One of the great lessons from the history of science that hardly ever gets learned (again and again) is not to over-interpret interesting observations. First let's let everyone settled on the idea that there is a there, there... and then let's set to the business of figuring out what it might be telling us about the world, the universe, time... all the little stuff.
So here's a draft of a paper from a retired Cornell Professor, reported out by Richard Wiseman over at his swell puzzle blog.
Richard's blog.The entry in question.And the paper.OK... here's where the Fringe Division comes in.
What if you wanted to design a whole set of simple, computer-based experiments, the kind where even the Amazing Randi can see that you are not hiding stuff. And you keep the statistics simple, so that any competent high school student could do them. And you keep the tests really simple and based on a bunch of familiar tests that everyone knows about, you just turn time's arrow around in your methodology and look for deviations from 50:50. And then make your tests widely available so that others can try them out.
You are turning time's arrow around because the experiments are designed to pick up precognition.
Go ahead. Read the paper. See what you think. For the most part, he does a good job at reporting out "I got no clue what we are seeing, but I think we are seeing something." And while it is impossible NOT to suggest explanations (I wish he had not, actually), the worst part of this paper is the digression to quantum mechanics and the attempt to provide a model. I think when it comes to this sort of stuff, you just ought to do great experiments and report the results, and in the discussion you write "WTF?" and be done with it.
I'm feeling that Walternate is involved here, somehow.
