> information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed

> information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed to be considered evidence. No examples, no methodology, etc. We don't know what "usable intelligence" means. You have taken the liberty of interpreting that in a particularly generous way. > You can, right now! I mean under controlled conditions. Why didn't any of these people in /r/remoteviewing sign up for the JREF $1 million prize? Or at least contact parapsychologists (e.g. Dean Radin or Daryl Bem) who would have been happy to facilitate rigorous public experiments? The best we have from experiments is statistical effects, e.g. guessing a coinflip correctly 51% of the time over large numbers of trials. Not the kind of large, obvious effects that "50% useable intelligence" or "85% accuracy" is hinting at.