Michelle and Others Correctly Predict the Outcome of the 2012 Presidential Election

Remote Viewers Correctly Predict the Outcome of the 2012 Presidential Election “An expedition into the unexplored territory of remote viewing & rating human subjects as targets, within a binary protocol” 

By Debra Lynne Katz

This Peer Reviewed Paper was accepted as a full Paper into the International Parapsychology Association 56th Annual Conference in Viterbo, Italy, where project organizer, Debra L. Katz, presented it.

It was published in the Spring/Summer 2013 issue of Aperture Magazine, published by the International Remote Viewing Association. Access a copy here.

(Full Citation: Katz, Debra & Bulgatz, Michelle. Aperture Magazine, Spring/Summer 2013 Issue. Page 46 to 56).

Remote Viewers Correctly Predict the Outcome of the 2012 Presidential Election

“An expedition into the unexplored territory of remote viewing & rating human subjects as targets, within a binary protocol” by Debra Lynne Katz

Lead Researchers/Project Managers: Debra Lynne Katz/Michelle Bulgatz

Analysts – Statistician – Analytic Tool Developer: Alexis Poquiz
Report Edited by: Jon Noble

Remote Viewers

Michelle Beltran, Jon Noble, Deborah Sherif, Laura Shelton, Paul Hennessy, Patsy Posey, Dolphin, David Beatty, Dan Hofficaker, Jason Brown, Russ Evans

Abstract

Researchers designed a project to determine whether 11 remote viewers, utilizing a double blind protocol, could describe a human subject in enough detail so raters could choose between 2 potential candidates in order to predict the outcome of the 2012 United States Presidential Election.

Remote viewers utilize intuitive yet structured protocols to obtain information that lies outside their analytic mind or current knowledge base.

Unlike other intuitive disciplines that focus on human subjects, these are the least utilized targets in remote viewing.

Researchers set out to answer (1). How strongly the viewer’s candidate preference effected their session? (2). How a project involving a human target differs from those utilizing objects and locations? (3). Is use of human targets in remote viewing related research projects or applied precognition projects involving binary outcomes something that researchers or project managers may want to consider? (4). Which of session rating method/system is the most helpful with human subject targets? (5). Why are human subjects targets typically not utilized in formal RV research studies when they are quite often the main focus for intuitive practitioners?

Methodology: 11 remote viewers were tasked only with “The target is a person”. Sessions were turned in one week prior to the election. Each word and sketch from each session was input into a spreadsheet, and compared to both candidates with the use of the Targ Scale, then the more sensitive Dung Beetle System. After the election, viewers were informed that they had been tasked with viewing the elected candidate, President Obama. Later viewers were surveyed for their candidate preference. Once the scoring had been completed, the results were sent to Alexis Poquiz who calculated the percent that matched (Correct), did not match (Wrong) and that were Unknown for both candidates.

Findings – Out of 11 sessions, 8 matched Obama, and 3 matched Romney. The ‘Lower Q%’ score also yielded an overall group prediction for Obama. The viewers’ preference for a particular candidate was compared to their judged prediction. 7 out of 11 viewers indicated a preference towards a particular candidate. All 7 voiced a preference for the candidate that their session pointed to, including one whose session pointed towards the wrong candidate.

Conclusion – (1). Human targets are more challenging to rate than location/object based targets due to inherent similarities between humans; viewer’s subjective relational descriptors; and rater’s personal biases perpetrated by competing media outlets and an inability to perceive a subject’s inner life in the way a remote viewer can. (2). Human targets in remote viewing related research projects or applied precognition projects involving binary outcomes should not be considered unless only one option target in the pairing includes a human. (3). Poquiz’s Dung Beetle Scale proved itself to be a superior rating tool. (4). Viewer preference may be as problematic as telepathic overlay in remote viewing research and projects. Utilizing a blind protocol does not and cannot control against this.

Full Report

For the full report provided by Debra L. Katz, click here.

This entry was posted in . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *