[4] But in analyzing the data for 11 September 2001, May et al. concluded that the statistically significant result given by the published GCP hypothesis was fortuitous, and found that as far as this particular event was concerned an alternative method of analysis gave only chance deviations throughout.
[5]: 2 Roger D. Nelson developed the project as an extrapolation of two decades of experiments from the controversial Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR).
[6] Nelson began using random event generator (REG) technology in the field to study effects of special states of group consciousness.
The group events studied included psychotherapy sessions, theater presentations, religious rituals, sports competitions such as the Football World Cup, and television broadcasts such as the Academy Awards.
[9] FieldREG was extended to global dimensions in studies looking at data from 12 independent REGs in the US and Europe during a web-promoted "Gaiamind Meditation" in January 1997, and then again in September 1997 after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
[12][non-primary source needed] In the second step, the event data are extracted from the database and a Z score, which indicates the degree of deviation from the null hypothesis, is calculated from the pre-specified algorithm.
[5] Wolcotte Smith said "A couple of additional statistical adjustments would have to be made to determine if there really was a spike in the numbers," referencing the data related to September 11, 2001.
[17] Similarly, Jeffrey D. Scargle believes unless both Bayesian and classical p-value analysis agree and both show the same anomalous effects, the kind of result GCP proposes will not be generally accepted.