Discussion of precognition in the journal Psychology of Consciousness

Vortex pointed out that all the issues of the Journal for Scientific Exploration are now available online. In the current issue is a paper entitled "An Ethnographical Assessment of Project Firefly: A Yearlong Endeavor to Create Wealth by Predicting FOREX Currency Moves with Associative Remote Viewing" by Debra Lynne Katz, Igor Grgic and T. W. Fendley.

From the abstract:
More than 60 remote viewers contributed 177 intuitive-based associative remote viewing (ARV) predictions over a 14-month period.
...
Investors, many of whom were also participants (viewers and judges), pooled investment funds totaling $56,300 with the stated goal of “creating wealth aggressively.” Rather than meeting that goal, however, most of the funds were lost over the course of the project.

Debra Lynne Katz, the first author of that paper on "Project Firefly" wrote a review of "The Premonition Code" by Theresa Cheung and Julia Mossbridge earlier this year. Marty Rosenblatt, one of the organisers of Project Firefly, is quoted in the book as claiming stellar results in subsequent years (Firefly was terminated at the end of 2015):
". . . in the case of APPI . . . from the years 2015 to 2017 . . . the funds under management produced annualized returns of 63 per cent in 2015, 155 per cent in 2016, and 22 per cent in 2017. That’s using all of their precogs—when just the best performers are included, annualized returns averaged 215 per cent. That doesn’t tell us whether in the next year these numbers could go south, but it does tell us that there is a decent track record."

Katz asks why the book quotes only this claim of success, without mentioning the earlier failure of Firefly. (However, the paper on Firefly by Katz et al. appeared only six months before the book, so perhaps it had already gone to press by that time?)

Vortex pointed out that all the issues of the Journal for Scientific Exploration are now available online. In the current issue is a paper entitled "An Ethnographical Assessment of Project Firefly: A Yearlong Endeavor to Create Wealth by Predicting FOREX Currency Moves with Associative Remote Viewing" by Debra Lynne Katz, Igor Grgic and T. W. Fendley.

From the abstract:
More than 60 remote viewers contributed 177 intuitive-based associative remote viewing (ARV) predictions over a 14-month period.
...
Investors, many of whom were also participants (viewers and judges), pooled investment funds totaling $56,300 with the stated goal of “creating wealth aggressively.” Rather than meeting that goal, however, most of the funds were lost over the course of the project.

Speaking of funding; I brought up the Rewards for Justice program to Debra Katz, asking why there was no effort to locate terrorists and collect the rewards, since Katz was suddenly put in charge of the International Remote Viewing Association. This could supply millions of dollars for research and supply some credit to the many people who spend a lot of money for her International School of Clairvoyance or other classes, webinars, seminars, books, and training.
I got no response, of course.
They could be locating missing children or doing things to get more support from donors, and this type of attention would likely generate other types of funding.
I just mentioned this because if there is sufficient skill to match some of these claims, I also don't see why these skills aren't being used to further the cause.
I had to conclude that they just don't have what it takes, and are not the droids we are looking for.
Just like the programs the US Gov invested in for many years, the issue has always been accuracy and on-demand skill. It wasn't that the US Gov had zero success. They just couldn't steer and control that success on demand, and it wasn't always accurate. Maybe doesn't work when you are counting on proper intelligence reports.
Many of those in charge of funding and research don't have any skills themselves, totally understandable, but a college degree appears to be keeping them paid by organizations and doing experiments, and in charge of who they test and why. Even the best of the best have good days and bad days, understandably.
I assume that the reason we aren't moving forward is because they are too busy selling books and speaking. I haven't seen Katz perform, nor do I know if she actually can perform, and has done it for the lab. I would think that someone in charge of RV should be adept at RV.

So, if we go back to the research, the sources, the data, the claims, and the participants, and then peel open the facts, often we see that they have not selected the best of the best or actually seriously looked for the key ingredient, which is a skilled or adept person that can access things like the location of a terrorist or the stock market of tomorrow.

We all know that if you can publicly locate anyone you wish, at any time, you become a threat to the National Security of every government. So there is also that part of the equation. If you start buying and selling stocks, and never miss, you will be put on a watchlist or investigated for insider trading. So it isn't going to be easy, or accepted, and it likely isn't possible to do.

It does drag me back to the discussion of why things only work sometimes. I enjoy entertaining the idea of a quantum element, where things here and now have to be aligned with quantum things distant and future for people to be able to see them clearly. It could include the EM spectrum or some resonance that has to be the same now as it will be in the future scenario. There are ways to test and measure some of these ideas, but I haven't seen anyone try.