Experimental data: Beischel excerpt #10

Step 4: Perform the Experiment

Between 2009 and 2013, the 20 WCRMs on my team performed 68 quintuple-blind readings for 68 discarnates. From these my colleagues and I received 58 readings scored by sitters that contained usable data.

The main features of the quintuple-blind protocol are presented in Figure 1.

Step 5: Analyze the Data

In 2015, my colleagues and I published the results from the 58 quintuple-blind readings (48). The blinded sitters had provided overall global scores (on a 0-6 scale) for each of two readings (a target intended for them and a decoy intended for another sitter) and chose which reading of the two they believed was theirs. For 31 of those readings, the sitters also scored for accuracy each item in the portions of each of the two readings in which the mediums answered specific questions about the deceased. The scores that sitters could choose from included: obvious fit that does not require interpretation to apply, fit requiring minimal interpretation or symbolism to make sense, indirect fit requiring greater interpretation to fit, and complete miss. ‘Fits’ and ‘fits requiring minimal interpretation’ were grouped together and considered ‘hits.’ 

 

Note: The five levels of blinding were: (1) the WCRM was blinded to information about the sitter and the discarnate before, during, and after the reading and asked questions during the reading about the discarnate’s appearance, personality, activities, and cause of death; (2) the blinded sitters did not hear the readings as they occurred; they scored blinded transcripts of two readings, one for their discarnate (target) and one for another sitter’s discarnate (decoy) without knowing which was which; (3) the experimenter who consented and trained the sitters (Experimenter 1) was blinded to which mediums read which sitters and which readings were intended for which sitters; (4) the experimenter who interacted with the mediums during the phone readings and formatted the readings into item lists for scoring (Experimenter 2) was blinded to information about the sitters and the discarnates; (5) the experimenter who interacted with the sitters during scoring (Experimenter 3) was blinded to all information about the discarnates, to which medium performed which readings, and to which readings were intended for which sitters.

 

The scores for target readings reflect the accuracy of the information; the comparison of target reading scores to decoy reading scores reflects its specificity. If the mediums are just making up the content or guessing, we would expect to see very low accuracy scores. If the information is overly general and could apply to any sitter, we would expect to see high accuracy scores with no differences between the target and decoy scores. 

 

Dr. Julie Beischel is the Director of Research at the Windbridge Research Center. She received her PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and uses her interdisciplinary training to apply the scientific method to controversial topics. For over 15 years, Dr. Beischel has worked full-time studying mediums: individuals who report experiencing communication with the deceased and who regularly, reliably, and on-demand report the specific resulting messages to the living. References cited in her paper are deleted from these excerpts but a full paper with references is available at the Bigelow website (https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php).