Original post: 24 January 2010
Updated: 2 February 2010
Purpose: we are attempting to generate a non-consensus reality (NCR) event within the field of consensus realty (CR). Remote psychokinesis (RPK) is the NCR event anticipated. The RPK device with surveillance cameras and digital video recorder (DVR) equipment is the CR field. See here for RPK experiment review.
Stage 1. Week One (January 25-31, 2010)
Norma has free reign. No restrictions. During week one Norma will choose one hanging object to focus on and attempt to move it in any way she chooses while not affecting the other. When and how to do this, is up to her. She need not notify me beforehand of any action nor does she need to be in contact with me at any time during the first week unless she chooses. At the end of the week (on February 1, 2010) we will report to each other and take inventory of the PC recording. This blog will report experimental results as they occur stage by stage.
Note the various ways the two hanging objects can move: bobbing up and down; swinging; twisting, twirling (two-dimensional, rotational swinging); distorting; levitating without hanging, breaking the hooks or springs holding objects (so that object falls to bottom of cylinder), stretching the spring(s). (There may be other ways not yet thought of or imagined.)
Assessment. Norma will first report via email what she has attempted during stage 1. That is, when and for how long and what type of effect she had in mind. She will describe her methods as fully as possible. I will then report what the PC record shows.
If there is SIGNIFICANT movement, we will correlate our respective reports and describe it here. These results will determine how to proceed with future stages.
If there is NO movement, we will proceed to: Stage 2. Week Two. (Specific steps to be determined.)
Monday, 1 February 2010
Another Unexpected Result.
Norma called to describe her experience of Phase 2 this past week. With me to hear her report was LANL physicist Quinn Marksteiner, who has participated in this experiment since Phase 1 last summer.
Norma reported four attempts to move one of the two objects in the RPK device without affecting the other. Her reported methods varied for each attempt as she was at different locations and sometimes under stressful circumstances.
Attempt 1: Monday 0730.
Attempt 2: Monday 1300
Attempt 3.Thursday evening
Attempt 4. Sunday 1335
After the call Quinn and I reviewed the PC record. The recorder had been triggered multiple times during the week, but with no apparent correspondence with Norma's four attempts. On closer inspection we discovered a light leak through a 1-inch hole in the bottom of the birch box through which the power and PC connecting cables from the east-looking camera are threaded. The camera is extremely light sensitive, which is why we installed it in a supposedly light-tight box in the first place. Apparently that 1-inch hole still lets too much light in. Quinn stuffed a cloth underneath the box to cover the hole in lieu of putting a more permanent opaque tape over it. In a few days we will review the PC record to see if that solve the problem. He bumped the box in the process, which triggered the DVR recording. The swinging objects took approximately ten minutes to dampen below the triggering movement.
Tuesday, 2 February.
The unexpected result was Norma's report of two specific dreams containing references to the RPK experiment that came to her just BEFORE Attempt # 1!
It didn't dawn on me until this morning while driving the school bus that this news is a HUGE NCR leap forward in my own anticipated view for this experimental series. In fact, I had hoped to find convergence between the RPK approach and Dreaming process some time in the future. Indeed, that was my original intention back in 1978 when working with the Eyring Research Institute proposal for the USAF. That was the proposal for which Jack Houck had been an anonymous DOD referee years before we became acquainted. It is fascinating that Norma's psyche has now presented us with this future at the very beginning of her phase! Let us see if her dreams are maps for the next stage.
When she sends the details of both dreams, we will discuss their relevance (if we are clever or wise enough to see it) and then again reexamine our experimental approach.