Applied Precognition Project (APP) 2014 Conference-Workshop-Webinar by Marty Rosenblatt, Jon Knowles
Applied Precognition Project (APP) 2014 Conference-Workshop-Webinar
Marty Rosenblatt, Jon Knowles, Alexis Poquiz
APP-2014 was facilitated by Joe McMoneagle and Marty Rosenblatt. It had elements of a conference, workshop and webinar.
Conference attendees listened to renowned speakers in the fields of precognition, RV and ARV. The speakers included Dean Radin, Joe McMoneagle, James Spottiswoode and Greg Kolodziejzyk.
The workshop included predicting seven baseball games, which resulted in 6 wagering hits, 1 wagering miss (6 games during the formal APP-2014 and 1 game in the Introduction Workshop)
The webinar featured six formal presentations broadcasted live via the internet.
Intro Workshop (June 23)
A day before APP-2014 officially started, Joe led an Introductory Workshop focusing on standard Binary Associative Remote Viewing (ARV). There was also a non-ARV presentation by Dave Silverstein opening people up to other ways to experience precognition. The Intro was entitled, “Foretelling the Future, Applying Precognition to Sports/Financials, Introduction and Training by Doing it!” During the Intro, we applied ARV to the FOReign EXchange (FOREX) market in the morning and a sports game in the afternoon. Some wagered for the first time and won! Many of the participants in the Introduction Workshop also attended APP-2014.
Day 1 (June 24)
Each of the three days during APP-2014 focused on a different ARV approach for applying precognition. Day 1 was standard Binary ARV. Two prediction were made, one before lunch and the other after lunch. Some viewers did the remote viewing while others did the independent analysis/judging. Joe led the judging in the morning and Nancy Smith led the afternoon judging session. Joe applied his analytic approach to judging which relies heavily on first gestalt impressions. Nancy, on the other hand, led her judging session using the SRI/Targ Confidence Ranking method. There were winning wagers based on both predictions.
We wagered on “Over/Under”. This is a type of wager where the odds-makers set the “line” for the total number of runs in the game, and we have to predict whether the actual number of runs will be over or under the line. Hey, we were in Las Vegas and those that chose to wager “wagered wisely”, which is quite important. Reducing the stress associated with a prediction generally increases the probability of success. Anyway, who wants to keep doing ARV if there is stress involved. This is a voluntary activity which can be for fun and profit. Always wager wisely, if you wager. Many ARVers don’t wager and do it to explore their own consciousness…and to explore communication with their submerged consciousness.
Webinar 1: Skip Atwater and Marty Rosenblatt
“Nonlocal Empathy” was to be presented by Skip Atwater as the first webinar. However, he could not make it and Marty presented what was basically Skip’s presentation.
The meaning of nonlocal empathy as it relates to ARV is summarized nicely by the following: “Hypothetically, the more empathetic the ARV practitioner becomes with future-self, the greater the conscious awareness of the designated feedback experience.”
The empathy here is truly nonlocal, entangling information between the RV session and the Feedback Session. So perhaps the ongoing research on ‘mirror neurons’ that seems to provide a neurological basis for empathy will also eventually be shown to be involved with our consciousness being nonlocal.
Empathy has many different textbook definitions with two major components. From an ARV entanglement perspective these two components are:
Affective Empathy: also called emotional empathy: the capacity to respond with an appropriate emotion to future-self's mental states.
Cognitive Empathy: the capacity to understand the future-self's perspective or mental state.
Empathy has both the emotional and intellectual components. The intellectual component is necessary so you can record the precognitive experience in a transcript. The emotional component probably serves to strengthen entanglements in a nonlocal fashion.
Conclusion for ARVers and RVers who get feedback: You are nonlocal when you RV and empathetically entangle with your ‘future-self’ during the associated FeedBack Session. Also, your FeedBack Session empathetically entangles with your “earlier-self” in your RV Session. You are indeed a nonlocal being connected to “outside of time”.
Webinar 2: Greg Kolodziejzyk
The second webinar was by Greg Kolodziejzyk, known affectionately to most of us as GregK. He did tell us how to pronounce his name, “It’s Gr-eh-gg”. He spoke about a paper he wrote that was published in the Journal of Parapsychology, “Greg Kolodziejzyk’s 13-Year Associative Remote Viewing Experiment Results”.
In his experiment, he was the only viewer and used self-judging. He utilized a consensus approach for his judging. His overall statistical significance is very high, with a z-score of 4. However, what is most impressive to us is his persistence and the long-term hit rates he achieved for his consensus based projects. He had 285 project questions (precognitive tasks). Most of the predictions involved futures markets; e.g., predicting the future price of gold.
He did a total of 5,677 ARV trials. His Hit Rate on the 285 predictions was 60.3%. This hit rate was increased to over 70% by increasing the number of trials in a project question, and giving more weight to higher subjective confidence scores reflecting the quality of the match between the remote viewing and one of the two target images.
Greg used a 0 to 4 subjective confidence score, this is similar to the 0 to 7 Confidence Ranking scoring system. Greg’s data show a significant correlation between his subjective scores and the associated hit rate the higher the score, the higher the hit rate.
The good news is that the higher the scores, the better the expected hit rate. The not-so-good news is that higher scores are much less likely to occur, at least in this study.
181 predictions resulted in actual futures trades where capital was risked. Of these, 60% of the trades were profitable, amounting to approximately $150,000. So, this is another example of making money applying ARV over the long-term.
Evening Program: Spoon Bending Party
This fun and very successful program was led by Debra Katz and Michelle Bulgatz. After a one minute pep talk about discarding limits of what's possible, and asking participants to describe past PK successes, of which there were many, someone jumped up and shouted, "Come on everyone, let's do it!" At that point, pandemonium broke loose and spoons and forks seemed to melt into all sorts of odd contortions. People ran about the room, fluctuating between yelling/flirting at their cutlery until it gave way.
If a picture is worth a thousand words. Here are many thousands of words to share the fun we had.
Day 2 (June 25)
The group applied the Winning Entanglements (WE) protocol for making two baseball game predictions.
In a standard ARV prediction, there is one coordinate, one transcript and one target (usually a photo). There are two “possible targets”, one associated with the event of an Over outcome and the other associated with the event of an Under outcome. (Over and Under are the two possible “Sides”.) At the end of a game the outcome for the winning side is revealed. The viewer is then shown the actualized target, which is the target associated with the actual outcome. The other photo is discarded.
WE is similar to doing two standard ARV predictions, but with a twist. In a WE prediction, there are two coordinates, two transcripts and two targets. The twist is that instead of associating each possible target with the over or under event:
One target is associated with the “Winning Side” while the other is associated with the “Other Side”.
One coordinate is randomly associated with Over and one is associated with Under.
The two targets may be considered possible targets since they are not yet associated with over or under. Both will become targets, however neither photo is discarded.
The actual Over or Under Winning Side (known, for sure, after the game) then determines the actualized coordinate for the Winning Side target; similarly, the association of the coordinate with the Other Side target is actualized. Thus the two important ARV FeedBack sessions can be performed with the appropriate targets/transcripts/coordinates.
Tasking: 2 precognitive RV transcripts are requested with 2 coordinates:
Describe/Sketch Your 123456 Feedback Target
Describe/Sketch Your 654321 Feedback Target
At the time of the tasking, but hidden from the viewers,
Coordinates are randomly associated with the two sides,123456 for Over654321 for Under
The 2 Targets are selected and one is randomly chosen as the “Winning Side Target” and the second is designated as the “Other Side Target”.
The viewer uploads 2 transcripts, one for each coordinate, to the APP server/database. Each transcript is associated with one of the two targets only when the game outcome is known.
We encourage viewers to self-judge and this step occurs right after they submit their transcripts, since they are already online.
Feedback is supplied after the game, when the Winning Side (and therefore the Other Side) is known. For example, if the game results in a total score of 10 runs and the line was 7 1/2, then
Over is the “Winning Side” and coordinate 123456 is now known, for sure, to be associated with the “Winning Side Target” and the 123456 transcript.
Under is the “Other Side” and 654321 is now known, for sure, to be associated with the “Other Side Target” and other transcript.
This approach is designed for the viewer to do her/his own viewing, analysis/judging and feedback. The viewer is in charge and fully responsible for the WE personal prediction. In the WE protocol, the focus is on increasing each viewer's precognitive capabilities using their own intention, attention and expectation.
In addition, we believe in the power of the group as well. Multiple viewers are generally involved in making an actual “Group Prediction” that is used for wagering. This was done in Vegas and is done via the Internet throughout the year. The first WE prediction was a miss. Yes, misses do happen. There was much discussion about WE versus other approaches, which may have been distracting to some viewers. The second WE prediction described the winning side and led to winning wagers. WE applies a combined consensus approach for personal and group predictions.
One WE group that started in May 2014, a sporting group with a new group manager, has a 91% Hit Rate (10 Hits, 1 Miss, 3 Passes) as of Sept 8, 2014. The other WE groups now doing Forex predictions are not doing as well. Currently in the 60% hit rate range. There is more to ARVing than just the protocol as was extensively discussed during the workshop. For example, viewer skills, general manager skills, and judging methodologies probably explain many differences within any given protocol. Data is being, and will continue to be, accumulated to clarify the wide variations seen between groups. The objective is to improve both individual and group hit rates.
Webinar 3 – Joe McMoneagle
The first webinar on this day was by Joe entitled, “Getting Better at Precognition”. Joe enthralled us, as usual, with new stories and examples from the early operational and scientific work in remote viewing. He also discussed very practical ideas like:
We were lucky enough to also have Joe participate with the group in a standard binary ARV prediction and a WE prediction. His transcripts and the associated Targets follow…actually quite amazing matches, no matter how long you are around precognition!
Here is Joe's binary ARV transcript and the associated target.
Here is Joe's Winning Entanglements (WE) transcript and the associated target.
Joe shows here, as do the many other excellent transcripts from the workshop participants, that the differences in protocol are less important than just letting the precognitive information flow from the subconscious to the transcript.
Concerning differences in protocols, Debra Katz wrote the following about his presentation: “Joe McMoneagle helped participants to understand that sometimes less is more. He demonstrated that when it comes to ARV sessions, all that is needed from a viewer is to describe the initial ‘gestalts’ that come to mind. These may be shapes, words, concepts, colors and really anything that stands out about a target. They can be broad concepts or particular words. His definition of the word gestalt is very different from that used in Controlled Remote Viewing terminology, which uses the term to mean the most basic aspect of one thing. As Lyn Buchanan wrote on his CRV website: “dew, lake, ocean, sweat, rain, ice, etc., all have the gestalt of water. If you were to add gasoline, bleach, and oil to that list, the basic gestalt would be liquid.”
Joe also felt that a viewer shouldn't have to have more than one page of data for a session. In fact, when observing him rate sessions, it was clear he wasn't even considering what was included on the second or third pages of remote viewers’ sessions. When questioned about this, his response was, “Most of the useful information will be on the first page; viewers start to get derailed or encounter displacement if they sped too much time or effort in an ARV session”.
Furthermore, Joe handles Analytic Overlay different than do many remote viewers, particularly those trained in CRV. For example, Joe believes that if a viewer writes ‘AOL’ next to a word, that viewer is doing so precisely because he/she is pretty sure it's not accurate and should be discarded. However, many viewers, including myself have been trained that if we get any high level noun, such as ‘dog’ or ‘boat’ that we should include it so that it can be considered in a session by the rater, who usually understands that it may not be correct but may contain some useful hints about the target.
This experience helped me to see how important rater/viewer communication is, and how important the defining of words is because even when two people use the same word in remote viewing, they may mean two different things. It was also a reminder that viewers can adjust the way they do things when asked or made aware that this will help the overall process. Many people don't realize that viewers can be versatile when given the proper instructions and opportunity to change.”
Joe also told us a little about a new RV experiment he is doing with Ed May concerning very large changes in physical entropy. This is a natural follow-up to the photographic entropy changes used in CAS. These physical entropy changes are done using liquid nitrogen poured out at some “Outbounder” target sites and not others. Which ones are which is kept completely blind to both Ed and Joe. The project is about half over.
Webinar 4: James Spottiswoode: “Precognition and Physical Factors”
James has been doing scientific research in the general area of psi for many years. He began by reviewing earlier work and the general topic of how physics usually proceeds. He also discussed the problems with changing existing theories, for example quantum mechanics and general relativity, since these changes tend to falsify the existing experiments.
15 years ago or so, James started looking for physical variables that might modulate psi. He wanted to start with the highest effect size data since there is so much noise in psi data. He concluded that the free response work of RV and the Ganzfeld experiments were the best data set and he focused there.
He looked at LST (Local Sidereal Time), even though he felt it was not a primary variable. He gathered the data because of analogies to reflection, say off the moon, which is very direction-orientation dependent. LST is orientation dependent between the earth and the stars. When he looked at that data, there was indeed a strong positive effect at 13:30 LST with a slight negative effect at about 18:00 LST. This was published in his 1997 paper, in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 11 No. 2, under the title, “Apparent Association Between Effect Size in Free Response Anomalous Cognition Experiments and Local Sidereal Time”. It utilized about 2,500 trials from 41 peer-reviewed published studies.
In the best tradition of science, James continued to collect more data. He now has a new database which is roughly ten times bigger than in the earlier study. His data includes the work of GregK that we heard about on the previous day. Unfortunately, the new database does not support the original findings. Greg’s data was not dominant, in case you were wondering, although he too did not see a significant LST effect. At the left is James’s precognition effect size chart (zero means no effect, 0.1 is, roughly speaking, a moderate effect).
And here are the summary and conclusion charts that James presented. James reported this informally at the APP meeting before formally publishing the results, and we thank him for that.
Evening Program: Direct Psi Dowsing and Psychical Arts Party
This was organized by Dave Silverstein. Dave started the evening by ge