The results in the HC2 experiment give no support to the hypothesis that random event sequences might be affected by meditations organized for a particular occasion in various places around the world. This is in clear contrast to the outcome for the earlier field REG study during the Gaiamind meditation, and certainly does not constitute a replication of those results. It is worth noting that the HC2 outcome thus provides some evidence that a speculative interpretation of the significant results in studies of this genre as a simple "experimenter effect" is not viable.
These experiments have little or no specific precedent although they are related to laboratory experiments with random event generators (Jahn, et al, 97), and to other kinds of field REG experiments (Nelson, et al, 96; Nelson, et al, 97; Radin et al, 1996; and Bierman, 1996). Given the limited background, we can only speculate on the reasons for the significant difference in outcome. It is possible that the result in the Gaiamind experiment was simply a statistical fluctuation, despite its low probability, or, similarly, that the low signal-to-noise ratio buried a possible effect in the Harmonic Convergence experiment. However, the general consistency across the 21 data segments shown in the HC2 experiment argues against such an interpretation. The two applications do, on the other hand, differ in ways that may offer some insight. The Gaiamind event was simultaneous and singular; it was focused on just one time period that was synchronized for all participants around the world; it focused on the symbolism of an extraordinary astronomical conjunction; it was far more widely publicized and recognized, and considerably more people were actively engaged in the event.