Before you can define statistical significance, you have to clearly define the success criteria. From what I see, remote viewing produces vague results, so some amount of human interpretation is necessarily. What counts as a "hit"? If you look at "verified" examples from the social-rv site GP mentioned, some of them match only in an abstract sense, but are still counted as a success. The more reliable thing would be to remote view a coin flip and have the person say heads or tails, but that's not how the stargate experiments were defined and I haven't been able to find any trials like this.
Edit: Actually I did find at least one experiment-ish, which is more precognition rather than remote viewing to determine crypto coin price trends [1]. Seems 53 correct predictions, 50 incorrect predictions which is well within statistical chance.
Also seems the social-rv GP linked will eventually have a remote-viewing for real-world events prediction-market type thing. Now that's interesting, and they cleverly avoid it devolving into a traditional prediction market by introducing indirection where two images are arbitrarily assigned to the outcome (true/false) and the person RVs the image, without knowledge of which outcome that image represents.
Edit: Actually I did find at least one experiment-ish, which is more precognition rather than remote viewing to determine crypto coin price trends [1]. Seems 53 correct predictions, 50 incorrect predictions which is well within statistical chance.
Also seems the social-rv GP linked will eventually have a remote-viewing for real-world events prediction-market type thing. Now that's interesting, and they cleverly avoid it devolving into a traditional prediction market by introducing indirection where two images are arbitrarily assigned to the outcome (true/false) and the person RVs the image, without knowledge of which outcome that image represents.
[1] https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/lg6sf2/precognit...