Gary E.R. Schwartz presents three experiments—Elaine Russik’s digital clock anomalies (showing statistically significant time shifts when her late husband was asked to influence it), the Medium to Departed to Medium Communication of Pictorial Information study (where mediums accurately described unseen photos of deceased individuals), and the "Dream Team" session (revealing a sitter’s forgotten childhood nickname and a lost pet’s name)—all pointing toward unexplained, replicable interactions with the dead. His systemic memory hypothesis, blending quantum physics and feedback loops, suggests consciousness persists beyond death in an interconnected energy-information matrix, challenging materialist science and implying a universe governed by design rather than randomness. [Automatically generated summary]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Well, even at the beginning, Doctor, what was the nature of the research?
In other words, how do you even begin to go about taking this from the theory stage, even with the replicable feedback we just talked about, to some sort of standard of proof or scientific revelation?
In other words, how do you go from, how do you even take the first step?
Well, in our earliest research, what we tried to do was to see whether or not a feedback loop could be created between Linda and a photograph of her father.
And we recorded actually high-frequency sound above what the ear could hear from both with microphones pointed at Linda's body and also, believe it or not, at the photograph.
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.
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.
I mean, this research did not really take off until we began working with superstar mediums.
And that's, of course, the research which is most remarkable and for which we completed our third experiment with the Dream Team, what we call the Dream Team of Mediums, actually, just two weeks ago.
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.
Well, how did you do anything other than surmise that you were picking up some sort of output from her brain rather than a feedback process?
How could you know or even think that you knew that it was a or scientifically proved that it was a feedback process that you were observing, even sporadically?
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, the interesting part of the experiment was what happened after these pictures were drawn and put into sealed envelopes.
At a later point in time, a second medium who did not know the first medium and who was willing to participate in the research, this medium, at a later point in time, in front of a video camera, was asked to contact each of the four departed hypothesized co-investigators.
And her task was her attempt to see whether she could receive the specific pictures, the images, from each of these departed people.
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.
What we found was that if Medium 2 was simply trying to guess what the pictures were, or we were trying to guess what the pictures were, we were completely at chance.
In other words, our ability to guess was just random.
However, when we independently each used the information that Medium 2 had received when she was attempting to communicate with the other side, quotes, our accuracy was 100%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, but why would, just out of curiosity, why would luminaries like Maxwell and Tesla choose somebody with no scientific credentials to communicate through, somebody who would have a difficult time understanding even the concepts they were trying to get across, as opposed to some modern-day physicist, for example.
By the way, I love your mind, and I love the questions that you ask.
You and I tend to ask the identical questions, because, of course, those questions bothered us too.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
In other words, if science, if your science or anybody's science conclusively proves this, it'll change religion, it'll change institutions, it'll change science, it'll change everything.
It would change everything.
And it's hard to even close Your eyes and imagine in what way everything would be changed.
Well, 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.
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.
And this could be, of course, very meaningfully transformative.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.