All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 1999 - Art Bell
02:40:02
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Life After Death - Gary Schwartz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast A.N.
from December 28th, 1999.
From the high depths of the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening and or good morning, wherever you may be across this great land of ours.
From the Tahitian and Hawaiian Islands, out west eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, south into South America, north all the way to the pole and worldwide on the Internet, This is Coast to Coast AM, and I'm Art Bell.
Good morning.
Well, do you remember the telephone outage that we had last Wednesday?
Remember that?
Well, I've got something about it that is going to absolutely blow your mind.
And I have a, uh, I have a gentleman to thank for that, in Laguna Hills, California, who led us down the trail to what we're going to be revealing to you before the hour is out.
Keith is hard at work.
Keith Rowland, my webmaster, is hard at work right now, trying to get something done.
And as soon as it is done, I'm going to direct you to go take a look at something that'll just blow your mind.
Every now and then, Our own government screws up, and I think they've screwed up this time.
It's really interesting.
Really, really interesting.
I thought there would be no way that we could broadcast what we're about to broadcast, but for obvious reasons, we are going to be able to do it, I trust, and so before the hour's out, I'll be telling you about that.
Meanwhile, gee whiz, let's look at the news.
And I hardly know where to begin.
Seattle is canceling its year 2000 celebrations.
They're going to actually have the whole area cordoned off and people are not going to be allowed in the area from I believe six in the evening on New Year's Eve on.
Now, This has been the lead story on CNN most of the day today.
And I've been watching the coverage very carefully and thinking about what they've been saying.
Now Seattle's a big city.
It's one of our nation's big cities.
And of course I've got an affiliate there, KOMO, in Seattle.
And I feel like there's something here that we are not being told.
The mayor of Seattle said, essentially, that he was canceling the celebrations as a cautionary thing to do.
I guess, in mind the recent riots over WTO and so forth, but I'm not really, I guess, buying into that as a reason to cancel the millennium celebration for a city the size of Seattle.
So, the other reason they're giving is, the FBI, I told them there was no reason to believe Seattle was a target of terrorism or was going to be or anything, but the mayor said, essentially, and I'm getting very close here, he said the FBI was unable to assure them of no difficulties.
Well, hell, the FBI can't assure anybody of no difficulties.
Any city in America could potentially be the target of terrorism.
Some probably more than others.
I'm sure New York and Washington would be toward the head of the list.
Not Seattle, necessarily.
Now they did have the apprehension of somebody they said was carrying explosives and has been charged and so forth and so on.
By the way, I've heard the destination of that person was going to be Las Vegas, Nevada, of course.
But they've cancelled the Millennium Celebrations for Seattle.
Now, I don't see any of what they said as justification for doing that.
Do you?
They know something they're not telling us in Seattle.
I just, I believe that.
I don't think we're being told the whole story.
Do you?
Again, why did they say they're canceling?
Well, because of the WTO recent riots.
Okay, but that's over and done with.
And because the FBI apparently told them there's no reason to believe they're a target.
But, said the Seattle Mayor, We can't be assured of that.
Well, no city in America can be assured of that, so there's something here that we are not being told, in my estimation, for what it's worth.
Now, this hour's lead story from the Associated Press is about what's going on in Europe, and it's hellish what's going on in Europe.
We reported this to you last week, and it's funny, you know, it's really funny, in a sad kind of way, that when we originally reported these incredible storms hitting Europe, nobody believed it.
They thought, again, I was just hyping everything up.
Well now, most of the major networks, if not all, have covered what's happened in Europe in some great detail.
And I have a number of questions.
The Associated Press story says, thousands of people in France face the prospect of New Year's Eve without electricity after a second killer storm in three days brought fierce winds, torrential downpours and violent waves along the coast.
Across Western Europe, the death toll from the storms now has reached 120.
The brunt of the regional storm hit France's southwestern corner Leaving a trail of destruction similar to the one that struck the North on Sunday.
Fallen power lines, uprooted trees, collapsed roofs, streets strewn with debris.
By dawn Tuesday, the storm that had rolled in from the Atlantic that morning had rolled out, leaving weather conditions calm across most of France.
No new storms were forecast, but much chaos remained.
Now, that's the way the Associated Press is covering it at this hour, and it is the lead story.
And I have a few questions about this, too.
Now, there were a couple of references that said something like this occurred 50 years ago.
However, I've read any number of reports that say meteorologists have no explanation whatsoever For what could have produced this?
They just don't have a clue.
Now, there were winds in Germany reported to be 140 miles an hour, not kilometers, 140 miles an hour.
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe 140 miles an hour would be the equivalent of a strong category 4 hurricane.
That's a big mother.
That's a great big bad hurricane.
Category 4.
The highest being Category 5.
Now in Europe, as here in North America, it is winter.
What weather phenomenon would be capable of generating a storm equivalent to a Category 4 hurricane twice now slamming into Europe?
Causing death and untold amounts of destruction.
What weather phenomena that we know of, other than a hurricane, in our atmosphere, would do this?
Well, the climatologists don't know.
They have no idea.
Nor do I. Except, maybe, the scenario in The new book, The Coming Global Superstorm.
Something is changing.
Now whether it's going to lead to the scenario that's unwound in our book or not, I can't tell you.
But what I can tell you is something is rapidly now changing.
Rapidly changing.
And of course we have the joint statement, which you can see on my website.
from the UK and the US top two meteorologists unprecedented joint statement saying climate change is now a rapidly moving and it's due to human intervention into human hands at work some pretty weird times now this week not tonight but beginning tomorrow night At times when I don't have a guest, I'm going to have a... Oh, Jack Anderson's going to be here tomorrow night, by the way.
We are going to be unfolding the predictions from last year and taking new predictions from all of you for the year 2000.
Now, as you know, you probably know, we're going to be doing an early show on New Year's Eve, beginning at 7 o'clock Pacific Time.
And we are going to cover whatever the hell happens on New Year's Eve, going into the new year, tracking it virtually around the world.
I don't have correspondents lined up around the world except for those who listen to me.
And so, we're going to be talking to all of you correspondents out there.
And we'll see what we can find out.
Of course, we'll track the major wire services in Siena and all the rest of it.
But we're going to try to get to what's really going on, whatever that may be or may not be.
In the first three hours of the New Year program, we're going to have Gordon Michael Scalion here, who I would consider to be America's premier intuitive.
Gordon turned down just about everything else inside TV networks and all the rest to be here.
And we are going to do half-hour segments for three hours, each half-hour segment covering a different vision and prediction for the coming millennium.
So you're going to want to catch that.
Your radio station may not be used to picking us up at that time.
So you might want to give them a call and let them know we're going to be there early.
And they should be there, too.
7 o'clock Pacific, 10 o'clock Eastern.
And beginning at that hour, of course, the new millennium is going to be in the Atlantic, racing toward the Americas.
As you know, there's been a jet hijacked.
It's now in Afghanistan.
Conditions, they say, improving a little bit now aboard the hijacked India Airlines plane.
Reports, though, that tempers are now getting very short on board the aircraft.
And they're escalating their demands.
Not only do they want the 35 Kashmiri militants sprung, but they want now $200 million dollars in, I don't know what, cash or gold or something.
$200 million dollars.
So, you just never know what's going to happen there.
You never know.
All right, let's take a quick break, shall we?
Do a couple of things, and then continue.
This is going to be a very interesting week.
Well, here is something that I have always suspected, but I've never known was really true.
You know, I hate shopping.
I don't just dislike shopping.
I hate shopping.
It gives me the heebie-jeebies.
I think I've told you this for years, and here is the first proof of what I've been saying.
From the Associated Press.
London.
December 2nd.
Men who detest, they say, Christmas shopping, have a new excuse.
It's hazardous to their health.
Male stress levels skyrocket when faced with crowded stores, Choosing gifts and standing in checkout lines, according to a renowned British researcher.
Quote, in some cases, when we looked at the heart rate and blood pressure, this is something you'd expect to see in a fighter pilot going into combat, or perhaps a policeman going into dangerous situations, according to psychologist David Lewis, who did this research.
Lewis's consulting firm was commissioned for the study by the Brent Cross It's not Red Cross.
Brent, B-R-E-N-T, Brent Cross Shopping Center in Northern London has a part of its efforts to reduce shopper stress during the Christmas season we have just gone through.
So they recruited 35 shoppers, sent them last month to stores in London's crowded Oxford Street with identical Christmas lists.
Shoppers ranged in age from 22 to 79.
Two-thirds were women.
Someone alone, some accompanied by children, heart rate and blood pressures were regularly recorded by monitors worn by the shoppers.
They had little monitors hooked up to them.
They were interviewed by a researcher before and after the trip.
Every man in the survey registered considerable increases in blood pressure and heart rates, while only one in four women registered any change.
Most men surveyed admitted the stress of doing it would make them choose the first gift they see rather than spend time in any crowded store.
Boy, do I agree with that!
Loud music in some stores also added to stress.
Now, they're saying there's so much stress for a man shopping that it is equivalent to a combat pilot entering combat.
You can imagine the adrenaline rushing in a pilot's system As he prepares to engage the enemy.
And they're saying that is exactly the same kind of stress that we men face, some of us, when forced to shop.
And I know this sounds dumb to a lot of you, but it's not.
It's true.
I can't stand shopping.
The whole process makes me insane.
And so I don't.
I go, I stay in the car.
I go look at something else.
I do something else.
It's worse than a vacuum cleaner running.
Shopping is hazardous to some men's health.
And I would be one of those men.
So there you are.
Actual, final, scientific proof that men can't do it.
Or, no, that's not true, that men shouldn't do it.
That it could be, I mean, the risk involved here could well be beyond That of other known risks to your health.
I mean, it's got to be pretty high on the list.
Wouldn't you say?
Anyway, there you have it.
Stand by, I think I've got a really interesting announcement coming up for you shortly.
We'll be right back.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
I'm Art Bell.
As they say, don't touch that dial.
You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
Tonight an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
Thank you for watching. Please subscribe.
Don't you cry.
Don't you give up tonight.
We'll reach the other side.
I was lonely, baby.
I couldn't sleep.
And nothing to keep me from my side I was a lonely soul
Until you became my soul And then I saw the spark of love
And in the dark of a...
I got a lot of those heartaches I got a lot of those tear drops
Heartaches, tear drops All the way
Counting for the heartaches Counting for the heartaches
Heartaches, tear drops Heartaches, tear drops
Counting for the heartaches Counting for the heartaches
I got a lot of those heartaches You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
The night featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM, from December 28th, 1999.
Good morning, everybody.
I really love it.
Talk about helping it out.
She just screams it out.
Those are the flirtations, of course.
Well... I have a bit of a... a dilemma here.
What I'm about to tell you about is going to blow your mind, but I'm going to be able to show it to you only because so many people are hitting my website right now at a time when our bandwidth is at a critical state.
You may not be able to get into my website to see it.
I can't get in.
Some of you may be getting in, so I'm going to have to tell you about it.
And it really is going to blow your mind.
Every now and then our government makes a mistake.
And I think that they've made one here.
tell you all about it in a moment do you all recall the uh... the last wednesday night
program when uh... there was no long-distance service from here
and I'll see you next time.
Anywhere to the outside world, or from the outside world to here.
We had local service only.
And I told you that the service from Pahrump and surrounding areas was delivered to Las Vegas through a Sprint connection.
Well, I was right.
Earlier today, somebody sent me something that really did blow my mind.
Ostensibly, it was from the Sprint Western Operations Network Operations Center.
And it's got the Sprint logo at the top.
And it's an FCC form, Federal Communications Commission form.
And it says, Initial Service Disruption Report.
Types of service affected.
I'm starting from the second item down.
Types of service affected.
Long distance, special services, and military circuits known at this time.
Estimated number of blocked calls, unknown.
Cause of incident.
Circuit breaker was turned off.
Full details unknown at this time.
More details to follow.
Causing 8 DS3's to fail.
Methods used to restore service.
Reset breakers and restored power to the DACS shelf.
More details to follow.
Service restored at 1112 p.m.
Pacific Time.
Duration of outage, 4 hours and 57 minutes.
Date of outage, December 22nd, 1999.
Time of outage, 1825 p.m.
Eastern.
That's Eastern Time.
of outage 1825 p.m. Eastern that's Eastern time so we've got this official
sprint form and we're going oh there's one one last thing I forgot to tell you
about this On the form itself, get this.
Geographic Area Affected.
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Pahrump, Nevada.
Military Base Area 51.
Area 51.
Area 51.
Now wait a minute.
This is an Area 51 that does not exist, right?
And yet, the same telephone service that we have here, if you are to believe this form is correct, also serves Area 51, the non-existent base.
And we've got it right here on paper.
Now, I was not going to read this to you tonight.
Because I thought, well, how do I know this is real?
Well, guess what?
It's on a U.S.
government website.
It's, that's right, it's on a U.S.
government website.
Now, not only have we downloaded this, it's a PDF file, what's called a PDF file, on a U.S.
government site, but we have put up the link to the site.
Now, the minute they hear what I'm talking about tonight, they'll probably rip the damn thing out of there.
So I wouldn't be surprised if this link comes up not working pretty quick.
But in the meantime, the link is there and you can go see for yourself.
That issue, that part of it aside, we actually, Keith converted the PDF file and you can see the form that went to Washington D.C.
In all the detail, with even the names and the phone numbers of the people involved.
And the reason we're posting it is because it is on a U.S.
government site.
So it's obviously public information.
We didn't have to hack into this.
It's on a publicly available U.S.
government website.
And it says, areas affected, Las Vegas, Nevada, Pahrump, Nevada, Military Base Area 51.
And I thought you might find that somewhat illuminating, shall we say.
So we've got a copy of this on my website right now, and we've got a link to the U.S.
government site from which it came.
Now good luck on getting into my website, because I'm not having any luck myself.
It's either a bad connection between hither and yon, or we're getting hit so hard right now that the bandwidth, but some of you obviously are going to get it.
Pretty interesting stuff, huh?
Alright, to the phone lines we go!
Anything you want to talk about?
Top of the hour, let's see, top of this hour, we're going to have Dr. Schwartz on, Gary Schwartz, who has written a book called The Living Energy Universe, and he is quite a fellow professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, and psychiatry at the University of Arizona, director of the Human Energy Systems Lab, Co-facility and Energy Medicine and Senior Research Advisor for Dr. Andrew Weil's Investigative Medicine Program, Director of Bioenergy Corps, the Pediatric Alternative Medicine Center at the University of Arizona, and all kinds of credentials.
And we're going to be talking to him about life after death.
And Dr. Schwartz has been doing some experiments that we're going to talk to him about.
We had him on the air one time previously, but we're going to be talking about some experiments he has just done.
Should be interesting.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air.
Hi.
Art.
Yes.
My name's Art, too.
All right.
I'm calling from the northern end of our fair state of Nevada.
Yes, sir.
It's in Paradise Valley.
Yes, sir.
Anyway, I've got two quick points to make, both about the weather.
I was watching Tom Brokaw earlier, and they said, OK, this is one of the first places on Earth to see the year 2000.
I forgot the name of the island, but they said it was right there.
You're Tonga, aren't you?
Tonga, yeah, that's right.
Actually, on Friday morning, I'm going to get to greet that coming from Tonga.
Not that Tonga is going to mean much, but it'll be 1.30 in the morning Pacific Time when it hits Tonga.
And, of course, my New Year's show is the following day, but at about 1.30 in the morning on my show on Friday morning, it will, in fact, the new millennium will dawn at about Tonga.
You're correct.
The thing that really got me broke off is that this may be the last few years they'll be able to celebrate here as rising sea levels are causing this and other surrounding islands to sink.
That's correct.
That bears up your melting poles.
Oh, they're actually going to evacuate the islands.
They're going to pull all the people off those islands because in fact they are sinking In the Pacific, it's not so much the Pacific is rising to cover them as it is the islands are sinking.
Well, it's probably all related.
The second point I wanted to make is, there's something in the Bible, I can't remember exact wording or exactly where it is.
It may be in Revelations or Daniel or whatever, but it talks about at the very, very end times, just before Christ comes, one of the symptoms It's going to be the wind and the sea roaring.
And I think we got that, don't you?
Yes.
I appreciate the call, sir.
All right, Art.
Thanks a million.
Good talking to you.
Yeah, take care.
And, oh, my site did come up.
Finally.
Keith told me at the bottom of the hour break that it was there.
Here it is, Sprint Incident Report of Long Distance Outage.
It's the first item in the newest site additions.
You'll see there it says Sprint Incident Report of Long Distance Outage.
It's the damnedest thing since when would they report Area 51 included with Pahrump and a portion of Las Vegas.
It was just a small portion of Las Vegas.
I guess I'm going to have to wait for that link to come up because everybody's going to it, so.
Every now and then As I said, I think our government screws up, and I think this counts as one of the biggies.
But I bet they'll pull that link down.
I bet it won't stay up there.
We'll see.
Oh, one more thing.
And this is just me, of course, but you know how NASA just had a really good mission and fixed the failed Hubble Telescope.
They were saying cutesy things like, we have given Hubble a brain transplant.
What do you suppose Hubble is thinking?
God, it's cold up here!
They want me to open my eye again?
150 below zero and they want me to open this eye again?
Who knows what Hubble is thinking?
Hubble thinks at all.
I don't think it does, really.
Because it's new computer is a 486.
Not even a Pentium.
It's an equivalent to a 486 computer, and that's about a six-fold increase in brain power for Hubble.
So what's the trouble with Hubble?
That it can't have a Pentium 3?
Or at least a Pentium 2?
It's got a 486?
So really, it's not thinking anything.
But the part of this that I really wanted to point out to you was NASA was, if they had not launched when they did, they could not have launched, they say.
Why?
Because of Y2K.
Now, excuse me, but if Y2K is probably not going to be a big problem at all, Then, let's think about this for a second.
NASA has got to be one of the most technologically advanced organizations on the planet.
On the planet, right?
I mean, NASA!
They're the ones that took us to the moon and tried to go to Mars a few times.
Went to, you know, various places and sent a probe actually out of the The area for who knows who to pick up.
I mean, NASA's done a lot of stuff.
Technologically, they're right up there.
And they wouldn't fly the shuttle because of Y2K fear?
Hello?
You know, they're saying on the one hand, it's all going to be OK, but we're not going to have anybody up in space, not on a bet, not because of Y2K.
And I thought, hmm.
If NASA's not really sure, I mean, sure, they don't take chances, I know, but why would they even think they'd be taking a chance to the point where they would scrub a mission if they couldn't get it back before Y2K?
You know, maybe it's a case of, you know, just like with Seattle, don't listen so much to what they say, but watch what they do.
With regard to the celebration in Seattle, and now with regard to the shuttle, too, and Y2K, I understand precautionary conservative thinking, but this is the most technologically supposedly competent bunch of people in the whole world at NASA.
And they wouldn't fly the shuttle because of Y2K fears.
Wild Card Line, you are on the air.
Hello.
Hi, Art.
Happy New Year.
And the very same to you, sir.
Yeah, I'm calling from Berkeley, California.
Berkeley?
What's going on up there?
Not much.
We had some high wind last week, too, but I don't think it was as bad as yours.
It was up in the 50s and 60s.
That's a lot of wind, though.
It sure is.
Yeah, that's a lot of wind.
And it was hot up in the 75s.
For this time of year, it's very unusual.
Well, look, weather everywhere right now, sir, is totally back-asswards.
I'm telling you, it's wrong.
Something is changing, and not slowly, but quickly.
Yeah, I'm beginning to think you have a point.
I sure enjoyed hearing from your neighbors in Pahrump.
That was a great hour you had.
That was some hour.
Okay, good.
If you get an opportunity now, I've got that on the website.
And in fact, I'm trying to print it out.
I see it's just trying to contact host to print it out.
But here we go.
It's going to print.
And here it is.
Here it is on my screen.
Geographic area affected.
Las Vegas, Nevada.
Prom, Nevada.
Military base area 51.
You can hear my printer printing right now.
This is being printed from my website, and what I'm printing is a direct conversion, I repeat, is a direct conversion from a government website.
And if you want the specific website, you'll see it listed there as a link.
If you get to my website.
Damnedest thing you ever saw.
That was the power outage.
And there is the at least semi-official report of what occurred and where it occurred.
But again, the most interesting thing here, there are two interesting things to note.
One, it doesn't say Circuit Breaker was tripped.
It says, you can read it for yourself, it says Circuit Breaker was turned off.
Full details unknown at this time.
That's what it says.
Circuit Breaker was turned off.
And the other, more than just a little interesting thing, is the geographic area.
Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Military Base Area 51.
The place that does not exist.
This is on official Sprint stationery.
And again, it comes from an open U.S.
government website.
We've got the URL up there for you to look at and check out yourself.
Now again, it would not surprise me But that this document is removed when they figure out what we found on it.
Ah, boy.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
My name's Jason.
I'm calling from South Louisiana.
I found something in the newspaper I think you ought to know about.
All right.
I just found out about this today.
It's in today's paper, the Daily Comment of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.
All right.
It says on the front page, meteor may have hit marsh.
May have hit what?
The marsh, the swampland.
Okay.
Yeah, well, I just found out about this.
Oh, marsh, marsh.
Yeah, like a boggy swamp.
It's your accent getting there, okay.
Oh, it's coming through, isn't it?
Well, it's Cajun country, dude.
I know, I hear you.
I don't have access to a fax machine, so I can't fax this to you, but if there is anyone listening... What is the essence?
What's that?
What is the essence of the article?
It says that at least three people noticed, quote, a large object on fire that was flying across the sky with forks behind it.
They said it landed in the marsh behind a boat launch and apparently set the marsh on fire that caused the fire that was a mile wide.
I mean, I'm amazed.
I live less than 10 miles.
How do you set a marsh on fire?
Well, the meteor was on fire, according to the witnesses, and it landed in the marsh, from what they can tell.
And there was no marsh fire beforehand.
Oh, a meteor, huh?
Kind of like the meteor down in Australia that embedded itself in a dam?
Yeah, it might have one out here in the marsh.
Oh, these are interesting days we live in, aren't they?
You're not kidding me.
Yeah, if you can figure out a way to get that to me, get it.
We'll put it up.
Well, if anyone in LaPouche Parish is listening, they can send it to you.
Alright.
I don't have access to a fax machine, but I'm sure someone will.
I'm sure we'll get copies then.
Today's Daily Comment in LaPouche Parish.
Gotcha.
Thank you.
Alright.
Take care.
Set a marsh on fire, huh?
This is Coast to Coast AM.
I'm Art Bell.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
Be it sight or sound, this man will touch the sky.
There's something inside that we need so much.
so much.
The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound, or the strength of an oak when it's deep in the ground.
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing?
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing?
To have all these things in our memories whole?
And they use them to help us to find Why, why was she so wicked nice
On this trip, gentlemen?
for me?
Why, take a free ride, to the place, I've gotta see, it's for free?
Why, take a free ride To the place I've gotta see
It's heartbreak Why, why does she so, take his place, on this trip, just
Why, why does she so, take his place, with so hard, just to impress me?
As to win my life, you know I'd rather, but my girl, my girl, she's my girl.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
Premiere Radio Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight's program originally aired December 28th, 1999.
In a moment, we're going to be talking with Dr. Gary E.R.
Schwartz, author of The Living Energy Universe.
He's a very credentialed fellow, and we're going to be talking about life... life after death.
And the good doctor has been doing some recent experiments That he'll tell us about, but I want for those of you joining us at this hour to join in with me in observing something really special.
Earlier tonight, somebody sent me a fax.
It was a gentleman in, I think, Laguna Beach.
I'm sure it was Laguna Beach.
You see, I want to be sure to thank him.
Laguna Hills, California.
Laguna Hills, California.
And I'm not going to give his name because he probably doesn't want to get in trouble.
Well, he's not going to get in any trouble.
What he sent me, I thought I'd get in trouble for it at first.
It is on Sprint.
Once again, you recall the power, not power, but telephone outage we had here last week that caused me to Terminate the show after trying for an hour and talking to my wonderful Pahrump residents, because that's all I could call.
There was no long distance coming or going from Pahrump, Nevada, as you'll recall.
Well, somebody faxed me this Sprint stationery, and it says, Initial Service Disruption Report.
Sprint Western Operations Network Operations Center.
And when I saw it, it blew my mind.
It just blew my mind, and I'll explain why.
It reads, duration of outage, 4 hours, 57 minutes.
In other words, almost 5 hours total.
Estimated number of customers affected, unknown.
Types of service affected, long distance, special services, and military circuits known at this time.
Estimated number of blocked calls.
Unknown.
Cause of incident.
This I find mildly interesting.
Cause of incident.
Circuit breaker was turned off.
Now it doesn't say tripped.
It says turned off.
You can read it yourself.
Full details unknown at this time.
More details to follow.
Causing 8 DS3s to fail.
Digital switches, I believe.
Methods used to restore service.
Reset breakers and restore power to the DACS shelf, D-A-C-S.
More details to follow.
Service restored at 11 12 p.m.
Pacific.
And then it actually gives the names of people here, the sprint hierarchy of, I suppose, the technical area of sprint.
The most interesting part of the report is what I'm going to read you now.
Geographic Areas Affected.
Las Vegas, Nevada, in part.
Pahrump, Nevada.
And then, it says, Military Base Area 51.
Now, I was... I'll tell you, earlier tonight, I was so blown away by this, that I called Peter Gersten, who was going to make a Freedom of Information request based on this, And then I checked my email and the same gentleman sent me a U.S.
government website address where this exact report was located.
It's actually on a U.S.
government website!
As a PDF, what's called a PDF file.
So, I quickly, just before air time, as usual, I called Keith and he went to the U.S.
government website, downloaded the PDF file, which, by the way, you can do too.
And converted it, and put it up on the website so you can see it.
So we have two things for you.
We have this report that I'm describing to you, which includes Area 51.
Remember now, the place that doesn't exist, along with Pahrump, in this outage.
Very, very, very strange, and the whole thing, the report, is on a U.S.
government site.
So sometimes they make really big mistakes and I think they've really made a big mistake this time.
You might take a look.
It's on my website now.
We got it up there about a half hour ago.
Now be patient if it moves a little slowly.
We're getting a lot of bandwidth hit right now.
But we've got the whole damn thing for you.
Now I would not have dared discuss this with you in this kind of detail.
Except for the fact that it's on a U.S.
government site!
Strange times, folks.
Really strange times.
Area's affected.
Area 51.
Alright, well, in a minute, Dr. Schwartz.
It's going to be, needless to say, an interesting week.
Again, I want to remind you, we'll be beginning the New Year's Eve show at 7 o'clock Pacific time.
You're going to want to be here.
With Gordon Michael Scalion, it's going to be a wild one.
There was an article about it, in fact, in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.
Which you can also read on my website, if you can get up there right now.
Dr. Gary E.R.
Schwartz is author of The Living Energy Universe.
He is a professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, and psychiatry at the University of Arizona.
He is also director of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory, co-facilitator in energy medicine, and senior research advisor for Dr. Andrew Weil's interrogative medicine program.
I hope I did that right.
A director of the Bioenergy Corps, The Pediatric Alternative Medicine Center at the University of Arizona.
In 1971, Dr. Schwartz received his PhD from Harvard.
He was appointed Assistant Professor.
He then became Professor of Psychiatry at Yale University.
The Director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center and Co-Director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic 1976 through 1988.
Boy, that's some resume.
The Human Energy Systems Laboratory was created in 1996, ostensibly to foster research, education, and clinical applications that embrace evolving shifts in science, society, and spirituality.
The lab follows the philosophy of the late Dr. Carl Sagan, Who said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The more controversial the question, the more careful the research design.
And so, it should be an interesting conversation.
It certainly was the first time around with Dr. Schwartz.
Here he is.
Dr. Schwartz, welcome back to the program.
Thank you very much.
Pleasure to be here.
Great to have you.
Gee whiz, I think that we need to go back perhaps to the basics for a little while and simply ask you how and why you began research into such a controversial area as life after death.
I mean, it is all the way around extremely controversial.
Yes, indeed.
Well, the story is in two parts.
The first was theoretical, very briefly, which we describe in the Living in the Universe book.
When I was a professor at Yale, I quite accidentally stumbled upon a theory that led to the prediction that all systems, that is everything from atoms and cells to organisms to the planet to even galaxies, Well, it's hypothetical in the sense that it's a theory, but there's a tremendous amount of data that is consistent with the theory.
and this energy had a kind of immortality.
Now this idea called the systemic memory hypothesis, or in plain English, universal living memory theory.
It is, however, hypothetical.
Well, it's hypothetical in the sense that it's a theory.
But there's a tremendous amount of data that is consistent with the theory.
But in the early 1980s, it was just a theory.
It was actually like Einstein when he first developed his theory of relativity
by making believe he was a photon and traveling out into space along with the light.
That's what happened with me.
In fact, it was his model that led me to follow what happened in a system,
going along with an electron from A to B and back again.
And that's how I ultimately first came to this vision.
In other words, this came from a mind trip.
Yes.
Put simply.
Put simply, it was a mind trip.
And boy, was it a mind trip.
Because by the time I had gone through the, going through the system a couple of times, what I saw was not at all what I was prepared to see.
So now, let me see if I've got it right for the audience and for myself.
You're saying the hypothesis suggests that everything, human beings, mammals, non-mammals, trees, lettuce, The pen that I'm holding, the atoms of the paper, everything has a kind of a memory.
Is that roughly accurate?
Yes, in fact, even light and energy itself has memory.
That's right.
Now, there are two easy ways to get a feeling for this.
One way is to remember that when we look at the stars at night, what do we see?
Suns?
Light years?
Right.
Yes, but some of those stars are how many miles away?
Light years?
Yes, millions of light years away.
Right.
In fact, many of those stars, what science tells us, have long since, quote, died.
In other words, we may be seeing light, particularly with larger telescopes, certainly.
I don't know about the naked eye, but even, I guess, with the naked eye, some of those stars have already gone supernova or whatever, and they're not there anymore, not making light, but we're still seeing the light.
We would conceivably continue to see it for billions of years.
Exactly.
So, what we know about light, in fact, we couldn't have astrophysics without this, we know that light preserves information and energy.
And that history continues.
The fact that we don't know how it continues is besides the point right now.
It's just a fact.
Wait a minute, though.
Let's say that that is so, and I believe it's so, that we would continue to see the light, even though this thing, this sun, has gone supernova.
How does the fact that we're still seeing the light Because of the distance involved at the speed of light.
Right.
How does that imply a memory?
Ah, well that's what we have to get to the second step.
Okay.
So the first step is we just have to realize that information and energy in the vacuum of space maintains its integrity, its history.
That's fact number one.
That's just basic physics.
Now the second fact is very easy to understand if we give a simple example.
If you take a microphone and plug it into an amplifier and a speaker, and then you point the microphone toward the speaker, what happens?
Feedback.
You get feedback.
Now, what is that feedback?
It's a sound, right?
Correct.
Now, where does that sound come from?
Because remember, it wasn't there before.
Where does it come from?
How does it emerge?
Well, you have to think about that.
What happens is, very simply, That when you point the microphone toward the speaker, there's a tiny bit of sound in the background that the microphone picks up.
And that sound is brought to the speaker.
Now what does the speaker do?
It puts it back into the microphone.
The microphone then takes it and amplifies it, which then comes back out of the speaker, which then further amplifies it.
An endless feedback loop.
An endless feedback loop.
And what happens with an endless feedback loop?
You get a process of an accumulation of energy.
It's called a positive feedback loop.
Now that phenomena of this sound increasing, and by the way, it's not just increasing, but it's literally changing in its complexity.
It's just that we don't hear it.
I'll tell you a better way you can actually lay that out for everybody.
If you have a camera, and you have a monitor, And you point the camera at the monitor.
Yes.
You will see millions, ultimately, as small as the eye can see.
You will see repeated images of whatever the camera is seeing pointed at the monitor.
Zillions of them.
As far as you can see, as much resolution as you can get.
That's right.
It would not be about the same thing as audio feedback?
Exactly.
As a matter of fact, we call it video feedback.
Right.
Okay?
And it's the same principle.
You're repeating the image over and over again.
Now, you know what's really interesting?
If you take a digital, one of these new digital cameras, video cameras, where you can slow the process down in real time, so you can take a picture, let's say, every second, what you'll then actually do ...is see the accumulation of each of those little squares.
Each of the... the image within the image within the image within the image.
In other words, you will see it begin to cascade.
You will see it begin to cascade, and you can therefore see the information being stored.
And you can then manipulate that by changing the focal point of the lens.
He is absolutely right, yes.
Right?
I've done it, yes.
Good, okay.
Now once you get that idea, the thing you have to realize is, That every system, I don't care whether it's atomic, chemical, cellular, doesn't matter what it is.
A system always is composed of two or more things.
And what a system does, is it has feedback.
Because A sends something to B, and B sends it back to A, and it happens over and over and over.
That's called recurrent feedback.
So what you see with your video feedback, or what we can hear with the audio feedback, is a generic or universal principle. Now that's what my
discovery was in the early 1980s, that it was a universal principle.
And that is scientifically repeatable time after time after time.
In other words, people can try this at home.
Yes, in fact, I wish I had thought about this when the book was finished.
You didn't get that in the book.
Well, here's what I didn't get in the book.
Well, hold that until the bottom of the hour, all right?
You got it.
We're there, and we'll be right back.
I'm Art Bell.
This is Coast to Coast AM, time after time, right here.
Think about what was just said to you.
You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
Tonight an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
Music Music
For those of you who found the link not working to the government site, we've got it back up there now.
And we had one thing wrong and that's why it wasn't working.
You can now link directly to the government site to see this disruption report.
Keith has downloaded and converted the PDF file for you to see.
If you want to go to the government site yourself, Go to my website now and you will find the link intact and working.
Go read for yourself.
Area 50.
Military Base Area 51, it says.
So, it is intact.
Sorry for the initial wrong URL, but we've got it up there now correctly.
So, if any of you checked it out, go check it out again.
You'll find what I'm saying is precisely true.
Now, I'm not saying they will not take it down fairly quickly.
But I would not imagine they'll get around to it till tomorrow morning.
Unless they move a lot faster than I think our government generally works.
Take a look, it'll blow your mind.
The report on that big outage that affected me.
And not just me, but... ha ha ha ha ha... Area 51 as well, that of course does not exist.
All right, we'll get back to Dr. Schwartz and a fascinating discussion in just a minute.
Actually, there's no real way that I can demonstrate feedback to you.
In my studio, when I turn my microphone on, the speakers automatically mute.
Now, if I had a radio in here, that was listening before the delay, I could demonstrate that feedback to you.
Huh.
I had to get one.
If my wife is listening in the other room, hon, would you please grab that little radio and bring it in to me?
I don't have one in here that would listen to the non-delayed signal, but I can do that.
You all know what feedback is.
It's like when somebody gets up on stage and their mic is too loud and it catches the speaker and it goes into a feedback loop.
And that's kind of an endless loop.
You don't really know how endless it is.
And as the good doctor was pointing out, It increases in complexity, even though you're not hearing it.
You're hearing a kind of a screeching sound, but its complexity increases, presumably, endlessly.
And the same thing occurs when you point a camera, a video camera, at a monitor.
You can see a million monitors, right?
That's an endless feedback loop, and presumably it just keeps going and getting more complex numerically as it goes, if I've understood all this correctly.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And the point that I was going to make was that what I hadn't realized, which of course is an obvious point, is I could ask you the following.
How often, or how replicable, or what percentage of the time, when you take a microphone and point it at the speaker, you get feedback?
All the time.
Exactly.
Always.
And what happens when you point the camera toward a monitor?
Same thing.
You always get a million little... Exactly.
So this phenomena is as replicable as gravity.
Right.
That's a very important point.
Right.
No, you're right.
Of course it is.
Exactly.
But we don't typically think about it in this way.
All right.
Okay?
As important as gravity in what sense?
It's important as gravity in the sense that Every time you drop something, you let something go, it falls to the earth.
It's something that you can put your faith in.
It's a replicable phenomenon.
Oh, I see.
Yes.
We're not talking about something here that maybe occurs sometimes, or it could be a hypothesis.
Oh, you're absolutely right.
We don't fully understand gravity, by the way.
We don't fully understand gravity, we don't fully understand light, and we don't fully understand systemic memory.
But we know it's there.
And that, now here's the interesting part here, was the idea that everything that had memory would mean what?
That everything was therefore potentially alive and evolving.
And that meant that what?
It meant that light could have memory, that water could have memory, which was homeopathy.
Right.
It meant that cells could have memory, like so what heart transplant patients may be able to perceive the memory stored in the donor's heart.
And it also led to the predictions of survival of consciousness after death.
Now remember, this was the early 1980s at Yale, and I was a little bit nervous, to put it mildly, about sharing this thesis.
So what I did was what any sane scientist would do.
I didn't tell a soul.
And I kept the secret for 13 years.
Is that what a sane scientist does?
That's what a sane scientist does.
They keep their controversial things quiet.
This is the more important message for your audience.
It certainly was for me.
Even though the theory led to the prediction, among other things, about survival of consciousness after death, I wasn't about to do any research in that area until I met Linda, who is the co-author of the book and is also now my better half.
Here's what happened with Linda, and this is very important.
I met Linda in 1993, actually at a conservative scientific meeting.
We developed a very fast friendship, and shortly thereafter, she asked me a question that no one had ever asked me before.
She said, do you think it's possible that my father is still here?
Now, her father was Dr. Henry I. Rusick, who was a distinguished cardiologist.
He had been director, for example, of the New York meetings of the American College of Cardiology for 23 years.
He was beloved by his patients.
By his fellow physicians and by his family, including Linda.
And they worked together in practice.
Linda was a psychologist and he was a cardiologist.
I mean, they did research together.
They had one of these truly amazing relationships.
And when Dr. Resig died in 1990, Linda, who is also a scientist, became interested in the quest of trying to determine scientifically whether her father was still alive.
That is, after he had died.
So Linda asked me this question.
It was about 4 a.m.
in the morning, by the way, and I was just flying back to Tucson.
And I said, what?
Kevin said, no one ever asked me this question before.
She said, well, do you believe that my father is still here?
And I said, well, gee, why does it matter to you what I think?
And she said, well, you're a serious scientist, so if you believe it's possible, you probably have a good reason.
And at that point, what I did was I confessed this secret.
That many years ago, when I had been at Yale, that I had stumbled upon this theory.
By the way, regarding the feedback, watch this.
I think I can do it live.
Here we go.
Watch this, folks.
You hear that feedback coming from the speaker near a microphone, my mic.
and I can, and you can get feedback.
I don't know how that's coming over the air, but that's feedback.
All right.
As I say, I had to pull a trick to do that because they have a special mechanism, obviously,
to turn the speakers off when the microphone is on, which I just defeated in a way here.
So that's feedback, and surely it is endless, and surely it continues to compile itself
and numerically, presumably infinitely.
It would be infinity, wouldn't it?
Yes.
Infinity, which is a tough enough concept to try to wrap your head around.
That's right.
So, Linda asked me this question about whether she thought her father was still here, and I ultimately explained her the theory.
Now, when I shared it with her, she, of course, being a scientist, tried to figure out if there was a flaw in the logic, and she couldn't find one either.
And she said, you know, Gary, this is really important.
She said, do you realize its potential significance?
And I said, well, I was worried some of it.
But I said, to tell you the truth, I'm very frightened about it.
It's very important.
It could potentially help me discover if my father is here.
Would you help me test your theory and apply it to the question of my father's continued existence?
How in the world would you do that?
I'll get there in a second, but I first want you to put yourself in my shoes.
Here you are.
You've just met this person, a very special person, who's asked you a question that no one's ever asked you before.
But not only that, she's asked you to engage in research, which if some of your colleagues heard this, They would be upset to put it mildly, and would wish that you'd do it somewhere else, preferably on another planet.
Were you tenured?
Yes.
I was quite well tenured at that point.
Untenured people would not do this sort of thing, would they?
No, not at all.
It turns out, by the way, that even at my university and other universities, people who even advise us who are tenured wish to do so anonymously.
Because of their fear that NIH or other organizations who fund their research might stop funding them because they thought it was too controversial.
So anyway, Linda asked me this question, but what had happened was, and this is as I write in the book, I said, what had happened was I had fallen in love with Linda's love for her father.
Her dream to know scientifically that her father was still here.
So I looked at her and I said, okay Linda, I will help you, but only under one circumstance.
And that is, we don't tell anyone.
And so actually, the first two years of the research that we did, we did it very quietly in her laboratory in Boca Raton, Florida.
And then in 1995, she moved to Tucson.
And that's when our research began to blossom and to become what it's become now.
Well, even at the beginning, Doctor, what was the nature of the research?
In other words, how do you even begin to go about Taking this from the theory stage, even with the replicable feedback we just talked about, to some sort of standard of proof or scientific revelation, in other words, how do you go from... how do you even take the first step?
Well, in our earliest research, what we tried to do was to see whether or not a feedback loop could be created Between Linda and a photograph of her father.
And we recorded, actually, high frequency sound above the order of what the ear can hear.
Both with microphones pointed at Linda's body and also, believe it or not, at the photograph.
Oh my God!
Can you tell me about what sort of frequency range you were recording it?
We were actually looking up to 100,000 cycles per second.
100,000 cycles per second?
Right, and the ear can hear 20,000 cycles.
Right.
So we were, you know, way up there.
Typically I think about What is the low end of human... The low end is about maybe 20 to 30 Hertz.
Yeah, 20 or 30 Hertz.
That's what I thought.
Right.
Also, 100,000.
100,000 cycles per second, which is very, very high.
Way above what the human ear can hear.
And what we were looking for was not only whether or not we could establish some sort of feedback process between the two.
This meant we had to have high-speed computers And high-speed microphones and so on.
But also the question was, to what extent could we get evidence that this process was different when Linda was, for example, attempting to receive communication with her father than if she was looking at a picture, for example, of a control subject or a person that she didn't know.
Or thinking about a pizza she had last week or anything else in the world, right?
Right, we didn't do the pizza experiment.
Well, it doesn't matter.
Right, you got it.
You got it.
In other words, a control.
Right, exactly.
And we also did things where she couldn't see the picture, and we did various kinds of controls to look at this.
This is all, quote, exploratory.
I understand, but it's still startling.
Now, what did you discern?
In other words, what percentage of the time were you able to say, hey, there's Linda thinking about her father, and we've established some kind of what we consider to be feedback loop, because there's The frequency.
Was it a giant spike?
Was it barely discernible?
How conclusive was it?
Well, I would say it was terribly inconclusive.
I mean, it was totally exploratory.
And the best that I would say that those early findings showed were what I would call quote, anomalies.
In other words, it was like having a dream.
And every now and then you can have a dream that is a meaningful moment.
Yes.
You can't control it.
Right.
It was sort of like that with this early work.
We would see anomalies in the signals.
But not all the time?
We could not explain, but certainly not all the time.
But it was enough, it was enough to say... Something's happening.
Something was happening, and that it was worth exploring.
Gotcha.
I mean, it really, this research did not really take off.
Until we began working with superstar mediums.
And that's, of course, the research which is most remarkable, and for which we'd completed our third experiment with the Dream Team, what we call the Dream Team of Mediums, actually, just two weeks ago.
Oh, so this is very recent follow-up research to the early stuff.
Yes, and we'll talk about this later, but as you know, we did what was on HBO's special, Life After Life, and then we did a second experiment this summer, and now we've done the third experiment, and the third experiment was even more jaw-dropping than the second experiment.
Really?
Yes.
Well, how did you do anything other than surmise that you were picking up some sort of output from her brain rather than a feedback process.
How could you know or even think that you knew that it was a or scientifically prove that it was a feedback process that you were observing even sporadically?
Well one of the things we actually did was we recorded her brainwaves and her electrocardiograms.
Okay.
So we were looking for at her physiological processes.
To coincide.
To coincide.
Right.
And now the question was to what extent Did these occurrences when she was attempting to communicate with her father, were there examples in the data that could not be just simply explained as either random occurrences or major changes in her own state?
Right?
Her own brain just producing a state that was causing an anomaly.
Exactly.
And the answer was again, we could not from those early experiments Disentangle that what the reason why we thought it was plausible was because there were these Unexplained anomalies coincidences, which you know, which might which it's funny to talk about them in public, but which Which you which I took with a tremendous grain of salt, but turns out to be Quite the norm once you go into this work seriously.
So for example, we were doing an experiment with Comparing her pictures with her father, and also pictures of her father's mother, who was also deceased, who Linda loved.
It turned out that this woman, Dr. Rusick's mother, was known for her tremendous affection for birds.
There were stories in the family that after she died, That birds would appear when they would think about grandma.
And it was just, you know, stories.
And we were doing this research, and literally at the time that we were doing this research, we began hearing a screeching.
At the time the anomaly was occurring, we then began to hear a screeching that sounded like a bird, which ultimately we were able to discover had occurred from a fish tank.
I mean, it was actually made by a pump.
What?
In other words, this is what you were picking up on your mics?
Actually audible?
Well, yes.
I mean, the answer was you could hear it with the naked ear.
I mean, you could just hear it screeching.
And it sounded like a bird.
And it occurred at the time when Linda was looking at her grandmother's picture.
And you have to understand, she's had this fish tank for at least five years, and she's never heard any screeching from a fish tank.
By the way, it took us quite a while to figure out where the sound was coming from, because this pump was hidden way underneath it.
You were probably totally freaking out.
Yes, of course.
And I was saying, you know, this is weird.
Now, the simple way to say this is just a coincidence.
It was just at that particular moment, the pump made the noise.
But the other possibility was, That it wasn't just a coincidence.
That the pump... Doctor... Yeah, I know I got it.
Doctor, hold on.
We'll be right back.
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
Cause I want a girl to call my own.
I want a dream lover so I don't have to dream alone.
Green lover, where are you?
With a love so deep guitar music
You could read my mind, love What a tale my thoughts could tell
Just like an old time movie About a ghost from a wishing well
In a castle dark or a partridge strong
With chains upon my feet You know that ghost is me.
And I will never be set free.
As long as I'm a ghost, you can't see me.
You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
Very interesting words to this song.
I'll never be set free as long as I'm a ghost that you can see.
Can't see.
Doesn't matter, either way you read it.
I heard it one way, others heard it another way.
It may relate precisely to what we're talking about tonight.
Somebody remaining here, or something of someone remaining here.
We're talking with a real heavyweight, Dr. Gary Schwartz, PhD from Harvard.
It became a professor of psychology at Yale University, director of Yale University Psychophysiology Center and co-director of Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic from 1976 through 88, now is doing research into life after death.
And I think if you listen carefully, you'll find this makes a whole lot of sense.
is absolutely intriguing, very controversial and very much worth listening to.
By the way, just one quick note.
For anybody who thinks this Sprint Report is a hoax, you're wrong.
At least if it is a hoax, it's a hoax on a U.S.
government website.
And again, we've got the link up there now, and if you want to go up there, The corrected link and go to the government website.
It's a PDF file and convert the file yourself.
Um, it's an FCC.gov Weberman, Weberman, a website, a US government website, official website.
Go up there and look yourself.
And I suggest you do it tonight because I was just talking to Keith and he said, well, what I said, the government doesn't move too quickly, so they probably won't take it down right away.
But he said tomorrow you'll probably find a redacted version up there that doesn't include Area 51.
Boy, did they slip up.
So, while it's up there, go confirm for yourself on this U.S.
government site what I'm telling you, what I've told you tonight.
Go to my website.
The link is there.
Go look for yourself.
You've got to be able to convert a PDF file.
Not everybody can do that, but enough of you can to confirm it.
Now, with that said, going back to Dr. Schwartz, we were talking about the odd reaction of a fish pump, you know, a pump in an aquarium, and it was making this bird-like sound.
Well, again, interesting, eerie, scary, freaky, but not necessarily proof.
Right.
So, where do we go from there?
Well, before we go to the mediumship, I should tell you about how you translate this into actual serious science.
And this, of course, occurred later to us as we became more sophisticated in doing this kind of research.
And here's again where the Pastor had this wonderful phrase where he said, great discoveries are accidents observed by prepared minds.
Actually, that is true of most great discoveries.
It really is true, and so what happened was, of course, that we were praying for accidents, to put it mildly, and we were prepared for them when they happened.
So let me share with you another accident, which turned into actually a publishable paper that was just published in the journal called Advances in Mind-Body Medicine.
Again, it starts with an accident.
Linda's mother, her name is Elaine Rusick, she visited us in Florida when we were conducting some of our mediumship research.
She went home and to her surprise discovered that this old digital clock that she had in her bedroom had become erratic.
It was no longer keeping a good time.
She called Linda and she said, do you think it's possible That Henry, that's her husband, was possibly influencing the clock.
Now, what Linda immediately did, based on our more current research, she said, well, gee, why don't we turn this into an experiment and invite our father's cooperation, collaboration.
You have to remember, Dr. Rusick was a scientist.
He published more than 200 papers in medical literature.
So if anyone was going to practice science who was, quote, dead, it's going to be Dr. Rusick, particularly since he loved his family.
May I make one inquiry?
Sure.
And that is, why would she initially think that the partial failure of a digital clock could be attributed?
Why make that jump?
Well, you mean, why did she entertain this?
Yes, indeed.
That's a good question.
I think it was just a wish, because she had been hearing about our research.
She knew some of these anomalies.
It has occurred coincidentally upon coming back from our home in Tucson.
So she just asked the question kind of... I got it.
It was on her mind.
It was on her mind.
Right.
Gotcha.
But here's what Linda and I proposed.
That we do a formal experiment.
What she should do is get a second clock which worked, plug it into the same outlet as the
broken clock so that she had this now, if you would, semi-random clock which was not
keeping good time and a clock that was keeping a regular time.
Each morning what she would do is when she woke up, she would record the times of both
clocks, reset the broken clock to be like an appropriate time and then she would leave,
go to work.
And when she came home at night, before she went to sleep, she would record the current clock time on both clocks.
And then she would reset the broken clock.
And then, so those were the, during the day was called baseline data.
But in the evenings, here's what she did.
On even days, she asked Henry to try to increase the speed of the clock during the night.
And on odd nights, she asked Henry to try to slow the clock down.
And then, of course, she'd wake up with the following warning.
She would record both the broken clock and the regular clock.
Day after day.
Day after day after day.
And then, of course, what you do when you've collected enough data, and this is what's called an ABAB design.
Up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.
Sure.
You would then look at the results.
Well, here's what happens.
She starts doing the research.
Collecting the data religiously, you know, very systematically.
We gave her data sheets and the whole nine yards.
And she discovered that the a.m.
p.m.
light on the digital clock wasn't working.
So she had no way of knowing whether if she woke up in the morning and the clock read, for example, one, one, did she know whether it was one o'clock a.m.
or one o'clock p.m.
So, of course, she was very upset.
She said, well, how are we going to interpret the data?
So I told her, I said, look, don't worry.
Let's just collect the data.
And we'll see what the data show.
And worst comes to worst, we won't be able to interpret anything.
So we do the entire experiment.
She finishes it and faxes us the numbers.
OK?
And then what we did was, she was now late with her time, we analyzed the data, but didn't tell her the results until the next day.
Now here's what happened when we analyzed the data.
When we analyzed the data, of course, we discovered you couldn't conclude anything.
Because if she went to sleep at 12 o'clock at night, for example, and then she woke up the next morning at 7 a.m., and the broken clock read 1 o'clock, how did she know whether it was a.m.
or p.m.?
Well, what we did was we looked at all of the data for doing the baselines during the days, as well as the evenings, and we inferred a rule which said that if If the time was less than three o'clock in the morning, we would hypothesize that it was p.m.
rather than a.m.
because the clock just never slowed to a standstill.
You understand what I'm saying?
I do.
And then what we did was we took that quote decision rule and we applied it equally to all the data.
So we applied it to both the increased nights and the decreased nights.
Gotcha.
When we applied that decision rule, Lo and behold, we discovered that there was a statistically significant difference where the clocks were showing a longer time on the increase nights compared to the decrease nights.
What kind of statistical data?
Well, what you do is you do what are called statistics.
In other words, you do a... No, I don't understand.
I mean, how much of a... How much of an effect was there?
Yes, sir.
There was a difference of about an hour and a half between increase and decrease.
So it was small, but reliable.
Now here's the interesting thing.
She goes to sleep at night.
So these things are very tentative, obviously.
She goes to sleep at night, but before she goes to sleep at night, she says, Henry, she said, here I am.
I, by the way, it's the first experiment she's ever done in her life.
And she's in her seventies.
She says, Henry, she said, Oh, I wish that this, that the clock had, had an AM PM night working.
I wished, you know, could you quote, give me a sign?
She goes to sleep.
Of course, we don't know that she's done this.
She wakes up at 4 o'clock in the morning to go to the bathroom and she discovers that the A.M.
P.M.
light is flashing.
She goes to the bathroom and she comes back and it's now working.
She goes to sleep.
She wakes up in the morning and the A.M.
P.M.
light is off.
So it's not working again.
However, she calls Linda.
Tell Linda this amusing anecdote.
Of course, by the way, she does not know the results of how we've analyzed the data.
Linda hears this story and she says, gee, mom, maybe this was dad trying to give you a sign.
He was trying to make the clock work.
So her mother says, yes, it's all very curious, but so what?
She hangs up.
She goes back to the bedroom and lo and behold the A.M.P.M.
light is now working.
Now once the A.M.P.M.
light was now working, what did we do?
We could then actually test to see if our decision rule was correct.
That's right.
So we now ran the experiment with the A.M.P.M.
light working and she was getting ready to leave for Europe.
And it continued to work.
And what it did was it confirmed our decision rule.
In other words, The rule that we had used to make the decision about whether to call the times a.m.
and p.m.
was in fact the correct rule.
So when we published the data what we said was it was a possible technique for investigating purported spiritual communication using a random event like clock and then we said quote an empirical slash anecdotal investigation because it was a combination of both You know, rigid controlled science, plus an accident, or an anecdote.
And it was the combination of those two things that led us to say, gee, maybe there is a way to really study this systematically.
And by the way, in our most current research, we're actually developing technology where, by inviting collaboration with people who are deceased under controlled circumstances, you can extend this paradigm So it can ultimately be, quote, definitive.
The only part that I have yet to grasp, and maybe you can clear this up for me, is how you can conclude there's a feedback loop going on between a deceased person and a living person.
Very good question.
And between that, delineate between that, and the psychic Or psychokinetic ability of a living human mind.
Right.
With this kind of work, obviously, the argument could be made that the effect was simply due to the living person's effect on the clock.
Right.
And was not actually the deceased person's direct effect.
Which, by the way, would still be a mighty heavy-duty thing to be proving.
Yes.
All by itself.
Absolutely.
So this particular kind of work by itself is not definitive.
In fact, one of the things that one does in research is you approach a problem from multiple points of view.
And when you have different experimental paradigms that all point to the same conclusion, that's how you go about actually coming to some sort of more definitive statement.
So getting back to your question about, well, how would you know, for example, that there's more than just the living person having an effect?
There are two ways to do that.
Number one is you could see to what extent Elaine herself could actually consciously do this.
So you test her ability to affect the clock compared with her husband's ability to affect the clock.
Bingo.
Bingo, right?
The second thing that you do is you do other kinds of experiments where you invite collaboration with people from the other side.
And actually what happened was that we had already previously conducted an experiment Which among one of the, what we call, our departed hypothesized co-investigators, we had actually found evidence consistent with the hypothesis.
And I'd be happy to tell you about that research, because it's just absolutely delightful.
By all means.
By the way, this particular experiment is described in detail in the Living Energy Universe book, so if your readers are interested in all of this, they can They can see this first-hand.
What was the title of the experimenter on the other side again, please?
Oh, it was called, well, you know, the one that was, this, uh, the clock study?
Or the other one.
No, no, what you designated the person on the other side.
Oh, the departed hypothesized co-investigator.
That's great.
Alright.
In fact, you want to know what we did?
This is the first time ever.
This, we have two papers now, scientific papers that have been published in journals.
And we have a third one that's being submitted where it requires, literally, collaboration with the other side.
And what we've done is we have listed these people as co-authors on the paper, co-investigators, but next to their name we put HYP for hypothesized.
Hypothesized, rather than deceased.
Right.
Okay.
So here's the experiment.
The technical title is called Medium to Departed to Medium Communication of Pictorial Information.
What it means in plain English is, as Linda puts it, from here to there and back again.
And here's how the experiment works.
Medium 1.
You have two mediums.
Mediums are people who purportedly receive communication from the other side.
That's right.
Medium 1 is a woman who claims To purportedly communicate with four people.
It's a funny story about how we met this woman, which I can tell you later.
But she claimed to be able to communicate with four people.
One of whom, by the way, was Linda's father.
And what we asked Medium One to do, since she claimed she could communicate with these people, was to ask them whether or not they would like to collaborate in a research experiment.
And according to Medium One, she said yes.
Here's what the experiment was.
Medium One asked each of these people to tell her about a picture that they would like Medium One to draw.
Medium One, by the way, is a fairly good painter.
So what happens, supposedly, is that Medium One, in the privacy of her own home, communicates with each of these departed, hypothesized co-investigators.
They supposedly suggest to her a picture that she draws.
In addition, what she does is she draws her own picture, which is designated as the control picture.
So you have pictures drawn by deceased people and pictures drawn by her.
By living people.
All right.
By living people.
Hold it right there, Doctor.
That's exactly what we'll come back to in a moment.
This is really, really, really interesting stuff, folks.
Stay right where you are.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
Do you believe?
Keep listening.
You may.
You're listening to Arc Bell, Somewhere in Time, on Premier Radio Networks.
Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from December 28th, 1999.
Suckin' down your fare ticket, If I find you've been creepin' down my basket.
If I'm lying you've been creeping round my backstage Suck em down you better take care
If I'm lying you've been creeping round my backstage She's been looking like the queen in a sailors dream
And she don't always say what she really means Sometimes I think it's a shame
When I'm feeling better when I'm feeling no pain Sometimes I think it's a shame
Thanks for watching!
Finding a job tomorrow morning Got a little something I wanna do
Gonna buy her something after riding I'll take my girl for a date after driving
All of her gonna be written down in history Just like Romeo and Juliet
I'm gonna buy her pretty presents Just like the ones in a catalog
Gonna show her how much I love her Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in
Time.
Tonight's program originally aired December 28, 1999.
Well, isn't this week getting an interesting beginning?
As we were going into the break, this last commercial break, I had the bumper music going and I had just stood up to
leave the room and we took a gigantic power surge here.
I mean, it was a mother of a power surge.
Both of my computers in this room went to a million colors and crashed.
And I had to reboot them and various other pieces of equipment I can see in here went off.
And these are protected by uninterruptible power supplies, too.
So I have no idea what's going on.
But it's going on.
We really took a surge here for some reason.
It may have just been a localized surge.
I have no way of knowing, of course.
But it was a real beauty.
By the way, that same power surge, now remember I've got my CD player, which is what I use for my
bumper music on an uninterruptible power supply as well.
And you may have heard it jump as we went out of the last break.
It jumped from one track to another track when the surge hit us.
And how that gets by an uninterruptible, I don't know.
But it did.
I've got one other item and then we'll get back to Dr. Schwartz.
It relates to the document on my website.
Hi Art.
This person does not want to be identified.
They're in the Bay Area.
I think you might be missing more salient points about the SDR.
Here are two, in my opinion, more interesting thoughts to ponder.
One, the write-up indicates the circuit breaker was turned off.
Why?
Telco facilities are usually locked up and quite secure.
This one was obviously an unmanned facility, probably a hut in the desert somewhere, but still those are normally quite secure.
Did someone have a reason to make sure connectivity for Area 51 was lost that day?
Or perhaps for your show?
I presume it was an intentional act of some sort.
Two, Even more interesting, the data implies that your calls travel through the same piece of electronic switchgear, the DAX, a fairly small, very common piece of network equipment as those for Area 51.
Know what that means?
A simple reconfiguration of that DAX, which could be done in a very trivial way on-site or remotely, and guess what?
Your callers get routed to Area 51.
And the calls originally bound for Area 51 get routed to you!
P.S.
A DS3 is a digital signal that carries 672 voice calls on a single coax cable.
It runs at 45 megabits per second.
A DAX is essentially a small electronic switch that allows you to switch trunks within multiples of those DS3s.
So the SDR, at least technically, sounds real.
He doesn't want to be identified.
So, so interesting.
As I've said, it's on a government site, folks.
Go see it for yourself.
You're going to have to be able to decipher a PDF file.
And I know not all of you can do that, so we have deciphered it for you and put it up there, but for the, you know, the technical bunch out there that would like to go to the government site itself and pull the PDF file down, do it now.
Do it before we get a redacted version tomorrow.
You've got the link on the website.
That's all I can do.
It's really there.
Just like we're talking this morning with Dr. Schwartz about something that apparently is really There, and when I say there, I guess I mean all around us.
Where were we, Doctor?
We were talking about this experiment with the art that was supposedly suggested by our department hypothesized co-investigators.
Yes, and a living human.
And a living human, right.
Now the interesting part of the experiment was what happened after these pictures were drawn and put into sealed envelopes.
At a later point in time, a second medium, who did not know the first medium, and who was willing to participate in the research, this medium, at a later point in time, in front of a video camera, was asked to contact each of the four departed hypothesized co-investigators, and her task was her attempt to see whether she could receive The specific pictures, the images, from each of these departed people.
Right.
In addition, she was given the task of attempting to contact Medium No.
1, who of course was physically alive, but located obviously in a different area.
And of course Medium 1 did not know when Medium 2 was doing this, and then Medium 2 attempted to get information about the picture that was drawn by Medium 1.
And further that, this was actually done twice so we could get information on two separate occasions when Medium 2 made these contacts.
Then after this information was obtained, summary information from the videotapes about the shapes and the colors for each of the pictures were summarized.
And then Medium 1 and Medium 2 were brought together for the first time.
The pictures were revealed.
And then Medium 2 attempted to, first of all, to guess which pictures went with which individuals.
And then secondly, she was then informed about what she had actually received during the communication phase.
Remember, she was sort of in a trance, so she didn't remember really any of the details of what the pictures had been, which I can explain in a second.
In addition, what we as experimenters did, Was we attempted to guess using our own quote intuition what the pictures were and then we also independently using the information obtained by medium to during her read you know her Twitter trans period yes see would see what what if we could get it would then determine which pictures were associated with which it was a lot of control a lot of control now what was the discovery what we found was
That if Medium 2 was simply trying to guess what the pictures were, or we were trying to guess what the pictures were, we were completely at chance.
In other words, our ability to guess was just random.
However, when we, independently, each used the information that Medium 2 had received when she was attempting to communicate with the other side, our accuracy was 100%.
100%? 100%.
Which meant what?
It meant that given the number of pictures and the number of people that there was a complete match.
Now let me tell you why this is really interesting.
Why this is really interesting is because it makes life very complicated.
You see, first of all, the medium was very good at getting the picture of the living medium herself.
In fact, the easiest picture For Medium 2 to guess, not guess, but get information about, was the picture of Medium 1.
And it's very interesting.
So for example, when we asked her to try to contact, you know, go to Medium 1's house, so to speak, and see what she could get, she was able to describe that house virtually to a tee.
Now, I know that you've had Joe McMoneagle on your program.
I have, yes.
He's a very distinguished remote viewer.
Around the middle of the month, I'm going to have Ingo Swann on.
Wow, okay.
Well, then you realize that there are certain people who are good at doing this kind of thing with the living, with the physically alive.
And so, the immediate complication is, well, gee, is medium two simply getting this from the mind and the physical environment of the living, or is she really getting it also from the deceased?
And this is where, again, the accidents, great discoveries of accidents observed by prepared minds come in.
When Medium 2 was attempting to get the information from Medium 1, there was no dialogue, there was no confusion, and it was very easy for her to get the information.
But when she attempted to communicate with each of these departed individuals, she received all kinds of information, none of which was wanted, and all of which interfered with getting the information about the pictures.
So for example, when Linda's father was contacted, he shared all kinds of information about how much he loved his daughter and loved his wife and so on, and he also shared information that Linda did not know.
For example, he said that he was observing his wife secretly in her bedroom with the curtains closed.
Still continuing to cry, this is a number of years after he had died, and nobody knew that this was the case.
Needless to say, after we learned this information, Linda called her mother in Florida and confronted her with this, and her mother confessed that she had not told anyone that this was happening.
So what happened was, all this other information was coming through, and what it did was it made it more difficult for Medium 2 to actually see the picture.
Because obviously the deceased person's emotions and feelings were going to be more powerful than this dumb little picture that they projected to Medium One.
So what happened was it was again sort of the unanticipated information that was revealed in the experiment that provided the most interesting evidence consistent with the idea that not only did these part of hypothesized co-investigators exist But they were actively conscious and playing a role.
Well, that was going to be my next question.
You've already gone there.
In other words, as we discussed earlier, all objects, all cells, all atoms apparently contain this memory.
Right.
But is it a static sort of memory that continues to exist with information up until the last moment of physical life?
Is it that kind of memory, or is it, in fact, evidence of consciousness continuing after death?
That's a biggie.
Yes, it sure is.
And you're telling me, you're telling me that there is consciousness that continues.
I think that's what you're telling me.
Are you at all unsure of this?
Well, let me just put it this way.
Let me think of what the theory says.
The theory is very explicit in saying that the information Let's go back to the original story.
We said that starlight, when it's going out into space, has a kind of immortality.
Now that kind of information isn't changing all that much because it's simply going out into space.
But what would happen if some of that information, instead of going out into space, is returning in a feedback loop?
Right.
It's like looking into a mirror.
It's the microphone pointed at the speaker.
The information that returns to itself, which is what all systems are, is what enables that system to keep, quote, reflecting, and therefore revising, and therefore changing, and growing, and evolving.
And all learning, you know, involves feedback.
Whether it's playing basketball, or riding a bicycle, or... That's golf course correct, yes.
So, feedback is a prerequisite for learning and memory in a dynamic way in the physical world.
And what we're saying is, the logic says that the information is going to be as alive and dynamic, the energy, when it's in a system, as it was in, quote, the material world.
So that's what the theory is.
Now the question is, to what extent are the data consistent with that?
And this is again where you have to look to The kind of evidence that suggests that not only are you just getting information about people's histories, which is static and dead, but there's evidence that the consciousness is both alive and evolving, that it's aware of what's going on in the present and is even playing a dynamic role in terms of communicating with us here.
And so, as I said, share with you that the incident where Linda's father communicated through a medium information about the mother that nobody knew implied what?
That he's, quote, hanging around, watching what's going on, picking up this information and sharing it.
Processing it.
Processing it.
Yeah.
So when you look at the data, the data suggests what?
It's not like a dead memory that's coming off a CD that's not changing.
But it's something that's as alive as you and I are.
Which is most interesting.
It is.
It certainly is.
Are you familiar with people like, for example, I've interviewed a man named James Von Prague.
Yes.
Many times.
Four or five times.
I don't know.
He's been on Larry King.
He's known nationally.
Right.
And he claims to be able to communicate with the dead on a very regular, consistent basis.
Right.
Have you looked at Mr. von Praag and others like him?
We've looked at others like him.
A part of our, quote, dream team of superstar mediums, what we call Michael Jordans of the mediumship world, include John Edward, who's also been on Larry King and so on many times, who's a younger version of James von Praag.
So he was one of your... Yes, he's one of our regular research collaborators.
Another person is a woman by the name of Suzanne Northrup in New York City who is very well
known sort of in the East Coast.
She has been working in this field for years.
The third person is a woman by the name of Reverend Ann Gaiman who in Washington, D.C.
is the fourth person.
The fourth person is George Anderson who, of course, is very well known in the field.
Actually, to tell you the truth, James Van Praagh was invited to be part of the HBO research
and also subsequent research, but he declined to participate.
I think most people, most mediums, by the way, are very nervous to work with scientists
because their fear is that what the scientists will do is design experiments in such a way
that it makes it impossible for them to metaphorically play their game.
Well, they may be afraid that they're not dealing with scientists so much as debunkers.
Exactly.
I understand.
Exactly.
I understand.
That's one of the reasons we use the metaphor of Michael Jordan in the mediumship world.
I mean, for example, imagine that you want to be able to If you take away some of what makes him great, he's not going to appear like a star.
So the first thing you have to do is let him play the game his way and document that what he does is special.
And if you take away some of what makes him great, he's not going to appear like a star.
So the first thing you have to do is let him play the game his way and document that what
he does is special.
And then what you do is you discover what is it that makes him special, what is it that
enables him to be special, which of course is the strategy that we've been doing.
You allow people to first play the game their way under controlled circumstances and see
whether they can really do it.
And then what you do is you then try to get at the mechanisms of that, and that's what
we've been doing.
But the answer is, yes, there are people who do this on a regular basis, and much to my
absolute disbelief, they receive information.
And it's very replicable.
Now, this may sound a little crazy, but it's an obvious question.
With all the research you've done, are there any conclusions that you can come to about the nature, anything at all, about the nature of the other side?
What we'll call the other side.
Right.
By the way, just linguistically, the word there is T-here.
The answer is, we have in our research virtually no information about the other side, because we have not been asking those questions.
There are clues here.
Yes.
Right.
Okay.
But anyway, getting back to it, the answer is we have in our research virtually no information
on the other side, about the other side, because we have not been asking those questions.
In fact, in a subsequent book that we're currently writing, the working title is called Through
the Living Rainbow, in this book where we describe, we summarize all of this research,
and one of the things we point out to is, we're very clear about this, is that our research
only speaks to the fundamental question about whether survival of consciousness exists.
It leaves completely open the question of what is the afterlife like?
And that actually should bring solace to people, be they religious or non-religious alike, because it completely leaves open the question of what all this means.
Save for the question that something is really there.
That's very very controversial and one of the areas that we will be doing research in and are beginning to do is exploring systematically what are the kinds of replicable reports that one can receive about what the quote afterlife is like.
But you are convinced by your research so far that it is in fact possible to communicate Well, I would put it a little bit more conservatively.
Here's what I would say based on our research, as a scientist I would say.
I would say that we have definitive data now that certain mediums receive information that cannot be explained by fraud Dr. Gary Schwartz is my guest.
I think it means what I said it means.
this subtle cuing or cold reading or any of that kind of stuff. It's clearly quote anomalous.
Well how does that differ from what I just said? Well I'll explain in a second.
You're going to have to explain after the break I'm afraid.
Stay right there.
Dr. Gary Schwartz is my guest. I think it means what I said it means. If it doesn't mean that
then there's different words that say roughly the same thing. I don't know.
Fascinating stuff.
Apparently we don't end when we think we end.
You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
You've got to love me, got to love me tonight.
Got to love me baby, yeah.
Got to love me baby, yeah.
You know it don't come easy.
It don't come easy.
You know it don't come easy.
Got to face you, you want to see the blues. And you know it don't come easy.
You don't have to shout or plead the vowels. You can even play their music.
Forget about the past and all your sorrows.
There's a future on the line. It will soon be yours tomorrow.
I don't ask for much, I only believe in you.
You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from December 28th, 1999.
This is really interesting.
Keith Rowland, during the break, reminded me of something.
We had a bit of a discussion about the power bump we just took in the last hour, and it was really a weird one, and I'll tell you why it's so weird.
All the broadcast equipment that I have here, all of it, all the broadcast-related equipment, is on uninterruptible power supplies.
Now, by that I don't mean just power strips, you know, that prevent bumps or keep equipment from getting damaged.
Talking about uninterruptible power supplies.
Devices with batteries and inverters that technically isolate you from the power lines 100%.
If the power goes off, I don't even know it.
Well, yeah, I know it.
I mean, the lights up there go off that are not on the uninterruptible, but I stay on the air.
And nothing in the broadcast chain should be affected in any way, and yet it was.
As a matter of fact, even the audio feed to broadcast.com for the video, the audio portion of the video feed went down.
About ten things went down.
The computers, all uninterruptibles, they went to millions of colors.
You know, they crashed instantly.
Now, how does that occur through a true uninterruptible power supply?
I don't think there's any way that can happen.
But, it happened.
And what was pointed out to me by Keith was, he said, Art, you remember last week when the phones went out?
You know, we're talking about this report on the government site, right?
That's on my website right now.
He said, who was the guest scheduled?
I said, well, Dr. Schwartz.
And he said, who have you got on right now?
I said, well, Dr. Schwartz.
So, you know, maybe just coincidence, but it's quite a coincidence.
All right, back to Dr. Gary Schwartz.
And, Doctor, welcome back.
Now, here's where we were.
I said, your research, quite obviously, if I'm listening correctly, would prove that, or it certainly is moving toward proving, that a consciousness continues after physical death.
And you were saying, no, you'd be more cautious.
Yes, and let me tell you why.
But can I just first ask a quick question?
You bet.
Because you've intrigued me with Keith's hypothesis.
Well, it's not a hypothesis.
It's the truth.
It's an observation, right.
But let's see what the interpretation is.
That's where the hypothesis is.
Here's Keith's observation.
Let me ask you this question.
How often do you lose complete phone communication other than, you know, to the outside world?
Never happened before.
Okay.
Never.
How often do you, when you have a power surge, do you lose all capacity?
Do your computers go down even though you've got these surge protectors?
Never.
No, they're not just, that's the important part, they're not just surge protectors.
These are called uninterruptible power supplies.
Right, uninterruptible power supplies.
They have batteries between the power company and myself.
So what we do is we now have two incidents that have never happened before, both of which happened... Associated with your appearance.
Exactly.
I find that interesting.
In light of all the other things that we've talked about, I find it extremely interesting.
Yes, so do I. It's so outrageously improbable.
With your show.
It is improbable.
It is improbable.
I will confess something that I think your audience will find intriguing.
What?
The woman who is the chair, chairperson of our mediumship research committee.
Yes.
She's a medium by the name of Lori Campbell.
Right.
An unknown housewife, believe it or not, from California.
According to her... Up until now.
Up until now, right.
According to her, Her mediumship skills began about five years ago, when she started receiving communication from a man who called himself Max, who she ultimately came to discover was none other than Sir James Clerk Maxwell, who was the distinguished scientist who developed the theory of electromagnetic waves.
And according to her, also her claim, That Maxwell?
That Maxwell.
Okay.
Now, also, according to her, other distinguished physicists have been collaborating through her, which includes none other than Tesla.
Tesla?
Okay, and he, of course, was the person who developed AC Current.
Yes, but why would, just out of curiosity, why would luminaries like Maxwell and Tesla choose somebody With no scientific credentials to communicate through, somebody who would have a difficult time understanding even the concepts they were trying to get across, as opposed to some modern-day physicist, for example.
By the way, I love your mind, and I love the questions that you ask.
You and I tend to ask the identical questions, because, of course, those questions bothered us, too.
Here's what came to us, which is also what she claims.
As you know, most scientists, particularly physicists, but also psychologists, do you think that they would believe in the possibility that they were going to be receiving information from dead scientists?
No.
Of course not.
And if they did receive this information, who would they attribute the ideas to?
Themselves.
Exactly.
They would take credit for them.
So if you're a dead scientist, First of all, you have very few options because there aren't all that many people around who are going to be interested in this kind of thing and open to it.
Secondly, what you're going to want to do is to find people who are not going to reject it out of hand.
The interesting thing about this woman, Laura Campbell, is that she doesn't even have a college education.
What this means is that she has no knowledge to interfere with what she's receiving.
Consequently, she can receive it with an open mind.
Well, it's certainly... What kind of information is she getting from them?
Well, she has been getting information.
She gets physics formulas.
Really?
Yes, and she gets information which has been subsequently verified by people who know Maxwell's work.
Holy smokes!
That's what I said.
What's even more interesting is because she believes That she was chosen by Maxwell not to become another James Van Praagh or George Anderson doing readings for people, but she was chosen because she was meant to be a research medium.
She was meant to be the bridge to try to discover what this process is, and that's going to get back to your other question.
About why I'm conservative, and I'll give you that reason in a second.
But I just want to share with you... It seems even more difficult for you to come up with a conservative approach now.
Once you get into this world, you have to be open to all kinds of possibilities.
and what i'm now having to uh...
fathom is on top of everything else here you've had two remarkable electrical coincidence on
your show associated with my being on your show
and you now learn that the chair of our mediumship research committee is purportedly
working some of the greatest natural interest exactly
who are what dealt with electricity
i find that an interesting coincidence don't you well admits we want to push back from the equipment a
little bit yet but i think it's a lot of people
By the way, when we ran our second mediumship experiment this summer, four of the five video cameras stopped working.
And fortuitously, and don't ask me why I did this, I went out and I purchased four audio tape recorders.
And fortunately, the audio tape recorders continue to work during the time we were collecting the data.
So although we lost much of the video information, we lost none of the audio information.
Isn't that interesting?
Very interesting.
But now getting back to your question, why am I conservative?
Here's why.
Once we've ruled out all the sort of standard explanations, you have to entertain a number of anomalous ones.
And the first one is, To what extent is the medium simply reading the mind of the living person?
In other words, I go to a medium and I want to contact my deceased father, for example.
Well, you know what remote viewing is, right?
Exactly.
So the first thing you have to do is to find evidence that goes above and beyond simply.
And I'll give you some evidence for this.
Which you already seem to have found, as far as I can see.
Well, wait until I tell you what we discovered two weeks ago.
We have the ultimate jaw dropper.
So the first thing you have to rule out is mind reading or remote viewing of the living.
The second thing you have to rule out is that this information is not just sort of dead information picked up in the vacuum, if you would, the so-called the Cossack record.
Collective consciousness, whatever.
Exactly.
The third thing you have to rule out, and this of course is really wild, but this is what the mediums claim, Is that this information is not just coming from their quote, guides.
Right.
Right?
You're right.
So you have to rule that out.
So how do you, and if we can rule those things out, then what are you left with?
You're left with, of course, what interests people the most, and that is the survival of our loved ones and ourselves.
Yes.
So why is it that, so that's why I'm trying to be conservative.
I'm saying, you know, that the, We don't have definitive proof yet, but I'll tell you a lot of data that are powerfully consistent with that final interpretation.
I'll give you two examples, and both of them were absolutely, quote, accidents.
That is, we didn't make them happen.
But both point to this interpretation.
Let's first take the HBO experiment.
In that experiment, there were five mediums.
It was George Anderson, John Edwards, Suzanne Northrup, Ann Gaiman, and Laurie Campbell.
And we had a sitter who individually met with each of these people.
Now here's what happened.
Each of the five mediums perceived that there was a dead son.
Three of them got the initial M and one of them got the name Michael.
And by the way, she did have a deceased son.
The son actually killed himself.
His initial was M and the name was Michael.
None of the mediums said that there was a deceased daughter.
And none of them gave a wrong initial, as we said, for the son.
So their perception was absolutely perfect.
However, the claim could be made that they picked up all of this from the mind of the sitter.
Right?
Correct.
Now, in addition, all five of the mediums perceived a little dead dog.
Who's a chihuahua.
None of them perceived a dead cat.
The interesting thing is that none of them got the initial of the dog or his name.
Now listen to this.
When we asked the sitter afterward, who is his dog?
She says, oh, that's Pee Wee.
Pee Wee is our little chihuahua.
Pee Wee did this and Pee Wee did that.
Pee Wee was such a cute dog over and over.
In other words, she always referred to the dog as Pee Wee.
She never referred to him as a little tan and black thing.
It was always Pee Wee this, Pee Wee that.
And over the time that I've worked with her, she said his name hundreds of times.
Now, if the mediums were getting the information about the dog from her, what would they have also done?
They should have picked up the dog's peewee.
None of them did.
So what I subsequently did was I asked them, how often do they get the names of animals?
And the answer is, virtually never.
So that's what's suggestive.
We do this experiment two weeks ago.
the little dog.
They are not actually getting it from the...
Oh boy.
You see that?
Now let me give you the more interesting one.
You ready for this one?
Yes.
This is the jaw dropper.
You ready for the jaw dropper?
I'm ready.
Here's what happens.
We do this experiment two weeks ago.
There were five sitters, people who were going to be read, research sitters, and each of
them were being seen by three different mediums.
we were able to schedule three of the five.
That's a lot of people.
Right, that's a lot of people and a lot of data scoring.
One of the mediums was John Edward and I was the experimenter for John's readings.
By the way, the first ten minutes of these readings were done in complete silence and there was a screen separating the medium and the sitter.
So the medium had no idea whether it was a male or female, young or old, deceased history, anything.
Ready?
Got this?
Now, John Edward, for the third sitter, this is the third of the five, he starts picking up information about this woman's grandmother who had died, and goes into great depth describing this woman, her personality, her history, including things such as saying, That the grandmother sees that you're going to be having a wedding, and she's very happy for you about this, which by the way turns out to be true, and describes a whole bunch of other things.
And it's very emotional, by the way.
This woman sees grandmother apparently really loved the sitter.
Right.
When the reading is all over, the sitter goes back to the sitter waiting room, and then the fourth sitter is brought in.
And the reading begins.
And John Edwards says, I'm having difficulty.
He said, I can't focus on the fourth sitter because I'm continuing to get information from the third sitter's grandmother.
And then he starts saying, oh, I start hearing, he says, I'm hearing the song over and over in my head, The Good Ship Lollipop.
You have to understand at this point, I'm saying, what?
The Good Ship Lollipop to myself?
Right.
He says, oh, he says, this is very confusing.
He says, the grandmother is very strong.
She's telling me an S.A.
name, a Sandy or a Sabrina.
She's saying Sabrina the Witch, Sabrina the Witch.
And he goes on describing other things about the grandmother from the previous sitter.
What happens is that he ultimately was unable to get any information about the fourth sitter because he was continuing to receive information from the third sitter's grandmother.
So ultimately, of course, the session is over, which means it's a complete failure in terms of the fourth sitter.
But we have all this additional information from the deceased grandmother.
So, of course, what do I do?
I go to the third sitter and I say, can I ask you a couple of questions?
I said, first of all, does the good ship lollipop mean anything to you?
Because it meant nothing to me and meant nothing to the sitter who was in the room.
Sure.
It turns out that when this woman was young, she had curly, blondish hair.
She used to dance and the grandmother used to call her a little Shirley Temple.
The second thing is the woman's name is Sabrina and when she was younger she used to be called the Teenage Witch and the kids used to tease her about this and she used to talk to her grandmother about this experience.
Now, here you've now no longer got the sitter present.
Right.
You've got a medium who's supposedly trying to read the next sitter.
Right.
But he's being distracted by the apparent living consciousness of a previous sitter's information.
Those kinds of data are very hard to explain in any other way except to say, Grandma's still here.
Good Lord!
How did you assimilate that information?
I mean, has this sunk into you?
Well, you know, it's very interesting.
When I first started this work, I started as, to tell you the truth, a disbeliever.
I mean, I was open to it.
Oh, I know why you started it.
Okay.
However, what happened was, after the Canyon Ranch Experiment, I spoke to one of our graduate students at the University of Arizona.
In other words, it came out of my mouth.
He said, what happened to the Canyon Ranch Experiment?
And you know what I told him?
What came out of my mouth?
I said, I give up.
And what I mean by that is, I give in to the data.
I cannot anymore hold this belief.
I cannot, with good conscience, say that something very special isn't going on.
All right.
Hold on, Doctor.
We'll be right back.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
I'm Art Bell.
You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
Tonight an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
There's always that blue magic rush, who loves you, who loves you, baby.
Who's gonna love you mama, who loves you, who loves you, baby.
When the tears are in your eyes and you can't find the way.
You can't find the way It's hard to sleep
It's hard to make believe you're happy when you're gray.
Believe you're happy when you're grey What's that feeling?
What's that feeling? I'm high on the reading.
I'm high on the reading That you're in love with me
That you're in love with me.
It's as sweet as candy. Its taste is on my mind.
It's as sweet as candy This taste is on my mind
Girl, you got me thirsty For another cup of wine
Got a flush from you, girl But I don't need no cure
I should stay up and tend If I can't restore
A good love when we're all alone Keep it up, girl
Yeah, you turn me on Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah
Listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM
From December 28th, 1988 I believe it's called a bleep threshold.
That's what the doctor was talking about, a bleep threshold.
It's kind of when you're thrown over the top on something, and for me, That happened with respect to UFOs a long time ago.
Long time ago.
In other words, I saw something myself, and I was tossed right over the threshold.
I don't know where it came from or what it was.
I just know that it was either technology that we could not possibly have on Earth, or if we do, it's certainly an awfully well-kept secret, and we don't keep secrets all that well.
Or, you know, it's from somewhere else, or another dimension, or whatever, but Real.
I looked at it.
It was close.
A close encounter.
And at that point, the threshold of belief for me took a giant leap.
And I still don't have all the answers, but that threshold was passed.
And apparently for the good doctor, it was as well.
and we'll pick up at that point when we get back in a moment.
Back now to Dr. Schwartzow.
So, a threshold, it's like a threshold event, right, Doctor?
Yes, I think, in fact, your metaphor of, what did you call it, the bleep?
Well, I said it's a threshold of belief.
Yes.
Yeah, where all of a sudden you can't really resist anymore.
In my case, I had an object pass directly over my head.
Now, I don't know for sure what it was, But I know that there are completely inexplicable things that are flying in our skies.
Period.
End of story.
It's true.
Right.
Because you had experienced it firsthand.
It was incontrovertible.
You couldn't avoid the experience.
That's right.
And so you had to accept it.
That's right.
Well, I think that that's what's happened in my case, where I have actually been resisting as many of these as possible, but to where the data was so strong that I, as I said, have now seen that something seems to be absolutely remarkable going on.
And of course, one of the things that's really, I think, worth pondering is how would it change our society, our personal lives?
I was just going to ask that.
In other words, if science, if your science or anybody's science, conclusively proves this, It'll change religion.
It'll change institutions.
It'll change science.
It'll change everything.
It would change everything.
And it's hard to even close your eyes and imagine in what way everything would be changed.
Well, you know, we have spent a lot of time thinking about what the implications of this would be for people.
And what have you concluded?
Well, as you put it, it changes nearly everything.
I'll give you some examples.
First of all, for our personal lives, one of the things that we would realize is that we don't have to do everything and do it immediately.
In other words, people could slow down in the way they live their lives and they could reconsider how they wanted to live their lives in terms of what percentage of the time do they want to spend with their families, with their loved ones.
and in fostering their own moral and educational development versus accumulating wealth and doing all the things that we do as we race around this planet, as if we only have a brief moment and then it's all over.
That's true, right.
So the first thing that it would potentially do is it would enable us to take stock and therefore treat our time on the earth as a very special moment.
This could be, of course, very meaningfully transformative.
Does any of your research give way to or take away from the concept of reincarnation?
Well, it's very interesting.
In a simple way, of course, it provides justification for reincarnation.
It says, of course, that your consciousness does continue.
And then the question is, can it, quote, come back?
However, what the Living Energy Universe idea Oh yeah, by the way, before we get too far further down the line, your book, I want to plug your book, it's the Living Energy Universe, and it virtually explains all of this.
And how do people get it?
Is it in bookstores, Amazon?
It's in bookstores.
The easiest way is to get it from Amazon.com or Barnes and Nobles.
I know they're all going to go broke doing that.
They're giving 30% discounts up there.
One of the things, by the way, which I would love to share is a very quick story, but I think it's very meaningful because it might be relevant to your audience.
We have a friend who read the book and was very touched by it.
He's an unusual person.
He's very metaphysical and is considered by Some of his friends, including his family, are called strange.
And what he did was, he, after reading this book, because he realized that this book provides a scientific foundation for so many of these strange things that people believe, that what he did was he gave a copy of the book to his sister, who had always questioned his sanity.
After she read the book, she began to realize and appreciate what her Her brother was all about it.
In other words, the book helped give him credibility.
And in the process, what it also did was it enabled her to better cope with the fact that both her mother and father had died because she was now open to the possibility that they were able to communicate with her and that the separation would not last forever.
So one of the things that my friend suggested that I pass on to you and to your audience
that if they have people that they love and care about and wish that they could share
with them why it is that they feel the way they do, that this is a way to help our loved
ones come to better understand that maybe all of this and more is real.
Well you know it seems to me, even the old Occam's razor business, it just seems to me
the most likely answer.
Energy, we know, doesn't just cease to exist.
We know that.
It doesn't.
Now, what form it may take, or where it may go, Yes, but we also know that it continues in a very replicable form.
in some sort of coherent form.
We don't know, but we do know that energy continues.
Yes, but we also know that it continues in a very replicable form. Again,
all we have to do is look out into the starry sky at night and we are reminded that the history of the universe
is absolutely brilliantly preserved and it's preserved with photons which are infinitesimally tiny that go into
the retinal cells of our eyes, which of course are absolutely tiny.
And one of the things that's very worth knowing is, do you know how many photons it takes for a retinal cell to fire?
How many?
Well, you might think millions or thousands.
It turns out only one.
One?
Just one photon is sufficient for a retinal cell to be able to register its presence.
Now think about how many billions of photons of our information is being emitted both visual and invisible into our surrounding and ultimately into space on a second by second basis.
Billions and billions and all of that information is preserved.
At least that's what physics tells us.
So not only is energy can't be destroyed, but the information Very, very persistent.
Otherwise we couldn't communicate with distant satellites that send off to planets and so on.
Right.
We know that this is true.
The other thing that physics is telling us is that matter is really organized energy.
That matter is just a special case of energy.
Right.
And so when you put all that together, and then you add the idea of a system, you come up with a universe that's just teeming with life at every possible level.
Modern physics is leaning toward the multi-dimensional theory.
Very heavily so.
I've interviewed any number of just top flight physicists who believe that.
And that would probably work very well with your research.
Yes, I mean, it's one of the things that is completely consistent with our research.
In fact, It actually helps support their vision.
Because some of the phenomena that we observe, if you would, in psychology and in consciousness research, actually requires that we entertain the idea of, for example, a fifth dimension.
And once you see that there's reason to entertain this idea, then it becomes more plausible.
So in the same way that we can't see, taste, touch, or smell gravity, we infer it.
by the fact that objects fall.
It's the same thing with these higher dimensions, which we can only, if you would, infer indirectly, but we know they have to exist.
Let me send you way out on a limb here and ask you about God.
We have the Bible, which people can argue about its accuracy and its translations and so forth and so on, but it does seem to be A living historical document of some value.
Right.
Does God ever come into your research?
Does the concept of a creator or a God ever become apparent?
Yes, in fact it becomes required by our theory.
In fact, we call God in the book G.O.D.
for the Grand Organizing Designer.
I'll tell you very briefly why it is that the theory requires that we appreciate the existence of a designer.
It's a very simple argument, but it's a very important one.
In fact, we've just written an article called Science's Greatest Mistake.
The argument against God is the idea that somehow all of the order that we see just happens by chance, randomly.
But it's very easy to understand.
The argument against design, the argument against God, is the idea that somehow all
of the order that we see just happened by chance, randomly.
And the idea that if you flip a coin enough times, there's a probability that by chance
it will just come up heads.
Now what most statisticians and most scientists have failed to recognize is that in order
to achieve randomness, in order to be able to create a random order, to posit randomness,
you have to have what's called independence.
In other words, each time you flip the coin, each flip has to be independent of the previous flip.
That's number one.
And number two, the coin cannot change over time.
So the coin must be constant And each flip must be a new flip, completely independent of the previous one.
Now, what does energy and systems, when you combine those two concepts, tell us?
Well, if all objects, if all systems are actually sharing information and energy, in other words, A sends information and energy to B, B sends it back to A, so that A and B are not independent, they are interdependent.
If A and B are interdependent, if everything is interconnected, Then there is no independence.
If there is no independence, then randomness is not possible.
If randomness is not possible, then what happens?
You can't use randomness as an explanation.
For all that is.
For all that is.
Because this whole hypothesis was based on a fantasy, which was a presumption of independence, where what energy and systems tells us is everything is interdependent.
But if it was randomness, If it was randomness, how could we, living within that, possibly conceive that?
In other words, we would automatically look at everything around us and... I'm lost in the way I'm trying to put this.
We would automatically conclude there would have to be a creative force.
It would be so intricately complicated That we could conclude nothing else?
No, I think that what actually what science has done quite to the contrary is to say, because we're smart enough, we can see that everything is actually, that randomness is possible.
So the scientist actually pushes for the idea that there isn't a grand organizing designer.
Because they're able to look past the seeming complexity and say, ah, I can imagine how it might occur randomly.
The problem is that you really can't apply the idea of randomness when you have the idea of a living energy system, because the systems are not independent.
Now imagine that we add systemic memory to all of this.
Imagine that not only is the information and energy interdependent, but it's accumulating over time, so that we have a universe that's constantly unfolding and unfolding creatively.
Then what happens is Not only is each coin flip not independent, but the coin is changing over time.
And if the coin is changing over time, it can't possibly be explained by randomness.
And therefore, what you look to is a designer that's at least as sophisticated as we are.
And since we're a subset of the universe, any sane person, as you said, Occam's razor, comes to the conclusion That we must entertain the idea of a grand organizing designer just as we entertain the idea of gravity.
Logic dictates it.
Isn't that interesting?
Yeah, it's fascinating.
Most physicists are very good at explaining everything that's going on with our universe until you get them Back to the Big Bang, which most all of them subscribe to, and you ask them about what occurred one second prior to this Big Bang, they go blank.
They truly go blank.
And they will tell you, if they're honest, they have not the slightest clue.
And that's where creation, that's where it is, I guess.
Yes, but you see what they, here's the other thing that physicists I think they deceive themselves.
And that is, they will tell you that yes, they cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang, but they'll tell you that they have a story about what happened after the Big Bang.
However, that story is based on a set of assumptions, which very well could be wrong.
For example, it's based on the assumption that what was going on in the universe was independent,
which of course makes no sense whatsoever since in the beginning everything was totally
connected to everything else.
So when you really look at the process logically and consistently, what do you come to the
conclusion of?
That our stories are just stories.
In fact, it's time for maybe us to evolve our stories, to revise our stories.
In part that's what the Living Energy Universe is all about.
It says it in the same way, you know, in the Bible it looks like you have an evolving God.
You know, in the Old Testament, you have a God that seems fairly vengeful, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.
A God you should fear.
The God you should fear.
And in the New Testament, we now have the God that you should love.
And what's interesting about that transition is, you could say to yourself, well, is that simply the evolution of human consciousness?
God has not changed.
It's just that human beings are becoming more sensitive to this God.
If there is a God.
Or is it possible that the whole process, the whole universe itself is unfolding?
And therefore the God process, if you would, is evolving just as we are.
And in the Living Energy Universe we have this quote which goes something to the effect as follows.
Imagine that you have stepped outside the entire universe.
And you are seeing the universe as a collection of caterpillar galaxies readying to transform into a rainbow-colored butterfly universe of indescribable beauty.
In other words, can we conceive of the idea that just as a caterpillar can transform into a butterfly, and you could never predict by looking at the caterpillar by itself that it would become a butterfly ahead of time, No one would ever be able to predict that.
No.
In the same way, is it possible that the whole universe is an unfolding process, and that it itself is going to transform into something that we have yet no possible conception of?
But you see, if biology and the Earth is any indication, if what we're learning is giving us information about the future, Then we should be able to anticipate the idea that the universe is much more magnificent than we've heretofore recognized.
And that's why we say that if the Living Energy Universe Theory is true, science may literally resurrect and revise the reputation of God.
All right.
Doctor, there has not been enough time to do this in nearly the detail we should have done it.
So, obviously, you will be back, I hope, one day.
I would be my pleasure.
You have a wonderful audience, and you ask remarkable questions.
Well, thank you.
And you take care and get whatever's left of your night's sleep.
Thank you.
You, too.
Take care, Doctor.
You, too.
Thanks.
Good night.
All right.
That's Dr. Gary Schwartz.
And that's it for tonight, folks.
We're out of time.
Now, tomorrow night, a living legend is going to be here, columnist Jack Anderson.
Who, in a survey commissioned by President Reagan, was found to be more credible or trustworthy than Walter Cronkite.
Jack Anderson is known to many of you, and to those of you who don't know him, tomorrow night you're going to find out a lot about him.
He's got some real stories to tell.
Some of them about the wise guys.
You know, those guys.
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell.
▲
Export Selection