Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 28, 1999 - Art Bell

02:40:00

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Life After Death - Gary Schwartz

Participants

Main voices

01:07:07

gary schwartz

01:09:37

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere Inside, tonight featuring coast to coast again from December 28th, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From the high deck in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening and or good morning, wherever you may be across this great land of ours.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From the Caitian and Hawaiian Islands, 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.
unidentified		This is coast to coast again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
		Well, remember the telephone outage that we had last Wednesday.
		I've got something about it that is going to absolutely blow your mind.
		I have a gentleman thanked 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.
		He is hard at work.
		He rolling 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 some 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 is 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, 6 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 is a big city.
		It's one of our nation's big cities.
		And, of course, I've got an affiliate there, K-O-M-O, in Seattle.
		And I feel like there's something here that we are not being told.
		Now, 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 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 canceled 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.
unidentified		Do you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 is 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 faced 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.
unidentified		They just don't have a clue.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		Something is changing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 U.S. top two meteorologists, unprecedented joint statement saying climate change is now a rapidly moving, and it's due to human intervention, 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 old 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 and Sienna 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 Scallion 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.
		So 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 35 Kashmiri militants sprung, but they want now $200 million in, I don't know what.
		Cash or gold or something.
		$200 million.
		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.
unidentified		You know, I hate shopping.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 here, 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, not Red Cross, Brent B-R-E-N, the Brent Cross Shopping Center in northern London as 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.
		Some went alone, some accompanied by children.
		Heart rate blood pressures were regularly recorded by monitors worn by the shoppers.
		They had no 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.
unidentified		I can't stand shopping.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The whole process makes me insane.
		And so I don't.
		I go, I stay in a 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.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
		Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Don't you give up, baby.
		Don't you cry.
		Don't you give up, baby.
		It's the other side.
		I was lonely, baby.
		I couldn't sleep.
		But now that you give up, baby.
		Don't you give up, baby.
		This meeting went out of summary time.
		Tonight we'll be playing a poster posting up on December 28th, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		I really wanted to talk about because screens about those are the flirtations, of course.
		Well, I have a bit of 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 last Wednesday night program when there was no long-distance service from here 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 Peromp 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 DS3s to fail.
		Methods used to restore service.
		Reset breakers and restored power to the DAX DACS shelf.
		More details to follow.
		Service restored at 11.12 p.m. Pacific Time.
		Duration of outage, 4 hours and 57 minutes.
		Date of outage, December 22nd, 1999.
		Time of outage, 18.25 p.m.
		Eastern.
		That's Eastern time.
		So, we've got this official Sprint forum, and we're going...
		On the form itself, get this.
		Geographic area affected.
		Las Vegas, Nevada.
		Perrump, Nevada.
		Military base, Area 51.
		Area 51.
		Now, wait a minute.
		This is 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.
		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 a 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 uh...
unidentified		uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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, Peron, 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?
		All right, 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 in 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 I'm going to be talking about some experiments he has just done.
		Should be interesting.
		First time caller aligned, you're on the air.
		Hi.
		Art.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		My name's Art too.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		I'm calling from the northern end of our fair state of Nevada.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Life in Paradise Valley.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Anyway, got two quick points to make, both about the weather.
		Okay.
		I was watching Tom Broca earlier.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		And they said, okay, this is going to be one of the first places on Earth to see the year 2000.
unidentified		I forgot the name of the island, but they said it was right near Tonga.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 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.
unidentified		You're correct.
unidentified		Anyway, the thing that really got me, Brokaw said, this may be the last years they'll be able to celebrate here as rising sea levels are causing this and surrounding islands to sink.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
unidentified		That bears up your melting poles.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 into the Pacific.
		It's not so much the Pacific is rising to cover them as it is the islands are sinking.
unidentified		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 is going to be the wind and the sea roaring.
		And I think we got that, don't you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I appreciate the call, sir.
unidentified		All right, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thanks a million.
unidentified		Good talking to you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, take care.
unidentified		And, oh, my site did come up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Finally.
		Keith told me at the bottom of the arrow break that it was there.
		Here it is, Sprint Incident Report of Long Distance Outage.
		It's the first item in the newest site editions.
		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 Perump 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.
		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.
unidentified		We'll see.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		150 below zero, and they want me to open this eye again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Who knows what Hubble is thinking?
		Hubble thinks at all.
		I don't think it does, really.
		Because its new computer is a 486 Hubble.
		Not even a Pentium.
		They said 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?
unidentified		It's got a 486?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 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 okay, 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 2 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.
		Wildcard 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?
unidentified		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, and you said...
		It sure is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's a lot of wind.
unidentified		And it was hot, up into 75.
unidentified		For this time of year, it's very unusual.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		Yeah, I'm beginning to think you have a point.
unidentified		I sure enjoyed hearing from your neighbors in Perunth.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That was a great hour.
		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, Prompt Nevada, Military Base, Area 51.
unidentified		You can hear my printer printing right now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		This is being printed from my website, and what I'm printing is a direct conversion.
		I repeat, it 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 can get to my website, damnest 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, Perump, 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.
		Oh, boy.
		East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
		Hi.
unidentified		Hi, Ort.
		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 Comet of LaFouche Parish, Louisiana.
		It says on the front page, meteor may have hit marsh.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		May have hit what?
unidentified		The marsh, the swamplands.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Yeah, well, I just found out about this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Marsh, marsh.
unidentified		Yeah, like a boggy swamp land.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's your accent getting there.
unidentified		Okay.
		What's coming through, isn't it?
		Oh, it's Cajun country, dude.
		i hear you but i don't uh...
		i don't have access to a fax machine so i can't fax this to you but uh...
		if there is anyone listening What's that?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What is the essence of the article?
unidentified		It says that at least three people, it mitigates at least three people noticed, quote, a large object on fire that was flying across the sky with sparks behind it.
		They said it landed in the marsh behind a boat launch and apparently set the marsh on fire.
		That caused a fire that was a mile wide.
		I mean, I'm amazed.
		I live less than 10 miles from here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How do you set a marsh on fire?
unidentified		Well, the meteor was on fire, according to the witnesses, and it landed in the marsh, from what they can tell.
unidentified		And there was no marsh fire beforehand.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A meteor, huh?
unidentified		What it says.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Kind of like the meteor down in Australia that embedded itself in a dam.
unidentified		Yeah, we might have one out here in the marsh.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		These are interesting days we live in, aren't they?
unidentified		You're not kidding me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, if you can figure out a way to get that to me, get it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We'll put it up.
unidentified		Well, if anyone in LaPouche Parish is listening, they can send it to you.
unidentified		I don't have access to a fax machine, but I'm sure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm sure we'll get copies then.
unidentified		Dave's daily comment in LaPouche Parish.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Take care.
		Set a march on fire, huh?
unidentified		This is Coast to Coast A.M. I'm Art Bell.
		You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
		Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		The Art Bell
		Be inside the sand, the smell of the touch.
		There's something inside that we need so much.
		The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sand, or the strength of an elk leaves deep in the ground.
		The wind there are 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 the meadow and hear the grass sing.
		All these things in the men of the soul to come to the city.
		My life, my wish is so hard with this face, on this trip, just for me.
		My life, take a free ride, take the place, up my seat, it's for free.
		My world will be shining through years, but for heart just to end my fears.
		My life, take a free ride, take a free ride, take a free ride, take a free ride.
		Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
		Tonight's program originally aired December 28, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 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.
unidentified		I'm sure it was Laguna Beach.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 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 Perump residents, because that's all I could call.
		There was no long distance coming or going from Perrump, 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 eight DS3s to fail.
		Digital switches, I believe.
		Methods used to restore service.
		Reset breakers and restored power to the DAX shelf, DACS.
		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.
		Perrompt, 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 what's called a PDF file.
		So I quickly, just before airtime, 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 Perump 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.
		Areas affected.
unidentified		Area 51.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 Scallion.
		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.
		The End 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.
		Director of the Bioenergy Corps, the Pediatric Alternative Medicine Center at the University of Arizona.
		In 1971, Dr. Schwartz received his Ph.D. from Harvard, was appointed assistant professor.
		He then became professor of psychology at psychiatry at Yale University, a director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic from 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It's a pleasure to be here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Great to have you.
		Gee Wiz, 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, indeed.
		Well, the story is in two parts.
		The first was theoretical.
		Very briefly, which we described in the Living Energy 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, that all systems stored information and energy.
		In other words, they all had memory, and that this memory and this energy had a kind of immortality.
		Now, this idea called the systemic memory hypothesis, or in plain English, universal living memory theory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is, however, hypothetical.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 decision.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, this came from a mind trip.
		Yes.
		Put simply.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Put simply, it was a mind trip.
		And boy, was it a mind trip.
		Because by the time I had gone through the system a couple of times, what I saw was not at all what I was prepared to see.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, in fact, even light and energy itself has memory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It has memory.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		Now, one of the easy, 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 are we seeing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Suns?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		But some of those stars are how many miles away?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Light years?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, millions of light years away.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		In fact, many of those stars, what science tells us, have long since, quote, died.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 has actually, 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, how does that imply a memory?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Ah, well, that's what we have to get to the second step.
		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Feedback.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		You get feedback.
		Now, what is that feedback?
		It's a sound, right?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Now, where does that sound come from?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Because remember, it wasn't there before.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where does it come from?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		How does it emerge?
		Well, you have to think about that.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		An endless feedback loop.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		An endless feedback loop.
		And what happens with an endless feedback loop?
		You get a process of an accumulation of energy.
unidentified		It's called a positive feedback loop.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Now that phenomena of this sound increasing, and by the way, it's not just increasing, but it's literally changing in its complexity.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It's just that we don't hear it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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, 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wouldn't that be about the same thing as audio feedback?
unidentified		Yes, exactly.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		As a matter of fact, we called it video feedback.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and that's the same principle.
		You're repeating the image over and over again.
		Now, you know what's really interesting is 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 make it 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 image within the image within the image within the image.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, you will see it begin to cascade.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're absolutely right.
		Yes, I am.
		I've done it.
		Yes.
unidentified		Good.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that is scientifically repeatable time after time after time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, people can try this at home.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, in fact, I wish I had thought about this when the book was finished.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You didn't get that in the book.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's what I didn't get in the book.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, hold that until the bottom of the hour, all right?
unidentified		You've got it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We're there, and we'll be right back.
		I'm Art Bell.
		This is Coast to Coast A.M., time after time, right here.
		Think about what was just said to you.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell somewhere in time on Premiere Radio Networks.
		Tonight, an oncore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Confusion is nothing new.
		Clutch back in warm blind celebrity.
		Do care the memory.
		Sometimes you picture me, I'm walking too far ahead.
		Thank you.
		The skin work bell somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
		Tonight, an oncore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 in it, 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.
unidentified		Take a look.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It'll blow your mind.
		The report on that big outage that affected me, and not just me, but 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 moment.
		Actually, there's no real way that I can demonstrate feedback to you.
		In my studio, when I turn my microphone on, the speaker is automatically mute.
		Now, if I had a radio in here that was listening before the delay, I could demonstrate that feedback to you.
		I had to get one.
		If my wife is listening in the other room, honey, would you please grab that little radio and bring it into 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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, do you get feedback?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All the time.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Always.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And what happens when you point the camera toward a monitor?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		same thing you always get a million little So this phenomena is as replicable as gravity.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It's a very important point.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, you're right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Of course it is.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
		But we don't typically think about it in this way.
		Okay?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		As important as gravity in what sense?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
		So we're not talking about something here that maybe occurs sometimes or it could be a hypothesis.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, you're absolutely right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We don't fully understand gravity, by the way.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
		It meant that cells could have memory, like so with 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.
unidentified		I didn't tell a soul.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And I kept the secret for 13 years.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is that what a sane scientist does?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Is that what a sane scientist does?
		They keep their controversial things quiet.
		However, and 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.
		Now here's what happened with Linda, and this is very important.
		I met Linda in 1993, actually at a conservative scientific meeting, and 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. Russick, 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. Ruzick 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 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 says, 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'd been to Yale that I had stumbled upon this theory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		By the way, regarding the feedback, watch this.
		I think I can do it live.
		Here we go.
unidentified		Watch this, folks.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hear that pushback?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's feedback coming from the speaker near a microphone on my mic.
unidentified		And I can turn it up, and you can get feedback.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how that's coming over the air, but that's feedback.
		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 numerically, presumably, infinitely.
		It would be infinity, wouldn't it?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Infinity, which is a tough enough concept to try to wrap your head around.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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, she said, this is really important.
		She said, do you realize its potential significance?
		And I said, well, I was aware of some of it.
		But I said, to tell you the truth, I'm very frightened about it.
		And she said, listen, she said, this is 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How in the world would you do that?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, 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 do it somewhere else, preferably on another planet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Were you tenured?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		I was quite well tenured at that point.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Untenured people would not do this sort of thing, would they?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 would stop funding them because they thought it was too controversial.
		So anyway, Linda asked me this question.
		But what had happened was, and 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 whether her father was still here.
		So I looked at her and I said, okay, Linda, I said, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And we recorded actually high-frequency sound above what the ear could hear from both with microphones pointed at Linda's body and also, believe it or not, at the photograph.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh my God.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can you tell me about what sort of frequency range you were recording in?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		We were actually looking up to 100,000 cycles per second.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		100,000 cycles per second.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right, and the ear can hear 20,000 cycles.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So we were way up there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Typically, I think about what is the low end of human?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		The low end is about maybe 20 to 30 hertz.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, 20 or 30 hertz, that's what I thought.
		Right.
		So 100,000.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or thinking about a pizza she had last week or anything else in the world, right?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		We didn't do the pizza experiment.
unidentified		Well, it doesn't matter.
unidentified		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		You got it.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		You got it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, a control.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		You're right, exactly.
		And we also did things where she couldn't see the picture.
		And, you know, we did various kinds of controls to look at this.
		And this was all, quote, exploratory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
		Was it how conclusive was it?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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, but you can't control it.
		It was sort of like that with this early work.
		We would see anomalies in the signals.
		We could not explain, but certainly not all the time.
		But it was enough to say something was happening and that it was worth exploring.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		I mean, this research did not really take off until we began working with superstar mediums.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And that's, of course, the research which is most remarkable and for which we completed our third experiment with the Dream Team, what we call the Dream Team of Mediums, actually, just two weeks ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So this is very recent follow-up research to the early stuff.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		I mean, and we'll talk about this later, but as you know, we did what was on HBO 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How could you know or even think that you knew that it was a or scientifically proved that it was a feedback process that you were observing, even sporadically?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, one of the things that we actually did was we recorded her brain waves and her electrocardiograms.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So we were looking for her physiological processes to coincide, I answered.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		To coincide.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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, her own brain just producing the state, and that was causing an anomaly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And the answer was, again, we could not, from those early experiments, disentangle that.
		The reason why we thought it was plausible was because there were these unexplained anomalies, coincidences, which might which funny to talk about them in public, but 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've been doing an experiment with comparing her father pictures with her father and also pictures of her father's mother, who was also deceased, who Linda loved.
		And it turned out that this woman, Dr. Russik's mother, was known for her tremendous affection for birds.
		And there were stories in the family that after she died that birds would appear when they would think about grandma.
		And it was just 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 that 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, this is what you were picking up on your mics?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		No, well, actually.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually audible?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
		Because this pump was hidden way underneath it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You were probably totally freaking out.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, of course.
		And I was saying, you know, this is weird.
		Now, the simple way to say that, well, it was just a coincidence.
		It was just at that particular moment the pump made the noise.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		But the other possibility was that it wasn't just a coincidence.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time, tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
		You must know the magic of her charms for the woman.
		Girl, the cold.
		Dream lover, so I don't have to dream alone.
		green lover where are you If 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 fortress 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 that you can see.
		You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time, the night featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's very interesting, the words to this song.
		I'll never be set free as long as I'm a ghost that you can see, but 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, 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.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
		It's at FCC.gov, a website, a U.S. 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 US government site what I'm telling you.
		What I've told you tonight.
		Go go to my website.
		The link is there.
		Go look for yourself.
		Now, 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So where do we go from there?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, before we go to the mediumship, I should tell you about how you translate this into actual serious science.
		And this has, of course, occurred later to us as we became more sophisticated in doing this kind of research.
		And here's again where the Pasteur had this wonderful phrase where he said, great discoveries are accidents observed by prepared minds.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Actually, that is true of most great discoveries.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It really is true.
		And so what happened was, of course, 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 Russik, she visited us from Florida when we were conducting some of our mediumship research.
		And 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 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. Russick was a scientist, as he published more than 200 papers in the medical literature.
		So if anyone was going to practice science who was, quote, dead, it's going to be Dr. Russick, particularly since he loves his family.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		One inquiry.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that is, why would she initially think that the partial failure of a digital clock could be attributed?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why make that jump?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, why did she entertain this?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, indeed.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 had occurred coincidentally upon coming back from our home in Tucson.
		So she just asked the question kind of...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It was on her mind.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It was on her mind.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		But here's what Linda and I proposed, that we do a formal experiment.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		What she should do is get a second clock, which worked, to plug it into the same outlet as the broken clock.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Now, 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 so on.
		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 during the day was quote 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 on the following morning.
		She would record both the broken clock and the regular clock.
unidentified		Day after day.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Day after day after day.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And then, of course, what you do when you've collected enough data, and this is what's called an ABAB design, and it's up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 AMPM 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, 1, did she know whether it was 1 o'clock AM or 1 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.
		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 analyze the data.
		When we analyze the data, of course, we discovered you couldn't conclude anything.
		Because if the clock was, 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 clock, 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 during the baselines, during the days, as well as the evenings, and we inferred a rule which said that if the time was less than 3 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I do.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And then what we did was we took that quote decision rule and we applied it equally to all the data.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So we applied it to both the increased nights and the decreased nights.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gotcha.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 increased nights compared to the decreased nights.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What kind of statistical data?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, what you do is you do what are called statistics.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		In other words, you do...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand.
		I mean, how much of a...
		Yes, sir.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		There was a difference of about an hour and a half between the two clocks, between increase and decrease.
		So it was small but reliable.
		Now, here's the interesting thing.
		She goes to sleep at night.
		So these 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.
		This, by the way, is the first experiment she's ever done in her life, and she's in her 70s.
		She says, Henry, she said, oh, I wish that the clock had an AMPM night working.
		I wish, 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 AM-PM light is flashing.
unidentified		She goes to the bathroom, and she...
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And she comes back, and it's now working.
		She goes to sleep.
		She wakes up in the morning, and the AMPM light is off.
		So it's not working again.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's not working again.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		However, she calls Linda and tells Linda this amusing anecdote.
		Of course, by the way, she does not know that the results of how we've analyzed the data.
		Linda hears this story and she said, well, gee, Mom, she said, maybe this was dad trying to give you a sign.
		He was trying to make the clock work.
		So her mother says, yes, that's all very curious, but, you know, so what?
		She hangs up.
		She goes back to the bedroom, and lo and behold, the AMPM light is now working.
		Now, once the AMPM light was now working, what could we do?
		We could then actually test to see if our decision rule was correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So we now ran the experiment with the AMPM light working.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And she was getting ready to leave for Europe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And it continued to work.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 the clock, whether it called the times a.m. and p.m. was in fact the correct rule.
		So when we published the data, what we said was we said 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 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Ah, very good question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And between that, delineate between that and the psychic or psychokinetic ability of a living human mind.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 and was not actually the deceased person's direct effect.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Which, by the way, would still be a mighty heavy-duty thing to be proving all by itself.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Bingo.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 search because it's just absolutely delightful.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, please.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		By all means.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 see this firsthand.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What was the title of the experimenter on the other side again, please?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It was called, well, you mean of the one that was the clock study?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or the other one?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		The new one.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What you designated the person on the other side.
unidentified		Oh, the departed, hypothesized co-investigator.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's great.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		In fact, you want to know what we did?
		This is the first time ever.
		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 hypothesizing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hypothesize.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Rather than deceased.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		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 Lindix puts it, from here to there and back again.
		And here's how the experiment works.
		Medium one, you have two mediums.
		Mediums are people who purportedly receive communication from the other side.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Medium one is a woman who claims to purportedly communicate with four people.
		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.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		By living people.
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hold it right there, Doctor.
unidentified		That's exactly what we'll come back to in a moment.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell somewhere in time on Premiere Radio Networks.
		Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Music Some down you better take care of, if I mind you've been creeping down my back stairs.
		Some down you better take care of, if I mind you've been creeping down my back stairs.
		Music She looked like a week's sailor's dream.
		She don't say what she really needs.
		Something I think it's a shame.
		When I get feeling better, we're feeling the way.
		Sometimes I think it's a shame.
		Finding a job tomorrow morning.
		Got a little something I wanna.
		Gonna buy all the nothing I've been riding.
		I take my girls, I take nothing after driving.
		I look for my feelings down in history.
		A girl like Romeo and Juliet.
		I'm gonna buy the pretty presents.
		Just like the ones in a catalog.
		Gonna show how much I love.
		Here, Radio Networks presents Art Bell Summer in Time.
		The night's program originally aired December 28th, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 could 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.
		Now 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 trivially, 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.
		DS.
		A DS3 is a digital signal that carries 672 voice calls on a single coax cable.
		It runs at 45 megabits a 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.
		and 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 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.
		We'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?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		We were talking about this experiment with the art that was supposedly suggested by our department hypothesized co-investigators.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And a living human.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, brother.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And her task was her attempt to see whether she could receive the specific pictures, the images, from each of these departed people.
		In addition, she was given the task of attempting to contact medium number one, who of course was physically alive, but located obviously in a different area.
		And of course, medium one did not know when medium two was doing this.
		And then medium two attempted to get information about the picture that was drawn by medium one.
		And further that we had this, this was actually done twice, so we could get information on two separate occasions when medium two 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 one and medium two were brought together for the first time.
		The pictures were revealed.
		And then medium two 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'll 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 2 during her trance period, would see if we could get, would then determine which pictures were associated with which.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's a lot of control.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Random.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		However, when we independently each used the information that Medium 2 had received when she was attempting to communicate with the other side, quotes, our accuracy was 100%.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		100%.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		100%.
		Which meant what?
		It meant that given the number of pictures and the people that were, and 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 two to guess, not only guess, but get information about, was the picture of medium one.
		And it's very interesting.
		So for example, when we asked her to try to contact, you know, go to medium one's house, so to speak, and see what she could get, she was able to describe that house virtually to a T. Now I know that you've had Joe McMone on your program.
		He's a very distinguished remote viewer.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Around the middle of the month I'm going to have Ingo Swan on.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 2 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 or 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 also said 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.
		And 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.
		And the question, and so what happened was all this information, 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 departed hypothesized co-investigators exist, but they were actively conscious and playing a role.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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, that word is a biggie.
		And 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?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 is continually dynamically to grow.
		And let me again 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So 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 involves feedback, whether it's playing basketball or riding a bicycle.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's golf course, correct, yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		So feedback is a prerequisite for learning in 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Processing it.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Processing it.
		So when you look at the data, the data suggests what.
		It's not like a dead memory that's coming off of a CD that's not changing, but it's something that's as alive as you and I are, which is most interesting.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is, it certainly is.
		Are you familiar with people like, for example, I've interviewed a man named James von Prague many times, four or five times, I don't know.
		He's been on Larry King.
		He's known nationally.
		And he claims to be able to communicate with the dead on a very regular, consistent basis.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have you looked at Mr. Von Prague and others like him?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		We've looked at others like him.
		a part of our quote dream team of superstar mediums recall michael jordan to the mediumship world uh...
		include john edward who's also been on larry king and so on many times crime who the younger version of james from proxy was one of your uh...
		Another person is a woman by the name of Suzanne Northrop in New York City, who is very well known sort of in the East Coast that's been working in this field for years.
		Third person is a woman by the name of Reverend Ann Gaiman, who in Washington, D.C. Fourth person is George Anderson, who, of course, is very well known in the field.
		Actually, to tell you the truth, James Von Prob 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 them impossible for them to metaphorically play their game.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, they may be afraid that they're not dealing with scientists so much as debunkers.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		That's one of the reasons we use the metaphor of Michael Jordan in a mediumship world.
		I mean, for example, imagine that you want to be able to see whether Michael Jordan's a superstar.
		So you bring him into your laboratory basketball court.
		You say, okay, Michael, we want to study, see how good you are.
		However, you're not allowed to jump.
		I mean, you know, 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.
		Then what you do is you discover what is it that makes him special, what is it that then 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		By the way, just linguistically, the word there is T-Here, which means that here is in there, but here versus there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They're included here.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		Okay.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		But anyway, getting back to that.
		The answer is we have in our research virtually no information 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 we describe, we summarize all of this research, and one of the things we point out to, as 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.
		Because 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But you are convinced by your research so far that it is in fact possible to communicate with a physically deceased person's continued consciousness?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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, that cannot be explained as statistical coincidence, that cannot be explained as subtle cueing or cold reading or any of that kind of stuff.
		It's clearly, quote, anomalous.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, how does that differ from what I just said?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll explain in a second.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
		Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Every time, can they come mine?
		She's no one's lover tonight.
		With me, she'll be so inviting.
		I want her all for myself.
		Oh, I'd say I'm just your eyes.
		I'm looking through my mind, my core.
		With temptation eyes.
		You've got to love me.
		You've got to love me tonight.
		You've got to love me, baby, yeah.
		But while I listen to it's just a game.
		You know it don't come easy.
		Touching me is huge if you want to do the moves.
		And you know it don't come easy.
		You don't have to shout or leave the vows.
		You can't even play them easy.
		Forget about the past.
		I know you're still wrong.
		The future won't last.
		It will soon be your tomorrow.
		I don't ask the bugs, I only want.
		Listening to Arkbell Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
		Tonight's an on-core presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
		Think 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, or 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, 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 is a guest scheduled?
unidentified		I said, well, Dr. Schwartz.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And he said, who have you got on right now?
		I said, well, Dr. Schwartz.
		So, you know, maybe, 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so let me tell you why.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		But can I just first ask a quick question?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You've been.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Only because you've intrigued me with Keith's hypothesis.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's not a hypothesis.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's the truth.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 to the outside world?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Never happened before.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Okay, never.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		How often do you, when you have a power surge, do you lose all capacity on your, do your computers go down even though you've got these surge protectors?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Never.
		No, they're not just, that's the important part.
		They're not just surge protectors.
		These are called uninterruptible power supplies.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right, uninterrupted power supplies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They have batteries between the power company and myself.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So what we do is we now have two incidents that have never happened before, both of which happened.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Associated with your appearance.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
		I find that interesting in light of all the other things that we've talked about.
		I find it extremely interesting.
unidentified		So outrageously improbable with your show.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is improbable.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It is improbable.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		I will confess something that I think your audience will find intriguing.
unidentified		What?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		The woman who is the chairperson of our mediumship research committee, she's a medium by the name of Laurie Campbell, an unknown housewife, believe it or not, from California.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Now also according to her, other distinguished physicists have been collaborating through her, which includes none other than Tesla.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Tesla.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and he, of course, was the person who developed AC current.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Of course not.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And if they did receive this information, who would they attribute the ideas to?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Themselves.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And secondly, what you're going to want to do is to find people who are not going to reject it out of hand.
		Now, the interesting thing about this woman, Laura Campbell, is That she doesn't even have a college education.
		So, what this means is she has no knowledge to interfere with what she's receiving.
		And consequently, she can receive it with an open mind.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's certainly what kind of information is she getting from them?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, she has been getting information.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		She gets physics formulas.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, and she gets information which has been subsequently verified by people who know Maxwell's work.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Holy smokes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 Von Prat 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.
		I'll give you that reason in a second.
		But I just want to share with you.
		You have to say it's once you get into this world, you have to be open to all kinds of possibilities.
		And what I'm now having to fathom is on top of everything else, here you've had two remarkable electrical coincidences 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 with some of the greatest exactly who are what dealt with electricity.
		I find that an interesting coincidence, don't you?
unidentified		Well, it makes me want to push back from the equipment a little bit.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		I have to guess why.
		By the way, you want to hear something else amusing?
		Well, we ran our second mediumship experiment this summer.
		Four of the five video cameras stopped working.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, brother.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 continued 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Very interesting.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So now getting back to your question, why am I conservative?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, why?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know what remote viewing is, right?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 by this little bit.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Which you already seem to have found, as far as I can see.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, wait till I tell you what we discovered two weeks ago.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		We have the ultimate jawdropper.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So the first thing you have to rule out is mind reading or remote viewing of the living.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Here, here.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		The so-called Akashic record or you know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Collective consciousness, whatever.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're right, right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		So why is it that, so that's why I'm trying to be conservative.
		I'm saying, you know, 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 Northrop, 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.
		Now, 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.
		Correct?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Now, in addition, all five of the mediums perceived a little dead dog.
		Who was 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 a 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 them 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 that what they're doing is they're seeing the little dog.
		They're not actually getting it from the more interesting one.
		You ready for this one?
		You ready for the jawdrop?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm ready.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Here's what happens.
		We do this experiment two weeks ago.
		There were five sitters, that is, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it was a lot of people.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right, it was a lot of people and with a lot of data scoring.
		One of the mediums was John Edward, and I was the experimenter for John's readings.
		And 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 male or female, young or old, decease history, anything.
		You 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.
		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 my head, The Good Ship Lollipop.
		You have to understand at this point, I'm saying, what, the good ship lollipop to myself?
		He says, oh, he says, this is very confusing.
		He says, the grandmother is very strong.
		He said, she's telling me an S.A. name, a Sandy or a Sabrina.
		She says, 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, I said, does the good ship lollipop mean anything to you?
		Of course, it meant nothing to me and meant nothing to the sitter who was in the room.
		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.
		You've got a medium who's supposedly trying to read the next sitter, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good Lord.
		How did you assimilate that information?
		I mean, has this sunk into you?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I know why you started it.
unidentified		Okay.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		However, what happened was, after the Canyon Ranch experiment, I spoke to one of our graduate students at the University of Arizona.
		You know the words that 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 into the data.
		I cannot anymore hold this belief.
		I cannot, with good conscience, say that something very special has been going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Hold on, Doctor.
		We'll be right back.
		This is Coast to Coast AM.
		I'm Art Bell.
unidentified		You just need to Art Bell somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
		Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Coast to Coast AM from December
		28, 1999.
		Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Coast to Coast AM from December 28, 1999.
		Listening to our bell somewhere inside.
		tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 28th, 1999.
		I believe it's called a bleep threshold.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		Long time ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
		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.
unidentified		The End.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Back now to Dr. Schwartz.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So a threshold, it's like a threshold event, right, Doctor?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I think it's back to your metaphor of, what did you call it, the bleep?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I said it's a threshold of belief.
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Because you had experienced it firsthand.
		It was incontrovertible.
		You couldn't avoid the experience.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And so you had to accept it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that that's what's happened in my case, where I have actually been resisting as many of these as possible until where the data was so strong that I, as I said, have now seen that something seems to be absolutely remarkable going on.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And of course, one of the things that's really, I think, worth pondering is how would it change our society, our personal lives, our society?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Boy, we're just running out of education.
		I'm 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, we have spent a lot of time thinking about what the implications of this would be for people.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And what have you concluded?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, as you put it, it changes nearly everything.
		And 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 there is, we only have a brief moment and then it's all over.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		And this could be, of course, very meaningfully transformative.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Does any of your research give weight to or take weight away from the concept of reincarnation?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's very interesting.
		And in the simple way, of course, it provides justification for reincarnation.
		Because it says, of course, that your consciousness does continue.
		And then the question is, can it, quote, come back?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		However, what the living energy universe idea And it virtually explains all of this.
		And how do people get it?
		Is it in bookstores, Amazon?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		The book store is the easiest way to get it from Amazon.com or Barnes and Nobles.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		The website.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I know they're all going to go broke doing that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They're giving 30% discounts up there.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		I mean, 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's a very important thing.
		might, I think, be relevant to your audience.
		And we have a friend who read the book and was very touched by it.
		And he's an unusual person.
		He's very metaphysical and is considered by some of his friends, including his family, as quote 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 brother was all about.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't.
		Now, what form it may take or where it may go or how it may disperse or whether it disperses or remains in some sort of coherent form, we don't know.
		But we do know that energy continues.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How many?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Well, you might think millions or thousands.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		It turns out only one.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		One?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 is very, very persistent.
		Otherwise, we couldn't communicate with distant satellites that we send off to planets and so on.
		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.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		I mean, it's one of the things that it's 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.
unidentified		Let me send you way out on a limb here and ask you about God.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		We have the Bible, which people can argue about its accuracy and its translations and so forth and so on.
		It does seem to be a living historical document of some value.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Does God ever come into your research?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Does the concept of a creator or a God ever become apparent?
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, in fact, it becomes required by our theory.
		And in fact, we call God in the book GOD, for the grand organizing designer.
		And I'll tell you very briefly why it is that the theory requires that we appreciate the existence of a designer.
		And 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, which summarizes briefly the book that explains this.
		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 it's the idea that if you flip a coin enough times, there's a probability that by chance it'll 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 we can't, then randomness is not possible.
		If randomness is not possible, then what happens?
		You can't use randomness as an explanation.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		For all that is.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		For all that is.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 see how 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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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, yes, 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but you see, 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 Dang.
		But they'll tell you that they have a story about what happened after the Big Bang.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And in fact, it's time for maybe us to evolve our stories, to revise our stories.
		And in part, that's what the living energy universe is all about.
		It says that 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A God you should fear.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		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 could 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.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Doctor, there has not been enough time to do this in nearly the detail we should have done it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So obviously, you will be back, I hope, one day.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		I would be my pleasure.
gary schwartz ▲ ● ▼		You have a wonderful audience, and you ask remarkable questions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
		And you take care and get whatever's left of your night's sleep.
		Take care, Doctor.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 Trumpite.
		Jack Anderson is known to many of you, and for 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.
unidentified		Some of them about the wise guys.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, those guys.

▲