Also, during the experiments, there were a few occasions where one medium or another simply could not communicate with the dead people associated with a particular sitter. They simply got “nothing” the way most people would. Yet, a different medium would have no trouble with that sitter at all. It was summed up as the particular medium simply “wasn’t right” for that particular sitter. Yet that medium would have profound success with other sitters. Can Creator explain why this “all or nothing” anomaly occurred?

This was due to a combination of circumstances. In some cases, there was an inability to reach the desired target because of an inadequacy of the psychic. This ability to reach out and connect intuitively to something beyond the self has a kind of flow and flux and a tempo that is subject to many local circumstances—the state of mind, the mood, perhaps a reaction to the pressures to perform if there is a degree of anxiety being triggered or inner fear of failure, and so on. Those mediums who are genuine can suffer such disruptions and intermittent success for any number of reasons, none of which are really damning as to their authenticity or a true assessment of their capabilities. On the other hand, a medium who is uniformly spectacular in getting robust unfiltered communication may well be doing so because they are being actively manipulated by the darkness, who are supplying all the energy and ensuring the link is robust and the message gets through with force and clarity, so it is not truly a credit to that medium and their ability except to be misled and vulnerable to manipulation. So what all this means is it is a delicate matter to entertain such explorations. This need not take away from the fact that legitimate spirit communications took place in the course of the studies and, as such, was a successful outing demonstrating the existence of the departed still being alive somewhere in some state of being, and reachable via intuition by people with genuine psychic ability. The fact it is an imperfect science is no different than any other kind of scientific inquiry where the instruments and tools being used might be still in a crude form and subject to sources of variability not fully under control, and thus errors can creep in, none of which is disproving the existence of the phenomena being studied but only that the methodology in use is non-ideal—that is an important distinction to keep in mind here. We do not wish to disparage this work, but your questions are forcing on us an exploration of some of the loose ends and weaknesses observed along the way with respect to particular results, but that is not an indictment of the enterprise and its importance with respect to the broad goal of advancing a true scientific inquiry of the ephemeral, and on that goal the work was a true success.