Imagine, if you will, collecting a
paycheck from the United States
government for being a psychic spy. I
can feel the skeptics getting
uncomfortable already, but rest assured
that is a fact. This is Paul Smith. He's
a retired Army major, and back in the
1980s, he spent about 7 years at Fort me
in a classified program you might know
as Stargate. his official job? Well, it
was sitting in a gray room with nothing
but a pen and a pad describing places
he'd never been for people who wouldn't
tell him what he was supposed to be
looking at. Now, if you're not familiar
with this program, I won't bore you with
all the details. I did make a three-part
mini documentary series early on in the
channel if you want to check that out.
But sufficient to say this was a real
program with oversight within the US
government for 20 years. Well, after he
retired from this program in 2011, Paul
gets a call from, well, we can surmise
it was someone in the government, uh, he
asked to put together a remote viewing
team for a very interesting and very
secret mission. And the target would be
the 2004 USS Nimtt's encounter, the Tic
Tac. But this is 2011.
This is 6 years before the New York
Times told the world about it. We also
get into the moon sessions where Paul
interacted with what he describes as a
sentient craft which reacted to him
during his remote viewing session. And
finally, Paul and a team of remote
viewers were tasked to remote view four
secret extraterrestrial military bases
not on Mars, not on the moon, but right
here on Earth. We get into that, plus a
whole bunch more. Paul is a fascinating
guest. He has a PhD of studying
consciousness and parasychology and was
tasked with over 1,000
remote viewing sessions during [music]
his time working for the government.
Please enjoy this conversation with my
friend Paul [music] Smith.
My buddy and I took my great Dane out
for a walk. I'm not sure what time of
night it was. It was after dark.
uh kind of a remote area and we saw this
thing, this glowing thing up in the sky
and it was pretty far away and it got
closer and closer to the point where we
were running [music] away from it. My
dog would stop a big old great day and
bark bark bark at it [music] and then
he'd keep running with us.
It was uh kind of a classic disc shape,
but um I'd say as big as a
bigger than a busk.
This I remember it was white, but go
also gold. And the gold is like the
prettiest gold color light I can
remember seeing.
And pretty sure we might have lost a
little time looking back. And then I
found out some more about it recently.
Anyway, love your show. Keep doing what
you're doing.
>> Folks, we are here with one of the
longest
>> I would say one of the longest serving
psychic psychic spies in history. Is
that fair to say?
>> That's fair. I mean, there are Joe
McMonigle still around. So, I want to
give credit to the senior people, you
know, but yeah,
>> in terms of longevity, yeah, I've been
I've been at it a long time.
>> Okay. For those who don't know, Paul
Smith, uh, you recruited in 1983 to an a
remote viewing program, which at the
time was not Stargate, which became
Stargate. Was it Grill Flame or Center
Lane at that time?
>> Um, it had just barely become Center
Lane.
>> Okay. It just became Center.
>> Yeah. And and I I mean, if if you look
at the
constitu the con constitution of the
whole thing, it was technically
Stargate. It just hadn't been called
that yet.
>> The Stargate name, in fact, was the
final um nickname. They call them
nicknames, project nicknames, right? So
you can talk about a project that is
classified with an unclassified term.
That's the idea of it. And uh Stargate
was introduced at the, you know, at the
appropriate time administratively to
have a new nickname
>> nickname
>> and it then became the final name of the
program because they canceled it while
it was still Stargate and uh and so it's
become known as that ever since. That's
kind of the the rubric, the umbrella
name to call it. And I kind of like
having a single name to to address it. I
mean, you say, "Well, senior Stargate,
you know, you got to list them all up
that you were in and and yeah, that's
awkward.
>> It's all it's all the same thing
essentially." But you have under your
belt, I mean you are a remote viewer, uh
a training instructor, a unit historian,
uh also a security officer, and you have
over a thousand training and operational
>> um sessions with remote viewing, which
is quite substantial, and I expect a lot
of those are probably, you know,
run-of-the-mill
uh remote viewing targets. Um, and today
we're going to get into some of them
that weren't as well because I think
that's really what I want to hear about
what a lot of the audience I'm sure is
thrilled to to listen to as well.
>> Um, and then you ended uh you ended your
uh did you you weren't retired in 1990
you went to Desert Storm. Is that
correct? For the Liberation of Kuwait.
>> I did. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um and then after that co-founded
IRVA as well after you retired um which
is the International Remote Viewing
Association.
um which had just come from
>> Yeah, we just had our 2026 R I'm
actually not an officer with them
anymore, but I still participate all the
time. It came from the 2026
>> conference, which I think is probably up
around 20 conferences we've done over
the years, something like that. I
haven't counted them up. So,
>> incredible. and um also the main author
of the coordinate remote viewing for the
uh the DIA. Uh trained by Hal Putoff and
Ingo Swan, which if you're going to be
trained by anybody in remote viewing, I
mean that's the that's the cream of the
crop right there. It is the gold
standard. You have a PhD at UT Austin in
uh philosophy of the mind
>> and also consciousness of the mind,
science and parasychology as well. And
uh a few of the books uh for those of
you curious out there, reading the
enemy's mind, the essential guide to our
to remote viewing and foundations of
controlled remote viewing are um three
of the books that you authored. But
also, you were part of another book that
was put out later by uh by Skip Atwater
um reflecting the 1973
uh remote viewing targets of Pat Price
that he by himself decided to remote
view uh these four alleged
extraterrestrial bases which became
known by Skip as uh project 8200 which
something we'll get into as well. But um
just want to say thank you for being
here. It's been a long time coming.
We've
>> crossed paths a few times at conventions
and thank you for finally making the
track up here.
>> And I've always been in awe of you,
Chris.
>> Oh, thank you. I appreciate actually.
You're a pretty impressive guy.
>> Thank you.
>> I'm not doing that to butter you up so
they ask me easy questions.
[clears throat] That's not you know
that's not the point here.
>> There'll be nothing easy here except
except a good time. [laughter]
>> My hopefully my answers will be
reasonably easy. But yeah.
>> Yeah. [clears throat] No, it's really
great having you here, Paul. Um, you
know, I've I've really come to uh
appreciate your take on a lot of things
because
when you get into the remote viewing
field, you can go one of two ways,
right? You can go the whole scientific
route where everything is under rigorous
standard testing and p values and
numbers. And then there's the other
route which is just kind of like vibing
and you're like, uh, let me get my
crystals ready and let me sense what's
going on around in the world. Um, but
you I do feel like you're somewhere in
the middle of all this where you do have
an appreciation for both sides. Mhm.
>> Um but you also have a knowledge I think
that not very many people have when it
comes to coordinate remote viewing
obviously and consciousness uh in the
study of consciousness and you've you
know rubbed elbows with the who's who of
people who are studying consciousness
and so it makes you a most interesting
person to discuss this with and so I'm
very excited about today's uh today's
discussion.
>> Thank you. I'm I'm anxious to see how it
turns out but I have have good hopes for
it. So,
>> yeah, so do I. Um
I, you know, I if if you guys want to
check out how you got into remote
viewing and how you got into the
Stargate program, I mean, that's
something I'm happy to talk about if you
want to talk about it. I know you've
talked about it plenty before. Um, so I
can also guide people to some of the
conversations you've had previously,
namely with a friend of ours of the show
here, Michael Phil, a personal friend of
mine. He's amazing. Third Eye Drops, and
you've done a couple episodes over
there. uh more than a couple actually
and they are very interesting. It's it's
I think I learned the most about you
through those interviews actually and it
really piqued my interest and so if you
want to um could you give us a quick
overview of how you got into the program
without getting too deep and then we can
move forward?
>> I I mean the the details are really
accessessible with Michael and a bunch
of other folks I've talked to. Um so I'm
happy to bypass the the details. Right.
>> Okay. But yeah, I uh I had never put the
words remote and viewing together. I was
stationed at Fort me as a Middle East
analyst. I had a background in Middle
Eastern studies and languages. And uh
and one day my next door neighbor and
across the street neighbor together come
and knock on my door and say, "We think
you might be good at what we do." And I
said, "What do you do?" And they said,
"We can't tell you [laughter]
what." So [clears throat] they they they
gave me some uh psychology and
personality profile tests and stuff and
I scored where they wanted me to and I
soon found myself over in the what be I
you know be are the I became aware of
were the Stargate buildings and uh
>> and read me on the program and asked me
if I wanted to volunteer and I
absolutely did. I mean it was the
coolest thing I think I'd ever heard in
the military and I'd been in it for a
while by then. Um
>> how many years have you had by then in
the military? Uh, let's see. This was 83
and I enlisted in in 76.
>> In 76.
>> What's that? In seven years.
>> Yeah. Seven years. Yeah. Six, seven
years.
>> I started off enlisted and then went to
officer Canada school and and uh spent
uh three years in Germany with special
forces. Um I I always hasten to add I
was not special for forces qualified. I
was an intelligence officer that had
airborne training and that's what they
needed. So,
>> and you also had proficiency in German
at that point? German, Arabic, and
Hebrew.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. The the proficiency in Arabic and
Hebrew have since kind of deteriorated,
but I still I actually teach in Germany,
mostly in German. So,
>> Wow. I didn't know that.
>> Yeah.
>> Wow. And that was from uh stemming
obviously from the mission you had uh we
spoke about earlier in Switzerland uh
with uh
>> uh your Mormon mission that you were on
there in Switzerland
>> and which is really interesting. That's
another thing that I think is a really
interesting point there because we had
this slight little discussion over
breakfast. But the idea of Mormons
getting recruited into uh three-letter
agencies being, you know, that's uh
that's not a tall tale. It is something
that is quite regular for many reasons.
Uh a few of which are uh you know that I
would think is um just, you know,
there's no drugs, no alcohol, no
partying. Uh very hardworking people. Uh
they're around sensitive areas already.
uh over there near the training grounds.
>> Uh but then you would also mention the
language thing.
>> Yeah.
>> Um this is Yeah. For the especially for
the CIA I would I would assume is is
probably a
>> well military probably has more need of
analysts than than the agency does.
>> Um
>> because you know military generally has
missions all over the world. Of course,
the CIA does too, but there are uh
agency employment wise has far fewer
people than the military does. And um
their mission is less less varied than
military missions are. So, they really
do have a need. Interestingly, there's a
National Guard Language Brigade in Utah,
and it's made up almost exclusively of
return Mormon missionaries who have
languages,
>> and the army has calls on those guys all
the time,
>> uh, like go help with training in
Tunisia, not Tunisia, sorry, Morocco to
go, you know, if there's a hot spot
somewhere and they need somebody with
language skills, they'll to pull them
over there. You know, it's a great
resource.
>> It is. And how how intensive is the uh
language course? Cuz I've heard it's
it's it's quite good um when you're
learning languages uh prior to your
mission.
>> Oh, through the church. Yeah. It's it's
two and a half months, which doesn't
seem like a lot. It
>> doesn't seem like a lot,
>> but it's pretty full immersion and you
get actually I've learned four different
languages four different ways.
>> Really? Of course, my native language,
English. I don't know how I learned
that, but I just know I did. Right. It
>> was a download.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, a very long slow
download. I watched my grandson, my
granddaughters learning to speak and I'm
glad I I did that and and don't
remember. So [laughter] anyway, but you
know, I I learned Hebrew in the college
setting and I learned Arabic in an army
language school. I learned German in the
church language school and then two
years talking to the Swiss people.
>> Some people would argue that's not
German, but whatever, you know. Um
>> we had to use actually standard German
because you can't possibly Yeah. Swift
actually call. But yeah, um yeah,
because there's so many Swiss dialects,
you can't learn them all, right? And and
even the Swiss have to learn uh standard
German in order to communicate often
times with each other.
>> So, um yeah. Um and by far the best
language training I got was the church
stuff. It was because
they didn't use native speakers except
for one class that we had on a daily
basis. They used Americans who had had
to learn the language and knew where all
the linguistic landmines were. They knew
how to learn it. They knew how to, you
know, to master the level that we needed
to master it at. I That was quite uh
enlightening to me.
>> It sounds quite counterintuitive as
well.
>> It does. But it's actually harder. I
think you you can learn, of course,
pronunciation better from a native
speaker, but it's harder to learn it
from them because they have to be taught
how to teach it. The American
instructors didn't have to be taught how
to teach it because they already knew
how you learned it, you know. That's
right. And I obviously they have
something.
>> Here's what worked for me, it'll work
for you.
>> And it did.
>> Yeah.
>> So, it was great.
>> Very interesting. But yeah, obviously,
you know, there's a there's a huge
overlap there between uh and I'd
mentioned this as well, Breakfast, but I
think it I think it was in the '9s that
there was a class action suit against uh
the Mormons. um well well not not all
Mormons but uh specifically the FBI for
hiring um straight out of BYU a lot of
these students without even looking at
the resumes like without so much as
getting an interview from these people
because of the track record that they
currently already had with a lot of the
people that came there um and they were
you know very hardworking and like you
said you come back from a mission you've
already been on a mission
>> you know what I mean you're a civilian
and you've already followed a mission
you've already followed orders so to
speak you've learned a new language
you've gotten to integrate into a new
society. These are all really ideal
skills for someone who's very young and
coming, you know, wet around the gills,
uh, coming out of school to have.
Normally, those people, you wouldn't
have those skills. They
>> they already have a lot of personal
discipline that they've had to learn
through experience and and
>> and the whole idea of mission first,
which is what drives the military. It's
mission first above anything else that
you that two years you live mission
first, right? And so you already have
that mindset. Uh plus you're easy to
clear. You haven't usually most cases
they haven't done anything wrong. Uh
that that can't that would be a a
liability to somebody with a clearance,
right? And that's when military
considers wrong. If you did something
that you be blackmailed for, that's a
problem. Yeah. Yeah. So um yeah, I mean
they tend to be and we're not the
majority in the intelligence world of
course but uh we do are much more highly
uh represented than most other uh most
other belief traditions
uh based on our population share.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, it is it is quite interesting and
then you know the proximity as well to
you know Dougway and a lot of these
other uh facilities in the four corners
there. I mean, it's it seems like uh
Yeah, it seems pretty ripe for the
picking in terms
>> you know a few hour drive away from Area
51, you know.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> We don't go there though.
>> Yeah.
Off the off the books. Yes.
>> Um I've also, you know, made this
funny idea in my mind, but
>> you know, I I've Do you know David
Jacobs? obviously the well he was um um
sort of alien encounter researcher.
>> He was uh essentially a really important
figure in UFO research and had come to
the conclusion that you know hybrids
were living among us. This was his whole
sort of thing right that like these
people that look like us they're now
living among us and this type of thing
which isn't something that is you know
too far off of things we hear you know
every day in eupfology. Well, yeah. I
mean, that's become quite a a kind of a
meme, you know, that circulates in the
community.
>> Exactly. And I always thought, well, if
I was trying to blend in, I mean, I'd go
to like Salt Lake City. I would I would
go there because, you know what,
everything just kind of it seems like
like parts of it are like Pleasantville
and you're kind of like, you know what I
mean? You're like, I'm not going to
stick out here.
>> That's not suspicious in and of itself.
>> Well, I think everybody is a little bit
in that case, right? then you're kind
of, you know, if you're quirky, maybe
it's not such a or New York, the
complete opposite
>> where you you can just be, you know, uh
your your old weird self and stand out.
>> Um I want to start if possible by
talking about project 8200. I'm very
fascinated with this. Uh you you shrug a
little bit there. Perhaps this is
something that um do when you hear about
this, what is your what is your initial
reaction? Your visceral reaction that I
just saw. What is that? The shrug was
kind of like, "Of course you do." Yeah.
Want to talk about it, right? Yeah.
Well, I mean, it's a fascinating chapter
in in the history of of Stargate.
Really, even though it was not an
official project, this was something
that was done kind of on the side, kind
of under the table, although although
the guy who who is responsible for it,
his official name is Fred Holmes
Atwater. We knew him as Fred at the
time, but he prefers Skip. So I'm going
to talk about skip atwater, right? So uh
skip actually justified doing these
extra normal kinds of targets
uh by saying, you know, you want the
viewers to be used to just doing
whatever they get and not trying to
understand what it is and not being put
off by something's different what
they're used to. And so he he would toss
these things our way just to keep us off
balance, which is a perfectly legitimate
strategy because, for example, if we did
a lot of counter narcotic stuff. Well,
every session was a drug shipment or or
a smuggle a smuggler's vessel or a
meeting of narcot traffickers, whatever.
Pretty quick, you'd start to assume
that's whatever the one is. And that
will mess you up.
>> Will mess up the baseline.
>> Exactly. Because then you start just
putting down stuff you put down before
instead of what's unique, right?
>> Was that with the JTF? You did a lot of
that.
>> Yes. Well, it is all focused on JTFs,
you know, and we supported probably
every one of them one time or another,
>> but uh Skip would throw these wild cards
in.
>> Um there's another project we work maybe
we'll talk about later um where he uses
to advantage. Well, also you know you
viewers have to be blind to the target.
You they cannot know what the target is.
Um and and the skeptics will say, "Well,
yeah, they know what it is, so they
cheat, you know, and no, actually it
makes it harder if you know what the
target is because then your analytic
mind makes stuff up and you it's hard to
tease out the the novel signal from all
this stuff you imagine and guess and
remember. So you have to be blind to the
target and um and so
a unprincipled tasker can force anything
on you, right? Uh, and it did happen
usually with UFO, ET, NHI related stuff.
>> Hypnotic aggression. I mean, kind of the
same thing, right?
>> I guess it is. Yeah. I mean,
>> lead someone on.
>> Yes. And that's of course proven. Um,
you you have to be very careful with
hypnotic regression to make sure you're
getting actually real real data and not
something that was built in by the
interviewer or whatever. Um, but, uh,
Skip would throw these in every now and
then, and this was one of them, the
project 8200. So the history, the
backstory to this um one of the earliest
uh SRRI, Stanford Research Institute
remote viewers was a guy named Pat Price
who interestingly enough grew up in Salt
Lake uh in Utah and went off and he
ultimately became the Scientologists and
and he became really quite good at what
we call remote viewing now. He he he
offered to come work at SRRI work. He I
don't know if he got paid for it or
anything, but he he volunteered, right?
And he did some really good stuff. And
one day,
>> well, you'd get bored and then you go
off on these these uh you know,
self-imposed expeditions using his
remote viewing side quest. Yes. Good.
>> Um this was he comes in on I don't know
some weekday morning uh to Hal Putoff's
office. Hal put off just for background
he was the scientist in charge along
with Russell Tar of the of the SRRI
research program at the time. So Price
comes in with a handful of papers and
throws them on Hal's desk and says
you know
I'm I'm paraphrasing I wasn't there but
is something along these lines. I was
bored last night so I thought I'd
explore the planet to see what I could
find in terms of maybe UFOs and such.
And he said, "Identified four bases on
the planet. There Mount Nyangani and uh
um in Africa there uh Mount Praido in
the Pyrenees. Uh uh um Mount Hayes in
Alaska and um I'm blanking on the one in
Australia.
>> Uh no, the one in Australia."
>> In Australia. Um I know what it is
really well, but I'm blanking. I need
more caffeine, I guess. But anyway, um
these four, right?
And um somewhere along the way, Hal
passed the stuff on to skip once the
army program had got started and going.
Um it wasn't the only thing he passed
on. He also did the JPL of the face on
the moon and all this stuff. We can talk
about that too maybe later. Uh JPL
photos. Um anyway, um so Skip had these
and he was curious. um you know, you
don't necessarily believe what a remote
viewer produces until you get some kind
of ground truth on it or at least some
kind of of uh of evidence that maybe
they're they're on to something. So,
Skip got curious and he decided he was
going to run his his better trained
viewers on on these targets. Every once
in a while, he toss one in. So, not only
are you uh are you stirring the pot and
and keeping them off balance, but you're
also collecting some potentially
interesting information, right? So, um,
project 8200 is a book that has
collected all of these sessions that he
worked uh, we we worked US viewers on. I
guess us is the right word there. Uh,
viewers.
>> There were six of you, right?
>> There was, uh, yeah, maybe six.
There was, uh, was so the main one was
Joe McMonigle and Joe worked all four of
them, all four of the bases. Um, then
there's uh, myself.
um
myself, Bill Ray,
um maybe Limb Buchanan. I I don't
remember exactly. I have to go back and
look in the book and remind myself.
Maybe Charlene Shoufeld.
>> Yeah, there's about six, five or Oh, and
and yeah, they had another one. So, um
anyway, it doesn't matter who all they
were, you can get the book and find out,
right? Um and then, uh he kept those on
file all these years and then finally
decided to create a book. um that that
had this data including um
I say most of the notes that Pat Price
included or in this as a I don't know
maybe a addendum or something um there
are some in there that he didn't there's
some not in there that were present
along about 2004 2005 Howal gave me
copies of all of them so I had those I
could compare um but that's what the
book is consists of it's quite
interesting because what's intriguing is
of course Pat's data is in there and
then we got all of these sessions that
we did and the beauty here is now we can
compare what we got to what Pat got and
there were some really interesting
correlations particularly between my
session on Mount Hayes and what Pat had
reported Mount Hayes in fact he drew a
diagram you know maybe I don't know if
you put additional images in I will okay
I can get you this stuff
>> uh a diagram of what he these things
were flying around. He he he
believed there are UFOs. In fact, I
think he might have called it that. I
don't remember now. But it looks a lot
like a tic tac. A lot like a tic tac. My
session, which I did in ' 84, which is
basically 10 years after Pat did his.
And I had no knowledge of Pat's data.
And I never seen it. In fact, I'm not
sure at that time I even knew he had
done it. I I can't I don't recall what I
knew back then, which is what now 42
years ago maybe. Um but um but I did
mine and I have a sketch that is so
close to Pats, it's crazy. And when you
know when 2004 when I got Pat's or five
or when it was when I got Pat's notes,
I'm just going through. I didn't even
know that was there. And I see that and
I say that looks really familiar. And I
happen to have copies of my session,
too. So I went in there and looked at
holy cow, [laughter] you know, it was
pretty it was rewarding. Let me put it
that way. It was rewarding to have that
kind of feedback. So,
>> and especially, I mean, connecting with
someone like Pat Price because you guys
never really cross paths.
>> I never met him.
>> Um, but he was obviously someone I I
suppose you kind of looked up to
hearing, I'm sure, a lot of the tales
about Pat Price, a lot of stories. is
you you know this this somewhat of a
legendary figure in remote viewing and
and someone that most people who get
into remote viewing or study remote
viewing tend to cite as
>> the goat right in terms of this stuff.
So, you know, seeing that resembling
yours, did that give you some sense of
like, oh, I might be on to something if
Pat was on?
>> It was very validating, I think, is a
good term. Very validating to see that.
And uh and yeah, it did form a sort of
bond even though we'd never been in each
other's presence. I mean, he died in in
77, I think, is when he died. So,
>> yeah, you a few years before you were uh
you were recruited.
>> Yeah, a few.
>> But you were you would have been
enlisted. you just wouldn't have crossed
paths,
>> right? I was at that time, well, at that
time I was uh I was in Arabic training
in 77. So,
>> right on.
>> Well, you can just say, okay, there's
some guy remote viewing alien bases and
people might be listening and be like,
so what? I can do that, too.
>> Why does it hold more weight that Pat
Price remoteviewed these places?
>> Well, and um I just last
Sunday,
yesterday, was it really yesterday? last
Monday, right?
>> Last Sunday would have been yesterday.
>> Yesterday, [laughter]
yesterday I was complaining about this,
right? Um, one of the things that really
bothers me is I I call them anomaly
targets, you know, UAP, Bigfoot, you
know, xenobiology stuff, right?
>> Uh, people remote viewing those, first
of all, they don't often use good
protocols, so their likelihood that
they're getting good data is less. Okay,
it's already hard because you can't
verify usually in most cases. The big
the bigger thing that disturbs me is is
there's a lot of new people who are just
starting out remote viewing and that's
the only kind of targets they do in
their training. And the problem with
that is you can't since you can't
compare it to ground truth. You don't
know if you're actually successful or
not. People start to assume that every
remote viewing turns out correct when it
doesn't. And so you hear all kinds of
these rumors and stuff about about the
pletes and you know lizard people and
all this stuff people have been remote
viewing and they have no substantiation
whether or not they're actually doing
that or if it's just their imagination.
Okay. So they're doing all these anomaly
things. Um the difference here between
them and Pat Price is Pat Price already
had a really good track record on
mundane targets on actual thing. In fact
he reported data about the Patty Hurst
kidnapping that was validated. They
didn't find her because they with his
information. They could have, but they
didn't because they they discounted it,
right? The authorities wouldn't would
and they they were they got the
information from Price, but they didn't
use it, but they would have found her if
they had paid attention to him, right?
And he had he had other, you know, an
actual legitimate laboratory type test
where he'd shown really good success and
they were able to judge the likelihood
that he was correct. And so when he's
doing these alien bases, the odds are
much higher that he's producing
legitimate data than if he was one of
these guys who never done anything else
except aliens, you know, and UFOs. Um,
so that's one answer to your question.
Okay. Of course, then the next part of
the answer is that we actually then did
stuff later on not knowing we were
replicating uh Price's work that
actually agreed with it that that showed
that there was at least correlation
between his stuff and our stuff
independently done. So,
>> and were and not all of those targets, I
suppose, were UFO related as well.
>> The which ones
>> the ones that you subsequently remote
viewed that were patric targets?
>> No. Yeah, they were all UFO related.
>> They were all UFO related.
>> Yeah. I mean the only Pat price Price
targets that I worked was was Mount
Hayes.
>> Was Mount Hayes.
>> Yeah. Because usually I mean the other
ones he did were within the lab. They
were what we call outbounders where
>> you have someone out there.
>> Yeah. Someone goes to the target
undiscloser actually that they had a
whole bin of targets and they randomly
se they used a random number generator
to select which target they're going to
use. Meanwhile, the viewer is locked
away in a Faraday cage and u and so they
randomly select the target, go to that
target, and then he focuses in on the
people and and in that process, they act
like a beacon. He picks up what's going
on around there. We do that all the
time. In fact, I I conducted one of
these yesterday at the conference.
>> Really?
>> That was pretty cool. Yeah. So, um so,
uh that's what he did. And of course, we
don't live in the Bay. We didn't live we
were in the opposite coast from the Bay
Area. And so we we never did any of his
particular targets. He did for research
purposes. Uh but we'd done plenty of our
own. All of us had a track record to
some degree or other with success with
this this stuff.
>> Did you ever feel that because obviously
you're being given these targets to
quote unquote sort of shake things up
and you know keep you on your toes, make
sure you're not remote viewing the same
target over and over. Um did you ever
sense that the person perhaps even Hal
put off Dr. I'll put off giving you the
targets was
um particularly
I don't know more interested in these
targets.
When we were in our training they were
very prosaic
standard kind of things. I they used a
whole data set that they gleaned from
the National Geographics.
>> Okay.
>> Um so there was nothing particularly
provocative in these. They were designed
to be attractive to human perception
because perception is still operating
even if you're doing it through remote
viewing. Um they were designed to be
easily discernible one from another. If
you were doing judging, you could tell
which target was described and um but
otherwise they were just kind of
typical kinds of things you would
expect. Um Engle was the only one that
worked us on on targets. Hal had his
part of it and Eningo had his part of
it. He was he was the one that had the
hands-on stuff, right? And so he gave us
National Geographic targets, right? The
beauty of National Geographic too is you
can find the lat longs that the
geographic coordinates to more easier
pinpoint. This is before Google Earth.
>> Google Earth has been a real blessing
for remote view training. Let me tell
you, I use it all the time.
>> Really? In what sense?
>> Well, I use it to get the exact
locations of targets. Now the viewers
don't get the it used to be we use
geographic coordinates to target people.
Uh there was a complaint about this.
Some of the critics would say well
what's to stop the viewers from
memorizing what's the end of all the
coordinates and then you just give them
a coordinate they already know what's
there. Well other other than the fact
there's a practically infinite number of
possible geographic coordinates. Um and
that would be more of a miracle than
remote viewing memorizing all those.
Right. But um but other than that it
actually turns out knowing the lat longs
latitude longitudes right knowing the
lat longs
>> was a hindrance to the process because
you know you do enough Soviet Union
targets you start to know familiar
>> yeah that it's in the in the
>> like it's cold uh there's mountains
there's trees
>> wolvesing out there you know pine trees
all stuff and it's probably
>> yeah smells like nukes yeah smells
[laughter] probably you know like a
laboratory in downtown Moscow or You
know it actually generated noise to know
what the lat longs were. There's a
further problem is then how do you
remote view something you don't know
where it is like hostages in the BA
valley in Lebanon which we did a lot of
those or trans shshipment of some
nuclear or some uh some narcotics
contraband or whatever you don't have
the location how do you target people on
that
>> and and we've figured out a way to do
that I won't necessarily get into that
right now uh maybe in later
>> because I'm already on a tangent of a
tangent of a tangent right um
in fact I'm such t so tangented now. I
can't remember where I was going with
that. Um,
>> well, you were you we were talking about
finding um
>> Oh, I was talking about targeting. Yeah,
Scott. Okay. I think I can get back to
that. Okay. So, um you know, we just
can't Oh, yeah. You can't if you don't
know where it is, how do you attach
people? And we came up with a method to
do that
>> that didn't involve uh coordinates
because those things actually turned out
to be a disadvantage, not an advantage.
But I still want to know where they are,
right? because I build that into the
intentionality. Intentionality is remote
view the
chemical plant or let's make it less
controversial the cement plant uh in uh
certain place or certain place you know
and mention the site location but if I
like to put in the precise lat longs in
that intentionality so that there's no
ambiguity that the viewer's subconscious
when it finds out what the intention is
>> that it can it actually knows exactly
which cement plan I'm talking about
right now. You know, and this is the one
of the mysteries about this. People say,
"Well, how does that work?" You know, we
use what I call a tasking number. It's
essentially an arbitrary number that
doesn't have any content to it.
>> It's linked to the intention by, for
example, the I'm going into this
>> task finding it.
>> The tasker writes the number down. And
my favorite tasking number is 8675309.
Okay, that's the one I prefer. So, um,
it's not ringing any bells, huh?
867
>> 8675309.
Jenny, the number on the wall.
>> No.
>> Oh man, you are in for a treat. After
we're done, we'll have to play that
song. Okay. [laughter] Okay.
>> I was like, hold on.
>> Picking up on something.
>> I can hear your audience laughing. Okay.
>> Oh, yeah. Fair enough.
>> Yeah. So, anyway, H6M5309 equals, for
example, remote view the Eiffel Tower
located at this place, right? Certain
place.
You give the viewer the 8675309.
You don't give them this.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. The viewer gets that number and
there's a little handw weaving going on
here. Yeah. Uh the subconscious viewer
subconscious says what the heck does
that number connect with? Goes out into
the universe finds 8675309 means remote
view the Eiffel Tower at this location.
You need the location because there's
more than one Eiffel Tower in the world.
M um and so uh then the viewer
subconsciously knows what the target is
and then the subconscious does the rest
of the work of getting them to the
target. I put quotes around it because
what is
>> of perceiving?
>> Yes. Perceiving the target and and it
goes on from there.
>> Interesting. Have you ever heard of um I
think it's called my three words or
these three words.
>> Is that a game?
>> It's a website.
>> Website. Oh, this might be really
interesting for you.
>> Okay. So it is a website that every
square meter of the entire earth
>> has a combination of three random words.
>> Who did all that work?
>> It's it's generated [laughter]
and once it's generated it it becomes
that
>> is a cool idea.
>> Right. So I could tell you paper travel
uh scissors.
>> Yeah.
>> And that could be like a specific square
meter in your backyard. Right. This this
has got some real potential, too.
>> Exactly. Yeah. It's like my three words
or first three words or I'll look it up
for you and I'll send it to you after.
But if you wanted to essentially give
someone a target, you could literally
give them three words that are
arbitrary.
>> I don't even have to worry about latl
longs.
>> Correct. And and it's down to the square
meter.
>> Uhhuh.
>> And so very very specific.
>> So if for example it's uh apple
rock
>> bird feather, right? If that's your No,
no, bird feather is two words, but apple
rock feather. Um, you could look those
three words up on the internet and it
would tell you where it was.
>> That's correct. At what threewords is
what it's called is what threewords.com.
>> Mhm.
>> And here we go.
Okay. So,
okay. I was I was about very close to uh
saying the three words that we were
currently at, but that would probably be
a mistake here. Yeah, if people could
find you.
>> Exactly. Um, let's see. Let's go to I
don't know. Uh, we'll go to Paris.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, Paris, France.
>> More than one Parises. So, if I were to
zoom in,
>> as you can see here,
>> so Paris, you see this little square
pixel?
>> Yes.
>> So, the square pixel next to it is
tougher solve letter.
>> Oh,
>> this square pixel is manuals usages
instant.
>> How cool is this? So now you've got
essentially coordinates for every single
square meter on the planet.
>> Yes. Including oceancape.
>> Yeah.
>> Huh.
>> The whole the whole map right in the
middle of the river if you like too.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Look. Boom.
>> Yeah.
>> Right in the middle of the sen is
century repair sock.
>> And if anybody else took those three uh
words and punched them into what three
words they would they would get there.
>> So this this alone may have made it
worth the trip.
>> Right. Exactly. [laughter]
And and what's interesting there is that
you could also give a coordinate to that
location.
>> Yeah.
>> And then your remote viewer might draw a
sock.
>> Okay.
>> And it might be one of the three words.
>> Might be. [laughter]
Now that would be confusing.
>> That would be confusing, but um yeah.
>> Interesting nonetheless.
>> Interesting. Yes.
>> Um can I ask you what was what was it
like working with Ingo and how put off?
I mean
>> no you can't ask me that. Just kidding.
Go. How was it like
>> specifically I would I would ask about
Ingo I think I'm more curious about only
because um because Hal's still around
and I might have the opportunity to ask
him myself one day. But um Ingo is
probably one of the most in enigmatic
figures in all of this in for so many
reasons. One because he was a apparently
a really great natural psychic. Someone
who could really pick up on things quite
easily. Secondly, he helped invent the
method for teaching remote viewing.
>> Well, he actually invented the term.
>> He invented the term. Yeah.
>> And the original protocol. Yeah.
>> Which is I mean it's still with us. I
mean there's difference between protocol
and method. I won't go into that right
now.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And so, you know, potentially the most
important figure in all of this. Um but
was also a very eccentric person, was an
artist, um just very very interesting.
And I would, you know, I think I speak
for a lot of people. It would be awesome
to have him with us today and just to be
able to, you know, pick his brain
because I'm sure he'd have a lot to say
on a lot of things. Um, but what was it
like working with him like energetically
and everything else? Like how was that?
I got something to confess. I'm a bit of
a hypocrite. I spend all day and night
talking to people in the intelligence
community, interviewing them,
researching about, you know, secret
programs like the Stargate one we're
talking about right now.
And then I go home and basically open up
my entire life to my phone carrier. And
they're not even trying to be sneaky
about it. These guys just outright sell
your information. And that's why this
video is sponsored by Cape, America's
privacy first mobile carrier. So Cape is
a mobile carrier with the same
nationwide coverage that you'd expect,
except it's built from the ground up
around privacy. And it's not something
that you think about every day, but it's
actually mind-blowing how much
information we just freely give away.
And so, not to get too technical, but
basically every phone has a permanent ID
uh tied to your SIM, and it's called an
IMSY, IMSI, and Cape rotates that every
24 hours. So, basically, every day, your
network thinks you're a brand new
person. They also delete your call and
text logs every 24 hours. Other carriers
usually keep that stuff forever. And one
SIM can switch between two networks,
which means better coverage and you're
even harder to track. And right now,
early adopters pay $70 a month instead
of 99. And if you use code area52, you
save up to 33% on your first 6 months.
Cape.co/eria52
or go to the link in the description.
Well, I have to tell you, um, before I
first met Eningo, the four of us went
out for training in January 1984.
And before I went out, uh, the people
who knew him in the office were telling
all kinds of scare stories about him.
You know, boy, he's really he can be
really, really didactic. He can really
be kind of tough on you and all this
stuff. And and he doesn't doesn't deal
with nonsense, you know, and all kinds
of stuff like So, when I go out there,
I'm thinking, "Oh, no. Am I going to
like him? Is this going to be hard? Is
he going to be like another drill
sergeant? You know, and whatever. Um,
and we had lunch the first day with him
at the uh restaurant cafeteria
associated with SRRI International. Hal
and him and I don't remember who else
anymore. I should have maybe I have it
in my journal. I just didn't look it up.
I was keeping a journal back then mostly
faithfully, you know. Um anyway, um
he was just to po perfectly friendly and
nice and open and genial and you know
and it wasn't at all like like I had
expected.
But then we started class [laughter]
and and he he was very much a downto
business guy when it was something that
was important to do. And so um you know
he could be funny. We we had a lot of
fun. and we told, you know, jokes. We
made wise cracks, that kind of thing.
But, but if you he felt like you were
goofing off. He came down on you with
both feet. And uh
he was a great instructor. I mean, but
very rigorous. It was tougher than any
college course I've been in terms terms
of discipline. Yeah.
>> Wow.
>> Well, in college courses, I get away
without taking notes, you know, and and
usually that was okay.
>> But with him, he required you took notes
and he kept an [clears throat] eye on
you. If you weren't taking notes, you
would find out quickly, you better start
taking notes, right? He would Wow.
>> He would be very asserbic and he he
would be very um insistent and demanding
when he felt like he needed to be.
>> Do you think there's a relationship
there between him just wanting you to
have put pen to paper or, you know, for
remote viewing purposes for taking notes
or was it cuz like stream of
consciousness type thing where you're
just used to the act? It it was actually
he felt like taking notes by hand was
essential to really integrating this
into your consciousness.
>> Okay.
>> And he was absolutely right. Um yeah, I
hated taking notes. It was laborious. It
forced me to just shift between right
and left brain, you know, and I hate
that anyway. It's painful, right? Um um
but he felt like taking notes. And then
we had to write essays on what we had
learned. And
today I let my students use their notes
as reference to write the essays. He
wouldn't let us use our notes even. We
had to do it out of our heads.
>> And if he didn't like it, he scratch big
red marks all over it. Hand it back and
say, "Try it again." And then he come
back, you still don't like it, try it
again. And um my my record was four
tries before I got it the way he wanted
it. Yeah. It was insane. It was insane.
But um I tell you, you did learn it. And
and that method has actually been
strongly vindicated by research into the
psychology of human learning today that
in fact writing longhand both notes and
then recall through essay writing
longhand not with a computer is actually
an exceptionally good way to actually
retain knowledge that you're learning. M
>> and I' I've since come across a lot of
articles, you know, science papers and
stuff about that
>> and uh and it's interesting to see that
Ingo was really an early adopter with
that approach. I don't know if there's
something he'd read that suggested it at
the time
>> or if it was just he'd done that in
school and recognized as a valuable
approach, but it's been validated since
then. And there wasn't the only thing
that he introduced that since been
validated. I think in a way he's maybe
being precognitive, you know, you know,
psychically recognizing this in advance.
Who knows? I mean, there's no way to
find that out, but all I know is it's
very successful and I make my students
do the same thing.
>> Yeah, it sounds like something you've
applied as well. Do you also apply the
same amount of uh of hard discipline?
>> Um,
>> well, I I'll take that as a yes, right?
[laughter]
>> Well, you'd have to ask my students,
right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, I I
think I'm somewhere in between. Sure.
Right. Um I um I I
>> You're not easy. You're not an easy
teacher.
>> No. Yeah.
>> And in fact, they have to do 10
homeworks after they go home.
>> Yeah.
>> They get a they get a tasking number,
they do a session, they send it back to
me.
>> I go through it with a red pen and and
literally sometimes there's red all over
their pages.
>> This is what you did. I I always I
always um uh want to let them know when
they did something right. Okay. I want
to encourage good behavior. That's how I
look at it. But I'm also not hesitant to
let them know when they need to take
some corrective action. And um and they
appreciate it. Uh one of the biggest
problems in the training world in remote
viewing today is you get teachers who
don't want to hurt anybody's
self-esteem.
>> I see.
>> So they'll they'll maybe work a session
with a student and they'll bend over
backwards to try and make that session a
hit. Even if it's a total miss, they
will come up with some way of justifying
what the student did as being correct or
accurate. But that's doing the student a
disservice because then they don't learn
what they're doing wrong and they don't
learn what they're doing right. They
just get a participate participation
badge every time they do it. You know,
this is a soap box I'm on, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. But but that's a major mistake in
instruction is not to be honest with the
student and not to help them learn to be
honest with themselves. They can't learn
either at all or nearly as well if
they're not honest with themselves and
they get honest feedback on what they're
doing. So,
>> how important is it for the remote
viewing teacher to be proficient at
remote viewing?
>> You could probably be a good teacher. I
mean, some people are are good high
school football coaches that aren't
really good at football or haven't been
at least, but they
>> Is that comparable though? Um well in
some ways yeah some ways
>> um the the the
uh key here is that um they need to
understand the game or understand the
process implicitly. So Skip Atwater is
pretty good at teaching RV. He never did
it himself.
>> But how did he dabble in viewing?
>> Um
well he'd tell you no because he
actually prescribed from doing it. the
the CIA folks when we first started out
and then later DIA uh told him you will
not do this because our experience in
the past MK Ultra you know was a a big
learning curve for the CIA um the
researchers got involved in actually the
research doing the research themselves
right on themselves big mistake okay
because first of all the the um
implicational objectivity went away
there was no they were not clearly
certainly not objective about what they
were doing and if the research is not
objective the research is suspect from
the beginning. So Hal never actually
tried it
>> officially
>> officially he did a couple times like
when they did a um investment uh
investment project on the silver market
>> and he uh did do some then
>> which I think scored quite high. He did
quite well. They made over 200k for the
investor and they got a 10% slice of
that to fund the school. They're they're
building a Waldorf school and they
needed some funding and and that's how
they did it through an associate remote
viewing project, the silver futures
market. It was it was very successful.
So
>> and so he was a part of that.
>> Yeah.
>> Wow. Okay. Well, we got we got to get
you and Hal back on here one day.
>> Well, that'd be fun to have both of us
together. But
>> get you in the diner.
>> That would be fun. Yeah. I don't know if
you'll get him, but um he he he does
travel still, but his dance card is
really full.
>> Sure. Yeah, I would expect.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um is there
is there possibly a defense against
remote viewing?
>> Yeah, there's a very successful one.
Yeah, you shoot the viewer. [laughter]
Well,
other other than getting rid of the uh
>> Well, so first off, I'm being actually
semi-serious.
>> Well, yes. Yeah.
>> Um, one of the reasons it was so heavily
classified in the most classified part
of the program was the identity of the
remote viewers
because literally, as far as we know,
the only way of stopping remote viewing
is is to stop the viewer from remote
viewing. And of course the CIA or the
KGB has a history of intervening quite
radically you know in certain
circumstances taking people out if they
are perceived as a threat. So the we
call it CL4 uh which is center lane
level 4 classification inside the SAP
special access program um that was
reserved for the identity of the
personnel
and that was you had to be read onto the
very highest level to have access to who
who was doing it and it was because of
that beyond that there's apparent as far
as anybody's been able to find an NSRI
they put out a report to the CIA they
had actually looked into the
possibilities of defending against
remote viewing. They found nothing that
worked.
>> Nothing that worked. there was no
deterrent whether technologically or
psychically that would
>> well the interesting thing you know the
the first conclusion of course of course
there's this misbelief particularly
amongst the media that u that it must be
something electromagnetic you know
because everything that works at a
distance is electromagnetic in our
normal society right
>> magic that we have that we suffer from
the same affliction if people don't
understand how something's done they'll
just say is it magnets
>> yes yeah well yeah it's good yeah so um
they were able to demonstrate very
conclusively it wasn't electromagnetic.
In fact, it worked better if the viewer
is inside a Faraday cage which is blocks
out most of the electromagnetic
spectrum. So, uh so that there's nothing
there that's going to make a difference.
I mean, you could beam microwaves into
somebody's brain, but that's a
mechanical intervention that's pretty
drastic. You might as well shoot them,
right?
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> Yeah. So, uh but other than that, they
never found anything. I mean, people
play around with the idea. Some of my
colleagues have joked. Well, yeah. I
mean, if you want to you want to hide
the nature of a missile silo, you put up
Mickey Mouse balloons and and and play,
you know, child kids tunes and stuff,
you know, whatever and all this stuff.
Uh so that if a viewer comes in, they
get all this and they think they're
being they're just off or something and
and then you don't get it. Uh I I can't
tell you for sure. It seems to me
something like that was tried by the
SRRI folks. I might be wrong, might be
misremembering this this myth that I was
talking about, but
>> it feels like that would be a valuable a
valiant effort at least.
>> I don't think it would work.
>> I don't think it work.
>> I tell you why. Because if a viewer a
really experienced well-trained viewer
is going to follow the intentionality of
the tasker's intent and they will they
will tease out the stuff they're trying
to get despite distractions. That's one
of one of the aspects of our training is
you you reject distractions. You go for
the actual core data that you're trying
to trying to you know determine and
trying trying to obtain and what is
creating that pull towards the target in
your opinion is it strictly the
intention or is it something greater
something deeper something uh you know
Dr. Dr. Edwin May talks about how it's
entropy. I know that Dr. Julia
Mossbridge talks about intrigue uh being
uh some type of like a pole or
polarizing sort of thing.
>> Well, intrigue in a certain way certain
way is is intent or it does involve
intentionality, right? You can't be
intrigued by something that you don't
have a concept of. And intentionality in
the philosophical sense, which is how I
usually treat it, um you know, we have
this idea of intention. Intention means
you're motivated to do something. But in
the actual meaning of intentionality,
that's this core idea of recognizing
that there is a universe there, that
there is something in the universe that
you have your attention directed
towards. You don't have to be motivated
in this case. It's just you have to be
aware of,
>> right? And so, uh, in generally
speaking, that's the kind of
intentionality we're talking about. Now
when the tasker then comes up with
intentionality which is remote the view
of the Eiffel Tower they add this added
motivational thing you know they're
they're they want to induce the viewer
to do that the viewers themselves though
their intentionality is to fulfill the
task or intention and so it all works
together to to work you that direction
and and if you know what you're doing
you're well trained and well experienced
at going there um I'll tell you the
story about um about my first remote
viewing session because it kind of
applies here.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So, um
I I guess I'd been in on the job for 10
days or two weeks, something like that,
and and Skip always wanted us to have an
initiation event, right? And it was
doing an outbound. And I mentioned an
out an outbound process before. So Tom
and Charlene, two of my associates
there, were uh directed to randomly
select a target and go to that target
while I was in the in the viewing room
doing what we call ERV. This is where
you're actually laying on a bed, mind
awake, body asleep, uh hypnogogic state
is the technical term. Um, and uh, and
of course neither I nor Skip, who was my
monitor, knew where they went and were
in the room, you know, sound deadened,
windows blocked, there's no way of
seeing what direction they drove or
anything like that if we'd been looking
even. And so I start talking about, you
know, when we start going, I start
describing this place. It was a room and
it was kind of off-color walls and there
were lacy curtains in the windows and
there were these little tea tables and
in the back there was a some kind of a
of a furnishing that had what looked
like glass and things behind the glass
in it. Right. So anyway, I'm talking
about all this stuff and it skips going
doing what he's supposed to be doing and
and then the protocol is uh for this
that they would then come back and pick
us up and take us to the target before
they said anything about what the target
was. So I'd get immediate right there
very present feedback. Right. So they
come back, they bring back donuts to us
and and and we're munching the donuts
and driving down the road and we get to
the target which was this massive water
tower. is a kind that looks kind of like
a metal spider with a big tank and then
all these tubes coming down like spider
legs. And I'm walking around the thing,
walking in and out, hugging the metal,
all that stuff,
>> really discouraged because I didn't
report any of that. And I'm thinking,
"Oh crap, I've been here for two weeks
and they're going to fire me right now
because I had no success at all." They
were much more lenient than that, thank
goodness. Anyway, okay. Okay. So, we get
back in the car. We head back to the the
office and we're driving down the road
and all of a sudden I go, "What's that
over there?" And Skip says, "Who had
figured it out?" He figured out what's
going on. He said the very first thing
he said was,
"If you don't remote view the intended
target, it doesn't matter what you get
instead."
>> Okay, let's go. So we go over there,
walk through the door of the doughnut
shop, little tables, lacy curtains,
counter in the back with donuts behind
the glass. So Tom and Charlene had
actually violated the protocol. You're
supposed to go straight there and come
straight back. They had stopped at the
doughnut shop. Yeah. And I had homeed in
on that and my father-in-law later said,
"Well, trust you to find the donuts."
Right. But the principle here is I was
distracted by that because it was more
interesting to my subconscious. But we
through the whole course of the training
were it was drumed into us go where
you're supposed to go not what seems
more interesting to you.
>> But now this is the age-old question in
remote viewing. Did you was that simply
retrocausal?
Did you only remote view the doughnut
shop because you went to the doughnut
shop?
>> Yeah. Was it precognitive? Yeah.
>> What was or was it retrocausal? Yes.
>> Okay. [laughter]
>> All right.
>> That's a no notorious question. It is.
>> Trying to tease out whether it's
retrocositive, precognitive, whatever.
>> Yeah.
>> Is really hard to do.
>> I Yeah. Well, because they did that
after they've been to the Target. So, if
I was reporting this at the time they
were at the Target and they went to the
donut shop after there was a
pre-cognitive element there. I don't
think well I have a whole chapter in my
dissertation why retrocausation at least
from future to past or present to past
is not possible
>> doesn't work
>> yeah it doesn't work now future to
present can but that wouldn't have been
the case here no
>> yeah so how did that work in you know
I'll be the first to express ignorance I
don't know how this works I my model is
that uh you can influence the present
from the future but that's as far as it
goes now the question is can in f in uh
influence the future from the present
and from a trivial perspective. Yes.
Because every decision we make
influences the future. But in the we
want to talk about something more
specific here. If uh let's say you have
a dream that you are crossing an
intersection, you get hit by a car uh
the next day and then you go and you
stop before you go through the
intersection and then you go and the car
goes by there and doesn't hit you. Um
did you influence the future or did you
just remote view it wrong or or or at
least dream perceive it wrong? Yeah. And
we don't actually have an answer there,
but I think it's possible to to actually
that was an actual case, by the way,
that uh one of my students uh reported
when it happened. And so, um
>> Wow.
>> Yeah. So, um the court's still out on
most of this stuff. Sure. Right.
>> Which of course makes life still
interesting, right? If we knew all the
answers to these, what fun would there
be, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Yeah. It
definitely it breaks your brain a little
bit to to think about it because then
the implications of such an event or
even um perceiving something before you
get there but only because you got there
did you perceive it like this weird loop
that you're creating now.
>> Um you know it puts it really puts
everything into question and like you
said can I influence the present from
the future?
>> Yeah, this is this is one that like is
really hard to wrap your mind around.
Um, but if that is the case, you know,
like what are the implications of that
that I mean that's they're they're
great, right?
>> Well, this is actually one of the
reasons why this hypothesis about
multiple multi-orlds multiple worlds.
>> Well, it's an easy solve.
>> Yes. I think it's baloney myself.
>> It's just an easy way out.
>> Yeah. Oh, people Well, I say baloney. I
shouldn't say that. That's rejecting
something I don't know enough about.
Right.
>> But I think that a lot of what's said
about it is baloney. Kind of like with
UFOs as well. what a lot of wood says
about them is
>> um because it is kind of just a way to
solve problems to come up with an answer
>> but well we don't have any real evidence
for it which is one of the reasons why I
have trouble with it. Um supposedly
there are mathematical models that prove
it but mathematical models have been
used to prove a lot of things that turn
out not to be true.
>> Yeah. And uh in fact, you get how many
interpretations of quantum physics that
are all based on a math matical model.
Each one says something a little bit
different, you know, and they so I I
think the court is out. I'm not going to
reject the idea of multiple worlds uh
out of hand even though it sounded like
I did. [laughter] I'm not going to
because we just don't know. But the
other thing is we're not going to know
because at least as far as we know,
there's no way of getting into one of
these parallel universes,
>> right?
>> And u
>> not knowingly.
>> Yeah. I will not. And if we did, would
we know that we got there? Yes. Exactly.
Yeah. So, uh I I think it's fun to talk
about. It's great to make science
fiction movies about um you know, one of
I loved Highline and one of his last
books was was based on that notion. You
know, they actually did get into these
multiple universes.
>> Um but, uh I I think drawing firm
conclusions is way premature. So,
>> yeah, for sure. I I I tend to agree just
because again I'm probably too ignorant
to even like fathom these great concepts
but
>> well as Twain said all you need in life
is ignorance and confidence and then
success is sure right so
>> yeah sure [laughter]
so you were tasked in 2011
>> uh with I mean in 2011 is pretty recent
this is after you would have you know
obviously uh left the military and
everything else you would have been on
you know your own terms and your own
private uh ventures in terms of remote
viewing.
>> Mh.
>> Um but in and stop me at any point they
kind
>> Oh, no. [laughter] I'm just kidding. Go
ahead.
>> They kind of got the they got the whole
band back together a little bit, right,
for this. This was something some not
not the entire one, but I mean
>> No, actually nobody there was with
Stargate but me.
>> Okay. Nobody
>> Yeah. In this particular case.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Really?
>> Yeah. I the These were um
>> And you're talking about the viewers
though.
>> I'm talking about the viewers. Okay.
Yeah.
>> But the people who arranged it.
>> They weren't Stargate folks either, but
a Stargator was involved. I will say
this put off was the technical uh
consultant for this. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Um so,
>> so you just to be clear, there are
certain things about this that you can't
speak of.
>> Exactly.
>> And I want to make it full clear that
I'm not here to prod you or push you in
that direction. So, whatever you're
comfortable with. Um, but you did
mention on a podcast, and you stop me if
if this is going too far, but you were
tasked with remote viewing without you
knowing,
>> right,
>> that you were tasked with remote viewing
the 2004 Nimits incident.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Good. So, that's that's defined a
few parameters here. That's good. Yeah.
Um, but I I think I can do this. Okay.
We'll see. Um, if they come and collect
50K by Friday, I'll know I goofed up,
but Okay.
>> Yeah. Um, so, um, yeah, I was tasked to
do this. Uh, I brought in, uh, six
viewers,
three monitors,
and, uh, a administrative assistant who
was my best friend growing up. He didn't
know much about remote viewing, but he's
a great administrator. He was awesome.
So, anyway, um, and, uh, a facility was
prepared for us. I'm not going to say
who did this. Um and then we were tasked
with remote view. Uh
>> by who you mean the agency or entity
that had put this together?
>> Yeah. The folks who were going to pay
us, right?
>> Um so we set it up. We we got it going
and we worked a bunch of sessions. Spent
five days working this. It was as close
as I have come to replicating what we
did at Fortme. They even painted the
rooms gray which was awesome. You know
they had three viewing rooms. I mean the
sound dead and everything. It was
awesome. Uh I really appreciated the
effort they put on this. Um they they uh
the um client I'll use that word. The
client provided two analysts who were
also blind. Um and there were I I
figured it out eventually four levels of
blinding on this wasn't just double
blind. This was quadruple blind which I
think in the end contributed not doing
very well. I think the intentionality
was way too downstream.
>> Okay. But um
there were other mistakes. Some of them
I made, some of them they made. So um it
was a learning experience. Watch I
didn't get to duplicate unfortunately
because I think it would have been
interesting. Uh I think we would had
some even more success. We had I but the
client essentially he said there was no
success but reflecting back I think
there was but afterwards Hal said well
you know what this was and I said no.
and he said
he didn't call it the Nimits incident.
He just described what happens. And I'm
thinking, whoa, that's awesome. You
know, that was really cool. But we did
not describe that unfortunately. Um so,
um but it was an interesting learning
experience and that's where I first
heard about this this event, the limits
encounter. And
>> that would have been six years prior to
>> to when it became public in in a big
way. Yeah. I think there were little
bits and pieces that leaked out about it
between then and and when uh Leslie
Keane did her story, which I think that
was the the big reveal
>> 2017.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And um and so it was
intriguing and I'm I'm I'm grateful I at
least got that much of a head, you know,
a a head uh that advanced notice on it.
safe to say that this wasn't well if it
was I mean it was either a contractor or
it was some you know some government
affiliated thing right because this is a
sensitive uh incident that happened on a
military platform.
>> Yeah.
>> Um that being said were were you guys
given the target afterwards or was that
just kind of like as a friendly aside
hey by the way this is what happened.
>> Unless my viewers are listening in on
this they never got feedback.
>> Okay. So they had no idea right. Okay.
Um, that's interesting. Do Okay. Do you
think feedback would have made for a
better result?
>> Well, it could have made going back to
the for a clear result, but it may not
have been useful.
>> I see.
>> Yeah. Because if they were just remote
viewing their feedback, that was already
known.
>> That's right.
>> Yeah. They needed to remote view what
wasn't in any possible feedback.
>> Yeah. What wasn't known.
>> Yeah. And I frankly think uh first off
um I think they had the analyst doing
the tasking and they didn't know what
the target was either. So they really
didn't know what to task us for. I mean
that was one of the big problems.
>> Um normally and and they wouldn't tell
me this. You're right. You know they
were you wanted me to be hermetically
sealed in terms of blinding. Um and so I
I did do some education with them but I
was not able to weigh in if there was
some critical error they were making.
And I think that probably was maybe the
biggest thing is that the people who
were doing the tasking didn't know what
the task is for. They were I I don't
know how they set it up. I don't know
because I never got it. All I got was a
tasking number myself. I'm the project
manager. All I get is a tasking number,
right?
>> Um and so um they may not have I'm
presuming they there was at least the
notion that this was the Nimtts
encounter, but when you remote view the
Nimtts encounter, there were about you
know there were dozens of moving pieces
to that. You could have picked the radar
scope in the on the cruiser. I forget
which cruiser it was, one with Aegis
system that did a lot of the reporting
on this. You could have picked up just
flying around and not gotten the UAP.
You could have got all kinds of things.
If you're tasking something like that,
um, you need to be very specific. And
so, if they wanted to know what these
things were, they needed to target us on
the UAPs themselves. And the way to do
that would have been, uh, I think
they've got some fleer images of this
thing going around. you know, pick a
fleer image, use that as the as the
targeting mechanism. the object that
appears in this photo uh at you know
certain time certain because they have
the latl longs they can specify the
location all that stuff right be very
specific that it's this thing they want
we want to know about that I'm thinking
would have been much more successful
tasking and I don't think that's how it
happened
>> right but you can't be sure but that's
>> okay
>> well that's very interesting nonetheless
that first of all they would have you
know and
If uh I think I maybe I heard you
correctly, but you put together the team
or you helped.
>> I put the team together. They contracted
with me.
>> Okay.
>> And then I subcontracted with the
viewers,
>> right?
>> Um and then that pass through cost to
the contractor
>> who were colleagues of yours that you
>> there. Well, many of them were my
students and I picked the ones I felt
like would perform the best on this
>> and uh they were pretty much broadly
good. Good good viewers still are. How
exciting is that?
>> Well,
>> I mean, for for your students, I mean,
hearing about all these tales of
Stargate and Psychic Spies to then have
your teacher come to you and be like, "I
got a secret mission. We got to go."
>> Oh, they were all eager to do it. They
really were. And they're wonderful
folks, you know. I love every one of
them. And and uh they came and and they
did their best. They worked really hard.
I think they we let them down a little
bit because it wasn't done as cleanly as
it probably should have been. Uh but I'm
speculating because I don't know those
those parts to it because I was never
allowed to be privy to them. So
>> did you voice these concerns out to them
>> postmortem?
No, because I didn't know how it was
turning out. And I mean I was too blind
to this almost. Yeah. Right. I wasn't
actually working with the viewers or the
monitors.
>> Uh I was just managing
And so it would have been well one of
the things I think they wanted to make
sure I wasn't cheating in some way,
>> right?
>> So if I didn't know anything then I
couldn't pass anything on to them so
that it looked like they were successful
>> and that's a legitimate concern.
Legitimate concern
>> but you were also undermining the
success
>> but also the sensitivity of the of the
thing as well and that these people
aren't TSCI cleared or
>> Yes. like
>> um in this case I don't know if the if
the Nimmits thing which is also the tic
tac thing in case somebody's confused
>> I don't know that the tic tac thing was
ever actually classified to any degree
it was just close hold for a long time I
see
>> yeah but but whatever the case uh I had
signed the NDA
um although I wasn't on I didn't have a
active security clearance at the time I
I could have been um if there had been
you know a classification involved. I
could have easily had a uh what did they
call it? Essentially a temporary readon.
There's another word for it. I can't
think of what it is right now, but um I
could have been then none of that
happened. So,
>> okay.
>> So, it's interesting. I would love to
have the backstory to that, but it's
never going to happen. So,
>> um do some of the people involved help
you paint a broader picture of what this
like if this would have happened again
or why this happened? Like does some of
the people Okay. You say how put off was
involved.
>> Oh, you mean that the envelope within
which this took place?
>> Yes. Correct. Um does that give you like
a
>> No, at the time they didn't tell me.
>> Okay.
>> Because I didn't have the need to know
partly.
>> Understood. Yeah.
>> Um I since have found out
>> and it's pretty interesting and I'd love
to tell you about it, but I probably
can't at this point.
>> Sure.
>> Unless we're maybe at dinner tonight in
a noisy room and looking over here or
something like that.
>> Could we say it would be recognizable to
the people? Okay. Absolutely.
>> Okay. We you can draw your own
conclusions for now.
>> No, no, they there's no doubt they know
what we what was involved.
>> Okay. Um let's let's circle back. Um how
are you do how you feeling right now? Do
you want to take a break?
>> Yeah, a quick break in order.
>> Sounds good.
>> Were you ever tasked with the moon in
any way?
>> Yes.
>> And any anomalous
uh results?
>> Yes.
>> Could you speak about those?
>> No. Really?
>> No. No, not really. [laughter]
>> Okay.
>> Yes, I can.
>> Yes, you can.
>> U, it wasn't all for the government,
though.
>> Okay.
>> Um,
>> what do you mean all for the government?
So, some of it was
>> I That was a a [clears throat]
verbal slip there. I It wasn't It wasn't
I was thinking, right, I see. It wasn't
uh for the government, right? Yeah.
Yeah. But it wasn't. It was Ingle Swan.
So, I had
[snorts]
uh the first time I I did a project
here, Engle, at least two, I think maybe
three projects against the far side of
the moon. The first one I think was in
93 while I was still on active duty. Uh
Engel called me up and on the side I did
this session. He wanted me to to work
with him and and one other guy on this.
Uh, in fact, it was a bit of an honor
for all the people Ingoing knew that had
remote viewing capability. He got a hold
of me. So, you know, that I that was I
was very impressed with myself for about
five minutes, you know. So, um anyway,
he um he said, you know, he gave me a
tasking on it and worked it. And then a
few years later, we did the same thing.
He also had me remote view Roswell. Um,
I, you know, I didn't know when I was
doing any of them that that's what the
targets were. I found out quickly as I
got into it. The Roswell thing
particularly, I'm I'm remote viewing
this, it was just standard coordinates.
Um, I might have had a time frame in
there, which would have been a little
bit of a problem, but I don't remember
that. Um, [snorts] and I started remote
viewing and I got this weird thing. I'm
on not on the moon yet.
>> Let's Let's stick with Roswell. I I'm
really interested. Okay. So, it was I
had the impression of like two people in
a pickup pickup truck, a a an adult and
maybe a son or something like that. And
they're looking up at the sky and I one
of them like this, you know, kind of
blocking out the brightness. Now, I
think the thing crashed at night, so I
don't know what was going on here
exactly is like they're shading their
eyes. They're looking into the sky and
something really weird happened that
freaked them out. In fact, that just
occurs to me that was onological shock.
I could talk about that in one of my
talks. But anyway, um, and I didn't get
too many details about it and partly
because I think I started realizing I
was talking about Roswell and once you
know you're remote viewing something if
it's something notorious like that, all
that stuff gets in your head and then
you don't know what signal and what
stuff you're making up.
>> But you figured it out during the remote
viewing
>> during the session.
>> But that's substantial.
>> Yeah.
>> Does that happen a lot?
>> Um,
>> with with big targets
>> it happened on the moon as well. Um,
yeah, I'll I'll tell you about that in a
second because now I want to do a little
sidebar here. Um,
>> one thing is that I usually refuse to do
high-profile targets like for example
Jean Benet Ramsey.
>> That that was a big one. You know, the
little girl that was kidnapped that
murdered in Colorado.
>> Sure. Yeah.
>> Um, I refused to do that one for a
couple reasons. One is it was notorious.
And so, um,
I let me let me say this. I would refuse
to do one like that because it's
notorious. The psychic space for one of
a better term is polluted by so many
different people trying to promote these
target of different differing levels of
expertise and quality that you just it
gets very cluttered um no noise-wise you
know it just gets noisy. Um second of
all if I get into it uh so you know
another sidebar in the sidebar when I do
um when I have a basic course I always
do a demonstration session for my
students on the Friday we start on
Monday on the Friday and I wait till
then because by then they know what
they're looking at when I actually
demonstrate right but I tell them
specifically don't give me any
well-known landmarks like don't give me
the Taj Mahal definitely don't give me
the Eiffel Tower or the pyramids these
are used over and over and over again.
Give me something that no that is
unlikely to be something I know because
if I get in on for example the pyramids
and I start getting this feeling of the
pyramid then it's in my head.
>> Yeah.
>> And and then I don't know if I'm making
it up or not. If it's something that I
maybe you've never heard of or whatever
and there's plenty of those kind of
targets then I can actually comfortably
describe it, sketch it, you know, give
give impressions and stuff about it and
sometimes come up with some really good
results. I did like in my last class I
did and um those kind of targets are
good. Now if you do these notorious
targets like like
>> Roswell
>> yeah Roswell or whatever and you find
out what they are all of a sudden
everything you've ever heard about it is
there and you're fighting with that
trying to get through that to what might
be actually legitimate data
>> analytical overlay.
>> Yes. Exactly.
>> Okay. So you get this idea from this boy
and his father apparently looking
something weird in the sky. Something
came down and and at that point you
realize it was Roswell
>> cuz many UFO crashes have happened.
>> Yes.
>> What gave it away for you? I mean
subconsciously that it was Roswell.
>> I don't know.
>> Just a knowing.
>> Yeah.
>> And did you at that point stop and say
this is Roswell?
>> I I continued to try a bit but I was
fighting with that noise feature. Right.
>> And so you aowled Roswell. Yeah.
>> And of course later I got the feedback
it was Roswell. Right.
>> Um another case where I had that problem
is uh
u so this was a a transmaterial UFO.
Right. Um there was an Argentinian mind
sweeper off the coast of Argentine off
the coast of South America and it was
found a drift. It's kind of like the
Mary Celeste if anybody knows that
story. Right. the ship addressed a
drift. Food on the table, everything the
way it should be, but nobody on the ship
and no evidence of what happened to
them. No blood stains, nothing, right?
They're just gone, right? And that was
the case with this ship. And um I
apparently had heard
about this before. It must have been
some talk in the office about it, but it
would been a while back. So I I didn't
have any reason to believe that this was
that target, right? And uh some of my
colleagues remove it and he got some
very interesting things. Bill Ray for
one I think it was Bill um reported that
he got the ship and he had impression of
a of a UFO hovering off the stern and
all the crew going kind of crazy and all
jumping off the back of the boat. Right.
And um I just got I said, "Oh, this
reminds me of that mind sweeper, you
know, that was abandoned because mind
sweeper in the UFO or something like
that." But I have I actually have a
transcript to the session and it will
break my super UFO trying to do some
more stuff and it will break my super
couldn't get it out of my head. So I
just quit because I I couldn't clear my
brain of that. And then of course I
found out later yeah it was the mind
sweeper and the UFO. Oh great. I wish
I'd gone further. You know I I have a
tendency uh to
come to understand the target and then
it gets in my way from that point on.
>> Right. Because you again like you say
you don't know if you're making it up or
not because then you're kind of you
think your subconscious might just be
filling in the blanks. Um your
subconscious overlay
>> conscious awareness.
>> Yeah. The conscious awareness is instead
of the subconscious.
>> Exactly. Now, I I've learned a bit
better to deal with that these days. And
I think working so many counter
narcotics projects helped that that come
to recognize that there's noise here and
just figure, you know, I'm going to
still collect as much information I can
about this. It may be all noise. It may
be partially noise. Uh it may be no
noise, but I'm not going to know it
unless I do it. And so I basically drive
on
>> not expecting that it's turn out to be
real data but not rejecting it either.
>> Feel like there needs to be an extra
stage
>> for that type of information.
>> Yeah. A sidebar stage.
>> A sidebar stage. Yeah. Like off to the
side of an AOL.
>> Yeah.
>> Um when you do targets there's uh as far
as I know, right? Six stages of um
>> coordinate. Yeah. We actually call it
controlled remote.
>> Controlled remote viewing. My apologies.
Yeah.
>> Well, you know, I
>> it's the misnomer of coordinate remote
viewing.
>> Well, it was called coordinate remote
viewing remote viewing for a long time.
Then we stopped using coordinates and
then Ingo said he never wanted to call
it that anyway. He agreed to call it
coordinate remote viewing because the
military understood that concept,
>> right?
>> But he wanted to call it controlled
remote viewing because really the whole
purpose of it is to manage the process
in a controlled disciplined way. and uh
he felt like this idea of controlled
remote viewing was much more accurate as
to what he and how were trying to
produce.
>> And you do six uh six stages of
>> there are six stages. Yes. Um but you
only have to work as many as necessary
to solve the problem,
>> right? Sometimes you'll stop after four
or three. Yeah. Yeah.
>> You know, really basic stuff, three is
enough, but you go to four usually. I
think more often you do
>> three is your where your sketch is. you
do sketching and just just basic
concepts and very often that answers the
mail that's all you need
>> but uh if you need to get into real more
detail abstract uh I call it as complex
abstract concepts um then you want to go
into stage four um we very often will
skip stage five and I'll explain why in
a minute but if you really need to get
into it then you go into stage six and
stage six is what Inka called
threedimensional appreciation I call it
four-dimensional appreciation because
time is also an element there. You can
do timelines and that kind of thing in
stage six. And and acknowledged that,
but he never referred to it, I think,
because he didn't want to freak out the
military guys again, right? So anyway,
um
stage six is kind of fun because you can
actually build a a three-dimensional
model of the target. You know, for
example, it's the Eiffel Tower. You may
actually create an Eiffel Tower looking
thing out of clay or out of assemblages
or something, right? Mhm.
>> Uh usually um I'll have modeling
compound. I use Sculpey. That's I think
so far the best I've found. Use Sculpey
and toothpicks and soda straws and
pieces of tongue depressor and all kinds
of stuff like that. So that you can
actually use different things to create
what's in your head, right? Um I you
have a a poster of Close Encounters of
the Third Kind here and I commented on
that. Right.
>> Yeah. So in Close Encounters of the
Third Kind, you have Richard Drifus
building Devil's Tower out of mashed
potatoes on the dining room table,
right?
>> Yeah.
>> That's stage six CRV, controlled remote
viewing.
>> And there is a reason that's in there.
At least I'm drawing some conclusions.
>> So you you probably never interviewed
Jockey, but would like to, I'm
presuming.
>> Yeah, sure, why not? Yeah, so uh you
know the film uh there's a a French
eupfologist UFO scientist in the movie
played by uh Marcelo Chufo and um of
course he's a lot shorter than Jock but
he's he's based on Jacques Valle and
Jacques was the uh technical director or
function as a technical director for
Spielber Spielberg in that movie. Keep
wanting to say it Spielberg. [laughter]
Spielberg in that movie. And um
and so you know but how did the remote
viewing stuff get in? Jacques was also
at the time uh under class you know
under clearance as a classification
an adviser to the remote viewing program
same time.
>> Right. So wouldn't be too hard to draw
that conclusion.
>> Exactly. Yeah. Uh now I'm sure Jacques
didn't spill any classified beans.
Right.
>> Right. But he certainly was in a
position position to say, "Well, you
know, it might be more persuasive if you
do it this way instead of that way, you
know, or hey, you know what' be really
cool is if you had him building this
psychically building this model of the
thing." And of course, there's a real
dramatic scene there where Drifus is
building Devil's Tower. He's moved to
the pool table now. He's got dirt and
bushes and stuff.
>> He's gone to like load in dirt through
the window.
>> Through the window. Yeah. He's building,
you know, Devil's Tower. They're
sticking plants, you know, little twigs
in where the trees are and all that
stuff. And behind him on the TV is a is
a video of Devil's Tower showing up on
the TV from the reporting, you know, and
you say, "Turn around. Turn around." You
know, and he doesn't or maybe he does
actually in that scene. He might turn
around there because he had to figure
out somehow that he needed to go there.
>> Was he remote viewing the TV or the
event?
>> Well, okay. [laughter] That's
interesting. I I He's still around. We
could ask him, right?
>> Yeah. No, that's that's interesting. The
six stage. Was there um was there any
speculation on a stage beyond six?
>> Yes. Um in fact on my website I have a
blog. It's called the remote ah Dang it.
Sorry. Now my eyes starting to bug me.
Uh remote Whoops. There we go. Remote
viewing/ remote perception blog. Um and
I have an article there on stages beyond
six because there's a lot of controversy
about there. There's people out there
who uh you know how it is in the in the
internet world. you got to tell these
subject matter experts that are Johnny
completely and stuff and and they try
and claim that things were different
than they really were. I mean we were
with Ingle for a straight year, right?
Plus I interfaced with him for decades
after that. Uh very often was communic
visited him and all that kind of stuff,
right? And [snorts] Tommy McNair spent
three years with him training. Tom was
the guy Engel referred to as his best
ever student and he was awesome. He
still is awesome. Tom still occasionally
will do a remote viewing. It just blows
your socks off, you know. Um, and and so
we know him really well. And then the
these guys come along, they find some
snippet of thing in the archives and
they they draw all kinds of conclusions,
you know. It's like you have a point.
You can draw any line you want through
that point. We have all these other
points so we know where the line goes,
but they don't and they don't believe
us. They think we're disinformation
agents and we're lying about all this. I
mean, just it's stupid. Really, it is
stupid. But but uh they'll say okay say
well Ingo had 18 one there's one saying
18 stages beside you know so up through
18 past six and somebody else that is
claiming 24 or 20. Yeah it's baloney.
It's total baloney. Um there is a you
know as to most rumors there's some kind
of basic uh uh kernel tiny kernel of
truth to to the fact that um or where
that came from right uh and we go
through that in this article. No. Yeah,
he had two. One of which worked and one
of which didn't. The the one that worked
was called stage seven. He ultimately
settled on stage 7. It was phonics where
you could actually tease out the sound
of the name of the place
>> like channeling.
>> Well, no, because you were relying on
what is called stage two in CRV, which
is sensory input, which includes audio.
>> Okay.
>> Right. you pick up audio and you're
you're just essentially leveraging stage
two for a little increased enhancing
stage two to where you sound out the
sounds of what the uh what the name
would be like so for example one of the
targets that that Tom Dang it my eye is
stinging but um if I want to take a
break
>> um let me finish the story yeah okay so
um one of the target psalms was given
was the okone
nuclear power plant in Georgia. Okay.
And of course, he didn't know what it
was. So, it was done. Did a great job.
Built this model of it. It was amazingly
accurate. Um, but he was doing the stage
seven thing and he's oo o he's writing
it on the page. O see, he got that part
right and e at the end. And I think he
came up with okoi instead of okoni.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> Total mess.
>> Yeah. Total mess. I did one um it was
actually um uh Po's grave in Westminster
bearing yard in in Baltimore. Um
>> Edgar Alen Poe,
>> huh?
>> Po's grave.
>> Po grave. Yeah.
>> What's that?
>> Edgar Allen Po.
>> Eden Poe. Yeah. Okay.
>> So uh you know it was Westminster
Burying Ground and uh Skip was running
in me on it and he had me try this stage
seven stuff
>> and I always go W. I had W. I know
there's WW
West or something like that. I I I don't
remember now. I also have that session.
It came out. You could tell I was trying
to say Westminster, but I didn't get
there. There's too many syllables, you
know, but but uh I've had a few
experiences with stage seven and and Tom
had some really nice ones and other
people have tried it. That's the only
legitimate stage past six is phonics.
>> That does sound like channeling though
to the untrained ear. Perhaps when
channeling though, somebody somebody up
here is telling you, right? And and in
remote viewing, you don't need a spirit
guide or anything else. So,
>> sure.
>> Yeah.
>> But to the onlooker,
>> it might seem a little similar.
>> Yeah.
>> Somebody there going, "Whoa, whoa,
[laughter]
might
>> Yes. I I I I see your reference there."
Yeah. If you were just watching and
didn't know what was going on, you might
think that.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. But it doesn't internally it
doesn't bury.
>> Yeah. It was just it's just trying to
phonetically get out what you're what
you're perceiving.
>> Exactly. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, let's talk about the moon
then. You had a moon session done with
Go.
>> Well, I did I did um at least two
projects worth. So, there's more than
one session.
>> Okay.
>> But there's one that's memorable. I'd
have to go back and review them all to
tell you give you any detail on on all
of what I did.
>> Okay. But the one that's memorable um
somebody had uh contacted him and I
still don't know who it was and wanted
him to they this this somebody felt like
there was something on the far side of
the moon that needed examination
and um they had provided actually moon
coordinates lunar coordinates or he had
teased them out one way other we had
lunar coordinates and and so he said
would you like to do a session he didn't
tell me it was the moon And uh I said,
"Sure." I mean, anytime Ingo asked me to
do something like that, I was on board,
right? And so um he sent me the the latl
longs and I proceeded to do this session
and I didn't recognize them as lunar
coordinates. There's something that's a
little bit different about them, but I
had not done a lunar coordinate before,
so I didn't notice. Right. And so I'm
working this and my first clue was the
moon as I realized I'm having a hard
time breathing here. [laughter]
So, and I got this impression of of uh
landscape forms that were somehow or
other I got tangled up in my head sat
here. Uh land landscape forms that were
really quite sharp edged. I you know
they weren't eroded in the way I you
know I was accustomed to seeing and I'm
thinking that that's odd. the light was
quite harsh and I couldn't breathe and I
thought, "Oh, he sent me to the moon at
that point." Right? And so, uh, by this
time, this is when I'd learned to deal
with preconceptions, at least to some
degree. And I just continued on and I
got an impression of a kind of a deep
cavern like chamber underground. and you
went went through this kind of cavern
shape and there was a a a passage tunnel
that went down and there was a huge
chamber on the ground that felt um it
felt part natural and it felt part
engineered. I'm purposely not using the
word man-made here, right? It felt part
part engineered, part natural. It had
been expanded essentially and made to be
useful. And I had the impression there
were people and people again quotes
right people and things inside of this
chamber. And then I got the impression
of something else that I'm I'm
shortening this up quite a bit.
Something else that was kept trying to
come out and knew I was there. And this
is the first time and I think I would
say the only time when I ever felt like
I was being perceived while I was
perceiving something at a target. Okay.
It knew I was there. It didn't want to
come out while I was watching, right?
And so, um,
I I still exploring it, trying to
explore it, and finally it had to come
out and had and it merged and it was
like a a shaped kind of like a manta
ray. I have a sketch, you know, maybe I
can provide that to you. Oh, you want me
to sketch it? Uh, let's see. The one I
did is better, but I'll I'll give you a
general idea here. So, it's moving along
kind of like that. Does that make sense
to you looking at it craft?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
But what was weird about it was that it
seemed to be part biological and part
mechanical or you know for one of a
better term technical technological
um
and uh this was long before either
Stargate well Stargate Atlantis or or or
uh the second iteration of Battlestar
Galactica which had a a combo biological
uh artificial kind of spacecraft.
>> I had no antecedent.
>> Yeah.
>> Or precedent maybe is the right word
here. The precedent for this,
>> it just popped into my head. This is
both biological and and it seemed to be
had a certain level of sentience and
seemed to have a certain level of
self-awareness.
Um, so there was a element of
consciousness associated with this thing
and it knew I was there watching it and
it was mad about that. It was not happy
at all, but it was like it had a
predetermined mission and it wasn't
going it couldn't deviate from that. So,
it goes sailing along up into the sky,
speaking roughly here. Um, being very
annoyed that I'm busy watching it do
this when I wasn't supposed to be there
essentially. So, um,
was I on I don't know. This could all be
fiction as far as I know, right? But it
did have the feel of authenticity.
That's the only reason I I give it
credence is because it felt well there's
another reason to in a minute I'll tell
you but it felt like I was getting
something legitimate here. Um and there
could have been details and stuff I got
wrong. I recognize that but it felt
right. Now was it? I don't know. I mean
remote viewing isn't 100%.
>> Yeah. But you've done enough sessions to
know that feeling.
>> Yes. Generally speaking that's true. If
if I'm on or close to being on I I can
feel that. Uh, and I, you know, don't
ask me how I feel. I don't, I can't
describe it. Sure.
>> Um, but, uh, just clicked sort of, you
know,
>> um, and so I don't know.
>> And you said there was there was another
reason.
>> Yeah. The other reason is because other
details, like for example, I talked
about this chamber underground and the
tunnel and all that stuff. Ingo
eventually sent me feedback for this and
it included the data that he had gotten.
and this one other viewer had gotten and
we all had reported on that tunnel on
the tunnel in the chamber underground.
You know, we each of them sketched a
little bit differently, but it that was
a feature we all three of us got. Um the
other thing is that there were actually
other anomalies that I sketched in terms
of anomalies,
features, land features. they weren't
anomalous geographic features and stuff
that I sketched that he also included um
some feedback from an actual uh I don't
know was a NASA book it was a legitimate
book you know of mapping the moon
surface or something like that and some
of the stuff I sketched was there very
plainly uh as part of the lunar surface
at that point and so that helps me feel
that you know after the fact this
feedback helps me feel that at least
some of my stuff was on. And if some of
your stuff is on, there's a higher
probability that all of your stuff is
on, at least to some degree. So I I I I
talk about now, if I was do had done it
and felt like I was totally off, I
probably wouldn't even talk about it,
>> but I'm willing to talk about this
because it just felt legitimate to some
degree.
>> Do you now think I mean, is there is
there anything else that you've come
across either through I don't know
back channels, people you know, other
sessions that would corroborate some
type of activity on the moon.
Well, um
I'm trying to think of if there's any
chapter and verse I can cite here. Um
well, first off, there are ephemeral
things that occur on the moon that are
not explained. And uh in his book
penetration, Ingo cited some of these,
but other generally speaking, I wouldn't
say I wouldn't call penetration a highly
reliable source. Uh there's a lot of
speculation in it, but I know that's
been documented. Uh I've seen some NASA
reports that people have put online that
suggest these anomaly. Now, of course,
uh the mainstream scientists are trying
to come up with explanations, but those
are speculation, too. you know, um I am
willing I'm not willing to say that the
stories that the true believers say
about these anomalies are accurate. In
fact, I'm less I'm less inclined to
believe them than I am the mainstream
scientists. But I'm also not willing to
go on board with the mainstream
scientists who say, "Oh, no, it's
clearly this kind of a thing, blah,
blah, when if you look at it, it's not
clearly that at all." That's their
attempt to explain something they can't
explain. And so, um, I don't know what
it is. It could end up being a
naturalistic phenomenon phenomena
because there's a bunch of them. Um, but
there's also a certain level of
possibility that they are not
naturalistic, that they are some kind of
intentionally generated phenomena based
on maybe aliens are on the moon. I think
that there is a
a fairly decent chance. You know, I am
hedging all of these bets because
there's no actual there there that we
have access to, right? A fairly decent
chance that there might be some kind of
basing on the moon that's not Earth
originated.
>> Yeah. Sort of ancient structures perhaps
even or remnants of something if not
something current
>> or No, I think there's something a a
fair chance there's something current
there. Yeah,
>> I mean based partly on what I found on
the far side of the moon and how it
correlated with what Ingo and this other
guy had. Um Joe McMongle had also I
think in mine trekk
um come across something on the moon as
well. He was told to sort of turn around
during his
>> Well, he had he had Mars. Did he do the
moon? I can't remember.
>> Yeah, the moon was a mre where uh he he
followed somebody some type of
>> soul or consciousness or non-physical
being or something up through the
atmosphere towards the moon, I think.
Well, I thought that was he was trying
to attract an a porn agent of some kind
>> and then was told to turn around.
>> Well, the guy was dead, right?
>> And Joe said, "Well, I got so far and I
can't go any further." And and and Skip,
I think was his monitor, and said,
>> "Well, well, why not?" He says, "I'm
blocked for some reason." And it turned
out the guy was dead.
>> Yeah.
>> And so Joe probably didn't want to
follow him anyway, but they go to the
light. No, don't go to the light
[laughter] in this case. But but I don't
know if it's the same thing. I'd have to
go back and review. mind track has been
decades since I read it. So,
>> um, but that I mean that is interesting.
And then when you look at the
correlation with Mars as well, I mean
you were tasked with the face on Mars.
>> Well, um, and I don't know if I was um I
did some of those Mars things, not on
purpose. I was I was directing there. I
think Dames had me do one or two of
them.
>> Ed Dames.
>> Ed Dames.
>> Okay.
>> Well, he was kind of the wild card.
>> He was a wild card. I met Ed uh I was
lucky enough to, you know, spend some
time with him. He's he's he's definitely
a fun person to to get a drink with or
to go get a meal with. He's got stories
galore.
>> You you put a put a anything with
alcohol in his hand and you get great
stories.
>> Absolutely.
>> Yeah. Used to get drunk together on
expensive wine and trade stories back
and forth, you know. Uh Engles were
true. I'm not sure Eds were, but
>> Sure.
>> Or at least Engle believed they were
true. Let's put it that way.
>> Um yeah. So, um, and he was, so he did
what Skip did, except he did it a bit
more sloppily, let's say. Um, he would
actually sometimes I was complaining
about this yesterday at at the
conference, too. I gave a talk on if you
absolutely positively must remote view
Bigfoot, here's how to do it, right?
Except Bigfoot stood for any kind of
anomaly target you might do. And um, and
one of the ones he had us do was, I
don't know, the Galactic Federation,
Supreme Galactic Council. I don't
remember his exact location and the fact
is people have latched on to that and
they all have their different names for
it so I can't remember the correct name
but he had a remote view that and it was
just something he pulled out of his head
you know it he had no particular reason
to believe it existed he was uh he was
enamored with the Uranchia book back
then and I think there might be
something in there that suggested this
idea to about a galactic federation or
maybe he'd watch too many Star Trek
reruns I don't know but um There's
absolutely no reason to believe that a
galactic federation exists.
And there's actually some pretty good
reason to think it doesn't. Most of them
having to do with the laws of physics,
right? So, um, well, and there's the
idea of big numbers in a huge universe,
right? So,
the problem is, I mean, there's reasons
not to think there is even such thing,
but that it just came out of his head.
He didn't have any reason to believe
that. So he would do these kind of
things some of which real like he had
his do rentals and forest and um
>> like the holy grail and like these type
of things as well right the ark of the
covenant and
>> so let's say he had the metaphysically
oriented stuff like the like the grail
and like the ark
>> and he had the um the reported UFO uh
events
>> like Randle Sherman
>> some of the others off the top of my
head I can't remember what they were but
I
>> Kingman or like Kexsburg type of
crashes.
>> Yeah. I don't know if he did those. I'm
not sure how well known they were at the
time. He mostly did ones that were well
known.
>> Um and then he'd do the fantasy ones.
>> Mhm.
>> Um he had me remote view Titan
and I think he was expecting there was
something there, but I don't know that
he had any reason for believing that. He
just thought there was something there.
Well, he would do he would
he would, you know, we'd do remote
viewing during the day. He'd go home and
at 2 in the morning he'd be doing his
own remote viewing exploring the
universe and he'd come back the next
morning and say, "You know how yesterday
I told you how the universe was put
together? I was all wrong. This is how
it's put together now." Right? I I used
to joke that Ed could take half a fact
and jump to a conclusion.
>> Yeah.
>> He was very he had a strong need for
closure. Right.
>> He he did not like open-ended things. He
was very leftrain in that respect. And
so, uh, if if he had half an idea, you
know, then he would try and find some
explanatory context that fit that into
it just so he'd have that closure. And
and he he'd over and over again change
his mind about what's going on and then
task us on remote viewing.
>> Yeah. Coral Castle was one that uh he
talked to me about that he had
>> Oh, is that right?
>> Yeah. He'd figured it out. This is how
he did it. He drew a whole diagram. This
is how Ed did it. It was all, you know,
>> that sounds like quintessential Edge.
Yeah. I mean, we we really liked him
when he was there, except we got mad at
him
>> because he was he was running us blind
on these anomaly targets
>> for which we would never get any
feedback. You just can't get feedback on
these things. There's no point.
>> That's where I got a bias against us
that I started off with talking
[clears throat] about.
>> I think that's where you and Joe McMonle
would agree as well. It's like there's
no point in doing those targets. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> Well, yeah. First off, even if they're
real, you can't do anything about them.
So, what you know?
>> Yeah. And if they're wrong, how would
you know?
>> That's right. Yeah.
>> So anyway, um yeah, so we he would work
us on a lot of these things and we'd get
mad because we didn't get feedback and
to us at the time it really didn't
matter. I'm kind of glad he did. Now I
have to say that for Ed that I'm glad he
did because it gives me something to
talk about with you guys, right? You
know, um and some of them I think were
probably more credible than others.
>> Well, so you had the Mars one which I
think would have been more credible
because we had, you know, Mariner
photos.
>> Let's go back there. Let's go back
there. Okay. So, somewhere around 84 or
85, uh, Al put off sent Skip the, uh,
JPL photos that Hogland eventually got a
hold of and made a big fuss about the
the Face on Mars and all that stuff. Um,
Skip had them way before anybody in the
public did, as far as I know. Right.
Certainly, they weren't, of course, we
didn't have the internet either, so it
was hard to hard to tell. Nor was Coast
to Coast around yet. So um so he had
them and he would uh work various of us
on those and that was the origin. You
know there it's back in the news again.
This this makes a cycle this thing Joe
montgo remote viewing Mars it keeps
coming around. People come stumble
across the transcript of that in the
archives and they think they've they've
discovered something new when it's been
talked about for decades now. Joe in
fact I think he has it in mindre if I
remember right and um
>> yeah I interviewed Joe about it as well.
>> Did you? Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think everybody's done their own
iteration on on this story.
>> And and now somebody
something I read this morning, uh
there's somebody out named Ralph or
Bruce or something like that who claims
to have done that. And if you listen to
what he's saying, it sounds like he's
just copying what Joe said, you know,
and and you know, there's people out
there who try and get their claim to
fame by
>> just, you know, slaving off somebody
else and making stuff up and all that. I
mean, it happen. That's one of the big
problems. We have all these folks making
claims that if you dig into them,
there's no there there, you know, they
they're just looking for attention.
There's a lot of that.
>> Yeah.
>> So, anyway, I think I'm off tangent on
these all these soap boxes that I like.
>> That's fine.
>> So, yeah.
>> So, Mars,
>> Mars,
>> the face of Mars,
>> right? Um, so I don't remember what I
may have done there. Joe's session was
interesting. Skip posted him like a
million BC or something like that or a
million years before now.
>> So that target was given to him by Skip.
>> Yeah.
>> Really?
>> Skip was his monitor. Yeah.
>> Skip was the monitor.
>> So I'll give you the context.
>> Oh,
>> so Joe um
>> I always thought I always thought
Oh, it was Skip the Monitor. Okay.
Because according to Joe, the way Joe
tells it is that he was given a little
envelope or that the monitor was given a
little envelope and that Joe didn't know
the target.
>> Joe didn't know the target
>> and then the monitor knew the target.
>> Yes.
>> Um the monitor gave him coordinates. He
remote viewed and then but he said he
said it was
the target was given to the monitor from
folks at the DIA or something.
Joe Joe um misremembers a lot these
days.
>> Okay.
>> You know, I hate to say that because
that'll make you mad at me, but this is
that's not how it happened. The
transcript is in the archives. Okay. And
what that was before we were
>> I've read the transcript, but there's no
names on them because it's
>> there's numbers.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> And Joe's number what I don't know which
one they used. He had three different
numbers. They they assigned uh the early
viewers three numbers at least each so
that if anybody did break into the
program they would think there was a lot
more viewers than there were and they
wouldn't know which viewer is which.
Right. Um I think Joe well Joe was 001
although he likes to say he was the
first viewer first one assigned to the
unit. He wasn't. Mel Riley was Mel's
number was 011.
Okay. Um but um
but Joe uh he had various numbers. He
might have been 372. I don't remember. I
have to see the
>> and so his tasker would have been
>> skip. And skip's number was
I have this written down elsewhere. I
want to say skip was 051.
>> Okay. And that would have been the
number giving him the the coordinates.
No for
>> Mars. Well, the guy that who did Yeah.
Yeah. So it's an it's a written
transcript. Um, it was from a cassette
tape that Skip uh recorded it and then
uh somebody transcribed it. Might have
been our office secretary. She did most
of the transcribing. And so you'd see if
if I've got the number right 051 and
then there's the question or the or the
tasking number the the the coordinate
and then we'll say uses 001 then his
response and you know and sometimes they
don't get transcribed right because as
as Jeie the secretary used to say he
sounds like he's got a mouthful of mush
[laughter]
and she had to transcribe it and drive
her crazy you know play it over
>> well because they're like in a
hypnogogic state laying down Exactly.
Exactly. So, um anyway, so skip uh No.
Okay. So, here's the background. So, Joe
was closing in on retirement. Um they
got a special contract with the Monroe
Institute to do what they were calling
advanced training. This was just kind of
a benefit to Joe because he he served
long and well. And just as a parting
gift, they got the government to pay for
him to go down to the Monroe Institute.
Uh where his uh I don't think he was
married yet, but his future wife, Bob
step stepdaughter Nancy Scooter. Yeah.
>> Uh was and so
>> um he would go down the institute,
they'd run him on various kinds of
hemisync uh taskings or
>> Yeah. I think most of it was remote
viewing related. And Skip would go down
and and work with him on some of these.
And if I'm remembering this correctly, I
mean, it's possible they gave the
envelope to Bob and Bob ran him on it.
>> That's what I think it was. Yeah, Bob.
>> It's possible it might have been him,
but Well, Skip would have been the task
or Bob would have been the monitor.
>> The monitor. Okay, I see him.
>> Um although I thought Skip did it. I
I'll look at the transcript. That'll
that'll tell me, right? Um anyway, who
whoever it was and would ask him, you
know, get him in there and then start
asking him questions and and work
through it till the end. And that's what
that was. Okay. And and a lot of these
uh internet news sources, they'll say
CIA remote viewer finds out, you know,
stuff on the Mars and all that kind of
crap. And and first of all, it was never
the CIA. That's one of the Here's
another soap box coming up. Can you tell
the CIA never ran the program? Yeah. So,
Congress in in 1994
in the in the budget markup language
assigned the program to the CIA, took it
away from DIA, who didn't want it
anyway, and assigned it to the CIA, who
it turns out didn't want it either. Um,
and so um it was supposed to handle was
supposed to happen on the uh 30th of
June, 1995. Well, CIA takes possession,
gets the keys, 1995,
30 June, and on the 30th of June, 1995,
they shut it down.
>> Yeah. Well, mostly following the fallout
from MK Ultra and everything else.
>> Well, that was of course long under the
bridge.
>> Yeah. But I mean, they didn't want to be
associated with anything like that.
>> That wasn't the reason
>> really.
>> No. Uh because they'd actually tasked us
close to 40 times.
>> Yeah. For I think CIA was 42 times,
wasn't it?
>> Yeah. I I'd have to look at my figures.
I counted them all up.
>> But yeah, they tested numerous times
during that period, right?
>> Yeah. During the 20 years.
>> Yeah. In 75 they shut they they they
left the pro they essentially withdrew
funding and and moved away from it
because MK Ultra, but we're talking
>> 20 years later, right? U no the there's
there were some more details I can't
because it would burn sources that I
have.
But overall uh John Deutsch who is the
director was also infamous for hating
remote viewing.
>> He did not like remote viewing. Now I
don't know what role he may or may not
have played here but I can imagine it.
Right.
>> Is that a religious thing? Was that No,
>> he was he had a nuclear physics
background and he didn't believe in
anything like this.
>> I see. Just skeptical.
>> Yeah. And and we know he was like this
because earlier when he was I want to
say under secretary of defense for
something uh Dale Graph was supposed to
go in and brief him on the on the remote
viewing program. It was Sun Streak at
the time. He's supposed to go in and
brief him on it. And when he found out
what the subject of the meeting was, he
actually threw Dale out of his office
said, "I'm not listening to you. Uh it
was about remote viewing. I don't want
anything to do with that."
>> Yeah. There's a lot of that hippie dippy
stuff going around.
>> Yeah, that's pretty much. Yeah. So, um,
so he was director at the time and, uh,
I think my my speculation I think is
justified is that, uh, he played a role
in making sure the CIA never actually
did it. Now, here's what people don't
realize about the cancelling of the of
the Stargate program.
>> You know, some of them say, "Well, the
CIA just took it underground. They're
hiding in the basement somewhere,
right?"
>> U, but but that's not what happened. Um
what happened was they did indeed cancel
the program. They kept the spaces. There
was about a dozen personnel slots that
came along with it. And this was when
Clint the Clinton administration, the
Republican Congress were downsizing
everything. They were just just
eviscerating the intelligence uh
community. And the CIA was really happy
to get 12 slots that they could assign
anywhere they wanted. So that was
another reason for canceling the
program. they kept it on the books and
so they had these 12 billets and they
could assign those billets wherever they
wanted if they shut down the the the
operational part of the program. It was
it was uh very cynical but you know they
probably do did need those people. Um
>> anyway so so they shut it down and of
course people say well the CIA found
that it was of no good no use. You know,
they're talking about the American
Institutes of Research report that that
was published in in September of '95,
made public in November of '95. Right.
What they don't know is the CIA shut
down the program at the end of June.
They didn't start the research for that
report until the middle of July. So, the
report that allegedly was the
justification for shutting it down
hadn't even been report hadn't even been
created yet. So, so there, so there was
no way that they could have even known
like if it worked or if it didn't.
>> Exactly.
>> They were just outright declaring it
didn't work.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. It does seem a little
nefarious.
>> Yeah. Well,
>> under underhanded, I would say.
>> Well, and they had a reason for it is
because you had several uh powerful
senators and congress people who were
supporters of the program. That's how it
got sent to the CIA. there was a belief
that DIA wasn't doing a good enough job
and so there's some lobbying that went
on that got them to include it in the in
the budget. So, uh Bird, was it Robert
Bird? Was that the senator from West
Virginia or
>> Well, anyway, he's very powerful. He's
like chairman of the ways and means or
something like that. and his sta he had
a staffer who was very big into this and
the staffer greased the skids to get the
budget language to get it sent to the
CIA because
>> now there's way more to that story.
>> Sure.
>> His girlfriend was in the program.
>> I see.
>> And she didn't like the military and she
wanted the CIA to take over. She thought
that was a better home for it not
knowing about John Deutsch.
>> Right.
>> Right. Yeah. And so
>> it would never fly.
>> Yes. That's how it got into sent to the
CIA where it was immediately killed.
>> Right. There's a whole bunch of
backstory political ins and outs about
this. But
>> and then there's the I mean there's the
eternal question
for something that costs so little.
>> Mhm.
>> That takes so little overhead and so
little effort.
Would would it not be reasonable to say
that at the very least they contracted
this out to a private contractors?
>> Well, um that would be a reasonable
>> because they're giving these contractors
billions of dollars for like nuts and
bolts, right? Like like wouldn't it be
reasonable to say here's a couple
million? Like I mean it seems like
nothing to them.
>> Well, I mean it's a logical thought.
Now,
one thing to be aware of, you know, that
the skeptics are always hammering
parasychology saying there people are
spending millions of dollars on this
stuff and it's a waste of money and
stuff. Well, if you actually do the do
the numbers, all the money that has been
spent in researching parasychology since
they first started in the 1890s with the
uh society society of cycle re cycle
research in in Britain and the ASPR here
since the 1890s if you add up all the
money that's spent on the research and
including Stargate
that's still not enough to buy you one
F-35.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah, it's ridiculous.
>> Yeah. I mean, just the helmet of a pilot
costs a million dollars. I mean, you
know, like, so that's that's what I
always say, too. You know, 20 million
seems like a like a lot of money. When
you're like, $20 million in 20 years,
you're like,
>> for the average person, it is.
>> It is. But for the military-industrial
complex, it's pennies and it's mostly
paper and pens, you know. Um but but it
would be safe to say that like this in
the hands of someone you know whether
that's I you know I don't I don't want
to speculate but there's so many um
government contractors out there like
sic or like the these type of like
government contractors that seem to have
a bit of a you know proclivity to to
these type of things.
>> Wouldn't wouldn't it be reasonable to
say that like we're still doing this?
It's like what's the I I don't see the
downside.
>> So So there there just not having a
downside isn't enough to get the
government to do things that it doesn't
want to do. Right.
>> Right.
>> And even during the history of the
program, there was a lot of infighting
about wanting to support it and wanting
to get rid of it
>> for various reasons. I don't think the
religious situation that's often touted,
you know, people think it's the work of
the devil. I don't think it they really
played much of a role.
>> Yeah. But it played maybe a little role.
>> A small role. There was one instance
that's in actually the briefing um uh we
have a chronology of briefings that took
place in the in ' 84 85 period. One of
them is uh one of the congress people or
staffer was opposed to it on religious
grounds and succeeded if I'm remembering
the history right it's in my book
reading the enemy's mind but um this one
of his uh more influential staffers
succeeded in getting getting it uh taken
out of the budget
um and so thinking they killed the
program right hell no that's when
stubble blind came along yeah
>> B stubble came and funded out of the
Inscom's discretionary funds. Yeah,
>> cuz he wasn't going to put up with that,
you know. Stalbin was a great guy,
although he was also a problem.
>> Definitely biased.
>> Yeah. Well, not so much biased, he just
didn't have a speed governor on him, you
know. Well, that's a whole different
tale to tell here, but but um I don't I
think the religious I mean people
exaggerate in my opinion,
>> but I mean if if if somebody were you
know to come to the Trump administration
currently and say China's remote viewing
like I mean that would be the easiest
way to get a remote viewing program
going in the United States. I mean I I
feel like that may have happened already
in the past. Like that's all it takes is
like oh they're doing it.
>> Okay, so let me go back. Sure. Okay.
>> Because that's how it started
>> um
>> with Russia.
>> Yeah. The Russians were doing it. Um
>> and the CIA had even whether they
believed in it or not had to at least
find out make sure there was not a
threat to that.
>> And that's they found out it works
>> for 20 years. I mean you you'd think
you'd know after one.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So um the program was canled. It clearly
was because the budgetary stuff went
away and the viewers were fired.
Literally. I know where they all went.
>> Yeah. Um and and the doors were locked
and they gave the building back to Fort
me and you know there was council. Now
people say well they just buried it down
in Langley. I don't think so.
>> No because all the good remote viewers
weren't called back, right?
>> Nobody was called back.
>> Nobody was called back.
>> Nobody called back.
>> Um and then of course 9/11 happened and
they were actually going out recruiting
people, you know, remote viewers who
were out there to help support 911. Um,
which tells me they didn't have a
government program either. They used
their own viewers, right?
>> To find bodies, you mean?
>> No, just to solve different problems on
global war and terror and all. Okay.
Yeah. So, um,
>> so, so what what is the story with it?
Well, first of all, again, uh, Hal and I
were approached at a certain point by a
third level executive in the in the
agency. I'm I have to be careful. Well,
I don't want to throw anybody under the
bus here, but this this person came to
us and said
it it was like uh you've got the
director, you've got a deputy director,
and then you've got an assistant deputy
director. Right? That was the level this
person was at, the assistant deputy
director level position to know if they
had a program or not. And he came to
Helen me and said, "What would it take
to get a program going at the CIA?"
Again, that question alone told me they
didn't have a program, right? the CIA
didn't have a program.
>> The CIA didn't have a program. So, they
uh we had an inter back and forth with
the person. Um they went to their next
level up the deputy director level and
said, "Look, I've done this research.
You know, what do you think about
getting a program going?" And that
person told this person, "No way in hell
are we going to do that." That that's a
that's a third rail we don't want to
touch.
And so
>> feels like such a shame though. It feels
like I mean clearly we're leaving
something on the table here.
>> Yes.
>> Some there's there's there there's a an
intelligence collection intelligence
gathering method that is not being used.
>> Doesn't sound very American.
>> I'm not done yet. I'm not done yet.
Right.
>> I do know that during the global war on
terror, they were looking for people out
there in the world. They use their
intelligence contingency funds to hire
um to remote view. And we're talking
about people with a remote viewing
reputation, not just random folks,
right?
>> In fact, I and my group were asked to
remote view trying to find a missing
soldier who had been uh uh kidnapped in
a convoy attacked by u by uh al-Qaeda in
Iraq, which later became part of ISIS,
right? Um,
so we actually did we I have all my all
my helpers, all my viewers got a nice
little thing from the general signed in
person by the general little certificate
for their assistance in this. Um, and we
ran into this deal. This is another
sidebar, but you getting used to that
now, I guess, right? Um the problem we
ran into was that the the person the
general that had asked for our help had
got a lieutenant colonel to help as well
uh in terms of being the interface
between us
between us and the general and the task
force on the ground that was supposed to
be looking for this guy. and we produced
pretty convincing data that wasn't
directly locationational yet is often
times you have to kind of narrow down,
right? So the first thing I did was I
got my viewers to do sessions totally
blind to this and I got two blind
analysts as well because I wanted to
test the legitimacy of the viewers data.
So I produced all of the the results
that the viewers had given me. These two
analysts took it and analyzed it and and
really actually nailed the scenario.
Missing missing guy, wartime
circumstance, imprisoned probably in the
Middle East. They drew sketches of moss
and stuff probably in the Middle East,
all this kind of stuff. And so then I
wrote up the report, pretty exhaustive,
and sent it off to this lieutenant
colonel who gave it to the task force
and they trash canned it
>> because they made the mistake of telling
them where the data came from and and
and they already had an op priori bias
against psychics. Right.
>> Right.
>> And so um how it should have gone is
they evaluated that. They told us what
stuff seem would tell me what stuff
seemed to be on uh close to the money.
Then I would go back and task those
viewers, not telling them anything, just
saying on page such and such of your
session, you talked about this. What
more can you tell me about that? So I'm
not introducing any new data except that
uh that we're I'm interested in that
that there might be something there.
That's the only thing to get as a little
confirmation. Right. We did not have the
opportunity to do that. I think we would
have found the guy right off. He's found
two or three years later dead, you know,
finally.
>> Yeah. and uh
we they just didn't buy the data. They
didn't believe it. Okay, so now let me
go back to the ultimate question. Are
they still doing it in the government?
Um first of all, I'm absolutely sure the
military services are not doing this
this remote viewing. It's outside of
their their envelope anyway, right? It
was even at the time. Yeah.
>> But now they they've got too many other
priorities. They're not doing this. A
lot of things that we used to be called
in for as the last resort are now being
handled by technical means like much
more uh much more capable drones and
satellite stuff. The satellite uh
industry improved since then quite a
bit.
>> Um
but then the other thing is they it's
just not where they where the services
would want to go. Now there's one place
where it might be and that's NSA,
National Security Agency or as we used
to say no such agency but whatever.
Anyway, the National Security Agency,
they had a program at the same time we
did because we knew their viewers. They
were also being trained by Ingo.
>> Really?
>> Yes.
>> Well, and do we have a name of the
program?
>> No.
>> Do you know the name?
>> Nope.
>> Okay. I didn't we didn't they didn't
reveal much about their program, but
they did admit they were being trained
for an NSA program. We knew them by
name, which are you're not going to get
obviously the people.
>> Um the people Yeah. And uh I have not
ever heard that the CIA canceled the pro
their program. Now, it doesn't mean they
didn't. CIA does all kinds of things
people don't know about, but there was a
whistleblower some years ago who alluded
to them still having a program. And um I
suspect they might. Um I hope they do.
>> Do you think it has anything to do with
the phenomenon?
Would you suspect that like cuz I think
that's for me. Okay. NSA obviously you
know spying on people and and you know
for national security and finding you
know uh domestic threats and whatever
that makes sense. But also,
like you said, there are so many data
collection platforms that are technical
that can probably provide more accurate
data than a remote viewer, quicker, you
know what I mean?
>> Yeah, there's still things you just hack
people's phones now and just listen in.
Like, it's it's so it's so much more
efficient to use technology in those
cases. But in the anomalous cases, I
feel like that's where,
>> you know, and perhaps that's where Dr.
put off, you know, uh that's why he
continued to, you know, he was a part
of, you know, whether it's BAS or OAP or
like all these other offshoots of like
studying the phenomena.
>> Mhm.
>> Um I feel like that's really where
remote viewing can be used because, you
know, these aliens aren't using cell
phones,
>> right? Well, as I was I tried to
interrupt you for and that was rude of
me. I apologize, but uh but as I pointed
out, um even though a lot of the problem
set that we used to be used for isn't a
problem set anymore.
>> Um there are still some things that tech
means aren't going to resolve and and
those are the things where remote
viewing would still be useful, which is
why I think I hope the NSA is doing it
because they can address some of those,
right? But uh particularly I I like to
joke that um so Churchill famously said
the Soviet Union was a enigma wrapped in
a riddle somewhere there's a truth
something like that. Yeah. Um I like to
joke about remote viewing being I don't
know that uh
>> yeah remote viewing is is an enigma
being used to solve a riddle which is
the UFO UAP stuff right? um if you know
if you haven't got any other means that
can address this then you go to the only
one that might have a chance and I
that's essentially what you're saying
here.
>> Yeah. Using an anomaly to uh look at an
anomaly.
>> Exactly.
>> But but once you look at one, how can
you just stop at one? You know that's
the problem. I mean, this is worse than
potato chips, isn't it?
>> Yeah, it really is. Cuz, you know, a lot
of pe a lot of scientists, you know, the
materialist science, uh, specifically
will ignore the anomaly. Um, you know,
because it impedes on, you know, the
formula or the proof or whatever it is.
And so, you just kind of, it's an
anomaly. That's what it is, an anomaly.
But when the anomaly crops up a lot, you
got to take a look at the anomaly. Well,
the UFO scope is not only an anomaly.
Mhm.
>> It's an anomaly filled with anomalies.
And so it's really hard to draw the
line. I often I often say,
>> you know, I think of it as like a house
party. And when I get to know you, well,
you can come in, you can have a beer,
you can go in the fridge, whatever you
like, right? So, uh, remote viewing, I
know remote viewing. I've I tried it for
a year. I I've interviewed people. I've
studied. I've read a lot of the
research. I'm confident to say remote
viewing is a thing. You can come in,
>> right,
>> Bigfoot, you're gonna stay outside. All
right. I know my friends vouch for you.
I know you seem like a nice guy, but uh
if I let you in, all of a sudden, I'm
going to have, you know, reptilians in
the fridge eating out of the, you know
what I mean, out of the pantry. And so,
I can't have that right now. But that's
that's kind of what it is with this
stuff. It's a floodgate.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, before we go to the audience
questions, I do want to
bring this back a little bit to some of
the most uh anomalous targets.
>> Mhm. Um,
are there any such targets
that
you'd want to just talk about to my
audience that you think might be
interesting in terms of uh, NHI, in
terms of um, you know, having something
anomalous on the other end of it? I'm
sure you did a few, but is there any
that stands out to you as like, oh, that
would be an interesting little tidbit on
a target?
Well, I that's something I'd probably
have to think about a while. Nothing's
popping into my head. Okay. Um,
>> did you ever have a session where the
target was non-human intelligence?
>> Um, no, that was the specific target,
but a subset of the target.
>> A subset of the target.
>> I mean, the lunar one we talked about
was one.
>> Um, the Mount Hayes one, I picked up
people uh in present who were
uh they really hated their lives right
then. Uh,
>> could you tell me about that one?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I got these people. I called
them people, but I kind of put quotes
around and said not exactly people, but
you know, it's like the I I'll use the
AOL analogy here, right? It's like, you
know, military members who are assigned
to, I don't know, Greenland or
someplace. You know, there's nothing
going on. It's away from home. U you
can't go on shore leave. You know,
there's nothing. You're you're stuck
here for the duration. I'm so sick of
here. I just want to go home. You know,
that was the attitude they had
>> that [clears throat] I perceived.
>> And these are people.
>> People. They were sentient entities at
the basic level. Say sentient entities.
I call them people, but they seem
different than people in general. That
was before I re I knew that this was a
an ET related site, right? And um and
you know, I was just describing them and
and and even though they didn't seem
quite like people, I didn't know what to
say about that. um they really had kind
of normal kind of reactions to being
isolated and and and stuck someplace
doing a job that's maybe necessary but
not a lot of fun and you know that that
was kind of the feeling I had about
these guys. So
>> interesting. Did you get any type of
physical traits from them?
>> No, I didn't. People have asked me about
that and I because I kind of at the
point just assumed they were people even
though they felt different in some way.
>> I didn't even bother going there. And of
course, there are a lot of things I
regret not doing today that I didn't do
back then, but that's the way it goes,
right?
>> Would you I know you said you did a
session yesterday at Irv, and I'm not
going to ask you to do a session now,
>> right?
>> Um Well, not unless you insist. No. But
I And I
>> Well, let me tell you, I wouldn't do it
anyway.
>> Mhm.
>> I'd make you do it.
>> Really?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I feel like that's a copout. I
feel like
>> No, it's not. [laughter] And I'll tell
you why.
>> Okay.
>> So, I've had this argument before with a
lot of producers and stuff. Um, they
want me to do the demo, right? In fact,
I did this with I don't know if you ever
saw Suspect Zero.
>> Uh, the movie had Ben Kingsley in it and
Air Nick or didn't Terry Moss?
>> Oh, didn't Ed Dames consult on this?
>> He was someone who would consult. He's
[laughter] actually on film. On film,
there's this video that's played in
there. I don't think you actually see
him, but you hear his voice talking
about remote viewing, right? Um, but
yeah, he did. Um, so, uh, it kind of
bombed the box office and part of the
reason was the critic said, "Nah, this
is impossible. It's too f fantasy, you
know, remote viewing. That's nonsense
and all this kind of stuff." And the
director, Elias Marage, um,
is his last name is hard to pronounce.
Mar H, right? Marage. No, there I made a
German sound to it. Anyway, um he was
hoping in the DVD release to release to
actually improve on that by having
legitimate uh bonus features like he got
an interview with Russell Tar. Um he
wanted to come and interview me and then
get me to do a demo session for it.
Okay.
>> And he comes in and and he's in Austin
and he says, "Well, um okay, which would
be better?" I in fact we were right
there in in the hotel right when I was
going to do whatever I was going to do.
He said okay well uh he's being very
solicitous. He said now we could do the
interview right now or the demo. Uh you
know I don't want you to be tired. I
want you to be all you know set in good
form to do the demo. So which would you
rather do first? I said it doesn't
matter. He said oh okay well which one
you want to do first? I said I I'll do
the interview because I'm not doing the
remote viewing. And his eyes get like
this because he's thinking, "Oh crap, I
just spent a lot of money to bring out a
camera crew and come here and now you're
telling me you're not going to do." He
didn't say this, but I could tell that's
what he's thinking. Now you're going to
tell me you're not going to do the the
one of the core elements of the what I
need. I said, "I'm not going to do it.
You are." And these guys got eyes got
invigor. He said, "I can't do this
stuff." Although we use a different
word, right? I can't do this stuff. He
said, "Sure you can. I got Hal to come
in and monitor him, explain the
outbounder process, and then I and uh a
family friend who's staying with us,
young woman, um went with a camera guy
to to a target location uh which was the
Penny Becker Bridge in Austin. It's
pretty iconic, but it's not something
people normally associate with Austin.
They think it's something down on Sixth
Street or the Texas Tower at the
university or whatever, right?
>> So, we go to the Penny Back Bridge. We
do our thing. We walk around. We look at
it. We take videos of it. All this kind
of stuff. Uh and then we come back to
pick Elias and and Hal up. And uh
and of course we didn't tell him what it
was. We get in the car and we're headed
down the road. And I told the cameraman
to sit over here in the back passenger
seat and Marriage was up here in the
front passenger seat. And I said, "Keep
your camera on him." Because I knew what
was going to happen. We're driving down
the road. He and I are talking about
random stuff, you know, just having a
good time. And I purposely was trying to
keep his mind off of the session. We
were driving down the road. And then
when you come up over Capitol Texas
Highway, you can see the bridge looming
on on the kind of on the horizon. We
come up over there and and he happens to
look around.
That's the target. [laughter] He said,
"That's what I," you know, he got really
excited. It's all on film and it's all
in the bonus feature, the DVD. We get
there and he's just absolutely ecstatic
about this. We go up above it, we go
down below it, we go all over, and he's
going, "Yeah, I got this and I and I
perceive this." Although some of it he
didn't write down, which is it's too
bad. You know, I tell my students, if
you don't write it down, it doesn't
count, right?
>> But anyway,
>> the reason I do that, and I've done that
many times now,
>> I uh the first time I did this, I did it
for an A&E uh project where I actually
did the demo and they screwed it up. I
told them exactly how to do an
outbounder and they didn't do it right
and I had marginal success on that.
>> Um, and I realized if I don't have
control of the process
then it's almost always going to get
screwed up.
>> Would you trust me to be the outbound?
>> No. And because there's another factor,
>> okay,
>> and that is if you have somebody else do
the demo. And they found this. This is a
model they used at SRRI. They'd have a
scientist or a journalist or somebody
coming in wanted to see it done. They
started off
uh having you know calling in one of
their best viewers you know Helmed or or
somebody and then having them do the
viewing while somebody does the
outbounder and then show the results to
the the inquirer the person who come in
and they say that's really cool but you
might have fooled me and I don't know
how you did it but you might have fooled
me it wasn't a conversion experience
right they didn't necessarily believe
what they were shown
>> sure
>> okay
>> so there's this thing called first time
effect in remote viewing where the first
couple times you do it, you have
actually a very high chance of
>> I've done it. I've done it a bunch
though.
>> Okay, that's okay. It's been a while.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it has been a while.
>> So, so uh what and this was Ingo's idea.
He said, "Well, why don't you have them
come in count on the first time effect
make them the viewer?" And so what had
happened is someone come in and said,
"Okay, yeah, u and so and so are going
to go off to this target. Have a seat
here. Here's a pen and paper." And they
say, "Just like just like Elias had. I
can't do this." Sure, you can. They get
usually it was uh well, it was either
Hal or Russell that monitored and
roughly 80 just over 80% of the time
they had a good success.
>> And then they believed it because they
had done it themselves. They knew what
they knew. They knew what they didn't
know.
>> I mean, I'm already bought in.
>> That's right.
>> I've already had my experiences.
>> Third factor here. Yeah.
>> Is the audience. Now, there wasn't an
audience in those cases.
>> Sure.
>> This case, there's an audience.
>> Yeah. If I do it, they still don't know
that it wasn't fake.
>> Sure.
>> If you do it, they might have much
higher confidence than
>> Oh, I'm not sure about that.
>> Yeah, [laughter] they do. Well, they
know you're a magician. They also know
you're trying hard to be sincere.
>> Sure.
>> So,
>> well, what if we both did it?
>> Well, then you'd have to get an outbound
team and somebody to to manage it. Um
Well, we're not going to do it now
because it takes time to set up. I
actually would be willing to do
something like this.
>> Yeah.
>> In some future engagement. Okay. Right.
Uh we'd have to set it up though so that
we made sure that all the moving parts
moved properly.
>> Sure.
>> Um and
>> yeah, it's a bit last minute.
>> You'd need um at least an additional
camera and somebody to man it.
>> Yeah, we got phones and I got uh
>> you know, we got I got an employee here
or Vinnie or he's out there. I mean,
could set it up.
>> Well, okay. I I mean, I'd be happy to do
it. I don't know if now is the time.
>> I don't know that now's the time either.
Yeah, it's a bit last minute. Yeah, but
you know, in the future, assuming I come
back, I would actually be willing to do
this.
>> Yeah, we could just set up a whole
experiment. It's a lot of fun. So,
>> great. Okay, we'll set it up next time.
>> Okay.
>> Okay, sounds good. I'm going to go
>> or we could set it up when we're
somewhere else, which is even better.
>> Yeah, cuz there's nothing familiar
around.
>> Exactly. Yeah. Here you might guess.
Sure.
>> Or you might try to guess.
>> Exactly.
>> There's noise. Yeah.
>> Okay, let me go turn this camera on.
We're going to get some audience
questions.
>> Sounds good. So, are we we're still
recording? Yep.
>> Oh, okay. But so, so far you like how
we're we've gone on this.
>> This is great. I love the riff. I love
everything. I'm learning so much about
this stuff and
>> it, you know, this is the this is the
uh this was the impetus for this channel
was remote viewing. You know, I I got
into it because my friend Nelson, who's
a memory champion who I've told you
about, you probably met
>> and he was I he was approached by
>> He will remember me though. So, yeah.
I'll definitely remember you. Um, he was
approached by these guys who were hired
by some type of hedge fund or something
um that were looking to train remote
viewers to play the stock market. So,
associate of remote viewing,
>> I think. I think um uh what's his name?
Brett. Brent
uh forgetting his name now.
>> Regardless, he was then trained for an
hour a day for a month to try and do
this associative remote viewing. had
some really great, you know, success
with it. And he has a he's very left
brain, had a physics background. Was
kind of like, I don't know if I, you
know, believe in any of this stuff. And,
uh, and then he told me about it and I
was like, that's fascinating. I I
remember this the psychic spy
documentary and everything else. I was
like, yeah, I want to learn.
>> So, he kind of taught me what he
learned. I I did it for a year,
documented that process. in that process
um interviewed a bunch of people
including Ed Dames, Jones Monagle, Ed
May
>> um all sorts of people in and around uh
this space and then um sort of put
together this three-part series and
that's how the channel started was uh
was through
>> still is that still up
>> the first videos.
>> I should go watch those
>> on my channel. Yeah, they were a little
a little more cinematic, a little more
uh dramatic. I'd incorporate a little
bit of story into there, a little bit of
fiction, but it was it was definitely a
lot of fun.
>> Okay. Um, but the sessions were real and
uh they were for me enough to convince
me.
>> See, you said you watched some of my
videos. I should have watched some of
your videos.
>> You got some you got some homework to do
>> post uh post podcast.
>> All right, let's go here.
Okay. Yeah, this is actually a really
good one
from Frankie.
Oh, we're playing Jeopardy. I had no
idea.
>> What have you remote viewed in the past
that now can be verified as hard facts
versus what you perceived initially? So,
there is there anything that you remote
viewed and you're like, "What is that?
This is nonsense." But now you're like,
"Oh my gosh, that's what it was."
>> Wow. Um, I mean, a ton of stuff. I mean,
we I I we did a lot I did a lot of well,
all of us did a lot of uh training
sessions against targets that could be
verified right away. I'm thinking what
this question may be referring to is
things that until recently I may not
have known the content of that, you
know, if it was legitimate or not. So,
that's a little bit different. And let
me think there was something
what
well I've talked about the Stark session
where I described the attack on a
warship on US warship but that was 50
hours later I got feedback on that so
that doesn't apply here either. What
have I
>> Has anything come up in the news
recently that you were like oh
>> well I can give some other examples.
>> I mean the nimmits would have been one
of those things.
>> That's one of them. Yeah that's one of
them. Um
okay so some examples rather than think
of what the perfect answer for this
question come up with that yet
>> but uh for example the stealth aircraft
project we were tasked to remote view
our own US stealth aircraft program
because they wanted to find out how the
Soviets would do how Soviet remote
viewers might do against the program but
they couldn't go out and ask them right
they couldn't say so how well can you
remote viewer stealth aircraft because
of course It was still in a sap.
>> Yeah.
>> That whole program was in a sap.
>> What year was this?
>> This was 86 when this happened. Yeah.
And it was revealed
um to the public in I want to say summer
of 87 somewhere around there. So we
remote viewed a year before it was
publicly known and um we didn't know it
was an aircraft even you know we asked
to remote view it and uh and we
proceeded to describe it. In fact I was
talking about this yesterday. No I'm
sorry. a couple of days ago at the at
showed powerpoints of all the sketches
and stuff. Uh we remote viewed it uh in
' 86, June of ' 86 I think was cut off
for the data and and described the
aircraft with um weirdly shaped wings,
special uh special skin that you know
absorbed radar and stuff, radar other
radar foiling devices and went through a
whole list of things that actually
perfectly described the stealth
aircraft. Okay. And we did some
sketches. Most of them weren't
particularly accurate, but you know, we
did identify as an aircraft, which we
didn't know when we started, right? But
I actually su uh successfully sketched
one that was very similar to actually
both the F-17 with a V tail and the B2,
which looks like this bulbous whale kind
of thing. Um, combined.
>> Okay. M.
>> And so I've got this kind of bulbous
shape, but I've got the faceted camp
cockpit windows like the F17 and a V
tail on it and and portray it as a, you
know, as a like a single engine kind of
a fighter thing. I found out later what
the actual tasking was. You know, we
didn't find out for a year that we were
we had remote viewed the the uh stealth,
>> but as soon as that came out in the
papers, we instantly knew what we've
been working on.
>> And you got confirmation for that?
>> Oh, yes.
>> Oh, wow. Oh yes. So that was pretty
cool.
>> Yeah.
>> Um but I found out why I combined the
two is because the tasking was for
stealth aircraft plural, but aircraft is
both plural and singular, right?
>> So I what I think happened was my
subconscious went out, found the t the
target, but there said, "Oh no, there's
two of them. What do I do?" And then
switch them together.
>> But uh
>> Wow. Yeah. That must have been
validating seeing that.
>> Oh, it was awesome. Yeah. and and Mel
actually from the front what he sketched
looked just like a B2. It was amazing
his sketch.
>> Wow.
>> Yeah.
>> Very cool.
>> So, um if I think of that maybe, you
know, something that is much more I know
there's something I'm just not stuck up.
>> Sure. That's a great question.
>> I'll be happy to answer it later. Yeah.
>> Um great question here. Once again,
audience has the best questions after
all these years.
>> I'm waiting for there to dollars fall
out of a slot there. After
all these years, what do you think is
the biggest mystery about remote
viewing?
The biggest mystery about remote viewing
is the causality, right? Um, we do still
do a lot of handwaving about it because
we know what the stimulus is. It's the
target. We know what the results are.
That's what we produce in the remote
viewing process. How it gets from the
target to our minds, we don't know the
answer to that. And I think part of the
reason is because I don't believe it's a
physical process. I think it's
non-physical. Now, mainstream science
embraces physicalism, which is the
dogma. It really is dogma that
everything in the un universe is
physical or a function of physical
facts. Um, I think remote viewing and
other parasychology phenomenon are
counterexamples to that and show that
that generalized statement is false.
Obviously, there are things that are
physical, a lot of things that are
physical, but I think that we see these
things that aren't and science discounts
them. The the principle in science is if
it can't be explained physically, then
it doesn't exist. And yet the data
exists. Yeah,
>> there's a ton of it. And skeptic keeps
saying there's no evidence for it. They
are totally wrong about that. And in
fact, they're in denial about that
literally. Um, and so but what that
piece is is where the signal comes from.
And we don't know how to measure it, how
to identify it, even how to see it.
>> But we know what it isn't.
>> We know what it isn't. And um, you know,
I mean,
>> it's not a frequency. It's not a It's
not a wave. It's not particle. Yeah.
>> Yes. We know it's not electromagnetic.
And that's really the only possible
Well, aside from quantum non-locality,
>> but it is information.
Well, yes. Now we get it. When you start
talking information, there's all kinds
of handw weaving going on there, too.
>> Well, the universe is just made up of
information. What the hell does that
mean?
>> No, what I mean like like light like um
information can travel on light. Like
information can travel, but are we using
what are we using to to take that
information?
>> See, you are actually identifying the
problem with this information theory.
>> Okay. that is o ignored. Information
requires a substrate.
>> That's right.
>> Yeah. And the way it is used when people
talk about information as being the core
element of the universe, they talk about
as if it is the foundation of the
universe. You cannot have information
without something to carry that
information which means there's
something else that
>> consciousness or love or there's a lot
of speculative you know words that
people use as the substrate.
>> So vacuum.
>> Yeah. So, uh, there may be a carrier,
but it and it's possible because I'm not
an initiate here, right? I don't know
everything there is. Uh, it's possible
there are some odd physical phenomenon
that actually does allow remote viewing
work within a physical context. But
based on all the evidence we have, I
doubt it. In fact, my dissertation was
based on that. Um I I it was an it
wasn't an attempt to prove that
physicalism is false. It was an attempt
to prove that physicalism is highly in
doubt or should be. And uh and I think
right now the evidence propon
propoundonder evidence is that there's
something besides the physical element
in the universe.
>> Well, yeah, because we're beating our
heads against the wall at this point.
Exactly. With materialism and and
>> the sad thing is of course science
dismisses the possibility of
non-physical elements. If there is
really a non-physical aspect in the
universe, they are never going to come
to a bottom line on the final questions.
And they they don't in fact that was
part of the final chapter of my
dissertation is make that argument. If
you refuse if you reject something that
actually is likely to be the case, if
you reject that, you are never going to
have a complete description of the
universe. So, I'm sorry I'm on another
so of these.
>> No, I agree. I think that's uh I think
that with every guest I speak with is
becoming more and more apparent um that
that is the case and you know I think a
lot of people feel that that is truth
even though they might not have the
knowhow to go ahead and prove it or
study it or observe it but I think the
feeling there for for whatever that's
worth uh is that that rings true. Yeah,
>> that resonates as truth. Like there
seems to be, you know, this idea that
all is mental. That, you know,
>> and see I I disagree with that too.
>> I, you know, that's idealism, right?
Where where everything is is mind and
>> consciousness. Well, pansychism actually
both.
>> Yeah. Or allows for both.
>> Um, I don't want to get into the abst
um because there's other questions,
right? But yeah, I think we have to be
careful by by generalizing anything.
>> Sure.
>> Here we have to be careful. Fair enough.
So yeah.
>> Okay, let's go to
>> Oh, this is this is a nice question.
>> Lovely questions here from our audience.
Once again,
>> if you want to go ahead and ask your own
questions.
>> Question.
>> Yeah, if you want to ask your own
questions, uh these are available to
members.
>> What are you most grateful for now in
your general life?
uh that your RV skills have given you.
>> You know, what are you most grateful for
in your general life
>> about remote viewing?
>> Yeah. Is it the outlook on
consciousness? Is it the information? Is
it the just the knowing? Or is it the
the friends you made along the way?
>> Yeah. So, um
that's a that's a good question and and
it's uh relatively easy answered with a
lot of words. Okay. Right. So, um what
remote viewing has done for me? Okay.
It's not that I've acquired a skill
that's useful. It's not that I've
acquired a way of making money in my
retirement. It's not that um I have lots
of great stories to tell. It's that I
recognize
I now have solid evidence for something
I've pretty much believed all along but
didn't have was able to establish and
that is that we are indeed more than our
physical bodies. We're more than our
minds. That mind is not constrained
within the parameters of the brain.
Okay, that's of course the physicist
answer here that that that consciousness
and mental processing all a function of
brain processing of firing of neurons
that kind of thing. I think that u the
parasychology evidence and the remote
viewing evidence I kind of touched on
this a minute ago is is strong evidence
that our minds are non-physical that
they can exist outside of our brain. So
okay so think what this implication here
is. If physicalism is true, there's
probably no such thing as God. There's
probably no such thing as free will.
Even people have tried to reconcile
physicalism and free will for decades
now, and so far they pretty much failed,
right? Uh the universes, the at least
our physical universe is largely
deterministic.
And the parts that aren't deterministic
are indeterministic. And neither one of
you bring gives you free will. Okay? Um
there's no angels, there's no, you know,
all this kind of stuff. if the world is
just physical.
Um, but the fact that I can I could sit
here at this desk and provably project
my consciousness to the other side of
the world to a target that I have no way
of interacting with, that I have no
knowledge of, no awareness of, and
accurately predict and describe and
sketch that target
is primary evidence that our minds are
not confined to our brains, which is
also further evidence that they aren't
strictly a function of of brain
processes. And that I think is probably
the most important insight that I've
gotten from all of this. Despite all the
other benefits I get, that's probably
the most important one.
>> Yeah, that is pretty important. And it's
a it's a fun confirmation to receive.
>> Yes. Yeah, it is.
>> Um here we go. One last one here.
>> Only one.
>> We've got plenty more, but I I limit it
to three or four.
>> That's fine.
I might have one last one after all
this.
AOL is the mind's guess. Well, that's a
nice way of putting it. What an
indicator signals that you are
projecting imagination rather than
receiving a true signal.
>> So, we talked about the feeling before
like, oh, this is a feeling.
>> Yeah. That I'm on somewhere. That
doesn't exclude there being some AOL in
that signal.
>> Sure. Is there anything objective that
you can point to? Well, yes. In fact, in
my basic course, I go through a series
of them, right? So, AOL, first of all,
if you're getting a
>> analytical overlay,
>> analytical overlay means your left brain
speaks simplistically. Any psychologists
out there will be scandalized and I'm
talking right brain, left brain, but
there that's a good way of talking about
this thing for so people understand it.
Right? So, um,
when people talk remote viewing and hor
remote view, you know, I'm going to
learn remote viewing, whatever, they
kind of anticipate before they've
experienced it, they're going to get
some clear image of what the target is
in their head. There won't be any doubts
about it. They'll be fine, you know, and
and that's not what happens. um uh with
uh without going into a great deal of
detail when you if you have a clear
static vivid image in your head of the
target, it's almost always wrong because
what that is usually a construct of your
left brain trying to answer the
question, what is it? And it may pick up
bits and pieces of the target through
the the right brain interface, right?
Because that's where the sensory
processing seems to be uh come come home
to roost, right? So it'll get bits and
pieces of it and it'll take that and
it'll go to work on it and what I call a
low low bandwidth circumstance where you
get a very little bit of information
sequentially through sequentially enter
your conscious awareness and so it
doesn't have much information to work on
and so it starts jumping to conclusions
and often times that consists of
borrowing from old memories you know
extrapolating from what the data is and
creating these images in your head and
um and they're almost always wrong.
Sometimes they have pieces of truth in
them, but uh particularly later on in a
if you get into a deep into remote
viewing session, they it has more data
to work with, right? And so that's one.
Another one is if you hedge, I I I talk
about um
uh you know um this not I can't think of
a word right now, but words that suggest
you're hedging. So for example, like if
you say, well, it's like this. Well, the
first thing you know when you say one
thing is like something else, you know
it's not that thing,
>> right? So you say, "Well, it's like
let's say it's a a lighthouse and you
say it's like a chimney, you know, like
a tall industrial chimney. It's like a
chimney." Well, you can say right there
it's not a chimney because it's only
like it, right?
>> But then you if you then proceed to
describe and sketch, you get a fairly
interesting representation that you can
see, oh, it's a lighthouse, right? But
that comparator word, that's what I was
looking a comparator word is a giveaway
that you're probably dealing with an AOL
because that's how the brain works. It
draws analogies between things, the
conscious mind, and then tries to sort
out what a thing is by what it
resembles. Right? So um uh there's some
others too. One is um I won't go through
the whole list. There's
>> what about um what about like emotion?
Is there a certain sense of certain like
tug of the heartstring or like a sense
of overwhelming like yes this is it? Do
you ever feel those like and is there
like a knowing just an absolute knowing
that occurs?
>> Not absolute
>> right.
>> Um in fact the research sRI showed that
uh
>> whenever a viewer was convinced they
were on they were very often off and
when they were convinced they were off
they were very often on. Right. So there
is no indicator that is
>> I mean I talked about sort of vague
feeling that is correct.
>> Um that isn't assertive. That's just it
leans in favor of being right. Yeah.
Okay. But if you absolutely convince
you're right you're usually wrong
because what that means is your left
brain has constru constructed this
convincing model of what the target is
that's based on very little data and
it's just a putting together of
conclusions and stuff. So yeah. But the
is the absence of that certitude
then
conclusively telling you oh this is not
>> no not necessarily the absence of
certitude though suggests that you are
withholding judgment which is where you
need to be
>> where you need to be.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. It's [snorts] quite complicated.
>> It is. Well, it's it's actually simple
but conveying it is hard.
>> Well, the ego gets in the way and then
and then like your own mind gets in the
way and that's what makes it
complicated. Are you do you still learn
things with every session about yourself
about your subconscious?
>> I not necessarily with every session,
but I still do learn things. Sometimes I
learn quite a bit
>> how to interpret information or
>> Yeah. You know, obviously every time you
make a mistake and you acknowledge a
mistake, you're learning something,
right? And I still make mistakes in the
session. Sometimes there are mistakes I
already made numerous times and I think,
"Oh crap, there I did it again." And you
know there's this thing called um
internal editing which is where you have
an impression
and your left brain says no that's
impossible. So you don't write it down
you don't verbalize it
>> and later on you come back and say it
was right there and I didn't put it
down. And my rule is if it isn't
recorded it doesn't count.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> It's like uh it's the old Buster Keaton
philosophy. Uh what the camera doesn't
sees doesn't exist.
>> Yes. [laughter]
Okay. And my I guess my last question
which which will be a doozy but is um
you know we spoke about this at the very
top.
>> I'll be the judge of that whether it's a
doozy or not. Okay. Yeah.
>> Um I want to talk about a little bit at
least uh about the relationship between
sort of the phenomenon and the Mormon
religion and how Yes, it is a doozy.
>> So you want to do another hour on this?
Um, we can do as long as you like, but
I'm I I I thought while I have you here,
you know, there's not very many people I
get to ask about this stuff. We're very
knowledgeable on this,
>> so I I thought I'd take the opportunity.
But, you know, in 1820, you have uh
Joseph Smith who encounters these two
beings who come down from a beam of
light he describes brighter than the
sun.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, and deliver this sort of
message to him. And then you have
another instance in 1834
with Moroni when he enters Moroni. Is it
Moroni?
>> Uh we we call say Moroni but
>> Moroni. Yeah. Uh enters his room
floating glowing and then proceeds to
pass through the ceiling or go up and
towards a light. Um you know you have
you have also what are uh what are they
referred to as? the uh
the the Nephites uh
>> Ne the three Nephites the three Nephites
which I think is such an interesting
concept because uh these are are
essentially beings that go around
helping people
which we have so many stories about uh
somebody saying oh the stranger helped
me on the side of the road and I turned
around and he was gone or whatever and
he told you know what I mean and so you
obviously who's uh you've shown an
interest in you know the the phenomenon
and over the years you're a part of
these conventions that are you know
heavily based in eupfology.
>> What connections
can you say that you've given sort of
credence to that are made between
eupfology and the phenomenon that we
notice and the stories of Joseph Smith
and the Book of Mormon and you know
everything from from that side of
>> Yeah, this is this is a could be an
extensive response. Now, first off, do
you mind me mentioning another podcast
on here?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. So, Jeff Jeffrey Michionel has his
>> Oh, yeah.
>> New Thinking Aloud, right?
>> Great podcast.
>> And I have an episode on there called uh
remote viewing and Mormon metaphysics
where I get into some of these
questions.
>> I'll have a listen.
>> Yeah. So, that's just a side reference
for people who want to dig into this
some more because I'm not going to get
into it that deeply. Okay. So, um first
off, it's interesting. I find that uh
fellow Mormons now I have to do this as
a politically obligated from the it's it
the the official name of the church is
church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints and we can abbreviate it LDS
church usually speaking we're not
supposed to use Mormon anymore because
it started off as a pjorative name
>> understood.
>> Yeah. And and they uh the church feels
that we shouldn't enable that. Plus, um,
Jesus Christ is the important focal
point right here. And by just calling
Mormons, we're kind of shortch changing
the idea that church is named after
Christ, right?
>> Okay.
>> So, now that I've got that out of the
way, I will still use Mormon now that
you guys know, right? Um,
>> we can use LDS as well.
>> It's easier. Well, LDS works, too. Yeah.
Because is shorter. Um, okay. So, I have
discovered that LDS people
tend to be more accepting of this
phenomena. of these phenomena than
many other religiously inclined folks.
Um, and it and it's largely because we
have a kind of a tradition that allows
this to happen in our in our faith. Now,
at Fort me, we had Catholics, we had
Mormons, and we had um
uh
>> Protestants.
>> Protestants. Thank you. I was I was
saying evangelical, but we needed a
bigger category. Yeah. Protestants. And
by and large the Catholics seem to deal
okay with this stuff and the more
because they also have a sort of
tradition that allows for what we call
paranormal stuff going on.
>> Sure.
>> Uh Mormons did because for the same
reason the Protestants struggled a bit
because of course the tendency in
Protestantism is to label anything that
isn't obviously from God as satanic. And
um
as far as Mormons are concerned, I think
Catholics to some degree too is um not
everything comes from God. Not
everything comes from Satan and that in
fact uh we are agents unto ourselves and
we can choose to use our own faculties
and capabilities to do good or evil or
neutral. Right? Good or evil or neutral.
Um
uh and uh and and we have a tradition
well it's not a tradition we have a
doctrinal point that we believe that
we've always existed as some kind of
identity. Right. Um
most I'd say most at least western
religions have this not notion they
haven't sorted it out exactly but that
we kind of came into existence with
conception or with birth. That's when we
became a human and and our spirit
started there. It's a half line, right?
You have an origin and then it goes on
from there. I'm going to break your
stuff here. Um in Mormons it's a whole
line, right? We go back as far as
forever and we go up and have the
prospect of going on forever although
maybe in different forms right um in
fact I like to u I like to joke that
Mormons believe in reincarnation but
it's linear reincarnation not cyclical
like we get from the eastern religion so
so we start off life as this identity
which is an intelligence we call it an
intelligence it's like a packet of
identity we don't have actually have a a
way of describing what it is but it just
existed and And we've always had this
identity. Then then we acquire a spirit
body which that's God creating that for
us. And then we acquire a physical body
which is a spirit and the physic and the
physical body together. And then we go
on at some point we die and the spirit
separated and the body just uh decays
and then we believe in a literal
resurrection where we have a get a new
physical body and the spirit. Right. So
that's where the linear reincarnation
comes from. Right.
>> Yeah. Now, how does that pertain?
Spirits have abilities that um that um
to do things without a body. So, in
other words, they can know things, they
can move around, they can interact, and
they do all these things, but they don't
have a body, right? And they can
communicate. Well, if you don't have a
body, how are you communicating? It
sounds like telepathy to me, right? And
so, what about these other things? You
can move without a body. across space.
That sounds like teleportation, right?
So, so there are analoges in the
parasychology literature that matches
these spiritual abilities. Okay. Now,
again, according to Mormon doctrine,
when we're born into this life, there's
this veil that is installed in us. Now,
whether it's installed or just the
results of the trauma of birth, I don't
know, but but we forget that past
existence, the premortal life we call
it.
>> Um,
>> and we go through life here. Now the
doctrine is that uh one of the purposes
being here is to learn how to unify our
bodies and our spirits in an intention
and and everything else. um what I think
is happening in the religious sense now
I don't normally talk about this in the
in my business uh I talk about non-local
non-locality and all that stuff in my uh
if I'm speaking religiously to somebody
u what I think is happening when we uh
gain remote viewing skills telepathy
what all these things these various
paranormal abilities is that we're just
relearning what we used to know how to
do in the pre-existence in the premortal
So these are spiritual abilities we
always had. You know, we forget them
when we're born, but then now we're
relearning them, which I think is part
of our mandate. Really, again, speaking
religious terms, part of our mandate.
We're here probably to learn these
things.
>> And when I explain that to a Mormon,
they go, "Wow, that makes a lot of
sense."
>> And so they tend to be okay with this
stuff.
>> What happens after that sort of
communion? What happens after you've
attained that level of spirituality or
spiritual awareness in your physical
life? Does it just restart?
>> So you said,
>> well, you mean we're acquiring we're
remembering these abilities? Yeah.
>> Uh, no, you just keep on going until you
die.
>> Yeah. But then you die and then it it
starts again where you forget and you
begin again.
>> No, that that's of course that you we're
in what we call the spirit world in
Norman terms of spirit world. The body
is of course rots away. We're in the
spirit world and we still interact there
with others uh you know with other
spirits that are there and there's
learning and there's there's uh
repenting and there's all the stuff you
still do. It's a different order,
different level than of course what we
do here. But then when we are reunited
with a physical body, we still retain
all the knowledge we had. We're we're
embarking on that physical body is not
uh mortal according to uh what we've
been taught. Okay?
>> It's not mortal. It's now an immortal
body, but it's still physical. And I
think this makes a lot of sense to me
because you get a lot of lot of like an
angel.
>> Well, yeah. I mean, all an angel is is
somebody who's doing doing an errand for
God.
>> Angel means messenger literally in both
Hebrew and Greek, right? It means
messenger. So, they're they're on an
errand. They're on a mission. I see.
>> And so, you could be an angel. That's a
role. That's not a thing. Now, of
course, that doesn't match the
conception of angel a lot other people
have, but that's okay. We don't need to
get into that those weeds, right?
>> So, reincarnation would essentially
cease once you've learned those lessons.
>> Well, no. I mean, uh it isn't the
learning that does it. It's the
ontological process. You go from
intelligence to spirit to spirit and
body, back to spirit, and back to spirit
and body. So, that's why I say it's a
linear reincarnation. But after that
part, I have no idea. Uh the the the
doctrine is that you stay spirit and
body together for the rest of eternity.
>> Um but you still learn things obviously.
>> Interesting.
>> Which is good because I'd be very bored
if there weren't new things to learn.
But you know I I um when I explain it in
those terms, my fellow members are are
generally pretty okay with it.
>> Sure.
>> They may not want to do it. It may not
be that interesting to them. They're
busy being alive today doing these
things. But
>> but at least they don't reject it. That
is really interesting that there is like
a way to weave this in and that must I I
suppose strengthen your conviction to a
certain extent like when you study
remote viewing and you study all this
and you try and lay it over your current
faith and your and your current religion
you must be like oh this this fits
perfectly and and does that does that
strengthen your resolve?
>> It it helps a lot. So in my philosophy
program at UT Austin, there was another
returned missionary who came into the
program and and philosophy is
notoriously corrosive of belief. You you
you realize just how much we don't
really know. You know, philosophy isn't
designed to answer questions, designed
to make the questions better that you
ask.
>> Right? Now, hopefully we answer a few
along the way, but but a philosopher is
fine without an by not answering
questions as long as they come to
understand at a higher level. That's
that's the point of it, right? So, um,
so this guy came in and he didn't have
the virtue of of knowing that our brains
are non-local, that they or that our
minds are non-local, that that our
consciousness isn't just confined to the
insides of our skull. And by the time he
was done, he was inactive. In fact, he
was he described himself as being an
atheist because the whole arguments in
philosoph philosophical world undermined
his faith. Right.
>> Now, it happened to me because I knew
half of them were baloney. You know, I
had I had learned that the uh that there
actually is ontologically ontological
reality, non-physical existence. And
that really took the wind out of a lot
of those philosophical arguments because
those are based on logic and logic is
based on the premises you start with.
And they were starting on premises that
I knew were false.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. So,
>> it's really interesting, Paul. I could I
I feel like I could talk to you just we
could do a whole other four hours on
just this stuff here because I'm you
know very fascinated. I'm going to look
into this a lot more just because I want
to be prepared with some better
questions for you as well and I've I've
already done you know quite a bit of
studying on it and um it is just
fascinating just uh to gain perspective
uh from someone who's played on you know
both sides of the team here. you're
playing science, you know, guy who's
part of like experiments and getting,
you know, scientific and then you're
over here and you're like, no, but
you're also someone with a deep faith
and then you're also someone who's
challenging science and and challenging
faith to an extent as well.
>> True. I mean, that's true. I I don't buy
everything that that I've been taught in
Sunday school.
>> Um, and I question everything.
um you have to question your assumptions
all along in all of these aspects and uh
what stands up to examination. Now
sometimes things have to stay the jury
is still out on things like there might
be stuff in in Mormon doctrine that I'm
not sure about. Um but I also don't
throw the baby out with bath water,
right? I you know I I put it on on the
side because I don't know, as I said
before, I don't know everything. I don't
know much of anything really compared to
what there is to know. So I you need to
withhold judgment on a lot of stuff.
Sure.
>> Whether it's in science or religion or
philosophy or wherever else. And that's
kind of where I'm at. So, um, and and
there are some Mormon folk beliefs
particularly which I know aren't
legitimate, you know, and those things I
just if people want to believe them, I'm
not going to argue with them. But
>> there's a the Book of Abraham or
>> Well, that's a whole different rabbit
hole to go down. So, yeah. Um,
>> with the Papyrus sort of scriptures that
were mistransated or Well, it depends on
how Yeah, don't don't even go there.
That's another [laughter] that's another
talk. But let me say this about about
you. Um,
>> I am impressed about how deeply you have
gone into this stuff. And I think that
actually make one of the reasons you're
popular. I think is because you're able
to delve into things that other people
haven't even thought about. You know, I
do a lot of podcast interviews and
generally speaking, they're they're
good, but but often they tend to be a
bit superficial because the people
themselves, the interviewers, haven't
necessarily done their homework. Of
course, I do jump in sometimes and help
them along with that, you know, but uh
but I I uh you're you're a high quality
interviewer and and I appreciate the
opportunity. So,
>> well, thank you, Paul. And I you're a
high quality guest, if I do say so, and
person.
>> Tell tell my wife that.
>> I will. I will. Um, can you let the
audience know where they can uh where
they can find you and and if you know
they're interested in learning remote
viewing, how they can contact you?
>> Yeah, so uh my website is rviewer.com.
That's remoteviewer without the emote.
So rvie wer.com.
Okay. And you can find most of anything
you want there in general. I do have a
lot of basic information that won't cost
you anything. um a blog which I've
written a bunch of interesting articles
articles including the great Santa Santa
Claus caper which involves Ed Dames. You
should go read that sometime if you
hadn't.
>> I will.
>> It's absolutely hilarious. Well,
>> the story is hilarious. Whether I did a
good job with it or not, that's a
different thing, right? Um and some
background, a fair amount of background
on remote viewing stuff. I have a
YouTube channel. It's called remote
viewing remote perception channel. Um
and you got my website and my book. I
recommend my book, The Essential Guide
to Remote Viewing. Um, I am never going
to get rich with that book, but I didn't
write it to get rich. I wrote it
actually to fill the gaps in a lot of
people's knowledge. Uh,
>> particularly people who just found out
about remote viewing, don't know a lot
about it. It's kind of like a survey
course,
>> but it's much more interesting than a
textbook. I tell, you know, there's
stories in there that illustrate this
stuff. I talk about uh where it came
from, possible scientific explorations,
explanations for it. uh skeptical
arguments against it and the solution to
those arguments. There's three chapters
on how to do a basic level uh
experimenting with it and so on. Um so I
do recommend that book too.
>> I'll leave all the links below. Paul,
you've been such a gentleman. So fun
having you on and I hope to do this
again.
>> Hey, I hope so too because I kind of
like this area.
>> Thanks, Paul.
>> You betcha.