You're welcome, Satyan.
BTW, how do you know what you know about this research protocol?
I am not sure if we are interpreting the youtube video the same way, but to me it looks like:
1. Reader and sitter are in the same room with visual view of each other and audibility to each other
2. Reader is verbally communicating with the sitter (with at least one verbal response)
3. Sitter is providing lots of body posture / facial and even auditory feedback to reader
As for the proof, I judge it as I see it. The video does not provide summary of counting/scoring of hits/misses, nor show usage of anchoring or how hits were counted (other than agreeing by sitter).
Now, we all know this kind of setup is far from optimal. There is lots of discussion in the parapsychology literature AND in the skeptic literature about this. Some of it is quite valid. Sensory leakage is of course naturally the biggest issue. For statistics the scoring/counting/weighting is another.
We also know that there are better setups available and have been already used (again, Windbridge Institute / Beischel).
Now, is it possible I have judged this thing wrong based on looking at the video? Yes.
Will I re-evaluate once Smith-Moncrieffe publishes in JoP or JoSE (or elsewhere), maybe showing that the methodology was something other than what I alluded to based on watching the video? Yes.
Yes, as it stands, based on what is available for me to assess, the setup doesn't pass criteria for proper, scientific, sensory-leakage-blocked, triple-blind experimental evidence.
Do I appreciate her work? Yes.
Am I convinced? Yes (probabilisticaly), but I was already.
PS. Sorry for late reply, I had take off reply-notification so missed this.[/quote][/quote]