0:08

Oh well, When. Them to own a rustic carry

0:10

the shower. We don't just report on fringe

0:12

science, spirituality, claims, the paranormal. No way we

0:15

take part ourselves. Yup, when they make the

0:17

claims we show up so you do not have

0:19

to. I am Ross Potter and I am carry

0:21

a puppy and we are remote viewing. Yes,

0:23

well some people are.

0:25

Well some people claim they are. To.

0:28

Say. we

0:31

can make as the more and more remote to

0:33

the more we just got out more. Have

0:35

your email claims they were

0:37

last year current fact in

0:39

the desert. This. Topic has been

0:42

on our interests list for a

0:44

long time and will be talking

0:46

about a panel we attended, but

0:48

this does not preclude us taking

0:50

remote viewing courses so that somewhere

0:52

in the future remote or maybe

0:54

not so remote. Her

0:56

and I So remote viewing?

0:59

What Is it? Well you

1:01

might say if you are the

1:03

website for contact in the desert

1:05

access through the way back machine

1:07

Am Remote viewing is a technique

1:09

that allows individuals to access information

1:12

about a remote or hidden target

1:14

through non local means. Non logo

1:16

means means you're not there. You're

1:18

not using your five senses that

1:20

were very sure of you're using

1:22

some additional ability to non locally

1:24

access. This information and the idea

1:27

carry may seem out of this

1:29

world, but it. Is just as grounded

1:31

as any other skill. That's

1:34

a really weak definition. Usually they

1:36

are least say that it's a

1:39

visual that one didn't even harkin

1:41

to visible details. It sounded like

1:43

I could say I'm remote viewing

1:45

when I'm thinking about the Botanical

1:48

Gardens down. The Street. Yeah, maybe

1:50

they're just trying to be inclusive of

1:52

of a lot of different techniques and

1:54

modifications to remote viewing over time, But

1:57

your reminding me by mentioning the the

1:59

visual spectrum. specifically that in this

2:01

documentary we'll talk about, there was one

2:03

remote viewer who said he

2:05

needed to put on his glasses

2:07

because he sees better as a

2:09

remote viewer if he's wearing his

2:12

glasses locally. Relatable. Yeah. As

2:15

someone who just went to the

2:17

optometrist, I too find that I need

2:19

to wear my glasses in order to

2:21

see. I just love that idea that somehow

2:23

it helps. Because

2:26

that really means that somehow

2:28

the image would have to be reconstituted

2:30

outside of the glasses and pass through

2:33

them to his eyes for the glasses

2:35

to be of help. Any

2:38

theoretical view I had of how remote

2:40

viewing might be working does not include

2:42

that as an option. Well, the Contact

2:44

in the Desert website goes on to

2:47

say, the approach has been used for

2:49

a range of purposes, including military

2:51

intelligence and scientific research.

2:53

Well, I know a little about the military intelligence

2:56

because our friend John Ronson wrote a book about

2:58

that. He sure did. The Men Who Stare at

3:00

Goats. Yeah, which is also related

3:02

to this. This is also a

3:04

related phenomenon to astral travel, which

3:07

we've talked about. The idea being

3:09

that you can remove yourself, whatever

3:11

dualist part of yourself that is

3:13

separate from your physical body, and

3:15

you can have it go other

3:17

places and receive veridical information about

3:19

the world and then bring it

3:21

back. And then report back such

3:24

that scientists can even write

3:26

down your observations and go

3:28

and confirm that, yes, Carrie

3:30

sent her mind to

3:32

Descanso Gardens down the street and figured

3:35

out what we had laid on the

3:37

floor in this one particular spot. And

3:39

she could say the color, she could

3:41

say the shape, she could say how

3:44

many wheels it had. Amazing if

3:47

true and testable if true.

3:50

My favorite combination. We

3:52

could actually see if this works. Yep.

3:55

And the fact that the military

3:57

was investigating it is always interesting.

4:00

means okay there was at least smoke

4:02

there. Now I'd like to bring this

4:04

to a screeching halt to point out

4:06

how much I hate the saying where

4:08

there's smoke there's fire. Okay

4:11

because not always true. Yeah

4:13

exactly. Where there's

4:15

smoke there is often not

4:17

fire. Have these people seen fire alarms?

4:19

Have you lived in a house? They

4:22

go off all the time. Well

4:25

in that case sometimes there isn't even smokes

4:27

and now I'm just complaining about whether smoke

4:29

alarms work. I suppose you could

4:31

say where there's smoke it's reasonable

4:33

to be concerned about fire. Thank

4:35

you. That's what we should all garble out of

4:38

our mouths. Not as bumper

4:40

stickerable but okay. More accurate.

4:43

I mean fair. Why am I talking

4:45

about this? You know a phrase that

4:47

my wife used on me recently it's

4:49

one of my bad jokes is when

4:51

we're looking for the remote I'll say

4:54

well it's in a remote location. And

4:56

then Kara used that on me the

4:58

other day and I realized just how unhelpful it is

5:00

but I still enjoyed it. I still

5:02

enjoyed the moment. It's a funny interruption. Alright

5:07

well this was at Contact in

5:09

the Desert. It's a conference specifically

5:11

about UFOs whereas something like Conscious

5:14

Life Expo I think covers more

5:16

topics. This is a little more

5:18

narrowly focused on aliens but this

5:20

also includes like a bit of

5:23

mind over matter stuff, extra sensory

5:25

perception, and thus we

5:27

had enough people there to participate

5:29

as panelists on a remote viewing

5:31

panel. Yes this is a very

5:34

latter day UFO conference. The earlier

5:36

UFO conferences

5:38

10-20 years ago you probably had

5:40

a bunch of tech, you had a bunch of

5:42

hard science, or at least a bunch of people

5:44

claiming to do hard science, trying to do hard

5:46

science. Once you have your

5:49

subject matter in place and your

5:51

fan base for it you have

5:53

to get more and more loosey-goosey about

5:55

your definitions and You get way further away

5:57

from them and you invite in all of this

5:59

like. The physical stuff. So we are

6:01

in the U F O conference days where

6:04

where like sure yeah they aliens the travel

6:06

through portals and they got here from for

6:08

us to go one hundred percent of

6:10

this person over here she believes she can

6:12

talk directly to aliens. okay we believe that.

6:15

Now to. I'm very excited about

6:17

this portal that leads to Portugal Physicists

6:19

and for Google and will never reminds

6:21

me that like later and this panel

6:23

you have one of the panel was

6:25

gonna go off on how and this

6:27

is very similar to how it works

6:29

in communication with aliens and also angels.

6:31

nothing know she's gonna set aside from

6:33

the rest of this panel. others you

6:35

know the x c I a guy

6:37

or whatever is probably really uncomfortable. Maybe

6:39

maybe or maybe he's ten years enemies

6:42

by sir you never know until yeah

6:44

scum. So this was in the big.

6:46

Room: The big panel room called

6:48

the Crystal Amphitheater. Hundreds of people

6:50

there and of course our man,

6:52

Allen Steinfeld was overseeing the proceeds.

6:54

Allen that of what he does.

6:56

He. Sets it serious person. I

6:58

really kind of respect can okay

7:01

whatever he's doing, his answers and

7:03

his panel moderate sense. He's like

7:05

he's really trying something out from.

7:08

These people get that's a good point.

7:10

He does come at it with curiosity

7:12

and he's a hype man trying to

7:14

build everybody up and put them in

7:16

their best light. so he's very good

7:18

for that purpose. Really earnest his bio

7:20

says and explore of consciousness. Allen has

7:23

been the host and producer of the

7:25

New Realities television series for the past

7:27

three decades. He has a youtube channel

7:29

and as author of the recent you

7:31

have a compilation called Making Contact which

7:33

calls on the need to wake up

7:36

to the new realities of extraterrestrial existence.

7:38

And that's how we introduced the event

7:40

by mentioning his making contact book and

7:42

saying that this is all connected to

7:45

transforming the nature of consciousness. And we're

7:47

in this really special time where

7:49

everything's about to change about consciousness. And

7:51

I dunno isn't it Our advocacy? correct

7:54

me by Montero feels like every single

7:56

year things are just about to change.

7:58

Yeah yeah. Okay. The

8:01

age of Aquarius. Yeah,

8:04

there's a bunch of different versions of this, but

8:06

that's always the one I go back to

8:08

is that the age of Aquarius is just

8:10

about to get here. And right away he

8:12

mentions one of the main figures in this

8:14

world of remote viewing, which is Russell Targ

8:17

saying that he learned the practical aspect of

8:19

remote viewing from Russell Targ. And Russell Targ

8:21

is actually listed as a speaker. Yes. I

8:23

guess they had a virtual conversation with him

8:25

like he was zooming in from somewhere, but

8:27

he'll come up. Yeah. And Tracy Dolan,

8:30

who's also on this panel and I'll talk about

8:32

her later in her talk, she

8:34

mentions admiring Russell Targ as well.

8:36

Yeah. Because everybody, you got to go

8:38

to his talk. You know, he is always

8:40

a luminary who's actually here. Yeah. I

8:43

think this is kind of like a

8:45

second generation panel and they'll keep talking

8:47

about the first generation of remote viewers.

8:50

Okay. So you have this first generation

8:52

of remote viewers. I guess it

8:55

really came about in the seventies. Before

8:57

that, maybe you would have things analogous

8:59

to sensing stuff from far away that

9:01

you could possibly categorize as that. Yeah.

9:03

But the term and sort of what

9:05

we know of as remote viewing is

9:07

not that old. Right. And again,

9:10

I think of it as being

9:12

specifically visual. The definition you gave

9:14

from the pamphlet almost sounded more

9:17

like ESP or something broader.

9:19

Yeah. Just accessing information. But yeah, usually the

9:21

idea is you go somewhere, you see something

9:23

visual, you report back on that. And like

9:25

you said, it's a target. You're being asked

9:27

to go to where someone is or where

9:29

something has been left for you. And that's

9:31

always to me, just the most bizarre thing

9:34

like homing in on the place that's being

9:36

broadcast, like you need to go here. And

9:38

they never seem to complain about that. Like,

9:40

Oh wait, where am I supposed to go?

9:42

It could be anywhere.

9:44

It just seems like immediately they're able to be like,

9:46

Oh yes. Okay. All right. I'm laser focusing in

9:48

on what it is that you're giving me

9:50

as a target. I feel like that would

9:53

be the hardest part. And we'll talk about

9:55

this a little later, but one of the

9:57

innovations by Ingo Swan, this other guy who's

9:59

this first generation. remote viewer was being

10:01

able to work from coordinates. You give me

10:03

the exact latitude and longitude and that's where

10:05

I'll go in my mind. Okay, yeah, that

10:07

makes more sense to me. Somehow my astral

10:10

body knows the coordinates and can go straight

10:12

there. But at least it gives the

10:14

mind something to work with. To latch

10:16

onto something real physical, tangible.

10:18

Some buy-in, yeah. And again,

10:20

yeah, amazing if true. Agree,

10:22

and you know, Ross human beings are

10:25

a lot more than we've been told

10:27

via education, media, religion, and politics. One

10:30

thing that Alan's going to come back to

10:32

over and over in this panel is he

10:34

really thinks we all can do this. He

10:37

seems to think there should be very

10:39

straightforward instructions about how to do it.

10:41

Yeah. And he keeps pulling

10:43

it back to this one question which

10:45

is basically just how do you do

10:47

it? How do you remote view?

10:50

Right. He kinda asks

10:52

that for almost two hours. Like

10:55

versions of that. But how do

10:57

you actually do it? But Tracy,

11:00

but what are the steps? And then that

11:02

person will just sort of give their own

11:04

kind of little talk. It'll always go right

11:06

to philosophical. Yeah, and he'll be like, well

11:08

give me the practical. Which is funny because

11:10

he teaches remote viewing classes. Does he? For

11:13

light net. Well we should take his. I'm

11:15

all for it. There's multiple people I would

11:17

like to learn remote viewing from, but he's

11:19

one. So yeah, we could learn to remote

11:21

view with Alan though. I don't know after

11:23

this panel will I feel that that's the

11:26

best place to learn it? He

11:28

seems to not know the basic steps. Or he

11:30

wants to be able to talk about it, but

11:33

yeah, they're really not biting. You're right. He asked

11:35

that many times. Maybe he has them in his

11:37

back pocket. Maybe he's quizzing them if so good

11:39

on him. So he got a

11:41

panel of people who either claim

11:44

a lot of experience and success

11:46

with remote viewing and even other

11:48

instructors who teach remote viewing. Just

11:50

remember that. They teach this. You

11:54

can pay them money and they will teach

11:56

you how to do it. So there's JJ,

11:58

her talk. Yeah, JJ and his wife. Desiree.

12:00

They're folks that I've been following for a

12:02

while and I don't think we've talked about

12:04

them much on the podcast. He thinks there

12:07

are pyramids on Mars and he called NASA and said,

12:09

are there pyramids on Mars? And NASA said yes and

12:11

then he hung up. Well he

12:13

claimed that I called this in advance and

12:15

then NASA confirmed it. Okay.

12:17

Here's from their shared bio and

12:20

they've both got PhDs after their

12:22

name. Okay. Doctors JJ and Desiree

12:25

Hertach are social scientists, futurists,

12:27

and founders of the Academy for

12:29

Future Science. They were scientific consultants

12:31

for Sydney Sheldon's The Doomsday Conspiracy.

12:33

Okay. I don't know if I'd

12:35

brag about that. They have been

12:38

researchers in the field of UFO

12:40

study for over 40 years and

12:42

have written numerous books including Mind

12:44

Dynamics with Elizabeth Rauscher PhD and

12:46

The Overself Awakening. Dr. JJ Hertach

12:48

is the author of over 20

12:50

books in 12 languages including his

12:53

most famous The Keys of Enoch.

12:55

Okay. And they are recognized for

12:57

their provocative information that leads to

12:59

the development of a new cosmology.

13:01

Did you say this that their book is

13:03

called Mind Dynamics? Yes. Okay.

13:05

They wrote that with Elizabeth Rauscher.

13:07

It's such an Elrond Hubbard title.

13:10

It is. Absolutely. Mind Dynamics. Well

13:12

and a friend of ours, Mark

13:14

Edward, goes way back

13:16

with JJ. Oh you told me

13:18

this. That's right. Knew him at CalArts

13:20

when he was young and kind of

13:22

saw him sort of fall into this

13:25

spiritualist world and UFO contactee world and

13:27

is just sort of watched from afar

13:29

with interest as it's become more and

13:31

more cult-like over time. Okay. So Mark

13:33

is a magician. What was he studying at

13:35

CalArts and what was JJ Hartach studying?

13:37

I don't recall. I don't want to get

13:39

it wrong but you know I think it

13:42

was something more like art. Okay. Performance perhaps.

13:44

That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Mark has some good

13:46

stories like apparently JJ always wears this beret

13:48

hat of his because there's a hole in

13:50

his head that he's covering. What?

13:53

That's what Mark said. I have not asked him

13:55

to take off his hat. Okay.

13:59

But they seem like very interesting. interesting figures. Okay.

14:02

Yeah, Mark has a story about like going to

14:04

visit a site with them where they claim to

14:06

have encountered a UFO, something like that. I don't

14:08

know. I don't want to get all the stories

14:10

wrong. Okay. All right. Okay.

14:13

So then also on this panel was Tracy Garbitt. And

14:16

then her last name is Dolan because

14:18

she's married to another frequent panelist and

14:20

UFO historian, Richard Dolan. And according

14:22

to Alan, she has been quite a force

14:25

in the remote viewing world. She

14:27

studied for a long time going back

14:29

to the Monroe Institute. And the Monroe

14:31

Institute comes up a fair amount in these circles.

14:33

They love to do this kind of

14:35

remote viewing, out of body

14:38

experience, near-death experience, research

14:40

around these kinds of topics. I feel like

14:42

there's so much resume padding in these little

14:44

bios. Oh, sure. Because the her talks were

14:46

accentuating things like, the books have been released

14:49

in 12 languages. Okay. Well, you got them

14:51

translated. Good for you. But

14:53

then you've got for Tracy Garbitt Dolan

14:56

in her bio, it's telling us that

14:58

she graduated magna cum laude. Would

15:00

you need to include that in your profile? You

15:02

mean it just seems braggy? It just seems like

15:05

you're filling space. Why would you

15:07

even mention that? I don't know anything

15:09

about the Latin. Yeah. Well,

15:11

it seems that you did well in

15:13

your classes. You get

15:16

like a little extra bonus. She has

15:18

also explored theories of right-left brain dominance

15:20

as they relate to experiences and

15:23

other individuals who have had UFO sightings.

15:25

Good. We'll get into that more when we get into

15:27

her talk. But yeah,

15:30

this notion that the right brain handles

15:32

all of the art and all of

15:34

the philosophical thought and the deep knowing

15:36

and then the left brain.

15:38

Oh, yeah. It's

15:41

the one that's in charge and society

15:43

that like science and math

15:46

and reason. Carrie's face

15:48

is all scrunched up.

15:51

And then Anthony Peake, I feel like

15:53

he spoke the least out of the

15:55

panelists, but he gave a lecture the

15:57

previous day on the imaginal realm. I

16:00

love this term. Yeah.

16:03

This is fun. It's a good term. You

16:05

can't say imaginary. That gives away too much.

16:08

But can we emphasize the role of the

16:10

imagination? You can't say visual.

16:13

To left brain. To

16:18

rational. To material.

16:20

So Seth, what

16:22

about imaginal? Make

16:24

no commitment in either direction.

16:27

Form a new word. And

16:29

if someone challenges you on it, well, they're

16:32

not open-minded enough. Yeah, fair. Anyway, the imaginal

16:34

realm is the capacity of the mind to

16:36

see something that's not here, but

16:38

is here in another realm. It

16:42

takes a certain type of person to make sense

16:44

of that phrase. But okay. And

16:46

then Paul Smith. Paul Smith, I would

16:48

say, is probably the most, I don't know,

16:50

qualified on the panel, or

16:52

just kind of like the star

16:55

guest if you're talking about remote

16:57

viewing because... Star guest because he's

16:59

from Stargate. Oh, well done. Well

17:01

done. So Paul... This is

17:03

me clapping for me. Yeah,

17:05

sure. Well deserved. I didn't

17:08

want anyone to think it was

17:10

you. It's for humiliating for you.

17:15

I appreciate the transparency. So

17:18

Paul H. Smith, also PhD,

17:20

is a retired major

17:23

in the US Army. He was

17:25

an intelligence officer. What's that? I said that's

17:27

major. I tried to stop myself from saying it too. Go

17:30

on. That's all right.

17:32

Give in to the urges. He's

17:34

a retired Army intelligence officer,

17:36

a seven-year alumnus of the

17:38

Department of Defense's Stargate Remote

17:40

Viewing Psychic Spy Program. Yes.

17:42

He is president and chief

17:45

instructor for Remote Viewing Instructional

17:47

Services, Inc. Another

17:49

great place for us to learn remote

17:51

viewing. Okay, yeah. I'm the founding director

17:53

and two-time past president of the nonprofit

17:56

International Remote Viewing Association. Okay, yes. I

17:58

have run out of time. into the

18:00

sky before then. He has authored

18:02

Reading the Enemy's Mind, The

18:05

Essential Guide to Remote Viewing,

18:07

and co-produced the Learn Dowsing

18:09

and Remote Perception Home Study

18:11

Courses. He has been interviewed

18:13

frequently by media outlets to

18:16

include Coast to Coast, CBS

18:18

News, A&E Network, History Channel,

18:20

and many more. Okay? Okay.

18:24

We've got the guy here who is part of

18:26

the Stargate program. Yes. So,

18:28

Stargate. What can

18:30

you say about it? Yeah, this was a program

18:33

meant to investigate the claims that people

18:35

could do this, and it was sort

18:38

of inspired by the Soviets at the

18:40

time in the late 60s, early to

18:42

mid-70s, were investing lots of money and

18:44

effort on, I think everyone just referred

18:46

to it as psychic spying. And if

18:49

the Russians were spending government money on

18:51

it, well, we needed to keep up

18:53

with the Russians. Yeah. And see

18:55

if it works. I'm always for spending money, see

18:58

if it works. Check it out. You

19:00

know what? That is my default as well.

19:02

And we hear about government programs where we're like,

19:04

$10 million? That's

19:07

crazy. Well, you're paying people over time

19:09

and buying equipment and stuff. So by

19:11

all means, try it out. So I'm

19:13

not against the idea. But that's kind

19:15

of what started this. So the CIA

19:18

wanted to have our own test. Can

19:20

we find psychic super spies who can

19:22

look into vaults far away and read

19:24

the secret documents of the Russians and

19:26

send us intel? And they worked

19:29

with a private research firm called the

19:31

Stanford Research Institute. Yes. So

19:34

when we say SRI or when they

19:36

say SRI, they're talking about the Stanford

19:38

Research Institute. I don't know. I feel

19:40

like the emphasis on the Stanford Research

19:42

Institute, well, it really wasn't Stanford, but

19:44

so much is about, hey, a legitimate,

19:46

well-known institution cared enough to do this.

19:49

Also the CIA. Yeah. It

19:52

sounds impressive. John Mac and how much

19:54

esteem he earned the UFO

19:56

movement by his association with

19:58

Harvard. Absolutely. I think

20:00

of this community whenever they can point

20:03

to one of these well-known institutions or

20:05

someone with a PhD in their title,

20:07

they're all excited to do that. That

20:10

gives it all the more credence. Then

20:14

on the other side, when you

20:16

have all of these other faculty

20:18

members at Harvard who disagree with

20:20

that conclusion, that's not seen as

20:22

impressive. That's just the school system

20:24

being against openness to conscious research

20:26

or whatever. It's not seen

20:28

as an argument against the research, but

20:30

when they have people with good credentials on

20:32

their side, it's definitely seen as a boon

20:34

for the research. To be

20:37

fair, it's a signal to me that,

20:39

okay, you went through a bunch of

20:41

years of research. You wrote a

20:43

dissertation. You sat in front of a panel of

20:45

your peers and you had to defend your perspective.

20:48

That means something to me that you got a

20:50

PhD. It really does. Yeah. But

20:52

all it really means to me is, okay, now you

20:55

are in a new group of peers and

20:57

now I need to understand why you disagree

20:59

with your peers. If I'm clear on why

21:01

you disagree and they're still making sense to

21:04

me, that's it. As we've said

21:06

many times before, you also probably want to look

21:08

into what is that PhD in and where did

21:10

it come from? Yes, absolutely.

21:12

We'll check these when we're done

21:14

here and make sure there isn't

21:16

anything completely crazy. Okay,

21:19

so Ingo Swan comes up within five

21:21

minutes of this panel. We should explain

21:23

who Ingo Swan is. There's going to

21:25

be a cast of characters here that are

21:28

going to come up quite often. We've already

21:30

mentioned Russell Targ. He's one of the main

21:32

mover and shakers. Yeah, Ingo Swan, interesting guy.

21:35

He's primarily known as an artist who

21:37

got into this world of remote viewing

21:40

and actually came up with the name

21:42

remote viewing as a substitute for psychic

21:44

spying. Okay. Thank you, Ingo. A

21:47

name that so reminds me of Fubly Kwan.

21:50

Sure, yeah. It sounds like he could

21:52

be an ascended master. Okay, fun fact.

21:54

I stumbled on. He was also a

21:57

Scientologist. And

22:00

not just in GoSwan, but also another

22:03

guy who's going to come up, Hal

22:05

Putoff. He was really involved in the

22:07

late 60s and even reached OT7 by

22:10

1971. And

22:13

at the time, that was as high as you could go. Okay,

22:16

that really makes everything sort

22:18

of in a different light for me. And

22:20

apparently, there's a documentation of him citing

22:22

his wins in Scientology and something akin

22:25

to remote viewing was one of those

22:27

wins. Okay, there you go. So two

22:29

of the major founders were involved in

22:32

Scientology. Yeah. So now that

22:34

psychic spice have come up, Alan

22:36

starts to ask his panel members.

22:39

So what I really want to know

22:42

is how can we actually do it?

22:44

How can the human mind extend its

22:46

field into a non-local viewing

22:48

of what's beyond this local

22:50

space? And Paul H. Smith, who

22:52

you would expect to answer, he's the guy who was

22:54

involved in the program. Well, if

22:56

we knew how it worked, the debate would be over.

22:59

Everybody laughs about that. I'm thinking,

23:01

you teach it. Right. But

23:04

I guess I can see what wavelength he's

23:06

responding to that on, which is, if

23:08

we knew the exact mechanism, there would

23:10

be no debate about it, which I

23:12

agree with. If it was a measurable thing,

23:14

predictable, and we knew the mechanism, then

23:16

yeah, it wouldn't be a debate. Yeah.

23:20

But it is. But you can at

23:22

least describe what you do, you personally,

23:25

when you engage in remote viewing, even

23:27

without guaranteeing I'll be able to recreate

23:29

it and do it as well as

23:31

you do. You should be able

23:33

to give me three or four steps. Close your eyes.

23:35

Put your head in this space. Think

23:37

about this. And then he immediately goes

23:39

to, well, first of all, not answering

23:41

the question, but then he starts redefining

23:43

science and saying, you know, and science

23:46

isn't really about proof. It's about a

23:48

preponderance of evidence. Yeah, true in a

23:50

very technical sense. Yeah. But

23:52

I Feel like, OK, you're already stalling

23:54

for how do we expand kind of what

23:56

we accept as definitive so that this

23:58

will be OK? Scientific standard,

24:00

The right. It's like using that

24:03

evolution sister theory kind of reaction

24:05

than okay. Now has to stop

24:07

and define what theory means and

24:09

sciences the way your using it.

24:11

And almost in the same breath,

24:13

Paul Smith trots out the Arthur

24:15

Conan Doyle chestnut. When you have

24:18

eliminated all which is impossible, them

24:20

whenever remains however improbable must be

24:22

the truth which is not actually

24:24

good. Principal Know. That doesn't leave you with

24:26

anything. You're still left with one thing that you

24:28

have to decide why. it's possible. And may be

24:30

rolled out some things you came up with

24:32

by yeah. You have an icy real that

24:34

everything they don't like of. yeah had a third

24:37

very of Obama. Yeah, that's our. Interview

24:40

list for variables you might have

24:42

forgotten: Variable Five Six seven. Drive

24:44

through Twelve. I'll. Bet.

24:47

He says it really does work.

24:49

The evidence is therefore it. it's

24:51

actual reality. Say, I never gets

24:53

to exactly what that evidence is.

24:55

Yeah, he just kind of rests

24:57

on the idea that some part

24:59

of us is nonsensical and it's

25:02

doing the thing. Right? But he

25:04

also said that remote viewing is

25:06

evidence that there is a non

25:08

physical aspect of our consciousness. And

25:11

then he said and then he

25:13

said i know how it works.

25:15

That. I can't tell you. The.

25:17

Bombers that you can't explain how it

25:20

works in human terms in a way

25:22

that's a hand wave and a cop

25:24

out. The new okay guess is as

25:26

I can't tell you how it works.

25:28

I think we'll leave it there since

25:30

the a success yeah or it began

25:32

be great panel. The success of this

25:34

is Paul clearly talks about this alone

25:36

has some kind of ready go to

25:38

talking about you know, science and how

25:40

we can look at this in a

25:42

different light and he's talking about the

25:44

hard problem of consciousness and how we

25:46

don't understand how the matters. that creates

25:48

or neurons gives rise to the phenomenon

25:51

of consciousness as don't fully understand i

25:53

in right right yep that that's a

25:55

very good point make because we know

25:58

we could end it by by destroying

26:00

said neurons. Yeah, and we

26:02

know a lot about consciousness, just not as

26:04

much as we want to. Right, we don't

26:06

have a full model, but we have, right,

26:08

a lot of useful parameters at the very

26:10

least, but he sort of segues that into

26:12

saying consciousness could be an emergent property. Remote

26:14

viewing could also be just sort of an

26:16

emergent property of having a functioning

26:19

consciousness. It's like water has

26:21

wetness. Yeah, sure, it could, it

26:23

could be like that. And then he

26:25

talks about the phenomenon of the white crow,

26:28

which is relevant to this discussion. And

26:30

so the idea that in a world with

26:32

black crows, it's

26:34

very easy to prove that there are black crows, but

26:36

to prove that there's a white crow, you only need

26:39

to find one. True. And

26:41

so the idea is that if you find someone who's

26:43

a real psychic or a real remote viewer who delivers

26:45

the goods, who performs

26:48

beyond scientifically expected results, that's

26:50

your white crow. And

26:52

then you capture that psychic, and

26:55

you vivisect them, and you pull

26:57

them apart, and you confirm for sure

26:59

that they're a white crow. No,

27:02

these things are hard to confirm. It's

27:04

not going to be that simple. Mm-hmm,

27:07

this was interesting too. He pointed

27:09

out that empiricism, sort

27:11

of referring to the scientific process, means

27:14

from experience. So when someone

27:17

experiences remote viewing or lucid

27:19

dreaming or astral travel, these

27:21

related phenomena, it's experientially real,

27:23

and it's bad science to

27:25

ignore it. I

27:28

thought that was a pretty smooth move. I

27:30

feel like he's practiced at doing this,

27:32

sort of like setting these little axioms

27:34

about science and attitudes of science, so

27:36

that we'll be more receptive to this remote

27:38

viewing phenomena. Yeah, he's essentially saying

27:40

psychology is the study of the

27:43

subjective human experience, and we shouldn't ignore

27:45

that. And I'm like 100%. Every

27:49

university agrees with you. There

27:51

was no problem, I hope you're satisfied.

27:53

But it sure sounded good to the

27:55

audience, and now makes it sound like

27:57

remote viewing is just that much more

27:59

legitimate. Yeah, I was thinking of Ray

28:01

Hyman's maxim and he's raised gonna come up

28:04

in this conversation quite a bit because actually

28:06

he's very involved in This whole Stargate story,

28:08

but his maxim is do not try to

28:10

explain something until you are sure there is

28:13

something to be explained Because

28:16

we can spin our wheels Coming up

28:18

with explanations before we've actually

28:20

established there's something here that we need

28:22

to explain Gosh, this

28:24

comes up so much when someone tells me

28:26

a story and then asks me to explain

28:28

it They know I don't I depart from

28:30

paranormal explanations. They'll know that and so I

28:32

say this happened to me What do you

28:34

think and they're kind of like daring you

28:36

to be like a sourpuss at it? But

28:42

a lot of the time the story is

28:44

just like well if I take it at

28:46

face value Then you're right.

28:49

There are parts about that that don't make

28:51

sense, but I don't believe you I don't

28:54

think you have this right Think

28:56

that probably even your storing and retelling of

28:58

the story is Inaccurate

29:00

now, what am I supposed to do? I

29:03

heard a great response from James Randi

29:05

in this interview that our friend

29:07

Richard Saunders sent me recently he was on like

29:09

some Florida talk show and People

29:12

were calling in toward the end and he was trying

29:14

to tell this woman who had had this amazing reading

29:16

from a psychic What might have happened

29:18

that you know what you might have revealed that information

29:20

to him and the woman said

29:22

oh, no I know for a fact that

29:25

he told me the name of my son

29:27

before I said anything and Randy's response says

29:29

Well, then he's psychic Yeah,

29:42

that's great yeah, I was I thought you were

29:44

going to say that he said no you're not

29:46

sure It was such

29:48

a it was such a funny way to be

29:50

like oh well then yeah, definitely Sorry, yeah, that's

29:52

great in other words. Well if you're that convinced

29:55

I guess I can't help you yeah

29:58

Right yeah Someone a

30:00

dear dear friend one time told me about

30:02

a mug flying off her

30:05

desk rushing to

30:07

the the other wall and smashing into

30:09

and how could I explain it? Yeah,

30:11

I was like, yeah, I can't explain

30:14

that that really happened. Yeah, okay

30:16

So tell me about the day this happened. Oh,

30:18

you were really tired. Well, and what are you

30:20

doing? Oh, you were sitting for a test. Okay.

30:22

Okay, and how far did it fly? Wow. How

30:24

far away was the wall? Oh more like two

30:26

feet. Okay That's

30:30

not the mental image the way you describe it.

30:32

Yeah. I was Exorcist action.

30:34

Tell me about your desk set up. So you got your

30:36

computer here. Where's the cup? Oh over here, right? Okay, so

30:38

you're right-handed. Okay, so you turn and then what happens? Oh

30:47

Yeah, they're asking

30:49

you to say all this to them and I'm like,

30:51

I don't want to say all this to you

30:54

It's an unhappy burden. And yeah, you have to

30:56

take an extraordinary story and slowly peel off the

30:58

layers of retelling They're mad at

31:00

you Exactly. Who

31:03

is this for? You're talking about me at

31:05

a party? If you saw my TED

31:07

talk or whatever now, you're making me

31:09

peel apart your personal experiences amazing

31:13

So Alan asked Tracy Dolan how

31:15

she does remote viewing and she said

31:17

well, can I comment on what Phil

31:19

said? So she also didn't give the

31:21

practical application or instruction

31:24

But she started talking about brain states and

31:27

how we've learned when the brain is in

31:29

a Delta state as with lucid dreaming or

31:31

dreaming In general that we you know We

31:34

can measure all of these different changes inside

31:36

the brain in different specific parts and spikes

31:38

of activity And I don't know if she

31:40

had a real point to all of that

31:43

I think she was saying that when lucid dreaming

31:45

has been tested in the lab that

31:48

people who are in the lucid dream state

31:50

have MRIs that are

31:52

lit up similar to people who

31:54

are awake Instead of what

31:56

you'd expect which is something more like someone

31:58

who's asleep and she She just

32:00

thought that was mind blowing. And to me,

32:03

I'm like, well, yes, that's kind of what

32:05

we'd expect. In a lucid

32:07

dream where you're still exercising some amount

32:09

of control and volition, a

32:11

lot of people find lucid dreaming really tiring

32:14

because you were sort of awake. Yeah, your

32:16

brain is doing work. And when you're having

32:18

a dream during that part of your sleep

32:20

cycle, your brain is generating images. Doing

32:23

a lot of work. On a closed circuit,

32:26

your eyes aren't involved. But yeah, it's still

32:28

active. So my thought during that was, okay,

32:31

have we hooked up remote viewers to

32:33

brain scans to see if this is

32:35

relevant conversation about what their brains are

32:37

doing? Yeah, and if it is

32:40

lucid dreaming, doesn't that kind of

32:42

explain away your theory that

32:44

I'm doing something physical somewhere else?

32:48

Because now you're just evoking a

32:50

biological phenomenon. I have an existing

32:52

understanding of. Pretty well understood, right.

32:55

That, okay, you're just somehow doing something

32:57

that's like dreaming or hallucinating. Yeah, that

33:00

you can control a bit. Interesting, your

33:02

brain already has hardware for, and

33:05

processes for. Yeah, I'll actually

33:07

need less explanations at that point.

33:09

But okay. So yeah, we're still gonna

33:12

need some more data on whether this

33:14

is even a real thing or not. Tracy

33:16

also said that highly intuitive,

33:18

high functioning people had

33:20

additional connections in the brain.

33:23

Okay. I wonder if

33:25

she's talking about the white matter

33:27

abnormalities in schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia

33:29

have more interrelations between their white

33:31

matter. And then Alan, I was

33:33

also saying that there's a part

33:35

of the brain that's overly developed

33:37

in abductees and remote viewers. Interesting.

33:40

Yeah, again, I'm thinking like, I

33:42

wonder if we're talking at all. There might actually be

33:44

something there, but not quite what you think it is.

33:47

But it's interesting, because I mean, those

33:49

connections are also relevant in people with autism,

33:51

like famously Einstein's

33:54

brain. They wanted to know about the connections between the

33:56

different parts of the brain. Oh yeah, that you supposed

33:58

to have had like a thick. corpus callosum

34:00

connecting the two sides of the

34:03

brain. Okay. You

34:05

mentioned Elizabeth Rauscher. Yeah, Rauscher.

34:08

Yeah, she was a co-author with JJ

34:10

Hertuck. So JJ in describing

34:13

her says she wrote over

34:15

450 scientific papers,

34:17

very impressive, and is

34:20

probably the most elegant

34:22

and sophisticated female physicist.

34:26

Yes. Such a

34:28

specific set of words. He had three

34:30

female physicists up on his wall and

34:32

he's like, Oh, which one is

34:34

the most influential and elegant? He

34:37

was the Linda Moltenhau of the panel.

34:44

JJ Hertuck, you really don't know where

34:46

he's going to lead the conversation because

34:48

Alan Seinfeld was trying

34:50

to prompt him. Oh, so you wrote

34:52

a book with Russell Targ, this pioneer

34:54

of remote viewing called End of Suffering

34:56

and Ingo Swan did the illustrations. Very

34:58

cool. Oh, yeah. And

35:00

he was trying to get JJ to comment on

35:03

that and JJ starts to talk about this cosmic

35:05

egg in the universe that represents the human mind.

35:09

And that consciousness we know by

35:11

deduction must be beyond space time and it

35:13

can't be explained by quantum physics. And I'm

35:15

going, what is going on? And that's where

35:17

he starts talking about Elizabeth Rauscher and her

35:20

elegant. Oh, okay. Yeah. And

35:22

he's summarizing anything JJ Hertuck says. And

35:25

I don't know if it's me projecting, but like, I'll

35:27

just feel this sort of discomfort of the panel like,

35:29

well, is he done now? Can

35:32

we talk about something substantial

35:34

again? But everyone loves him.

35:36

So let's give them more of him, I

35:38

guess. I mean, okay. I

35:43

got to say for the moderator, Alan did a

35:45

lot of talking in this panel. He was very

35:47

much involved as a participant. Yeah, that's

35:49

true. Though at least he gave

35:51

direction. He kept the conversation going

35:54

somewhere. And where was that

35:56

somewhere? Back to his original thought. How do

35:58

you do it? Right. We certainly needed

36:00

that structure. So by all means, thank you,

36:03

Alan, for providing that. So Alan

36:05

now is kind of trying to

36:07

think of illustrations that might help

36:09

us understand remote viewing better. And

36:12

he says to Desiree, is

36:14

it kind of like a radio? If you open

36:17

a radio, you won't find the

36:19

announcer or the band. It's just

36:21

getting a signal from someplace else. That

36:23

was a good analogy. Yeah. So I feel

36:25

that's an analogy for what the brain is.

36:28

What do you think of that, Desiree? She

36:31

goes on with that idea for a while. She talks about the

36:33

CIA. She goes off

36:35

on her own little reverie. And then she says,

36:37

maybe you start developing

36:39

certain parts of your brain when

36:41

you start remote viewing. And

36:44

that's what we want to encourage here.

36:46

Maybe. OK.

36:49

Because we want to be

36:51

actually on par with the

36:53

extraterrestrial intelligence who use a

36:55

similar part of their brain.

36:58

And she starts telling us a little bit of this

37:00

history of how all of

37:03

this came together at the Stanford

37:05

Research Institute, how Putoff and Ingo

37:07

Swan met in 1971. And

37:11

it was Howell who pulled in Russell

37:13

Targ, who the bio here tells us

37:15

is a physicist, author, and ESP researcher,

37:17

and pioneer in the earliest development of

37:20

lasers in their applications in the 1950s

37:22

and 60s. He

37:24

has published nine books and more than

37:26

100 refereed papers on

37:29

ESP research, lasers, plasma physics, and

37:31

laser applications. And his latest book

37:33

is The Reality of ESP, A

37:36

Physicist Proof of Psychic Ability, and

37:39

also recently produced a two-hour documentary

37:41

film, Third Eye Spies. Clap,

37:43

clap, clap. Describing the true story

37:45

of CIA psychic spying. Which you've

37:47

seen. Yeah, I watched it. And

37:49

it's funny, towards the very end

37:51

of it, he complains that Wikipedia

37:53

blocked him because he kept trying

37:55

to go into his own article

37:57

and add references to his work.

38:00

with lasers and he

38:02

said that they wanted to censor him

38:04

because they only wanted to hear about

38:06

his remote viewing accomplishments and

38:08

I thought okay well I feel

38:10

like he's probably misrepresenting or misremembering what

38:12

happens with Wikipedia. First of all you're

38:14

not supposed to edit anything about yourself.

38:17

Yes that's right. So that's just not

38:19

allowed but also yeah you're there because

38:21

you're notable for something and is he

38:23

notable for his work on lasers? It

38:25

might be interesting he might have made

38:27

great contributions but he's notable because

38:30

he kick-started this whole. What you're

38:32

notable for is for other

38:34

people to say yes that's really

38:36

pretty much the definition of being

38:38

notable is do other people think

38:40

so? I had a guy who

38:42

introduced himself to me at a

38:44

party once and said hi I'm

38:46

Bob I'm famous and I said

38:48

no you're not. You

38:51

don't have to introduce yourself to me this way.

38:54

If you're famous enough to walk

38:56

up to people at parties and

38:58

say hi I'm Bob I'm famous.

39:01

Bob has his whole spiel worked out and

39:03

then he's waiting for you to say what

39:05

are you famous for? You just weren't gonna.

39:07

Well don't worry he was dragging around

39:09

a whole box of books about why he

39:12

was famous and he gave me one of

39:14

his self-published books and it was about how

39:16

he taught students about the dairy industry and

39:18

got them to go vegan but they were

39:21

in eighth grade and they were supposed to

39:23

be learning science or whatever so

39:25

the school district was like that's very nice

39:28

Bob but you need to get out of

39:30

here this isn't your job and then Bob

39:32

had to quit and then Bob was in

39:34

a parade and now he's famous. Oh no

39:36

and how are you impressed now? How

39:39

long did it take you to learn all this? Good

39:41

part of a party I'm guessing. No several

39:44

years because of course I'm gonna read that whole book.

39:46

Okay well one of my bible

39:48

teachers in high school was

39:50

also a pilot and he flew some

39:52

of the planes in the famous

39:55

Tom Cruise fighter pilot

39:58

movie. Oh yeah. to

40:00

fly with everybody's going

40:03

highway danger zone

40:05

top gun. Some

40:08

people are so mad right now. Top

40:10

gun, you idiot. He

40:12

had been one of the pilots of that. Anyway,

40:14

he had a great joke, which I've heard many

40:16

versions of now with different professions, but he said,

40:18

how do you know there's a fighter pilot at

40:20

your party? He'll tell you.

40:23

He'll tell you. People say that about

40:25

vegans all the time. And you know

40:27

what? Bob's walking around the party, he's

40:29

proven it. He's famous. Amazing.

40:33

And also Russell Targ at the end

40:35

of this documentary, he was also complaining

40:37

that his TEDx talk had been censored

40:39

by Ted for being

40:41

too controversial. But then

40:43

it went on YouTube and now it has 3

40:46

million plus views. Yeah, TEDx is

40:48

like reasonably concerned about keeping

40:50

bad science off their platform.

40:52

Right. Which we ran into when we

40:54

interviewed Paul from the theory of society.

40:56

He had given a TEDx talk and

40:58

it had similarly been pulled for maybe

41:00

not being quite in line with the

41:03

standards of TED. Yeah, there you

41:05

go. That does happen. Mine's still up

41:07

there. No one's removed it. Yeah,

41:09

so I'm just something to think. Legit. You're famous.

41:11

So I walk

41:13

into parties and I say, I'm curious,

41:15

famous. So anyways, Desiree

41:17

was talking about how pulling in

41:20

Russell Targ into the Stanford Research

41:22

Institute, aka Stargate Program. They got

41:24

funding from the CIA. This is

41:27

how she summarized it. And then

41:29

they brought in these other two

41:31

guys, Pat Price and Joe McGonigal.

41:34

It's spelled like McGon-Eagle. Interesting.

41:37

And they were essentially two of their

41:39

white crows, these super talented remote

41:41

viewers. Okay. And it's

41:44

interesting, the documentary Third Eye Spy,

41:46

one of the opening scenes is

41:48

Russell Targ wandering around this memorial

41:50

park, the cemetery that I instantly

41:53

recognized. It's the Valhalla Memorial Park

41:55

in Burbank in North Hollywood. Oh,

41:57

wow. Yeah, which actually I have...

42:00

multiple relatives who are buried

42:02

there. Oh wow. Yeah, and

42:04

he was looking for the

42:06

grave of former police officer

42:08

Pat Price, who was one

42:10

of their white crows. Okay.

42:13

This amazing remote viewer. And of course in

42:15

the documentary, you're just gonna hear tons and

42:17

tons of stories about these amazing hits that

42:19

Pat Price had. Oh, and there was one

42:21

woman as well, who was well regarded as

42:23

a reader, Helen Hammond. Okay. Who was just

42:26

the secretary, but they tried having her do

42:28

some of this remote viewing and turns out

42:30

she was great at it as well. Oh, that's

42:32

right. Yes, they made a big deal

42:34

out of how she had, you know,

42:36

not really had any particular history, but.

42:39

Which was kind of like a common thread

42:41

because at one point the remote viewer didn't

42:43

show up and Russell had to step in

42:45

and do the remote viewing. And turns out

42:47

he was really good at it too. So

42:49

the researchers could do it. Sounds like anyone

42:51

could step in and produce something that would

42:53

impress these people. And to

42:55

kind of give a

42:57

spoiler, I think we do

42:59

eventually find out why that is. Yeah.

43:02

Which is they'll run a test on us.

43:04

They'll have us predict what it is they've

43:06

got hidden in their hands or under their

43:08

desk or whatever. And then the audience is

43:10

made to guess. And you

43:13

can get anywhere in

43:15

the vicinity. And they're like, yeah,

43:17

you did it. But

43:19

what they discourage you from doing is actually

43:21

labeling it. They want you to just describe

43:23

the shape, the color. They want you to

43:25

be as vague as possible. And

43:28

then if you're too specific, they say, no, no,

43:30

no, no. So some people were

43:32

saying, oh, well, I think it's a toy. And they'd be

43:34

like, no, no, not a toy, not a toy. What

43:37

are you picturing that makes you

43:39

say toy? OK, something rectangular. OK,

43:41

so something with edges, got it.

43:43

And all of a sudden, anything's a hit in

43:45

that standard. Alan Seinfeld really did point

43:48

that out as part of a good

43:50

protocol where you avoid from naming a

43:52

specific structure. Don't say it's the Empire

43:54

State Building. I have to stick with,

43:56

I see something pointy in metal. Looks

43:59

like a triangle. Yeah, and now okay

44:01

now I can just say you got a

44:03

hit even if it's my pyramid that's over

44:05

to your left here That's a pointy metal.

44:07

There it is. Right? Yeah. Yeah, and

44:09

and if and if the actual

44:11

target was the cap painting next to it Then

44:14

it'd be like oh, well, it was right next to

44:16

the pyramid to the pointy metal thing There's so

44:18

many ways to fuzz the edges

44:21

and turn a miss into

44:23

a hit Yeah, but but since they're

44:25

talking about the project Alan asks Paul

44:27

Can you tell us about your involvement

44:29

with project Stargate and can you tell us

44:31

any secrets? Yeah, can you tell us anything you can't

44:34

say and everyone has a good

44:36

laugh at that very disclosure lunch so he

44:38

gives a little bit more of that history

44:40

of The Russians having spent a lot of

44:42

money on this and says that you know

44:45

A lot of skeptics have lampooned the Stargate

44:47

program for costing like 20 to 25 million

44:49

dollars over many years But the Russians spent

44:51

way more So okay. Yeah. All

44:54

right. Does that make it better? You

44:56

would think that you should be applauding

44:58

the Russians then if you think this research

45:00

is worthy well he's just saying if you're gonna pick

45:02

on someone pick on the Russians and Even

45:05

tries to make the point that the CIA

45:07

knew that Russians don't spend money on things

45:09

that don't work And I don't know they

45:11

had a whole brush with my Senko is

45:13

um, you know bad ideas can catch on

45:15

anywhere Oh my yeah Well also

45:17

sciences all the time having to test things

45:20

that turn out to be quote-unquote bad ideas

45:22

We run through them and try to find

45:24

better ones Mm-hmm Paul

45:26

also lets us know that the Stargate

45:28

label did come later Originally, it was

45:30

just SRI and eventually the CIA kind

45:33

of internalized the program well

45:35

one of my Undercover trauma

45:37

therapists thought that I was a survivor of

45:39

the Stargate program. Oh and are you? Can

45:42

you tell us anything? You can't tell us you can't say I Don't

45:46

know but that was her theory for my

45:48

migraines. Okay problems and speaking of like how there

45:50

I guess there's really just no Qualifications for this.

45:52

How do you get into such a thing? You

45:54

know, I was gonna say you don't go to

45:56

school for remote viewing though now you do with

45:58

these people but Paul was saying that back

46:01

in 1983 when he was recruited, he'd never

46:03

heard about any of this. He just happened

46:05

to live near two of these guys. I

46:07

think it was like Pat and one of

46:09

the others, but they had just seen him

46:11

like in his garage and saw that he

46:13

had majored in art at BYU. Oh, yes.

46:16

Uh-huh. Yeah, I thought that was

46:18

interesting. A Mormon school. Yeah, and

46:20

that he wrote short stories. And so

46:22

they asked if he wanted to take

46:24

this testing to be a psychic spy.

46:27

And he said yes. And that's how

46:29

Paul Smith got involved in all of

46:31

it. Wow. Okay. Really one of those moments

46:33

that changes the trajectory of your life. No

46:35

kidding. So then Desiree is mentioning

46:38

like ways to test these abilities.

46:40

And she mentions this app that

46:42

you can get on

46:44

Android. I found it on

46:46

iOS. It's called ESP Trainer.

46:49

Yes. Okay, I haven't gotten this yet.

46:51

I got to get it. All right. Well, shall

46:53

I test you on mine here? Oh, please.

46:55

And there were two different versions. There was

46:57

one that was like a casino

47:00

ESP app. And

47:02

I guess you could use it to test

47:04

your abilities at the casino. But I want

47:06

Stargate ESP Trainer for the dollar. Stargate ESP.

47:08

Yeah. And it's got like this eyeball

47:11

of someone with red skin

47:13

and their actual iris is

47:15

the planet Earth. Stargate

47:18

ESP Trainer is designed to help you learn

47:20

to describe distant or future events. It is

47:22

a direct outgrowth of the secret $25 million CIA

47:25

Stargate program with dozens of viewers

47:28

at SRI where we show that

47:30

psychic abilities are real and available.

47:32

I won't describe the methodology

47:34

to you because I think it'll become very

47:36

clear very quickly. But let's just

47:39

test you Carrie to see how well

47:41

you do with these targets. Okay. It's

47:43

going to have 12 targets that you're

47:45

going to try to identify. And it's

47:47

going to ask you yes or no

47:49

questions about them. Okay. Carrie's looking about

47:51

probably thinking what's the target?

47:53

Yeah, what's the target? Which they don't seem

47:55

to care about. It just seems like if

47:58

you tell a remote viewer focus on on

48:00

a target, somehow they're okay with

48:02

that. They just magically focus on a

48:04

target. I want more details. Where is

48:06

this target? I can't, okay, okay. All

48:08

right, I'm gonna close my eyes and just, I

48:10

also have a weak inner eye and this is

48:13

not my direction. Yeah, all right. So

48:15

I'm just gonna picture something, okay. Okay,

48:17

so this is for Carrie. Okay.

48:19

Target one. Okay. Is

48:22

there water? Your options are no

48:24

water or, you guessed it, water.

48:27

No water. Okay, now I

48:29

have to picture something else, though? No, this is gonna

48:31

be one target. We're gonna stay on this target.

48:33

Okay, okay. You're gonna answer the yes or no

48:35

questions and then I'm gonna present you four pictures of, it's

48:38

gonna be one of those and then you'll tell me which one it

48:40

was. Okay. I mean, I

48:42

have something in my head, it's not gonna be that bad,

48:44

but okay. Okay. Well,

48:47

yes, this is the problem, but all right. Is there

48:49

water or is there no water? No water. Are there

48:51

trees? I

48:53

mean, I don't think so, but I can make this a tree if

48:55

I force it. Trees are no trees. Oh,

48:59

fuck. Okay, let's say yes,

49:01

trees. Yes, trees. Okay, now choose the

49:03

true target from one of these four

49:05

pictures. Oh, okay. They give you

49:07

four images. Okay, all right.

49:09

So I'm gonna pick this pyramid. Okay,

49:12

so the target image was no water,

49:15

no trees. Player picked,

49:17

no water, but trees and there were

49:19

no trees. So we have so far

49:21

zero picture matches, but we have one

49:23

property match because you were right that

49:25

there was no water. So the answer

49:27

is the image that you have at top, which

49:29

is a brick doorway.

49:32

Yeah, that was the correct target. Yeah,

49:34

that's what I was supposed to picture.

49:37

Okay, here's what I picture. A brick

49:39

archway with a mountain behind it. And

49:41

then I picked a pyramid. Yeah,

49:43

and I bet you could make an argument for like,

49:46

well, look, you've got the mountains in the background very

49:48

much the same shape as the pyramid. True, but what

49:50

I pictured when you said to picture a target

49:52

was a green triangle. So then when

49:54

you got a tree, I was like,

49:56

oh, I can make that like a Christmas tree if I

49:58

force it. Oh. We are off to the races. Yes,

50:02

that is such a strong hit carry. Green

50:05

triangle. It's exactly like

50:07

a curved arch. That's good. It's

50:11

kind of fun that a pyramid was one of the options,

50:13

but misleading. Okay, but you had

50:15

an image that you created. Okay, now

50:18

you've got a second target. And now you kind

50:20

of know how this is gonna work. You're eventually

50:22

gonna see four images and it's definitely gonna be

50:24

one of them. Okay, picturing something. Are there bridges?

50:29

No bridges? Okay. What?

50:31

Is there water? I

50:34

should be picturing locations clearly. Okay,

50:37

is there water? Yes,

50:39

I guess so. I'll admit when I was

50:42

doing this, I would see their prompt and

50:44

then I would like form an image and

50:46

be like, okay, no trees, okay, water. Okay,

50:48

I'll try that next time. So now here

50:51

are the four images. You said no bridges

50:53

and there is water. Okay, I pictured a

50:55

kitten and you're showing me. It

50:57

carries guide. Options choose from all of them

51:00

of like human edifices, like

51:02

buildings, but no humans in them. None of

51:04

these are kitten-like ones of barn.

51:06

Okay, I guess the kitten

51:08

would most likely live at the Coliseum, so that's

51:10

all run down and that's where feral cats live.

51:12

But no, it was- It's

51:15

so similar though, Carrie. We could make

51:17

an argument. There's community on the sea.

51:20

Bunch of houses looks maybe European and

51:22

it's like right on the water. But

51:24

you picked the Coliseum. And I pictured

51:26

a kitten. Hey, you got no bridges

51:28

and water. Both of those were correct.

51:31

I picked water because I was like, sure, a

51:33

cat has spit in its mouth. So

51:35

you're up to three property matches. Okay.

51:38

Out of two targets. Okay, let's keep

51:40

going. Lord. Is this a single object

51:42

or structure? Okay, so now I'll picture

51:45

something. Okay, okay, I've got

51:47

it. Okay, is this a single object

51:49

or structure? Yes, I guess so. The

51:51

options are single object or no single

51:53

structure. What are the options? These

51:56

are linked together. Is it a single object or

51:58

structure? So are we looking at one? thing?

52:00

Yeah. Or are we looking at a bunch

52:02

of things? One thing. Okay, single object. Is

52:04

there grass? No. And I hope

52:06

all of you are playing along. Okay,

52:09

so now Carrie gets to choose

52:11

between Coliseum again,

52:13

this yellow house, a

52:16

winding road with lots

52:18

of trees, like kind of in a

52:21

mountainside, or something that looks like

52:23

ruins of a like Parthenon or something

52:25

like that. Okay, I pictured Notre

52:28

Dame. Oh. So I'm

52:30

going to... And

52:32

we're seeing the Coliseum image again, so already I would

52:34

be like, well I'm not choosing that again. Yeah,

52:37

fair. And then what's

52:39

the one on the bottom right, Parthenon? There's

52:41

something akin to that. Okay, I'm actually

52:43

gonna... Notre Dame evokes

52:45

to me the bell tower,

52:48

comfort, being in solitude, a

52:50

comforting solitude, and this image

52:52

at top right also has a similar

52:54

vibe. Okay, interesting. So I'm picking that

52:57

only to discover it was the Parthenon. Oh,

53:00

you talked yourself out of it. But you

53:02

did get that it was a single object

53:04

and there was no grass, so you get

53:06

two more property match points. Okay. All right,

53:08

target four. Bridges or no bridges? Oh my

53:11

god, I'll be... Or just bridges. Right. Okay,

53:14

okay, yes, yes, there's a bridge.

53:16

There are bridges. Is it a single

53:18

object or structure? Yes. And

53:20

now we've narrowed it down to like

53:22

an aqueduct or like

53:24

a modern building with a palm tree in

53:26

front of it or a snow-capped mountain in

53:28

front of a grassy plain or

53:31

a bridge that's covering

53:33

like a lake. Well, this time

53:35

when you asked me if it was a

53:37

bridge, I just decided to picture a bridge.

53:39

Okay. So that gets it down to

53:41

two options. Hey, you've got two bridges, okay.

53:44

And I pictured the bridge that

53:46

Jeff Bridges walks across in Bridges

53:48

on Bridges. Is that a

53:51

thing? Yeah, yeah. Okay. It's

53:53

the St. George Street bridge in

53:55

Los Feliz. Wow. So, okay, I'm

53:57

picturing that. And

54:00

now I'm gonna zag. Well

54:03

see, both of these bridges are on

54:05

water. That bridge isn't on water. Uh-oh.

54:08

Ugh, fuck! Um! Let's

54:12

say you're giving this way more thought than I did. Okay,

54:14

I'm gonna pick the one that has LA-like architecture

54:19

because I pictured something in LA. Okay. Oh!

54:22

That's the Golden Gate Bridge. Oh

54:24

no! Fuck. Okay, you did zag.

54:27

You picked the palm tree thing. Okay, but

54:29

hey, you have seven property matches. Property matches,

54:31

what can that possibly mean here? So.

54:34

I'm losing, I'm not doing well, I

54:37

should be losing. I guess there's 24 total

54:40

property matches you could get. And you're only

54:42

partway through, so you're doing pretty well on

54:44

property matches. But I haven't gotten any

54:46

correct. You know, how is that happening? Yeah, you

54:48

have zero picture matches. When for me,

54:50

I would just have to like, I would have

54:52

to commit. Well, maybe think I got some questions

54:54

right. If I had already like said bridges and

54:56

trees, I would have to choose a picture that

54:58

had bridges and trees. I would just stick to

55:00

my guns. Uh-huh, yeah. Target

55:03

five, buildings, no buildings. There's

55:07

a building. Are there repeating elements?

55:11

What? No? No

55:14

repeating elements. I mean, it's like there always

55:16

are. Okay,

55:19

here are your options to choose from.

55:21

We've got just kind of this nice

55:23

bucolic house out on a flower covered

55:25

hill. Then we've got

55:27

something that looks like the Hagia Sophia, like

55:29

a large mosque. And we've

55:31

got what looks like an architectural dig site

55:34

in the desert. Yeah, some sort of ruins.

55:36

Oh, it looks like almost the

55:38

Step Pyramids. And then we've

55:40

got a snow-capped mountains. None of

55:42

these are Drew Spears productions at 1960

55:45

Riverside Drive, which is

55:47

what I was picturing. So

55:49

I'll pick, shall pick. Carrie

55:52

looks helpless, hopeless,

55:54

hapless. I guess I'll pick the

55:56

most modern looking one because I pictured a

55:59

modern scene. Okay. How'd that work out for

56:01

you? You got it? Oh my god!

56:03

Finally! Jerry got it! Finally!

56:06

Okay, we got a target image. Oh my

56:08

god, I did it. Alright, new one. Oh

56:10

no. Water, no water. Okay, I have

56:13

to picture another thing? Okay, water.

56:16

Water. Uh, trees or no trees? Trees.

56:18

Oh my goodness, we have two pictures

56:20

of pyramids, and then we've got, uh,

56:23

what looks like St. Peter's Square, and

56:25

uh, a nice sandy beach. I

56:27

pictured farm sanctuary, so I

56:29

was picturing pigs. You

56:32

said water and trees, so it seems like that kind

56:34

of connects you to the beach. Okay, yeah, okay, good.

56:36

Oh, and it's a pyramid. But no, it's a pyramid.

56:40

Uh, okay, next target. Buildings, no

56:42

buildings. Um,

56:45

okay, buildings. Okay, buildings. Uh,

56:47

single object or structure, or no single structure?

56:50

No single, well, I mean, there were multiple structures,

56:52

so no single structure, I guess. Okay,

56:55

and now you have to choose between the winding

56:57

road, a kind of a distant

56:59

view of a lot of mountains, another

57:02

pyramid, but more different pyramid, and

57:04

a Joshua Tree. I

57:07

pictured the Howard Johnson Anaheim, and I'm gonna

57:09

pick pyramid because it at least has an

57:11

end to it. Building. Oh, okay,

57:13

yep, there we go. Okay, and it was

57:15

the Joshua Tree. And it was the Joshua Tree. Oh no,

57:17

what is going on here? Uh, I'll

57:19

be interested to show you my result. Grass or no

57:21

grass? How many of these are

57:23

there? There are 12. Okay, we're at eight.

57:25

Okay, okay, I can do it. Okay, uh, okay,

57:28

picturing it. Okay, grass or no grass?

57:30

Um, grass. A single

57:33

object or no single structure? Uh,

57:35

single object. Okay, and

57:37

now your options are a mountain with

57:40

snow, a building

57:43

with many columns, another beach

57:45

and harbor, and kind

57:48

of like grass shacks with trees in the

57:50

background. Okay, I need to stop reaching for

57:52

things I've actually seen. Yeah. I

57:55

pictured the McDonald's on mine.

57:57

Okay, so. There's some arches here. Okay. Yeah,

58:00

let's do that one. Okay. Good. Hey, we got

58:02

that one, right? Okay

58:07

All right, you've gotten two image matches,

58:09

okay, I'll go structure no single structure

58:11

no single structure repeating elements or no

58:13

repeating elements Repeating

58:16

elements. Okay, and just

58:18

like life. Okay, we've got people standing

58:21

by a beach. We've got like sand

58:23

dunes We've got Grand

58:25

Canyon and another step pyramid Okay,

58:27

I pictured like an Ireland scene like

58:30

rolling green hills Okay, so I guess

58:32

the bottom left has the most of

58:34

that. Okay Grand Canyon it is and oh

58:36

no, it was a step pyramid All

58:40

right. Number 10. Is it man-made or natural?

58:42

Oh, okay. New thing. New thing. New

58:44

thing. Okay, it's man-made Is there

58:46

water? Yes. So now we've got

58:49

step pyramid photos the first one. There's

58:51

a lot of repeats here We've got

58:53

kind of a city view. It's like

58:55

a bunch of European Bell

58:57

towers and buildings we've got the

59:00

repeating columns at an angle

59:02

Receding into the distance and we have like a

59:04

desert pulled off to the side of the road

59:07

scene. Okay I pictured the

59:09

fountain in front of Melissa Scott's Faith Center Okay,

59:11

and I would say most Scott's Faith Center looks

59:13

the most like bottom left. Okay and Step

59:16

pyramid number one two more two more

59:18

two more. Okay modern or ancient Modern

59:21

trees are no trees trees showing

59:24

carry the options Got

59:26

like a blown-out photo with okay.

59:28

I think that could be a rythmia. Oh,

59:30

you know, which one? Yes Which one I

59:32

pictured Disneyland definitely bottom left. Oh, hey, okay.

59:34

Yes someone on a boat with a bridge

59:36

Oh, no, it was the top left one

59:39

Bottom left top left so close.

59:42

Are there buildings or no buildings? There's a

59:44

building. No, there's buildings Okay,

59:46

a single object or structure or

59:48

no single structure a single object.

59:51

Sure. Okay, and here you

59:53

have a different view of The

59:55

Coliseum see like even after you've done this for

59:57

a while you kind of you'll learn what images

59:59

are available I know and you'd think that I'd pull

1:00:01

them up but then as soon as you ask me I

1:00:03

reset and I just pictured my childhood

1:00:05

home. And we've got like a rutted

1:00:07

desert. I'm gonna say this one's the most

1:00:10

like my childhood home. You got it.

1:00:12

Hey, success on your last one. Okay,

1:00:14

so you ended up with three picture

1:00:17

matches out of 12. And

1:00:20

then 14 property matches. Which

1:00:24

means you have ESP ability present.

1:00:26

Oh my god. So

1:00:29

that must mean that when I answer those

1:00:31

yes no questions they're counting those two

1:00:33

as hit services. Yeah, if you get

1:00:35

some of the properties right then you're

1:00:37

A-OK. I was very similar. Oh, properties.

1:00:40

I was picturing like property. Like

1:00:42

the property your house sits on. That's cool

1:00:44

I thought you meant. Oh, if I can.

1:00:47

The properties of what they asked you yesterday.

1:00:49

Yeah, characteristics. It had trees but you got

1:00:51

that property right. I didn't get any properties

1:00:53

right. Why does it keep saying that? Yeah,

1:00:55

the property brothers would not

1:00:58

accept this whatsoever. Fuck. Okay,

1:01:00

I get it now. So I

1:01:02

did ever so slightly better. I got four picture

1:01:05

matches instead of three. And

1:01:07

I got 14 property matches same as

1:01:09

you. So I also have ESP ability

1:01:11

present. Oh wow. But it caused me

1:01:13

far less anguish. You didn't

1:01:15

work as hard. I

1:01:17

didn't work as hard. You

1:01:20

got to think about every question. Look at us. We're

1:01:23

potential ESP celebrities. My headache. I

1:01:26

have an animation degree. That's

1:01:28

all you need. I gotta drink some

1:01:31

of this power right now. That'll hydrate you.

1:01:33

Carrie is hydrating. Getting back her important brain

1:01:35

connections. This is a good time. Oh,

1:01:40

that's a lovely harp you have there.

1:01:43

Yeah, this is a good time to let you

1:01:45

all know that we've shot forward in time. Yes,

1:01:47

because we were recording but then we had schedules

1:01:49

and now we are back recording. But

1:01:51

now time has passed and I have given

1:01:54

Drew the remote viewing app test. Would you

1:01:56

like to know his results? Okay, so

1:01:58

you got the Stargate ESP- trainer on

1:02:00

your phone. By the way, I don't know

1:02:02

if we mentioned that Russell Targ is listed

1:02:05

as the developer of the app. Oh,

1:02:07

I didn't even notice. Okay. You couldn't ask

1:02:09

for a more legitimate use of your 99

1:02:11

cents. So, okay. You

1:02:13

had drew try it and how did he do?

1:02:16

Okay. He drew his

1:02:19

picture matches were three. I

1:02:21

was going to say, when I asked you

1:02:24

earlier how drew's doing, I think you would

1:02:26

have told me if you had proven he

1:02:28

was psychic, but continue. Picture

1:02:30

matches three. 24 hours have passed.

1:02:32

And even if this had said you're psychic, I think

1:02:35

that would have worn off right now. Okay.

1:02:38

Three. So that's the thing that you got. Oh,

1:02:40

was it? Okay. And then property matches, he

1:02:42

got 12. What did I

1:02:44

get? Terry's

1:02:49

going to lower this over him tonight. He's going to hear

1:02:51

about it. This says a

1:02:53

good beginning. A good beginning. Okay.

1:02:55

So we just passed over the threshold

1:02:57

where they're like some psychic ability present.

1:03:00

Yes. Yes, exactly. So I

1:03:02

am more psychic than drew. Well,

1:03:04

in the, in the spirit of

1:03:07

full, I had

1:03:09

one more picture match the first time I did

1:03:11

it, but in the spirit of transparency, I went

1:03:13

through and did it again and I just tried

1:03:15

to do it like just super fast, just kind

1:03:17

of clicking on stuff to see what would happen.

1:03:20

Only one picture match and

1:03:23

nine property matches. So, okay.

1:03:25

If you really did do better by

1:03:27

using some kind of strategy, though you

1:03:30

did share with us that you had

1:03:32

a internal coherence strategy you were following.

1:03:35

Yeah. If I had chosen properties,

1:03:37

I was going to make sure

1:03:39

I was picturing one that matched

1:03:41

those properties. Yeah. It's interesting.

1:03:43

My, my rigid way

1:03:45

of walking in on it was, uh,

1:03:48

was, okay, the very first thing I picture,

1:03:50

I need to be faithful to, and now

1:03:52

I'll answer all these questions as faithfully as

1:03:54

I can to this original image I've got

1:03:56

in my head. Okay. They don't really

1:03:59

tell you which of them. those things. Which is fair,

1:04:01

especially if this were more of an open-ended

1:04:03

thing where you weren't constrained to four options

1:04:05

with each test. Yeah, totally. Eventually

1:04:08

you learn which pictures might come up and

1:04:10

you start to be like, okay, I'm gonna

1:04:12

try to picture kind of a bridge-like scene,

1:04:14

because it needs to be a lot of

1:04:16

those. This is interesting, just

1:04:18

in our very quick results here and

1:04:20

what we were saying about me doing

1:04:22

better when I was trying, it reminds

1:04:24

me of one anecdote from an interview

1:04:26

I saw with Dr. Jessica Utz, and

1:04:29

she'll come up. She was one

1:04:32

of the paper writers who evaluated the Stargate

1:04:34

project, so we'll probably be talking about her

1:04:36

soon. But one thing she mentioned was the

1:04:38

sheep goat effect, and I

1:04:40

like this. So apparently

1:04:42

people who believed in

1:04:44

the ESP remote viewing

1:04:47

phenomena tended to do

1:04:49

better than chance, and people who did

1:04:51

not believe tended to do worse than

1:04:53

chance. That was referred to as

1:04:55

the sheep goat effect. That's a fun one

1:04:57

to add to my tool belt. So what

1:04:59

is the effect? Can you break it down?

1:05:02

Okay, so this is from the APA website.

1:05:04

The way they set this up tells me

1:05:06

something. They say, in parapsychology experiments using zener

1:05:08

cards or similar targets, the sheep

1:05:10

goat effect is a supposed difference in

1:05:12

outcomes found between trials involving participants who

1:05:14

believe they may succeed in the given

1:05:17

task, sheep, and trials involving those

1:05:19

who assume that this is impossible, goats.

1:05:22

And it was coined

1:05:24

by parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler.

1:05:27

So my guess is this could also

1:05:29

be tied to like a measurer effect

1:05:31

or a bias in the experimenters. Yeah,

1:05:33

it sounds like it actually reveals

1:05:36

non-randomness in the methodology. Yeah.

1:05:38

Or if the testing method itself somehow

1:05:40

rewards people who are just kind of

1:05:42

engaged in trying. For example, we were

1:05:44

talking about how there's a lot of

1:05:47

massaging that happens later with, oh, oh,

1:05:49

well, I saw a triangle. So that

1:05:51

makes sense that it would be a

1:05:53

pyramid. I'm guessing perhaps the people who

1:05:55

don't believe in the phenomenon to begin

1:05:58

with are less likely to... Haggle

1:06:00

and try to like I didn't like

1:06:02

I was describing I rigidly was like

1:06:04

no carry the very first thing you

1:06:06

pictured Hold on to that. Yeah, I

1:06:09

think of as honest and they

1:06:11

encourage you to do but do they actually

1:06:13

do that when they're Well,

1:06:15

that was during the panel they were saying, you know, whatever

1:06:17

the first thing is that comes to your mind That's the

1:06:20

way was saying hold on to that Stick

1:06:22

with it. Yes. Okay. Oh, that's true. Cool.

1:06:24

Thanks for trying that out on drew By

1:06:27

the way drew was so mad through the

1:06:29

whole thing. He was furious Just

1:06:32

like how this app was built. Yes.

1:06:34

Well, he had the same reaction I did of

1:06:37

just like oh, wow Okay, I need to cough

1:06:39

up an image every time. Let me stop and

1:06:41

pause and think about it I guess so he

1:06:43

was doing all that work the same level of

1:06:46

work. I was doing that you found funny Work

1:06:50

I find like amusing he was

1:06:53

like this is ridiculous Yeah, am I

1:06:55

spending this much time doing this? It makes

1:06:57

no sense I think that puts me just

1:06:59

on that goat end of that spectrum where

1:07:01

I was like Do I want to put

1:07:03

the effort into this thing that I know

1:07:05

is not going to reward set effort? No,

1:07:07

I do not So

1:07:10

yeah, I don't think this is a

1:07:12

well-designed app. Yeah, sorry Russell Targ Also,

1:07:15

I don't even know that I believe that

1:07:17

it's predicting anything that it like

1:07:19

has that picture in mind When

1:07:22

it asks me the questions that come before

1:07:24

I don't know I even buy that after

1:07:26

taking it a few times you realize it

1:07:28

has a limited set of image, huh? But

1:07:31

it's using his target. So at some point

1:07:33

I could just start homing in on what

1:07:35

I think is a good aggregate Yeah of

1:07:37

features that are likely to show up in

1:07:39

the images like counting cards or something. Yeah

1:07:42

Problems with these protocols definitely something that

1:07:45

will come up here. By the way

1:07:47

Russell Targ. We mentioned still alive He's

1:07:50

90 years old. Oh, wow. Yeah, so

1:07:52

still kicking now Talk

1:07:55

about someone walking around the Kremlin in

1:07:57

her head and then someone

1:07:59

else tracking submarine And that's why the

1:08:01

last one yeah Paul who was on

1:08:03

the panel She was singing

1:08:05

his praises saying that when they first recruited him

1:08:07

and he was a later recruit. He started in

1:08:09

1983 Okay, oh,

1:08:11

so did I? He had

1:08:13

been I guess using boards to track Russian

1:08:15

submarines and he was giving details about that

1:08:18

I don't know how they were able to

1:08:20

verify it like it That

1:08:25

should be assumed For

1:08:29

this panel if we're talking about

1:08:31

someone traveling to Russia they

1:08:33

probably were doing it in their head And

1:08:38

then she may have been talking about

1:08:40

either Pat Smith or Ingo Swan Those

1:08:42

were like their two main guys also

1:08:44

traveling because the Soviets were the big

1:08:47

Enemies and there was a lot of interest in what

1:08:49

was going on in the Kremlin. What are they hiding?

1:08:51

Right. This was all over media at

1:08:53

the time. It's so prevalent like Indiana

1:08:55

Jones Just like there was oh, yeah

1:08:57

there where if there were Russian people

1:08:59

they were put it was it was

1:09:01

within this lens Yeah, like oh, of

1:09:03

course. They're gonna be the villains and

1:09:05

they're yeah, I remember reading Tom

1:09:08

Clancy novels I was really into them

1:09:10

when I was young and it would

1:09:12

always be the Russians who were the

1:09:14

antagonists But you know sometimes the Germans

1:09:16

and sometimes true true Maybe the Chinese

1:09:18

if you were lucky would get involved

1:09:20

somehow And then I remember around the

1:09:22

Gulf War all of a sudden we had this whole new

1:09:24

cast of characters like Oh, we can write about people in

1:09:26

the Middle East Yeah, these

1:09:28

things go through trends. Yeah I remember Mitt

1:09:31

Romney getting kind of laughed at in a

1:09:33

debate with Obama during the

1:09:35

2012 election when he

1:09:37

was asked what our biggest enemy was

1:09:39

and he said Russia people like come

1:09:41

on That's played out

1:09:47

And now people like Maybe

1:09:49

Mitt Romney was onto something right because they

1:09:52

are certainly aggressors now. Oh also around

1:09:54

this period Everybody's starting to

1:09:56

get their pitches in we're hearing about a lot of

1:09:58

books. We're hearing about a lot of podcasts. Yeah,

1:10:00

oh for sure. Um, Russell

1:10:02

Targ's third eye spies movie

1:10:05

again. Yes. I definitely went to check that out.

1:10:07

I gotta watch. And I won't do any kind

1:10:09

of like big run through, but I feel like

1:10:11

I'll have a lot of interesting little anecdotes to

1:10:13

share from it. But I got to show you

1:10:15

the very first quote that they lead off the

1:10:17

film with because it involves our man, Jimmy

1:10:20

Carter. Oh, okay. He gets brought into this story

1:10:22

too. He's kind of like a major figure here.

1:10:24

It's really to me have two Jimmy

1:10:26

C's that we both really love. Jimmy Carter.

1:10:30

Yeah, that's interesting.

1:10:32

Well, and let's not forget, Jiminy

1:10:35

cricket. True related. Yeah, I do

1:10:37

actually really like Jiminy cricket. Oh yeah. Yeah,

1:10:39

that was one of my like go to characters as

1:10:41

a kid. One time

1:10:43

we had a small plane go

1:10:46

down somewhere in Africa and we

1:10:48

were not able to find it by surveillance.

1:10:51

So the director of the

1:10:53

CIA heard about a woman

1:10:56

in California that was a

1:10:58

medium and

1:11:01

she gave him the

1:11:04

latitude and longitude of the

1:11:06

plane's whereabouts. We located the

1:11:08

plane where she said it

1:11:10

was. That's

1:11:13

the only time that I have ever

1:11:15

experienced something that was inexplicable

1:11:17

while I was present. That

1:11:21

was Jimmy Carter apparently recorded 2016. And it's interesting

1:11:25

he offers that little qualification. That's

1:11:27

the only time I have ever experienced

1:11:29

something that was inexplicable while I was

1:11:32

president. Because there's the other story

1:11:34

of him seeing the UFO. Oh, I

1:11:36

see that the UFO community makes big

1:11:38

hay out of so look here. He's

1:11:40

like giving credence to the remote viewing

1:11:42

community. Yes, but you know what I hear in

1:11:45

that is compulsive honesty. Yeah, which

1:11:47

I so get well and I'll have this

1:11:49

quality where I'm just like, okay, you asked

1:11:51

me fine. Okay, the near the example you're

1:11:53

looking for fine. I totally get that from

1:11:56

Jimmy Carter. I think that's a correct assessment.

1:11:58

And apparently the the Soviet plane I've

1:12:00

gotten multiple dates on it. So it was either 78

1:12:02

which they said in the documentary or 76 when the

1:12:04

spy plane Crashed

1:12:07

and apparently this was in

1:12:09

Zaire and they credit Rosemary

1:12:11

Smith a young Administrative assistant

1:12:13

who was recruited to the

1:12:15

project. She supposedly correctly gave

1:12:17

them the coordinates and

1:12:19

then like in the telling of the story they mentioned

1:12:21

that they got to the place and Then

1:12:23

they saw someone like emerging from you know

1:12:26

out in the hinterlands with pieces of metal

1:12:28

from the plane So with

1:12:30

all of these stories, of course We're only getting

1:12:32

the version of them from the people who are

1:12:34

really excited to tell them and have told them

1:12:36

many times So I'm highly suspicious but I

1:12:39

just get this mental image of them

1:12:41

knowing roughly the path of the plane

1:12:43

and this remote viewer saying Here's where

1:12:45

I think it went down Probably already

1:12:47

being within a fairly constrained radius and

1:12:50

then them saying hey We landed where

1:12:52

we were told and turns out just

1:12:54

a mile away. There was this plane.

1:12:56

So anyways, so it's interesting

1:12:58

And yeah, good on Jimmy Carter for sharing

1:13:01

it But apparently he had said

1:13:03

this first publicly in 1995 at like

1:13:05

a commencement Or

1:13:08

something for Emory University students, okay, and

1:13:10

he wasn't supposed to this project wasn't

1:13:13

declassified yet In

1:13:15

the documentary they say he kind of outed

1:13:17

us all in that moment And so the

1:13:19

government had to do some quick action to

1:13:21

I guess make this public. Oh,

1:13:24

maybe that's why you know I could be

1:13:26

overstating that but it seemed like the timing

1:13:28

was right for them to finally reveal

1:13:30

that this project had happened Huh as

1:13:32

a result of him telling the story

1:13:35

that involved the government using psychic

1:13:37

spies, you know when I worked

1:13:39

for the James Randy Educational Foundation I

1:13:42

remember we put through a FOIA request

1:13:44

that trying to remember what the production

1:13:46

actually said but I remember that

1:13:48

there was a Program where

1:13:50

they were paying for dowsing rods to

1:13:52

be used to like Oh for

1:13:55

bomb detection. Yes Oh,

1:13:58

it's just so frustrating trading because

1:14:00

that's a life and death

1:14:02

situation and you're giving people

1:14:04

non-functioning dowsing rods. Well, I

1:14:06

mean, dowsing rods. Right. Don't

1:14:09

mean to repeat myself. Yeah,

1:14:11

I'm all for throwing research money

1:14:14

at these things, but yeah, once

1:14:16

you're down to application, brand new

1:14:18

questions arrive. Like, does this work?

1:14:20

Do we have any reason to think

1:14:23

this works? Right, you're sending personnel out

1:14:25

with this device saying, here, this will

1:14:27

help you detect bombs. Oh

1:14:29

my goodness. But as you might

1:14:31

guess, this film, Third Eye Spies,

1:14:33

is also produced by Russell Targ.

1:14:36

This is a guy, and this was 2019, so not too long

1:14:38

ago. He's still in his 80s at the time. And

1:14:41

it retells a lot of these stories

1:14:43

from Project Stargate, which by the way,

1:14:45

it went by a lot of different

1:14:47

names during the program and

1:14:49

it wasn't dubbed Stargate until like

1:14:51

the 90s. Oh, I know. I

1:14:54

was in it. Oh, yeah. That's right. I'm

1:14:57

so involved that your therapist had

1:14:59

told you this. Yeah, that's correct. That's

1:15:01

right. Crazy. So it

1:15:03

was just notable as well because all

1:15:05

of the usual players came on screen.

1:15:08

Okay, I'm good. Okay. Yeah,

1:15:10

you might guess. Like, when you think

1:15:12

of researchers involved in psi, paranormal phenomenon,

1:15:14

parapsychology. Okay, okay, okay. Let me pull up

1:15:16

some names. Rupert Sheldrake. Oddly

1:15:19

not Rupert Sheldrake. You would think so. Okay,

1:15:21

okay. You would totally think so, but you're

1:15:23

thinking exactly the right kind of people. Okay, okay,

1:15:25

okay. Dean. Dean

1:15:27

Radin. Oh, that guy. He

1:15:29

was in it. Gary

1:15:32

Schwartz. Okay. Another noted

1:15:34

parapsychology researcher, Charles

1:15:36

Tartt. Okay. He's still around too. If

1:15:38

you've spent any time in this world,

1:15:41

you've seen these people because these are

1:15:43

the kind of fringe researchers. Some of

1:15:45

them managed to have tenure and they

1:15:47

research things like dogs who know when

1:15:50

their owners are coming home or people

1:15:52

feeling that they're being watched by someone

1:15:54

from behind their back and slightly

1:15:57

affecting the random generation of

1:15:59

non-profit. by a random number

1:16:01

generation machine. Just all these really

1:16:04

weird things where subjectivity and custom

1:16:06

data calling and deviations from the

1:16:08

mean can be pruned to give

1:16:11

them results. Anyways, it was just

1:16:13

like this who's who. And of

1:16:15

course, who else would they bring

1:16:18

on but? Famous psychic and unsinkable

1:16:20

rubber duck. Sylvia Brown?

1:16:23

Think James Randi. Oh, Uri

1:16:25

Geller. Uri Geller. And we haven't

1:16:28

mentioned him yet, but this

1:16:30

troublemaker who shows up

1:16:32

in the first few pages of The

1:16:34

Men Who Stares at Goats is also involved

1:16:36

in this project. And he was originally

1:16:38

one of the early recruits as a psychic

1:16:41

for this program. One of the

1:16:43

early recruits. Ha ha

1:16:45

ha. In the 1970s. And

1:16:48

so they were already getting quote unquote

1:16:50

promising results from him. And in

1:16:53

the film, they make it sound like

1:16:55

the government was concerned because he had

1:16:57

Israeli citizenship. So maybe he's not working

1:16:59

for us. But in another telling, I

1:17:02

hear that the government called in Ray

1:17:04

Hyman, who will show up

1:17:06

20 years later to help in this, hats

1:17:08

off to Ray Hyman for holding his own,

1:17:11

sharing good statistics and test design

1:17:13

through all of this. But

1:17:16

even as early as the 1970s, he was

1:17:18

brought in to evaluate Uri Geller in

1:17:20

these experiments and said, the guy's a

1:17:22

total fraud. He's cheating you. And

1:17:25

he got kicked off the project. So Uri

1:17:28

was not involved after those early days. Oh,

1:17:30

Uri got kicked off the project. Yeah. OK.

1:17:32

Yeah. Because of Ray Hyman. Right. Hey, way

1:17:34

to go, Ray Hyman. In the mid 70s.

1:17:36

And then Ray Hyman comes back 20 years

1:17:39

later to deal another serious blow to this

1:17:41

whole project. That's cool. But we'll talk about

1:17:43

that. I'm really getting Uri fury.

1:17:48

Yeah. It's justified fury. My

1:17:52

man Randy died a few years ago. He's a problem.

1:17:54

And he was so obsessed

1:17:57

to his grave. Without.

1:18:00

Battery killer is yeah, and I must

1:18:02

admit I had that you know, oh,

1:18:04

this is my cute old man friend

1:18:07

response Yeah, a little bit about it

1:18:09

a little too surly and grumpy. Yeah, which he

1:18:11

was but also

1:18:14

Now I'm like, oh my

1:18:16

god. The New York Times is still

1:18:18

fucking publishing fluff pieces about

1:18:20

this True con artist and then

1:18:22

being cute and coy about it and the

1:18:24

authors on Twitter being like, oh, you know

1:18:26

Isn't there magic left in the world? No,

1:18:28

you're a reporter Got

1:18:31

your job He's

1:18:41

one of these people who will just say

1:18:43

anything and He'll say it

1:18:45

with conviction in the documentary. He's all up

1:18:47

in a in a tiff and says Hey,

1:18:51

this is real. Don't you

1:18:53

try to debunk this? because

1:18:56

it is Scientifically proven.

1:18:58

It's like oh, I don't

1:19:00

like you. Yeah, I will try

1:19:02

to deny it. Yeah common try Let's

1:19:05

sit together. Let's break bread. Let's

1:19:07

design an experiment. Have you actually do a

1:19:09

test which Bury

1:19:11

avoid All

1:19:14

costs because he knows what he's doing.

1:19:16

Yeah, Sydney Gottlieb was a character in

1:19:18

this so I know about name Yeah,

1:19:20

I'd read a really good book about

1:19:22

him Poisoner in chief. Oh

1:19:25

that guy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah the MK ultra

1:19:27

guy. Yeah. Yeah the guy who introduced

1:19:29

LSD into Well the US

1:19:31

but you know through the CIA MK ultra

1:19:33

program, right? And he was still around at

1:19:36

the time and he was saying, oh, yeah,

1:19:38

this is great research You should have the

1:19:40

readers take LSD When

1:19:46

you've got a when you got a hammer Everything

1:19:55

Edgar Mitchell was in here as well.

1:19:57

He was the sixth man to land on the

1:19:59

moon Oh, okay. The sixth

1:20:01

person, they just all happen to be men. And

1:20:04

he's another guy who just unfortunately is

1:20:06

a little too credulous and willing to

1:20:08

kind of sign on to alien visitation.

1:20:11

And he's been in the moon? I

1:20:13

know. Yeah, he's another... Oh, buddy.

1:20:16

I know. He's not doing anybody any

1:20:18

favors here. A little too willing to believe a

1:20:20

lot of this stuff. And so that's another person

1:20:22

that they can always draw credibility from. Yeah. You

1:20:24

know, he was part of the Apollo program. Now

1:20:27

I'm thinking about our friend, Terry... Who's

1:20:30

our friend who's been to space? Terry Virts. Thank

1:20:33

you. Our friend who's been to space,

1:20:35

Terry Virts, believes in God. Wild.

1:20:38

Just wild. But that's how the human

1:20:40

mind is. So that means I've got

1:20:42

these things, Ross. They're on the corner somewhere

1:20:44

and people are like, what's that, Kerry? And I'm just

1:20:46

walking around and thinking that it's consistent.

1:20:49

I mean, even the God piece doesn't surprise

1:20:51

me that much because there are plenty of

1:20:53

working professionals who were

1:20:55

raised with God belief and had found

1:20:57

ways to just kind of incorporate it

1:20:59

rationally. But the fact that he

1:21:01

went into a very creationist statement when we

1:21:04

were talking to him on the show is

1:21:06

just wild. And the eleventh hour. Wild. Just

1:21:09

really the very end. After a whole conversation about

1:21:11

promoting science to people. No, it

1:21:13

was great though. I mean, it was great. It

1:21:15

was one of the best moments because

1:21:18

that really, I don't know, is that

1:21:20

human mind. Yeah. I

1:21:22

also got blown on that episode by something else

1:21:24

that came to light, but we were asked not

1:21:26

to share it. Yeah, that's right. That's

1:21:28

right. I guess those are the big

1:21:31

figures, but it was a real parade

1:21:33

of the people you would expect in

1:21:35

this documentary, which if you know the

1:21:37

context, definitely it's great to watch. If

1:21:40

you don't, though, I feel it's like so deceptive

1:21:42

for just the general populace who would go in

1:21:44

and think they were getting million to one odds

1:21:46

because that's really how they sold it multiple times

1:21:49

saying that this was really proven. And then

1:21:51

you have to ask, well, then why aren't we still doing

1:21:53

it? If it got results,

1:21:56

why doesn't the government use it? I mean, they could

1:21:58

be using it secretly. I guess

1:22:00

so, but apparently nobody in this community

1:22:03

seems to be aware that it's still

1:22:05

happening. They all seem to admit that

1:22:07

the government has moved on. Oh, yeah,

1:22:09

do they? Yeah. I mean,

1:22:11

there's all those Project Monarch people. Which one is Monarch

1:22:13

again? Project Monarch people

1:22:16

think that there's still a

1:22:18

government program going on to

1:22:20

kidnap kids, bring them to

1:22:22

Disneyland, brainwash them. Okay.

1:22:24

Yeah. Oh, bless

1:22:26

their hearts. Yeah, and

1:22:29

generally the kids are given multiple

1:22:32

personality disorder or something

1:22:34

like that. So a lot of parents

1:22:37

with kids, especially with developmental

1:22:40

disabilities will interpret it this way. I

1:22:42

would say... Not great, not great. I would say

1:22:45

you'll always find someone on the French who will

1:22:47

say whatever weird thing it is you want to

1:22:49

ask about. But I think

1:22:51

generally this community realizes that it's been

1:22:53

sort of deprecated, pushed to the side,

1:22:55

discredited. Yeah, okay. And they're upset about

1:22:58

that. Yeah. But they're not like

1:23:00

kind of turning around and being like, huh, huh, but secretly

1:23:02

actually they're still using it. There were Project Monarch people at

1:23:04

this conference though. Were there really? Yeah, yeah,

1:23:06

Drew and I talked to them. Okay, like in the

1:23:08

audience or actually presenting? No, tables. Oh,

1:23:11

okay, people with tables. Tables. Oh,

1:23:13

interesting. Okay, because you do get some

1:23:15

conspiracy theories like that's kind of how we met

1:23:17

Dylan Lewis-Monroe. Dylan Lewis-Monroe. I

1:23:20

really feel I have a soul connection with

1:23:22

Dylan Lewis-Monroe. So I'll probably

1:23:24

share some more little anecdotes from the film.

1:23:26

And if you're interested in this topic, it's

1:23:28

worth watching. Just remember it is a very

1:23:30

lopsided presentation. Okay. As you

1:23:32

might expect. So then they talked about

1:23:35

someone predicting a terrorist attack in London.

1:23:37

Yeah, oh my goodness. That story

1:23:39

introduces I think an important element in

1:23:42

that this person who had had the

1:23:44

vision of the terrorist attack, the panelists

1:23:46

just referred to the guy as Graham

1:23:48

who had had this vision. And I

1:23:50

was able to find that it was

1:23:52

Graham Nichols. And apparently

1:23:54

this was In 1999, but

1:23:56

he described this terrorist attack and a

1:23:59

bomb going off. They have four or

1:24:01

five people who signed affidavit that they

1:24:03

heard him make that prediction. Ah, okay,

1:24:06

because it didn't happen that day. It

1:24:08

happened as it for five days later.

1:24:11

Okay, well you already have the correct

1:24:14

reaction but they use that as a

1:24:16

way to expand his ability to say

1:24:18

not only can you give remotely in

1:24:20

three dimensional space but you can slip

1:24:23

through time and fourth dimensional space time

1:24:25

and that predict things that are going

1:24:27

to happen in the future which is

1:24:29

just another. Way to always be

1:24:32

right? A Yeah! Well, okay

1:24:34

side extract: I was at a party

1:24:36

with Alice fans. Any site. Oh

1:24:38

I had this dream and ah,

1:24:40

it was in London and there

1:24:42

was a whiz bang and a

1:24:44

flask and they're all like. Scram

1:24:48

again task and others can. A

1:24:50

staff are at night and they

1:24:52

go out with their and little

1:24:54

lives and then this. Thing. Happens

1:24:56

and he turns around He got affidavits reverie

1:24:58

lot and is like remember how I sat

1:25:01

there he held i'm here I a lot

1:25:03

of album and or i guess grand yes

1:25:05

gram of hey listen. We've all got testimonials

1:25:07

to work with so your written affidavits

1:25:09

are gonna be very impressive and only

1:25:11

we in Scientology in a few other

1:25:13

weirdos, right insists on people's I'm an

1:25:16

Affidavit Zeiger. Yes, I will sign the scam.

1:25:18

I need my keys backs in the last time

1:25:20

you were saying here. And us dollar

1:25:22

your sit on my couch. That's

1:25:26

a big cities are going down.

1:25:28

Yeah, probably not far from right.

1:25:30

For affidavit that there was later

1:25:32

on an anecdote from Deseret that

1:25:34

similarly irked me and was on

1:25:36

that same thread. She said that

1:25:38

Elizabeth browser their collaborator on that

1:25:40

book that you know the most

1:25:42

elegant scientists represent most elegant female

1:25:44

scientists. Elegant female says it's It's

1:25:46

to see if. She

1:25:48

would use. She would use remote viewing to help

1:25:51

her find her keys. vow that would guys call

1:25:53

it at. Work or I know prayer

1:25:55

works just square or l and air

1:25:57

attack. Air

1:26:00

tags are even more effective. Yeah,

1:26:02

technology always steps in with the real solution

1:26:04

that we actually end up using. And

1:26:09

Elizabeth would even remote view restaurant

1:26:11

food items. Oh, I do that

1:26:13

too. Before I go, I look

1:26:15

it up. Well, I mean, it's one thing to

1:26:17

look at it on the menu, but she wants

1:26:19

to see how it's actually going to look and

1:26:21

whether she'll enjoy it. Okay, she needs Yelp. Hey,

1:26:23

if that actually worked, that would be a great

1:26:25

skill. I would use it every day. But Desiree

1:26:27

said that she had a lucid dream about her

1:26:30

secretary, Lila, and she was

1:26:32

told in the dream that

1:26:34

Lila doesn't work here anymore.

1:26:36

Okay. Okay, this is

1:26:38

great news so far. Nine

1:26:41

months later, Lila's

1:26:43

husband got cancer. Oh,

1:26:45

this isn't good news. And he asked

1:26:47

her to stop working, I guess to

1:26:49

support him. Okay. And so

1:26:51

nine months later, Lila no longer works there. And

1:26:55

my lucid dream was correct.

1:26:58

Oh, man. Desiree. I thought this

1:27:00

was going to be like a lesbian fantasy.

1:27:02

She's like, oh, she's not

1:27:04

a coworker anymore. I get to

1:27:06

follow up on my dream. That

1:27:11

would be relevant for the panel. But then it turns out

1:27:13

she has a husband and her husband dies. Nine

1:27:15

months later. Oh, fuck. Give

1:27:18

me a break. Terrible. She didn't say whether the

1:27:20

husband died or not. So you can imagine him

1:27:22

still living. chocolate.

1:27:25

Okay, you're right. Thank you. But

1:27:28

what really irked me was the... So

1:27:31

nine months later after I had... Give me a break. Okay.

1:27:33

Lila can't work there forever, Desiree. She can't

1:27:36

work there forever. She's going to eventually

1:27:38

quit is what you're saying. So a

1:27:40

dream that someone is quitting should only

1:27:42

be good for like, yeah, probably like

1:27:44

five weeks. Yeah,

1:27:46

there needs to be a fall off

1:27:49

period. At which point you

1:27:51

don't get to take credit anymore. Yeah, it's

1:27:53

like if I had a dream that you died

1:27:55

and then took credit when you die in your

1:27:57

70s. Yeah, exactly. Yes,

1:28:00

at some point, yes, I will have

1:28:02

to die. That is the only available

1:28:04

option. In

1:28:07

the documentary, again, Dean Radin,

1:28:09

this well-known researcher of all

1:28:11

these things, is saying maybe

1:28:13

consciousness is quantum mechanical. If

1:28:15

I want to go see Pluto a million years

1:28:17

ago, I should be able to. Which

1:28:21

tells you plenty about the quality of

1:28:24

Dean Radin's research. And

1:28:26

the sense of entitlement. Sure, sure. Sure,

1:28:29

sure. See, the universe should give me that.

1:28:31

If I want to see Pluto 200 million years

1:28:33

ago, I should be able to.

1:28:37

Okay, I'm seeing it now and it looks pretty

1:28:39

similar. Come. Wait,

1:28:43

let me see it again now. Okay, let me see it a

1:28:45

million years ago. Oh, that crater

1:28:47

wasn't there. That crater is new. Okay.

1:28:52

The important thing is that I got to

1:28:54

see what I wanted to see. And the

1:28:56

important thing is I deserve this. So just

1:28:58

know that not only is remote viewing through

1:29:00

space, we were talking earlier about how they

1:29:02

had kind of opened up the definition on

1:29:04

the program. Maybe that's part

1:29:06

of it. It's just, you know, well, now

1:29:08

we're allowing time travel. Yes. Oh,

1:29:10

right. This is shooting forward in

1:29:13

time as well. But JJ, her talk

1:29:15

was talking about how this is expanding

1:29:17

our minds so that we can start

1:29:19

communicating like in the fifth dimension and

1:29:21

preparing us for communication with

1:29:23

aliens, of course. I

1:29:26

mean, it's finally we're going to get to this fifth

1:29:28

dimension. Yeah. I have been waiting

1:29:30

and waiting. Desiree was saying that Elizabeth

1:29:32

Raucher agrees that there is an eight

1:29:34

dimensional space where you can know past,

1:29:36

present, and future. Okay. An

1:29:41

eight dimensional space, but you only get to

1:29:43

know those three dimensions in it. Where

1:29:46

are the other five? You've just introduced

1:29:48

five more and now left me hanging.

1:29:50

Right. But you just want to

1:29:52

brag about results that are describable in the third

1:29:55

dimension or fourth dimension. Right. But

1:29:57

yeah, what are you going to do? Hi,

1:30:00

this is Liz, and this is the

1:30:02

final season of One Bad Mother,

1:30:04

a comedy podcast about parenting. This

1:30:06

is going to be a year

1:30:08

of celebrating all that makes this

1:30:10

podcast and this community magical. I'm

1:30:12

so glad that I found your

1:30:14

podcast. I just cannot thank you

1:30:16

enough for just being the voice

1:30:19

of reason as I'm trying to

1:30:21

figure all of this out. Thank

1:30:23

you and cheers to your incredible

1:30:25

show and the vision you have

1:30:27

to provide this space for all

1:30:29

of us. This is still a

1:30:31

show about life after giving life

1:30:33

and yes there will be swears. You

1:30:36

can find us on maximumfun.org

1:30:38

and as always you are

1:30:40

doing a great job. Okay,

1:30:44

so speaking of little side trips, they

1:30:46

kept giving us all these things to

1:30:48

look up like the app, like the

1:30:50

movie. Desiree tells us a lot of

1:30:52

this data was made public in the

1:30:54

mid 90s and she said you can

1:30:56

even find it on the CIA website

1:30:58

if you're willing to go there. You

1:31:00

can search for evaluation of the remote

1:31:02

viewing program. So I did this. I

1:31:05

did dare to go to the CIA

1:31:07

website. Okay, nice. Yeah, I feel

1:31:09

like I've seen this before. Yeah, for a reading

1:31:11

room? Yes, yeah, they have a lot of downloadable

1:31:14

PDFs about this project because it's been

1:31:16

declassified. I guess it was released in

1:31:18

2002, but the reports were written in

1:31:20

1995. Specifically, an

1:31:23

evaluation of remote viewing research and

1:31:25

applications. Though at first I found

1:31:28

the scanned version of the draft

1:31:30

that was printed a week before

1:31:32

the final report was published and

1:31:34

it was called an evaluation of

1:31:36

remote viewing research and applications. Oh,

1:31:39

you always love me a good government typo. Yeah,

1:31:41

remote viewing. They left out the first time.

1:31:45

So this was prepared by

1:31:47

the American Institutes for Research.

1:31:49

AIR? Yes, AIR. There were three Primary

1:31:52

authors, but I think the most

1:31:55

interesting figures here are: Our Man

1:31:57

Ray Hyman. He was brought. The

1:32:00

expert reviewers as was just

1:32:02

cut us Doctor Jessica at

1:32:04

oh I know that name

1:32:06

you T T S. O

1:32:08

Who is that? She is a professor

1:32:11

of statistics at the University of

1:32:13

California Davis. And. Were re. Hyman

1:32:15

was a professor of psychology at the

1:32:17

University of Oregon, so they were selected

1:32:19

to represent the two sides. As you

1:32:22

know, statisticians who can look at these

1:32:24

tests that had been done in the

1:32:26

Stargate program. A Doctor Us I've I've

1:32:28

read elsewhere people saying like maybe he

1:32:31

shouldn't have been included cause she'd already

1:32:33

coauthored papers with one of their the

1:32:35

main researchers arts the Stargate program at

1:32:37

Sri. Okay, Anna just already kind of

1:32:40

revealed herself to be sort of part

1:32:42

of the operation their ass Certainly. Sympathetic,

1:32:44

but you know that alone when it

1:32:46

disqualify her. Okay, that's their can lanning

1:32:48

I see and then Doctor Hyman against

1:32:50

us. Great so researcher and and long

1:32:53

time skeptic. I bet I'm a few

1:32:55

times, but I finally got a picture

1:32:57

with them recently. He still kicking. He's

1:32:59

ninety five allowed so it's a hundred

1:33:01

eighty three pages. so I'm just gonna

1:33:03

give you a few quotable from it

1:33:05

path. But first they can a layout

1:33:07

sort of the the protocol overall that

1:33:10

they're trying to use. There's system of

1:33:12

viewings that happen and then you've got

1:33:14

evaluations. That followed them up in the

1:33:16

form of interviews and of course, subjective

1:33:18

means of just sort of rating how

1:33:20

accurate some of these viewings are. And

1:33:22

the protocols were a variety of things.

1:33:25

Like some of them were shifting the

1:33:27

random number generators. Ah, some of them

1:33:29

were picking targets from a collection of

1:33:31

one hundred images from National Geographic that

1:33:33

were used as target as and then

1:33:35

some of them were like going into

1:33:37

a location and trying to determine something

1:33:40

that was there. So that. So, going

1:33:42

back to the report, this multifaceted evaluation.

1:33:44

Effort led to the following conclusions: One.

1:33:47

The conditions under which the remote

1:33:49

viewing phenomenon is observed in laboratory

1:33:51

settings do not apply in intelligence

1:33:53

gathering situations. For example, viewers cannot

1:33:56

be provided with feedback and targets

1:33:58

may not display the characteristic needed

1:34:00

to produce hits like the. Were

1:34:02

should not be afraid of beauty back. It says

1:34:05

well yeah, like you know and I could be like a gremlin.

1:34:07

How do we do a i see your papers. Yeah yeah

1:34:09

and if you wanna see if

1:34:11

someone is truly remote viewing something

1:34:13

it don't give them feedback. Race

1:34:16

Well one of the big verify one

1:34:18

of the big stories are shooting over

1:34:20

to the documentary for a bit odd

1:34:22

that always gets touted for Stargate was

1:34:25

that you had the Burbank Police officer

1:34:27

Pat Price. He had apparently tried to

1:34:29

break into an In as a facility

1:34:32

remotely and looked into the like the

1:34:34

third floor vault underneath the ground. Now

1:34:36

to out and find a file cabinet

1:34:38

and sift through it with is mine

1:34:41

has had young us and then he

1:34:43

reported back okay I always wondered. About

1:34:45

this because I'd heard about this an

1:34:47

essay spying and I'd wondered what did

1:34:49

he actually find Death He had said

1:34:52

again, this is just how are presented

1:34:54

the information so there's a lot of

1:34:56

other steps along the way. But he

1:34:58

had said that on the folder markers

1:35:00

there were names. That word drawn from

1:35:02

pool terminology is like billiards that I

1:35:05

can remember what they were, but you

1:35:07

like I or rak or of behind

1:35:09

a ball or something like that. Yeah,

1:35:11

a bomb. And apparently the an As

1:35:13

got freaked out and said you're. Looking

1:35:15

at our stuff and now we need to invest

1:35:17

it your program. Where are you spying on us?

1:35:20

Who are These people are Packed! That's how the

1:35:22

stories told. Okay, do I believe it? Only.

1:35:24

As far as I can throat and it's a

1:35:27

story that cancer a story. I. Wonder how specific

1:35:29

he actually got when he said that to

1:35:31

them? Who's there? So many were goal

1:35:33

of opportunities for wiggle room un.

1:35:36

Of have their try to give your word and let's

1:35:38

see. If. You can make it about for

1:35:40

a cat. Okay apple. Apple. Yeah,

1:35:42

and apple is round and shiny. Kind of

1:35:44

like a cue ball. Very clear you were

1:35:46

looking at the ball that is red. That's

1:35:49

a solid red as one of the early

1:35:51

ones. Two or three or something like that

1:35:53

has a how bout how bout how bout

1:35:55

how bout. calendar calendars in

1:35:58

a grid trying to think

1:36:00

of like the pool table itself and how it

1:36:02

gets broken down. It's like a mathematical series of

1:36:05

angles. I don't know, I bet you could make

1:36:07

calendar work as well. If you work hard enough.

1:36:09

All right, but there were calendars in the folders.

1:36:12

True, oh yeah, true. He's on one

1:36:14

of our calendars. Yeah, yeah,

1:36:16

the story is as good as how much

1:36:19

the other person on the line freaks out. I mean,

1:36:21

if we're talking about 1970s, how

1:36:24

many references are guys gonna make when

1:36:26

they're coming up with a little codename,

1:36:28

or things, bowling, pool, dame.

1:36:32

Yeah, okay. Those

1:36:34

were the three things fun. Alcohol.

1:36:37

Three shots run. We're out of things. Yeah. That's

1:36:42

it. I'm less impressed than maybe I'm supposed

1:36:44

to be, okay, so going back to the

1:36:46

second bullet point from this report, the

1:36:48

information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate

1:36:50

with regard to specifics, and

1:36:53

required substantial subjective interpretation.

1:36:57

Like I'd love this report. Why did Desiree

1:36:59

want us to read this? Has she read it? Third

1:37:02

bullet point, in no case had

1:37:05

the information provided ever been used

1:37:07

to guide intelligence operations. Thus remote

1:37:09

viewing failed to produce actionable intelligence.

1:37:11

Okay, there you go. That's why the

1:37:13

program was discontinued. Like the one thing

1:37:15

that they even claim is remotely, close

1:37:19

to that is the downed plane in Zaire

1:37:22

from the 70s, at least that I've heard.

1:37:24

So shooting down the conclusion,

1:37:26

the foregoing observations provide a

1:37:28

compelling argument against continuation of

1:37:30

the program within the intelligence

1:37:32

community. Even though a statistically

1:37:34

significant effect has been observed

1:37:36

in the laboratory, it remains

1:37:38

unclear whether the existence of

1:37:40