Dr. John E. Holland of Princeton-affiliated Pear Inc. details decades-long research into psychokinesis and remote perception, with experiments like 1981’s PEAR Lab proving measurable mind-matter effects—e.g., a student influencing computer pixels from 400 miles away. His team’s "Shape Changer" software (free at www.pearlab.com) exploits non-deterministic randomness to track deviations via intention, while caller Lurie’s 1992 election-era image of Ross Perot hints at precognitive patterns. Holland links these phenomena to quantum consciousness, morphogenic resonance (Sheldrake/Lovelock), and Bohm’s implicate order, suggesting collective human emotions—like anger—may subtly alter physical systems. Though fringe, the findings imply consciousness could reshape reality’s margins, from evolution to environmental shifts, challenging conventional science’s dismissal of unexplained effects. [Automatically generated summary]
Anyway, actually extending out from this storm-laden location to the west and the Hawaiian and Tahitian Island James eastward over a flyover country to the Caribbean and the U.S. Virgin Islands, south into South America and north to the Pole.
This is Coast Coast AM.
Good morning.
I'm Art Bell.
And in a moment, I'll kind of outline for you where we're going this evening.
No, I'll do it now.
We are going to try one last time with Mr. Cal Corf in a moment, I believe.
Next hour, we are going to move on and do something absolutely fascinating.
Something that we did originally, actually, on Dreamland.
And we are going to talk to Dr. Holland, who represents Pear Inc.
A company, actually, that is an offspring of Princeton, which does all kinds of absolutely fascinating work.
So that's what's ahead and a lot more.
I'm going to direct you to my website, which thankfully is back up again this evening.
The server problems fixed and it is once again serving.
So you can go back to the correct address.
And we have some photographs up there.
They're astounding, and I'll tell you about those shortly.
For those of you not familiar with what is to follow,
you may check my website, and you will find audio files of the words said by Mr. Kalkorf on the sightings program.
a syndicated radio program that can be heard.
I pretty well covered it last night, and as you know, I was very, very angry.
I believe that we have with us tonight Mr. Cal Corf.
Cal, are you there?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Cal, I was really, really angry at you last night.
My anger is somewhat abated at this moment, but I believe you've got something you want to say.
unidentified
Yes.
Everything I said about Mr. Art Bell was completely untrue and false.
I retract everything entirely and further apologize to not only Mr. Bell, but the CBC Radio Network and the affiliates mentioned, KFYI in Phoenix, Como, and KVI in Seattle.
I want to say something to you, and it is the following.
Words, Mr. Corf, really do have consequences in ufology, something we're both interested in.
We've got room for all sorts of people, believers, skeptics, even debunkers like yourself.
However, if the goal of our debate is the truth, then the reckless disregard for it harms all of us.
So please, I would only ask this.
The next time you decide to debate with statements of something you call facts, make damn sure that you know them to be facts and not slanderous lies.
This method generally effectively prevents embarrassing retractions of the sort you just had to make.
I really do wish you luck in your future endeavors.
unidentified
Well, thank you.
I would also like to thank you for getting me to check into this a lot faster because if you had not done so, the myth about it and the misperception about what had happened would have gone on longer.
And I really want to thank you for that because what does matter is the truth.
And I'd like to share something with you that I think your audience will really like.
I saw UFO many years ago and I do support the scientific and objective study of UFO reports.
And I wish I could find somebody that could explain what it was that I saw years ago in the presence of several witnesses because I have no explanation for it.
Well, that's what we're all searching for, Mr. Korf.
And in that search, we have to try and pursue the truth or we lose.
I appreciate your coming on the program tonight, and we'll leave it there.
unidentified
Okay, and the reason I mentioned my sighting, Mr. Bell, is because I, you know, I get labeled a debunker.
I have by some people, but I really am just a researcher trying to find the truth.
And as a former senior systems analyst at Lawrence Liver Moore National Laboratory on the Star Wars program, I still have no explanation for what I saw years ago as a Star Wars toy or any other advanced device.
I'm not familiar with anything that we make that can explain what I saw.
And my sighting was posted as a matter of public record many months ago.
And I stand by that sighting.
And I continue to, you know, like yourself look into the subject.
And as I said, my anger over all this has abated somewhat, and I'm going to leave it alone now for obvious reasons.
Now, I've got all kinds of things that I want to tell you about.
It's going to be an extremely interesting night, an extremely interesting night.
First of all, though, in keeping faith with what I have always told you I would do, as the spring survey continues to pour forth, my good friends at KIDO in Boise, Idaho have sent me the latest survey of Boise.
And let me tell you, we are number one.
Number one, folks.
If you look at Tuesday through Saturday of all adults in Boise, Idaho 18 plus, KIDO in my time slot pulls a 25.5 share.
If you look at adults, 35 plus in the same time slot, mine 12 to 5, we pull a 29.4 share.
These are absolutely, astoundingly high numbers, and they are consistent with what's coming in nationwide, and I want to thank this audience for that.
I mean, it's all of you.
The fact that you're here.
So, thank you, and thank you, KIDO.
And I will continue to report these as they come in.
That's not just number one, folks.
That's number one by, in many cases, about double over the nearest competitor in a pretty large field.
At any rate, I want to stop for a second.
As a matter of fact, I wish I could go and see them myself.
Myself, I think I can figure a way to do that right now.
There are some photographs on our newly revived webpage that are absolutely astounding.
They are some of the most astounding photographs I have ever seen.
And you may recall, as we had a storm tonight, I went in and shut everything down once this vicious storm began, over 50 mile-an-hour winds, lightning, all that sort of thing.
Some of you will remember the day that we were hit by lightning.
On that day, my dear wife, Ramona, grabbed our camera and ran outside and began taking photographs.
One of the photographs that she captured is probably the best photograph of its kind that I have ever seen in my whole life.
It is not a time-delay photograph.
She just happened to catch it.
The storm was raging at the moment she took the photograph, and there was a double rainbow.
I say again, a double rainbow, beautiful rainbow, in the photograph, as well as, get this, without a time-lapse photographic method, as you will see, she caught a vicious bolt of lightning.
So you will see a portion of our property.
You will see a beautiful double rainbow, and you will see a bolt of lightning unlike I've seen in a long time.
And that was caught luckily, instantaneously.
It had to be one in a million, this photograph.
And you will see actually a whole bunch of photographs, but you need to click on the little thumbnail pictures to get the real photograph.
And when you do, of course, it'll print out the full photograph.
But there are about nine new, I say again, nine new photographs up there, and they are nothing short of remarkable.
You will also see one of our garden.
We grow things here in the desert.
A lot of people think you can't grow things in the desert.
Well, you certainly can.
Ramona has proven that.
And you will see pictures of Daniel Brinkley when he visited.
You will see photographs of Richard Hoagland when he visited.
You will see all kinds of new photographs up there.
So let me tell you how to get there.
You go to my website, www.artbell.com, and then just scroll down to latest news and web items.
And there you will see new personal photo album pictures.
Click on that and go take a look at all nine of those photographs.
They are nothing short of remarkable, in my opinion.
And the one in particular, which had to be one in a million.
One in a million, without time-lapse, to catch a gigantic bolt of lightning against a storm background with a double rainbow is really quite something.
My wife is quite proud of it.
I scanned it very carefully.
I did the scanning of all the photographs up there.
And I would like you to take a look.
I think you'll find it truly, truly fascinating.
So, the website, back up, working, ready for you.
Go take a look, www.artbell.com.
That's www.artbell.com.
All right, having said that, more aviation problems.
Anything else you'd like to talk about until the top of this next hour?
And at that point, we're going to hook up with Dr. John Holland.
And I'll tell you a little, I'll give you a little bit of a preview of what to expect.
It's really something.
Dr. Holland's research and his product from Pear Inc. is proof that a human being, you, me, are able to actually affect a random number generator with our minds.
And before Dr. Holland is done, he will prove this to you.
You will have an opportunity to go up and download some software, if you have a computer, and prove it to yourself.
So, Dr. Holland, coming up at the beginning of next hour.
Now, I've got one other thing that I want to call your attention to, and you might want to mark your calendar.
Coming up this Sunday, August 10th, there is a program on TBS, WTBS, TBS, the Super Station.
There's a program called Topics, and they're doing a very comprehensive segment on conspiracies and why people have lost faith in their government, in the institutions of their government.
And TBS came into our studio about two months ago and filmed.
And so it may well be that one of you, that many of you will be heard as well.
So if you'll tune in to WTBS this coming Sunday, August 10th, at 7 o'clock Pacific, 10 o'clock Eastern.
Or then you can see it repeated at 10.50 p.m. Pacific, or I presume 8, what would it be, 8.50?
I know that would be, let's see, 2.50 in the morning.
2.50 in the morning Eastern.
The name of the program is Old and New Conspiracies in America.
Old and new conspiracies in America are investigated.
Really, you'll see me, and you'll see me doing the show, which I did particularly for them, but it was a very, very easy program to do because it is a subject I have covered so many times.
So many times.
It's true, isn't it?
Americans have lost faith in the majority of their institutions.
It is a very serious matter.
It's a very profound matter because now when our government says something, our inclination is immediately not to believe it, but to disbelieve it.
And that is a very, very dangerous, dangerous position for us all to be in.
And I mean all of us, the government and the people.
We're at a very crucial point.
Credibility, as you just heard at the beginning of the hour, really is important.
Really is important.
Ethical behavior really is important.
And I'm sorry to say that there has been such misbehavior in these areas in our government that more Americans than not don't trust the government anymore, and that is not good.
And that is what this program called Topics is going to cover.
So again, I no doubt you will see me, and you may hear yourself if you participated in that program.
That'll be WTBS or TBS the Super Station, whatever you want to call it, Sunday, August 10th at 7 o'clock Pacific or 10 o'clock Eastern.
You might want to mark it on your calendar.
With that in mind, we're open lines between now and the top of the hour.
And, you know, if it's pre-verbal, I wonder if it's post-verbal also.
I wonder whether reverse speech, whether they'd be able to find something in reverse speech in people who've had strokes that have damaged their speech centers.
I think that your question is a lot like the young man's question who called last night and asked if somebody who's mentally ill, perhaps diagnosed with schizophrenia, would be able to be a subject for reverse speech in a way that's like that.
Dear Art, ABC Nightly News in Maryland, eight people hospitalized, people, I said, eight people hospitalized, and up to 10,000 fish found dead today in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and state officials site Hysteria.
ABC interviewed North Carolina state official Dr. Stanley Musick, state epidemiologist, and I quote, quote, we have seen nothing yet to send up red urgent flags where we have to give special warnings, unquote.
However, Maryland state officials are taking it seriously and closed five miles of the river at the mouth of the bay.
I ask you, folks, we have seen nothing yet to send up urgent red flags.
Eight people are hospitalized and 10,000 fish are found dead in the mouth of the Chesapeake, and he doesn't see red flags.
This epidemiologist is colorblind.
That's what I say.
He's colorblind.
My God, it's coming.
It began in North Carolina in the estuaries, and it spread to the ocean, to the saltwater, and now it's as far north as Maryland, and they don't see a problem.
Oh, I worry for us.
I really, really worry for us.
The present Shuttle mission, which launched successfully earlier today, has the main mission of trying to decide what is going on with our ozone.
Did you know that?
Did you know why the shuttle was launched?
It has disgorged a German satellite which will monitor the ozone depletion and they will try and figure out why it is occurring.
And so I guess we could return to the ozone argument, but I don't really think we need to if this country and Germany and others involved in the project think it's sufficiently important to launch the very expensive shuttle with the main mission of looking at the ozone.
It does not take, in my opinion, a brain surgeon to come to the conclusion that there may be a very serious problem.
Rather than allowing it to burst, they generally do something.
unidentified
Well, back then, you know, basically, what they did is they gave everybody ether.
Yep.
And then when they did the x-ray, okay, they noticed that there was this TB in his lungs, and they did the surgery on him, and then they took him out of surgery, and then they saw that most of the TV spots were gone.
Has anyone compared the crop circles to maybe some sort of ancient Egyptian symbols or symbology or something?
Maybe if it's the former, per se, Martians are sending us messages, but since our languages are no longer the same, they're sending us Egyptian symbols.
No, they're not Egyptian symbols, but I do believe they are messages.
Now, thankfully, the website again is back up.
And again, I want to take a second and tell you that I think my wife, Ramona, has taken the most remarkable photograph that I've ever seen.
The chances of getting the photograph she took are probably less than of hitting the lottery big time.
I'm serious.
This was not a time-lapse photograph.
This was Ramona Bell running back and forth during this violent storm we were having with a camera, which I was concerned about because it was getting wet.
But it was such a remarkable sight.
Such a remarkable sight.
This is what ended up taking down the receiver, satellite receiver here, that took us off the air for a night and did a lot of damage to the memory of the uplink system here.
It was horrible.
Anyway, she caught with, I think it's about 400, I would say, I think it's 400 ASA film at regular speed, as you will determine by looking at the photograph.
She caught, with a wind howling, a double rainbow, one full rainbow, and then a portion of another rainbow, and a lightning strike, a bolt of lightning that can be seen fully from cloud to ground, all in the same photograph.
It is one of the most remarkable photographs I have ever seen in my whole life.
It is one of nine that we've got up there.
And all you've got to do is go to my website, you know, scroll on down to the newest news and items, and the first item there is going to be an area that you can go to and you'll see little thumbnail pictures.
Well, click on those thumbnail photographs, and it will send you a full-size version.
The thumbnails are not very clear.
They just sort of give you an idea of what's coming.
So you double-click on the thumbnail, and then you get the big version of the photograph.
And then there is a second picture of that same storm in which a double rainbow was captured.
But that single photograph is one of the most unusual photographs, in my opinion, ever taken by anybody, and it was taken by my own wife.
And there's a lot of other stuff up there worthy of seeing.
Daniel Brinkley, when he was here.
Richard Hoagland when he was here.
I think there's a shot of myself and Michael Reagan down in Los Angeles.
There are all sorts of interesting shots.
There are some shots of my wife's prize-winning artichokes.
Artichokes actually are one of my favorite things in all the world.
And we grow them here in the middle of the desert.
And as proof, we have submitted a couple of photographs so you can see them.
All I wanted to do was go to the little BX, which was 75 yards inside the main gate, to get some laundry soap to do laundry, and they would not even let me pass the gate because my clearance wasn't high enough.
I thought we had somebody who had been inside and was going to tell you.
unidentified
Well, I worked around the area for about two and a half weeks doing range clearances out there.
I see.
And something else your listeners might want to know is that there's a compound that the EOD techs stay at, which is between area, what is it, S4 and Area 51.
Yes.
There's a compound between those two areas that there are a bunch of trailers and everything.
If they can ever get an aerial photograph, which is very rare.
The little crossroads that they used to load cattle in right between those two areas.
Well, there's a compound out there with a bunch of mobile home trailers that you'd probably be able to find on your photograph, and that's where we stay when we're out there doing range clearances.
Yeah, I was, you know how you're referencing the GOV earlier today in your program.
And I just wanted to say that, you know, there might be a, well, at least I feel, you know, maybe a lot of your listeners too, about the clear and present danger issue involved.
And I was thinking that clear and present danger as with respect to what?
unidentified
Well, you know, the way at least I perceive when I listen to your show, don't get me wrong, it's all positive, but I think the people that are actually in power in this country are abusing, you know, the power.
And with the way that information structure is set up nowadays, I think that it would be very easy for us not to be manipulated so much anymore.
He is a remarkable man who has been working on a remarkable thing that will tell you a lot about you.
And the reason I brought him back, he was on Dreamland once, is that I have proven to myself, And you know me.
I'm a skeptic unless I can lay my hands on it and prove it to myself that the research he's doing is absolutely valid.
We'll tell you all about it.
Dr. John E. Holland is a senior executive with 30 years of experience in management and strategic planning.
Dr. Holland is a scientist and expert in the martial arts and deeply involved in the exploration of the power of the mind in affecting states of health, performance, and leadership.
He received a BA in liberal arts in 1957 and a Ph.D. in biophysics, zoology, physical chemistry in 1968 from the University of Minnesota.
He completed the Stanford Executive Program in 1975.
He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota where he teaches a graduate-level course on organizations called Alive But Not Human, a study of organizations and their role in determining the future of humanity.
Dr. Holland is president and chief executive officer of Pear Inc. A company formed to develop and commercialize the technologies created by the Pear Lab in their 18 years of research into anomalous phenomena.
Specifically, their studies have concerned two phenomena, the ability of our mind to affect matter without a physical intermediary, commonly called psychokinesis, and remote perception, also called remote viewing.
Their studies have shown very strong statistical evidence for both.
Your appearance on Dreamland has haunted me ever since you made it, Doctor.
And so when you just happened to fire me off of facts earlier today, sort of updating me on your work, I thought, you know, I've been getting a lot of calls and email about that program.
And it really, your work is outstanding.
It deserves even larger exposure.
And so a lot of this audience will never have heard anything about you or what you do.
Now, I just sort of read a brief description, I guess, of what you have been doing.
If you would, let's begin with remote viewing, because I very recently had a remote viewer on.
Actually, I've had most of the remote viewers who are involved in the U.S. government remote viewing program for 20 years.
I've had most of them, I believe now, on the program at one time or another.
And there are many out there who doubt seriously that remote viewing is a real discipline, that it really can be done.
What evidence have you compiled indicating that it is real?
Well, really, the work that we're basing all our products on has been done at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratories in Princeton University.
And what they did is they did experiments with rigorous statistical protocols.
And they showed the correlation between, for example, a receiver and a sender was much higher than chance.
And not only that, that the correlation was higher than chance if it was precognitive.
That is, even if you sent received information like two hours before the target was known.
So there was a lot of interest in this work early on, and it did get picked up by a number of sources.
Now it's quite popular in a number of areas, from military, ex-military, to a lot of websites on it that are in detail and really teach you how to do it.
A simple protocol would be that someone is told to go out into a location that they don't know where they're going to go and quietly sit and observe it.
And another person is told that they would record the observation of the other person.
And on Tuesday at 12 o'clock was the agreed-upon time to do the viewing.
Yes.
And the viewer, that is the person who is receiving the information, at Tuesday at 12 o'clock, looks.
And I'll come back to what it means by looks, scans, tries to get the information clear in their head and sketches the picture or whatever they see, writes their description, and fills out the score sheets.
And in a real-time situation, at that same time, the person would be in Paris looking at the Apple Tower.
But the person who was doing the actual seeing or viewing did not know where the other person was going.
In this actual experiment, what actually happened is that the individual who was seeing looked at it two days before the person drew the information from the hat to tell them where to go.
So a precognitive remote perception says, well, somehow you gained information that did not seem to be constrained by space, in this case, say between New Jersey and Paris.
Now, when I, my personal, the way I relate to it, when I first heard of this data, I was like everyone else.
I had never heard of this in 1981.
And I had asked, I was then a Pillsbury executive, and I'd heard about the Princeton work, and I'd asked them to come out and give a presentation to us, which they did.
And when I heard of that work, I immediately wanted to find out myself how to do it.
And there is now, since then, a number of protocols, but at that time, there were not a lot of protocols on how to do this.
And I agreed to do this remote viewing with one of the Princeton principals.
Now, I had never been to New Jersey.
I'd never been to Princeton.
And we agreed to do it on a Wednesday noon.
And it just so happens that that Wednesday noon, I was in Santa Barbara visiting my daughter, who was going to college out there.
Yes, sir.
And as noon approached, I realized somehow they told me I should look for something, information in my head, which I had no idea how to do.
And it turns out, as we were, my daughter and I were walking back to the parking lot where I had my notebook and pencil to get there at noon, the light of the street light was green, and I stepped out in the street and the car went through the light.
And as I jumped back, clear as a bell in my head popped this image of a quadrangle, a rectangular space, several evergreens.
It was an overclass cast day, and there was a large squiggly thing sort of in the right-hand centered corner.
And I sketched that, and at that time, we didn't even have the protocols.
I wasn't even worried about that.
But I put it in an envelope and saved it.
And later, I was told by Princeton they took pictures of it, the Polaroid, and got the information back to me.
When we checked, it turned out that the squiggly thing was the Henry Moore sculpture, which I couldn't figure out.
But the direction was correct.
The trees were correct.
The cloudy day was correct.
And it was the Princeton Engineering Quadrangle, which is that space as it was laid out in my drawing.
I remember at that time I was so amazed I went out and I flew to Princeton almost immediately to exactly see with my own eyes the thing that the picture had shown.
And from then on I began to realize there was an information transfer here that was not easily explained.
Well, I think I've been pretty careful about how I assimilate information and my sort of rational thinking scientific mind is pretty quick to reject this kind of thing.
But there's another part of myself I call my perceived direct perception where I simply, every once in a while, things have popped into your head.
And a good scientist or any individual who's aware will recognize how important that is.
Most major discoveries in science happen because things sort of pop into your head.
Like the man who invented benzene, Kakuli had a dream of snakes biting each other's tails and came up with a benzene molecule.
And so what you do is you begin to say, well, I better not discount this.
Remote viewing or remote perception is, oddly enough, has a higher statistical correlation than, say, a psychokinesis does, moving or affecting matter.
And so it is an anomaly.
It's very difficult.
And there is only one known theoretical explanation.
Well, in terms of sort of a conceptual territory that would give you a possible explanation in my thinking.
There is definitely some type of relationship between events and material, matter, that has properties that are entangled in such a way that they don't follow our normal space-time rules.
They tend to be, in the quantum terms, they'll call non-local.
That is, they fall outside of space and time and behave in a wave or some type of property which is not really understood and is only guessed at.
I'm recently speculating on that just even on the website because the man, the theoretical physicist has done the most speculating on this, Van Lee Penrose in his book, Shadows of the Mind, where he really describes quantum entanglement quite carefully.
And my personal feeling on it, what we're working on theoretically, is that I think it's a biological phenomenon.
I think that physics has known that quantum mechanics is mysterious.
And most people who hear about quantum mechanics say, I don't understand that, but they all understand the atomic bomb and a hydrogen bomb, which came out of those type of research.
We understand that the light switch is going on, but believe me, no one can give you a really clear explanation of how electrons are, what is really happening in electricity.
So there's a lot of things that we take for granted that are very, very well known and very precise, which the exact mechanism is truly still quite mysterious.
And in this regard, the way remote perception is definitely has an underlying property that is truly intriguing to me.
And what the Princeton work shows is that this underlying property is the same for not only remote perception, but in these other areas of affecting material or affecting what has been known now to be a random state.
All right, here's, let me try and structure this question.
In all of your studies regarding remote perception, how far above chance, if you can apply a statistic, if you can recite a statistic here, do the studies show a remote perception is capable of producing?
I mean, it's not 15% to 30%, but it is not, you know, you're going to get a hit one time and the next time be off.
Now, there are ways I'm thinking with the newer protocols that people are claiming higher, but the Princeton data is still, it is a very, it shifts the odds in the direction of a correlation that is significant and significant in one part out of a billion.
But it is not the kind of thing where you can say you can't do with 100% certainty and say, well, let's do away with cell phones.
And I suggest you stay right where you are because what you're going to hear this morning is going to be absolutely fascinating, riveting, or is going to scare you.
depending on how you absorb it.
Now to Dr. Holland, and we're talking about remote sensing, otherwise known as remote viewing.
He prefers to call it remote sensing.
Doctor, let me try again to understand the difference between I don't even know how to phrase it properly scientifically.
I'm sure that a computer can work it out, but above random chance, what are the odds that somebody could sit and draw something that would equal the Eiffel Tower or what it was that you drew successfully?
Well, yeah, but you're saying, now, if I have it straight, I think I do now, that 15 to 30 percent of the time, you can do something that has a chance of one in a billion of occurring.
Yes, and in effect, it is operating in a mode that is not explainable in our normal science.
I guess if you look, you know, we look at science evolution over time, the earliest science developed with mass and matter.
We looked at how we could move things that were material, like Newton's work.
And in the early 1900s here, up to about 1938, energy took over.
Einstein's work and energy and mass being equivalent.
You know, E equals M C squared is an equation that is that the fact that energy and mass are the same thing is pretty phenomenal.
And that's been like pretty much solid work since 1938.
It's just not commonly known on the street.
And since then, the information world has taken over.
And more and more, what you look at is how information is exchanged.
And information is a strange property.
And it is in that area.
So in a sense, you've got sort of a random set of information out there somewhere that in some ways is becoming ordered in a way that you're accessing it.
And how you order that and how you access it and how you get the perception that is not clouded by your feelings or your memory or your anticipation or expectation, but simply get a clear image is an art in itself.
But for those really interested in digging into this, I would recommend the book Margins of Reality by Professor Robert John and Brenda Dunn from Princeton in 1987.
And earlier, Hal Putoff, as a theater ecophysicist, did some of the groundbreaking work in this area in the 70s.
Well, Hal, to me, is one of the most extraordinary and the most far-reaching theater eclophysicists today.
And he is very busy and he's a very, very astute guy.
And I think he's absolutely the person who can put words around this better than I can.
But believe me, right now, I think it'd be very hard for anyone to explain just how this happens, but the overriding outcome is it does happen.
And that's why we've taken the simplest of those protocols and made it available for people to play with, this thing we call the inner eye.
And if you look at the kind of work, and I've talked to people who have come past the Stanford programs in the 70s and when it got into the military, it became to be used for a very specific target acquisition, that is getting information for very specific reasons.
I've never been involved with that type of remote perception.
My interest in it has been that it is a phenomenon that is not explainable by most contemporary science, and it is something that is replicable.
It is something that occurs one chance out of a billion, and when it does occur, it's indisputable.
In that sense, it's closest to something like creativity.
The remote viewers that I have, they call themselves remote viewers, so I'll use that term when I'm referencing.
The ones I've interviewed have indicated that a person does not necessarily have to have a natural psychic ability to develop and use these disciplines and protocols, and just about anybody can achieve it.
Yeah, it's enough to make you say it should be paid attention to, and it has.
It just hasn't been paid attention to in a mainstream way.
And the people who have tried to really understand it have had a hard time getting a lot of other laboratories to work on it.
But there are groups of people now that are more and more seriously looking at it.
I think it just myself, I believe, because what's so remarkable about the Princeton, the Parallel Ads work, is they show that the underlying phenomena is similar, that is, in some ways, the mind can alter a random event, a particular kind of random event, a non-deterministic one.
And in it, they asked these kind of questions about mind influencing, mind control.
And my answer is that this has been going on a long time.
As long as there has been living things, this is going on.
We are all if you take it out of the science world and look at into the actual, just the experiential world, we all know what it's like to have someone influence our thinking.
The salesman who calls us on the phone and introduce themselves, you pick up immediately without even hearing what they're going to say that this is going to be a pitch.
And we all know how to guard ourselves against this.
And some of us are better than others at shielding ourselves against that kind of influence.
I guess I would look at the idea of my original thought as being pretty suspect.
You know, I'd say the brain is totally insane.
I mean, our neurons are doing what they want to do all the time.
And our job is to try to manage this chaos.
And so when I look at something coming out of the gamesh of my head, my first reaction is, let's see what it is before you say, I'm going to let it manage me.
And there's a natural biological, I'd say, instinct or certainly ability to be suspicious of things that try to manage you.
And that's what helps us survive.
And that's where it would be.
Most people are very good at picking up on this type of thing.
It's been common, of course, in all military practice.
And in the martial arts, it's very common.
You know when somebody is entering your sphere of influence and when they're trying to penetrate your mind.
I think more would be a person of a very strong, determined nature would be very little influenced by anyone.
And there would have to be, and if you looked at when would you try to influence a person, when was their guard down, when they're sleeping would be perhaps the least affected because the brain is so disordered, then what you'd plant then would be no more than a random dream.
So I think it's possible, and I think a person should become aware of these things.
And I think that the person shouldn't fear being vulnerable as much as increase your awareness and learn to manage this phenomenon.
Well, Doctor, I'm a little cynical these days about our government with good cause, and most people should be.
If remote influencing is even vaguely possible, the U.S. government would have a very, very great deal of interest in developing and using such talent, even if it only had a very small margin of success.
I think anybody would be interested in it if they thought they could really use it to further their self-interest.
And I think in my own experience, there's one category of group of people that already do this without even thinking about it, and they're called business executives.
It's simply there, and it can be like any other tool you have.
It can be used for right or bad purposes.
I think if you look at the historical application of these things, just from a point of view of just both mythology and mysticism, shamanistic practices and devil practices have incorporated these types of events over 30,000 years, trying to see if you could determine where the enemy is, trying to see if you could determine where the animal is you're hunting is, picking the right target areas.
These are not new things.
All what's happened now is there's a refinement of the process, and there's an understanding that it might not have been simply a trait of a superior chief, witch doctor, or tribesperson, but it might be a trait of the normal individual, and certain persons are going to use it to their advantage.
Doctor, when you have a conversation as you and I are having right now about all of this with a scientist who, prior to this, has not ever heard of any of this, what kind of reaction do you get?
Scientists, as a group, though, doctor, probably have more entrenched belief systems than even the average guy walking around the street doing a 9-5 boring job.
And it's now so specialized that one group of scientists has a very, very difficult time communicating with another.
And so that if you're going across scientific territories, you will tread in very dangerous waters trying to present a strange idea that comes out of, say, biology into a world of quantum physics.
The Brookings Report was a study done by the Brookings Institution that basically looked at what effects there would be in various parts of society should we suddenly be confronted with the existence of extraterrestrial life.
And the conclusions were absolutely fascinating, and they included the fact that the group that would have the most difficult time handling such a revelation would be scientists.
The body of the group will have a great difficulty, and the people who are always exploring the fringes, and ours are exploring new phenomena, would embrace it and be just fascinated by it.
I think whether they're a scientist or another, just a normal, inquisitive person, that's the property that would be, that is always looking and entertaining and embracing new things, different things, challenging things, and difficult things, and not looking at it with fear, but looking at it with the anticipation of understanding it.
One remote viewer, actually several I have spoken with, suggest to me that teams of well-trained remote viewers, not single people, not single remote viewers, but teams who are given targets, can begin achieving tremendously higher percentages of hit rates.
And I played, actually, we played games like this in management way back.
You take any six people and have someone be an observer and take notes, and have the remaining five in five minutes have one person in the group clearly image in their mind someone that they knew, whether they're dead or alive, and then have the other group write down the characteristics of that person, what they were like, where they lived, all that sort of the hit rate goes up higher and higher.
And whether, you know, there's a possibility that all human minds are entangled, that we have this potential.
And in fact, I think in Lewis Thomas's book, and La Cell, we have a tendency to be more like, even more than insects, closely tied to each other.
And the human mind and consciousness, if that's where entangled, then clearly accessing each other's minds, working together in a team, has been demonstrated for a long, long time.
If you're just joining us, then I suggest you sit tight because my guest is Dr. John E. Holland, and I will run through his background for you again.
Very, very important in view of what we are discussing.
We just spent an hour discussing remote viewing.
He calls it remote sensing.
But try and digest this.
Try and digest this.
He says 20 to 30 percent of the time, it is indeed possible to do something that has a one in one billion chance of being done.
Remote viewing.
He says it's real.
Coming up, we are going to discuss something else entirely, though a related field, certainly, psychokinesis, the ability to actually influence something with a physical something, with one's mind.
And I want to tell you right now that you should be headed up immediately to my website for quite a number of reasons.
One, to get to Pear Inc.'s website, which you can do by merely clicking on Dr. Holland's, you'll go down to the guest area, you'll see Dr. Holland, and click on that.
You'll go over to Pear Inc., and there you can download for free a demonstration software program that I guarantee will blow your mind.
And I won't say any more about it right now.
We'll explain it all shortly.
There are several announcements that I've got to get out.
A couple of months ago, a CNN crew was here filming when we did a program on why people distrust government so much more than they have in the past these days.
That program is going to air this Sunday, August 10th.
So you will see me, no doubt.
You may hear yourself if you were part of that program a couple of months ago.
The program is called Topics.
You can see it at 10 o'clock Eastern or 7 o'clock Pacific time this Sunday, August 10th.
It is a one-hour program, and I think you'll find it quite instructive, and you'll get at least a look at me.
And a very, very interesting topic, old and new conspiracies in America being investigated.
It is then repeated at 11.50 p.m. Pacific, so you don't want to miss it.
Coming up this Sunday on SuperStation, TBS, WTBS.
So if you have that on cable or satellite or however you get it, you're not going to want to miss that.
Mark it on your calendar.
7 o'clock Pacific.
You know what?
I'm going to be doing Dreamland when that's on.
Can't even watch it myself.
That just occurred to me.
All right, one more, actually two more pieces of business.
I'm stealing a lot of Dr. Holland's time here.
One is, again, another reason to go to my website.
We've got nine of the most incredible, actually two of the most incredible photographs ever taken.
My wife, during a recent storm which knocked out our satellite equipment here, went outside with a camera, ASA 400 film, and began taking pictures of this very violent storm.
And what she caught on film, it's got to be the odds of this, maybe I should ask Dr. Holland, with ASA 400, not a time exposure, my wife, Ramona, went out and caught a double rainbow with a full lightning strike from cloud to ground in a normal exposure time.
What are the odds of that?
We'll ask the doctor.
I have no idea.
But that's also up there.
New photographs.
That's another good reason to go to my website, which is www.artbell.com.
Now, one last item, and then I think we'll be back to Dr. Holland, and this is a very important item.
Earlier tonight, at the beginning of the program, we finally got Cal Corf to come on the air.
Cal Corf of the Cal Corf of yesterday, you'll recall now, the day before, actually, the one that I was so very angry at for making what I considered to be, and in fact what were, slanderous and untrue remarks.
So we had him on the air, and I am now going to repeat that segment for you at the network.
Please roll it now.
So we had him on the air, and I am now going to repeat.
For those of you not familiar with what is to follow, you may check my website, and you will find audio files of the words said by Mr. Kalkorf on the sightings program.
a syndicated radio program that can be heard.
I pretty well covered it last night, and as you know, I was very, very angry.
I believe that we have with us tonight Mr. Cal Corf.
Okay, Cal, I was really, really angry at you last night.
My anger is somewhat abated at this moment, but I believe you've got something you want to say.
unidentified
Yes.
Everything I said about Mr. Art Bell was completely untrue and false.
I retract everything entirely and further apologize to not only Mr. Bell, but the CBC Radio Network and the affiliates mentioned, KFYI in Phoenix, Como, and KVI in Seattle.
The next time you decide to debate with statements of something you call facts, make damn sure that you know them to be facts and not slanderous lies.
This method generally effectively prevents embarrassing retractions of the sort you just had to make.
Really do wish you luck in your future endeavors.
And there it was.
That's what occurred earlier, and I'll just let that stand by itself.
Now, with that, I want to introduce you those of you who just joined at midnight, and there are quite a few who join at midnight.
Dr. Johnny Holland is a senior executive with 30 years of experience in management and strategic planning.
Dr. Holland is a scientist, an expert in the martial arts, and deeply involved in the exploration of the power of the mind in affecting states of health, performance, and leadership.
He received a BA in liberal arts in 1957, a Ph.D. in biophysics, zoology, and physical chemistry in 1968 from the University of Minnesota.
He completed the Stanford Executive Program in 1975.
He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota, where he teaches a graduate-level course on organizations called Alive But Not Human, a study of organizations and their role in determining the future of humanity.
Dr. Holland is president and chief executive officer of Pear Inc., a company formed to develop and commercialize the technologies created by the PER Lab in their 18 years of research into anomalous phenomena.
Specifically, their studies have concerned two phenomena, the ability of the mind to affect matter without physical intermediary, commonly called psychokinesis, and remote perception, which we discussed last hour, also called remote viewing.
Their studies have shown very strong statistical evidence for both.
Pear Inc.'s mission is to develop and sell products using technology which is responsive to the user's consciousness.
Pear's initial products will be games, toys, learning tools.
In the long term, though, Pear will introduce products intended to enhance health, enlarge communication ability, and educate.
Pear Inc. is also involved in designing and supporting further research in these areas.
And the specific category of exploration that the Princeton Paralab has pursued and which we are bringing into making available to people has to do with events that are random, random physical events.
It has shown that if it's a completely non-deterministic, random physical event, it can be altered with intentions so that it becomes non-random.
You have to be it's a tricky thing and since a lot of people who are very good at computers understand it, there is a deterministic random number generator built into every computer.
To make it non-deterministic is a trick that is proprietary, but it is one that, as you'll see on this kind of product, we are mixing the pixels on the surface of the screen randomly between two images, and your job is to try to resolve the pixels that correspond with the image you intend.
Random noise, kind of like you would see, for those of you who don't have a computer, imagine this.
Your television is turned on, the antenna is not hooked up.
All you're seeing is all this pixely noise.
It's just pure noise.
Everybody can imagine that.
And so what you do is, what I did is I pulled down the random noise on one side.
So I've got that on the right.
And I pulled down one of the other images on the left.
Let us say Stonehenge.
And your job is to sit there and try, and you will see both pictures fading in and out.
One will become noise, and then you'll start to see Stonehenge appear a little bit, and then noise again and Stonehenge.
And your job is to sit there and take your choice, make one screen entirely noise, or make that screen entirely a picture of Stonehenge or whatever else you've picked out.
And what the good doctor is suggesting, and I'm telling you is true, is that you can prove to yourself that you can do this with the power of your own mind.
And here's what I noticed.
At the end of each session, it is timed.
It will be timed for you.
There is a score rendered from what, 0 to 100%, Doctor?
Correct.
Okay.
And so here's what I did.
I just let the computer program run.
I brought the two pictures down.
I walked out of the room and went away and did something.
And I came back, and the scores inevitably were 7 or 8% or 9% influence.
In other words, very unspectacular.
On the other hand, if I sat there during that time and really brought my mind to bear on clarifying either one of the photographs, I would consistently score 60, 70, 80%, even sometimes a little better than that.
And I did that again and again and again and again.
And in my own little way, that's a scientific method.
And I'll be damned if it doesn't work.
And I want to know how.
I want to know how.
So you can go up there, folks, and get this software program demonstration and try it yourself.
Well, that's another one of those big questions that it does work, and it does have the property of you can shift the odds.
And since we've had this, since I was last on your show, and people have gotten it, a lot of the more sophisticated users, I've been showing them how to play it on continuous modes.
You can play it, let it run all night, and it'll be random.
And you will every once in a while get a high score randomly, but you will not get three or four or more in a row over 60% by chance.
And so that's where, if you really look at it, you'll begin to see the impact.
Now, a couple of things you'll learn right away is intention is a fickle thing.
Intention can be a powerful need or desire.
And we've looked at different protocols for how you would look at this or visualize it.
And visualizing is one of the protocols.
You know, look, pick up the image, get it very firmly in your mind and use that process.
The last time he was on, the questions, the requests, the interest in the software, that was a Dreamland program some time ago.
It just went on and on and on.
People fascinated, wanting the software, wanting to try it themselves.
And so I suggest you get on the move right now, get up to my website, find Dr. Holland's name, and click on it.
Go over there to his website and help melt it down as people try to download that software, the software that will allow you to prove to yourself that you have the power to control a true random number generator.
And we're going to pick up on that in a moment.
Back now to Dr. Holland.
Doctor, let me go back to the point where you said you had a proprietary way of turning a computer into a true random generator.
What is the difference between a random, can you explain to us the difference without giving away proprietary information, the difference between a computer's normal so-called random number generating capability and what you have devised?
Well, I'm not a software expert, but a computer can generate a pseudo-random number string by just beginning at a certain point, and thereafter it becomes sort of a deterministic process.
It's not continuously random.
And we are working with it to make it be more, that is not like a seeded, like just picking a random number and then after that generating numbers like the number, some of your viewers might know the number pi, you know, a non-repeating, like 314 and it goes on for an infinite number of digits.
But it becomes, once it's started, it runs a certain course.
That would be a pseudo-random number.
But if it, once it started, it runs totally unpredictably, that would be a non-deterministic random number.
And this switch, the program that we're using for Shape Changer is a simple one.
And it's not a it is, you're going to do better when you're trying it immediately in the first few seconds and minutes, well, the first seconds to 20 seconds, you're going to do better than resolving it after a while.
So in that sense, it is not like the switch we're building.
Is it the kind of thing, though, that you can practice at and get better at as you improve your level of concentration and understanding of how you're affecting it?
Well, let me go back to some of the Princeton's original work on this because when I first heard about psychokinesis, I really had not had any experience with it.
I had heard about people doing it, but I had never seen it or tried it.
And when I went after my remote perception experience, I went out to Princeton and went through the laboratory, I began to see that they were using random physical events that could be like a water spout shooting in the air that is broken up by gravity at a certain height, pendulums that swing with a certain degree, looking at cascading balls going into various bins that would normally follow a normal distribution that were deviating with intention.
And they were looking at switching within computers.
And the interest I had in switching computers, I happened to at that time had all the computers at Pillsbury reporting to me.
And we had one of our mainframes that go down, I found there was only two people who could fix them.
And my people would say, I would say, how could they do that?
Why would it take two weeks for programmers to do it, but these two people were down there, they could fix it in an hour?
And I was told they had a touch.
And so I was interested in knowing how people could influence a computer from a practical point of view.
Yes, I think maybe between all people to a certain degree, and it is a small but significant degree.
And it is when you look at the individuals where we were looking at that time, we actually put some money into Princeton way back in 81 to sponsor this so-called mind switch, trying to look at how you could take a random event.
Every computer that goes through a switching mode will go through a cycle at some point in its complexity where there's a very short time period, a totally random process.
And the concern was that then what if somebody could alter that process?
And what if that were a process that were controlling a missile site or a stealth bomber?
You'd have a very great concern, even if there's a very, very small effect, that you wouldn't want that effect to occur if the outcome could be very large.
So in other words, these computer technicians used not only their knowledge of the computer, but a sort of symbiotic relationship with it to repair it, and they had a better record of repairing computers than somebody who would walk in with equal knowledge and not that relationship.
I remember probably doesn't relate, Doctor, an old joke about a large mainframe computer that had gone down, and they finally industriation called this fellow in after they'd been working on it for days and days, and he walked right over to one corner and gave it a swift kick, and everything began working, and they were, of course, amazed and thankful.
But, you know, if I look at what we looked at the kind of experiments going on in the laboratory, this one, affecting pixels on a screen, seemed the simplest one to make available to people so they could try for themselves.
And it put little shivers down my spine as I sat there and was able to affect it, unquestionably affect it.
It sent shivers down my spine.
And I'm curious, after you were on the Dreamland program, and a lot of people got to download that program, what kind of feedback did you get from them?
We got feedback from one person who wrote a poem about it that we put on the website.
Other people were getting great results and thought they shouldn't get great results.
They thought it should be harder.
Others were having difficulty and would write to me how to make it work, and I would tell them how to run it continuously and let it so they could see a they could calibrate themselves, let it have a random run, and then make it do a run where you are trying to get four or more in a significant level, like 60% or more.
Yes.
People want to know, of course, when you play with this, you begin to see.
We used to call this a game, but you begin to see that it is not something you can do like always with play.
It takes effort and an intensity of outward intention.
It has to be an outward-driven sort of need, desire, or relationship.
And as we had one young intern work with it, we looked at the set of protocols.
As I mentioned, one of the better one is visualization.
Another one is this one, sort of talking to it, interacting with it directly.
Meditation and type of being in a meditative mode is all right, but not as good as those other two.
Being the total, just thinking about it is generally least effective, just thinking with words in your mind, you know, Stonehenge, Stonehenge, Stonehenge.
And oftentimes, the best way to let a person do it is don't try to explain it at all.
Like, I've had people look at it and say, what's going on?
I said, I don't know, just look at it.
And they'll say, hey, gee, I wanted this and I got it.
I said, okay, that's interesting.
This one young student, he could take two computers running them simultaneously with two programs on and make one go one way and the other one go the other way.
And then you could get like six out of ten going in one direction.
That is, out of a run of ten, he could have six out of those ten at sixty or more.
And that, so that's, and this student, of course, did the more extreme because it is this strange non-local effect.
We set it up so that the two images were running continuously, and he went 400 miles away and on a time unbeknownst to me, influenced the target, which we could later correlate.
In fact, he did it two hours precognitively from 400 miles away.
If that can be done, would it be fair to say that we are dealing in the same realm as remote influencers or remote viewers are dealing in with what they do?
It is exactly underlying phenomena, in my opinion, is the same.
And it is, you know, and the question is, that's sort of the billion-dollar question is to let's figure out exactly how so we can make this work in a more tangible way consistently for everybody.
Well, what we've really set out to do, and our principal effort, was to say, let's knowing that in some way intention alters a random physical process to become non-random,
let's make a perfectly random physical process and make it in such a way that we can pick off deviations from it and amplify them and use those deviations to drive outcomes like a switch on or off or in this case changing images on a computer or every.
And we, in fact, it's been fascinating because it shows you something about, I think, a very deep property of a very deep biological property of living things.
My model, the one we're looking to experimentally test would be that, remember earlier on with respect to remote perception, I talked about quantum entanglement or a non-local effect, some way that there's a correlated event going on.
And of course, the real ⁇ if you look at a human, a human is a very complex creature.
And in fact, one of the scientists studying looking at outcomes for human over evolutionary time says the reason we're successful is we're so deceptive.
And as one scientist said, our right and left hemispheres of the brain are even wired to deceive each other so that we don't really reveal even to ourselves what is underlying what our true motive is.
And that makes humans quite complicated.
So we started looking at this with non-humans.
And so like one switch has been used to drive a gumball machine that has feed in it.
And the goal is to see can an animal open it to get the feed.
In this case, raccoons.
And they're quite successful.
They don't get the food unless they can open it with their mind.
And so we're looking at the property that there may be some type of activated cell complex, something if every cell, you know, we're made up of cells and our brain is made up of billions of neurons, it's maybe 10 billion neurons just to see one visual field, and they're all acting in a certain coherent way.
And at the cellular level, the interplay right at that cellular level is in a sort of seamless or continuous relationship with quantum mechanical events.
There's nothing to presume that a cellular system could not behave in a quantum mechanical way, and that means consciousness could too.
Would it not be a profitable avenue of research to, in effect, hook a person with proven ability in this area up to an electroencephalograph or whatever machine you would use to measure and look at the brain during the time that it's doing this work and try and determine what part of our brain is responsible for this sort of capability or is that beyond?
And ideally, I'd like to have a person in a positive emission tomography.
If I can look at the positive emission tomography is where you put a radioactive glucose tracer in, and it shows very precisely which neurons are taking up glucose, that is burning energy, which ones are active.
And you can see that if you look at an individual learning a simple computer game, during the time they're learning it, for the first 10 minutes, the whole brain is very active.
After they learn it, hardly anything is going on.
In other words, there's a common tendency that when you're consciously making an effort, there's a great deal of action going on in the neurons.
In PerInc, we're looking at a set of experiments which, you know, unfortunately we still have to get fully funded.
But one of them is to look at a very primitive cell that loves light called euglena.
And these cells are like a precursor of both plant and animals.
In other words, they're very old evolutionary-wise.
And they would have they're the kind of cells they can live in the dark like any other cell, like a bacteria, but in the light they have chloroplasts, and they will immediately convert photons to energy, and they love light.
And so they're looking at an experiment where we take a culture of these cells in the presence of the switch and see if they can keep the lights on the room longer than if the switch was in there alone without the cells.
This experiment done like this with chicks.
Chicks will imprint light.
At a certain point, they like light.
And a French investigator has shown with one of these random devices, a random device robot, that the robot will normally be in all quadrants of its space if it's not influenced by the chicks.
If you have the chicks there and you put a light on top of the robot, 70% of the time the robot stays next to the chicks.
And so I'd like to see it at the cellular level because it's the neurons that we learn to use.
In other words, if a human were to, in my model, if a human were to really be successful at this, you'd want to know how to mobilize the greatest coherent that is a cluster of activated neurons that are working together.
Like if you're in the center of the God, this is a dance.
And Dr. John E. Holland, the fascinating Dr. Holland, will be back in a moment.
All right, once again, here is Dr. Holland.
Doctor, question for you.
I have so many and so little time.
This ability that we have been discussing, the narrow area of investigation that you've moved in so far and the larger possible applications as it is developed, do you believe that this ability is something that we are gaining as we evolve, as evolution continues?
Or do you think that it is something that has always been there and we are just now beginning to try to understand, hence develop?
I think it's always been there, and I think just recognizing it, once we begin to understand what it is and a little bit how it's working, we maybe will learn how to train and manage it better.
And at any rate, my wife, out here in the middle of the desert, and we're out right now in the searing desert near Death Valley, she can grow artichokes like nobody's business.
I mean, these are monsters.
We just put a picture up on the web, and you must be wondering, where am I going with this?
Normally, you would not expect to be able to grow prize-winning artichokes the way she does.
I've heard for years that plants can be affected by speaking to them.
A lot of people laugh at that.
But as you speak to them, are you not thinking about them and projecting to them much in the way we've been discussing this evening?
Is it not possible that you could affect the growth of a plant?
According to my model, yeah, you would be able to.
If we get positive results of this very primitive cell, which is also an algae, the progenitor of a plant, it would definitely be conserved through all the kingdoms of life, including plants and animals.
Now, it raises some unusual questions when you do that, because you'd have to consider on the animal world that anything that has a nervous system, like a vertebrate, is feeling things like we feel, and we kill a lot of them.
And, of course, in the plant world, there would be interactions constantly that you maybe take for granted are not there just because you don't see them move very much.
There should be these interactions, and they should be fun to discover.
Is it possible, Doctor, that there are others who have been doing the same sort of research that you are doing, perhaps in other places in the world, and who may be far ahead of you?
I mean, I believe very much things are synchronistic, and if we're thinking about it, somebody else is thinking about it.
And when I liked it, way back in the 60s, when I was doing research in the space systems area, we know the Soviets then classified all psychic research about 1966.
And in fact, the United States has usually been sort of a copycat.
We copied Sputnik and got excited to go to the moon, and we didn't start looking at work in this area of the mind until the Soviets did.
And I don't know what their programs are now, but they have done since the demise of the Soviet Union, I would suspect there's been a lot of work done in the Russian area.
Well, I ask this because your mind begins to wander a little bit as you imagine the possibilities.
And if somebody had developed this to a greater degree, perhaps stumbled into a method of amplification, why all sorts of things may be affected that would surprise us.
We tend to always think about the frightening things and the negative things.
But if you truly are in an entangled resonant state with others, and you truly can sense and relate to everyone, then you're going to have a very deep and powerful feeling, and that feeling is usually going to be happy.
I mean, it's going to feel good.
And that type of I would look at that the real bringing of this stuff out of the closet is to know that everything is connected, that in fact we can sense each other.
And in fact, the fear we have of letting each other see into ourselves is maybe totally artificial, that it would be something that would bring everyone closer together.
And you talk about why would anybody kill someone, hurt someone, do damage to others.
If you certainly could feel what another person was deeply feeling, it would be very hard to do that kind of damage.
Whereas an organization and the culture it's driving will change in decades to a few years.
And that accelerated pace has been, and you look at the population increase alone, there's no way to avoid the fact that things are happening faster, more consistently, and humans are causing most of them.
Don't let that stop you from trying, though, Color.
And if you manage it, I want to know right away.
unidentified
Well, I sort of tried a little bit, trying to just get a circular pattern, and I was concentrating pretty hard, and I thought I saw something, but I don't know if that was just my imagination, which I suspect it was.
Are you suggesting I'll be able to possibly store memories and let's say my left pinky finger or my bottomless left wisdom tooth or something of that nature?
No, I think he's suggesting you're doing that now.
unidentified
Right.
Okay.
Well, you know, for instance, if I was to stir up a, well, let's say a remote sensing by way of my inner feelings type revelation, that the brain itself is not exactly the promise of salvation, but the ability to overcome the diversities set forth by the unknown.
You know, if you are predicting something of a large capacity, possibly, because it is such a big event and you're predicting it, can the body, in effect, what you're saying, overcome this by way of a defense mechanism built into the brain to predict the future?
Well, I think we're doing it in this form I just mentioned in our organizations that is accelerating at a rapid pace, but we are not accelerating it as individuals.
And that's part of my concern is that we don't lose track of the unique properties of individuals like creativity and intuition and mysticism.
And I've studied the Bible extensively, but I'm not part of any religious institution because I think they miss the point.
Because from what I read and from what I understand, I'm beginning to understand about some things is very related to what Robert Ghostwolf was saying.
And what you were asking was: are we causing this quickening?
And my question is: can we be causing it on a subconscious level instead of through a remote viewing kind of thing?
That's why we're really interested to have people play with something that probes a deeper part of ourselves than we normally are involved with and our more superficial every day.
And I love them so much that just they're very expensive over here.
And I used to get them by old bag full for a dollar.
Really upsetting.
Anyway, I am so excited about Dr. Holland's talk tonight because I have actually lived this way most of my life.
In that the things that you think about, you create, or you create the space for them to occur, has been a running thought that has guided me for years.
And so to hear someone actually put it into words and be able to somehow prove that is just wonderful.
All right, then just write it down and come right back to it.
And I was just sitting there thinking, you know, I just had a lot of dental work done, and I'm now wishing that my dentist had asked my roots in my root canal if they would mind being ripped out.
I don't think she did.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
This is Premier Networks.
That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM on this Somewhere in Time.
We're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM from August 7th, 1997.
And I think we're really dealing with that pretty head-on.
Just to know, we have research devices that if you have running in a room where a group of people are arguing, discussing, and trying to come to a conclusion, and all of a sudden everybody begins to think together and act together, the thing goes way off the line.
And you can take the Shape Changer product, if you play it another way and let it run continuously, you can put it in a background, pick any images, and let it run through a party or a group, and you'll see high hit rates, and you can correlate it with significant relationships going on in the room.
And the most far-out thing I did was during the presidential election with Clinton and Dole, I had it running continuously.
And in our local area, Dole was winning for a while, and then at the end, of course, Clinton did one, and so the machine won.
But the deviation from chance did not drop down to zero until the polls closed in California.
And so there's whatever humans can generate or living things to generate is an interacting in a large, some type of information field that does get shared and distributed across a lot of folks.
unidentified
Okay, then, Art's experiment that he did with the UFOs, does that also apply?
Doctor, there have been massive sightings of unidentified flying objects.
It is generally contended by almost everybody in ufology, the study of UFOs, that if we are being visited, and of course with the number of planets and suns and systems and planets revolving about them, the odds of life out there somewhere are pretty good, actually.
And so there are many who contend we are being visited.
Almost everybody agrees the method of communication they use is telepathic.
So for the fun of it, with a large audience, millions of people, I thought, why not a collective attempt to have them show themselves?
And I did this twice over a several-month period.
And within days or less of each attempt, there was a major UFO sighting, one of them being the lights over Phoenix.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we did this, but I'm suggesting it certainly is possible.
I would agree that that's certainly as likely as the other one.
And I would like to challenge sort of the listening audience is that we've got a very powerful, sort of unusual piece of technology, and we really don't quite know what to do with it.
We could make it available in a lot of ways to people.
Like Shape Changer sort of gives you a feel for it.
We clearly are going to do some basic research, but we also would like to have more things out there for people to play with, feel and touch, and experience.
And I'm looking for feedback.
Whether it's an audience response, a gut response meter, some type of deep need indicator, various types, robot, animal feeders, we have different concepts, switching powers.
And we really don't know which direction really to take it.
And it looks to me we've got to be responsive to what in business parliaments is called a market is really the deep needs of people.
I've sort of started just because of thinking about this deeply.
In fact, the very I just finished this morning before I've asked you something, a write-up of how I feel about what we're doing, and I put it on the website.
And I sort of set the stage for what I'd like to do is let people know, look, here's some of the product options we've got.
They mean like a transplant, something you could put.
I mean, that's sort of been going on for quite a while trying to make organs like from a baboon or a pig compatible so that the human immune response doesn't reject it.
That's a really tricky thing to get the immune response.
And it is one I'm fundamentally interested in because we think ultimately that's where our research is going to go because one of the most significant relationships in the body is the relationship between the neural system, the brain, and the immune response system, which are a lot of free-floating cells that are pretty much managing the safety of the body.
Strong outward-bound feeling is going to affect a random process.
And much of what, you know, I think that's a very important point because our future research, we would like to get to the point where we could look at healing effects.
One of the research things we're looking at is cultures of cells, cancer cells, for example, that would turn the switch on in order to get growth hormone just to see, this would be just growth cultural skills that simply wants to grow.
unidentified
Sort of like how a bone would heal.
Is that the same?
Yes.
And at the same time, you know, I had done it within about three tries.
And apparently this was fairly good for someone who had never done this before.
Kundalini Effect Insights00:08:50
unidentified
And at the time, I was cleaning my body out a lot more than what I had been doing this year.
And I had seen a lot more visions last year than what has been going on this year.
But the visions that I saw maybe a year and a half ago prior to that, to my practices that I'd been doing, are actually coming in effect now in 97.
Doctor, that brings up a very interesting question.
Are you able to discern a measurable difference between somebody trying to affect a random number generator like the program we've got up on these two websites now, sober, versus somebody impaired in some manner with, for example, alcohol or some sort of narcotic of some sort or another?
Are you able to discern a difference?
And an even more adventuresome question might be, are you able to discern an increase in ability with psychedelics?
We have not done any experiments like that with any drugs or chemicals.
What's interesting is that some of the people have called in since I was last on your show that used the product found attention deficit kids really respond to it.
And we do have one test out with a psychiatrist, and deep sorrow will not affect it, but anger and outward-directed emotion will.
So if you are having a if you're if you're dealing with my guess would be if I'm dealing with any kind of drug that's causing you to really want to express emotionally very strongly, it would affect it.
And if it was one more like the type of like an LSD or something that makes you turn inward, I think it would have no effect at all.
As you may be aware, I've been practicing the martial arts for about 30 years, and a kundalini effect is a powerful way to raise energy up from the spine.
When you say evolutionary, do you mean like an individual or over a long evolutionary time period?
unidentified
Well, actually, where I got that term was from a book by Gopi Krishna.
I believe that's how you pronounce that.
And that was the title of a book that he had had.
He was supposed to be an individual that, you know, well, actually, you're supposed to have a yogi or a teacher, you know, so to speak, to help you raise this energy.
And parenthetically first, Doug Boyd, in his book on Rolling Thunder, the Native American Medicine Man, describes Rolling Thunder making his own storm.
Just for those who might be interested in that, he brought up the subject of storms a bit ago.
Somewhere along in one of his books, he talks about perhaps that we, I don't know whether it's individually or consensus, but that we are creating our own physical reality, basically, through mind.
Well, you know, that's the major premise of this entire body of research at Princeton.
The margins of reality says we are always creating our own reality at the margin.
That is, we're shifting wherever those odds are that we have ability to shift, we shift them.
And of course, there's a lot of people acting not all together, so that because you want something doesn't mean that you will succeed if others are opposing you.
So there is, but there is ours at the margin strongly the ability to create your own reality.