Nick Herbert throws in the towel to Dean Radin on presponse as precognition.

From: Jack Sarfatti <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: [ExoticPhysics] Nick throws in the towel ;-)
Date: October 20, 2012 6:30:07 PM GMT+01:00
To: Exotic Physics <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Whew that was close. :-)
Nice try Nick.
Good science.

Sent from my iPhone in London

Begin forwarded message:

From: nick herbert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: October 20, 2012, 5:38:44 PM GMT+01:00
To: Dean Radin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Cc: "This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. com" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, Exotic Physics <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Richard Shoup <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, Dick Bierman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] [Starfleet Command] Violation of orthodox quantum theory in the living brain: presentiment meta-analysis published
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Thanks, Dean--

Your graph #7 is just the (idealized) hypothesis I was trying to point out.
I was not aware that you had taken this possibility into account.

I stand corrected.

Your test on page 271 seems to be a more comprehensive way to exclude expectation bias than my N-1 test because it uses all of the data not just a small subset. But it might be interesting to look for the presence (or absence) of the N-1 presponse.

Nick