I wrote this for another thread. Pasting it her because the answer is the same.
quote:
Nope. I don't think it can. Any test that you devise that involves a human as part of the test can be thrown out because it can be argued that attitude, intent, interest, level of performance anxiety (nerves) and self exteem of the participant influence the results.It's the same reasons why 30 people in the same geography class taking the same test on the same subject, they learned with the same teacher, can get vastly different results. And if you say you need a 70% to prove that the teaching worked when 50% of the class has a grade below 60% do you scrap teaching geography because it didn't work?
When you test a humans knowledge by asking them questions in a test you are only finding out "what" they can draw up from their memory. We all have access to the same knowledge if we heard or saw it. Were're testing what they are able to access in in their mind. Given that our mind stores every last bit of information we learned in our memory we should be able to call it up in a test. Some of the factors that affect test results have already been mentioned. They are all going to be flawed.
So if you are not open to the experiment where the patent at 693,000 wpm and the testimonials given by others there is no test that will prove for you that PhotoReading works even if you were there watching it. Even if you tried it yourself you'd fail.
Thanks for asking us to try and convince you.
Rather than try to convince you I think it would be more exciting if you could experience the untapped potential of your mind.
I know when I learned PhotoReading I was not insterested in Matrix like download of information. I just wanted to be able to read 3 books in the time it took me to read one. That was my practical application. What I uncovered in learning PhotoReading made me realise that I my brain or mind has far more potential than I ever thought.
To me it made no sense to PhotoRead stuff I don't need. 3 minutes is still three minutes of my time. What you're asking will take more than 3 minutes to organise to consider it valid and at the end of the day there will still be people who don't believe it.
Pete was filmed for an infomercial PhotoReading a book on a computer screen. They had to cut it because people felt it is impossible to do that and refused believe what they saw. So what is the point of doing these demonstrations when we know they will not convince people?, other than wasting our time?
If you want proof that PhotoReading works don't look to PhotoReading proving it. Look at brain potential. What they have learned about the brain in the last 7 years since the access to PET and fMRI research equipment.
When you're ready, PhotoReading will be here for you to learn.
Alex
Writing a summary can take longer than Photoreading and activation not less in my experience. Besides I've already done something similar and had posted it on the forum.
I PhotoRead and Activated the book "Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci by Michael Gelb." It took me 15 minutes to PhotoRead and activate and another 15 minutes to write the book review. I didn't mind doing that because there was something in it for me.
Alex
