Thank you Pete for taking the time to reply. But I should make a few points that should be painfully obvious.
I do conceede that your ads state in several places that the consumer should expect to read at 3x the normal rate of reading speed, but it states many more times over that one can read at 25,000wpm.
A 3x improvement in reading speed is nothing spectacular. Most people can go beyond that with traditional speed reading. The difference between 3x normal reading speed and 25,000wpm is over 41x!!
The rate of difference is significant. A more honest advertising approach would be to leave off the 25,000wpm references since you can't gurantee anything close to that.
Throwing both figures out is like claiming you are selling a 20.5ghz computer but only guranteeing it for 500mhz.
Also, thanks for pointing out some useful information about the NASA report.
However, even if the negative photoreading studies I've found are not rigorously scientific -- they are significant (especially in the lack of any contradictory studies).
Also, Paul's explanation of his synthetic method is interesting, but is almost laughable as scientific evidence.
I'm curious, Pete, if you have a true eidetic memory? This is true of only about .01% of the population and might explain your success with the system.
I should, again, re-iterate that I'm not trying to tear the system down. I'm not nearly as much concerned with this system as I am about learning how certain people can achieve remarkable mental feats -- and then possibly obtaining those results.
Thanks to everyone who replied.
Curtis
