Eric's letter to an editor of an alternative paper:



  I believe that  most TT people are sincere.



I don't think TT is meant to involve faith.  But my large number of atheist

friends all seem to have fine health. 

The nice thing about our test is it was very objective "either it's there or

it's not" - this makes for easier evaluation. Also our test should have been

EASIER to pass.  We had hurt people on hand so the practitioner could pick

however had the strongest readings - we didn't insist they find anything

wrong, just tell us either if there was a person or which person was there. 

We shied away from patient sensations because it's hard to quantify and easy

to be lead.



   It is wrong to start with the supposition "this is fake and I'm going to debunk it"   I for one don't have faith that science can necessarily explain everything.  I would find the world much more exciting if one person could heal another in this way.   I agree that practitioners are a sensitive bunch and so far we have seemed to scare most away (unless it's a matter that they don't feel confident or are scared of finding out bad news).  I had a rather large test scheduled by an established pro alt health person who would be able to get plenty of good subjects.  This test would have been in November, but unfortunately was indefinitely cancelled.  I believe it would be ideal for believers to put together the tests, get the subjects, and just have skeptics review the protocol and the actual tests.   

    I think Glickman would have a very hard time refuting positive results from a test he agreed to - even if it didn't change his mind, it would certainly put TT on the road to making a big positive impact for humanity.  As long as TT is invalidated, it's application is very limited.  I think Glickman took a class.  I attended a session on TT and kind of thought for a while that I felt something, but I concluded that I was being visually queued.  When I had my wife randomly hold her hand under mine (with my eyes shut), I couldn't tell above what chance would predict.

   Glickman and I personally believe in God, but I really don't think that should enter into the scientific search for truth. The skeptical organizations PhACT and Pansa both have strong provisions in their charters to not attack religion.  We pretty much feel that mainstream religious claims to not lend themselves to the realm of scientific investigation.



   We prefer the word investigation to 'debunking'.  Those claims sound interesting, but we generally stick to claims that would fly in the face of prevailing science.