Alex wrote:

"In both the 2004 and 2007 retreat every participant was given the 30 minute challenge. Someone gave us a book and we had to tell that person about that book. There were people who were tested for the 30 minute challenge on stage in front of the camera.They answered specific questions about the book at the end of 30 minutes."

Well, if you have the video evidence of success with PR, then you're doing yourselves (i.e. LSC) a disservice if you don't post them for all to see. Your choice, though. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it otherwise.

Without the photographic evidence, this is just Ziad Fazah all over again. The only video available of him, shows him failing miserably to comperehend several languages, 3 of which are on his list of his best 16. Is it not in his best interests to post something showing what he can really do? Then again, he really has to be able to do it. Maybe he learns with Photoreading. The more I read this thread, the more I wonder how much of PR is really just hype. I mean what can you actually do with it?

"These things don't convince you naturally. Because reading doesn't work. You cannot read. Did you know that? Reading is technically an impossible feat."

In that case, how are you comprehending these posts? Are you absorbing them metaphysically on some level mere mortals such as myself are unable to attain? Just wondered, because I'm 'reading' them.

"Letters are symbols which poorly translate sound. We look at the symbols and give them meaning. Where in reality they have no meaning. They are abstract. Someone can look at them and give them voice but lets get real. You cannot touch the symbols they only have meaning that we as individuals gave them."

We call this 'reading' where I come from. And I've found the letters and writing systems of the many languages I've studied to be perfectly adequate for my my needs.

"How did we give them meaning? Rote learning which ultimately helped us to memorise certain patterns and give the set of symbols a meaning."

This isn't entirely true. It may be of one's first language, but I recently happened upon a system to learn Chinese characters together with their tone and order of elements in just a few seconds, and also recall them and be able to write them on demand accurately. Rote learning is the usual, painful way to do this, I will agree, but it isn't always necessary.

"This leads to problem two. Comprehension which is the second stage of learning to read. Learning to understand what you are reading."

But I thought reading was supposed to be impossible, so why even attempt it?

"49 percent of the educated public cannot read even to a basic level. less than 40% can read to college level. The most taught subject in college is remedial reading. They try to get people to read beyond grade nine level."

Again, you are alluding to 'reading' when you claim that there is no such thing. Come on, you can't have it both ways!

"Now you take PhotoReading and try to correct that?

Back to comprehension. That in itself requires thinking. Most people read with a degree of comprehension. However it is only as effective as that little voice that says the words in their mind so they hear someone speaking or telling them stuff.

Which is interesting about the NASA Report. No one ever actually reads the PDF themselves and thinks about what the researcher/trainee (who is the same person) is testing for. They take the word of whoever had something to point out about it but there in is a danger. You miss what they probably missed.

The first part of the report... the researcher is checking for speed reading or the ability to read at 25,000 words a minute.

If you've followed me and the Learning Strategies site for any length of time you know
• You Cannot READ at 25,000 WPM
• PhotoReading is not READING"

In that case, there is some serious misrepresentation going on, if only through implication. I notice that the sites that promote PR are very careful not to use the word 'reading' to refer to Photoreading, but surely reading is implied, and not in some small part by the now rather inconvenient name of the system PhotoREADING.

"Knowing that and if you read the report you might just notice the researcher is testing PhotoReading for something it is not. Since PhotoReading is not reading at 25,000 wpm why is the researcher testing PhotoReading for that?"

So, what you're saying, is that the test needs to be rigged so that PR comes out favourably, much like the very easy multiple-choice ones in the PR book.

"And a thinking person might even question the validity of something that claims to be scientific research where the researcher is a participant / trainee?"

Good point. OK, then, if I happened to be in Oz in the near future, would you be interested in submitting to a test that I administer? You are, after all, an 'expert' at Photoreading, so I would expect you to be able to Photoread a book of my choosing, and provide accurate answers to any questions I asked, including statistical data, without error or guesswork, and without the need to return to the book consciously after 'activation'. Well?

The fact that you have to return to the book after all the other steps, including the PR step is one thing that I find suspicious about the whole thing. You've got to 'dip in' and read consciously, so really, you can just dispense with the rest of it and just go straight to the index and look up what you need. Unless, of course, I'm missing something. If I am, then please show us the evidence.

"All that the research proved is that PhotoReading is not reading at 25,000 wpm and that you cannot read at 25,000 wpm."

In that case, the claims made on the websites that promote PR are deliberately misleading. This reading speed is implied, if not claimed.

But the bottom line here is this: Where is the evidence that PR is as amazing as you claim? And what can you actually do with it?

"PhotoReading changed my life but I'm not waving it around on youtube making out I'm a genius or better than anyone else now that I PhotoRead. That wouldn't help anyone."

I disagree. It would clear up a lot of the debate on here and also help out LSC, the company you represent. As I pointed out above, you aren't helping yourselves out otherwise, in fact, you are adding to the suspicions of the skeptics.

If you don't fancy doing it yourself, why not ask Yukala to do it? He has no qualms about proclaiming himself as an enlightened genius, and I'm sure ZMaster would like to see him put his money where his mouth is.