Ingo Swann, the "father of remote viewing," reveals how his 1975 psychic session uncovered a classified ET-human cooperation base—shut down after he questioned telepathy—while dismissing U.S. government claims of no hidden programs. He confirms remote viewing can predict future events (e.g., Hella Hammond’s experiment) and alter outcomes, though larger-scale psychokinesis remains uncertain due to interference. Swann warns that global power structures suppress such abilities, citing East Germany’s underground biological horrors and presidents like Ford potentially influenced by unseen forces. Callers share unexplained phenomena: mutilated livestock in 1979, empathic injury bonding, moon anomalies, and UFO sightings near military bases, while Swann’s archives hint at deeper truths yet to be exposed. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, where we have a slight break in the wind before they come again, and oh my, it has been windy in the desert.
Actually, from the Hawaiian and Asian Islands in the west, eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S. Virgin Islands south to the Antarctic north to the Pole and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM.
Anyway, after that, in the next hour, is the father or the great-grandfather of remote viewing, the man who began it all, Ingo Swan, a fellow I've wanted to interview for years.
That'll be next hour.
The End Just two very quick items.
It looks like we've got an erupting volcano in Japan.
Mount Usu volcano erupted Friday, spewing the normal, hot rock, gas, and a plume of ash and smoke over the snowy countryside of Japan's northernmost main island.
No immediate reports of anybody injured.
They got out of the way.
Experts monitoring seismic activity had predicted this and had already evacuated 11,000 residents.
Kaboom.
And then really the only other thing in the news that lingers on endlessly is the Ilian Gonzalez thing.
And actually, the way it's going right now with the father wanting to bring himself and a whole bunch of others here to the States to get Elion and take him back to Cuba.
This is going to go on so long that eventually Elion is going to turn 18 and then he'll be able to make up his own mind.
I mean, every day it's the top of the news.
Fight this, fight that.
It just goes on and on and on and on.
Eventually he'll be of age and make up his own mind.
In the meantime, our nation only has one UFO attorney that I know of.
His name is Peter Gerston.
And he has news for you tonight.
You know, he's been locked, well actually he submitted an FOIA request looking for information on triangles that many of us have seen and know to be in our skies without any question whatsoever.
The DOD supposedly did a search.
Peter didn't think they searched hard enough.
The judge seemed interested in the case.
And there was a ruling that the DOD go back and, I don't know, do something or another.
And the ruling, the final ruling from the judge, was issued today.
And then we would think it's a judicial sense of humor rather than a joke on us, a joke on our right to know, a joke on the Freedom of Information Act and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.
I think it's a sad reflection on the founders back in the early 70s of an act that was supposed to give us access to information contained within the government agencies.
Initially, at least they would admit they had UFO information and withhold it on national security grounds, but now due to the sophisticated computers we have, they no longer have to even admit that they have information.
If all of this, if you and I time traveled and we went back in time, and there was such a thing as the Freedom of Information Act toward the middle of, or the last part of the Second World War, and Peter Gerston had acquired a couple of key names that he was real suspicious about, like Manhattan Project, Atomic Bomb.
And you submitted something like that to find out what the hell was going on, what do you think you would have received?
In his eight pages, he devoted several pages to a discussion.
And I just want to talk about two points, one of which applies to you, of course, and that involves the 33 affidavits.
And he found, and I'm reading from his decision, even if the court were to accept the plaintiff's arguments that the affidavits conclusively establish the existence of a unique aerial object, this does not demonstrate that reports on the object are in defendants' possession.
Therefore, the existence of the 33 affidavits does not create substantial doubt as to the reasonableness of defendants' search to defeat this motion for summary judgment.
Even if the court believes that this object exists as evidenced by the affidavits, the court goes on to state that this, the existence of the object, does not demonstrate that reports on the object are in the defendant's possession.
In other words, information about the object, simply because I establish that there is such an object out there does not establish that the Department of Defense has information about it.
Well, that is true, and it establishes that you have to.
In other words, this is not something that's only being tested over Area 51 or at altitudes no one can detect or satellite detection that we don't know about.
This is something that is being seen in populated areas over the last 20 years by thousands of people.
Look here, if it's not the U.S. government, I mean, if it is the U.S. government, and they're flying, as you pointed out, over populated areas, which they certainly are, then you know, you don't do that with secret big anti-gravitic type craft if you're the U.S. government.
If you want to fight to keep a secret, it just doesn't make sense, so there's only one other option.
You know, I've gotten emails that says, well, maybe it's not the Department of Defense.
Maybe there's another agency higher up that all the information is directed to, and the Department of Defense doesn't have any or doesn't retain any, and it's just filtered upward.
The bottom line is the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to have information, even periphery, on a need-to-know basis, just so they don't do anything foolish in regard to these triangles, just so they know not to scramble jets every single time they're observed.
Detected on satellites.
You know, we're talking about, I guess there are five in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and there's the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You mean to tell me that they don't have information within the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
I'm sure every person that has some type of responsibility within the Department of Defense for Intelligence and Security is aware of this object.
So he could have helped identify it, so I didn't use the correct word.
Now, you mean to tell me that unless you know the exact identifier, the exact keyword, the exact project name, the exact password, that's the only way you're going to get information from the Well, yeah, but as I said earlier, even knowing Manhattan or atomic bomb would not have yielded you a damn thing.
Okay, now you remember that they provided, Department of Defense provided me with the extra search terms, the identifiers, and the keywords, and I objected to the use of the word flying saucer and UFO and alien craft and spacecraft.
Yes.
Well, and that's what I responded in my papers last week.
And the judge indicates that, and this is a quote, by including extra search terms in the computer index query and by excluding the specific eyewitness accounts, sketches, and time and place restrictions in the electronic mail message, defendant has broadened the parameters of its search.
Defendant's search included the search terms plaintiff requested.
Had any responsive records existed, they more likely would have been identified in the expanded parameter search than the more limited parameter search argued for by the plaintiff.
Before we get into the judge's conclusion, let me just mention that what I will be doing next week is calling the individuals within the Department of Defense that provided the affidavits.
And now that the lawsuit is over, I can call them directly.
I would be calling McBride and Dunn and asking them for the various responses to the 200 emails and to the search.
So in any event, I'm going to call them and ask them for the responses, which were never provided to me, because according to their affidavits brought in Dunn's, nothing similar or consistent with my request was found.
But now that we know they use a UFO identified flying object, flying source, alien craft, and spacecraft, I want to see what responses were had because of those search terms.
Even though they might not have been responsive to the triangle, I'm sure they're informative, and I want to see.
So if they'll provide them voluntarily, I won't have to bring another FOIA request.
Plus, I want to see any responses to the email sent to the 200 DARPA employees, if only to see if the employees took it seriously.
Now, there's a possibility that if they do provide those, that some of the responses might indicate a lack of seriousness on the part of the employees, and then I can go back to the court and say, look, there is an evidence of bad faith, and this is it, and try to reopen the case.
In the eight pages rendered to you by the court, was there anything that even gave you the slightest hint that the judge might leave an opening for you to come back and re-enlighten him?
If somehow I can get these responses to the emails or the responses to the computerized search and, in fact, there is some information on the triangle, or if, in fact, it shows bad faith on the agency's part, then I can reopen it.
But like any type of case, criminal, civil, I need newly discovered evidence in order to open this case.
Now, there was a conclusion on the part of the court, and the conclusion is interesting in two respects.
The first, basically, the judge says, this case is not won over the existence or non-existence of UFOs, but whether the government has conducted a reasonable search regarding information on specific aerial modes of transportation.
I've never heard that expression, aerial modes of transportation.
Maybe I should use that as a keyword.
A fruitless search result is immaterial if defendant can establish that it conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.
Peter Gerston, our nation's only UFO attorney, is here and we'll delve into this a little further.
The spirit of FOIA.
I like that, the spirit.
I wonder what the spirit of FOIA really is.
I'm Art Bell and we'll be right back.
unidentified
Oh, leave me this way.
I I can't survive, I can't say a lot without your love.
That's all I need to do, that's all you need to.
Surrender, oh yeah.
And I have left my destiny in quite a single way The mystery book on the shelf The song is repeating itself Waterloo, I have defeated you once more Waterloo, I promise you'll love me forevermore Wanna take a ride?
Call Arspell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
East of the Rockies, F1-800-8255033.
First time numbers may reach Ard that area code 775-727-1222.
Or call the MicroCard line at 775-727-1295.
To talk with Art on the full-free international line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
Peter Gerston is my guest, and we're talking about the summary dismissal of the case that Peter had trying to find out about triangles with regard to what the Department of Defense might or might not know.
In a moment, we'll get back to that, and we'll try and define what we mean by a search.
So what are your comments on the way it was rendered?
unidentified
Well, I think it was sabotaged either way it went.
And let me explain.
When you do a computerized search, such that the one that was done at the Joint Chiefs Department, they did a computerized index search.
And when you list a bunch of terms that you want to do a search for, you generally have to know whether the search is going to be doing an AND or an OR inclusiveness.
In other words, you list a bunch of terms.
Do you want documents that contain all of those terms, or do you want documents that have any one of the terms?
Okay, so if by chance you say, I want a document that contain all of these words, and you put in a couple of words, you're going to get documents that have both words in them.
If you put in ten words, then the document has to have all ten words in order for you to list it.
On the other hand, if you say, I want to just do an or search, and you give it three words, it'll give you a list of documents that has any one of the three.
So if they wanted to say, if I've got this right, if they wanted to sabotage the inquiry, they would include all of the terms Peter had.
And as a matter of fact, they remember now, they included yet more terms.
They threw them in sort of as an afterthought.
unidentified
Exactly.
So if it was doing an AND search, which means it had to have all of these words, the more words they put into it, the less chance you would get a response.
That's why I'm putting in either voluntarily having them supply me with the responses pursuant to this search, vis-a-vis the emails and the keywords, or I'll just put in another FOIA request for those responses.
And that's the argument I made to try to convince the judge that all the keywords and identifiers did was confuse the issue and did not shed any additional light on whether the search was reasonable.
But for whatever reason, the judge did not ask the Department of Defense to supply them with the method of the search.
And in fact, what he said in his decision would seem to indicate that their additional words such as UFO and spacecraft and flying saucer and alien craft actually expanded the parameters of the search and was to my benefit.
And I don't understand that reasoning at all.
unidentified
Well, that's what I was debating here, was that I don't think that was proper to do that.
Now, you have to understand that this is the chief United States District Court judge in Phoenix, the number one man.
You would think that if he believed he had insufficient information to make that determination, which he did when he directed them to supply me with the identifiers and keywords, he would ask for the additional information, but it would be in a sense that I would also be supplied with that.
But for some reason, maybe he has prior experience with the Department of Defense's search in other cases, he found, it's almost like he took judicial notice of the way the Department of Defense does its search and assumed that by adding these words they were helping me and I don't understand that reasoning at all under either theory.
And hopefully when I put in another request for the responses, no matter what the subject is, whether they put in a response to REDD and got thousands of documents or they put in a response to alien craft and got some documents, but because the alien craft wasn't triangular, they didn't give me that information.
So I think that we're not finished with the Department of Defense yet.
Well, you have to remember, you have to take a step back and remember one thing.
The judge in a summary judgment motion must view the affidavits that I submitted, the 33 affidavits, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, to me, to cause.
And once he does that, he could find the affidavits, establish the existence of the object.
He assumed for argument's sake that the affidavits, and he has to find most favorable, he has to assume the objects exist, but he left the door open by saying simply because the object exists doesn't mean the Department of Defense has information.
But my argument is just the opposite.
Once you establish the objects exist, then on logic and common sense dictate that based upon the performance characteristics of this object, the DOD must have info.
And that a reasonable search would not surface any information that is this highly classified unless you know specific passwords and code words and identifiers.
Well, the appeal takes money and it takes time and there's different priorities now.
And in order for me to file an appeal and follow through with it, and that's a definite argument in California, then it takes support.
And unless my membership and your listeners are behind that, there's really no reason to appeal.
Because the only reason I do these things is for my constituent, for my membership, for my subscribers.
And if they're not interested in me filing an appeal and supporting that, then there are other things that I can find to do, such as NASA, and that's going to be one of the primary focuses of my attention in the next few months.
It will appear then in your email box every day right Peter that is correct my friend and so to get that what do they do they go to your website which is listed of course on mine and they can do one of two things they can access it by going to your website www.artbell.com or they can go directly to the cause website at www.caus.org or
Or if they are processor-challenged, they can write and they can get a copy of a newsletter for a very minimal cost, which supports all the good work you do.
We publish a monthly newsletter of the highlights of the daily emails, and that's called Cause and Effect, and we have to charge $20 for 12 issues for that.
And they can either obtain that and or obtain the transcript of the February 7th percentile proceedings also by going either to the website or writing to CAUS 8624 East SAN SAN BRUNO BRUNO DRIVE SCOTTSDALE, Arizona 85258.
Okay, it's CAUS 8624 East SAN SAN BRUNOBRUNO DRIVE.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258.
The monthly newsletter is $20, and if they would like a signed, autographed copy of the transcript from the actual court hearing on February 7th, that's for a donation of $25, and they could either go online or send us a check to that address.
And further FOIA requests, because basically now I'm going to be collecting identifiers and keywords from my subscribers and anybody else that wants to send me information.
And then we're going to be using those keywords and identifiers to pursue further requests and if necessary lawsuits.
Peter, what level of security, you know, in the secret to top secret to whatever's above top secret, would cut off completely any response to an FOIA request?
Well, probably not that higher of a security classification because I doubt very much that these FOIA people that do the searches have a high security clearance.
So if they don't, then they don't have access to whatever code words and passwords they need.
Basically, that's why they just look at whatever the request is and break it up into words and put those words in.
They don't try to help the requester at all by going outside of the request and maybe like asking some people like, what's this about?
Or information they decide they suddenly want somebody to know and use that FOIA request as a way to get that information out, looking like Mr. Clean as they do it.
Or at least have some specific keyword that will access something that at least they will come back and say, we have information, but you're not getting it.
National security.
So you can't even get through the first threshold.
In the 70s, when they first enacted the Freedom of Information Act, you know, the agencies would meet the time deadlines, you know, 15, 20, 30 days, whatever the deadlines were.
Now, you have to wait a year to get your request answered and longer than that for an appeal, let alone to get into court.
And then once you get into court, they just submit affidavits saying they did a reasonable search.
And nobody really challenges that.
The judge could have made law in this case in saying that because of the nature of this object, it just defies logic that the Department of Defense would not have information.
don't touch that dot cool Everybody that I have talked to, from all of the remote viewers that I have interviewed, and I believe that of the government program, those who speak publicly, I have interviewed all, to astronauts, to everybody that you talk to.
When the name Ingo Swan is mentioned, usually it's followed by the greatest natural psychic ever born, a natural psychic.
He is the great-grandfather, or the father of, depending on how he wants it, promote, of remote viewing, the program that ran for 20 years with the U.S. government.
We shockingly found out one night on Ted Coppel.
That was shocking, wasn't it?
And then, of course, many of those members of the military remote viewing program went into the private sector.
What can I tell you about INGO?
An awful lot, too much.
55 to 58 enlisted in the U.S. Army, served in Korea, was Secretary and Aide on the staff of General Lyde White, then Commander-in-Chief of all forces in the Pacific.
Up through 1969, employed under permanent contract, get this, at the Secretariat of the United Nations, New York, holding several clerical and administrative positions.
1972, 58-72, undertook research projects of personal interest, particularly the occult, parapsychological fields, astrology, numerology, auras.
It goes on and on and on and on.
Just every field that we talk about on this program.
There are three pages of this.
His work in parapsychological laboratories.
It really goes on and on and on, and I would never in a million years have enough time to tell you about everything Ingo Swan has done.
In 1989, he retired from active research and public appearances, so this is fairly rare what we're going to get to do tonight.
Ladies and gentlemen from Manhattan, I suspect, New York anyway, here's Ingo Swan.
What I said at the beginning about the other remote viewers I've had on, even astronauts, people who would mention your name, have billed you as, in their opinion, the greatest natural psychic born.
Well, you know, people say things, and I don't think I'm the greatest natural psychic born, but, you know, people are people, and they say things, and then this rumor gets going and so forth and so on.
I don't even like to be called a psychic to begin with.
Earlier on in my career I tried my best to.
Well, I've always been interested in perception and expanding perception.
So I'd like to be called a perception researcher, but in common parlance, you have just one or two categories that you can put people in, and the psychic one fitted.
The gentlemen who were in the military remote viewing program maintained to the person that virtually almost anybody could be trained to do remote viewing.
But they put you in a different category from those people in the sense that you had the greatest natural walk-in ability they ever observed.
I mean, I've seen other people that have great abilities too.
So, well, anyhow, there it is.
What can I do about it?
I think that I don't really see why I should be singled out for that kind of type of thing because, you know, nobody ever gets anything done by themselves.
So you have to work with people.
And there have been other great psychics that really impressed me, like the famous Harold Sherman, who's now gone, of course, and even Hella Hammett, who worked with us in California.
So maybe I'm one among a few, but I'm certainly, well, anyhow, can we move beyond this?
I think Dr. Putoff, Dr. Harold Putoff, deserves that title because without him and his wonderful talents, their remote viewing would never have seen the light of day.
It was he who had all of the contacts in Washington and in the military, and it was he who had the patience with people, including me, and also the diplomacy to negotiate all of the egos that get in the way of getting anything done, you know.
And I will say absolutely that without his interest, his long-term interest in it, that this remote viewing Would never, never have seen the light of day.
We were talking about the speed that these perceptions take place with, you know, they're really fast most of the time.
And so I was saying, you know, who understands this kind of thing?
And so he mentioned Dr. Harold Putoff, whom I'd never heard of, who was interested, a physicist interested in tachyon theories.
So I eventually wrote him a letter, and he called up right away and was interested because he had made a proposal to find new ways of looking at information transference amongst people and things.
And it just turned out that my letter sort of fell into that category.
So that's how this began.
And he was working at SRI, that's Stanford Research Institute.
Well, Stanford Research Institute was at that time called the nation's second largest think tank.
And the scientists there actually, SRI itself didn't really fund much research, but it invited top-notch researchers in and gave them rooms and typewriters to work with and things like that.
But they had to go out and get their own money and their own projects.
So Putoff was trying to get people interested in the properties of mind to develop it beyond the static potentials and so forth and so on.
And so he's the one who had the contacts in Washington and things and eventually attracted attention to remote viewing.
People forget now that back then there was a Cold War going on, and these guys that came knocking at the door had, much to their embarrassment, found out that the Soviet Union was conducting research in these areas, which took everybody by surprise, because you have to remember back in 1972 that the conventional scientific systems of the world did not believe in this.
And so this was a big shock.
So they were actually jumping around trying to find somebody who could educate them on these matters.
And it just happened that I had the experiments I had worked with with Dr. Gertrude Schmidler and Cleve Baxter had made sort of headlines back at that time, and Putoff had the access to the Washingtonian.
So it just all fell together, much to my surprise.
Well, it was an instrument at that time that was designed to try to detect quarks, which were quarks, some kind of cosmic particle that goes through everything, you know.
So the quark detector at Stanford University was buried in cement and aluminum casing in the floor.
And so there was no way that there was could be, you could say that the perpetrator of the PK could have had any contact with the machinery detector.
It broke its sine wave and it wandered around for a while and you could see nine faces turn pale right around me, you know.
And one guy who I think was a doctoral student turned around and started to rush out of the room and bumped into a post and nearly knocked himself out.
And so I was sitting there and, you know, I said, well, what happened?
What happened?
I didn't even know what happened at that time, you know.
But then they said, oh, can you do this again?
I said, well, I don't know what I did in the first place.
So anyhow, I continued drawing and then it did it again.
It stopped again, but not as dramatically as the first time.
And that impressed everybody right across the nation because if the mind can do that to a quark detector, Hypothetically speaking, it could also do it to a missile or an atomic bomb.
And so this immediately, within one week, Putoff had plane loads of people coming out to talk to him.
I mean, the part of the evidence said that they were trying to train people to knock out other people mentally at a distance, you know.
so this kind of thing gave substance to that to that meaning that that could be possible you know is that is that possible Ingo I think so at some point but I would prefer to talk I would have to be talking talked about in how people telepathically interact to begin with, which they do.
So it that's a a big larger picture.
But back then people were only interested in hardware.
They weren't interested in mind, but if if if something happened to the hardware then they had to take an interest.
And later on it it turned out that they could be educated to accept the fact that uh mind is just as important as the hardware.
So it was the hardware, the quark detector thing that um reminded me that we went back and did it another time uh about a week after but um with with results that weren't as impressive as the first time and I've completely forgotten about that second time.
I'm going to re I'm going to stop at the break, which we're at now, and I'm going to re-dial the phone line and see if we can get rid of that or find it and kill it.
Well, I have personally experienced random number generators in recent work, and I've done it myself, experimented endlessly with spectacular, unbelievable results.
You know the software I'm talking about, I imagine.
Well, I might not go that far, but certainly enough people have demonstrated something along those lines.
But the way it works is not understood.
So people use the model of the material universe as their working model, and it doesn't quite follow the standard laws of the material universe.
It's more of a mental thing, and people just don't know or don't admit that there are laws of the mental universe, too, which are somewhat different from the physical universe.
I mean, you know, I don't know what the equipment was measuring, but if you build up, let's say descriptively, if you build up a mental charge that's eventually becomes big enough to overwhelm what's going on in the physical universe, then what's going on in the physical universe has to change accordingly.
So it was probably randomly presenting some kind of white noise type of thing, and the more you interacted with it, the more it became organized.
And then if that was what was being measured, then it turned into the picture.
Well, there's the old adage that practice makes perfect.
In fact, I don't know of any experiments that have gotten this thing together so that it could be considered as a threat thing.
It goes on in labs all the time, but when people would be, for instance, assigned to try to burst a blood vessel in somebody's head, then it doesn't quite work that way.
There are other things that apparently interfere with it.
Well, it suggests that we don't know enough about it.
And in fact, the nature of the universe, what is known in the conventional sciences as the nature of the universe, is in fact only the physical part of it, not the other part.
I mean, you know, life can't really be explained completely by matter because, as it used to be thought, because matter, it's now known that matter is just a congregated form of energy to begin with.
So there's a big field out there called energetics, which nobody, people don't really know too much about.
Dr. Bill Tiller is one of the people that works with this kind of thing, and of course he finds it very hard to sell his book.
Yes, if these abilities, if you want to call them that, get to the point where they get to be strong enough that they could be interpreted as a threat value, then that becomes a different matter entirely.
I have to say something now that probably a lot of people would be irritated with, but we didn't...
And you have to consider actually what it is that you think you're working with.
And so what Putoff and I did was decide that whatever psychic perceptions consisted of, that they did consist of perception.
So it didn't really matter if the source of it could be called psychic or not.
The stuff to work with were the perceptual processes in the human being.
So we conferred it over to perception studies rather than psychic studies.
And there's an enormous, at that time, even at that time, there was an enormous literature about perception, and it was quite well understood scientifically that perception can be expanded by simply working with it.
And in fact, when he and I put together our first proposals, we did it from the angle of perception because there were going to be oversight committees and all kinds of people inspecting this.
And you had to show why one would be justified for looking into this kind of perception.
So we used perceptual studies.
And in fact, it turned out several years later that what we were doing was increasing perception, the parameters of perception, and so we just eliminated the word psychic from it and so forth and so on.
Well, is it for the regular person, the regular Joe walking down the street, every now and then fairly intuitive people will have a very strong feeling about a decision that looms ahead in their life, an intuitive feeling.
Now, in considering perception, you have to understand that it can be closed down.
I mean, there are all sorts of processes that can be used to limit a person's perceptual faculties.
So if they can be closed down, such as in hypnosis and brainwashing and all kinds of social programming and things like that, these things can be reduced from their functioning.
If they can be reduced from their functioning, they can also be expanded.
And that was the principles that we went forward with was perceptual studies.
One thing that I have never understood and to this very day do not is that the remote viewing, when we saw Dead Cobble, it was to announce we had been doing it for 20 years, but guess what?
We're not doing it anymore because it doesn't work.
Well, 20 years is a hell of a long time to decide something doesn't work.
Actually, when you think of the larger societal picture and the balance of powers and the secrecy that goes on with everything, you know, would you want to have high-quality remote viewing admitted as workable?
No.
I was told behind the scenes as early as 1973 that even if we, I was told in secret or in confidentiality, that even if we did succeed at demonstrating something along these lines at Stanford, that eventually it would be obliterated because if something like that becomes good enough, then it's a threat potential against everybody's closely guarded secrets.
And so, but at that time during the Cold War, you noticed that the program was closed down almost immediately that the Cold War was over with.
So this kind of development wasn't needed anymore because the American effort was a response to the Soviet effort and when the Soviet effort collapsed and went away, then there was no need for it anymore in America.
So now a publicity program had to get going saying, yes, we looked at it, but it didn't work, and hoping that the 20-year period wasn't noticed.
Well, I ask every remote viewer the same question, and that is, if remote viewing really works, and they had to say it didn't work, then wouldn't it be logical to conclude that it's still going on and probably even at a higher level, and almost every remote viewer says, no, politics killed it, and I just refuse to believe that.
So if they're doing it, I would think that trying to figure out so forth and so on.
In my website, I have reviewed a book written by somebody who's quite knowledgeable and all that.
I don't have it handy here.
But it's a report on the kind of research that's been going on in China along these lines since about the early 1980s.
And this gives one pause if you're interested in the future.
I mean, it's quite obvious that whoever develops these kind of things to a point where they become functional, really functional, are going to have an advantage over those that don't have that.
That's quite clear.
Well, if that's quite clear, it's clear to me and a number of other people that the best way to make people not be concerned is to say it doesn't work.
You know, it's the same thing as like saying UFOs don't exist and ETs aren't real.
And so, you know, you can put out this social conditioning out there that simply causes people not to think about it because it's thought to be insignificant even if it does exist.
So if it becomes, the point when it changes from being insignificant to significant is the make-break point between what's going to happen about it.
Ingo Swan, the father of remote viewing and a great natural intuitive slash psychic slash whatever words you want to put to it, perhaps one of the greatest, is my guest.
He called during the break, and he said, why don't you ask, I don't want to take credit for his question, he said, why don't you ask Ingo if such a program, in his opinion, could be going on without him?
But, you know, there's chains of command everywhere.
And people that are putting up money to get what they think should be done done.
But, you know, I'm not going to sit around and waste my time just trying to fulfill a mandate like that when it's real to me that it's never going to get anywhere.
I mean, I didn't set about to do that, but, you know, for instance, all through 1973, 72 and 73, people would come from Washington to talk with Putoff, but they wouldn't want to talk with me.
They wouldn't eat lunch with me because they were afraid I could read their minds.
In every, excuse me, but science fiction movie I've seen in which telepathy was the subject, inevitably the telepaths were hunted down and killed like dogs.
Once we burned witches, but I really can understand why that would be the reaction of somebody who would be terrified that you would be reading their inner thoughts.
I mean, that is a terrifying thing for most people.
And it's just one of the realities out there as to why these...
And people were so afraid of telepathy, I said to put off, well, we can't use this word anymore because I mean last like waving a red flag before a bull.
So we eliminated the word telepathy and a few other words too.
But yes, I mean if telepathy could be made functional, then everybody on this planet has a problem.
And if it can be made functional between earthlings and extraterrestrials, then you can this is, you know, I mean, this is upsetting the entire earth frame cultures.
I think that, you know, another book that I had to self-publish called Psychic Sexuality, I mean, people pick up sex vibes like mad from each other.
And this has never been researched because it opens the door to the greater realm of psychoenergetics, you know.
And it's just, no, I mean, as long as there are secrets and preferred information and a power structure where the power is collected at the top and not distributed very fairly down throughout the rest of it,
these power structures don't want this because, you know, power has enough problems to introduce telepathy into it, then it really becomes problematic.
No, we could have secrets, but it simply means that they become accessible and could be used for proprietary access to formulas and places and what people are actually doing.
You know, what people are actually doing at the top of these power structures has nothing to do with what the other people down below think is going on.
People interpret reality from with their personal frames of reference.
And if they don't have frames of reference that can incorporate this kind of thing, then that's how they function.
And, for instance, if they use the parapsychology frame of reference to try to understand these things, this is the wrong frame of reference.
You have to use frames of reference that involve perception and receptors on the human body that receive different kinds of information and things like that.
So this is a problem in perceptual information processing.
And it has nothing to do with these few terms that have become popular but actually don't mean anything because they're the wrong frames of reference.
So people that say these things, I'm very appreciative of the American genius that occupies a great part of these chains of command.
I mean, there are really some really smart people that are around.
There are a lot of idiots, too.
But there's lots of smart people working on these things.
And I mean, you know, this is an area to be investigated.
But the discoveries in it are so sensitive that the general public has to become convinced that there's nothing to it.
I've got a lot of faculty here saying, you know, Art, I've really always wanted to know, I'm just not 100% convinced there is even such a phenomenon as remote viewing.
Is there any question whatsoever in your mind but that remote viewing is an absolutely true discipline, that it's real?
And in fact, the greatest worry of the executives that took the decision to support our program was how they could cover their asses against this accusation of dealing in irrationality.
So we had to produce the evidence that it worked right from the start.
And it was only that evidence that can explain the long investment of the various agencies that kicked in money for it.
Yes, but you have really to look into what those reasons might be, you know.
And in my mind, anyway, one of those reasons was that they didn't want to ever have remote viewing connected with anything extraterrestrial.
Because you put those two things together and you have a developing situation that these chains of command don't exactly know how to manage from the get-go.
So apparently the situation had gotten to a point where there were so many freedom of information inquiries and things like that that those people took the extraordinary step of disclaiming it.
Are you telling me then that at some point in the program, and maybe you'd like to tell me at what point in the program, the people involved became aware of more than just terrestrial information?
He thought to be one of the greatest naturals who's ever lived.
we'll get right back to him All right, back now to Ingo Swan.
After that last little bombshell, I would like to ask Ingo, just exactly, how much do you know about human extraterrestrial intercourse, intellectual or otherwise?
And then I went ahead and did the psychic sexuality book, too, because this is another, I mean, it's very hard for you to think that anything can be covered up about sexuality.
The only thing I can do is many years ago when I was working at the United Nations, I came across a book called Spaceman in the Ancient East.
And I wrote to the author, who's, I'm sure, deceased by now, and carried on a correspondence with him, you know.
And he had tracked the historical story of ETs coming to Earth.
And then he wrote a book called Ancient Astronauts in the West, Ancient Astronauts in Israel.
And oh, it just went on and on and on.
And I said, good heavens, you know.
And the thing about this book is that this guy learned nine languages in order to read original texts and things like that.
And he gave the references.
So I checked out some of the references and they were there.
So this is a well-researched document.
He couldn't get his books published in the United States.
He got to be quite famous in England and in Europe and especially in Italy for some reason.
But there was one version of Spaceman in the Ancient East published here in the United States and then after that no publisher would take his books on it.
He wrote about ten of them.
So, you know, I says, well, why is it that these books won't get published in America?
And at the bottom line, they're just too revealing, right?
I mean, you know, they say the right things.
They do the right history.
They document it and everything like that.
So I says, well, there's some kind of cover-up going on here, you know.
I mean, powerful people do have control of book publishers.
And so that started me off in the 60s on this kind of interest.
And that was before I started doing experiments in laboratories on ESP and P.K. and things like that.
Well, in 1975, I got it got myself invited into a very strange remote viewing thing, and that's the whole story of that is the first part of my book, Penetration.
And it turned out that I mean, this was really, really strange the way it went about things, but it turned out that the guy involved was very obviously part of a larger system having deep concerns in extraterrestrial matters.
He wanted me to remote view certain locations on the moon of all things.
So I did that.
And then he kept asking while we were doing this, this took about three days in an underground installation somewhere.
It took about three days.
And he kept introducing the topic of telepathy as a oh, by the way, type of thing.
And so finally I can be really naive sometimes.
And it took me about 48 hours to say, this guy's not interested in remote viewing.
He already knows what's on the moon.
He's interested in the telepathic thing, you know.
And so I said, come on, you guys have a problem, a telepathic problem with ETs, don't you?
And of course, that blew the cool of everybody.
And I had promised not to talk about this for ten years.
No paper trail of this project or anything.
But actually what had happened was I briefly got on the inside of this super duper secret thing of dealing with ETs.
And it turns out I didn't play my cards right.
If I had played my cards better, I could have probably been taken into the whole thing and become a lifetime project, you know.
Well, there has been when you think about the U.S. space program, the manned space program particularly, over 30 years ago we went to the moon and we've never gone back.
And a lot of people have been really curious about that.
And I know they talk about money and they talk about a lot of other things.
And I've interviewed a lot of astronauts, Ingo, and when you ask them about their time on the moon, walking on the moon, they give you really strange answers.
Like, you know, they'll say, well, you know, it's funny, but when I think about it, the entire experience was surreal.
And we've asked specific questions about, like, did you see this or did you see that?
And there's sort of a stutter-stup hesitation.
And they'll say, no, but it could have been there, and I could have not seen it.
Even people like Neil Armstrong, you know, the first guy to set foot on, has made some very intriguing statements with regard to what could be ahead of us, the fantastic things that could be ahead of us.
And I don't think he's talking about the International Space Station.
He actually did that at the White House.
And then, of course, we have the fact that all of these astronauts, or the great majority of them, actually, have come to real problems, psychological, drinking, domestic problems, all kinds of problems that one might imagine could be precipitated by trying to hold on to information that they don't really want to hold on to.
Well, I only have two available, and I think they should read both of them because actually they're on totally different topics, but the thing, they're interrelated.
The first one is called Penetration, the Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy.
And the second one is called Psychic Sexuality, the Biopsychic Anatomy of Sexual Energies.
Are these phone numbers that I'm about to give out, getting pencil, I hope, everybody in paper, are these phone numbers day and night or just day or what?
So if you would like either one of these books, folks, you can call one of two toll-free numbers.
One is 888-453-4046.
That's 888-453-4046.
Or 877-565-8391.
That's 877-565-8391.
If one is busy, try the other.
And you might want to grab, actually, both books.
Ingo, I've interviewed a lot of people about apparitions and ghosts and things that are inexplicable.
And in almost every case, it seems that these apparitions, psychokinetic occurrences, inexplicable occurrences of all sorts, seem to occur around young teenage girls.
So, I mean, you know, people like to latch on to one explanation, and the one explanation was you had to have a preprubescent teenage girl to have these kind of effects, but that's not true.
Well, I suppose that may be true, but you don't suppose the extra raging hormones in a young teenage girl would specifically engender that energy any more than that?
I mean, some of these prepubescent boys, I mean, come on.
We can't locate it to just this one thing, actually.
But actually, if you have disturbed sexual energies, these are very powerful energies, you know, and they could kick anything off.
And it's just that I sort of resist limiting it to what is just hearsay.
In fact, if you talk with Dr. William Roll, who specializes in this kind of thing, apparitions and PK combined and things, you'd get a better background as to how it's distributed.
The thing is that people who are more mature probably don't report this as much.
It doesn't become a, I mean, they're afraid to report it because they're going to be thought of as crazy.
So sexual energy then is immediately transferable in a psychic manner or can be detected very easily psychically or well haven't you ever detected somebody's vibes, sex vibes?
Here's the tip of an iceberg about psychoenergetics, you know.
If there's one thing that can't be accounted for in materialistic terms and that same thing can be picked up by just about everybody, it's sexual energy.
And it's just this is the one common thing that everybody, most people share in common, but it's never been researched.
In fact, researchers who've embarked upon it have usually been burnt at the stake, so to speak.
And so I mean, you know, you have to, what you read is not the truth, usually.
And so you have to have a big input from a number of different sources to get a bigger picture of these things, you know.
But yes, but pheromones essentially can be smelled by the nose.
In fact, there's a series of receptors that have been discovered in the nose.
And I happen to have this list of recently discovered receptors.
And at the top of it is receptors in the nose, sensing systems that smell emotions and that can identify motives, sexual receptivity, antagonism, and benevolence.
One of the persons that was being a subject out there was Hella Hammond, who is a really wonderful lady.
And she was doing, this was back in the early days when Putoff and TARG were doing outbound experiments that were called outbound remote viewing experiments.
And this was they would get six sealed envelopes and they'd have to drive two miles from SRI and then use their calculator to randomly select one of these targets and open the envelope and go to that place.
And the subject back at SRI at a given time was supposed to describe the place they were at, right?
So I had done a series of those and got tired of doing them.
And so they got Hella Hammett and a couple other people to try this.
And Hella was very good at this.
She was really terrific.
But she was also a stubborn person.
And one day they came in and she was, I know she told me that she didn't want to do the experiment because she had an appointment having to do with getting a show of her photography at Stanford University.
So I says, well, I don't know what to do about it.
It's up to you.
So I left them alone.
And pretty soon Putoff and Targ came running into my office and said, Hella says she already knows what the site's going to be.
What are we supposed to do?
And I says, well, have her tell you what the site is, you know.
So Hella did that and then took off for her appointment.
So then Putoff and Targ had to go get in their car and they drove two miles and then they opened up the envelope and went to the site.
And the matching of Hella's description and her drawing with the site was simply incontrovertible.
So she had viewed some site that had not yet been selected as a site.
And this is where we got the idea that remote viewing experiments could be front-timed to go somewhere in the near future or back-timed to go into the past.
And so, I mean, here, I mean, there's always been evidence.
I mean, this is what intuitives do.
They see the future, right?
I mean, they see something in the future.
And so here was, Hella Habit had just seen something that was, a future thing that was really quite unexplainable, except by hypothesizing that the human mind or something in the human system has the ability of knowing what's going to happen in the future.
You know, time, as we conceive it, is a very arbitrary thing.
It's very difficult to integrate time into this.
You know, I'm stupid about these matters anyway.
But in terms of knowing that our human systems must be able to predict something of what's going to happen to them in the future, it actually has to be there because they couldn't survive very well if there wasn't there.
So it's just like smelling pheromones in the armpit.
You can smell the future coming or something like that, you know.
And time doesn't seem to matter because time is just a series of numbers that are arbitrary.
The implication of all this is that if you can be aware of what will occur in the future, reliably so even, Then we are but marionettes acting out the preordained.
We are extraordinary sensing systems whose sensing potentials and capabilities are not confined to the present.
We can sense things in the past and in the future.
We are sensing systems.
And any life form that's going to have very much going for survival has to be able to sense beyond the present.
And you've got to understand that what we call the present, the now, although it seems really big to us, is but a flickering moment between the past and the future.
You don't need to think in terms of past, present, and future.
Something is streaming, and we're part of that streaming.
And so I mean, we have to know certain things.
I mean, even in materialistic sense, you know, we have to understand what's happening physically and project from that what's going to happen physically.
There's no reason that the mind can't do this, too.
And I mean, if you're a fine, upstanding human sensing system, you would probably like to manage this in beneficent and procreative ways.
If you happen to be a scumbag, then you might manage them differently, right?
So this is all relative, you know, and what's relative cannot really be brought into the picture until you understand what these relativities are being relative to.
And in the normal case, 10% of them have been activated, and the other 90% have been barriered or kept unactivated.
So you go into a consciousness, awareness, perceptual training system that is, the essential goal of which is to enhance perception and awareness.
So you start doing that, and then above this initial 10%, other sensing systems begin to become activated.
So the more these get activated, the more you start sensing everything.
You're not just confined to the initial 10%.
So yes, there are beings around, there's telepathy, there's this and that and so forth and so on.
So you activate the thing that has been done is you've expanded awareness by these training programs and to the degree that you've expanded awareness in this or that direction you'll begin to sense other things besides what you're supposed to.
I mean this just takes down all the walls and barriers, you know.
And so the only defense against this from happening is for the powerful few, the power structures, and so forth and so on, is to discredit 90% of our sensing systems.
And I'm just a jiggle in the system here, you know.
And it doesn't matter.
I mean, you know, a person can be contained, but if the general public became aware that they're using only 10% of their sensing systems and then made noises about wanting to have more of these activated, then this becomes a real societal problem.
And so in the modern West, you know, there's been a great deal of effort to say, no, no, no, you only have five physical senses you don't have anymore.
And so the make-break point is between whether you accept that or you don't accept it.
If you don't accept it, then these other sensing systems are as likely to turn on in a random way.
Well, I know, but still, the knowledge of the powerful that there are people like you out there would be unacceptable unless you had come to some accommodation with them.
In terms of other people, there was a very famous psychic, I guess we should call him that, in Poland at the turn of the century named Osoviecki.
And he just outdid me in every direction, you know.
And when the Germans at that time became aware of him, and they said, you have to come and work with us, that he wouldn't do it.
And so he didn't have too much more time to spend among us.
So, I mean, there's historical precedent for what I'm saying.
I'm not just saying he was a good person.
I think I can show in the past, even going back to some really big, ugly societal sequences, that power, if power is to be held in the hands of the few, then the rest must be somehow depowered.
And the way to do that is to confine their perceptual systems to smaller orders.
In intelligent services, there's a standard rule of thumb that you don't actually need to interact with people producing information because you can acquire the information anyway.
You know, every line in the house, of course, has been ringing since Ingo Swan has been on, and I have not yet opened the line, and I'm not sure I'm not I may not open the lines.
And the reason is that Ingo does not want to comment on other remote viewers.
And I know, I know I can see those lines blinking and ringing and dialing, and I know that you want to do exactly that and ask about other remote viewers.
But I can't let you do that, because he doesn't want to talk about them.
By name.
But we'll squeeze the question in generally about what's going on in the remote viewing community in a moment.
the moment comes after this All right, a quick note, a very important program tomorrow night, and I will be here live tomorrow night, Friday night, Saturday morning.
I will be here.
So you might want to just sort of make a mental note of that.
That's a program you don't want to miss tomorrow night.
Now, Ingo Swan has a couple of books that you really should read.
And I mean, you really should read these books.
To order them, you can do that right now, actually at this moment.
The lines are staffed to take your orders.
And the phone numbers I am going to give you now, so you should be writing one of them down or calling actually.
It's a good time now to call.
I don't know how much trouble you're going to have getting through, but give it a shot.
If you want to read more about what you're hearing about, obviously this is the way to proceed.
Now, Ingo, you specified when we talked before the show that you didn't want to talk about any other remote viewers specifically, and I respect that, and I understand that.
But I do want to ask this.
There is an incredible amount of dissension, backbiting, difficulty between many of the remote viewers.
Well, it's an extension of what goes on in parapsychology itself.
If you think there's dissension somewhere, you should get into the middle of parapsychology.
And I've discussed this with Dr. Charles Tarte, for instance, who is a well-known parapsychologist and everything.
I mean, why is there this dissension?
And he admitted he didn't know.
But, you know, parapsychology does not enjoy full scientific acceptance, so there are no boards or committees that are established to sort of keep this dissension under manageable control.
And there's certainly nothing like that in the open field of remote viewing either.
So you have people doing what they do, you know, trying to claim territory and things like that.
My position is, in terms of the general public, that any remote viewing is better than none at all, because even bad remote viewing you learn something from.
And I think that if remote viewing is going to be of interest to the general public, then the general public has to deal with it.
I don't have to deal with it anymore.
I'm retired, okay?
And I respect anybody who undertakes to make sense out of remote viewing and all of these other things.
I think probably some of them have limited frames of reference and don't build a bigger picture of things, but that's irrelevant in a way because people have to deal with something theirself in order to gain realities about it.
It's that simple.
For instance, you can't read any book and think you've gained any reality.
What you've gained is maybe a bigger frame of reference to consider matters under.
So it's hands-on, and those people that took remote viewing into the open field, I think it was a very brave thing of them to do, but they have to deal with it, not me.
During the military remote viewing program, were there any people who lost it, who could not handle what they were trying to do or the information they were receiving?
It's another way of asking, I suppose, whether for some individuals it would be dangerous.
And we called for volunteers at SRI to do remote viewing experiments.
We got 200 volunteers, and all of them were extremely enthusiastic.
And the enthusiasm, you see, one of the reasons why I don't think I should be called the grandfather of remote viewing, I don't like the idea of being a grandfather anyway, it's forgotten that in order to make remote viewing something that amounted to something, this involved over 500 people.
And most of them just devoted their guts and blood to making these issues real.
And if you say I'm the grandfather of remote viewing or how putoff is, he deserves the title, I don't.
But if you say either one of us are, then you're obliterating the efforts of these other 500 people.
And I don't think that's fair because they worked their guts out, you know, and they resisted the bad press, they resisted the bad publicity, they resisted getting fired because they were involved and so forth and so on.
And our experience at SRI was consistently that anybody who got involved in it was really enthusiastic and had no problems at all in handling what they got engaged in.
The problem came before, when people were afraid that their minds were somehow going to be altered.
And if this was a strong point, they weren't accepted as a candidate for experiments.
Because, I mean, you don't need to deal with that, you know, when you have enthusiastic people who say, you know, well, you know, I'll do anything to learn more about myself, for instance.
Other things that were, other programs elsewhere that were invasive and forced things in and so forth and so on, I think there were some bad reactions.
Oh, you know, Putoff and I had to agree to do what were called operational targets for the funding parties, and we did hundreds of them, you know.
And the most awful one had to do with a target in what was then East Germany, and they couldn't tell what was going on from the surface from photos and things, you know, flyover satellites.
So it was assigned, I didn't know whether, it was just assigned by a coordinate.
And underground, on top it seemed like a prison, but underground it was a biological experimental station of all these terrible diseases and drugs and everything.
You know, early in my career, I worked with the New York Police Department to help find, solve crimes.
Yes.
And when you came across victims that had their throat slit and their hands cut off and things like this, you know, I mean, remember you can view it, if you can remain objective for these things, you know, like you can sort of detach, but if you start experiencing what the victims went through, then your whole system thinks that's what's happening to you.
And so after two years, I said, hey, guys, I can't do this anymore.
You have to use these.
At that time, there were three female psychics in New Jersey who could tolerate this.
And I said, you have to use them.
I can't do this anymore.
I'm not built that way.
And even though I had a background in biology, you know, I used to draw autopsies at the Salt Lake City General Hospital while they were being done and things.
But there you remained objective.
You didn't sense the sensations and so forth and so on.
So, no, this was, this East German thing was just awful because actually it was the first time I'd ever seen anything like that.
And the extent of it and the smells in these underground chambers were not to be believed.
I don't do targets where there's no feedback potential.
I never did one that didn't have a feedback potential.
If you don't have feedback, then you don't know what you have.
Anybody can say anything.
So I have always had, right from the first, by the way, in 1970 when I started, I had to decide to do only experiments where there was almost immediate feedback as to whether you were right or wrong or what was going on.
And I maintained that attitude up until I retired.
So if there was no feedback potential, then I did not do it.
And this isn't to say that it can't be done, because I think it can.
I felt interested in going behind the scenes of all these things and pointing up information that's not generally available since it's not really recognized as existing.
You know, the invisibility...
But if you're talking about the realms of the mind, you're talking about invisible realms which have their own phenomena.
And these are not clearly presented anywhere.
So I'm writing up what I've learned along these lines.
And when I'm done writing up with what I've learned, I really tend to retire.
I'm going to get rid of all my archives and books, and I'm going to go watch the grass grow.
I mean, you can track it up to the top, and you can see these generic presidents are playing a part in a chain of command, you know, so it actually goes up higher and higher and higher.
people who write about the power elites probably have their points, you know what I mean.
I have, in my program, I have one hour left, and I can always open the lines and allow people to ask questions, or I can allow you to go to bed and get a little sleep, because it's like about 5 o'clock in the morning back there.
And so what I do is I leave it up to my guests always at this time to bail out and get a little bit of sleep and start their day or whatever or stay for one last hour.
We're about to go into open line, unscreened, who knows what the hell's going to happen to talk radio.
That comes next.
The End Well, as I said at the beginning of the program, there's only a couple of items that are sort of interesting in the news.
One is a volcano erupting in northern Japan.
Mount Usu really just firing out hot rock gas in a plume of ash and smoke over the very snowy countryside in northern Japan.
And, of course, the endless Ilian Gonzalez story.
And my current take on this is that it'll finally drag out so long he'll become 18 and then he'll make his own choice.
So beyond that, there's not a lot going on in the regular news.
There's a lot going on, however, with Our Sun, which continues to issue flare after flare after flare.
A couple of X-Class flares recently, biggest ones.
And then a series of M-class flares.
It's just really going wild up there.
And if you're listening to shortwave, if you're not listening to shortwave, you're missing out because, boy, it is really hopping.
I mean, you just can hear the whole world.
Shortwave is really something right now.
So actually, I have a number of things that I could bring up here, but what I really want to do is an hour of open lines, and I want to hear what you have to say.
So that's exactly what we're going to do, and here we go.
Well, I'll tell you what I tell everybody about the JFK thing, and that is I don't talk about it because there is no way, absolutely no way, to know the truth, even if you heard it.
There are so many assassination theories and thoughts and imaginations and supposed facts that frankly,
if I opened a line and somebody came out and said, well, I was the guy or the gal on the grassy knoll, or Oswald did it by himself, I know that to be true, there would simply be agreement and disagreement out there.
We would get absolutely nowhere.
There's so much on that situation that you would never know the truth if you heard it.
You know, listening to your show last night, and the excellent show tonight, that was just, you know, listening to Ingo Swan and so soft-spoken that he reminded me a lot of Father Malachi Martin.
It was just, you know, just like, it was like the truth of all these things he talked about.
You know, last night's show kind of keeps coming back about these cab mutilations up in Oregon and what's going on globally with more things being seen in our sky.
You know, I got the feeling tonight, but I wanted to call Ingo Swan back to active duty.
You know, to have probably one of the best people we have on this planet when it comes to everything from intuition to remote viewing to sensory perception to really look into this and let him already know.
Actually, I was at one back in 1979 before we really knew what was going on.
And it was just a strange-looking thing.
I went out with the Mounties.
I was with military police, and it happened just off of base.
And the Mounties, being good friends with us, said, hey, Tim, you want to come out and have a look at this?
This is really weird.
And had a look, and it was very strange.
But not knowing all the background that we have today, it's just like, you know, when is this stuff going to stop or when will someone be caught and convicted?
No blood immediately around or very little of it compared to what had been done.
And then, finally, very convincingly, no predation.
No predators would touch the carcasses.
Now, that one is really scary.
unidentified
That is very scary.
And there's one other factor here that you know about when it comes to police work and about convictions and getting arrests and the information stream you get.
You know, nine times out of ten, people convict themselves by what they say or whether they give a statement or there's an informant.
There is nothing to do with informants in this.
There's no information coming from second or third parties.
There's no tips.
This is a cold avenue.
It is going down a dead end.
And why is that?
Because there's something that we don't know about that's happening here.
That's why we have concentrated on what's going on in Oregon.
It's really big news.
It has to be really big news.
When you consider what's been going on, there is no reasonable, logical explanation.
And occasionally I get faxes from people who say, oh, it's the Satan worshipers out there doing their thing.
Yeah, right, sure.
With all of the perfect surgical cuts, with a lack of blood, with the lack of any footprints nearby, or any other forensic evidence indicating humans had something to do with it, and quite to the contrary.
And oh, by the way, how do you get a cow in a tree?
No, it's pretty interesting stuff.
East of the Rockies, you're on there.
Hi.
unidentified
Hi.
Hi, Art.
How's it going?
I know I probably sound like 25 leagues under the sea, but...
My mom would gladly confirm this story because she's told it to me a million times.
But my grandmother, now departed, was very much alive when I was born, June 17th, 1945.
At the moment I was born, My grandmother, hundreds of miles away, suddenly doubled over and screamed in pain, as in labor pain, at the exact instant I was born.
Documented fully on both sides.
unidentified
Yeah.
Well, my sister has for years honed her mind.
And she can go to a like a Walmart or a Kmart, you know, you know, where it's real busy.
Because if a calf has been laying around for a couple of days, you can stab it a couple of times and you'll get a little bit of blood on the knife, but it's not going to bleed.
In other words, the thing sitting there for X number of days, but nothing else comes along to eat it.
Nothing will touch it.
unidentified
Yeah, yeah, and that's true.
When I worked at the rendering plant for five years, that's what I did was pick up livestock.
I picked everything up from horses, pigs, calves, cows.
And when the ranchers, let's say at a dairy, when a calf expires, you know, and they pull them off to one side, you know, sometimes they'd lay out there for two, three days.
They will start screeching, screaming, howling, making the most god-awful noises, and they will run from a rendering plant because they can smell what's going on.
unidentified
Yeah, well, there's actually, at the plant that I worked at, there used to be cats.
People used to just drop dogs off.
They'd be in the compound area, but they wouldn't go near the, you know, the they'd go absolutely berserk.
So I don't know that I'm surprised that there was no predation next to that plant.
But I don't think that explains no predation out in the forest where we're talking basically free food here from predators who would normally gobble it right up.
I'm Art Bell.
unidentified
Music It's like me.
Oh, warm and riding.
It's magic It's magic I don't want your lonely mention with a tear in every room.
All I want's the love you promise Beneath the halo room.
But you think I should be happy with your money and your name And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheating game Silver threads and golden needles can't abandon this heart of mine And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm water wide Tell
If you listen, ego, that's what he was saying all the way through the conversation.
That it simply is.
And how you use it, ethics, morality, all of that does not really enter into it, which runs in the face of, by the way, what a lot of other remote viewers and sensitives have said.
That things done for ill-gotten gains or negative things like popping the blood vessel, you know, that we've talked about, that sort of thing, assumably cannot be done in those realms, but the fact of the matter is they can.
Now that's really provocative to think about, but I think Ian goes right on the money.
All I can say is join the crowd of those who have seen things that once you've seen them, you know they're there.
I sympathize with Peter Gerston, and by the way, you're going to hear a repeat of that, and his search, his suit in Arizona.
And sometimes I feel like the futility, and Peter and I have had talks about that, of seeking information that they're not about to tell us about.
I use the example of the Manhattan Project.
I mean, if you had submitted freedom of information requests, had they been in existence back then, and submitted keywords Manhattan or Atom or Atom Bomb or Atomic Bomb, trust me, I don't care how many millions of hits came back, you would not have received an answer that you would have been pleased with, and I think that is as true today as it was then.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
unidentified
Hello, Aaron.
Hello.
I had a question for you.
Sure.
I don't know, I could be mistaken, but I think last November was supposed to be the 25th anniversary of Amityville, when those murders had taken place.
That might be, or it's another case I may have them confused.
At any rate, my last information on that house was that it was vacant.
So what I would suggest to you is go to the Internet, go to one of the search engines, you know, Netscape, InfoSeq, whatever, and enter Amityville and see what you come up with, and I'm sure that you will find what you're seeking.
Well, I had something very personal happen, and I tripped really hard for two years.
And I was talking to someone about a month ago, and he was telling me about people who have claimed to have been abducted, and they have found implants in them.
His sister wouldn't let anyone in the house at nighttime.
She's another subject.
Anyway, I think she saw something that she couldn't deal with, and she's just been nutty ever since.
Anyway, this one night, I'm standing out by my car, and she's yelling, get out, get out of the house.
And this light came shooting through the top of the house.
And it was really intimidating.
I stood there frozen for about eight hours all night long, unable to move.
I was so scared.
And so I went home.
I'd had enough of that, the things I experienced.
So I went home.
Well, I've been home about five days.
And on Saturday night, I slept about nine hours, got up, been up for about an hour.
I thought, gee, I feel kind of tired.
I think I'll just lay back down for an hour.
And I live with chronic pain.
I don't sleep more than two, three hour stretches at a time because of the pain.
I went to bed at 10.30 in the morning, and I didn't wake up till midnight.
Well, see, I hadn't had electricity for about a week.
And so my room should have been pitch black.
I just slept another 14 hours after sleeping nine hours.
And I woke up just kind of disoriented feeling, and my room was glowing.
And so I got up, and I walked through my dressing room into the shower stall and looked out the back of my house, and it was as if the fence wasn't there, and the house directly behind me, which is the same model as mine, all the windows were lit up with this weird orange light.
And in the kitchen window, or sliding door, there's this big, like, big pink ball, like an iridescent type of thing.
And it was just there for a second, and it went shooting out of the top of the house real quick.
Well, I'm standing there slapping my face and pinching myself and trying to wake up.
But I was already awake, but I was still trying to wake myself up because I didn't want to be seeing any of this.
And for the next two years, I hardly stayed in my house at all.
And so I had let someone stay at this house, and I didn't even connect that at all until about a month ago, because I let someone stay at my house, and the only thing I could come up with with this thing in my neck with nothing that could have poked me in any way was black magic.
I was just thinking, well, someone must be practicing black magic.
I'm just kind of tripping on this because I've had periods where I've sat on my bed.
I've just thought I've been having seizures, you know, pentabol seizures.
I don't have epilepsy, but I think I have the past three years because I'll be sitting on the edge of my bed, and I'll come out of it 10 hours later, sitting in the same spot without gone to sleep or anything.
Don't tell the doctor the whole story because then you probably won't get it.
Just tell him you think you might have had an accident and you might have a foreign object in your neck and he will give you an x-ray or an MRI, whatever is appropriate.
Find out what's in there.
If there's something intriguing in there, get hold of me and I'll see what I can do.
Help you out.
Hook you up with the right people.
Wildguard Line, you're on the air.
unidentified
Thank you, sir, so much.
And I'll tell you what, advice to people like that who truly need help is always a good thing.
I think so, sir, because it's right after the election.
The gas prices will go down, and basically we'll be looking at, you know, because the face on Mars, I think, is just somebody like our own society leaving behind a monument to say, look, we need to learn from lessons like that, that we need to take care of our planet, or at least learn not to kill ourselves.
Well, the argument that I found compelling, thank you, from last night, was that there are a number of artifacts here on Earth done by earlier man that were also, for inexplicable reasons, obviously only intended to be seen from space, not on the ground.
I mean, it's something you wouldn't even see on the ground.
But things that could only be seen as you backed away from the planet, or you were beyond its atmosphere and looking down, or even farther back.
That's our planet.
So why is it unreasonable to assume a prior civilization on Mars would not have, at a very relatively early stage of development, done the very same thing?
So there's definitely a lot to this around here, and people in this area don't really pay that much attention to it, except this group of people that I'm with.