance if psi or magick-it is all arguable statistics

Anything is arguable. When it's billions to one the argument is ridiculous.

Good point.

...Sort of...

What you are referring to "anomalous effects", I call statistical occurrance. Because their existance is only do to the magic of numbers, it can be argued that the phenomena either exists or does not exist. The existance of the phenomena, however, should be beyond question. No one denies that lightning occurs. No one denies that earthquakes occur. The only arguments are about the mechanics involved. The actual existance of the phenomena isn't a matter of statistics. In order to create a chemical reaction, one can mix a base with an acid. The phenomena of the chemical reaction is beyond question. It can be repeated by as many people as it takes. It isn't about trying to explain it, or even necessarily about finding the cause and effect of the phenomena (that comes after we have a clearly existing phenomena) but of showing beyond any possible doubt, that the phenomena can occured reliably on a repeatable basis (not statistically probable, but definitely predictable). One must be able to say "When one does X, this phenomena occurs.". Only after one has that repeatability of existance, can one begin to attempt to explain it.



I don't recommend this line of thought. It is entirely too limiting. Humans have confronted the supernatural on a regular basis, be the catalyst physical or non-physical, and have generally been able to at the very least verify that a given phenomena exists. To say that we may never be able to learn of the phenomena is to not give humans anywhere near the amount of credit deserved for our ingenuity.

Again. Please post a link to any experiment backing your claim (or at least enough information so that a reasonable person could find it in Google).

lol, obviously you havent looked, because he has posted numerous studies that you people have overlooked and cast aside

I've just looked, and I can only see one link, and it does not contain any studies. Are you speaking about in different threads or have I over looked something?

Not everything can be proven in a test tube or a controlled setting.

CONTINENTAL DRIFT

The idea that continents can drift about is called, not surprisingly, CONTINENTAL DRIFT.

When Wegener first put forward the idea in 1912 people thought he was nuts. His big problem was that he knew the continents had drifted but he couldn't explain how they drifted. The old (AND VERY WRONG!!) theory before this time was the "Contraction theory" which suggested that the planet was once a molten ball and in the process of cooling the surface cracked and folded up on itself. The big problem with this idea was that all mountain ranges should be approximately the same age, and this was known not to be true. Wegener's explanation was that as the continents moved, the leading edge of the continent would encounter resistance and thus compress and fold upwards forming mountains near the leading edges of the drifting continents. Wegener also suggested that India drifted northward into the Asia forming the Himalayas and of course Mount Everest.

source


Despite all of the massive amount of evidence that tectonic plate movement was "real", it was not until the 1960s that the majority of the scientific community accepted it as "real".

Again, it is the difference between the actual phenomena and the theory that explains it. No one denies that the phenomena of land movement occurs. The only arguments are about the statistical probabilities of the explanations offered.

The actual phenomena exists without question.

"you people" ?

I'm sorry, you appear to have me confused with someone else.

Unlike the majority of people on this forum, I adopt a neutral position until I have seen the facts and arguments relating to both sides of a particular claim and, if possible, performed my own research.

Hence why I have been patiently asking to see the evidence for the existence of PSI.

As awesome as ImOne's posts may be, I have no wish to trawl through 600 posts trying to locate a hyperlink and then spend several hours or days of my time researching the subject, only to be told later that "that wasn't the one I meant."

So. For the third and final time of asking, ImOne, could you please select what you believe to be the most compelling evidence for the existence of PSI and post a reference to your source so that we can examine it objectively, as I'm becoming rather tired of the relentless and pointless flamewar.

With thanks in advance,

Tiggs.

Tiggs, I find a lot of evidence compelling. Normally I encourage people to find evidence for themselves because everyone has a different view of what compelling is.

I have linked to papers that provide evidence, but not very often. Also, many of the published studies are not available for free.

Another member has, in my opinion, been of greater service in that area.

Try this thread

Ladies and Gentlemen the Foundations of Physics Journal which is edited by Nobel Laureates is amongst the worlds top scientific journals. To be clear, as far as
compelling evidence, simply stated, that the data included in the link ImOne has
offered (in his last response) is not, is impossible.

I am more than prepared to debate the issue.....

Any thoughts?

Thank you ImOne, very much appreciated.

Interestingly enough, as Triad is already aware, I'm currently researching this particular piece of evidence.

I am currently doing some analysis on the decision mechanisms people use to predict the flip of a coin on - in particular, how much past flips influence their prediction.

Once this analysis is complete, I intend to build two pieces of software. The first ( A ) will be a replication of the original tests, using random sequences generated by the PEAR Random Event Generators, which I then hope to make publicly accessible for UM members to download and run and which will collate the results of their tests at a central server for further detailed analysis.

The second piece of software ( B ), will be built into ( A ) - a simplified neural net, built using the results of my initial analysis on decision mechanisms.

Prior to a user making a prediction, ( B ) will make a prediction which will then be revealed to the user after their prediction has been made. Both predictions will then be sent to the central server, compared against the next random value and scored accordingly.

The test is pretty simple. A versus B. Humans vs. Machine.

If the test results from B replicate the test results from A then it is good evidence that the decision mechanisms we use influence the result. If A > B then we have good evidence of a PSI factor being involved.

If nothing else, it would be fun to see how everyone does in the tests, and maybe it is something that everybody can participate in, without too many flame wars erupting.

Comments, thoughts, suggestions?

Tiggs

It will be interesting to see what might be learned from your efforts. We should be very careful about drawing conclusion such as "If A > B then ..." because the data you propose to use is thought to contain deviations from purely random results.

Many researchers have attributed positive results to a particular PSI effect and then later realized that their experiments did not reveal what caused the effect. For instance in experiments where subjects are asked to will the outcome of dice toss trials the assumption was that PK was affecting the results. It could also be that positive results were due to precognition. Perhaps the subjects were predicting the outcome rather than causing it. Maybe the subjects used both abilities.

Using the PEAR data in your experiment raises some questions about what is actually being examined. In fact, the PEAR data by itself raises questions of where to begin the study of this phenomenon. As you probably know the GCP (Global Consciousness Project) looks for correlations between world events that have importance to humans and the output of RGN's. The folks running this project believe they have found correlations. If the output of these carefully designed RGN's are being affected in any way by consciousness then they are not producing random data.

I believe the concept of Random is a human creation that does not exist in reality. The term is used when we are unable to predict events or determine what causes a series of events to occur. Everything must have a cause. To me any explanation that includes the idea of Random means the cause is unknown and/or unpredictable. Still, it is a useful term, and avoids the anxiety caused by it's true meaning, "clueless".

This statistic is not useable, as predictions inside human minds and therefore thoughts, are not matter. They are non existant.

The result is totally random and could have landed on anything.

If you wanna do a statistic that's not random, you use natural laws predictions to do them. Thoughts are not part of the natural laws. Therefore a statistic containing preditictions made of human minds will ALWAYS be random.

Ask them to do the research again and they'll get a totally different result.

Hey Tiggs I know that you were interested in the methodology and that you had considered developing a software program equivalent and I find the idea that your intention is to develop a PEAR type research project at UM fascinating. Take into consideration that certain safeguards will need to be integrated into your program to guarantee, the user has no way of affecting the REG program, in any other way besides the desired method.


Ykaedhi Aewee what is being presented is in relation to the ability of the mind to affect a random event. Those random events being generated by a device, external to the individual (in this case a computer) programmed to generate aforementioned random
events, unless, influenced by an external source. Essentially, an individual focuses on the computer in question, while it is running the Random Event Generator program in the attempt to change what the computer program is doing. Thus creating, while the program is running, a non random event. The program then identifies these incidences in which, non-random events occurred and records them for review.

Statistically speaking if there is in fact a deviation from the standard in which the program is designed to generate these random events? Then taking into consideration the fact that no other variable existed, to cause the deviation, besides a person focusing on the computer. Then the response of the results bespeaks of the capacity, of the individual to generate random events by focusing on the computer.

In response to your claim that repeating the results will change the outcome? What you should take into consideration are the results, which present a deviation from the mean equivalent to 1 in 10 to the power of 35 (which is 10 followed by 35 zero's). Essentially this speaks of the odds of the study being incorrect, which because of the fact it was presented in the Foundations of Physics Journal, presents that the results were in fact analyzed by the editorial staff of that Scientific Journal, identified as accurate and there fore admitted as a study to the Journal. If the study as a whole is repeated again including all the data provided for the initial one the results will be the same. But for the sake of argument let us say there could be some variation, the point being, given the that the deviation from the mean (P=.05) was so statistically significant (1 in 10 to the power of 35) any potential variation would not be significant (for example 1 in 10 to the power of 33 would still establish the study as valid).

Any thoughts?

Well, I might aswell throw a wrench into your theory by saying that none of this sh*t has been confirmed. It has never been confirmed and never will, see? If it were confirmed it would be FACT not FICTION.

Well, the phenomena hasn't been confirmed yet. Let's not make the arrogant mistake of assuming we have learned everything there is know.

Triad,

Indeed. Random is quite a difficult concept to define.

I proposed using the PEAR data, as these are the same random generators that were used within the original trial, hence, I thought, negating any argument.

I had intended to use a set of data taken from a date/time at random from the PEAR data (i.e. pregenerated). As the PEAR data is generated at a high rate per second, I presume that this is what must have happened within the original trials.

I'm quite happy to use a different pseudo random generator, if you wish - or are you saying that the trial is impossible to replicate?

Tiggs

No I am saying that in the trials computer and subject were not in the same room so in no way the subject could affect the computer manually in any way (in most cases both were separated by several miles). Your suggesting creating a program for use by the members of UM on there own PC's (or Mac’s) meaning, the program would have to be foolproof in relation to any potential intervention, to make the experiment valid in relation to affecting the computer. As far as using the PEAR data I see no real problem with that and as far as P-radom generators you can do better with a Hardware/True random generator

See attached as examples...

http://willware.net:8080/hw-rng.html

http://comscire.com/Home/

http://mandala.co.uk/links/random/

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~daw/rnd/

Each subject was made aware of the exact location of the computer and what the computer was doing, that is all the information they had as a reference to what they were suppose to affect and how.

Aquatus 1 as is clear this was a meta-analysis and to be sincere we can begin with a simple search and find this....



http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/guide/index.htm

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/02/confirmation-bias.html



http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file2.html


MJB222 these studies have been repeated so much, your comment not only lacks any validity but is also an expression of a bias, which is so ingrained, you have not bothered
to read what has been presented or verify your belief in fact you are.....


Aquatus1 keep in mind that the fact is these studies and experiments are published in the Foundations of Physics Journal, a Journal, in which many of the editors are Nobel Laureates. The experiments have been confirmed and repeated and further verified by a mainstream scientific journal which conducts itself in the highest standards. As far as suggesting that we have some knowledge regarding any aspect of reality which is all encompassing or absolute, that would be arrogant, but then again, such a comment falls under the auspices of a generalization as a matter of fact…..

Any thoughts?

Yes, countless studies on it have been made, however nothing has been proved or confirmed.

I mentioned it before, but to show that the phenomena exists, it must be beyond a matter of probabilities. It isn't just saying that sometimes 'this' occurs more often than not. For the phenomena to be shown to exist, it must do so in certainty, meaning that it must be as real as the body of a gorilla, as replicable as the Pythagorean Theorum, as reliable as Meiosis. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the phenomena exists; the probabilities of it occuring must be so high as to consider the instances of it not occuring to be statistical flukes.

The theories and explanations behind the phenomena can be carried by numbers, but the phenomena itself cannot. Until the studies show exactly how one must wave a hand over a crystal ball in order to produce a specter, or what manner of behaviour a person must exhibit before making a pencil roll off a table, the existance of Psychic abilities will be in question.

Studies claiming that certain people sensed the same thoughts as their counterparts are certainly interesting, and in the event that the phenomena is shown to be true, they will provide valuable data, but until such time as the phenomena is shown to exist, they have the same status as testimonials; good for support, but not as a foundation.

(this is not aimed at you mjb222, but was an easy quote to grab )
people would fear it, of course if the skeptics knew things about the government, all the skeptics wouldnt be saying it doesnt exist lol (just my small 2 cents) might get people to research in what the government is doing

not to mention the old meaning of psionics before it turned into primarily controlling things with the mind. just open your mind, you might learn something new and for anyone that cares to disagree, you have your right to your opinion as i do mine... but not learning the truth of both sides isnt very productive

peace light and love

Aquatus1 the probability of this being incorrect is one in 10 the power of 35 this being 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 no chance of a statisitical fluke existing and as far as the observed randomnes, with respect to individual acomplishments,
that fits right in with a quantum model/Theroem (as presented in the thread "More Evidence").

Think of an comparative equivalent such as what are the odds that tommorow the sun will rise?? To be clear, this level of probability falls well into the range of certanty (beyond doub't) you can take the findings, input the data into a scientifc calculator and get the same results (I did). Your sugesting that until all of the world can buy a book and after reading it, turn metal balls into projectiles, with the power of our minds, it is merely theoretical (that is simply a cop-out, espcially after taking into consideration the skeptical reponse at UM, that no mainstream Journal had ever treated psi in a posititve way).

Aquatus 1 you are trivializing what is in fact a valid model for understanding the existence of the capacitiy, in Humans, to engage in paranormal activitiy. The phenomenon has been shown to be real and as to how it is possible, at present, a theorem does exist which acts as an explanation (also presented in the "More Evidence' thread). As far as "manners of behavior" there is something you should understand, you may actually be a lot closer to understanding that, than you presently seem to think

MJB222 states...




Countless studies have been presented in relation to the medicines people who are ill take for care. Take a good look at a PDR and you will find that in relation to most of the medications used to maintain life the powers that be have no idea why it works.

The same kind of reserach used to estabish justification for giving those medications to the ill, are the same type of experiments which reuslted in confirmation of the paranormal (statistical). Tell you what MJB222, on the day your blood pressure starts to rise or your cholesterol level goes over 180, refuse to take the medication, because to be honest Yes, countless studies on it have been made, however nothing has been proved or confirmed.

I would point out that the odds of you surviving pretty much are 1 in 10 to the power of 35 this being the point, in relation to efficacy of the Dean Radin study.

I hope you can understand how funny your respones are in relation to the above, then again, perhaps all this is way over your head.

Any thoughts?

i love you triad

PS i was refering to it in a purly "I really appreaciate your posts" kinda way

In all honesty kariudo115 I hope in fact you are a woman as otherwise such a comment would make me feel uncomfortable Not that I feel the alternative is wrong, it is in fact a personal issue related (in fact) perhaps to genetics.

I guess what I am saying is that I appreciate your response

Any thoughts?

PS:kariudo115 to be sincere the feeling is mutual

Tiggs states....


In all sincerity my advice is that you verify that presumption with the source, as in all likelihood, what must have happened within original trials, should have taken into consideration, the human capacity to review data at speeds relevant to human
ability.

As it stands Tiggs, we have covered enough information for you to do what can be done to make your project feasible. If you have any other questions please take into consideration I am willing and have the capacity to help. In my opinion the meta-analysis is not impossible to replicate, but would caution, that under the conditions, you wish to suggest we need to work together to guarantee a valid response.....

The point being what you have in mind is possible, as long as what you have in mind is a True Random Event Generator, as well as a way, to interupt access to the keyboard at the apropriate times.

Any thoughts?

Maybe I'm missing something here concerning the "Tiggs Experiment". Is there an experiment proposal that I missed? I did read the post about writing two programs where "The first ( A ) will be a replication of the original tests", but it does not reference what those original tests are.

As I understand it the PEAR project is focused on anomalous results from RNG's in what would otherwise be random data if it were not influenced by some type of PK or some other effect of human consciousness. The data is no longer subject to change, so a PK type experiment on the existing dataset makes no sense.

If the experiment is supposed to be about predicting the flip of an "electronic coin" then I would expect an RNG would be required. The existing PEAR data represents a history rather than something to predict. So if the historical data is the basis of the proposed experiment what is being tested?

1. That post has no factual grounds.
I could make the same post just saying "PSI ISN'T REAL" over and over, and you wouldn't buy it.... so why should I buy yours?

2. If you have some proof, please, have it recognised by the media.
Do you like to keep your facts to yourself or something?
Hoenstly, if you want to end the debate, go on international news or soemthing.
Posting your 'findings' on a web forum won't help you.

Just after Desert Storm in the early 90s, on ABC national news, in the United States, one of the lead reports was on the fact, that the United States government had spent 30 million dollars, during the war to fund a remote viewing military operation. It involved a group of individuals who had received special training, in relation to this paranormal capacity and whose function, was to identify with remote viewing ability the location of SCUD missile.

The reporter who was speaking from Washington D.C., stated that the US Congress has launched a formal investigation into the validity of the expenditure and compared the incident, if found to be invalid as controversial as Watergate.

Congressional Hearings were conducted after which the whole thing went silent....

Megalomania go to CNN.com search under there search engine you will find articles related to the subject, go to NewspaperArticles.com there are over 400 articles on telekinesis alone....







On the Global Consciousness Project (GCP) PEAR Institute....



http://noosphere.princeton.edu/media.html

As is clear Megalomania the issue of the Paranormal has already been recognized by the Media and in relation to any of these substantive evidence was presented and acknowledged note that in relation to GPC the reference to Foundations of
Physics Journal.

What ImOne seems to be pointing out Megalomania is akin to what
is presented in this article....


http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/field_guide.htm

Any thoughts?

Triad,

I always saw the random event as being generated / held on a central server, far away from the user front end, connected by a webservice, preferably over HTTPS.

The predictions would be sent to the central server, and a score returned. In this way, the random event value would never be accessible to the client application prior to the prediction.

I think the easiest way to do this is for me to put together a first draft specification of the software for you and others to review.

I've started a new blog to temporarily house details of the specification, development progress etc. I'm currently in the process of moving house, so this may take a couple of weeks to put together.

In the meantime, any other initial comments, suggestions etc are welcome.

Tiggs

I've always considered psychic phenomenon as aconsistently reccuring anomaly to the materialist world view that is in dire need of being addressed.

That sounds like an excellent way to go about it. I would love to see you put this together!

The biggest obstacle may be the generation of the random event. And then you would need to get that event into the computer. Computers have no way of generating truly random events by themselves.

If you overcome that sticky little problem the rest is just smart work on your part, and fun and games for the participents. Of course there are the hardware and hosting costs, so maybe some google ads for phone psychics will make it work out

I have an idea, for those who claim this phenomenone exist why not send all the proof and studies that show evidence of any sort of psychic powers to the James Ranid Educational Foundation. Here is the link that explains the challenge. James Randi Educational Fund Challenge. Also I'm pretty sure any scientific data that could be accumulated to show evidence of paranormal events occuring they would comb over as well. There's nothing to lose plus a chance for earning some money for discovering any sort of paranormal event. Plus the JREF has the labour and resources to investigate such matters.