The IONS Research Prize calls for rigorous, prospective, instrumented investigation of consciousness-associated anomalous phenomena. This proposal advances the field beyond anecdotal contact reports by making the human state measured, the observations independently captured and adjudicated, the protocol pre-registered, and the whole design falsifiable. A null result is a real, publishable outcome that constrains the field.
This study tests a specific, bounded model: that directed collective attention held in a physiologically-coherent group state functions as an initiating condition for anomalous aerial observation. The claim under test is conditional association — that observations occur at a higher rate during measured high-coherence contact windows than during matched control windows — not that any mechanism is understood.
The proposal is deliberately agnostic on mechanism. It does not assert how consciousness would relate to the phenomenon; it commits only to measuring whether the association exists. This restraint is intentional — it is what keeps the study falsifiable and its results interpretable.
A pre-registered, replicated, blind-adjudicated association between measured coherence and anomalous observation would be significant evidence for a consciousness-associated interaction effect — and would warrant a focused mechanistic research program. It would also establish a reproducible protocol the field currently lacks.
A well-powered null meaningfully constrains the CE5 / intentional-contact claim, replacing anecdote with a bounded negative result. The study still yields a rigorous open dataset on group coherence, physiology, and field observation of value to the field regardless of outcome.
The protocol must be concrete enough to replicate. Each session runs a defined sequence with a pre-declared, synchronized directed-attention epoch — the "contact window" — that serves as the timestamped event boundary for analysis.
A "response" is not a participant's subjective impression. It is an independently captured, cross-validated anomalous aerial observation occurring within the pre-registered response window, that survives pre-specified exclusion of conventional explanations and is scored by adjudicators blind to the coherence data. This is the distinction that separates the study from HRV-plus-skywatching: the measured coherence-and-intention state is the tested initiating condition, and responses are counted only when objective, exclusion-passed, and blind-scored.
The independent variable is a measured collective conscious state (coherence + directed intention), and the test is whether adjudicated observations are conditionally associated with that state versus matched controls. Skywatching has no measured state variable and no control condition; this protocol has both.
H2 is a falsifiable conditional association, not an assumed outcome. Significance thresholds, correction for multiple comparisons, and null models are fixed in advance (see Statistics). A null result is publishable.
A blinded, clearly-labeled exploratory arm tests one bounded question — testing an effect, and staying agnostic on mechanism:
The idea motivating this arm — that intention-focused, structured water may influence the drinker's coherence — is stated as a hypothesis under test, not an established mechanism. The study measures whether the intervention has an effect; it makes no assertion that intention is "stored" as information in water. That information-imprinting mechanism is unproven in the controlled literature and lies explicitly outside this study's claims. A null result is fully expected-value and is published as such.
Because this arm involves an ingested substance, water sourcing, purity, and safety are reviewed and approved by the study physicians (Dr. Fadul, Dr. Fedor) and the IRB before use. Consent explicitly covers ingestion; participants may decline this arm while remaining in the study.
The scene depicts the protocol in operation: screened participants seated together in shared, measured coherence during a contact window while both channels monitor the sky. It shows what the study does — and shows the sky as an open question, not a rendered craft.
Concrete logistics IONS will expect. Targets below are the proposed design; the PI finalizes exact counts and sites at pre-registration. PI to confirm final numbers
| Parameter | Proposed |
|---|---|
| Sessions | ~24 field sessions — balanced contact vs. matched control, counterbalanced |
| Sites | 2–3 low-light-pollution locations, clear horizon, controlled access — selected for documented electromagnetic / geomagnetic anomalies (see below) |
| Participants | Screened coherence-capable cohort (~12 per session) |
| Sky monitoring | Continuous all-sky camera + trained-observer coverage |
| Exclusion feeds | ADS-B (aircraft), satellite ephemeris, drone/bird/atmospheric criteria |
| Weather rules | Pre-defined visibility/cloud thresholds; documented abort criteria |
| Adjudication | Blinded multi-rater panel; inter-rater reliability reported |
| Data pipeline | Synchronized clock · timestamped physiology + observation logs · pre-registered analysis · open data (OSF) |
Before full field sessions begin, a pilot must show the group reliably reaches ≥0.35 sustained coherence and that instrumentation captures clean, exclusion-ready sky data. Failure triggers protocol revision before proceeding — not silent continuation.
Field sites are chosen in part for documented electromagnetic / geomagnetic anomalies, a pre-specified and measurable selection criterion rather than an intuition. This is motivated by the published literature associating geomagnetic activity with anomalous experience (e.g., Persinger and subsequent geomagnetic-correlate studies) and by the observation that many reported observation hotspots coincide with geological and magnetic features.
EM-anomaly site selection is a measurable, pre-registered criterion and a logged covariate. It does not assert that electromagnetic fields cause anomalous phenomena or coherence effects; it tests whether a measured environmental variable is associated with study outcomes. Site coordinates and survey data are documented for independent replication.
Resonance is not the study; it is the instrument that makes the study measurable. It is a deployed, HealthKit-integrated iOS/watchOS application that turns a group into a synchronized, standardized sensor array — the capability that lets the contact protocol be pre-registered, timestamped, and replicated at low cost.
For work of this kind, the analytic layer cannot be loose. A single named, independent statistician owns — and locks before any data collection — the pre-registration, null models, control design, blinding, adjudication statistics, analysis plan, power analysis, and replication criteria. This person is deliberately arms-length from data collection to preserve analytic independence.
This role must be filled by a named individual prior to submission — not left open. PI to secure & name independent statistician
Because the study involves physiological data, HealthKit and biomarker data, possible genomic data, altered/coherent states, and field contact protocols, ethics are addressed explicitly rather than assumed.
Positioned deliberately as secondary and exploratory, so the study's focus stays on the contact protocol. Vitalis (a "Human Operating System" and vitality instrument) characterizes participant physiology so the analysis can ask one bounded question: do biomarker or genomic profiles predict who reaches and sustains coherence? It makes no claim of a direct biomarker–UAP link.
The biomarker and genomic layer is exploratory context, not a primary outcome. It is reported separately and never allowed to displace the central contact-protocol question.
File pre-registration; secure IRB approval; validate Resonance coherence and synchrony against reference HRV systems; confirm inter-device clock precision.
Screen and enroll coherence-capable participants; stand up sky-monitoring and exclusion feeds; run pilot sessions to calibrate logistics and blind logging.
Execute the pre-registered contact and matched control sessions across sites; collect synchronized physiology, instrumented, and observer data.
Blinded adjudication and analysis against null models; replication check; transparent reporting — positive, null, or mixed — with open data.
The full IONS submission requires the items below. This overview frames them; the PI completes the figures and documents. PI to complete for submission
Study lead and platform architect. Author of an interdisciplinary review synthesizing HRV-coherence, group-entrainment, and collective-intention research into pre-registered, testable predictions.
Chief Scientist for Neuro Engineering at NASA Ames Research Center for 23 years (1990–2013) — human-state detection, credibility assessment, biometrics, biologically-inspired computation. Currently Chief Research Scientist, Terrace Wind Innovations. Owns physiological-measurement validation.
Flight Surgeon, U.S. Air Force Reserve, 304th Rescue Squadron. Specialized flight clearances and operational medical assessments for special-operations personnel. Leads biomarker and physiological-safety oversight.
Board-certified Emergency Medicine physician; space and operational medicine. Console Flight Surgeon for a private space company supporting real-time astronaut health; NASA-trained; Deputy EMS Medical Director for Human Space Flight Support; Major, U.S. Air Force.
22-year U.S. Navy veteran in communications; former Chief Technology Officer and Director of Innovation, Defense Intelligence Agency (8 years). Now a consultant on critical national challenges.
[Bio & affiliation to be completed by PI]
Independent statistician owning null-model design, blinding, and analysis — arms-length from data collection. Required, not optional (see Statistics).
| Component | Evidence Status |
|---|---|
| Individual cardiac coherence via paced breathing | Strong — replicated across laboratories |
| Group physiological synchronization | Strong — documented in choral, musical, meditative settings |
| HRV biofeedback efficacy for well-being | Strong — consistent meta-analytic support |
| Collective-intention effects on physical systems | Exploratory — small meta-analytic effects; mechanism unresolved |
| 432 Hz tuning → autonomic response | Preliminary — small samples; optional exploratory arm |
| Structured / EZ water → physical interface properties | Published (Pollack) — interface science only; coherence link tested here as exploratory arm |
| Biomarker / genomic profile → coherence capacity | Exploratory — secondary covariate layer (Vitalis) |
| Coherence contact window → adjudicated UAP observation | Novel hypothesis (H2) — tested prospectively here |
This proposal separates well-supported measurement science from the exploratory hypotheses under test. The instrument rests on the former; the contact-response association (H2) is a falsifiable question answered with pre-registered methods, blind adjudication, and open data. A null result is a valuable, publishable outcome that constrains the field.