Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 27, 2001 - Art Bell

02:32:36

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Dean Radin PhD - Random Number Generators

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be across the 24 time-zoned globe.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon,
	wherever you may be across the 24 time zoned globe, I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to
	Coast AM. Great to be here.
	It's going to be a great night tonight.
	In the next hour, Dean Radin, Dr. Dean Radin of the Global Consciousness Project.
	You know about the experiments we've been doing.
	So does he.
	We're going to discuss what they're doing, what we're doing, and perhaps what we ought not be doing.
	That's one of the most sensitive subjects that I've ever talked about on the air.
	No question about it.
	Let me begin the program tonight by bringing you a report and a kind of breaking news actually.
	Gene DeVito writes the following to me.
	I get it about 30 minutes ahead of airtime as usual.
	Art, at about 10 p.m.
	last night, I noticed two super bright objects over the ocean about 35 degrees in a southwestern direction.
	I'd guess about five plus miles off the coastline, the light was so bright you couldn't make out the strange colored lights visible after analyzing digital photos that were taken.
	The images were analyzed by HyperDisc Media of Irvine and Computer Enhanced to view the strange lights and object.
	The objects were hovering stationary for long periods of time Then, faded, then reappeared several miles to the west, then repeated the action to the east.
	A friend of mine was also flying his Cessna 172 earlier and told me he saw an object extremely bright in the western sky at the horizon.
	Now, Gene has sent us a series of digital photographs of what he saw.
	Bless his heart, he just happened to have a camera with him.
	And he also included his phone number, so I've done two things.
	One, I have posted, uh, sent to Keith in the last few moments, and Keith as always getting them up at the very last moment, because that's when I send them, the, uh, a couple of the photographs that, uh, that Gene has sent to us.
	Some, you know, when I looked at it, I went, oh my god, this is kind of like the Phoenix Lights.
	It's obviously in a V formation, and it's really, really, really odd.
	So, the photographs that we're about to talk about, because I've got, uh, I've got Gene on the line right now, are on my website, artbell.com.
	Simply go to artbell.com, go to what's new, and the first item will be Oceanside California UFO images.
	And this absolutely, absolutely qualifies as a UFO.
	Here's Gene DeVito.
	Gene, welcome to the program.
	Thank you.
	Thank you for having me on.
	Yeah, you bet.
	Thank you very much for sending.
	When did you send that to me?
	You know, it was about two hours ago.
	About two hours ago.
	And I figured with all your email, it would probably just blow by you.
	It almost did blow by me, but not quite.
	And I, you know, I began to click on the images and I went, wow, that looks like the Phoenix Lights formation to me.
	And so tell me about this thing.
	Well, I was out on the deck.
	We live on the beach.
	No, wait.
	First, this was last night, right?
	Last night, 10 p.m.
	It was 9.58 exactly, because I looked at my watch, and this is 9.58, and I looked at it for some reason, and then the light went on down below in my garage, and it's a security light, so I walked out to see what turned the light on.
	That should do my attention.
	Sure.
	And I'm looking up, and we're near Camp Pendleton.
	We have planes flying all the time, and also if you look way out to the west, up, you'll see planes flying back and forth to San Diego Airport.
	Right.
	So it's not unusual to see planes all over the place.
	What was unusual about this, it was so bright that I grabbed my binoculars and I looked at it, and in my binoculars I couldn't really look directly at it because it was so Brilliant.
	That bright?
	It was that bright.
	And you couldn't see behind it or anything.
	You couldn't see.
	But what I did see with the glasses was colored lights seemed to be coming out from around the bottom, which showed up on the photo.
	And then when I loaded this up this morning, the bright light didn't come through with my digital.
	It's not that super high quality.
	But what came through was what was behind it.
	And I looked.
	I said, well, These colored lights.
	Anyway, so I copied these and I put them on my computer, and I didn't do anything about this until I was talking to my neighbor, who's a contractor, and he happened to be out playing in this session of 172 last night, and he was telling me, he said, you know, I saw this huge bright light out there.
	He says, I've never seen anything like that before.
	I said, well, so did I, and I took pictures.
	Well, he's really happy that I took pictures.
	Now, did you have time to, what did you do, run back in the house, grab a camera, come back out?
	Yeah, we're right on the deck.
	The room that I usually sit in to read, etc., is right by a cabinet, and the cabinet is my digital camera.
	And I just got through charging it, so I was sitting there.
	So I grabbed it, and I used that.
	Now, I also took a 35mm Canon I have, and I took pictures with it.
	And those won't be ready until tomorrow.
	Oh, I'll be very curious how those come out.
	They should be high res.
	Yeah, it'll be higher resolution.
	What I'll do is, I'll scan them at a high resolution and see how it compares
	to the picture itself and I can send those to you too.
	But when I realized that I was the only one that saw this, there's a good friend of mine named Jim Sears who's
	involved with this HDM company.
	And I sent it to him and he goes, wow, this is really something.
	He says, I'm going to take one of the pictures and I'm going to try to enhance it to see if I can make it more
	defined and get rid of some of the background noise.
	Right.
	He did.
	Then he sent it back to me and I looked at it and I go, yeah, that's what I saw.
	I saw this better than what I did when I just took the pictures.
	Now, you say this object appeared and then disappeared and then reappeared and did the trick.
	Yeah, I think it sat there, OK?
	And it was just really bright.
	And then about five or ten minutes later, another one appeared just west of it, almost about the same altitude.
	I'd say it was about a couple thousand feet.
	You know?
	All right, and with your naked eye, other than the very, very bright stuff that you saw,
	this is what you saw?
	Yeah, I saw that, but the light, the colored lights were very brilliant, you know?
	And I seem to be coming from underneath or behind it.
	You know, I saw the bright light and around it, I saw these brilliant light, colored lights.
	And I thought, wow, it's a star or something, you know?
	But then when it moved over to the right.
	This isn't even close to a star.
	No, well, at first you don't know because there's some bright stars out
	and they're twinkling, you know?
	And so I was trying to eliminate all that, and it still kept my attention.
	It just stayed there.
	It didn't go anywhere for about five minutes, and it moved to the right.
	Wow, there's a star.
	Then the other one showed up.
	Then it would fade out, and then it would seem to go away.
	And pretty soon I saw it reappear again, which I assume is the same one,
	about five or 10 miles to the right, and like in about two or three seconds.
	And then it got really bright again out there, and the second one stayed where it was.
	And then this one came back in again, almost to the same location, looking at a southwesterly direction.
	And if you look behind, way at the end, below, you can see La Jolla, which juts out, but this is above the landmass.
	Right.
	And I'd say it was about 25-30 minutes there.
	After I took the pictures, I took a lot of pictures, and after I took the pictures... You sure did, and I should tell the audience, some of your description might not be there because we posted only two, three, make that three of the photos.
	You probably posted the one with the colored lights and the V?
	We certainly did.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That's what I saw.
	Uh, at times, when the light, the bright lights start fading out with my binoculars, and I could see these, okay?
	Just before the whole thing just kind of, uh, disappeared.
	And then it showed up again later, over to the right, uh, west, bright again, and the same thing happened as it came over.
	Even though we can all see it in the photographs that you have so kindly sent us, it's never the same as seeing it with your naked eye.
	Right.
	Uh, and, and I guess all I would ask you is, your impression, what do you think you saw?
	Well, I can tell you what it's not.
	It's not a Marine helicopter in the middle of Southwest flying down to San Diego.
	No, no.
	And it's not a SESTA.
	No.
	And what was really amazing was when it faded out and reappeared again several miles west, it was only like two or three seconds, you know.
	I think, well, it just traveled from there to there so fast.
	Unless there was another one that popped up, but I don't think so because it was at the same latitude, you know.
	Then it faded out, then shot back again to the left, and I could see it when it got bright again.
	Of course, there was no sound, and it just hummered.
	You know, it was just really weird.
	Of course.
	Was there anybody else in your house that also saw it?
	No.
	I was afraid to wake my wife up.
	I fully understand.
	About two weeks ago, we were in Reno, and we were at the foot of the Sierras, and something similar came overhead, and we both watched as it went over the Sierras.
	But it wasn't really bright because it was during the day.
	And it had sort of a brownish-black color.
	It just kind of floated there and had pipes coming out of the bottom or something.
	And I'm always talking to her about this.
	So she finally saw it.
	But she looked at it and said, I don't know what that is.
	It didn't make any sound.
	And now this is two weeks later.
	And I didn't want to wake her up and bring her out there.
	Don't blame nobody.
	Nobody saw this.
	You know, I'm thinking nobody saw.
	Well, you're thinking is not going to be correct because we're going to, well obviously, we've got the pictures now on the website.
	Let's see what we get.
	And when you get the higher res 35 millimeter stuff, boy bless you for having all these cameras, get that to me right away.
	Yeah, should I?
	Well, should I?
	Scan it.
	When you get it, scan it at the best resolution you can and fire it to me.
	And I can find if there are any Is there any good resolution?
	I could send you the pictures.
	By all means.
	So let's do this.
	Let me look at them.
	The pictures will be ready at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
	So I'll take them, scan them.
	I've got a really high resolution scanner.
	Good.
	And then I'll see what they are.
	In the meantime, let's invite the audience to go take a look, particularly the Southern California audience, and see who else saw what we have on film.
	All right?
	Yeah, fine.
	Thank you very much for coming on the air, my friend.
	Well, thank you very much for calling me.
	You bet.
	Good night.
	How could I resist?
	So, the photographs that I just mentioned are on my website right now.
	If you saw what Gene saw, or you have any idea what Gene saw, based on the photographs we've got for you up there, by all means, hop up to artbell.com, take a look, You tell me.
	All right, back to it we go.
	Very, very interesting photographs from Gene DeVito and possibly some high-res 35mm photographs yet to come.
	I didn't know about that when I called him just prior to the show.
	Anyway, we've got those photos up on the website.
	Kind of reminiscent, really, of the Phoenix Lights with color.
	I don't know.
	You tell me what you think.
	In the news, more Marines poured into Afghanistan Tuesday.
	Donald Rumsfeld said that America was tightening the noose around Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban allies.
	Taliban control in their southern stronghold appeared to be crumbling.
	Something else that's crumbling is their command headquarters.
	We dropped a big one on their command headquarters.
	Who knows who we got?
	But we certainly destroyed the command headquarters.
	We are getting very, very close to Osama Bin Laden.
	And a question I would love to have you answer tonight, if you are so inclined, and one I think that is very important is, what should we do with him when we get him?
	When and if, and I'm going to now say when, because I think we will, or we'll find his body.
	But should we get him and find him alive, what should we do?
	Bullet between the eyes, take him into custody, put him on trial in front of the whole world, and then in jail, incarcerate him forever and ever.
	There are dangers to that one.
	Shooting him on the spot, I suppose, if it was said to be in some sort of firefight, would probably be the preferable way, you would think, without too many repercussions down the road.
	There are any number of things we could do.
	And I wonder what you think would be most appropriate.
	The government is detaining, this has been in the news all day today, 603 people.
	And there's been some criticism of civil rights violations and all sorts of things.
	This all in connection with the 9-1-1 attack, of course.
	And our government being is rather sensitive to it and has said, look, there has not been one lawsuit yet.
	We have not violated rights.
	There are quite a number of people under actual arrest right now.
	And they believe that any number of them are members of the Al Qaeda group.
	A lot of criticism, though, directed at the government and the FBI for holding on to these people.
	The United Nations today ordered a global freeze on assets held by every member of the former Taliban government in Afghanistan.
	Holy mackerel!
	Every member of the former Taliban government in Afghanistan.
	They're freezing all of their monies.
	Isn't that something?
	So, no money for anybody.
	In the Middle East, two Palestinians sprayed a bus station, an open-air market with gunfire Tuesday, killed two Israelis, wounded 14 others, before being shot to death themselves.
	I continue to want desperately to talk with you about this whole cloning issue, and I am pursuing Uh, very actively now, a guest on cloning.
	Not so much the scientific aspect of it, because we know how it's done.
	You know, they're doing it.
	I was joking last night, a little hank of hair.
	Actually, a little hank of hair, or some skin and bone, would do just fine.
	You take something from an egg, you take a little hank of hair, or skin and bone, and you've got a clone.
	And people write to me and they say, what is this big deal?
	Clone is no big deal.
	I have an identical twin.
	That would be a clone.
	Well, perhaps so.
	But when it comes to cloning and modification of DNA, all kinds of things that some of these twins simply are not imagining will begin to come true.
	Some of them, in many eyes, very horrific.
	I've had about a million emails on clones.
	Here's one.
	Are different jobs for clones that will benefit mankind?
	Special bred soulless clone military units used for strictly killing everything hostile before we put in real troops to keep the peace.
	Or corporate security clones that are bred to use reason and intelligence and will always be loyal to the company.
	Talk about company men, huh?
	Clones used by scientists to test vaccines, viruses, poisons, mechanical brains and artificial limbs.
	Aye, aye, aye.
	Let's think about that.
	Clones used by scientists to test vaccines.
	Oops, that one didn't work.
	Poisons.
	Oh, that one worked.
	Mechanical brains and artificial limbs.
	Well, I have an artificial limb.
	You've got to lose the one you've got first, so I would presume this gentleman is talking about slicing off some limbs and then testing artificial limbs.
	In other words, using them as guinea clones.
	Or clones used as space explorers on very, very high-risk missions.
	So these are some of the ideas that people are coming up with with regard to cloning.
	I guarantee you we're going to do a pretty big show on cloning very soon.
	I'm very, very, very interested in the issue and somewhat shocked that they actually did it over the Thanksgiving weekend when nobody would particularly notice.
	They cloned human being, cloned a human being over the Thanksgiving weekend.
	There's a missing molecular biologist.
	Have you noticed every now and then we get stories like this?
	His name is Don Wiley and he was last seen leaving a banquet in Memphis just before midnight on November 15th.
	His rental car found a few hours later abandoned on a Mississippi River bridge with the keys in the ignition and the tank full of gas.
	His family does not believe he committed suicide.
	Police say there's no evidence the 57-year-old married father of four, with no known financial or domestic problems, was either kidnapped or killed.
	But the disappearance in this time of war and anthrax attacks has attracted the attention of the FBI.
	While he is an expert on how the human immune system fights off infections, And had recently investigated such dangerous issues, viruses, as AIDS, Ebola, herpes, and influenza.
	Wow.
	Now, that's not somebody that you would want to have in the hands of our enemy.
	A high-level molecular biologist.
	Missing.
	His car on a bridge.
	Full tank of gas.
	Keys in the ignition.
	And he's just gone.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Don't touch that dial.
	Feeling the wave from the crest of the wave.
	It's like magic.
	Oh, going and riding and slipping and sliding.
	It's like magic Oh, and then Roger, he's been a sledge
	It's magic For you
	And the princess and the crown If you're watching my fast blasts, you're able at my
	website, artbell.com, to send me a quick little message that I see in a computer screen here
	Benny in Montgomery, Alabama sends just simply the following.
	Believe in the paranormal?
	I didn't, but recently I had an encounter.
	That sort of says it all.
	So many people do not believe until finally it happens to them.
	And then, there is no choice.
	Let's do it.
	First time calling a line, you're on the air.
	Good, uh, evening, morning, whatever.
	Hello?
	Hello?
	Yes, hi.
	Hi, uh, my name is Carla.
	Carla.
	From Temecula, California.
	Okay, Carla.
	Listening to you on KFI.
	Yes, ma'am.
	I just wanted to make a real quick comment about Ben Laden.
	Oh, oh, yes.
	I don't think we should kill him.
	I think he should be taken alive.
	I think that's gonna be really hard.
	But if we do, he should be tried, and, uh, and the rest of his life cleaning restrooms in a woman's
	prison.
	You, uh, I take it are not a death penalty advocate.
	Oh no, I actually am. But if we give him the death penalty we make him a martyr.
	And I mean, look what could have been done if we would have had Hitler.
	That is really the question. Uh, what do we do, uh, to be sure he is not a martyr?
	I mean, even if we kill him to some degree, he's going to be a martyr.
	That's a big question.
	To the Muslim world, there's no question about it.
	And if we bring him back here and put him in prison, then I can envision airplanes being taken hostage and all kinds of horrible things.
	So, I don't know.
	That too.
	Also, real quick, I live in Temecula and I did see those lights last night.
	You, you what?
	I saw the lights.
	Yeah.
	At about 8 o'clock.
	My husband has been seeing them.
	Over the last couple weeks, we've seen them twice.
	Do they approximate what this gentleman has captured?
	Oh, exactly.
	Really?
	And we're new to this area, and we're from Montana, and I said, oh look, honey, there's those lights we used to see in Montana all the time.
	And I don't know what they are, but we did see them.
	Well, they're clearly no sort of conventional aircraft.
	No, because helicopters and all kinds of things fly out because we're near the base, too.
	And we're used to all that.
	But this was different.
	I really appreciate your call.
	Thank you.
	And I'm wow.
	I'm also getting a number of fast blasts that indicate quite a number of people have seen this.
	Now, we've really got something on our hands here.
	And fortunately, this gentleman had a camera.
	And I mean really, that is fortunate, because I've, a couple of times now, I've seen something, and on neither occasion, and I've got all kinds of cameras, did I have the sense to go and grab a camera.
	In one case, I did not have a camera with me.
	My wife and I did not.
	Oh, is that too bad?
	And the second time, it just, it was gone too quickly.
	We saw a UFO in a con- or adjacent to a contrail that then finally flashed south.
	It was a disk, a glowing disk, no question about it.
	But to have the presence of mind to go and get, in this case, a couple of cameras, one that yielded the digital pictures we've got on my website right now, and then also to grab a 35mm camera and take some high-res photos that we might have, might have, tomorrow night.
	Well done, sir.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hello, Art?
	Hi.
	Art?
	Yes.
	Oh, okay, I'm on.
	Um, well, first, Art, I have something about the shadow people you're not gonna believe.
	All right.
	Um, I live out here in Jersey.
	Now, there's an entire shopping center that, I don't know if it's some kind of focal point for these things or what.
	I used to work in a theater.
	Now, these things would burn the film reels, which can cost you about ten grand.
	Also, the- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	What do you mean they would burn them?
	Well, we'd power down at the end of the night, turn off all the breakers, all that.
	Sure.
	Well, uh, also we'd find movies on, often films would just burn for no reason.
	Like the, like the film would basically self-destruct.
	Do you mean burned ashes?
	I mean, what are you talking about?
	Not, not, you know, not literally burned, but you know how you, I mean, you see like film disintegrate, you know, like when you're watching on a bed.
	Well, I've certainly been in a theater where for some reason the projector got stuck.
	And you can see the frame it got stuck on melt.
	Oh, well, the film itself would melt.
	When it burned, had the ashes burned, it would melt.
	That's what I mean.
	But it continues from there.
	The security guards in the mall are terrified to do overnighters.
	There's a shopping center that joins that one, that the people in the stores there, they're afraid to do overnighters.
	They've had occurrences in the bookstores, everything, like shelves will fall down, everything.
	Really?
	But, uh, it goes on from there.
	And you attribute this to shadow people.
	Because, well, I always thought I was nuts.
	And when I was playing theaters, I would see something out of the corner of my eye.
	Like a dark shape.
	And now, if I ran into somebody and they start telling me this stuff, I was like, no way, this can't be happening.
	No, it does happen.
	Oh, I started asking around at the other stores.
	No, it absolutely happens.
	I've had thousands of emails, hundreds of calls.
	This is a real phenomenon.
	Exactly what it is, I don't know.
	Well, it goes on from there.
	My entire life, even before I was born, has been stuck with weird occurrences.
	My parents saw a UFO on their wedding night.
	This is out in, like, Palm Springs.
	Was that coincident with your conception, do you think?
	I don't know.
	I have no clue what the heck is going on.
	Their wedding night, that is.
	Yeah.
	Uh-huh.
	You might have been born of a sighting.
	I don't know, but it was the middle of the desert.
	All right, sir.
	Well, all I can say is, as I said about Benny's fast blast from Montgomery, you cannot believe, and you can scoff, and you can laugh, and you can poke fun at people who give these kinds of reports, but then all of a sudden, it happens to you.
	East of the Rockies, you are on the air.
	Hello.
	Hi, this is James calling from Worcester, Mass.
	Hi, James.
	Worcester, Mass.
	Sound familiar?
	Oh, yes.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I, um... It's ironic.
	We tried to... A group of friends and I tried to get a hold of you last week.
	I had pretty good luck getting on.
	Well, you've got me now, so what's up?
	Well, we're actually... This is absolutely true.
	Might be hard to swallow, but...
	We're actually making a short film about an evil medical company that takes over Worcester, Mass.
	An evil medical company that takes over Worcester?
	Yep.
	Well, kind of the entire government, but long story.
	I won't get into it, but... So it's a novel?
	No, no, a short film, movie.
	Well, I know, but I mean a fiction, let me ask you.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, at the moment... Okay.
	But, um... No, uh...
	Like, if we wanted to use, like, your voice, how would one go about that?
	Oh, if you want to use my voice?
	Yeah.
	Like, let's say we wanted to have you say something.
	What am I, some sort of executive in the evil medical company that takes your town?
	Well, you could play, like, yourself, you know, advising.
	You know, you could play a small role.
	I'm not doing television and movies and that kind of stuff.
	I turn it all down.
	But if you just want to use my voice, contact my network and we'll see what we can do.
	Okay.
	Alright?
	Because cloning, yeah, cloning was part of a subject matter.
	We actually, friends of ours that we went to high school with, currently clone cows.
	It's a big medical area.
	Well, I was about to say, just wait until they get to people, but they've already done that, haven't they?
	Boy, I am fascinated with this whole cloning business.
	The people who are suggesting that, oh, it's nothing more than an identical twin.
	They don't even begin to contemplate where this can go.
	And we're going to find out.
	We're going to have an expert on it.
	But I, you know, just the thing sent to me earlier from this gentleman gives you some idea of where it could conceivably go.
	And where it could go is usually where it does go.
	We generally do the things we imagine, don't we?
	Almost inevitably.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Hi.
	Art?
	Yes?
	Last Sunday during the meteor shower, I saw no less than eight V-shaped crafts.
	Really?
	Hover over... I'm in Palo Alto, California.
	I don't suppose you had the opportunity yet to see the photographs this gentleman took in Southern California, have you?
	Yes, I did.
	Oh, you did.
	And?
	It is exactly what I saw, minus the lights.
	Really?
	Yes.
	In other words, you saw something in solid form, I take it?
	Well, I was out looking at the meteor showers out on my balcony at 318 in the morning exactly.
	I had the presence of mind to look at the clock on my computer.
	And I was looking out, my wife was still on the computer, and out the corner of the eye I saw something that looked like a V, but at first I thought it was a flock of birds or maybe some smoke or fog.
	Except that there was not a cloud in the sky and it was completely clear.
	And then I called over to my wife. I said, honey, come here.
	Yes.
	Look, I saw a UFO.
	She came out and said I was crazy.
	Five minutes later, I said, come on, come out there here again. Yes.
	Another V-shaped craft hovered over the house.
	And this time she saw it.
	But as I was pointing it, I'm like, look, look, look, look at the V.
	Yeah, he's pointing over there in the eastern sky.
	And there is a bright orange light hovering across the sky.
	Ha ha ha ha.
	We've been getting, here in Pahrump, Nevada, we have been getting similar orange globes of glowing light hovering over the valley.
	There have been all kinds of reports of it lately, so we're in the middle of something or another here.
	Absolutely.
	The interesting thing here, Art, is I posted, I had the presence of mind to go running to a news group, all beautiful, one of those news groups, and post what I saw asking, If anyone else saw it.
	Right.
	Within two hours I got a response from a gentleman in Pennsylvania, Doyletown, Pennsylvania.
	Right.
	Who wrote back saying that he and his wife saw a similar boomerang shaped craft in the sky as well.
	These weren't, they didn't have the lights on, but they were in the V formation.
	I don't know if it was the same craft going around and around.
	Alright, so what do you think you saw?
	Well, I know it wasn't a meteor.
	I know it wasn't Venus.
	I know it wasn't.
	At first, I might have thought it might have been a helicopter.
	Well, you keep telling me what you know it isn't.
	Yeah.
	What do you think you did see, sir?
	I saw eight boomerang-shaped crafts flying in V-shaped formation in the direction towards what is the Stanford University's dish.
	If you had to guess, would you guess you saw terrestrial craft or extra terrestrial craft?
	No, they were definitely extra clubs.
	They were not a conventional craft because they were only visible for approximately 10 seconds during each sighting.
	They would just simply sort of cloak or sort of, if they were clear, they would cloak.
	They would just disappear.
	Same from everybody.
	Looks like we're in the middle of something new.
	Thank you very, very, very much.
	So, we're right in the middle of a bit of a flap here.
	More V-shaped craft.
	And we lead the parade by getting a photograph of one of them.
	How about that?
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Wow.
	Yeah, this is Richard in Newport.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Wow.
	Have you ever tried Cava Cava?
	Cava Cava?
	Yeah.
	I think so, yes.
	You have?
	Yes.
	Have you tried it in, say, like a powder amount of like a half cup?
	Why are you asking?
	Oh, it's an excellent muscle relaxer.
	It's natural, and if you don't take it with alcohol, it's actually really good for you.
	Okay.
	I mean, have you actually ever done that?
	Yes, I actually have tried it, yes.
	Have you got to the point where it actually got you intoxicated?
	No, I don't think I can say that.
	You can't say that, really?
	No.
	Well, please try it.
	I mean, it's benefited my life intensely, and... Wow.
	Are you a Cava Cava salesperson?
	No, I'm just... I love it, and I'm trying to promote it.
	Just an advocate of it, I see.
	Alright.
	I mean, it's not something to play around with, and you know, it's something sacred, and I think it would help you out a lot.
	Okay, sir.
	Yeah.
	That's it?
	I think so.
	I have a lot to say, but that'll do it for now.
	Alright.
	Kava Kava to you.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello!
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing alright, sir.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Memphis, Tennessee right now.
	Alright.
	I got a perfect guest for you for the cloning.
	Morality of the cloning.
	And that would be?
	Father Charles Moore.
	Father Charles Moore.
	Why Father Charles Moore?
	Because he's a proponent and a very much believer of Zechariah Sitchin's works.
	That we were cloned originally from the hominids that were here on Earth.
	And so then his position on cloning would be what?
	In favor of it?
	Yeah, of course he believes it.
	He believes everything that Zacharias Pitchin wrote, and because he is a Catholic priest, a Roman Catholic priest, you've had him on before, I think it would be great to hear what his opinion would be on this anyway.
	Well, you would imagine that a Roman Catholic priest would be against the idea.
	That's why I would really like to hear what he says, because he believes in 100% of what Zacharias Pitchin has uncovered.
	All right, sir.
	Thank you very much.
	I'll consider it.
	Roman Catholic priest on quoting.
	I would think that most priests would be absolutely leading the parade against the idea and against experimentation in that area.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Morning, Art.
	I'm in Florida.
	I didn't believe I'd get on for quick art.
	Okay, turn your radio off.
	Yes.
	That's number one. Whenever you get on the air, turn it off or you'll be confused.
	I didn't believe I'd get on for quick art.
	That's how it works. I just pick it up.
	Um, I, uh, for one, I think, uh, Osama, I know this, uh, idea has been passed around a lot,
	but I seriously think if he was given irreversible sex change, it would, uh, really, uh, be the worst that could
	happen to him.
	Well, that would be widely regarded as cruel and unconstitutional, and oh, I can just think of all kinds of things.
	Well, he doesn't fit in our Constitution.
	That would be one view, yes.
	You know, Art, I'm here in Florida now, but I believe that was in 1997 in March.
	Yes.
	I saw that V object.
	Some sort of V-shaped object?
	Yeah, and I saw it over Henderson.
	Henderson, Nevada?
	Right.
	And I believe the papers That was the same week when they had the Phoenix Lights.
	Well, as a matter of fact, sir, it was over Henderson, Nevada.
	If you're referring to the Phoenix Lights, it was seen in the Las Vegas area.
	No question about it.
	Yeah, because I was in North Las Vegas, right?
	That's a widely understood sighting.
	Well, I guess I shouldn't say understood, but widely reported and seen.
	That was the first I've ever seen, and I was amazed.
	I was working you know out there by Nellis at the hospital you know the
	new hospital they got yes the VA hospital oh yes and um I was I'm security out there and um I looked
	up I was outside looked up in the sky man right over by Henderson right and it was the most it
	was huge spectacular it was like it was making a turn well you know until you've seen something
	like that uh you'll have one attitude After you've seen something like that, you're never gonna be the same again.
	Ever.
	Are most of them seen by military bases?
	Uh, not necessarily.
	I would imagine probably a higher percentage, but they're seen everywhere.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I hear a lot about the Phoenix Lights, but they never say it was over Vegas.
	I was just wondering why.
	I never heard that.
	As a matter of fact, it was, sir.
	Right, right.
	I appreciate your call.
	Thank you.
	Uh, not a lot of time.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, Mr. Bell.
	Yes, sir.
	I have a question.
	All right, where are you?
	I'm in, actually, I'm in KSFO country.
	I'm in Parkinson, California.
	All right.
	Okay, my question is, do you think of a connection somewhere between the shadow people and UFOs?
	I have no reason to suggest there is.
	I have no evidence that there is.
	On the other hand, I can't rule it out.
	So, the answer to the question is, I have no Even anecdotal evidence that there is a connection.
	And, well, you know what?
	I'll even go out on a limb.
	I don't think there is.
	I think shadow people are some kind of entity.
	They may even be ghosts, as Ed Dames has claimed.
	Shadows of real ghosts.
	I think they're some sort of entities.
	I don't have any evidence they're extraterrestrial, though.
	Okay, well, the reason why I ask is I've noticed recently a lot of Well, you're going to hear a plethora of reports of both, and you may be connecting them in your mind.
	I'm not sure that I've heard any reports of UFO sightings directly connected to shadow people.
	Well, no, they're not directly connected.
	to your show. Well you're going to hear a plethora of reports of both and you may
	be connecting them in your mind I'm not sure that I've heard any reports of UFO
	sightings directly connected to shadow people. Well no they're not directly
	connected it just seems interesting for a lack of better term that they would be
	both rising at the same time.
	Okay, well, here's the best I can do.
	I have no evidence that it is not true.
	Okay.
	That'll work.
	Alright?
	Thanks.
	Okay, thank you very much for your call and take care.
	Yeah, I have no evidence it's not true.
	There could be a connection.
	But on the other hand, I certainly have no evidence that it is true.
	However, both independently seem to be legitimate phenomena.
	If you want to see the picture of the triangle craft, or whatever in the hell it is, that was taken last night and just sent to us a couple of hours ago, now up on my website at artbell.com.
	It's under What's New.
	It's the first item.
	Take a look and let me know what you think.
	We did several grand experiments.
	In the next hour, we'll talk about them with Dean Radin.
	Dean Radin, the man who made the movie, is a man who's been around for a long time.
	He's a man who's been around for a long time.
	Quite a number of years ago now.
	I'll surely miss your kiss.
	As you know, a number of years ago, I began some experiments.
	Quite a number of years ago now.
	We experimented with things like changing the weather, with healing people.
	Yes, with causing rain where there was no rain in the forecast.
	We repeatedly achieved that.
	We began to do other experiments.
	We did a total of about nine experiments and we did one recent one.
	There was actually quite a few years in between the last weather experiment and this most recent experiment that we did with regard to Rush Limbaugh.
	This whole process has kind of worried me, concerned me.
	I saw it work beyond any shadow of a doubt.
	And then all of a sudden, along came this graph, this Princeton graph, I believe it was, showing this absolutely remarkable, remarkable, gigantic spike Uh, that began before the terrorist attack on September 11th.
	And... And then just went off the charts, virtually, when the attack occurred, and then continued for a period of time after the attack.
	Now...
	We're going to have Dean Radin on in a few moments.
	He'll explain to us what all of this means, I hope.
	Dr. Dean Radin is presently Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California.
	For over 20 years, he's conducted research on exceptional aspects of human consciousness, including psychic phenomena.
	He has held appointments at Princeton University, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Nevada.
	Was a staff scientist at Bell Laboratories and Interval Research.
	Co-founded the Boundary Institute in Silicon Valley.
	Spent a year now on what's known as the CIA's Stargate program.
	Really?
	I didn't know that.
	Oh, wow!
	A formerly secret government project investigating psychic phenomena.
	Dean's Formal Education in Music Performance, Electrical Engineering and Psychology, B.S.
	University of Massachusetts, M.S.
	and Ph.D.
	at the University of Illinois, Champaign.
	Dean has given dozens of invited talks around the world for audiences such as the Cavendish Laboratory Physics at Cambridge University, the American Statistical Association, the Royal Society of Art in London, The Portuguese Medical Academy has published 180 scientific and popular articles, and an article he co-authored on The Sixth Sense for Psychology Today was recently nominated for the 2001 AAAS Science Journalism Award.
	Dean has received many other awards and grants.
	His research has been profiled in many, many magazines, including the New York Times Magazine.
	He's appeared in dozens of international TV and radio programs.
	He's author of the award-winning book, Conscious Universe, The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena, which is now in its fifth printing and available in English, French, Korean, and Chinese.
	Coming up in a moment, Dr. Dean Radin. Certainly a very impressive list of
	credentials. Here is Dean Radin.
	Somebody I've wanted on the air for a long time. Dr. Radin, welcome.
	Thank you very much, Art. Good to be here.
	Oh, it's great to have you. I guess we can talk about a whole lot of stuff, but I am
	most particularly interested in your work in the Global Consciousness Project.
	Right.
	You know what I'm first curious about?
	How monitoring this, or even the concept of looking at this, developed?
	Why would we think of doing an experiment like this?
	Precisely, yes.
	Well, it's an interesting story.
	It begins probably 50, 40 to 50 years ago.
	You may Know that in the foundations of quantum mechanics, one of the many puzzles was the possibility that observation would affect the measurement.
	And it's not too surprising to think of it.
	In ordinary terms, if you are looking at something, especially looking at another person, and they know that you're looking at them, then their behavior changes.
	Only the perhaps more surprising element is that this seems to happen even down at the atomic level.
	Almost as though The things you're looking at down in that microscopic space is aware, and I put aware in quotes, nevertheless aware in some way that it's being observed.
	So this has led to physicists in the modern era, meaning the last 20 years or so, writing articles that have made it into magazines like Scientific American, and so here's a one-sentence description of A way that a physicist tries to describe this effect.
	He writes, the doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.
	And that is then to suggest that all objects, animate and inanimate, are in some manner connected at a molecular level or at some level that we're trying to figure out?
	They are not only connected, there's not simply interconnection, but that interconnection extends in some way that we don't understand yet into the realm of mind.
	I believe that, yes.
	So, starting with this puzzle, this idea that mind and matter might be connected, many years ago, psi researchers, mainly physicists, but some psychologists also, decided to put this to the test.
	And it led to several decades of experimentation, which has shown to very high degrees of confidence that mind and matter are linked in some way.
	All right, well, how did they arrive at random number generators as a way to measure this?
	I'm sure they went through several other concepts and ideas of attempting to measure this effect.
	How did they end up with random numbers?
	Yes, that's a good question.
	There are several ways I could answer that.
	An easy way is this.
	When I use words like mind and matter interacting, it immediately conjures up images of levitation
	and macroscopic psychokinetic powers and that sort of thing.
	All the stuff that you see in Hollywood movies.
	Well, over the years, scientists have looked at these claims.
	They've looked at levitation.
	They've looked at things like spontaneous human combustion and large-scale effects that makes everyone excited.
	And in the laboratory, under controlled conditions, we basically never see these things happen.
	So after a while, you figure, well, I shouldn't waste any more time trying to see somebody levitate for real.
	Because we just can't capture it.
	There were some experiments in Russia that purported to show on videotape people bending light.
	I'm sure you're familiar with those.
	Yes, I've heard stories like this.
	And the problem with such stories is that it becomes very difficult to get the source material.
	So we don't really know what happened.
	I can tell you a story later about when I was working on the Stargate program, one of our jobs was Investigating stories that we heard from what was at the time the Red China.
	And most of the time, we're simply not able to confirm the story.
	I'd like to hear that, but I'd also like to ask you, with regard to your time in Stargate, how much of what went on are you now, by percentage, are you now able to talk about?
	And is there any percentage of what went on that you still, to this very day, cannot talk about?
	I can talk about most, probably 80% of what I did, but I'm aware of other people who have
	a much lower percentage.
	I see.
	All right.
	So in other words, it depends on what the individual feels they're free to talk about
	and there are varying degrees of that apparently.
	Right.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Sure, by all means.
	If we're not going to be able to find somebody who can do levitation in the laboratory or move an object or something big, the next step that researchers took was to say, well, maybe you can't levitate a chair, but perhaps you could levitate a penny or some small object.
	So this began to move into the direction of very fine scales that can measure thousands of a gram or below.
	Or affecting magnetic fields or affecting light beams and so on.
	And again, it was found that for systems that were still very small, like a penny or below in terms of weight, that effects would be seen, but they would almost always be down in the noise level.
	You wouldn't get gigantic effects.
	This process kept going further and further down into more and more sensitive systems, and at each stage, the main thing that seems to occur in these experiments when you get a significant result, and there have been significant results at that level, what you see is modulation of noise.
	You see that the noise is somehow being pushed around.
	So rather than taking the signal, the actual weight of something, what you're seeing is the jitter around it, because down at these low levels, There's always a certain amount of noise associated with a measurement.
	At some point, you get down to such sensitive levels that the noise is basically the only thing that's left.
	Right.
	People should understand noise.
	When you refer to noise, you're referring to something that might be, for example, white noise, right?
	That's right.
	Which is just kind of like this.
	Listen, everybody.
	Wait a minute.
	Wrong speaker.
	Let me try it here.
	White noise.
	There you go.
	White noise.
	Just like that.
	That's it.
	Yeah, and white noise is a particular type of frequency, but that's a general idea.
	It's like static.
	And so, if you, or you could think of it this way, as the static you would see on your television with no picture, where there's just a million little moving dots all over the place.
	That's right.
	Okay.
	So in other words, you're suggesting that something as random as noise, white noise, visual or audio or whatever, could
	be affected, you began to notice that it could be affected by mental power.
	Well, I'm not sure that the word power is correct, but yes, there's something about
	noise which makes it a very interesting target because if anything happens to the noise in
	the direction of creating order out of the noise, since noise by definition is purely
	random, it becomes extremely easy to detect that an order has occurred.
	And see now, we've kind of gone full circle, we've gone down deeper and deeper into more
	and more sensitive systems and we end up with pure noise and now we have a way of detecting
	through statistics whether the noise has changed.
	And it can only change in one direction.
	It can only change in the direction of becoming less random.
	Right.
	Or more ordered.
	So, randomness turned into something not so random.
	Some sort of pattern emerging.
	That's right.
	In addition, randomness is very interesting because randomness is the flip side of information.
	As soon as you start going away from pure random, you have information.
	Right.
	And the reason why information is interesting is because There's a leading edge in physics, not the mainstream by any means, but a leading edge in physics, which has been dubbed the cute title, It from Bit.
	It from Bit?
	It from Bit.
	That's a phrase that the physicist John Wheeler invented, which suggests that it, meaning physical matter, things, events, and so on, seems to arise from bits.
	which is his way of saying that it arises from information.
	So there's a whole bunch of physicists in the netherworld of physics
	that are looking at the possibility that a more fundamental way of describing
	the physical and material systems is through information alone.
	So here we have a connection now between a mind-matter interconnection
	where the glue between the two might be information.
	And again, this is why random systems become a very interesting target to work with.
	Doctor, is there any way of quantifying the difference between the ability to say affect a penny or even a feather and or a random number generator?
	In other words, is there any way to measure sensitivity?
	Well, you're asking for something like force.
	Yes, sir.
	When we were trying to Make a penny levitate a little bit.
	We can measure very precisely the amount of force necessary to do that.
	Or even standing it on end and trying to just push it over.
	Right.
	Right.
	In all of the experiments involving random systems, no one has ever detected anything that looks like force.
	It looks as though we have the ability to change informational structures.
	And here's a way of thinking about what's happening here.
	I can impart a very small amount of information to you, which will cause a gigantic force-like response in your body.
	And the amount of force necessary to impart that information could be extremely small.
	And so it'll be a disproportional response.
	So all I need to do is whisper very gently in your ear that you just won a billion dollars.
	Uh-huh.
	And so the information content in those words that I said is really small.
	Very small.
	The effect very large.
	The effect is very, very large.
	So we might be dealing with something like that.
	A very tiny informational spin put into a system can create a massive energetic response.
	Have you heard of people who do what's called cloud busting?
	Yes.
	Do you dismiss it or do you think it might fit into what we're talking about?
	Well, I have a very liberal approach to anomalies of all types, so I hardly ever dismiss anything out of hand.
	If I have the time, I'd like to look at as much of the raw data as I can get a hold of, or listen to colleagues of mine who have done that.
	In the case of cloud busting, I know there's a lot of legend and lore about such things, and I've seen some data, and I guess I can get to the point where My interest is peaked, and I'd be willing to look in more detail at such things, but how to make the connection between cloud busting and informational twists, because now cloud busting is a gigantic effect, a macroscopic effect, but it could be that the actual seed to begin the cloud busting itself could be microscopic, so I'm not saying I believe in it yet, but
	I'm saying that there may be a plausible connection.
	There could be a relationship.
	It could start with a very microscopic effect.
	Alright, Doctor, is there any significant evidence that the power or the ability of thousands or even millions of minds concentrating on some specific effect would have more...
	Ability to create a non-randomness or affect information systems than a single mind.
	You're asking the important question on whether the effects that we see in the laboratory scale up.
	Yes, sir.
	That's the question.
	Yes, sir.
	And the answer, the simple answer seems to be no.
	It does not scale up in any linear form for sure.
	It might scale up in a non-linear form And it seems to have, if anything, something to do with the notion of coherence.
	And so I was thinking, as you were describing earlier, that you did experiments involving your audience.
	So there we have millions of minds.
	Yes.
	Well, you have a compelling voice.
	You have a compelling way of selling what you're selling, including ideas.
	And I can imagine that, as a coherence generator, that you have the ability to take Millions of minds, and for a short period of time, spin them all in the same direction.
	Yes, I believe that.
	And in which case, under that condition of coherence and lots of minds, there is a smidgen of evidence that that would have a larger effect in one person.
	All right.
	All right.
	Dr. Hold on.
	We're going to do our bottom of the hour break.
	Dr. Dean Radin is my guest.
	When we get back, we will speak about the 9-1-1 event.
	There were a number of stories written about it.
	By the way, if you'll go to my website right now, artbell.com, and just simply click on tonight's guest information program, tonight's guest info.
	And below Dr. Radin's name, you will find all kinds of things that we're going to discuss, including some charts and stories that were written about the graphs that were issued prior to, during, and just following the 9-1-1 events.
	I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AF.
	Good morning.
	Dr. Dean Radin is my guest and I've been waiting a long time for this one.
	His colleague, Roger Nelson, director of the Global Consciousness Project, wrote on September 11, 2001, beginning at about 8.45 in the morning, a series of terrorist attacks destroyed the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and severely damaged the Pentagon.
	The disaster is so great that in New York, we have as of yet, two days later, this is written very close to the event, only guesses about how many thousands of people perished.
	The following material shows the behavior of the Global Consciousnesses Project Network of 37 REG devices called EGGs, we'll talk about those, placed around the world as they responded during various periods of time surrounding September 11th.
	These EGGs generate random data continuously and send it for archiving and analysis to a dedicated server in Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
	We analyze the data to determine whether the normally random array of values shows structure correlated with global events.
	The underlying motivation for this work is to discover whether there is evidence for an anomalous interaction driving the eggs to non-random behavior.
	In a metaphoric sense, we are looking for evidence of a developing global consciousness that might react to events with deep meaning.
	We'll follow up on that in a moment.
	Once again, Dr. Dean Radin.
	Dr. Radin, let's be sure the audience understands the terms that we're flinging about here.
	R-N-G means random number generator, right?
	That's right.
	What in the world is an egg?
	An egg is our acronym for electro-diagram.
	Really?
	We just made that up.
	After all, we're Well, the notion of global consciousness suggests that maybe there's something like a world mind.
	So, what do we call that?
	Well, Gaia is sometimes used as the name of the goddess of the Earth.
	Indeed, very good.
	So, we were thinking of the analogy between an electroencephalogram, or an EEG, that you would use to monitor what's going on in somebody's head.
	Right.
	And we figured, well, we'd make an EEG for Gaia.
	So, that turned into ElectroGaiaGram, and the random generators turned into eggs.
	Just as a humorous term.
	Okay, so these eggs, or random number generators, are located virtually throughout the world, is that correct?
	Well, they're all connected to the internet, so they are clustered mostly in North America and in Europe.
	North America and Europe.
	But we also have sites in the South Pacific Islands, And in other places which have much lower population.
	And in fact, because of the interest in the September 11th findings, Roger has been completely overwhelmed with requests for more information and people who want to participate in the experiment or host an egg site.
	And basically within North America and large portions of Europe, you want to put those on hold
	much rather began to cover the rest of the world
	uh... so uh... for most of your listeners i guess would be in north
	america they're probably not so interested at this point in
	becoming uh... and and adding additional sites within north america
	All right.
	As a little further down, below the words of your colleague, there are a series of graphs showing what happened on September 11th, how these eggs at various locations responded, or I guess the totality of it.
	And it is visually incredibly, incredibly impressive.
	I mean, they just went up off the charts.
	It came up off the noise level and just kept on trucking.
	It began, I am led to understand, sometime before the event.
	Is that correct?
	That's right.
	Any idea why?
	Well, we don't know why.
	We can imagine that there's something like a presentiment, a precursor, which a lot of people anecdotally reported after September 11th.
	People had strange dreams or they felt Poorly in the morning.
	Oh yes.
	And then this event occurred.
	So it is conceivable that if we're dealing with something like a mass mind, that the mass mind had a presentiment of something bad about to occur on a very large scale.
	But that of course is a wild speculation.
	We don't, we really don't know why most of the effects here actually occurred about six o'clock in the morning on Eastern Daylight Time.
	And then of course the gigantic spike when it actually did occur.
	Right, but I should clarify something.
	There's really, there's two different kinds of analyses that are done in this project.
	There are formal analyses which are the most important part because it allows us to test the hypothesis without being biased.
	So the hypothesis is there's something like a global mass mind response That would be reflected as a generation of order, unexpected order, in the random generators.
	But you have to pre-specify how you're going to analyze the data on a given event before you actually do it.
	Otherwise, it's too easy to use the data as a Rorschach test.
	You just project your fears and wishes into the data.
	Well, here's something the public obviously does not know, and I certainly didn't know until the news came out.
	About what you recorded during this event, prior to and during and after this event.
	There was no information in the general scientific community, at least not in the general public, that this was going on.
	How long have these eggs been sitting there monitoring everything?
	Well, ironically, the network itself started in August of 1998.
	And the very first event that was used in the formal database ...was the bombing of the U.S.
	embassies in Africa, which we think was done by Osama bin Laden and his group.
	So, in fact, this goes back to the idea of how to do a formal test.
	The embassy test was decided in advance, after we heard about the embassies being blown up, that before the data was looked at, Roger declared that we'd look at ten minutes before the bombings, Up to four hours afterwards.
	And that period of time was somewhat chosen arbitrarily, but it was chosen as a way of representing what is likely to be the world's response to these events.
	And so the way that Roger analyzes the data is by accumulating the data from ten minutes before to four hours after.
	And he found a wildly significant result for those embassy bombings.
	And so he decided that since this has Some elements of similarity, many elements actually, for those events that he used the same criterion for September 11th.
	And by that criterion, one of the pictures on the website shows that it indeed was a significant effect.
	Yeah, I'll say.
	So, the other analyses, many of the other analyses, including the ones that I've posted there, are purely exploratory, and they follow After the formal test.
	And the reason why we followed it up, the reason why I in particular followed it up, is because this is such a striking event in so many dimensions that I felt that it would be useful to take a very close look at the data from the one second resolution all the way up to looking how September 11th appears compared to the surrounding months.
	Might I ask this?
	With regard to the action prior to the event itself, it has been suggested to me that particularly if it would only take one mind or perhaps even eight or nine or ten minds, the terrorists themselves could have made the It's been suggested the action that went on prior to the event, their anticipation of a major event like dying would certainly register somewhere, one might imagine.
	Can you rule that out?
	Well, no, we can't rule that out.
	Of course, at any given time, there's billions of people in the world doing all sorts of things that are intensely meaningful to them and to other people.
	Sure.
	In this particular case, That precursor might correspond to something like a no-go decision, and the decision was go.
	And the reason why that particular event may have been registered, if that's the right word to use, is because it had enormous meaning that would play out in the future.
	Or it could be an anticipatory response in the mass consciousness pool.
	That's right.
	But ultimately, we really don't know.
	We can only speculate.
	Oh, this is fascinating work you're doing.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	Pretty exciting stuff, I would say.
	I should also ask, or add to this, that the purpose of this experiment is to act as a true monitor.
	And in order to behave as a monitor, it has an interesting paradox built into the entire project.
	the more attention that is brought to the project itself, the less effective the project is able to work.
	So we have this problem.
	We discussed right after the analyses of September 11, what do we do with this?
	What do we do with this information?
	Kind of like an astronomer who's trying to look through the lights of the city.
	Well, it's worse than that.
	Yeah, it is worse, I guess.
	It's the astronomer looking up at the sky and finding some amazing thing, and then
	goes out over the news wires and everyone turns on their lights and tries to see it.
	And of course, the use of the telescope immediately disappears.
	Precisely.
	So just the news of your project, your ongoing project, creates additional non-randomness as people consider the concept.
	Would that be fair?
	More specifically, as they consider the Global Consciousness Project itself.
	Aye, aye, aye.
	It puts a big smudge on our telescope lens.
	Aye, aye, aye.
	So, we... So, I have been giving talks and Roger's given talks and writing papers and so on, but it's mainly for academic groups.
	We're, at this point, we really are pretty ignorant about what's happening.
	So, for that very reason, you're shy of publicity?
	Well, I'm not sure that I personally am, but certainly the project... He is.
	The project is very shy of publicity.
	And we recognize the paradox here that it was designed from the very beginning by Roger to be an open experiment.
	It has been online, on the web, all of the data is available.
	Anybody can download it and check any of these calculations.
	Anybody can contribute in any way that they wish.
	but that opens an inherent paradox, as I've explained, that the more people who get interested in it,
	the more difficult it is, both pragmatically, because it's only a bunch of us who are volunteers,
	who are basically running this experiment.
	We can't handle the millions of people who suddenly become interested and send emails
	and want to participate and so on.
	It's just overload in lots of different ways.
	If you are able to scientifically and conclusively prove that there is a mass consciousness
	and that is in fact what you're measuring, what is the significance of that and where might it lead?
	I realize that calls for speculation.
	Yeah, and that even pushes speculation down into fantasy probably.
	I think the simplest way of thinking about this or the baseline result is that mind and matter
	are interconnected in some fundamental way.
	That's like the baseline.
	Beyond that, we really start having to pull up images of metaphors to even begin to grasp what's happening.
	So one of the metaphors that I've been toying with recently is that consciousness itself is something like a gigantic ocean.
	And each individual consciousness is like a wave which crests for a moment and has an individual existence except it's still connected to the ocean itself.
	And then that individual existence relaxes and it goes back into the ocean.
	So, our eggs, which are distributed around the world, are the equivalent of a buoy.
	We've airdropped a bunch of buoys in this ocean.
	And most of the time, the buoys are sort of jostled around randomly by the local waves and the local winds.
	And what we're looking for are instances where the entire ocean behaves in an unusual way.
	And if that occurred, we would see it immediately because the motion of all the buoys would suddenly have a certain kind of coherence to them.
	Very good analogy, and it leads me to another question.
	It is my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the eggs reacted in a some... they did not react during the 9-11 business in precisely the same way at the same time.
	In other words, you had some varying Uh, measurements, uh, in the, in the various eggs.
	Is that true?
	Well, remember that the, the egg is designed to be a pure noise generation device.
	Right.
	So it is a random walk.
	Right.
	In fact, if you look at it in any detail, I've, I've just recently finished an analysis looking at the entire year 2001 so far to see whether the eggs are behaving in a way that you would expect them to.
	Yes.
	And they're behaving exactly the way that you would expect them to.
	And you only begin to see that September 11th turned out to be a strange day when you start focusing in on that day as compared to all the others.
	But taken as a whole, across the year, you find that these eggs are behaving very nicely, which must be the case, otherwise they'd be useless as detectors.
	So, the thing which is interesting about September 11th, and the reason why I mention this metaphor of buoys in an ocean, is because if it is true that, you imagine, for example, there was a A gigantic event which is like an underground or underwater earthquake.
	And one of the effects that occurs is that the seafloor drops and it creates a tsunami wave.
	A single wave which could be thousands of feet high and it's across the ocean.
	Well if we were watching our eggs and we suddenly noticed that all of them behaved more or less the same.
	Like they went ker-chunk.
	Right.
	At one time.
	Right.
	And we didn't know that there was a tsunami.
	We would say, wow, that's a strange anomaly.
	I don't know what happened, but something happened in the network.
	So at one level, that's what we see in the global consciousness eggs.
	Something went ker-chunk, and it did go ker-chunk.
	Simultaneously?
	Let's put it this way.
	Within the course of a day, that's the analysis level I've looked at.
	Within the course of a day... They ker-chunked.
	They ker-chunked.
	As compared to all the other days in 2001.
	Alright, I'm going to tell you a little story and I think this is what began it all for me.
	We were interviewing, I can't even recall who it was, somebody from Princeton who had something to do with P.E.A.R.
	You familiar with P.E.A.R.?
	Sure.
	P.E.A.R.
	put together a very interesting little program called Shape Changer.
	And I was sent a copy of it.
	At one point it was free on the internet.
	I'm so sorry, it is not now.
	Uh, but I got a copy of Shape Changer after the program and I sat down in front of my own computer and I experimented with it for literally weeks on end.
	And I had astounding results, Doctor.
	You know, the PAIR program would put two pieces of video on the screen, squares of video.
	One would be random noise, just like a television without a picture.
	And the other would be a picture of whatever.
	It doesn't matter, the world, or a building, or something or another.
	And your job was to sit there in front of the screen for a prescribed amount of time and try to cause the random screen to be non-random and form into the world or whatever the picture was, to drive the randomness away.
	And at the end of the prescribed period of time, your computer would report to you your success percentage, success.
	And I tried it again and again and again, doctor.
	And when I was sitting in front of the computer and concentrating, I could consistently, and I still can, I've got the program here, consistently score in the high 80s and low 90s, occasionally the 70s, but, you know, way on up there.
	And then, as a control, I would start the program running and just walk away and go watch TV or something, and come back in and look at the score.
	Inevitably, it was down around 15, 20, 22% in there, and I could consistently produce these results.
	That's what got me going on all of this.
	Yeah, you're describing the shapeshifter.
	A shapeshifter, thank you.
	I'm telling you that I hold up my right hand.
	As God is my witness, that was the result again and again and again and again.
	How can that be?
	Well, you described a software program where the randomness was not true randomness.
	It wasn't based on noise.
	It was based on an algorithm in the software.
	Right.
	In which case, the only time that you had to have an influence on this, on the system, was at the moment that you pressed the button to begin the run.
	Correct.
	And this raises, actually, an interesting relationship back to the Global Consciousness Project, where the random generators are true noise generators.
	So they are producing random numbers in real time.
	Gotcha.
	Not algorithmically driven.
	Right.
	In the case of a program like Shapeshifter, where It's really not clear at all that any influence occurred.
	In a sense, what you were doing was choosing favorable times at which to begin each trial.
	And that favorable time would result in what's called a seed number, and the seed number would start the pseudorandom algorithm at a certain spot, and then the algorithm would just spin out the numbers in a sequence.
	And they look random, but they're really not.
	It's following a strict deterministic Oh, good point.
	that makes it look random.
	So the only random element is when you press the button to begin.
	Oh, good point.
	So...
	But how could I... how could I...
	How did you know when to press the button at the right time?
	Yes, sir.
	We don't know.
	Ha ha ha.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We're at the top of the hour.
	I'm telling you folks, I tell all of you, it's the truth.
	Whether it was totally non-random or random or not, I could affect it in that manner.
	Now, maybe my decision of when to push that button affected things, but I think we're still talking about the same sort of thing.
	I just don't understand it.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	Alright, once again, Dr. Dean Radin.
	And Dr. Radin, just to extend my remarks a little bit, following the experiments I did with that software program,
	which I still cherish, I don't suppose that's going to get out on the net again.
	Every time I talk about it, a million people want it, and I can never tell them where to get it anymore, because it's gone.
	Yeah, it's gone.
	The company that was producing that is now involved in other things. I'm pretty sure that that
	program is no longer publicly available. It brings up an interesting question. What do
	you whip up the audience into a great frenzy and everybody wants to do something, what do they do?
	A few years ago at the Boundary Institute I was troubled with that issue myself because
	every time I'm on a radio show or something I just get completely overwhelmed with requests
	for people who think they may be psychic and want to do something about it.
	Right.
	So I decided to see whether we could use the web as a way of allowing people to test themselves in a simple series of tests and at the same time to see whether we could use that data for our own research purposes.
	So we've had a series of Online SciTest going now for over a year.
	We've had 34,000 people try the test, maybe 35,000 now, and over 6 million individual trials.
	Is that test still there?
	It is.
	How would you like 35,000 more?
	Well, the last time this happened, it crashed the server.
	I see.
	Because so many people responded, but this time they have been alerted, so the server shouldn't crash.
	Uh, the easy way to get there is, I'll give you three different ways.
	We've gotten the domain name called Gottsci.
	This is a play on the commercial Got Milk.
	So instead it's Gottsci.com.
	That will redirect you to the actual experiment.
	All right, Keith, I hope you're listening.
	GotSci.com.
	We'll get that up right away.
	We've got several links up now, but we'll add that one.
	The other ones, which I think the links are up, are theboundaryinstitute.org.
	Yes.
	And ions.org.
	So I currently work at the Institute of Neurotic Sciences.
	We have a link there.
	I still have a piece of one foot in the Boundary Institute, and we have a link there as well.
	What have the results yielded?
	What can you tell us of those who have taken the test?
	Well, here we have one of those paradoxes like the smudge on the telescope.
	The surface task, the task that people will do, is a perfectly valid side task.
	There's a card test, there's a kind of a map dowsing task, and there's a Daily Hall of Fame where people can see how their performance Compared to other people who take the test.
	Oh, no.
	People are going to love that.
	Yeah, well, that's why we basically, with almost no advertising, have continued to attract people around the world.
	I'm sure.
	By the way, from 106 countries, which is sort of interesting.
	There are a number of other things going on in these tests.
	One of the primary reasons that we're interested, from a research point of view, is that there are a number of known correlates for psi performance.
	One of which, for example, is the global geomagnetic field.
	When the geomagnetic field changes, people's ability to do psi tasks and also their spontaneous reports of psychic experience seem to be modulated.
	Isn't that interesting?
	We think so.
	I do too.
	We're beginning to get a glimpse as to maybe why that is.
	Now the global geomagnetic field, as I'm sure you're aware, is affected by the activity on the sun.
	Correct.
	It's largely driven by the solar wind.
	That's right.
	I've been correlating this for years and years and years and telling people I believe this, and you're the first one from the scientific community I've heard say it.
	It's fairly well known that the geomagnetic field itself, of course, is created by the Earth.
	Yes.
	The elements of the Earth.
	But the field is normally a kind of teardrop shape.
	And the reason it's shaped like a teardrop is because the solar wind particles themselves are pushing against the geomagnetic field and turning it into a teardrop.
	Correct.
	And at peaks, at peak years, and we're in that right now.
	It fluctuates all over the place.
	That's right.
	Every time we're hit by a solar storm or something happens in the interplanetary system, it is pushed around.
	So it's constantly vibrating.
	And it turns out that for many years there have been studies looking at things like the incidence of violence in prison populations as compared to the geomagnetic field.
	And it was a great puzzle as to what in the world would this, in terms of magnitude, very small magnetic effect, why would that make any difference in terms of something as large as human behavior?
	Or even worse, something as subtle as sign performance?
	And so only in the past couple of years was it discovered that most animals, including humans, have the same kind of magnetic material, ferromagnetic material, in our nervous system, including in the brain.
	And so we have something like a magnetic fence.
	In some people it's stronger, in other people it's not so strong, but nevertheless we apparently have an inherent ability to detect magnetic fields.
	So an animal like a homing pigeon uses this as a navigational aid.
	Some people apparently can use it as navigational aids as well.
	Perhaps this is what dowsers use in the field.
	But it also suggests that during a time of a stormy magnetic day that we will feel agitated.
	We may not know it's a stormy magnetic day but nevertheless our nervous system is agitated because we can detect it.
	And when you're agitated you simply can't concentrate as well as you can when you feel calm.
	That's right.
	So, getting back to these online side tests.
	Okay, just before you go to that, anecdotally, Doctor, I wonder if you're aware that not only are we in a peak,
	but September was an incredible, incredible month for CMEs and incredibly disruptive storms from the sun.
	It's still going on now to some degree.
	We're having a series of X flares.
	I mean, it's really going bananas up there.
	But September was a particularly violent month from the sun.
	Well, that's interesting.
	It is.
	Yeah.
	At any rate, continue.
	So what we have now is a continuous and almost Continuous 24 hours a day given that it's the Internet.
	A stream of data coming in from lots of people around the world doing simple side tasks.
	And what I've been doing is taking the correlation day by day with the geomagnetic field on a planetary basis against the people's performance on these tests.
	And we have found a significant correlation, a negative correlation, As we predicted, based on all the previous data.
	A negative correlation?
	It's a negative correlation.
	The bigger the magnetic storm, the worse people do.
	That's where the negative correlation comes from.
	So we see this actually in all three of the tests.
	We now have five tests, but for most of the year we've had three tests.
	Whether it's a remote viewing task, or a map dowsing task, or a simple card guessing game, people's performance is modulated by something as subtle as changes in the geomagnetic
	field.
	We're also looking at other environmental effects, but I'm not going to talk about those until after the,
	after the, this year ends. You don't want to influence them.
	Well, that's the paradox, isn't it?
	Yes, sure, sure it is.
	There are many things going on in experiments like this that if I talk about it in any depth and suddenly the... You ruin the experiment, correct, obviously.
	Wouldn't it be interesting to have a large group of people in space, perhaps in orbit, generally away from the magnetic field altogether, in some sort of control group?
	Yes, that reminds me that I'm currently at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and our founder, The Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell did just that.
	We didn't have a group in space, but we had this astronaut in space coming back from the Moon to the Earth and did, as far as we can tell, the only ESP experiment in history in space.
	The only one ever talked about, anyway.
	Right.
	And the results of it?
	Well, it was, we call it data torture.
	You take the data and you torture it until it gives you a good result.
	There weren't outstanding results, but there was some evidence that, in a simple card guessing game, that the receivers, who I believe were back on Earth, some of them were able to successfully describe the cards that Edgar Mitchell was looking at.
	But it wasn't an outstandingly successful experiment.
	All right.
	Well, I just want to continue for one moment.
	I very briefly, several weeks ago, discussed this with you on the phone.
	But after my experience with the P.E.A.R.
	program, I began, just for the fun of it, I thought at the time, and it was just fun, you know, kind of a light-hearted thing, there was a deficit of rain in Florida.
	They were having a terrible drought and fires and it was a mess.
	And I thought, wouldn't it be fun to conduct a gigantic mass experiment and see if we could affect the weather?
	Weather was no rain forecast.
	Let's get millions of people thinking about it.
	And so I did it.
	A very serious attempt.
	You know, I said, alright, coming up in this break, all of us, millions of us are going to concentrate on rain for this part of Florida.
	And within hours, actually even less than hours in that case, by God, out of nowhere, clouds came, a system formed, it rained.
	It shocked me, but I thought, eh, coincidence.
	Tried it again in Texas.
	Created rain again within hours in Texas.
	Tried it in Western Canada, British Columbia, where they had a drought and dangerous conditions.
	My God, we created rain.
	And we tried a whole series of experiments, and they were all, to a great degree, successful.
	And then I began to worry.
	And I began to think, you know, I don't know what the hell I'm doing.
	I don't have a clue what I'm doing and I have no idea what forces...
	I'm messing with or or what I'm doing or or what could be wrong and I always envisioned the possibility of
	some Terrible error people were calling me and saying oh, there's
	a horrible hurricane headed toward florida Can't you keep it away from florida? And I began to think
	and worry that oh Well, we might try that and we might keep it away from florida
	and the damn thing might build to a force five And kill thousands and since I don't know what i'm doing
	I'm going to stop and I did for years and years and years I just I gave it up
	I stopped because I didn't understand it.
	Any thoughts on that?
	Well, I think you did the wise thing.
	When dealing with powerful forces, at minimum, we should always be concerned about the law of unintended consequences.
	That's what you were referring to.
	That was my concern.
	Yeah.
	If you deflect a hurricane from one place, it's going to end up somewhere else, unless you Unless you have perfect clairvoyance or perfect precognition, you really can't know what the consequences of that change are.
	Or if you have created rain, you have taken moisture from another location, sure.
	Right.
	And I always felt that Rod Serling would be standing there saying, gee Art, you didn't read the fine print.
	You know, I really honestly don't know what I'm doing, Doctor.
	And so you would have, under similar circumstances, also stopped and stood back from it.
	I probably, in that case, would have thought long and hard about whether it was even possible to avoid unintended consequences.
	I think that the answer is no.
	We're not clever enough to know.
	I mean, the world is extremely well integrated.
	Things are connected all over the place.
	It is very difficult to push on one area and not have an effect somewhere else.
	And that's why it's wise to I don't have a clue.
	One is if you think you've got something interesting going on, to be quiet about it until you understand
	it better.
	The second is if you think you have something interesting going on, maybe it's not such
	a great idea to get millions of other people involved in it right away.
	I don't know how I can become sure of what I'm doing.
	I don't even have a clue.
	I don't know how to pursue this informationally.
	I don't have the answers for me either.
	I can offer a metaphor.
	Can you?
	OK, go right ahead.
	We look at pictures of nebulas in space and we see a soft glow, typically, but there's an enormous amount of energy in that glow.
	I mean, the thing is gigantic and it looks like a soft, pleasant neon glow, but it's not Coherent.
	It's not pulled together into something like a bright star.
	Right.
	Whereas, by contrast, we can look at something with an extremely small amount of power, like a laser beam, which would be milliwatts.
	But the laser beam itself is made out of the same stuff, but it is coherent.
	It is put together in a very specific, unnatural configuration, or at least doesn't ordinarily appear in nature.
	So, I think one of the reasons why your experiments may have worked is because you have the ability, in your position, and with the quality of your voice, as I mentioned earlier, to kind of draw people into a coherent state.
	You're creating a laser beam out of this gigantic diffuse energy, let's say.
	That does have a certain power to it.
	I think the power is not the same as force, but as information, as I mentioned before.
	I mean, this is different than saying simply the power of media.
	The power of media is very strong, of course, but this is something different.
	This is saying at a deep level of mind and matter interacting, the right kind of pull can make people become coherent and things can change as a result.
	So, you have more power than you think, or maybe you know how much power there is, and that's why I think From my perspective, it is the proper thing to do to watch it carefully and probably not use it.
	Is it your work and the work of the university that will perhaps begin to answer the question of what it is and how it might be used reasonably or avoided?
	Oh, sure.
	The Global Consciousness Project, by the way, is not part of Princeton University.
	A private program where some of us happen to be at universities, but nevertheless, it's not a university-based project.
	Basically, it's a floating internet-based collaboration of a bunch of people.
	Nevertheless, apparently, the server that collects the information is at Princeton.
	Yeah.
	We're now.
	That will probably change in the future.
	So, to answer your question, the answer is absolutely yes.
	What we have done in the laboratory and what we continue to do with colleagues around the world is to try to answer in as clear a scientific way as we can, what is the nature of this mind-matter interaction?
	What does it imply about the world at large and about nature?
	And we can make estimates as to when we'll have the answer.
	And the estimates are something like, we're either 50 years ahead of our time or 500 years ahead of our time.
	But the answer is not going to come next Tuesday.
	And so I'm a little bit suspicious about the theoretical attempts right now to say, well, it's due to this twist on quantum mechanics or that twist on thermodynamic theory and so on.
	We're really grasping at straws.
	I have a strong sense that we are dealing with something which is maybe 22nd century science.
	We gotta start somewhere.
	Boy do I agree with you.
	Hold it right there.
	That's a good point to break at.
	Unbelievable.
	Absolutely unbelievable, the whole thing.
	I'm Art Bell.
	And we're talking about the Global Consciousness Project.
	Not directly connected with Princeton.
	But fascinating nevertheless.
	What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?
	What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?
	In Beast Alliance.
	Yeah.
	This day.
	What are they doing?
	I need a brand new...
	Once again, Dr. Dean Radin.
	So, Doctor, this may be a small force in the way we think of physical forces, or not a physical force at all as we conventionally think of it.
	But nevertheless, it may have incredibly powerful possibilities.
	Is that a fair way to put it?
	Yes, it is.
	We can think of it, again, as a metaphor, as something like a catalyst.
	That information can act as a catalyst and release enormous amounts of power, essentially.
	So we have to be careful about what we think.
	You mentioned one of the other things about... I want to get back to the Global Consciousness Project for just a second.
	Yes, of course.
	You're talking about telescopes and one of our concerns is that we have taken millions of minds and sort of churning into the experiment.
	We would like to extract that.
	Because essentially it's like taking this nice new telescope and taking a stick of butter and rubbing it all over the lens.
	It defeats the purpose of the telescope.
	So I would like to request that for people interested in this to go to the website.
	There's an enormous amount of information.
	Most of our reports are published there.
	But then don't contact Roger and don't contact me.
	Let us continue doing our work for a while.
	And basically any time that we update the website, which is fairly frequently, Roger's actually in charge of that and does all of that himself.
	You'll be able to track what's new with that project.
	Is there a large debate before you release a big story like the one on 9-1-1?
	This one was more meaningful than virtually all of the others.
	And in this case we did talk about it quite a bit.
	We decided we... Actually, it's always Roger's decision.
	Roger is the prime mover in this project and is the one who makes decisions about what
	goes on the website.
	Did he agonize greatly before deciding to publicize this?
	I would say that he did, as I did.
	I think we both agreed that this is part of the experiment and it didn't make any sense
	to exclude this one piece just because it happened to have striking results.
	The problem is that we kind of suspected that this would draw a lot of attention and
	we ended up with this problem.
	So, once again, look at the website.
	You can read all about it.
	Roger and I are both writing papers that will be published in journals that describe it in even more detail.
	We simply can't handle the overwhelming response that your show brings.
	May I ask sort of an out there question?
	Of course, I guess in a way all of this is out there.
	Do you think it might be possible to inject a concept or an idea into the global consciousness?
	In other words, could you, as you would infect computers with a virus, could you inject some sort of concept or idea?
	Well, probably the closest experimental approach to that has been injecting the notion of peace into a community through meditation.
	And so the experimental database I'm talking about was done and is, I guess, continuing to be done by the Transcendental Meditation Group.
	They've done experiments where they bring a group of meditators into an inner city that has lots of crime.
	And they continually meditate on peace and see whether or not the crime indices go down.
	And?
	And they do.
	And what's interesting about that line of research, I think there have been something like 40 or 50 experiments over the last two decades, all pretty much the same general idea.
	A certain number of meditators in a vicinity that's Filled with crime, the crime will go down if the meditators concentrate on peace.
	Wow.
	There was a big experiment done in Washington, D.C.
	in 1993, in which they ultimately brought several thousand meditators into the city, and I think they reported afterwards something like a 20% decrease in crime.
	My, my.
	Which was adjusted for temperature and local demographics and all the other things that you need to adjust.
	Isn't that interesting?
	I had never heard of this.
	That's a lot of people to be involved, to not have much publicity.
	Well, what's even more interesting is that this paper was ultimately published in a mainstream sociology journal.
	So, and in addition, the meditators, of course, knew that this is so far off the mainstream that most people would simply dismiss it out of hand as nonsense or as being inspired by some religious conviction or something.
	Not me.
	And so they, in the process of doing this test, they got an external review panel of something like 20 people who were academics, sociologists, the police, the politicians in Washington, D.C., all of whom were informed in advance that this was going to take place.
	They made sure that the scientific protocols would be acceptable to everyone, including many skeptics on the panel.
	They did the experiment, and it worked.
	It's remarkable that this is just one more example of some remarkable things that do show up in the scientific literature which are completely missed.
	And it's because it is such a strong challenge to the prevailing ideas in science about what is plausible that most people don't pay any attention to it.
	And it's a pity, but I understand and we all understand that science is basically a big club.
	And it has the same problems and challenges as any club.
	Don't they frequently put on the shelf or basically ignore things that are inexplicable?
	Absolutely.
	Sure.
	That's the knee-jerk response.
	Sure.
	The first response is, even when you have data which appears to be good, you let it aside because we don't know how to explain it.
	And I'm always amazed at this because the history of science is completely littered with examples of some unexpected observation coming up.
	It's sitting on a shelf for a long time until somebody says, Oh, you know what?
	I remember reading about that.
	And now it fits the current theory.
	So then it's dusted off and taken off the shelf.
	One of the horrible examples is, um, back in the hundreds of years ago, I don't remember exactly the date, but, uh, scurvy wasn't, it was a serious problem on British ships and no one knew why the sailors were beginning sick.
	So A clever guy came along and said, well, maybe they need citrus fruit.
	I'm not sure they knew about vitamin C at that time, but limes turned out to have enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy.
	That's why British sailors were known as limeys.
	Well, I'd be darned.
	I didn't know that.
	Yeah.
	So it turned out, well, because the sailors were told that you have to eat this lime, whether you like it or not, because it prevented scurvy.
	But it took 70 years before the British admirals I said, okay, I think it's okay now that we ought to give our sailors some limes to eat.
	The reason they prevented it from being something that must be done is because there wasn't any explanation.
	No one knew why a lime would prevent this disease.
	And so they simply ignored the fact, which was demonstrable.
	So that's one case.
	And not much has changed?
	No, nothing has changed.
	In terms of how Human beings, and especially groups of human beings, react to unexpected observations that don't appear to have any easy explanation.
	We ignore it.
	And worse, we ridicule it.
	Which is a very strong attempt to just simply make it vanish.
	Any new, very powerful force, whether it would be atomic energy or, you know, we could consider many, seems to have some beneficial aspects and some negative aspects.
	Yes.
	And one might imagine that that would apply to this as well.
	Absolutely.
	We're dealing with something like a fundamental element of the fabric of the universe.
	I have little doubt that that's something like that.
	We're not dealing with a minor quibble or a cosmic hiccup, as one of my colleagues says, but something which is really profound.
	When you're dealing with something that is deeply engaged in the fabric of the universe, you need to be careful.
	One of my colleagues is deeply interested in the notion of whether prayer Whether religious or secular, whether prayer can affect health at a distance.
	Oh, well, there are quite a few control type experiments that have taken place, I believe, with prayer that are incredibly impressive that I've heard about.
	Is that true?
	It is true.
	There are now a number of clinical studies at major medical schools going on looking at the effects of prayer on all kinds of different health systems.
	Most of them are producing positive results.
	We have no idea what the mechanism is.
	How it works.
	And one of my colleagues who is interested in this has specifically said that we have made the assumption that this is a healing phenomenon only.
	And that is probably incorrect.
	And of course it raises the entire issue about what is the dark side.
	What is the opposite polarity?
	Before we even move as far as the dark side, let me ask you this.
	Has there been any attempt to delineate between groups who would pray and then, for example, non-secular groups who would attempt to heal by projecting white light or whatever means they would choose to focus their I don't really think it matters whether it's white light or you are just projecting good feelings or healing feelings or whatever it is.
	Has anybody ever attempted to delineate between the religious groups in prayer and groups simply in meditative attempts to heal?
	There's been an act of avoidance.
	I bet.
	For all the reasons you can imagine.
	Yes, indeed.
	We don't want to have a study coming out saying that this particular religious group is getting better results than that one.
	So most of the clinical studies that are... Or even worse yet, that a totally non-religious group or even a group of atheists has results equal to those who pray through God.
	That's right.
	Yeah, but nevertheless, all of the clinical studies to date that I know of, or most of them anyway, have made a very clear attempt to bring in as many different kinds of healing modalities as they were able to find, including religious and non-religious.
	And basically, assign the different healers to target their intention,
	their healing intention at someone at a distance so that the person who is receiving the
	healing is getting it more or less continuously but from different people at different times and different
	types of healing.
	So the final result is a homogenized form of healing intention and stripping out the
	religious connotations and the other elements that we are not quite ready to study yet.
	Why does it work?
	Well, it's the issue of mechanism.
	And that's one of the reasons why the National Institutes of Health is now funding some of these studies to specifically look at both the clinical efficacy, does it work?
	And the second question, why does it work?
	So then presumably, if we follow our earlier discussion, if you can heal somebody or contribute to the healing of somebody, conversely, why couldn't you Make somebody sick.
	Well, why not indeed?
	There doesn't seem to be any clear reason at this point why you couldn't push somebody's physiology in one direction or the other.
	That's what I thought.
	Now, when I interview, you know, new wave types, and I have some of them here who firmly believe in everything we're discussing right now and carry it, in fact, well beyond that.
	They will say things like, oh, well, you can't use the force, for lack of a better name, for anything that is not good.
	You can only use it for good.
	And I have had endless arguments over that.
	Force is force.
	Effect is effect.
	And it seems to me it can be wielded in the manner wished.
	That's right.
	And that is supported in laboratory studies, clearly.
	It is?
	Yeah.
	I mean, even if something as simple as a random number generator You can assign, as some experiments are designed, with what's called a tripolar protocol, where you effectively try to, you think about a random generator, you try to make the squiggly random walk move up.
	And what that means in terms of the generators, it might be producing the equivalent of more heads than tails, or more ones than zeros, something along those lines.
	And so if it went up, the squiggly line moved up, you'd be successful, it did what you wished it to do.
	And then, you say, okay, now, Try to make the line go down.
	And it behaves accordingly.
	And now, as a control condition, pay attention to something else and we'll see if the squiggly line stays in the center.
	And it does.
	What that suggests is that even for something like an inanimate, extremely simple and abstract system, it tends to respond in the direction of intention.
	So there's every reason to believe that for living systems, which are much more sensitive than something like an electronic circuit, If you wish beneficial thoughts, that's a direction you'll go.
	And if you wish malevolent thoughts, that's a direction you'll go as well.
	Doctor, we know the military spent a good deal of money in about 20 years examining remote viewing.
	Why wouldn't there be reason to believe that if our military industrial complex is aware of your research and your program, And they deem there may be something to it.
	It seems to me that you would have already been approached or will soon be approached by somebody in government.
	Has it happened yet?
	Could you talk about it, if it had?
	Well, obviously, if I had been approached, I couldn't talk about it.
	The fact is, I have not been approached.
	And I know that there is interest in some quarters.
	Oh?
	But, uh, it's...
	You have another difficult paradox to deal with.
	If there was interest, and there ought to be because remote viewing is useful to a limited extent, but nevertheless useful for counter-terrorism and other things, you'd have to make a hard decision as to whether or not you want anybody to know about it.
	The reason why the original program was classified for so long is because the The usefulness of any intelligence gathering mechanism is heavily dependent on whether people are aware of its existence.
	Do you believe that to be as true of remote viewing as it is of other intelligence assets, really?
	Yes.
	Really?
	Yes.
	What could the, for example, the Soviets back then, what could the Soviets do to prevent Well, there are a number of ways of disguising and camouflaging targets of interest.
	military assets uh... if they knew it was being done what could they do
	uh... well that there are a number of ways of disguising and camouflaging
	targeted interest but uh... the point here is
	what is the effect of millions of people some of whom may not like the idea of some of whom will be
	deeply interested in it
	what is the effect of all that attention on the instrument itself what's called
	remote viewing isn't an intelligence instrument Yes.
	The effect is, you take a stick of butter and you put it all over your telescope.
	Because, you see, we're dealing here, even with remote viewing, we're dealing with something which is, metaphorically, like the eye looking at itself in the mirror.
	We're dealing with something which is mind and matter connected in some way, which has a recursive element.
	It's looking at itself.
	And so the more churn that you put into that, the more attention into that system, the less affected it becomes, or at least noisier the system becomes, we think.
	Alright.
	This is speculation.
	Alright, Doctor.
	You good for one more hour?
	Sure.
	Stay right there.
	Fascinating stuff.
	I'm Art Bell.
	It's like magic, huh?
	I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby
	I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby We're making love
	I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby
	I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby
	I'm gonna be a fool for you, baby And to me, this appears much like it's kind of like magic.
	I mean, it's so far ahead of anything that we understand.
	It's like magic or a miracle or whatever.
	I guess those are all words that sort of work, right?
	Yeah.
	Arthur C. Clarke said that.
	Another favorite quote I have is I have yet to see any problem however complicated, which when you looked at it in the
	right way, did not become still more complicated.
	And toward that end, in the way this appears to me and with the experiments that
	I have done and the results I've had, I actually got to the point, you know, people, well,
	we, I was shocked along with the rest of the nation that Rush Limbaugh was going deaf.
	I mean, right out of the blue, he announced he was going deaf.
	And I thought, let us conduct a grand experiment.
	I haven't done it in years.
	Let's try again.
	Richard Holguin called me and said, well, I talked to Dean Radin.
	He said there would be some sort of monitoring going on with the eggs.
	And so know that that's going on.
	So at the same time I thought, well let's see if we can drive the needle up at Princeton
	where the data is being collected or whatever.
	Let's see if we can affect.
	So we did a kind of a dual experiment with Rush Limbaugh's hearing and with actually
	trying to affect your graph.
	Now I'm just a simple talk show host doctor, but a graph was forwarded to me by Richard
	which apparently came from you, which just, you know, you look at the graph and here's
	this giant spike right at about the right time when we did that show and I went, oh
	my God.
	Then I began thinking about it, and people said, no, let's do it again, let's do it again.
	I know you wrote something that I suppose is mildly interesting.
	Good scientific response.
	Indeed, for me, after all these experiments, it was more than mildly interesting.
	It absolutely astounded me.
	And then I started thinking, you know, we could do it again.
	We could try it again and see if we achieved similar results.
	But then I started thinking, you know what?
	This is so big and so important.
	I'm not sure that it would necessarily be a good thing to prove this scientifically.
	If all of this is proven scientifically, doctor, There are a lot of avenues that will open up and a lot of people who will become involved on both sides, the good side and the negative side.
	I'm not sure we're ready for this.
	Are you?
	Well, in terms of proof, we actually, for all practical purposes, we already have proof.
	We don't need any more proof.
	And in addition, of course, that The experiment was going in the wrong direction for the Global Consciousness Project in particular.
	I'm sure.
	But for example, a few years ago, Roger Nelson and I were interested in this notion about the observation and quantum mechanics, so we surveyed all of the available literature.
	It took us a couple of months to do this, to find anyone, physicists or otherwise, who had actually tried to test the notion that observation makes a difference, and specifically that What you think makes a difference in terms of the outcome of a measurement.
	Right.
	And so we were astonished in two directions.
	The first astonishment was that there were only three reports, all informal, in the physics literature.
	You would think that there would be a lot, because of the implications.
	You would, yes.
	But there were three reports.
	In parapsychology, we found hundreds of reports.
	In fact, we just updated this analysis.
	We found 216 publications from 85 different principal investigators around the world.
	About 25 different laboratories were represented and altogether there's 515 experiments and the overall odds against chance are so infinitesimally small That they're difficult to calculate.
	It's effectively zero.
	Yes, but this is still, by the larger scientific community, ignored.
	Generally ignored.
	Certainly not pursued.
	But if the proof were sufficient, and obviously you're quoting some pretty good proof here, but if suddenly the mainstream scientific community were to embrace this, God knows where it would go.
	The reason it's not embraced is because there's no theoretical reason to expect that it's true.
	That's the only reason.
	But I think there's something that is beginning to change.
	I believe that the issue of theoretical explanation will be finessed, and it's going to be finessed fairly quickly.
	The reason is because it appears to have medical utility.
	It's this issue about, does prayer work?
	Well, the clinical studies are beginning to show that it makes a difference.
	Suddenly, there's an economic reason.
	to see that this realm is important even though we don't understand it very well yet.
	So that's where the finesse is going to happen and it is happening already because as I said there is already federal money that's being let to contracts to do clinical trials to look at both the efficacy and explanation for what is going on here.
	But once that is widely understood then that will simply be a takeoff point for so much more.
	Right.
	The hope is that at some point, when you go to your doctor and they say, well, you know, we should give you some distant prayer along with the rest of your medication, when enough physicists start to hear that, they're going to start to wonder, well, I wonder how I can theoretically explain this.
	In other words, it has to be brought as a challenge to enough theoretical physicists, probably young ones, so that they will begin to think about this issue and accept the data on its own merits.
	But that will take a while, but I'm I've been involved in this field for about 20 years, and I'm continually more optimistic based on both the public response, the publications that I see, the fact that there's now government money being used for medical research in this realm, and also because of a lot of private interest that I've heard expressed at all levels throughout the scientific community, most of which remain private because they're still uncomfortable and
	Letting others know that they're interested in this and these ideas.
	Sure.
	But nevertheless, I've spoken to people from the NSF and the NIH and the National Academy.
	And there are people in these positions of high scientific authority who are tracking this work very carefully because they have a sense, partially from their own experience and partially from the scientific data, that this is where the future is.
	This is this is the really the big stuff.
	That most scientists are always attracted to because this is the edge of what we currently understand.
	So then you're seeing a crack form, at least?
	I'm seeing multiple cracks.
	Multiple cracks?
	Yes.
	Fascinating stuff.
	Again though, let me try this.
	You know quite some bit about remote viewing.
	Is it fair, and I can only approach this from a pedestrian point of view, To assume that the realm in which remote viewers or from which they discern the information that they discern is the same exact realm that we're talking about here or that it's very very close or has a relationship to it.
	Well it certainly has a relationship to it because if it did not we'd have no way of verifying that the information was true.
	So for example I'm I'm very impressed when somebody comes into the lab and does a remote viewing test and we can give feedback as to the results because we know that the person described the target that we were asking them to describe.
	Right.
	I'm much less impressed if somebody does a remote viewing of the interior of Venus, which we have never seen.
	Which we have no way of verifying.
	Precisely, sure.
	In which case, about the best you can do is Give a calibration trial before they do their remote viewing and maybe after they do their remote viewing and see if they're hot.
	In which case there's slightly higher credibility for the interior of Mars or Venus.
	Yeah, I was going to say if they have correctly located weapons of mass destruction or really bad people or killers or they have quite a track record then when they sit down and talk about the interior of Venus you might want to listen.
	It's not simply that they have a track record.
	But that the trial just previous and just after, within a short time span, are both accurate as well.
	Because as we discussed before, the geomagnetic field makes a difference, there are other environmental factors, there are physiological factors, there are all kinds of reasons why most of the time remote viewing does not work.
	Most of the time.
	Now, many remote viewers would argue with you.
	They would make statements like, Given a full bore project with all the remote viewers involved, the accuracy can be up as high as 100%.
	There is no good laboratory evidence that that is true.
	The laboratory evidence strongly suggests that even the best in the world are really hot about 30% of the time.
	And the interesting thing is that they don't know when they're not hot.
	Obviously, if they knew when they weren't hot, they can just not do the... They can just skip at that.
	Just discard that information.
	Right.
	The information to them, subjectively, feels the same.
	It's the same kind of stuff, but sometimes they're cold.
	This is why... One of the reasons why I and my colleagues are interested in environmental modulators and other forms of modulation in performance, because we might be able to create a recipe that says, well... Explain environmental modulator.
	Geomagnetic field.
	Okay.
	It's a pseudo-randomly fluctuating day-to-day.
	Let's say we discovered that if the sun is in this configuration and you have a geomagnetic storm and it happens to be three o'clock in the morning and your physiological temperature is such-and-such, you probably should not do a remote viewing because the likelihood is it's not going to be very good.
	Is that, in fact, advice that you would give?
	Well, no, I just made that up.
	What I'm trying to illustrate is That it is possible to develop models.
	They're called regression models where you take a lot of variables and turn the statistical crank and you can predict based on different models whether or not a performance will be good or not.
	I've done a fair amount of work in this area using lots and lots of different environmental factors to see if you can predict performance based on environmental factors and the answer is you can.
	Okay.
	Let me ask this.
	You said hot 30% of the time maybe.
	Alright.
	If somebody's hot and able accurately to describe or draw a target 30% of the time, how far above chance is that?
	Oh, that's way, way above chance because when a person is hot at 30%, the really good remote viewers can give you what amounts to a veridical description.
	As though they were brought to the target or shown the target and then they did their best to sketch it while looking at it.
	And in some cases even better, because they can give information which is not visible.
	So we're talking about that level, but this is best in the world level.
	So then without question, remote viewing is real?
	It's a real, documentable phenomenon?
	There's no question of it.
	I mean, anyone who studies all of the evidence in the public domain will immediately see that it's real.
	Again, the reason why it's not on page news everywhere is mainly because the spin put on it through the entertainment media is crazy, and the ability of people to handle it in a kind of a calm way, a rational calm way, that yes, this can be real, and also it doesn't mean that the universe is coming to an end as we know it.
	You know, they're both true.
	Yes, this can be real and tomorrow you'll still be able to go to McDonald's and get a hamburger.
	They're decoupled.
	And for a lot of people who have very strong opinions about the way the world is, they simply cannot accept that something as bizarre sounding as remote viewing can be real because it threatens their belief system.
	And they have the internal sense, they actually have a physical sense, that this will destroy me.
	If I allow this to be true.
	But I mean, that's a psychological thing.
	It has nothing to do with the nature of the data and the data's question.
	In what way, since remote viewers are not told what the target is, they're only assigned some sort of number as a reference for it, the question has always been, is it possible that the remote viewer is virtually reading the mind of the person assigning the target?
	Or is the remote viewer really going to some sort of collective where all information resides one way or the other and able to pluck it from that?
	And the third possibility, which is that they get the right answer from their own future.
	So earlier you said, how is it can I do the shapeshifter program and know when to press the button at the right time?
	Again, that's the answer.
	The answer is that some part of yourself is able to test Possible futures that you will have and you say okay, this is the one that feels better to me I'll accept that one and that means that when you press the button you get them the feedback Which is the one that you want which possibility do you lean toward as a probability?
	My guess is that it has to do with information flow from the future.
	The reason I say that is because a couple of years ago a friend of mine told me a story about an intuitive hunch that he had which was so striking and That immediately gave me an idea for an experiment in presentiment to guess your future five seconds from now.
	And it's purely based on your physiological reaction.
	You're not asked to do anything consciously.
	We're simply looking at how your body responds.
	Well, this experiment was very successful in showing that people's bodies do respond to your short-term future, in this case, five-second future.
	And it's now been replicated by a number of colleagues around the world.
	So it looks like it's a real phenomenon.
	And if it works for five seconds, well, we don't know then what the true limit is.
	This is why I said that the global consciousness results for September 11th would show that the main body of statistical effect occurred a couple hours before the effects.
	Right.
	My guess is that we're dealing with something like a backwards flow of information.
	The reason why this also feels good to me is because Basic physics, both classical and quantum mechanics, classical physics and quantum mechanics, the notion of time symmetry is pervasive in physics.
	So it's kind of a mass precognition, really, perhaps not recognized consciously, but nevertheless at work.
	Yes, I find that an appealing way of thinking about it.
	And to read more about the theoretical notions here, I would suggest people go to the Boundary Institute website and look at some of the papers on link theory, which is a way, like my colleague Richard Schaupp has written a paper called, Clairvoyance, Precognition, and PK without Rewriting Physics.
	And the only element that you need in order to explain all of these psychic phenomena Is the possibility of having an effect in the future affect you now?
	I've had one incident in my life, doctor, that was compelling, incredible, never repeated, and I've always wondered why I could not call it back.
	Lived in an apartment in Santa Barbara, California.
	Came home from work, watched the news, sat down on the couch.
	I had this overwhelming feeling that somebody was going to hit my car.
	It was parked right outside my window with the curtains drawn.
	I couldn't see it, but it was right there to be seen.
	I was sitting watching the news, something said, get up, somebody's gonna hit your car, car's gonna be hit.
	I said, I cursed to myself, frankly, got up and went over, opened the curtain, looked at my car, it was fine.
	I said, I cursed again, actually.
	Then I went back and sat down and watched the news, Dan Rather, I think.
	And then it came over me.
	I can only describe this as like ocean waves, powerful ocean waves crashing over over me.
	Somebody's going to hit your car.
	Somebody's your car's in danger.
	I finally I said, oh.
	shoot and I got back up and I went over, opened the curtain, watched a guy was walking down
	the path from my apartment building.
	He strolled down the walk, got into the car in front of mine, put his car in reverse and
	backed right into my car.
	I was so shocked.
	You said, oh shoot, again.
	I said, oh shoot, at least again.
	And I was so shocked that I actually fell down to my knees.
	My legs weren't weak, but I had the common sense to get up.
	I opened the sliding door and said, Hey, I've got your license number.
	He said, I'm stopping.
	I'm stopping.
	And you know, we talked and traded insurance information, but I couldn't stop it.
	I couldn't prevent the feeling and I've never been able to get it to repeat ever again.
	Uh, it just happened.
	Was there something particularly emotionally important about your car?
	No.
	Okay, so there's a spontaneous psychic event that who knows why it occurred.
	My guess is that events like these occur, that there are windows of opportunity when things like this are more likely to be perceived.
	The window of opportunity in this case might have been the right environmental state, the right state of mind that you were in.
	I mean, people in their ordinary I was a couch potato watching the news!
	No, but see, but that's almost a perfect condition to be in.
	Is it?
	It's a reverie state.
	Well, if that's the perfect state, then I should be having all kinds of psychic experiences.
	Hold on, Doctor, we're at the bottom of the hour and I really do have to get some calls on.
	But this is surely fascinating stuff, isn't it?
	My guest is Dr. Dean Radin.
	I'm Art Bell, and you're listening to Coast to Coast AM.
	Once again, Dr. Dean Radin.
	Doctor, I want to take some calls and I have to because a lot of people want to talk to you.
	However, one quick question.
	I ask this of anybody who's been involved in remote viewing.
	All those years our government held this as a secret project.
	Then one night there was a nightline show and all of a sudden the whole country knew about it and they said the program is over.
	It's ended.
	It was a failure.
	Well, Really a failure, not according to what you've told me tonight, not according to everybody else I've talked to.
	It really wasn't a failure.
	Nevertheless, they announced it's all over.
	Now, I've been wondering, even at 30%, Doctor, that would be something I think they would have continued interest in.
	And so I've always asked everybody who's been involved in any way whether you think it's still really going on at some level, officially.
	Well, before I answer that, I think it's important to keep in mind that the program being a failure was independent of whether or not the government or the people involved believed that remote viewing was real.
	In other words, the failure mode was, is remote viewing useful as an intelligence adjunct for the CIA?
	Right.
	And in that mode, the answer might be yes.
	That in terms of its current reliability for true operational missions, perhaps it's not quite developed enough yet.
	I mean, that's the answer.
	That would be the way I would reinterpret their response.
	I don't happen to agree with that.
	I think that it actually is very useful, and there's an enormous amount of still classified data suggesting that it is.
	Somebody knows that it is, in fact, useful.
	Well, again, my question was, if that is true, then is it not reasonable to assume that at some level, officially, it still is going on?
	I'm not aware of any official program.
	If I were, I wouldn't be able to talk about it.
	But I'm not.
	I really do not know of any official program underway.
	Well, that doesn't make sense.
	Well, I can say that I would be very disappointed if there wasn't a program somewhere.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Very good.
	Let's take a few calls.
	I've got to do that.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Dean Raton.
	Hi.
	Yes, sir.
	How are you doing tonight?
	All right.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Gilbert, Arizona.
	All right.
	It's a pleasure to talk to you.
	Thank you.
	I have a question now about the collective consciousness here.
	If I'm rehashing information, I apologize.
	But evidently we're affecting the machines as far as the eggs and stuff like that, right?
	I mean, as far as your testing.
	Now, is this something that can affect people's minds, per se?
	Is that something that collectively, as a collective group, can affect something on that level?
	Well, Dr. Reardon, I think he may have it a little backwards.
	It is minds that are doing the affecting, right?
	I understand that, but my question is that if all those minds are focused on that task, can that be possible?
	Well, another way of asking the question, perhaps, is if an inanimate electronic circuit appears to be affected by mass mind, then could a living system be influenced by mass mind, including the mind?
	Otherwise known as remote influencing in some circles.
	Yes.
	So could there be?
	I think the answer is conceivably yes.
	Huh.
	Now, that's interesting because most remote viewers really don't like that question, don't like the question about remote influencing at all.
	Right.
	But there's quite a difference between yes, there may be an effect on mind or behavior versus injection of thought or injection of In other words, the nefarious underpinnings of a question like this is, are there banks of government agents beaming thoughts into our brain?
	The answer to that is no, because there's no evidence that we know of that you can actually cause people to behave differently or to think differently.
	We have evidence that physiologically people can be pushed around a little bit.
	And that may affect behavior, but in terms of directional changes, there isn't very much evidence of that.
	Well, if you can cut the crime rate in Washington, D.C.
	by 20%, Doctor, I don't know.
	Well, see, the issue there is not so much that all the criminals suddenly are thinking about peace.
	It's more likely that the agitation, which underlies a lot of criminal behavior, has been calmed.
	So, rather than somebody going out and saying, I need to punch somebody because I feel angry, They might feel a little bit calmer, and so the violence does not occur.
	All right.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Dean Radin.
	Hi.
	Good morning, Mark.
	Good morning.
	Dr. Radin, excellent discussion.
	Thank you.
	I can remember years ago on Oprah, I think Deepak Chopra was on, and they did the experiments with the seeds, and they sent out the positive energy to one group of seeds, and of course they flourished.
	The negative energy to the Other group of seeds and they kind of withered and died.
	Oh yes.
	And then they had the control group but I'm thinking that they should have had maybe a fourth group in there and I'm wondering if Dr. Radin has done any experiments in this direction and that fourth group would involve simultaneously sending the negative and the positive and I'm wondering would they neutralize each other?
	Is one more powerful than the other?
	What would be the outcome of something like that?
	Or with your random number generators, if one group of people was trying to get it to spike up, the other one down... Would they neutralize?
	Would the effects neutralize?
	Interesting question, Doctor.
	I haven't done experiments like that, and the closest I can think of of experiments of that sort have been pairs of people who were assigned to work with a random number generator.
	And generally what happens is that unless the pair is considered a coherent pair, sometimes we call it a bonded pair, where we are reasonably sure that they're in alignment, what happens is the equivalent of wave interference.
	So you end up with nothing.
	So then the answer to her question is perhaps yes.
	We cancel out.
	That seems to be what would happen, yes.
	Either that or in terms of a plant, you get a very, very confused plant.
	Are you aware of the experiment she discussed with regard to the seeds?
	Not the one specifically on Oprah, but I am aware of a number of experiments involving seeds and bacteria and fungi and those kinds of targets.
	So at any level, so what we're talking about is really at, apparently at all levels.
	Yes.
	Fascinating.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Dean Radin.
	Good morning.
	Oh, hello.
	I'm on?
	Yes, you are.
	Oh, thank you.
	Where are you?
	I'm calling from just outside Toronto, Mississauga.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'm wondering if you've heard this story before.
	I read about this a long time ago.
	Time Life Books put out a series of, like, you know, books on the supernatural.
	You have two particles that are, like, they're twin particles, similar to, like, binary stars.
	Now, they're separated.
	Um, but they're still joined through a link through, uh, like fourth dimensional space, like subspace.
	Um, now if one particle happens to be in the vicinity of, say, a plane crash, alright?
	Um, the signal of this plane crash travels, you know, along subspace to the other particle, which happens to be picked up by someone's, someone's brain, like the magnetic field of their brain, say to the temporal lobe or whatever.
	So this person is now viewing, from a distance, viewing the plane crash.
	Uh, does this theory sound familiar to you?
	Does it make sense to you?
	Yeah, this is the experiment of the EPR paradox.
	Okay.
	It has been experimentally verified a number of times.
	The problem with this theory is that it's not clear how you would get... The problem is the specificity of it.
	You know, how would you be distributed in such a way that two particles, say, one end up in your brain, the other end up in an airplane.
	Okay.
	That could happen spontaneously, in which case you might suddenly wake up with the idea of a plane crash.
	Yeah.
	But as we see in experiments, you can focus people on specific targets.
	And then you have a problem because what went out to the target?
	Do we have the capability of reaching out to a target somehow and use the equivalent of paired photons to do that?
	I don't think so.
	It seems more likely that What appears to be a reaching out to a target is an illusion in that the target is actually all contained in one thing to begin with.
	There's nothing to reach out.
	It's already there.
	I understand that the notion of telepathy and the EPR experiment is compelling because it's kind of like telepathy.
	That's an explanation for what we're seeing here.
	Can I just say one more thing before I go?
	Yes.
	Okay, on the other idea, the group Prayer Power, or whatever it's called.
	Yes.
	I see they do this a lot at church, and like you're saying, they're also doing this scientifically.
	I think that either scientifically or religiously, these are really just what you would call fingers pointing to the moon.
	And as Bruce Lee once put it, if you concentrate on the finger, you're going to miss all that heavenly glory, okay?
	I think the idea is, it's the people, alright?
	If you go back to, like, say, the New Age idea, that God is really just a collective consciousness that we all spawn from.
	Okay, you know what, I'm making sense.
	Yes, you are.
	Thank you.
	You are a caller.
	I understand what you're saying, but I don't think we have the answers for that just yet.
	It does spawn an interesting question, though.
	Um, very quickly, on the international line, uh, you are on the air, where are you calling from, please?
	South Korea, this is Al, hi, how's everybody doing tonight?
	Uh, South Korea, okay, uh, just fine, go ahead, sir.
	Yes, yes, sir, I was listening, and I kind of agree with the previous caller, but, uh, it's sort of like a more religious aspect, I think, maybe, it might be more of a quantum physics, uh, are you familiar with, uh, Schrodinger's cat?
	The, uh, about the cat being half alive, half dead, unless you observe it?
	Right, yes, yes.
	Maybe that's something going on with these group of like prayer powers or something like that, that it might be that if you think maybe the collective consciousness is actually influencing the outcome and that might be the case with the remote viewing.
	What's your thoughts on that?
	Right, well remember these experiments started by looking at a single person's observation of a quantum event and there isn't any reason to believe that that couldn't be scaled up.
	In other words, a societal observation probably has a similar effect as an individual's observation.
	So it may be that something like a collective consciousness is involved in some of these mass effects.
	I would like to ask your opinion on something, Doctor, and it circles back to something we talked briefly about earlier, and you can refuse to answer this, but if we were to take a group of very religious people, multi-denominational, I don't care, but very religious, and they were to pray to God for somebody to come well, And we were to take a group of atheists who would concentrate with all their power on getting somebody well.
	Would it be your guess the results from both groups would be the same or markedly diverse?
	I think if the group of atheists were experienced meditators, that the results would be about the same.
	In fact, you could probably craft an experiment such that The group of highly religious people had no experience with meditation or prayer.
	They were religious, but they didn't particularly pray.
	Right.
	Versus a group of highly experienced meditators, I think the action is happening from the meditators.
	That's my guess.
	I mean, obviously it's a speculation.
	It is, but I think I agree with you, which will get us both in trouble.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Dean Radin.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Hi, where are you?
	I'm in San Diego.
	And being that I know nothing about radio frequencies, but I know you do, and with your program and with the experiments that we all participated in in the past, I was wondering if the radio waves, you know, the frequency modulation and so on and so forth, has anything to do with sending out thought waves to the global consciousness I don't think so.
	I think the only relationship is that the radio waves allow millions of people to participate simultaneously in whatever it is we're doing.
	So I think that's the only relationship.
	But if by that you mean Do the thought waves travel with the radio waves?
	No, I think not.
	I think it's just that we can talk to so many people at one time.
	First time caller on the line.
	You're on the air with Dr. Dean Radin.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	How are you doing this evening?
	All right, sir.
	Where are you?
	I am traveling down Interstate 10, heading back to New Orleans from a day trip at Corpus Christi.
	Very good.
	Proceed.
	I just wanted to let you and your guests know about a medical conference that I attended a few weeks ago.
	having to do with prayer and medicine.
	The speaker of the conference was Dr. Robert Jaffe, who was instrumental in establishing the Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine at NIH.
	One of the reports that he gave had to do with some patients at University of California, San Francisco, cardiac surgery patients.
	The surgeon invited the patients to participate in the study whether or not and asking them if they would mind having someone pray for them.
	The patients were randomly selected or assigned into four different groups.
	The two major groups, yes they got prayer, no they didn't get prayer, and then within each of those two groups they were divided again and Those patients who said, yes, let me have prayer.
	I want to participate.
	And then the patients who said no to prayer, but they were going to get prayed for anyway.
	And what they found after the keys were broken to the study and the results of the surgeries was a graded response.
	Those people who had said yes and were prayed for had the I'm aware of that study.
	come in the surgeries and stepwise down to those who said no but then did not have prayer
	involved had acceptable results in the surgeries.
	Dr. Yeah, I'm aware of that study.
	It has also been discussed widely among our colleagues about whether it's ethical to put
	somebody in a group where they say no I don't want to be prayed for and you pray for them
	anyway.
	I think it would be difficult now to get that past a review board to allow that to take
	In the past, it has taken place because the review boards always consider, is there harm that could be done?
	And since most review boards don't believe the prayer will have any effect, then they say, well, what difference does it make?
	The prayer is not going to do anything, so it can't produce any harm.
	Well, now we're getting to the point where the clinical trials are beginning to show that maybe it can do harm or heal.
	In which case, it becomes unethical to do something to someone who doesn't want it.
	Oh, my.
	Doctor, we're coming to the end of the program, unfortunately.
	You have written a book called The Conscious Universe, The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena.
	That's a pretty strong title.
	Well, I didn't choose the title.
	No, but you wrote the book.
	I wrote the book, yes.
	I think the feedback I've gotten since this book has been published has been overwhelmingly positive.
	I've been primarily interested in scientific feedback from scientists and even there.
	There are a lot of people writing saying, I had no idea that there is as much evidence and that it is as positive as I've been able to show.
	So the book is continuing to do well and I'm currently working on It will either be the second edition or a brand new book.
	Your present book, is it available, I don't know, in bookstores or on Amazon.com?
	You can get it within a day or two from Amazon or any bookstore can order it.
	Okay, a lot of people are going to want to read what you have written.
	The Conscious Universe, the Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena.
	And you can get it at Amazon.com at a steep discount, no doubt.
	I don't know how they stay in business doing what they do, but... Well, so you better buy it now.
	So you better buy it now.
	I really, really, really want to thank you for being here tonight, and I hope that you will come back and do this with us again.
	I have great mixed feelings about what we've talked about tonight, and I suppose that's a healthy, I hope that's a healthy thing.
	Doctor, thank you.
	You're welcome.
	Good night.
	Good night.
	That was Dr. Dean Radin.
	Pizza.
	And I've wanted him on the air for a long, long time.
	So there he was, and he had a lot to say, and I wonder what you thought about all of that.
	We'll have open lines toward the end of the week, and of course open first hours, and so you can indeed comment.
	But if you didn't get thinking tonight about everything you heard, then you've got to be in a coma.
	For now, I'm Art Bell.
	From the high desert, ta-ta.

▲