this is key point about remote viewing
> Unfortunately, the Dopfer thesis does not discuss what was observed in
> the lower detector with the coincidence requirement removed. For this
> reason, a crucial test of quantum phenomena would be to re-create the
> Dopfer Experiment and observe the role of the coincidence requirement
> on what is observed in the lower arm detector. Several research groups
> are considering doing this, but there are no results yet

Mainstream view is that you get only random noise locally when you
remove the coincidence requirement - that's what orthodox QM says, i.e.
"signal locality" co-exists with "nonlocal entanglement". "Signal
nonlocality" is a dramatic violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory.
Antony Valentini explains this essential difference in his papers based
upon Bohm's ontological interpretation that enables us to conceive of a
theory beyond quantum theory that reduces to quantum theory in the
"sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" limit. You cannot do this in any of
the other interpretations - except maybe for Cramer's "transactional"?
What Cramer is talking about might disprove Lenny Susskind's idea on
how information loss down a black hole happens that Hawking caved in on
at GR 17 - so this is a key issue in physics today.

Note that things impossible in globally flat 1905 special relativity -
like time travel to the past - are possible in variably locally curved
1916 general relativity. The lesson is that more general covering
theories make possible what is impossible in the smaller relatively
more approximate theory corresponding to a limiting case of some
control parameter of the more general covering theory. In the case of
Einstein's two relativity theories the control parameter is curvature
(and we also need torsion)
>
>
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Amara D. Angelica wrote:

> Yes, he summarizes the experiment here:
> http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml, but points out the need
> for a
> better design. I'll scan the pages from Sheehan's book and send to you.