[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Sep 1, 1:49=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

The flaws of those alleged tests have been discussed here.
By people who weren't there, and do not know what they are talking about =
wrt
to that test. =A0

If so, that's largely because the tests and the results you speak of
haven't been properly documented to allow proper criticism, which it
seems to me is a matter of choice on the part of the people who
conducted them. One statistically significant test alone, even
presuming it is properly done (and you have not, to my mind, provided
sufficient evidence to establish even that), is not sufficient to
justify an extraordinary claim. It has to be replicated, preferably
several times, and by third parties.

And since the claims made contradict the current state of knowledge
about the kind of equipment in question and the limitations of human
perception, the claims are clearly extraordinary.

By failing to describe the tests you refer to, it seems to me, you
make it impossible to independently test your claims, And that means
any claim that the effect is real, or that it is a fact, are
unjustified.

Under such circumstances the most you can reasonably claim is that the
tests had interesting or suggestive results, but as far as I can see
you have laid no basis for making claims at the level of confidence
you actually did. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence, but you've provided no real evidence at all, only claims.

Ed