Indeed, I'm of the opinion that James Randi actually proved what he didn't want to know - himself.
I'm not going back through my readings and research - but, feel free to look it up - it'll be about somewhere
There was a (french from memory) very well credentialed laboratory who had clear results that water had a memory.
Enter James Randi - who said he would give the lab his prize if he could see the experiment and as long as he was satisfied that they were straight and the results repeated - he would cough up the prize.
When it came to the experiment - James asked for the water canisters to be covered - which, the lab had no problem complying with his request.
The experiment failed. The lab was disgraced, careers ended and the credibility of one of the great laboratories lay in tatters.
James didn't have to part with the prize.
But, no one thought of a factor that might have correctly influenced such an experiment ------ and, in the end - IMO - I theorise (more than hypothesise - because there's a shitload of evidence on a variable that was introduced by James) --
the covering of the water vessels - denied observation. And, if we look to the observer effect in Quantum mechanics - that's a whopper of a variable to change.
IMO - James may well have proven his own challenge - that the observation of events - can change the outcome.
"The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics. Observer effects are well known in fields other than physics, such as sociology, psychology, linguistics and computer science, but none of these other fields have experienced the same level of publicity and controversy as physics. "
