You provided an incorrect example and it was an attempt to justify that people taking the shot don't know if it missed or hit... despite the fact that I proved that the last action you take is remembered quite well especially when you're paying attention to it. I don't think I ever stated that all things are certain. What I did state was I don't think you realize how much certainty there is around you. Of course there is data. It rehashed the experimental process. That's what I needed it for. And yes I was picking out specific information that was relevant. I would go to a 150 page financial analysis document just to pluck out a single objective forumula on ammortization regardless whether the analysis was true or false. I know you understand what I am after. No taste, smell, touch, sound, or sight between the experimenter, sender, and receiver... in any way or form. It's a good thing some non-fundamentalist tried to reproduce the auto-ganzfeld experiment results: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20749206.html There's your falsification. I would accept data absent of the human senses NOT being tested for. I think most 'skeptics' would. Would you feel bad if someone made critical life decision that backfired on them because you convinced them that psi existed? I disagree that's the message you communicated, but I will agree with this last message... assuming that it's not blindly applied (i.e. ignoring the knowns).