And neither of these links led me to a properly controlled, properly peer reviewed scientific experiment. 

lol - and I think that whatever I add or whatever I say - you will always come up with a negative - despite what info is actually given on those sites and elsewhere. Lets face it - its easier just to go with what is stated on the skeptics sites isn't it. Its all there for you - what to say, how to act. Easy! Much easier than investigating properly yourself.

The Windbrige Institute publishes in non-scientific journals.

I think that you must be looking at a different 'institute' Martin. And it would seem to be known as Windbridge not 'Windbrige'

One example of a scientific journal which they publish in, would be the 'Journal of Scientific Exploration' from the Society For Scientific Exploration

The JSE is the quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of the SSE. Since 1987, the JSE has published original research on consciousness, quantum and biophysics, unexplained aerial phenomena, alternative medicine, new energy, sociology, psychology, and much more. The journal also contains book reviews, letters to the editor, and peer correspondence.

Mission statement of SSE

The primary goal of the international Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science. A secondary goal is to promote improved understanding of those factors that unnecessarily limit the scope of scientific inquiry, such as sociological constraints, restrictive world views, hidden theoretical assumptions, and the temptation to convert prevailing theory into prevailing dogma.

Topics under investigation cover a wide spectrum. At one end are apparent anomalies in well established disciplines. At the other, we find paradoxical phenomena that belong to no established discipline and therefore may offer the greatest potential for scientific advance and the expansion of human knowledge.

The Society encourages such investigations for several reasons that may appeal to different communities:

    To the research scientist, we commend the intellectual challenge of explaining away an apparent anomaly or seizing the new knowledge presented by a real one.
    To the student scientist, we point out that science does not begin with textbooks: it begins with the unknown and ends with textbooks.
    To the nonscientist, we acknowledge that deep public interest in some of these topics calls for unprejudiced evaluation based on objective research.
    To the policy-maker, we point out that today's anomaly may become tomorrow's technology.

 
from http://www.scientificexploration.org/about_sse.html

now that to me would seem to be very much a scientific approach - investigating further. Its rather like what they are doing with the neutrinos in the OPERA experiment(s).

The studies are done by real scientists, and by both believers and skeptics in places like the Windbridge Institute, the Rhine Institute and also big Universities such as the University of Arizona and UVA's School of Personality Studies.

You, asking me, to do some investigation is a laugh.  I have investigated lots of the links you've posted much more critically than you have!  Your closed mind leads you to avoid questioning, when the report fits your faith position.

((( sigh))) - there is nothing more I can say then really Martin. You know everything already don't you?
I have been investigating this kind of stuff since I was about 14 yrs old - and I still don't know everything! It is an ongoing process as all learning is. I will say it again - it is up to you to investigate for yourself - I cannot do it for you.

You mentioned before about me  'arguing' back - well Martin you cannot make an argument about something you haven't endeavored to experience for yourself. Until you have that experience you don't really have anything to argue with.

My faith 'position' has also altered over time - and that has been down to what I have discovered or come to understand further. That can hardly be attributed to a 'closed mind' now can it?

Oh and I just had to add this for you Martin - it is in the 'box' of the teapots in space thing which you seem to be so obsessed with. Go on - have a read. You might get something from it - who knows.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm

There are a number of skeptics 'arguments' listed in the contents page - which as you can see, have all been heard before (before you trying them out on me that is). By me listing the webpage here it will save me some time in case you try to use them again.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm