Dr. Dean Radin, senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, explores the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), where RNGs ("EGGs") detected synchronized deviations during 9/11 and U.S. embassy bombings in 1998, suggesting mass human intention may influence randomness. He dismisses claims of thought injection but warns of unintended consequences, like weather manipulation or prayer’s ethical risks—e.g., a UCSF cardiac study showing outcomes varied by consent. Radin’s work challenges mainstream skepticism, proposing consciousness as an informational "catalyst" that could reshape reality when cohered, though mechanisms remain unclear. [Automatically generated summary]
From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I did a while.
Good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be across the 24 time zone of the globe.
I'm Mark Bell, and this is Coast Coast AM.
Great to be here.
It's going to be a great night tonight.
In the next hour, Dean Raymond, Dr. Dean Raiden, 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 to 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 kind of breaking news, actually.
Gene DeVito writes the following to me.
I get it about 30 minutes ahead of airtime as usual.
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 hyper-disk media of Irvine and the computer 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, sent Keith in the last few moments, and Keith, as always, getting them up at the very last moment, because that's when I sent them.
A couple of the photographs that Gene has sent to us.
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 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.
In fact, 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's what drew my attention.
And I'm looking up, and we're near Camp Pendleton, and 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.
So it's not unusual to see planes all over the place.
But 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.
What I'll do is I'll scan them at 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 Seegers, 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.
He did, and then he sent them back to me, and I looked at it.
I go, yeah, that's what I saw.
I saw this better than what I did when I just took the pictures.
Then it would fade out and then would seem to go away.
And pretty soon I saw it reappear again, which I assume was the same one, about five or ten 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, and looking at a southwesterly direction.
And if you look behind, away at the end, below, you could see La Jolla, which juts out.
But this was above the landmass.
Right.
And I'd say it was about 25, 30 minutes there.
And then after I took the pictures, I took a lot of 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.
unidentified
You probably posted the one with the colored lights and the V?
About two weeks ago, we were in Rado, and we were at the foot of the Sierras, and something similar came overhead.
And we both watched this 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, and 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 she 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.
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.
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, and you tell me.
All right, back to it we go.
Very, very interesting photographs from Gene DeVito and possibly some high-res 35-millimeter 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 911 attack, of course.
And our government 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.
Only 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 very actively now a guest on cloning, not so much the scientific aspect of it, because we know how 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.
Wiley 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 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 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 was gone too quickly.
We saw a UFO in a con, or adjacent to a contrail that then finally flashed south.
It was a disc, a glowing disc, 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 35 millimeter camera and take some high-res photos that we might have, might have tomorrow night.
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.
Well, we're actually, this is absolutely true, it might be hard to swallow, but we're actually making a short film about an evil medical company that takes over Worcester Mass.
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. She's pointing over there in the eastern sky, and there is a bright orange light hovering across the sky.
The interesting thing here, Art, is I posted, I had the presence of mind to go running to a news group, Ald UFO, 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, 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.
Because he's a proponent and a very much believer of Zacharias Fitchin'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?
unidentified
Yeah, of course, he believes it.
He believes everything that Zacharias Fitchin 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.
Whenever you get on the air, turn it off or you'll be confused.
I didn't believe I'd get on so quick, R. That's how it works.
unidentified
I just pick it up.
I, for one, I think Usama, I know this idea has been passed around a lot, but I seriously think if he was given irreversible fixed change, it would really be the worst that could happen to him.
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 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 brand experiments.
In the next hour, we'll talk about them with Dean Raden.
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 that began before the terrorist attack on September 11th.
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 Raden 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.
Has spent a year now on what's known as the CIA's Stargate Program.
Oh, 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 Raden.
Certainly a very impressive list of credentials.
Here is Dean Raden, somebody I've wanted on the air for a long time.
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, but 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.
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.
So starting with this puzzle, this idea that mind and matter might be connected, many years ago, psych 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.
When I start, when you use words like mind and matter interacting, it immediately conjures up images of levitation and macroscopic psychokinetic powers and that sort of thing.
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 so most of the time we were 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?
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 thousandths 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.
So 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.
And at some point, you get down to such sensitive levels that the noise is basically the only thing that's left.
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.
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 or more ordered.
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.
And the reason why information is interesting is because there is 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.
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 nether world 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.
All right, Dr. Harry, 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?
It does not scale up in any linear form, for sure.
It might scale up in a nonlinear 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.
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.
And in which case, under that condition of coherence in lots of minds, there is a smidgen of evidence that that would have a larger effect than one person.
When we get back, we will speak about the 911 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. Raden'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 grants that were issued prior to, during, and just following the 911 events.
Dr. Dean Rayton 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 11th, 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 Radon.
Dr. Raden, let's be sure the audience understands the terms that we're flinging about here.
But we also have sites in the South Pacific Islands and 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, he wants to put those on hold.
He'd much rather begin to cover the rest of the world.
So for most of your listeners, I guess it would be in North America.
They're probably not so interested at this point in becoming in adding additional sites within North America.
As a little further down, below the words of your colleague, there is the actual, 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 down off the noise level, came up off the noise level and just kept on trucking.
It began, I am led to understand, sometime before the event.
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 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 really don't know why most of the effects here actually occurred about 6 o'clock in the morning on Eastern Daylight Time.
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 would 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 now, 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.
Before the data was looked at, Roger declared that we'd look at 10 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 cumulating the data from 10 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In this particular case, that precursor might correspond to something like a go, 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.
It's the astronomer looking up at the sky and finding some amazing thing, and then it 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.
And we recognize the paradox here that it was designed from the very beginning by Roger to be an open experiment that 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.
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?
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 of 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 measurements in the various eggs.
Well, remember that the egg is designed to be a pure noise generation device.
So it is a random walk.
And in fact, if you look in any detail, I've just recently finished an analysis looking at the entire year 2001 so far to see whether the eggs are behaving in the way that you would expect them to.
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 mentioned this metaphor of buoys in an ocean, is because if it is true that you imagine, for example, there was a gigantic event, which is like an underground or underwater earthquake, and one of the effects that occurs is that the sea floor drops and it creates a tsunami wave, a single wave which could be thousands of feet high, and it zips 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 kerchunk at one time.
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.
Pear 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.
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, a percentage, a 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 a program here, consistently score in the high 80s and low 90s, occasionally the 70s, but 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.
And Dr. Raden, 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.
Well, 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.
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 psy tests 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.
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.
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.
So 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, 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, the particles themselves, are pushing against the geomagnetic field and turning it into a teardrop.
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 side 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 sense.
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.
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.
So what we have now is a continuous, an 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.
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 this year ends.
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 Philetic 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.
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.
I very briefly, several weeks ago, discussed this with you on the phone.
But after my experience with the PEIR 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 all 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, where there 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, all right, 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 what I'm doing 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 5 and kill thousands.
And since I don't know what I'm doing, I'm going to stop.
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 affect, to push on one area and not have an effect somewhere else.
And that's why it's wise to do two things.
One is, if you think you've got something interesting going on, to be quiet about it until you understand it better.
And 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.
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 cohered.
It's not pulled together in something like a bright star.
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 cohered.
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.
So this is another way, 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 it's 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?
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.
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.
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 is actually in charge of that and does all of that himself.
You'll be able to track what's new with that project.
But 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.
And Roger and I are both writing papers that will be published in journals that describe it in even more detail.
But we simply can't handle the overwhelming response that your show brings.
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 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, that a certain number of meditators in a vicinity that's filled with crime, the crime will go down if the meditators concentrate on peace.
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, which was adjusted for temperature and local demographics and all the other things that you need to adjust.
Well, what's even more interesting is that this paper was ultimately published in a mainstream sociology journal.
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.
And so 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 that did the experiment, and it worked.
And 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 that we all understand that science is basically a big club, and it has the same problems and challenges as any club.
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, 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 back in the hundreds of years ago, I don't remember exactly the date, but scurvy 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.
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 we could consider many, seems to have some beneficial aspects and some negative aspects.
And one might imagine that that would apply to this as well.
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.
And when you're dealing with something that is deeply engaged in the fabric of the universe, you need to be careful.
So 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.
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.
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 concentration?
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?
So most of the clinical studies that are even worse yet, that a totally non-religious group or even a group of atheists has results equal to those who pray through God.
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's receiving the healing is getting it more or less continuously, but from different people at different times and different types of healing.
And so the final result is a homogenized form of healing intention and stripping out the religious connotations and the other elements that we're not quite ready to study yet.
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?
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?
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.
I mean, even 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 line 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.
And so 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 the direction you'll go.
And if you wish malevolent thoughts, that's the direction you'll go as well.
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, but 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 counterterrorism 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 ability or the usefulness of any intelligence gathering mechanism is heavily dependent on whether people are aware of its existence.
What could the, for example, the Soviets back then, what could the Soviets do to prevent remote viewing from being successful with regard to their military assets if they knew it was being done?
Oh, well, there are a number of ways of disguising and camouflaging targets of interest.
But the point here is, what is the effect of millions of people, some of whom may not like the idea, some of whom will be deeply interested in it, what is the effect of all of that attention on the instrument itself?
What's called remote viewing as an intelligence instrument?
The effect is you take a stick of butter and you put it all over your telescope.
Because, 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 to looking at itself.
And so the more churn that you put into that, the more attention into that system, the less effective it becomes, or at least the noisier the system becomes, we think.
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, 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 Hogwind called me and said, well, I talked to Dean Raden.
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 could 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 this 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.
But for example, a few years ago, Roger Nelson and I were interested in this notion about the observation and quantum mechanics.
And 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.
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 lots because of the implications, 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.
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.
Well, the clinical studies are beginning to show that it makes a difference.
And 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 is being let to contracts to do clinical trials to look at both the efficacy and explanation for what is going on here.
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'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 in letting others know that they're interested in these ideas.
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 really the big stuff that most scientists are always attracted to because this is the edge of what we currently understand.
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 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.
I'm much less impressed if somebody does a remote viewing of the interior of Venus, which we have never seen.
In which case, about the best you can do is give a calibration trial before they do the remote viewing and maybe after they do the 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.
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...
Let's say we discovered that if the sun is in this configuration and you have a geomagnetic storm and it happens to be 3 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.
What I'm trying to illustrate is that it is possible to develop models, 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 could predict performance based on environmental factors and the answer is you can.
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 vertical 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.
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 front-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, that 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 is quite true.
The answer is that some part of yourself is able to test possible futures that you will have, and you say, oh, okay, this is the one that feels better to me.
I'll accept that one.
And that means that's when you press the button, you get then the feedback, which is the one that you want.
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 that it 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 don't not ask 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, which show that the main body of statistical effect occurred a couple hours before the effects.
My guess is that we're dealing with something like a backwards flow of information.
And the reason why this also feels good to me is because in basic physics, both classical and quantum mechanics, or classical physics and quantum mechanics, the notion of time symmetry is pervasive in physics.
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 Schaup 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.
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?
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?
Right, but there's quite a difference between, yes, there may be an effect on mind or behavior versus injection of thoughts or injection of behavior.
So in other words, the nefarious underpinnings of a question like this is, are there banks of government agents beaming thoughts into our brain?
And 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.
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.
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.
I'm calling from just outside Toronto, Mississauga.
Okay.
Okay.
I'm wondering if you've heard this through before.
I read about this a long time ago.
Time-Life Books put out a series of books on the supernatural.
You have two particles that are twin particles, similar to binary stars.
Now they're separated, but they're still joined through a link through fourth-dimensional space, like subspace.
Now, if one particle happens to be in the vicinity of, say, a plane crash, the signal of this plane crash travels along subspace to the other particle, which happens to be picked up by 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.
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.
How would you be distributed in such a way to have two particles, say, one end up in your brain, the other end up in an airplane?
That could happen spontaneously, in which case you might suddenly wake up with the idea of a plane crash.
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 and that the target is actually all contained in one thing to begin with.
So there is nothing to reach out.
It's already there.
And so, yes, I understand that the notion of telepathy and the EPR experiment is compelling because it's kind of like telepathy.
But I don't think that's an explanation for what we're seeing here.
Maybe that's something going on with these group 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.
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?
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 and in return getting a certain reality?
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.
Those patients who said, yes, let me have prayer.
I want to participate.
And then the patients who said no to prayer that 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 best outcome in the surgeries and stepwise down to those who said no but then did not have prayer involved had acceptable results in the surgeries.
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 the review board to allow that to take place.
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.
I think the feedback I've gotten since this book has been published has been overwhelmingly positive.
And 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 what will either be the second edition or a brand new book.