Or perhaps telekinesis to do the unclasping? And do we have to be content with a Euclidian, three dimensional revolving door? After all, this is about alternate beliefs, one of which is precognition, which presupposes time travel so:

A revolving door has four panels, A, B, C, D. The boat "E" and skier "S", approach the door. "E" enters between panels "A" and "B" which are rotating in our three dimensional world. As "S" approaches, Panels "B", )and "C" if needed), additionally rotate through time so that when "S" reaches where panel "B" or "S" would be in this space /time, they are actually "X" seconds in the past (where "X" would be determined by the distance to be covered, velocity of the boat, length of the tow rope and so on)

Wolfgang, thanks for the citation.

Amos,

Can I be a devout atheist and a devout Christian at the same time?

Overgeneralizing, skepticism requires proof, the three "c",s and so on. Belief structures do not. So what is the underlying criteria: When do I use skepticism, when don't I?. If there is no criteria beyond "In this case I think skepticism doesn't apply...." or "well, I'll use skepticism foo this part but not for the other", then (worst case) I would submit that what you have is a belief structure system that dresses up a belief system with the intermittent use of skepticism to validate the belief system. Again, I may be misreading where you are going with this, but this seems to me to be the implications of your argument.

As to remote seeing, it requires not just acceptance of the experience, but accepting (or rejecting) a lot of the fundamental theories of how reality works. And remember that one validation of some of these theories was that they were able to correctly predict a behavior before we had the techniques or ability to verify that behavior. Remote seeing involves, among other things, undetectable energy, would seem to imply that conservation of energy, inverse square and so on aren't.

By the way, photons, being quantum waves/particles, tend not to act repetitively. Or rather not always act the same way. Predictions of dust motes follow chaos theory . On the other hand, the EPR Paradox which Einstein claimed was impossible appears not to be. Unfortunately, that's on the quantum level and we aren't

Regards John