Purpose of the RPK Experiment

Original post: 13 July 2009.
(Updated 17 July 2018: see PS below)
The blog posts below are a running account of an experiment that began on August 14, 1965. It has taken this long to get it this simple and for technology to be available.

The present design is a descendant of the 1980s "PK Party" (spoon bending) developed by Jack Houck. Its purpose is to experience and explain the phenomenon of remote psychokinesis and to understand its uncertainties.

We are attempting to produce an NCR (non-consensus reality) event in a CR (consensus reality) frame of reference in order to learn how to apply what physicist/psychologist Arnold Mindell calls The Edge between Physics and Psychology in his seminal work Quantum Mind, published in 2000. We believe that this process will lead us to a more mature understanding of our physical and psychological capabilities, which will in turn help us develop deeper social responsibility for our planet in terms of raising our individual and collective awareness. We believe that this will help transform societal attitudes from ideological needs to subdue, dominate or control each other or other beings of all kinds (animate and inanimate). We believe that this can happen only by partnering and supporting each other in raising our mutual awareness in creative ways.


PS. Rebecca Hardcastle Wright has given this experiment a clearer current explanation of purpose. In her Exoconscious Proposal: The Common Ground of Consciousness Science and Psychic Intelligence she writes "Today, extraterrestrial experiencers join growing numbers of vocal psychic experiencers: near death experiencers (NDE), out of body travelers (OBE), mediums, psychics and healers. Together these groups are urging, if not pushing, consciousness science to build a body of experiments and theories regarding consciousness as a non-local field. This growing psychic research has not gone unnoticed by classical scientists. Many of them are beginning to acknowledge consciousness as a fundamental field of reality... Exoconscious experiencers have living confirmation of the Extraterrestrial Presence. These experiencers have the potential to birth a social movement confirming the extraterrestrial presence. They have the power to propel the UFO/ET information mainstream in ways not possible with classical science."

Saturday, August 31, 2019

RPK Phase 4 for potential influencers.

Posted: 31 August 2019

RPK Phase 4 Core
[Note Phase 2 Core tucked out of sight
of webcam, behind post at right side of photo]
In consequence of the RPK experiment thus far, above is the current setup for further "Phase 4" runs, which was designed in cooperation with Nancy du Tertre, George Weismann and the St. Petersburg institute design in mind. I invite all the original influencers for my RPK Phase 2 runs [A thru D] to try their skills on this design. 

The prospective protocol is simpler. 
1. All future runs will work to Greenwich Mean Time as of September 1, 2019.
2. When a prospective influencer wishes to attempt a run, I will keep the LED light on 24/7 (after being notified via email: enkovalenko@gmail.com) in order to allow her/him to practice RVing the system beforehand. (Success is defined as having one of the two hanging objects move without affecting the other.)
3. We will then agree to a date. A given run will typically last from 30 to 60 minutes.
4. At the agreed run date and time, I will turn on my iPad video to record approximately 1/2 hour before the agreed run and focus on the RPK Phase 4 Core directly or as viewed on the Skype monitor. (The proposed option will be agreed to beforehand. Hopefully we can eventually get to the stage where Skype or any other internet connection is no longer needed!)
5. After a given run is complete, I will download and review the iPad video and forward a video link to the influencer within 48 hours. Copies of successful videos will be sent to the Exoconsciousness Institute for its ongoing PK experiment records. 

Interested viewers, please feel free to comment on this protocol so that we can make appropriate adjustments and refinements.

To be continued....

Monday, August 19, 2019

RPK Phases 3 & 4 from Russia

Posted: 19 August 2019
Updated: 1Sep19

In the aftermath of the puzzling Phase 2 runs with influencers A-D, Influencer C (Nancy) traveled to Russia to attend a training session with an institute in St. Petersburg, which specializes in teaching pk and other esoteric disciplines. I had hoped to join her and others there after moving to Sweden. Unfortunately, the move to Sweden has been delayed by overwhelmed Swedish immigration applicants and a change in Sweden's immigration policy.

But, because of Nancy's rigorous analysis of her Phase 2C run [See her August 1 post on this thread], she suggested we try it again from St. Petersburg as Phase 3. This time I took the Phase 2 Core out of the Night Owl surveillance structure and placed it in the northwest corner of a ceiling-anchored high office shelf and then teamed up with her and a colleague to do two Skype runs. Below is how it looked.

RPK Phase 3 Core in NW corner of high office shelf
[An LED lamp gives steady indirect light and the webcam
is located midway next to vertical post close to the Core device]

Nancy and Chantel attempting to influence Phase 3 objects from St. Petersburg
[Notice the small split screen image on the upper right of the monitor,
on which they are focusing on a full screen on their Russian monitor.]

We are still evaluating Phase 3 video results, since Nancy & Chantel recorded two different runs while in St. Pete. Each run lasted for one hour and was recorded on my iPad and their computer in Russia.

After these two Phase 3 runs, Nancy helped facilitate a so-called "Phase 3.5" run where the St. Pete training class of 8 talented participants agreed to attempt influencing an initial core design with two different colored (white and lavender) paper spiral objects according to their specifications. Let's call that pre-phase 4.

Students at the Institute for Biosensory Psychology
Experimenting with RPK pre-Phase 4 from St. Petersburg
On August 13, at the time I was in conversation with a friend at a nearby cafe when Nancy called me on my cell phone from St. Pete to tell me the institute would be ready to tune in to my system in 20 minutes!! Would I do it? I said yes and rushed home to try to somehow build the new system. Birgitta found a large glass jar and could only find white and lavender colored paper from which to cut out the spirals. And we barely made it!

Hours later that same day [Aug 13], Nancy wrote:
Thanks so much from everybody! You pulled off a quick miracle and did a great job with the timeframe you were given. I will explain more about that when I return. 
On Aug 15, Nancy wrote again:  
We are currently measuring your spirals and so far it looks like there may have been a movement on the white spiral unless of course it could have been one of those camera autofocus adjustments that could have changed the position on the Skype screen ... we we are trying to measure it proprionate to ithe edges.
Before Nancy left Russia couple of days later, Birgitta and I redesigned Phase 4 to better meet institute specifications, this time using two paper spirals on different colored paper with black markings. See below:

2"x 2" square colored paper patterns 
before being cut into two spirals

RPK 4 Core w/ St. Petersburg spirals

RPK 4 top w/quadrille graph paper (1/4" spacing)
showing location of colored spirals.

RPK 4 bottom
(showing end of spirals not touching bottom)

RPK4 Core on top shelf in NW office corner
[Note symbolic books supporting Core]
[Note also the small 6" red ruler as reference on the self beneath books]
Birgitta helped make the spirals and place them so that they were as far apart as possible without bumping into each other or touching the sides or bottom. She used hair spray to stiffen the spirals and keeping them from further stretching.

Phase 4 Setup near NW corner shelf
[Note webcam (on right) much further away than with Phase 3]
Over all RPK Phase 4 system

To be continued...

Sunday, August 18, 2019

PK Party with family circa 1988-90

Event: circa 1988-90 
Updated:19 August 2019

I've been crazy about this stuff for a long time, like an old dog with a favorite bone not yet finished with it.

Here are some memories before RPK experiments with cameras began...

PK Party results with family circa 1990
L to R: sons Jim, Ivan, then me, Nick (in back), Michael, his mother Lawrene, her two friends.

Letter from Jack Houck, inventor of PK Party. 

Me in 1987 at Jack Houck's PK Party #174
(Notice my original RPK device on table next to my right hand, 
which is holding a bent fork.)

Friday, August 9, 2019

RPK Phase 3, Runs 1 & 2 from Russia

Posted: 9 August 2019
Updated: 18Aug19

RPK Core for Phase 3

RPK Phase 3 setup
Webcam is focused on hanging objects
LED lamp gives indirect illumination

Phase 3, Live runs 1 & 2
by Nancy and Chantel in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Webcam is connected to Skype monitor,
which I'm videoing live with iPad.

Webcam view that team N&C see.
This can be seen on Skype split screen monitor
as a tiny window in upper right corner in above photo.

Next will be Phase 4 using the St. Petersburg PK technique.

To be continued...

Sunday, August 4, 2019

RPK-Phase 2 update: Yellow marker mystery on green timeline bands

Posted: 4 August 2019
Updated: 9 Aug 19

Nancy du Tertre, The Skeptical Psychic

Before Nancy took off for a two-week trip to a Russian institute (which teaches telekinesis, aka, pk, to potential influencers) last Wednesday (July 31) and before she wrote her report of her Run C for the previous post, we discussed possible reasons for the excess yellow markings that obscure all results for runs A - D. We hope to make adjustments to the system to be ready for a Phase 3 run from the institute with her participation and direction.

The most likely theory I could come up with is that my Phase 2 surveillance cameras are set for maximum sensitivity and therefore should be filtered to exclude tiny, extraneous activity. If this is so, and I can reduce this over-sensitivity for a run from the St. Petersburg, then we can schedule an RPK Phase 3 attempt from Russia on my equipment.

Also possible as contributing to the excess yellow is external interference to the Internet signal either by mischievous hacking or nearby unconscious or non deliberate effects by myself or others in proximity of the equipment. Caroline (influencer D) made me aware of that possibility before she made her run in mid June.

This will require the following:

1. Review Nancy's log for deliberate RPK attempts and compare them to the DVR video record to detect any deliberate remote movement of the three target objects.
     [Updated 8/5 Note: on Sunday (8/4) scientist friend Ed Storms came over from Santa Fe to help me access the video record for all the Phase 2 runs. I was able to watch carefully camera 2 (CH2) record of Nancy's last run C attempt on the morning of May 24, but saw no obviously visual evidence of target movement, notwithstanding there was much yellow on the accompanying green band beneath the video window. I will have to view the rest of her CH2 video record at a later time, but for now we don't yet have the quality of evidence we were hoping for.]

2. If the kind of movement we are looking for is detected (it wasn't yet) and documented, then I will adjust the cameras (CH1 & CH2) to a low sensitivity and perform a calibration jump to assure the cameras pick up only visibly obvious target movement. The yellow markers should then correlate only with visual detection of object movement. I am not interested in what appears to be tiny PK effects evidenced by the recent yellow markers, but only those I am calling "massive". I say this with the original RPK Phase 1 run with Jack Houck in mind (2009) as well as Kyra's (Influencer A) singularly successful strike during her July 2015 run.

3. Prior to a potential Russian Phase 3 run, I will make a 24-hr pre-influencer run so that no false positive or extraneous yellow markers (except for deliberate calibration jumps) appear on the green ban of video record. The third room observational camera will remain as is, and we will ignore the expected excess yellow stuff from it.

4. If the above results are positive (not yet), I will set the DVR and cameras to capture scheduled, appropriate movements, without being connected to the Internet. (This is to avoid hacking or external mischief, assuming all influencers are experienced RVers and astral travelers, which was the original intention of the Phase 2 design.)

4.1. If desired, we can arrange a live Skype viewing of the DVR monitor during a Phase 3 run, as Nancy requested for her Phase 2C run. This would avoid any Internet interference with the DVR, but still allow potential influencers a real-time biofeedback option.

If Nancy, et al, at the St. Petersburg institute are willing to attempt a Phase 3 run with this lack of yet-to-be-manifested evidence, before she returns to the US, I will proceed with steps 3  and 4 above....

Perhaps I can manage to make a 24-hr null run sans Internet in the next few days, in anticipation of a Phase 3 attempt of any kind. Stay tuned....

Less than 2 hours after this post, Nancy read and replied from St. Petersburg:

5 Aug, 2 PM. NdT:    Thank you Eugene. I appreciate your blog comments and photo!! I have tried to broach the topic of the RPK experiments with Natalia on the first or second day of training. She has remained consistently uncommitted and says it can be discussed later. I am thinking that if she doesn’t want to be involved that perhaps Chantal (my friend and colleague here with me) could perhaps try to do this in our “spare” time after training ends st 4 or 5 pm. Our training is extremely vigorous physically and energetically and we get homework every day! Probably 8 pm our time would work best as far as I can tell. There are no other students with us doing training at the Institute. We may hopefully go to the retreat for next week but she has also been ambiguous about that too for reasons I don’t understand. Anyway please continue to set up the experiment and suggest some time frames for influencing.  I will keep you updated on her response. 

5 Aug, 3 PM, ENK: I find Nancy's comments encouraging enough to set up a schedule for Phase 3. Lest there be readers with less than supportive intentions reading this blog, I will keep the details of the run confidential between her and me until after its completion.

In the meantime, I have the following suggestions to make for potential or interested influencers to keep in mind in terms of developing an upgraded protocol. A new friend and author of "Searching for mind over matter" calls them his "recipe" which he has developed over many years of success in healing himself and other creatures (beginning with a racoon injured by road traffic, which he stopped to help with a fellow healer). Here is Larry's recipe in order of importance:

    1. Strong Desire
    2. Inroad
    3. Five senses and a feeling of completion
    4. Laser sharp focus
    5. Repetition
    6. Belief
    7. Expectation
    8. Personal Will

    9. Letting Go

One would need to read his book (available on Kindle) to better understand his terms, which I won't do here. Suffice to say there may be something fundamental in terms of attitude and approach that can be folded into our current RPK protocol. Interested active and potential influencers are invited to consider and offer suggestions on how to do this.

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Influencer C (Nancy) Observations on her Run.

Posted: August 1, 2019

Observations and Issues Involving RPK Experiment
Nancy du Tertre – July 29, 2019

I am concerned that in none of the Influencer sessions posted in your blog (including mine) did your “Control Time” prior to the commencement of each session seem to be free and clear of the yellow lines appearing on your “Surveillance Equipment” (installed to record any movements detected the three cameras observing the three “Balls” that the Influencers were trying to remotely move using PK). 
This suggests that you were never able to get a control or sample of a non-moving Ball for any given 24 hour period of time.  Without a 24-hour control period that is clean and clear of any yellow lines, we have no way of knowing whether the Influencer efforts actually caused the yellow lines (e.g. Ball movement). 
What you were able to verify in this experiment was that a strong physical jump (“Calibration Jump”) on the floor next to the box housing the three Balls could make yellow lines register on your Surveillance Equipment.  This suggests that there was an actual correlation between the Balls moving and the yellow lines registering this movement on your timeline. 
In my case, you did this (on May 21 at 11:15 AM PT) prior to the start of my two-day Influencer Period (11:15 AM PT on May 22 through 11:00 AM PT on May 24). 
Your Calibration Jump during this Control Period on May 21 is reflected by the appearance of yellow lines.  However, the yellow lines continue to be reflected in your chart for an astounding TWO HOUR period (roughly 11:00 AM through 1 PM).  That is odd that the Balls would have continued to move for two hours before they came to a standstill… 
To me, this suggests that the Balls must be much more volatile than you have imagined.  It suggests that they are EXTREMELY sensitive to physical vibrations and continue to move in very TINY movements for long after the initial vibration is created.  This might also explain why you told me you cannot visually assess or see any movement of the Balls in the cameras even though yellow lines are appearing in your Surveillance Equipment recordings.  It suggests the Balls are incredibly sensitive and will move ever so slightly to vibrations in their surroundings. 
This is further reinforced by the fact that other yellow lines also appeared during your “Control Period” on May 21 without any obvious or recorded influence or physical vibrations.  The strong yellow lines reappeared at 2 PM, 3PM and 7:30 PM.   Theoretically, since this was your “Control Period” these yellow lines should not have been there or reflecting any movement by the Balls.
To add to this, when we set up Skype starting at 11 AM on May 23 so I could watch the Balls as I worked my PK on them, I made notes that at 11:05 AM when you walked into the room the Balls “jiggle lightly” and also at 11:06 AM when you left the room the Balls “jiggle lightly.”  If I was correct in my observation, then this quite possibly suggests that the Balls will actually move every time you walk in or out of the room, or walk around near them. 
This could account for the excessive number of yellow lines that occur apparently without a “source” of vibration that would cause the Balls to move.  I am assuming you did not record every time you walked in and out of the room during the Control or Influencer time periods.
In any event, this data is highly problematic since it means we really don’t have any clean “Control Period” by which to judge PK effects.


 (All Time Shown in Mountain Time) 

May 22
1:34 PM – 2:04 PM
4:38 PM – 5:10 PM
5:33 PM - ??
8:51 PM – 8:57 PM

May 23
9:11 AM – 9:26 AM
12:00 PM – 12:14 PM
1:06 PM – 1:13 PM
6:17 PM – 6:23 PM
7:06 PM – 7:13 PM

May 24
3:40 AM - ??
10:24 AM – 10:44 AM
10:48 AM – 11:05 AM
11:09 AM – 12:00 PM

So, these time periods need to be compared with the yellow lines by your Surveillance Equipment that records movements by the Balls, to see if there was any INSTANTANEOUS PK EFFECT.  This would NOT account for any DELAYED and/or CUMULATIVE PK effect.  Nor would it eliminate any LOCAL VIBRATIONAL EFFECT absent any clean Control Period without any yellow lines showing.  I am using approximate times since they are not precisely indicated on your Surveillance chart.

May 22
11:30 AM – 1:45 PM
2:40 PM – 4:15 PM
5:00 PM – 6:30 PM
8:20 PM
11:00 PM

May 23
4:00 AM – 5:45 AM
9:45 AM
10:30 AM – 1:00 PM
2:45 PM
6:45 PM
9:00 PM – 12:00 midnight AM

May 24
8:00 AM – 9:15 AM
11:45 AM – 12:00 noon PM
1:45 PM – 2:20 PM
3:15 PM – 6:00 PM
9:00 PM – 9:30 PM

On the first day, May 22, there are obvious correlations (albeit rough and not precise) with all 3 out of 4 sessions of my PK Influencing Periods.  The yellow lines appearing at 8:20 PM and 11:00 PM have no obvious correlation with my PK work.
On the second day, May 23, there are also some correlations (again rough, not totally precise) between my PK work in 2 out of 5 sessions and the yellow lines.  The yellow lines appearing at 4:00 AM to 5:45 AM, 9:45 AM, 2:45 PM, 6:45 PM and 9:00 PM to midnight have no obvious correlation to my PK work.
On the third day, May 24, there are also some correlations (rough, not precise) in 1 out of 4 sessions.  However, I did PK work while sleeping/dreaming at 3:40 AM which does not have any correlation with any yellow lines since no yellow lines appeared. 

Also, after my session was complete at 12:00 PM and I had stopped all PK work, yellow lines continued to appear at 1:45 PM, 3:15 PM and 9:00 PM… 
As an additional observation about my two day influencing period, it may or may not be relevant that several of my “misses” occurred within a 10 or 15 minute period in relation to a yellow line.
On May 22, I influenced at 8:51 PM and a yellow line registered at roughly 8:20 PM.
On May 23, I completed my influencing at 9:26 AM and a yellow line appeared at roughly 9:45 AM. 
On May 23, I completed my influencing session at 6:23 PM and a yellow line appeared at roughly 6:45 PM. 
There are several problems in trying to figure out if there is a correlation between my influencing and the yellow lines.  First, since the yellow line graph only maps every 2 hours, I had to “guestimate” the yellow line time periods.  So it is possible that these “misses” could, in fact, be actual “hits.”  I have no way of knowing if I accurately pinpointed the accurate yellow line times.  Second, these “near misses” suggest there may be a PK “Pre-Influencing Period” or a PK “Lag Time Post-Influencing Period” in the range of about 15 minutes or so.  This may be something to monitor carefully in the future.

Overall, I think it is interesting to note that I had an interesting correlation rate with the yellow lines that appeared during my two-day Time Period.  Of course, my great frustration is that, absent a clean control period, I have no way of definitively saying whether or not my PK efforts which correlated with the yellow lines can be considered the causation factor or not.  My secondary frustration is not having a precise measure of the time frames more accurate than every two hour segments.