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:

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."



Monday, September 24, 2018

FB Note to RPK Influencers

Posted: 24 September 2018
Updated: 26 Sep 18

Eugene's Lament of 22 Sep 18 on FB


Written on FaceBook on Saturday, 22 Sep 18:

To my current RPK influencer friends in California, South Africa, Albania, Utah, Arizona and New Jersey, 
I am soooooo sorry to have missed an important international Zoom conference call this morning with Rebecca Hardcastle Wright, et al!!! Such an unfortunate SENIOR MOMENT! I had been looking forward for at least a month to participating in the latest "Mastermind" discussion with the newly developing Institute for EXOCONSCIOUSNESS and to report on the latest design change for my RPK, Phase 2 experiment and updated protocol.

Again, sorry for the delay in contacting you all before launching Round One of the new protocol. This time we will have more fun in getting this back online! You'll see.

Until later, please be patient with this old guy!

24 Sep 18. And then this morning I happened upon this anonymous handwritten note to a general FB audience:

FaceBook Note on 24 September 2018

It had been posted by [Phase 1] influencer Kyra Kitts, and I immediately responded: 
Oh, Kyra, how timely this message is for me at this very moment!!! 
To which she replied: 
Zhenya, I’m so glad! You are an amazing being. You deserve miracles and recognition, my real friend.

Sometimes, as this, such synchronicities exemplify the "real magic" that Dean Radin describes in his newest book. I had only moments earlier finished talking to fellow scientist friend Ed Storms about the four-part synchronicity example that Radin mentions in his book on pages 82-85/260, that Ed and I are reading and discussing in the Kindle version. 

Given my senior moment lament of 9/22, I needed this!






Monday, September 17, 2018

Conversations with Dean Radin

Posted: 17 September 2018
Updated: 19 Sep 18
Dr. Dean Radin
On September 15, 2018, Dr. Dean Radin and I became personally acquainted for the first time on a first Skype call. In that first conversation we discussed his new book, 

"Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe", which I'd just begun reading.


Then we scoped out who else, besides us two, was working with PK, especially micro, macro and 'massive' RPK. This included George Weisman, Mike Weliky and Caroline Cory. 


In our second Skype call on September 17, Radin asked about my technical background and how I had come to develop my RPK experiment concept, beginning as far back as summer 1965. He was particularly interested how my current RPK design had evolved, which began with my solicited USAF proposal at Eyring Research Institute (ERI) in Provo, Utah, in 1978-79. Even though that proposal went unfunded, it eventually led to Jack Houck's invention of the now well-known "PK Party" in the mid 1980s. 

(Jack had been one of the anonymous referees of my USAF ERI proposal. In the mid '80s he and I would become personally acquainted in Southern California, where I had become engineering manager for a small aerospace firm and mutual friend, physicist inventor Bob Beck, from ERI had introduced us. I and several of my sons participated in some of Jack's early PK Parties.) 

Radin then concentrated on my RPK, Phase 1, and the details of the one and only successful "strike" that had taken place in summer 2015 in Los Alamos (affected by influencer Kyra Kitts while in San Luis Obispo, CA). As Dean concentrated on how specifically the two hanging objects had moved, during that singularly successful event, he asked a question that had never occurred to me. Q: how were the two objects connected? A: through the lid!  

It explained the secondary slight "bouncing" of the second object just a second or two after the primary object had "swung" in a pendulum movement. That is, although the two hanging objects were separated from each other in the transparent core container, they were nevertheless connected through the container's lid, which allowed for a mechanical transfer of movement up the tiny stainless steel spring of the primary object to the lid and down the spring of the secondary object a second or two later. 

Dean then asked if I had the recorded evidence of this event and if anyone else had observed it. Yes, one person, LANL physicist Quinn Marsteiner, who had helped me build the motion-activated camera monitoring system in 2009. The video results were clearly recorded on the monitoring system's hard drive in 2015, which I had sent to the Special Collections archives of the University of Utah in April 2018, after deciding I was done with the experiment. Unfortunately, I had not known how to capture that video evidence off of the hard drive of that recording system before shipping the now crippled Phase 1 equipment to the U of U.

Two questions remain: 
1.) where will Phase 2 be located 
2.) how will the new system be re-designed (i.e., Protocol Step 1.0)?

To be continued on next post: serendipitous Skype call from a new participant yesterday evening (Sep 18), who lives in SLC and who may be able to recover the video data from the hard drive of Phase 1 equipment now at the library archives! If he succeeds, I will post that link here.

Sep 19: PS. If anyone wishes to comment on this or any other blog post on this thread, I am having difficulty figuring out how to allow comments to register herein. Pending my overcoming this problem, please feel free to email me at enkovalenko@gmail.com. 



Saturday, September 8, 2018

The Concept of Mass vs The Nature of Consciousness

Posted: 8 September 2018
Updated: 16 Sep 18

Jean-Pierre and me

Saturday, 8 Sep 18. Good friend  Jean-Pierre Julian, assistant professor of physics at Grenoble University in France, met me today for a couple of hours at the local Film Festival Coffee Shop.

Jean-Pierre comes to the Los Alamos National Laboratory once or twice a year on a consultancy assignment and usually looks me up. We met several years ago at the local Russian Orthodox parish, having been introduced by our mutual Orthodox priest friend, Fr. John Hennies (now retired and living in South Dakota). 

Today we discussed our respective brushes with mortality and then Phase 2 of my RPK experiment. Jean-Pierre is one of several credible international scientists with whom I can discuss such subjects. 

Saturday, 15 Sep 18. We met again at the same place before he leaves for home on Monday. This time we discussed a new book I'm reading by Dean Radin, chief scientist for Institute of Noetic Sciences, called "Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe". It was interesting for me to better understand Jean-Pierre's religious experiences (as well as mine!) from the perspective of Radin's use of the term "Real Magic" as differentiated from the typical pejorative use of 'magic' in use in our society today, meaning "illusion, skilled deception, sleight-of-hand", etc. Take the "c" from magic and wonder about its ancient use....



To be continued....

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Wrestling with latest RPK, Phase 2 protocol

Posted: 15 August 2018
Updated:

Ed Storms and I wrestling with Phase 2 protocol
Retired LANL physical chemist Ed Storms and I are redesigning my RPK, Phase 2 experiment and its current protocol, while sitting under our deck umbrella on a fine August afternoon. See previous post with LANL physicist Quinn Marksteiner doing a preliminary review. Both Quinn and Ed have given me new food for thought and challenges to make Phase 2 more rigorous, dramatic and appealing to both scientific and lay audiences.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Posted: 8 August 2018
Updated: 

RPK Icon
Yesterday (7 Aug) in a telecom with filmmaker Caroline Cory, we discussed Step 1.0 in the recent proposed protocol for the RPK Experiment. Caroline is interested in presenting this experiment in a future film. For openers, we discussed an appropriate location to conduct "Phase 2", which we agreed needs to be in an earth-stable location, such as southern Utah or near Phoenix, Arizona. We want to minimize possible seismic influences and background noise compromising the movement of objects to be influenced, which influenced movements are to be recorded by motion-activated cameras by well dispersed, assigned remote influencers. We agreed that California was not a good option for this, given its unstable history.

Another factor we considered is providing a minimum of external temperature fluctuations within the host physical structure. An ideal setting would be a room with a constant air-conditioning system if situated in a hot climate such as Utah or Arizona.

A third factor we discussed is the possibility of inviting other psychokinesis investigators to collaborate with us at the same place. This, of course, would necessitate providing different compartments in the host housing structure, so that two or more experimental projects would not interfere with each other. Caroline is investigating the feasibility of this possibility.

Step 1.1 is now the rebuilding the original "Phase 1" device that I recently sent off to the University archives, before becoming re-involved with this Phase 2 project.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Wrestling with RPK Phase 2 Protocol with Quinn Marksteiner

Event: 4 August 2018
Updated: 15 Aug 18

Quinn and son circa 2014

You may remember that it was Quinn, who was in on the first attempt at RPK in 2009 with Jack Houck and influencer Norma in California while Quinn, Birgitta and I were here in Los Alamos to work the experiment with each other over a telephone conference call. This was before we had added the movement-activated cameras because of the unexpected and apparently massive results on that first run. [See: https://rpkexperiment.blogspot.com/…/first-remote-pk-party.…]

It was Quinn who helped build the subsequent supporting equipment with motion-activated cameras and internet connectivity. And it was he who witnessed the one successful strike in 2015 by Kyra Kitts, before I shipped off all my Phase 1 equipment last April (2018) to the University of Utah archives, believing I was done with this experiment and leaving a note in the box sent to the university with suggestions about a phase 2, should anyone be interested to continue. I mean, I thought I was finished with it!
I hadn't counted on George Weissmann jumping into the project only weeks later via Skype and email, urging me to continue and introducing me to other influencers, beginning with Caroline Cory and Rebecca Hardcastle Wright, which pulled me back into phase 2 sooner than I had dreamed would happen.
It was fun to introduce Quinn to Caroline Cory's E.T. Contact film and Rebecca's Exoconsciousness work, which was all new to him. So, I was eager to have him rigorously review DRAFT 3 of the protocol, which we spent all afternoon doing today (4 Aug 18).
That is the reason for this post, my friends. Quinn had much to say about how we should restructure the protocol, which I hadn't thought of, so that the experiment can withstand the skeptical scientific slings and arrows that will inevitably come flying after we launch the new protocol.


Thursday, August 2, 2018

RPK Phase 2 Protocol, DRAFT 3

Posted: 2 August 2018
Updated: 8 Sep 18
CONVERGING
 Dear RPK Phase 2 potential influencers, 

Below is DRAFT 3 for our up-coming experiment. Since most main line scientists are skeptical of paranormal phenomena, I have given it to several world class skeptical physicists here associated with the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with this question: 

Assuming positive results from this protocol, will it constitute irrefutable evidence that the phenomenon of remote psychokinesis (telekinesis) is real? If not, why not?

Once I get their feedback, I will finalize the protocol and launch our experiment. I will contact each of you personally with which time slot, A, B, C, D or E you are asked to fill. This will include a GPS coordinates location of the device and a date in your personal time zone. Results will be reported in terms of GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).

If any of you have further questions or suggestions, please let me know as soon as possible via my gmail address.

DRAFT 3

RPK Phase 2 Protocol Draft3


INTRODUCTION
This protocol is offered to talented potential influencers who have volunteered to participate in this on-going experiment. The purpose of Phase 2 is to provide irrefutable evidence of MACRO REMOTE PSYCHOKINESIS (RPK). Anticipated results will provide prototype training methodology for others who wish to develop their own RPK capability. Results will be posted here: https://rpkexperiment.blogspot.com/. The protocol will include the following steps:

Step 1.0. SET UP. The original RPK Phase 1 device will be reproduced and updated by Caroline Cory's team. The device will be at a TBD location, which will include GPS coordinates disclosed only to each influencer prior to their respective runs. We will post photographs of the CORE system, the general outline of the room housing the system and the general terrain external to the building housing the system.
Step 1.1. Device CORE consists of two identical TARGET OBJECTS hanging on... [deleted description of the RPK system, which is under redesign as of 8 Sep 18] [See https-//rpkexperiment.blogspot.com/ January 3, 2010 for Phase 1 Light Box with camera setup.]
Step 1.2. A third video camera is strategically located outside the CORE (such as attached to the room's ceiling) and electronically linked to the CORE cameras so that any possible, extraneous external influence will be detected and recorded. Images from all three cameras appear on the MONITOR in a split screen, which is external to the core.

Step 2. ROUND ONE (series of 3 to 5 runs). An initial tbd several-week period without intentional influencer activity will test the system to assure the system is stable and without false positive activity. A deliberate external disturbance (such as jumping on the floor near the system) may be applied at strategic times to activate and calibrate the motion-activated camera system. (Both TARGET OBJECTS would be expected to bounce together to trigger camera activity.)

Step 2.1. Up to five initial candidate INFLUENCERS, A, B, C, D & E, will be pre-scheduled for the first round Phase 2 series of runs. Influencers will be given one 48-hr time slot in which to influence the target. These influencer time slots will be followed by a null period of TBD days (up to a week), which will remain unscheduled for influencer activity. Specified time slots for specific influencer activity will be protected from any other influencer, so that s/he may try personal methods and keeping a careful LOG of personal attempts.

Step 2.2. Since the ultimate objective of Phase 2 is to develop a teaching methodology for future influencers, each Phase 2 influencer is expected to keep a detailed log, which is to contain a record of the influencer's personal style of preparation and activity. These logs are encouraged to include a record of mood, personal techniques, attitude, etc. Personal thoughts, feelings, intentions, frustrations, etc. are all welcome information. Also expected is a description of the external conditions, including weather, temperature, comfort level, any background noise, distractions, etc. during a given run.

Step 3. PREFERRED EFFECT ON THE TARGET is that only one of the two identical hanging objects is influenced by an easily identified motion, while leaving the other object unaffected (motionless). A pendulum-like motion is IDEAL for the chosen target object. HOWEVER, we do not want to overprescribe what each influencer chooses to do! For example, if an influencer wishes to influence both objects, then each object must evidence a clearly differentiated motion relative to the other object. If both objects move alike, this is NOT interesting. If only one object moves without affecting the other, this is the most interesting! Crashing objects into each other would also be interesting! Let this be a fun, creative exercise!

Step 4. Initiating a RUN.
Step 4.1. An email launch date and time will be sent by the PHASE 2 Coordinator to a given INFLUENCER, who will then begin her/his personal LOG. At the end of the assigned 48-hour time slot, the RUN will be considered complete and followed by a TBD period of deliberate inactivity.
Step 4.2. At the end of the first 48 hour and following null (inactive) period, a second RUN will be launched via email notification, per the above procedure, etc. This will continue until all ROUND ONE Influencers have completed their respected runs.

Step 5. REPORTING a run
Each run consists of an active and a passive component. The active component consists of the influencer's attempts to affect the target during his/her respective pre-scheduled window of opportunity. The passive component consists of the target system electronically recording any physical effect on the target during the run.
Step 5.1. At the end of a given RUN, the INFLUENCER will send an email account of the specific times s/he attempted to affect the TARGET to the coordinator. When this is complete, the coordinator will alert the next INFLUENCER when to launch their respective RUN.
Step 5.2. At the end of a given RUN and null period, the TECHNICAL MONITOR will email to the coordinator a time-stamped account of all activity during this combined period.
Step 5.3.  All email messages from and to the Coordinator regarding all RUNs, will be copied to one or two TBD trusted, respected and independent scientific witnesses.

Step 6. ANALYZING DATA. Technical monitors of the Phase 2 system will report any activity to a Central Coordinator, who will compare influencer log data for a given run. Positive or negative correlations between log entries and camera records of movement will be communicated to the specific influencer and the assigned referees.

Step 7. REFEREES. Selecting credible members of the scientific community to reach consensus that successful results of this experiment would represent unequivocal evidence that the phenomenon of remote psychokinesis is real.

Step 8. Gathering FIRST ROUND Data.
Step 8.1 Collating all results into a publishable written form
Step 8.2 Putting recorded images together for one of Caroline Cory's next films.

Step 9. DOUBLE BLIND CONSIDERATIONS. To achieve a double-blind procedure, the influencer would initiate the effort at a time unknown to anyone else. This time would be recorded and sent to a third party at agreed upon times, perhaps at the first of the month. The records of the target response would be sent to the same third party at the same time.  The third party would compare the attempt with the response and determine whether a relationship existed.  The third party needs to be independent of this study with no relationship to any of the participants.

Step 10. COST considerations
10.1. Preparing funding proposal to Bial Foundation inrtugal.