Statistics

 

Training and Solo Remote Viewing Sessions

Dr. Thompson Smith attended remote viewing training sessions with Paul Smith (Remote Viewing Systems – 1998) and Lyn Buchanan (PSI – 1999). While these training sessions were not graded, Dr. Smith assessed percentages for each session, using PSI’s data judging system. The following is a personal transcript of sessions completed during and after training. (Results tabulated March 27th, 1999.)

  • RVIS Overall: 6 Training Targets 92.8%
  • RVIS Overall: 10 Solo Training Targets 71.1%
  • PSI Overall: 5 Training Targets 57.2%
  • PSI Overall: 8 Solo Training Targets 72.2%

Lottery ARV work with James Spottiswoode and Dr. Edwin May, SAIC

In 1996 Dr. Smith participated in 16 ARV sessions with rankings converted to Z scores. Trials 2 through 6 were 4 target ARVs, the remainder were 5 target ARVs. Total Stouffer’s Z for all 16 sessions was 1.57 with a p value of 0.058 (just shy of significance). A further 6 ARV sessions in 1996 tested for the effects of Sidereal Time.  In 2005 another ARV project by the group reported a landmark result by hitting another small Lottery on the 5th trial.

Retrocausal Psychokinesis

In studies performed as an external participant Dr. Smith took part in research that attempted to psychokinetically affect tones that had been pre-recorded at the Rhine Research Center. In a series conducted in 1986, Dr. Smith was able to significantly shift tones to a lower frequency with a z score of 1.87. The tones that were successfully lowered were Slow Piano and Organ.

Remote Perception

Sessions performed at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory in April and May 1992 between a remote viewing participant traveling in Korea and Dr. Angela Smith resident in Princeton, NJ. Z score for Angela Smith’s sessions (involving the perception of information about the Korean locations) was significant with a Z score of 1.767.

Stock Market ARV Predictions for a Private Client

5 ARV sessions to predict the direction of the Dow Jones. 4 of the 5 were in the correct direction (80% success rate).

Psychokinesis data (RNG Database): PEAR Laboratory 1988-1992

(In compliance with PEAR requirements, Operator Number not revealed)

  • All 66 Diode REG Local sessions
  • Baseline Intention: Z score = 0.638 p = 0.262
  • Low Intention: Z score = 1.927 p = 0.027 (significant)
  • High Intention: Z score = 2.919 p = 0.002 (significant)

Psychokinesis Data: Linear Pendulum: PEAR Laboratory 1988-1992

  • 54 Datasets. Difference between Intention and Baseline
  • Difference = 12.06, sd = 64.18, T score = 1.38, p = .09
  • Ref: A Linear Pendulum Experiment: Effects of Operator Intention and Damping Rate. (1993), Nelson R., and Bradish, J. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. Princeton University. Technical Note PEAR 93003.

Psychokinesis Data: Random Mechanical Cascade: PEAR Laboratory 1988-1992

Series Summary RMC3 (Variance Study) 5 Series Pilot.

  • NARROW –  Mean 9.97743 – SD 3.21709
  • BASELINE – Mean 9.99498 – SD 3.23054
  • WIDE          – Mean 9.98246 – SD 3.23330
  • Difference SD 0.01621 – p = 0.32 Significant

Prof. Stanley Jeffers’ split-screen photon experiment

Achieved an overall significant delta: my left attempts got a Z of -7.161; my rights were left-going at -2.607; but my delta-difference Z  was significant at 4.491*.

  • Run                     L                            R                           Delta
  • 1- 5/28             – 0.796                     1.121                    1.710*
  • 2-6/1                – 0.471                      1.621                    2.613*
  • 3-6/2                   0 .427                  – 0.527                  – 0.580
  • 4-6/17              – 2.095*                  – 1.076                    0. 328
  • 5-7/17              – 4.226*                   -3.746 (*)             – 0.474
  • Totals                -7.161                    – 2.607  (*)               4. 491*

Psychic Reward PK software distributed by Dr. Jack Houck – 1993-1994

Score Summary 07/01/1993

  • ESP: Z score = -0.06 Probability 4.78%
  • PK: Z score = 1.99 Probability 95.34% (significant)

Score Summary 10/26/1993

  • ESP: Z score = 2.21 Probability 97.28%
  • PK: Z score = 2.03 Probability 95.76%
  • TOTAL: Z score = 2.56 Probability 98.96% (all significant)

Score Summary 12/13/1993

  • ESP: Z score = 2.00 Probability 95.44%
  • PK: Z score = 2.13 Probability 96.68%
  • TOTAL: Z score = 2.59 Probability 99.04% (all significant)

Score Summary 1/12/1994

  • ESP: Z score = 2.00 Probability 95.44%
  • PK: Z score = 2.06 Probability 96.06%
  • TOTAL: Z score = 2.71 Probability 99.32% (all significant)

Psychic Reward Intention Work

Intention work with Psychic Reward to produce a Low score, a Baseline score, and a High score, in that order.

  • Low Score: Z score = -1.12
  • Baseline: Z score = .54
  • High Score: Z score = 2.38 (significant)
  • Percent increase: 33% with a Z score of 2.47 (significant)

The Psychic Reward test results listed above were documented in research papers:

  • Vaughan, A., & Houck, J. (1993). A “success” test of precognition and attitude toward the future. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 59(833), 259-268.
  • Vaughan, A., & Houck, J. (2000). Intuition training software: A second pilot study. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 64(3), 177-184