A scientific test of paranormal ability, right here on sciforums!

How about some sports predictions? Who wins the next Superbowl and by what score? What's the breakdown for Lebron James's next NBA contract? Who's the UFC middleweight champion going to be as of January 1, 2014? How many medals is Uzbekistan going to win at the next Olympics and in what events? If I had even the slightest paranormal precognitive ability, all your base are belong to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Sarkus,
If you follow the posts in this thread sequentially, then you would have known that we are discussing predicting future lottery numbers. The pictures shown are a unique way to hide words an numbers within a picture, and I am so very sorry you fail to grasp this or be impressed. While thinking upon a future drawing you are presented with a series of pictures that contain hidden numbers inside that only your subconscious can perceive (as long as you are not consciously trying to focus on the depth image). If you feel a picture contains your lottery number you vote yes. I can predict lottery numbers at a much higher than average rate using this new method. This is forecasting the future. It is Precognition. Please try to grasp the conversation and not individual posts. Even if it fails to impress some it is still the first new method to get information from the subconscious in over 3000 years (Quija board, pendulums, automatic writing are other examples).

@ CptBork,
I would love to expand upon my website, and also experiment with sports. I chose lottery for the reasons that it is very easy to do experiments at set times weekly. I had early success with printed cards, and I believed I could get enough accuracy to win lotteries (even small amounts) on a repetitive basis. This is still something I hope to achieve, and am exploring improved programming options.

I do agree with you that it would be good to just start posting predictions somewhere and hope the media eventually beats a path to our door. I had not considered the reaction you suggested a few posts ago, but it is true that it could cause a sensation. I am not sports minded unfortunately, but a 50/50 choice should be easier. I am no sure what would be a good sport for this or how to go about setting the pictures. It would probably help if it was a home town team with some emotional attachments.. I don't know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unsubstantiated claim.
Put up or shut up, please.

So is farting and then picking a number based on what the fart smells like.
And you do know that the first mention of automatic writing using something akin to the Quija board was from c.1100AD, not 3000 years ago?
And methods of extracting info from the subconscious is actually fairly mainstream. The military are using it to analyse aerial photographs - where they track where the person's subconscious eye movement when they show them a sequence of pictures.

And as for your earlier comment where you claim: "Nobody in history has been able to subliminally hide numbers inside pictures the way I have and had them presented via a computer program for voting based on intuition alone. My website is the first." It may be a first - but it's unproven. And until then it is a mere novelty dressed up with unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim.

Put it up to testing, Kwhilborn.
It's simply done.
You say you don't have the time... yet this is something that, if true, would be one of the most significant achievements in science ever!
But your reluctance speaks volumes as to the real nature of what you are peddling... snake oil.

If you were a millionaire based on a cumulation of small lottery wins, perhaps you might have more of a case - although even that would still be within the borders of expected outcomes if it were random.
But you are not even putting the method up for testing.

Charlatan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Sarkus,
Yet the very first time I started a post meant as advertising/demonstration I accurately predicted 3 out of the 6 numbers, and anybody who followed my prediction would have won.. When was the last time you got 1 or 2 numbers right on a lottery ticket never mind half of them right.
(proof here)
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207163
In the first post of the above thread my prediction defeated odds of 56.66 to 1. You could buy 1 ticket a week for an entire year and the odds are you would not get three numbers out of six.

When I say I don't have time, part of it is that I like to buy a series of tickets now wheeled from my choices and can invest anywhere from $50 to $100 per week when experimenting, and would also like others to participate to compare results as I now know comparisons help. I have 3 children and Christmas is coming. I can guarantee I won't be doing it this year or possibly for a long time so you can think whatever, or say whatever. I am done with this thread as of now. As far as you and other skeptics are concerned I just got very very lucky, or very X 56.66 lucky . Maybe you might think I started 56.66 threads and that is the one that won so I stuck with it, but you can search all you like and that website I used does not allow thread deletion by normal members. It was either very lucky or my method works. You would say Lucky. So what?

My method is "up for testing", I do have members on my website using it all the time.

 

You keep making a big song and dance about getting 3 numbers .. once ..

Look, have a look at these very typical lotto results;

http://www.ozlotteries.com/lotto-results/wednesday-lotto/dividends/3183

23,515 people got 3 numbers AND a supplementary!

You didn't answer to my posts 79 & 80.

You grasp for any reason to not offer any proof - now it's Christmas and your 3 children. Anything else ?

Sorry old chap - I'm an extremely open minded kinda guy, always giving the benefit of the doubt, always loathe to critisise, but really, you ARE a great advertisement for snake oil.

Best of luck with all your endeavours.

 

You mean other than a couple of weeks ago when I won £2.30 then £12.20 on the Euro Lottery, and then £91 the following week on the UK lottery for getting 4 out of the 6 numbers?

And it seems you've been living off this single event. You were lucky. People are, all the time.
Do you "defeat the odds"? No - unless you can show categorically that the mathematical odds simply do not apply to you.
So far you have done nothing to show that.

FFS! If your "method" worked, as you claim, then why are you not a millionaire? I'm sure there are some simple bets that you could apply this to that are simple odds of 50/50 that would have you raking in the cash... IF your method work.

But not by you, it seems?

I'm sure you do. And I'm sure you only hear of their successes, and not the 55 other times it fails.

As said... put it up for testing... and predict lottery results right here and now.
Surely you would welcome the chance to demonstrate this technique / method of yours that should see you raking in a fortune for you and your family?
Show to us that it is more than just an obeyance of the laws of probability, that this technique overrides mathematical probability.

Until then I would suggest you start packing away your snake oil and peddle it elsewhere, perhaps to people that also buy into things like homeopathy?

 

The testing results we have seen obviously can only be hearsay, so you lot may never know for sure how effective this method is. Defeating probabilities in a lotto draw hardly makes me a lotto winner, and am not sure where you are finding these 50/50 draws. During the months of testing we had done not once did we miss getting at least 1 number in a 6/49 type draw, and often 2. getting 3 was rare and 4 of 6 has not yet occurred.

It takes 2 minutes to write a sarcastic post trying to alter my schedule in regards to this, but investing 30-40 hours or even 4-5 hours will not happen because of skeptic views. My "Lucky once" just happened to coincide with starting a thread about predicting lottery numbers. I wonder what the odds of that happening are? Things suggested by CptBork etc are planned, but I do things when and where I like, and this is not the time or place. I spent an entire year using this method without fail and my eyes are still aching.

I am fine with being a snake oil salesman if that's what you think. Most skeptics are not the ones putting money in my pocket from memberships. My product has zero (0) production costs, has no shipping costs and can be distributed to a global marketplace. Every membership is pure profit. No Snake oil salesmen could list even ONE (1) stat like that. The gravy is my method really works despite what you think. I may not be rich yet, but I am 45 and retired.

 

Putting money in your pocket from memberships .. now you're getting to the heart of the matter. Were you possessed of some extraordinary ability, I would say the LAST thing you would want to do would be to sell it to others at $20 bucks a pot. This is the singular question everyone should ask about any investment, gambling or similar sheme, ie, if it works, why is th idiot selling it and not keeping it to himself to make millions ? Answer ? There is more profit for him to sell it at $20 a pot, than to use it to make profit, ie, IT DOESN'T WORK - IT'S CHARLATANISM.

And how many times are you going to tell us you retired at 45 ? I know guys who retired at under 40 and are millionares from their astute investments. What's the big deal here ? You retired at 45 and you're trying to get subscriptions at $20 per pot to feed your family and 3 kids over Christmas ?

LOL ..

 

@ Lakon,
You only received a headache after a few minutes staring at it. Imagine how my eyes hurt after hours on end weekly for months doing it. ASK ANY TEENAGER THAT CAN VIEW AUTO-STEREO-GRAMS WHAT WORD IS IN THAT PICTURE AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FOCUS IN AND TELL YOU. IT IS EASY TO READ IF YOU KNOW HOW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgrUfUI0Y9g&feature=related

They are the same style pictures as those fad Magic eye pictures that had depth images of birds/sharks dinosaurs in the late 80's/early 90's.

It might help to understand that there is easily view able words and numbers in these dot pictures. Very clear and recognizable words.
When I said you are confusing telepathy with my method of precognition, I was saying you are confusing at the very least the methods I prescribed for each. Saying it would take me an hour to post lottery predictions is simply false, as this was the length of time I had prescribed for telepathy at the start of this thread. I agree Telepathy and Precognition are the same, but the experiment prescribed by myself are completely different. Please re-read the posts previous to that and try to see where you went wrong.

@ Sarkus,
You cannot see the difference between you randomly getting 3 out of 6 numbers a few months ago and someone starting a thread about lottery prediction and getting half the numbers correct on the first go? My claim is that I can beat mathematical probabilities. I never stated I could predict the lottery numbers enough to win money at it. Show me how I can become a millionaire by beating statistical odds please...

@ CptBork,
It appears I need to show a little more of my history on this topic and after this thread is complete you will see that my techniques were born amongst lottery prediction people and friends, and although I have expanded upon and improved my methods in the past 8 years since this began; I still have not applied this to sports. Perhaps you can.

@ Everyone else,

Well my kids don't live at home, and my wife doles out a shallow allowance. If your wife allows you to spend freely then grats to you. Things are more "progressive" on my end. I have invested in every prediction, but if keep "investing" this way I'd be in the doghouse, and my Jack Russell Terror wants it for herself. Today I was dragged kicking and screaming to the Toronto Womens Show at the convention centre. My schedule is not always my own. I am often up North where my only internet access is with my phone, or at a local Mcdonalds there.

I had contacted and challenged JREF. I have tried to prove this works. I will further do things to prove this works, but I will do it in a time that suits me. It will not be anytime soon, and frankly it may not be me proving it as an organization is involved.

You claim I can make millions from an ability to pick 1 number every draw (as is my claim), so please show me how this is possible. My website was not cheap and uses over 800 auto-stereo-gram graphics, and as much as "keeping it to myself" was the case, it certainly was nice to see the website pay for itself. It does make dealing with the wife much simpler.

Before writing off my methods. Review the following thread. This was prior to using my website, and was telepathy based.
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/89553/3

BY PAGE 5 OF THAT THREAD I HAD PREDICTED 25 CORRECT NUMBERS OUT OF 62 (Above 40% accuracy over multiple draws, posted in advance).

You can see that my intentions were always about precognition and not about memberships if that shows anything about me.

I was able to predict above random there as well, and had a strong following.

I have NOT been claiming I can predict lotteries. I am saying I can beat probabilities. I think there is a noticeable difference.

Here is a post from that thread from someone using "MY METHOD" which I posted and advocated (free by the way).

This was before my website was even a reality..

I was predicting lottery numbers with a 40% accuracy rate on the above thread. I know I only claim to get at least 1 number, but it is often 2 on 6/49. I was predicting 40% accuracy. You need to space out these "endeavors" or your head just gets filled with dots and numbers. That website created a "mystical" sub-forum because of me.

Skeptics have always said "why don't psychics just predict lottery numbers", and I as a psychic agree and have been trying.

So I have now demonstrated another thread where I did go crazy trying to satisfy skeptics.

I understand the remarkably ignorant skeptics will again chalk those 40%+ correct predictions over repeated draws to chance. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

So I have ALREADY done the whole put up or shut up thing. Nobody beat a path to my door. READ THAT THREAD.

I don't see many people admit they were wrong on sciforums, so I won't hold my breath, but I know that what we do here is impressive.

I have much research data that is private concerning this, but I think I have shown my abilities are beyond criticism from narrow minded skeptics. It is up to those skeptics to really weigh the odds and choose their beliefs.

I write here to show people this stuff is real. It is.
25 correct out of 62 numbers published in advance of draws.
Some series of coincidences.

 

What difference is there other than your unsubstantiated claims?

If you can "beat mathematical probabilities" then, since all casinos operate on mathematical probability, you should be able to win quite a fair bit at those. The more you bet, the more you win - IF you can "beat mathematical probabilities" as you claim.

The Roulette wheel is a classic example - just pick six numbers out of the 36 on the roulette wheel, and pick those same numbers for 6 consecutive spins - which effectively mimics a lottery draw (bar removal of each "winning number").

Probability would suggest that Joe Public would expect to win at least once (not counting the "0" and any "00" the wheel may have to improve odds in the bank's favour), and so break even: your lay out at, say, $1 a number is $6 a spin (6 numbers) and 6 spins, so $36. You should break even in the long run as each number pays out 36:1... so one winning spin will give you $36.

You reckon that you can "beat mathematical probabilities" - so you should be winning more frequently than once every six spins... and that, Kwhilborn, is where huge money can be earnt.
If you win, say, twice every six spins then you will double your money every six spins - $72 back for every $36 spent.

This naturally assumes a "fair" casino.


So yes, you should easily be able to become a millionaire through your "ability", even if it takes hours of prep-time between each set of six spins.
If I could genuinely do it, as you claim, I'd have a pot of $3,600 to take to a casino.
If I could pick two wins ever 6 spins each day, I'd walk away with $7,200 per day - that's $3,600 profit per day.
Do it 5 days a week - $18,000 a week PROFIT.
Do it 4 weeks each calendar month - that's $216k per year. All by merely being able to "beat mathematical probability" as you claim.
If you only average 1.2 wins every 6 spins (surely very easy for someone with your claimed ability) this would still earn you $43.2k a year on an initial outlay of just $3,600.

 

@ sarkus,
You totally overlooked the thread I linked, despite what results were obtained. I imagine every other skeptic will avoid looking at it as well as it may scare them into altering their views.

I have said that I need to use my website and take 4-5 hours to make a prediction. I may be hard pressed to find a Casino that would let me bring my computer inside, and even if i did it might be hard to convince them to allow 4-5 hours between spins. I would not be able to make more than one prediction per week.

The fact that you did not know this makes me think you are not following the conversation and just copy/pasting random skeptic banter from anywhere in this sub-forum.

It is an interesting scenario however. I have not found a nightly draw that mimics that kind of payoff. I did briefly experiment with daily keno, however 70 numbers is a lot more work than 49. You could wheel smaller sets of picks though for smaller payouts.

It is a valid point though and I will look to see if there are any other lotteries that might closer mimic roulette, and the smaller payoffs. I am unsure of predicting in a casino setting. I think it helps if the numbers are a big deal to many, and not an insignificant spin every 3 minutes in the corner of a casino.

I find it funny that you simply "overlooked" the thread I posted. You were fairly brazen when you said,

I predicted over 62 lottery numbers on that thread within a few weeks, and was over 40% accurate. I have an abundance of "single events" I have been living off.

The thread I linked above inspired some Engineer from California to try his own hand at precognition and embarked on a 6 month study of his own totally unrelated to me.

Here is what HE (an Engineer like myself) had to say,

http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/111193/367065?q=dragon&tab=us&rp=search

This guy liked my methods so much he changed his lifestyle and now considers himself psychic.

I would expect skeptics to chalk it all up to chance, which is fair if you looked at the odds, and also of the odds of this "luck" occurring at the exact times I profess to predict.

Here it is again.
http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/89553

I enjoy arguing with skeptics but it does help if they at least participate by looking at whats presented. I think it is unfair to compare a lucky win last fall with accurate predictions exactly when I am attempting to predict numbers. If you started a thread stating you were going to predict numbers you might need to start 55+ threads before you got the accuracy I did. I also showed I had over 40% accuracy on an entirely different thread. So basically I have started exactly 2 threads there that had over 40% accuracy. I am sure the probabilities are much higher for claiming in advance what the outcome will be and then defeating 56:1 odds to do so. If You cannot distinguish this simple concept then sciforums is not for you.

You labelled me as a one draw wonder, yet when I PROVED my accuracy has stayed higher than 40% (PROVED MEANS I SHOWED IT 100% POSTED IN ADVANCE OF THE DRAWS AND WITNESSED BY MANY) over 62 predicted numbers for various draws. This is not something I am just making up from the top of my head. I did this. Others did this. I have shown you that I have been able to predict accurately when I wanted to with at least 40% accuracy on 2 different threads. Then you simply ignore it. Play fair dude, and at least look at the probabilities of such feats.

@ Sarkus,
I expect you probably have not read this post, and probably skimmed it. If you wish to argue it would help if you let me present the facts, otherwise your own objections have been and will be written off as drivel. I have shown more than i care about my past to answer your objections and show I have already "put up or shut up", and it did not lead to riches or proof of telepathy. I do like the roulette concept though, and would like to find it in a lottery format if possible.

 

Kwhilborn;

Anyone who may have a genuine psychic edge at odds of around 2.5% (which is what you claim in the least), would be mad to try to promote it at $20 per pot on some dicky web site.

Funds managers of global corporations run multi million dollar software programs, from which the hope to get an edge of .01% (if that) as they do their overnight multi billion dollar transfer pricing deals from currency to currency.

Had they an edge of .25%, let alone 2.5%, they would rule the world within days.

ANYONE with a 2.5% edge and only half a brain, would find ways to exploit it to his substantial advantage.

But from you postings, at least I now appreciate why your Jack Russel Terror (Terrier rather) wants her kennel to herself.

 

@ lakon,
Sigh. Terror is how I meant to spell it. You also lightly skipped over the fact that I have beaten better odds than I claim in plain sight. It is not like I invented or inflated the numbers. What the hell is transfer pricing deals, and how am I supposed to use my ability to predict lotto numbers to make money off them?

We have 2 threads where I have predicted lottery numbers at higher rates than I am claiming.

a) http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/207163
In that thread I predicted 3 out of 6 numbers in a 6/49 draw. The skeptics here say that is nothing exceptional because everyone will get lucky once in a while. The skeptics do not seem to recognize that the timing of my "Fluke luck" is extremely perfect as it just happened to land on the day I said I would predict some numbers. I predicted half the numbers in a 6/49 draw correctly after I said I would. It is not the same as winning "one day", I predicted the numbers when I said I would. I'd say that is MUCH more unlikely to occur naturally .

b) http://www.lotterypost.com/thread/89553
Apparently the skeptics think predicting 50% of a 6/49 draw on command is "natural", and that if I could do this I should be able to do it repeatably (I can always beat probabilities). So now I go back 8 years to 2004 and link this thread where I used precognition to predict other lotteries. On the SAME NIGHT I posted 9 Keno numbers and a set of 6/49 numbers. It is harder to predict 2 lotteries on the same night however I landed 4 of the 9 keno numbers (44.443% accuracy), and also got 1 number of the 6/49 although I listed 7 not 6. Does this impress the critics? It appears they won't even comment on it.
I continued doing predictions on this thread and predicted 62 numbers by the fifth page of the thread. I hit 25 of those 62 numbers. OVER 40% accuracy.
It seems that the critics are full of bad advice about casinos and the stock market, but predicting numbers in a lottery is what I have practiced and know is a better way to prove precognition.
FACT: This Lottery website was based on math systems and wheels to improve odds of winning. It was this threads popularity that caused the need for a mystical sub-forum on that website that remains 8 years later - http://www.lotterypost.com/forum/13

If I predicted a boxing match result or a stock rise/fall then anyone can easily say there was a fix. I think lotteries are considered harder to fix than boxing matches. According to skeptics I should have been working on taking over the world (apparently it is easy) instead of contacting The Monroe Institute and JREF, etc.

The skeptics here have already decided that I should be using this somehow for profit. I admit I sell memberships to my website, but I also financed this website and should recoup my losses for its development. Does it make sense that I would spend so much money developing graphics and a website if I did not know it worked? Lakon calls it a "dicky website", but that website can prove precognition, and has already proved it in my opinion. Lakon has shown his own lack of abilities to comprehend how auto-stereograms work, and likely does not understand or comprehend that there really is images inside these pictures. The ability to view auto-stereograms is somewhat important to understanding the process.

So I have started 2 threads claiming I can predict lottery numbers, and on both threads I do it very well. I think it is the skeptics who fail here, but obviously ANY psychic instance can be chalked up to chance. It is the nature of skepticism and will remain until the mechanism behind telepathy/precognition is recognized and measured.

I will say again that I feel sorry for skeptics. I understand their narrow views come from limited experiences with telepathy, and it must be hard to not know the reality of the situation. Sadly; there is no skin off my nose in either case.

I know I have been honest and straightforward regarding my experiences/abilities. It is sad that skeptics like to hover in these forums, as their contributions are usually poorly worded and contain more sarcasm than valid points.

I like that the critics say it cannot be done when I have already done it. I think I have PROVED my accuracy at precognition. I pronounce myself the winner of this "debate". Thank-you, Thank-you...

 

Sorry for the vague term. Transfer pricing / carry trade is where international traders / moneymarket dealers make large sums of money during the trading of goods or currencies, often overnight, often at the thinnest of margins. My point being, that a permanent 2.5% edge would be an absolute world changer to them.

Other than this, all that you've said .. all that I could say in response .. is mere repetition of what we've canvassed before.

Until you offer some fresh proof of your claims, I will continue to think you're merely promoting your web site.

 

.. and the thing I forgot to mention, the reason why I mentioned the above in the first place, is that if you can display a permanent 2.5% edge, you should make it known to an international currency house or two. Prove it to them and they will put you on at a couple of mil a year - at least !

 

No, I didn't overlook it - although I note that this is seemingly your default defence.

First, no mention of why you would need to take your computer into the casino? Do you take your computer to the lottery studio for each draw as well??
Secondly, if the equivalent of one lottery draw is 6 consecutive spins of the wheel, and you can win at least $3,600 per 6 spins, or even an average of $1,000 per 6, then 5-6 hours per day's work for those 6 spins is far from onerous given that most people spend 8-10 hours per day at work for far less than that!
It seems all you are doing is making excuses, Kwhilborn, and relying on success from 2004 and two recorded draws in 2010?
What have been your results over the following 8 years... and not just the ones you remember, but from all the ones you did??
Or are you going to resort to "40% over a few weeks back in 2004!" as evidence of this wonderful ability you claim?

I did know this. As said 5-6 hours per day is far from onerous when you could potentially be winning $3,600 or more per 5-6 hours of work!
So please stop being so disingenuous.

As said, this is your classic defence when people disagree with your interpretation of the events... clearly they must have "'overlooked' the thread".

And since then? Everything you have posted resorts to this same few week period - and perhaps another period.

All we're asking is that you be honest, Kwhilborn... but rather you resort to specific periods of success (from 8 years ago) rather than provide anything more substantial.

Taking anecdotal evidence like that is far from credible as support for anything other than a similar run of fortune.
Of course, only those who succeed would bother responding.
And people do remember the successes without recording the failures... it is a natural trait.
So for that one person who wrote to you to say how well it worked for him... there have been how many that didn't have any luck and never responded to you? Any idea?
I'm guessing not - so instead you quote one success story as evidence that it works, rather than it being merely a similar run of fortune.

It happens. Get over it.

And it helps if you stop resorting to claims that they haven't read it, and stop resorting to events from 8 years ago which at best demonstrate a good run of fortune over a few weeks.

Everyone is trying to predict numbers every time they play the lottery. That's the point of it... trying to predict the numbers.

No I didn't, but feel free to make stuff up.

I am not ignoring it. Noone is ignoring it. All we are doing is putting a more rational interpretation on events. Are we claiming you lied, and the facts are not as stated? No. Are we claiming that there is a more mundane explanation than you having the ability to predict... whenever you want (given 5-6 hours prep time)... 40% accuracy or so on lotteries? Yes.

The difference is in the interpretation - not the facts.

Furthermore - when the expected accuracy for such draws is actually around 30%... achieving 40% over a few consecutive draws is not going to be all that unusual. But you continue to refuse to put up, instead resorting back to the same old period in 2004, and then a couple of draws in 2010.

Have you been lucky? Sure.
Is it "proof" of any "ability". No. It is evidence that should be taken into consideration but it is certainly not proof.

Deal with it.

Your standard defence when people disagree with your interpretation.

You have presented the facts... you continue to resort to those facts as though they are proof of an ability rather than the more rational interpretation that they are evidence of a run of good fortune and timing. Your reluctance to provide any further proof... given that you claim you can do it whenever you wish... speaks volumes.
But no, you mostly resort to a few weeks over 8 years ago, and to one or two stories of success from other people, despite now knowing how many have tried and failed.
It is nothing more than a fallacy of selective sampling.

Put up or shut up. Noone really cares what you did 8 years ago. You claim to be able to do it whenever you want. So prove it to our satisfaction... not to yours.

 

There is no true test that you could conduct to prove psychic ability except by means of clairvoyance or the ganzfield experiment.

As for telepathy, real and very exsistant. However view you take upon it I describe these thought transferences by the term "psi"

 

How could the Ganfield experiment prove psi or clairvoyance? The scientific method demands ability to reproduce the results which cannot yet be done with any psi experiments. The most you could do is conclude that it is probable that psi exists, and even with odds of 75 000 000:1 you would still have skeptics clinging to their 1. The only true way to prove psi; would be to discover its means and measure it, or come up with a psi experiment that could not fail will seems unlikely at present and would likely need some sort of invention to aid it, such as a working version of the God Helmet, etc.

 

i think the method is too rigorous.
people with this ability are not 100% all the time.
it's true that some people have a better ability at "guessing" the next card but they are never 100% right all the time.

 

You're either lying or deluded or there's a flaw in your methodology. Or all three.