Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

[Grog]

What do you think about this:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

[Zoink]

What do you think about this:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

His findings will have to survive the peer review system for me to give them any credence. I hope he knows that there's a 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can show the existence of the things he claims to have proven.

[Wicked Pilot]

Where's the data? Where's the hard numbers? I want to see the numbers damnit! I want to see the transcripts for the people where claimed to be psycic. Where is this info? I smell bullshit, and it smells bad.

[Grog]

Where's the data? Where's the hard numbers? I want to see the numbers damnit! I want to see the transcripts for the people where claimed to be psycic. Where is this info? I smell bullshit, and it smells bad.

they got some numbers and stuff under publications but I havent read it all and am no expert at interpret it.

[Wicked Pilot]

they got some numbers and stuff under publications but I havent read it all and am no expert at interpret it.

If they have anything, then they are trying to make it as hard to find as possible. This is unacceptable, yet not suprising.

[Grog]

they got some numbers and stuff under publications but I havent read it all and am no expert at interpret it.

If they have anything, then they are trying to make it as hard to find as possible. This is unacceptable, yet not suprising.

have you seen this:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publist.html
or are you looking for something else?

[Hotfoot]

It's a load of garbage. Been over this before elsewhere. There's no way that they can calibrate the REGs, and there is no way to set up a double-blind test.

I've been over their data from 9-11-2001 in some detail, and none of it makes ANY sense at all. It is, essentially, the art of looking at something so long and so hard that you think it makes sense when it doesn't at all.