hey Hive account@undergroundecon, thank you for your time reading through the article. While I appreciate your criticism things like "this is nonsense" isn't particularly helpful in discussing a topic.

I have stated that I am skeptical of some of the claims made by PSI, but years of research have led me to believe that there is more to this phenomenon than "nonsense".

If you are looking for evidence, I suggest that you have a look at this book http://www.deanradin.com/supernormal.htm

You are right, the sample size is not very impressive. But it would still mean that getting a hit 10 times in a row would only have a probability of in 5^10= 1/1024. That's not exactly much. Again, for more statistical significant results I would point to the book above.

The subjective description of the drawings isn't a weak point here. It was necessary in order to translate a drawing into a binary event.

Why wouldn't you be convinced by an independent replication? Scientists should always have an open (yet of course critical) mind and inquire into the unknown.

The reason that the paper is published in this journal is because in the current scientific framework it is close to impossible to get this type of research published in a so called prestigious journal. Isn't the work rather than the journal more important? And how should science advance if all ideas stem from within the accepted established framework?