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."



Friday, August 9, 2019

RPK Phase 3, Runs 1 & 2 from Russia

Posted: 9 August 2019
Updated: 

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.

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
Updated:


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


NO CLEAN CONTROL PERIOD ESTABLISHED TO JUDGE PK
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). 
A) NO 24-HOUR PERIOD OF NON-MOVEMENT
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). 
B) VERY LONG DURATION OF EFFECTS OF CALIBRATION JUMPS
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. 
C) APPEARANCE OF EFFECTS WITHOUT CAUSATION
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.
D) WITNESSED BALLS MOVING WHEN YOU WALKED BY THEM
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.


CORRELATIONS WITH MY RPK EFFORTS FROM MAY 22-MAY 24

MY RPK INFLUENCING TIME PERIODS
 (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.

YELLOW LINES REGISTERING BALL MOVEMENTS
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

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT MY RPK RESULTS
MY RPK RESULTS
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. 

POSSIBLE RPK PRE OR POST INFLUENCING
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.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
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.