You still haven't addressed my point. All this is irrelevant to the fact that Wiseman chose, prior to the experiment, an invalid criteria for falsification.
Of course it matters. There could be a squirrel rustling in leaves outside that the dog hears and goes to check out and Wiseman with his relatively deaf human ears doesn't hear and then now rejects the entire trial even though after this the dog was in fact at the door much much more often when the owner was coming home.
The part I put in bold clearly shows you have not looked at the data.
The authors, in conjuntion with PS, seem to have made attempts to take this into account. After the first experiment, they, in discussion with Pam Smart, decided to ignore the first time, and then when Smart told them that according to her parents the dog's behaviour was really obvious when it was waiting for her as compared to when it was for some other reason, so they came up with the two minutes criteria.
It seems to me that what they are doing is trying to isolate the behaviour reported by Smart's parents. The reason being because this behaviour is what led them to consider the animal telepathic. The parents' assertion, as I understand it, is that there was specific behaviour that predicted she was coming. If the dog exhibited that behaviour at times when she was not coming home then we would say that the parent's were not identifying what they thought they were.
Note also, IIRC (its been awhile since I've read the paper in detail), for many of the times when the dog was at the window when Pam was coming home, there were other things going on in front of the window at the time (making those likely false positives). I posted a chart at some point on the old forum, where I mapped it out, not sure if its still there or was deleted.
From what I can tell, Wiseman's protocol seems to be geared at identifying the noted behaviour (which again, remember, was deemed by the parents to be obvious and different from the dog's behaviour the rest of the time) and avoiding false positives.
What you're saying is that the dog went to the window a similar number of times in both sheldrake's and wiseman's experiments (again, been awhile since I read the papers in detail so I don't recall the exact stats). You then conclude that Wiseman is fraudulent to suggest he hasn't replicated Sheldrake's and should have declared it psi.
However, I think we can say that whether there is telepathy or not replicating the pattern is just part of the analysis. The rest of the analysis is whether or not the observed pattern should be considered to indicate telepathy. That's what Wiseman is getting at. Note as well, that in their follow-up paper they pointed out that at the time they had done their experiment, Sheldrake hadn't yet published other papers. It's unfortunate because much of the analysis Sheldrake did after. They responded to it somewhat in their reply but it would have been much better if they would have been able to deal with it while they were constructing their protocols.
In the conclusion of the paper Wiseman essentially says this. Note: the actual conclusions do not state that Sheldrake's experiment was debunked but rather that he didn't take sufficient steps to rule out false positives. I agree it doesn't debunk Sheldrake's, but it suggests that more experiments should be done, using refined protocols, given that it is impossible to review the tapes.
It's fair to disagree with his protocols (note however, they seem to have been developed in conjunction with Pam Smart). But to declare it fraudulent is going far. Note the back and forth exchange where they directly address the issue of how they represented their experiments and how sheldrake did. This issue is one of a disagreement over methodology. Framing it in terms of fraud serves only to distract from the issues (I think I've said before that its possible they might have gone too far in what they said in interviews and speeches, I haven't seem them, and as I've said I give all researchers more leeway in what they say in interviews compared to what they write in their papers, it's pretty common to see researchers overstating things in this context and if we're going to call it fraud its going to apply to a heck of a lot of them!)
What you seem to be saying is, the parents might have been mistaken that certain "obvious" behaviour by the dog indicated telepathy, but that the dog might be telepathic anyway.
These experiments were early attempts and included a lot of exploration with small sample sizes. If Sheldrake had continued his work this exchange would have been just one at the start of a chain, hopefully involving other researchers as well. Unfortunately Sheldrake doesn't seem to have pursued this line, so we don't know how the experiments would evolve and develop towards confirmatory, larger scale ones.
I hope he, or someone else, does pick up the chain, continuing to develop the protocol, identify strengths and weaknesses, and proceed to higher powered confirmatory ones if warranted.
That said, I think it is important to recognize the context of these papers and the fact that the research line is still primarily in its infancy.
I do still plan on getting back to you on the quantum post, haven't had time to go through it yet.