They Located FOUR Extraterrestrial Bases - Dr. Paul Smith | ep.106

Imagine if you will, collecting a paycheck from the United States government for being a psychic spot. I can feel the skeptics getting uncomfortable already, but rest assured that is a fact. This is Paul Smith. He's retired Army Major, and back in the 1980s, he spent about seven years at Fort Mead in a classified program you might know as Stargate. His official job? Well, it was sitting in a gray room with nothing but a pen and a pad describing places he'd never been for people who wouldn't tell him what he was supposed to be looking at. Now, if you're not familiar with this program, I won't bore you with all the details. I did make a three-part mini documentary series early on in the channel if you want to check that out, but sufficient to say, this was a real program with oversight within the U.S. government for 20 years. Well, after he retired from this program in 2011, Paul, it's a call from, well, we can surmise it with someone in the government. He asked to put together a remote viewing team for a very interesting and very secret mission, and the target would be the 2004 USS Nimitz encounter, the TickTack, but this is 2011. This is six years before the New York Times told the world about it. We also get into the moon sessions where Paul interacted with what he describes as a sentient craft which reacted to him during his remote viewing session. And finally, Paul and the team of remote viewers were tasked to remote view for secret extraterrestrial military bases, not on Mars, not on the moon, but right here on Earth. We get into that, plus a whole bunch more. Paul is a fascinating guest. He has a PhD of studying consciousness and parapsychology, and was tasked with over 1,000 remote viewing sessions during his time working for the government. Please enjoy this conversation with my friend, Paul Smith. Everybody and I checked my great day out for a walk. I'm not sure what time of night it was. It was after dark, kind of a moat area. When we saw this thing, the glowing thing up in the sky, it was pretty far away, and it got closer and closer to the point where we were running away from it. My dog would stop a big old great day and bark bark bark at it, and I need to keep running without it. It was kind of a classic disc shape, but I'd say it's bigger than a fusc. I remember it was white, but also gold, and the gold was like the prettiest gold color white. I can't remember seeing it. Dan, pretty sure it might have lost a little time looking back, and then I found out some more about it recently. Anyway, love your show. Keep doing what you're doing. Folks, we are here with one of the longest, I would say one of the longest serving psychic spies in history. Is that fair to say? It's fair. I mean, there are a Joe McMonigal steel rail, so I want to give credit to the senior people. Definitely. But yeah, in terms of longevity, I've been at it a long time. For those who don't know, Paul Smith, you recruited 1983 and a remote viewing program, which at the time was not Stargate, which became Stargate. Was it Grillflame or Center Lane at that time? It had just barely become Center Lane. Just became Center Lane. If you look at the Constitution, the Constitution of the whole thing, it was technically Stargate. It just hadn't been called that yet. The Stargate name, in fact, was the final nickname. They call them nickname, project, nicknames, right? So you can talk about a project that is classified with an unclassified term. That's the idea of it. Stargate was introduced at the appropriate time administratively to have a new nickname. And it then became the final name of the program because it canceled it while it was still Stargate. And so it's become known as that ever since. That's kind of the rubric, the umbrella name to call it. And I kind of like having a single name to address it. I mean, you can say, well, Center Lane, Center, Stargate, you know, I got to leave some all of it or in. And yeah, that's awkward. It's all the same thing, essentially. But you have under your belt. I mean, you were a remote viewer, a training instructor, a unit historian, also a security officer, and you have over a thousand training and operational sessions with remote viewing, which is quite substantial. And I expect a lot of those are probably, you know, run-of-the-mill remote viewing targets. And today we're going to get into some of them that weren't as well, because I think that's really what I want to hear about when a lot of the audience I'm sure is thrilled to listen to as well. And then you ended your, you weren't retired in 1990. You went to Desert Storm. Is that correct for the liberation of Kuwait? Yep. And then after that co-founded Irva as well after you retired, which is the International Remote Viewing Association, which you just come from. Yeah, we just had our 2026 or I'm actually not a enough officer with them anymore, but I still participate all the time. It came from the 2026 conference, which I think is probably up around 20 conferences we've done over the years, something like that. I haven't counted them up. So incredible. And also the main author of the coordinate remote viewing for the the DIA, trained by how put off an Ingo Swan, which if you're going to be trained by anybody in remote viewing, I mean, that's the that's the cream of the crop right there. It is the gold standard. You have a PhD at UT Austin in philosophy of the mind and also consciousness of the mind science and parapsychology as well. And a few of the books for those of you curious out there reading the enemy's mind, the essential guide to our to remote viewing and foundations of controlled remote viewing are through the books that you authored, but also you were part of another book that was put out later by a by skip at water, reflecting the 1973 remote viewing targets of Pat Price that he by himself decided to remote view these four alleged extraterrestrial bases, which became known by skip as project 8200 something we'll get into as well. But I just want to say thank you for being here. It's been a long time coming. We've crossed paths a few times at conventions and thank you for finally making the track up here. And I've always been in awe of you, Chris. Oh, thank you. Yeah, yeah. Actually, you're a pretty impressive guy. Thank you. I'm not doing that to butter you up, so they ask me easy questions. There'll be nothing easy here except except the good time. My hopefully my answers will be reasonably easy, but yeah. Yeah, no, it's really great having you here, Paul. You know, I've I've really come to appreciate your take on a lot of things because when you get into the remote viewing field, you can go one of two ways, right? You can go the whole scientific route where everything is under rigorous standard testing and p-values and numbers. And then there's the other route, which is just kind of like vibing. And you're like, let me get my crystals ready and let me sense what's going on around in the world. But you I do feel like you're somewhere in the middle of all this where you do have an appreciation for both sides. But you also have a knowledge, I think, that not very many people have when it comes to coordinate remote viewing, obviously, and consciousness in the study of consciousness. And you've, you know, rubbed elbows with the who's who of people who are studying consciousness. And so it makes you a most interesting person to discuss this with. And so I'm very excited about today's discussion. Thank you. I'm anxious to see how it turns out but I have have good hopes for it. So yeah, so do I. If you guys want to check out how you got into remote viewing and how you got into the Stargate program, I mean, that's something I'm happy to talk about if you want to talk about it. I know you've talked about it plenty before. So I can also guide people to some of the conversations you've had previously, namely, with a friend of ours of the show here, Michael Phil, a personal friend of mine. He's amazing third eye drops. And you've done a couple episodes over there more than a couple actually. And they are very interesting. It's I think I learned the most about you through those interviews, actually. And it really peaked my interest. And so if you want to, could you give us a quick overview of how you got into the program without getting too deep and then we can move forward? I mean, the details are really accessible with Michael and a bunch of other folks I've talked to. So I'm happy to bypass the details, right? But yeah, I had never put the words remote in viewing together. I was stationed at Fort Mead as a Middle East analyst. I had a background in Middle East studies and languages. And one day my next door neighbor and across the street neighbor together come knock on my door and say, we think you might be good at what we do. And I said, what do you do? And they said, we can't tell you what. So they they gave me some psychology and personality profile tests and stuff. And I scored where they wanted me to. And I soon find myself over in the what be I, you know, are the I became aware of where the start gate buildings and and read me on the program and asked me if I wanted to build volunteer and I absolutely did. I mean, it was the coolest thing I think I'd ever heard in the military. And I'd been in it for a while by then. How many years have you had by then in the military? Let's see. This was 83. That was 83. And I am listed in 76. In 76? What was that? Seven years. Yeah, six, seven years. I started off and listed and then went to Officer County School and spent three years in Germany with special forces. I always hastened to add. I was not special forces qualified. I mean, intelligence officer that had airborne training. And that's what they needed. And you also had proficiency in German at that point? German, Arabic, and Hebrew. Yeah. Yeah. The proficiency in Arabic and Hebrew have said it's kind of deteriorated, but I still actually teach in Germany mostly in Germans. Wow. I didn't know that. And that was from stemming obviously from the mission you had we spoke about earlier in Switzerland with your Mormon mission that you were on there in Switzerland. And which is really interesting. That's another thing that I think is a really interesting point there because we had this slight little discussion over a breakfast, but the idea of Mormons getting recruited into three-letter agencies being, you know, that's not a tall tale. It is something that is quite regular. For many reasons, a few of which are that, you know, that I would think is just, you know, there's no drugs, no alcohol, no partying, very hardworking people. They're around sensitive areas already over there near the training grounds. But then you would also mention the language thing. Yeah. This is, yeah, especially for the CIA, I would assume, is probably a- Well, military probably has more need of analysts than the agency does. Because, you know, the military generally has missions all over the world. Of course, the CIA does too. But there are agency employment-wise as far fewer people in the military does. And their mission is less, less varied than military missions are. So they really do have a need. Interestingly, there's a National Guard language brigade in Utah and it's made up almost exclusively of return Mormon missionaries who have languages. And the army has calls on those guys all the time, like go help with training in Tunisia and not Tunisia. Sorry, Morocco to go, you know, if there's a hotspot somewhere and they need somebody with language skills to pull them over there. Of course. You know, it's a great resource. It is. And how intensive is the language course? Because I've heard it's quite good when you're learning languages prior to your mission. Well, through the church, yeah. It's just two and a half months, which doesn't seem like a lot. It doesn't seem like a lot. But it's pretty full immersion. And you get, actually, I've learned four different languages, four different ways. Really? Of course, my native language English, I don't know how I learned that. I just know I did, right? Is it download? Yeah, yeah. Well, a very long slow down. I watched my grandson, my granddaughter's learning to speak. And I'm glad I did that and don't remember. But you know, I learned Hebrew in the college setting and I learned Arabic in an army language school. I learned German in the church language school. And then two years talking to the Swiss people. Some people would argue that's not German. But whatever, you know, we had to use actually standard German because you can't possibly know the rules. Yeah, whole choice. Swift choice. I actually don't go, but yeah. Because there's so many Swiss dialects, you can't learn them all, right? That's right. And even the Swiss have to learn standard German in order to communicate oftentimes with each other. So, yeah. And by far, the best language training that got was these church stuff, it was because they didn't use native speakers, except for one class that we had on a daily basis. They used Americans who had had to learn the language. And you were all the linguistic landlines were. They knew how to learn it. They knew how to master the level that we needed to master that. That was quite enlightening to me. Sounds quite counterintuitive as well. It does. But it's actually harder. I think you can learn, of course, pronunciation better from a native speaker. But it's harder to learn from them because they have to be taught how to teach it. The American instructors didn't have to be taught how to teach it because they already knew how you learned it. That's right. I obviously have something here. Here's what worked for me. It'll work for you. And it did. It was great. Very interesting. But yeah, obviously, there's a huge overlap there between, and I'd mentioned this as well, breakfast, but I think it was in the 90s that there was a class action suit against the Mormons. Not all Mormons, but specifically the FBI for hiring straight out of BYU, a lot of these students without even looking at the resumes. Without so much as getting an interview from these people, because of the track record that they currently already had with a lot of the people that came there. They were very hard working. Like you said, you come back from a mission. You've already been on a mission. You know what I mean? You're a civilian. You've already followed a mission. You've already followed orders, so to speak. You've learned a new language. You've gotten to integrate into a new society. These are all really ideal skills for someone who's very young and coming, you know, wet around the gills, coming out of school to have. Normally those people, yeah, you wouldn't have those skills. They already have a lot of personal discipline that they've had to learn through experience. And the whole idea of mission first, which is what drives the military. It's a mission first above anything else. That two years, you live mission first, right? And so you already have that mindset. Plus you're easy to clear. You haven't usually, in most cases, they haven't done anything wrong. That can't, that would be a liability to somebody with a clearance, right? And that's when military considers wrong. If you did something you'd be blackmailed for, that's a problem, right? Yeah, so yeah, I mean, they tend to be, you know, we're not the majority in the intelligence world, of course, but we do are much more highly represented than most other, most other belief traditions based on our population share. Yeah, it is quite interesting. And then, you know, the proximity as well to, you know, Dougway and a lot of these other facilities in the four corners there. I mean, it's, it seems like, yeah, it seems pretty right for the picking. You know, a few hour drive away from Area 51. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Also, I don't go there, though. Yeah. Off the, off the books. Yes. I've also, you know, made this a funny idea in my mind, but, you know, I do know David Jacobs, obviously, that he was a sort of alien encounter researcher. He was essentially a really important figure in UFO research, and had come to the conclusion that, you know, hybrids were living among us. This was his whole sort of thing, right? That like, these people that look like us, they're now living among us and this type of thing, which isn't something that is, you know, too far off of things we hear, you know, every day in euphology. Well, yeah, I mean, that's become quite a kind of a meme, you know, circulation in the communities. Exactly. And I always thought, well, if I was trying to blend in, I mean, I'd go to like Salt Lake City. I would, I would go there because, you know, what? Everything just kind of, it seems like parts of it are like Pleasantville, and you're kind of like, you know what I mean? You're like, I'm not going to stick out here. That's not suspicious in and of itself. Well, I think everybody is a little bit in that case, right? Then you're kind of, you know, if you're quirky, maybe it's not such a, or New York, the complete opposite where you, you can just be, you know, your, your old, weird self and stand out. I want to start, if possible, by talking about Project 8200, I'm very fascinated with this. You shrug a little bit there. Perhaps this is something that, when you hear about this, what is your, what is your initial reaction, your visual reaction that I just saw? What is that? This rug was kind of like, of course you do. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's fascinating chapter in the, in the history of, of Stargate, really, even though it was not an official project, this was something that was done kind of on the side, kind of under the table, although, although the guy who was responsible for it, is, is, officially, misread Holmes' outwater. We knew him as Fred at the time, but he prefers Skip. So I'm going to talk about Skip Outwater, right? So Skip actually justified doing these extra normal kinds of targets by saying, you know, you want the viewers to be used to just doing whatever they get and not trying to understand what it is and not being put off by something's different what they're used to. And so he would toss these things our way just to keep us all balanced, which is a perfectly legitimate strategy, because it, for example, if we, we did a lot of counter-narcotic stuff. Well, every session was a, as a drug shipment or a smuggler's vessel or a meeting of narco traffickers, whatever. Pretty quick, you'd start to assume that's whatever one is, and that will mess you up. When that's up the baseline. Exactly, because then you start just putting down stuff you put down before instead of what's unique, right? It was out of the JTF. You did a lot of that? Yes. Well, it was all focused on JTFs, you know, and we supported probably everyone of them one time or another. But Skip would throw these wild cards in. There's another project we were talking about later where he uses it to advantage. Well, also, you know, you, If viewers have to be blind to the target, they cannot know what the target is. And the skeptics, I say, well, yeah, they know what it is, so they cheat, you know, and no, actually it makes it harder if you know what the target is because then your analytic mind makes stuff up and it's hard to tease out the novel signal from all this stuff you imagine and guess and remember. So you have to be blind to the target and so an unprincipled tasker can voice anything on you, right? And it didn't happen usually with the UFO ET and H.I. related stuff. It's not a progression, I mean kind of the same thing, right? I guess it is, yeah, I mean, you can lead someone on. Yes. And that's of course proven, you have to be very careful with it, not a progression to make sure you're getting actually real data and not something that was built in by the interviewer or whatever. But skip and throw these in there from now and then and this was one of them, the project 80 200. So the history, the backstory to this, one of the earliest SRI Stanford research institute of remote viewers was a guy named Pat Price, who interestingly enough grew up in Salt Lake in Utah. Then it went off and the ultimately became a Scientologist and it became really quite good at what we call remote viewing now. He offered to come work at SRI, I don't know if he got paid for it or anything, but he volunteered right and he did some really good stuff on one day, well, you'd get bored and then you go off on these, you know, self-imposed expeditions using his remote viewing. Side quests. Side quests, yes, good. This was he comes in on, I don't know, some weekday morning to help put off his office. Help put off just for background. He was the scientist in charge along with Russell Targ of the SRI research program at the time. So Price comes in with a handful of papers and throws him on Hell's desk and says, you know, I'm paraphrasing, I wasn't there, but it is something along these lines. I was bored last night. So I thought I'd explore the planet to see what I could find in terms of maybe UFOs and such. And he said, identified four bases on the planet. They're Mount Nyongani in Africa. They're Mount Perdido in the Pyrenees, Mount Hayes in Alaska and I'm blanking on the one in Australia. No, the one in Australia. In Australia? I know what it is really well, but I'm blanking. I need more caffeine, I guess. Anyway, these four, right? And somewhere along the way, how passed this stuff on the skip? Once the Army program had got started and going, it wasn't the only thing he passed on. He also did the JPL of the face on the moon and all this stuff. We'd talk about that too maybe later, the JPL photos. Anyway, so Skip had these and he was curious, you know, you don't necessarily believe what a remote viewer produces until you get some kind of ground truth on it or at least some kind of evidence that maybe they're on to something. So Skip got curious and he decided he was going to run his better trained viewers on these targets. Every once in a while, he tossed one in. So not only are you stirring the pod and keeping them off balance, but you're also collecting some potentially interesting information, right? So Project 8200 is a book that has collected all of these sessions that he worked. We worked us viewers on, I guess, us as the right word there. There were six of you, right? Yeah, maybe six. There was, so the main one was Joe McGonigal and Joe Martin worked all four of them, all four of the bases. Then there's myself, myself, Bill Ray, maybe Linda Cannon. I don't remember exactly. I have to go back and look in the book and remind myself, maybe Charlene Schufel, yeah, there's about six, five or six, oh, and yeah, they had another one. So anyway, it doesn't matter who all they were, you can get the book and find out, right? And then he kept those on file all these years and then finally decided to create a book that had this data, including I'd say most of the notes that Pat Price included are in this, as I don't know, maybe not a denim or something. There's some in there that he didn't, there's some not in there that were present. Along about 2014, 2005, how gave me copies of all of them. So I had those and I could compare. But that's what the book consists of is quite interesting because what's intriguing is, of course, Pat's data is in there. And then we got all of these sessions that we did. And the beauty here is now we can compare what we got to what Pat got. And there were some really interesting correlations, particularly between my session on Mount Hayes and what Pat had reported Mount Hayes. In fact, he drew a diagram, you know, maybe I don't know if you put additional images in it. I will. Okay, I can get you this stuff. A diagram of what these things were flying around, he believed their UFOs, in fact, I don't think he might have called it that I don't remember now. But it looks a lot like a tick-tack, a lot like a tick-tack. My session, which I did in '84, which is basically 10 years after Pat did his, and I had no knowledge of Pat's data. And I've never seen it. In fact, I'm not sure at that time I even knew he had done it. I can't, I don't recall what I knew back then, which is what now 42 years ago, maybe. But I did mine, and I have a sketch that is so close to Pat's, it's crazy. And when, you know, when 2004 when I got Pat's or five or when it was when I got Pat's notes, I'm just going through. I didn't even know that was there. And I see that and I say, that looks really familiar, and I haven't had copies of my session too. So I went in there and looked at Holy cow, you know, it was pretty, it was rewarding. Let me put it that way. It was rewarding to have that kind of feedback. And especially, I mean, connecting with someone like Pat Price, because you guys never really cross paths. I never met him. But he was obviously someone I, I suppose, you kind of looked up to hearing, I'm sure a lot of the tales about Pat Price, a lot of stories, you know, this, this somewhat of the legendary figure in remote viewing, and someone that most people who get into remote viewing or study remote viewing tend to cite as the goat, right, in terms of this stuff. So, you know, seeing that, resembling yours, did that give you some sense of like, oh, I might be on to something if Pat was on. It was very validating, I think is a good term, very validating, you see that. And, yeah, it did form a sort of bond, even though we'd never been in each other's presence. I mean, he died in, in 77, I think, is when he died. Yeah. A few years before you were, you were recruited a few, but you weren't, you would have been enlisted. You just wouldn't have crossed paths. Right. I was at that time. Well, at that time, I was, I was an Arabic training in 77. Right on. We can just say, okay, there's some guy remote viewing alien bases and people might be listening and be like, so what? I can do that too. Why does it hold more weight than Pat Price remote viewed these places? Well, and I just last Sunday, yesterday, was it really yesterday? Last Monday, right? Last Sunday would have been yesterday. Yesterday. Yesterday, I was complaining about this, right? One of the things that really bothers me, I call them anomaly targets, you know, UAP, Bigfoot, you know, Xenobiology, stop, right? People remote viewing those, first of all, they don't often use good protocols. So they're likelihood that they're getting good data is less, okay? It's already hard because you can't verify, usually in most cases, the bigger things it stirs me is, is there's a lot of new people who are just starting out remote viewing. And that's the only kind of target they do in their training. And the problem with that is, you can't, since you can't compare it to ground truth, you don't know if you're actually successful or not. People start to assume that every remote viewing turns out correct when it doesn't. And so you hear all kinds of these rumors and stuff about about the Pleiades and, you know, the lizard people, all this stuff, people have been remote viewing, and they have no substantiation whether or not they're actually doing that or if it's just their imagination, okay? So they're doing all these anomaly things. The difference here between them and Pat Price is Pat Price already had a really good track record on mundane targets. On actual thing. In fact, he reported that about the Patty Hearst kidnapping that was validated. They didn't find her because they, with his information, they could have. But they didn't because they discounted it, right, the authorities wouldn't, and they got the information from Price, but they didn't use it. But they would have found her if they had paid attention to him, right? And he had other, you know, an actual legitimate laboratory type test where he'd shown really good success and they were able to judge the likelihood that he was correct. And so when he's doing these alien bases, the odds are much higher that he's producing legitimate data than if he was one of these guys who never done anything else except aliens, you know, and UFOs. So that's one answer to your question, okay? Of course, then the next part of the answer is that we actually then did stuff later on, [BLANK_AUDIO] we were replicating price's work that actually agreed with it that show that there was at least correlation between his stuff and our stuff independently done. And not all of those targets, I suppose, were UFO related as well. Which ones? The ones that you subsequently removed you that were Pat Price targets? No, yeah, they were all UFO related. They were all UFO related. Yeah, I mean, the only Pat Price targets that I worked was Mount Hayes. Was Mount Hayes. Yeah, because usually, I mean, the other ones he did were within the lab. They were what we call outbounders where you have someone out there. Yeah, someone goes to the target, undisclosed there. Actually, they had a whole bin of targets and they randomly slay the, they used a random number generator, just like which target they're going to use. Meanwhile, the viewer is locked away in a ferry cage. And so they randomly select the target, go to that target, and then he focuses in on the people. And in that process, like a beacon, he picks up what's going on around there. We do that all the time. In fact, I conducted one of these yesterday at the conference. Really? That was pretty cool. Yeah. So that's what he did. And of course, we don't live in the bay. We didn't live in the opposite coast from the bay area. And so we never did any of his particular targets he did for research purposes. But we've done plenty of our own. All of us had a track record to some degree or other with success with this stuff. Did you ever feel that because obviously, you're being given these targets to quote unquote, sort of shake things up and keep it on your toes, make sure you're not removing the same target over and over. But did you ever sense that the person, perhaps even how put off, Dr. Al put off, giving you the targets was particularly, I don't know, more interested in these targets. When we were in our training, they were very prosaic standard kind of things. I mean, they used a whole data set that they'd clean from the national geographic. So there was nothing particularly provocative in these. They were designed to be attractive to human perception because perception is still operating. And if you're doing it through remote viewing, they're designed to be easily discernable one from another. If you're doing judging, you tell which target was described. But otherwise, they were just kind of typical kinds of things, you would expect. Engle was the only one that worked us on targets. How had his part of it and Engle had his part of it. Engle was the one that had the hands on stuff, right? And so he gave us national geographic targets, right? The beauty of national geographic too, as you can find the lat longs, the geographic coordinates to more easier pinpoint. This is before Google Earth. Google Earth has been a real blessing for remote viewing training. Let me tell you, I use it all the time. Really? In what sense? Well, I use it to get the exact locations of targets. Now, the viewers don't get the, it used to be we use geographic coordinates to target people. There was a claim about this. Some of the critics would say, well, what's the stop the viewers from memorizing what's the end of all the coordinates? And then you just give them a coordinate. They already know what's there. Well, other than the fact there's a practically infinite number of possible geographic coordinates. And that would be more of a miracle than remote viewing memorizing all those, right? But other than that, it actually turns out knowing the lat longs, latitude longitudes, right? Knowing the lat longs was a hindrance to the process. Because, you know, you do enough Soviet union targets, you start to know. Yeah, familiar. Yeah, that it's in the, it's called, there's mountains there's trees. There's no way out there, you know, there's countries on stuff. And it's probably, it smells like nukes. Probably, you know, like a laboratory down to Moscow or something, you know, it actually generated noise to know what the lat longs were. There's a further problem is then, how do you remote view something you don't know where it is? Like, hostages in the Baqavlian Lebanon, which we did a lot of those. Or, transshipment of some, some, some narcotics contraband or whatever, you don't have the location. How do you target people on that? And we figured out a way to do that. I don't necessarily get into that right now, maybe in later, because I'm already on a tangent, a tangent of a tangent of a tangent. In fact, I'm such, so tangent and now I can't remember where I was going with that. We were, we were talking about finding, oh, I was talking about targeting. Yeah, Scott. Okay. I think I can get back to that. Okay. So, you know, we just can't, oh, yeah, you, you can't, if you don't know where it is, how do you task people in that? And we came up with a method to do that that didn't involve coordinates, because those things actually turned out to be a disadvantage not a disadvantage. But I still want to know where they are, right? Because I build that into the intentionality. Tensionality is remote view the chemical plant or let's, let's, make it less controversial, the cement plant in a certain place, a certain place, you know, and mentioned the site location. But if I like to put in the precise lat logs in that intentionality, so that there is no ambiguity, that the viewer's subconscious when it finds out what the intention is, that it can, it actually knows exactly which cement plant I'm talking about, right? Now, you know, and this is the one of the mysteries about this people say, well, how does that work? You know, we use what I call a tasking number. That's right. It's essentially an arbitrary number that doesn't have any content to it. It's linked to the intention by, for example, the, I'm going into the tasker finding it. The tasker writes the number down and my favorite tasking number is 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9. Okay, that's what I prefer. So, it's not ringing any bells, huh? 8, 6, 7, 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9, Jenny, the number on the wall. Now, oh, man, you are in for a treat. After we're done, we'll have to play that song. Okay. I was like, hold on. I can hear you pick it up on something. I can hear your audience laughing. Oh, fair enough. Yeah. So anyway, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9 equals, for example, remote view, the Eiffel Tower, located at this place, right? That's your place. Yeah. You give the viewer the 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9. You don't give them this. Yeah. Okay. The viewer gets that number and there's a hand weaving going on here. Yeah. The subconscious viewer subconscious of what the heck does that number attack with? Goes out into the universe, finds 8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9 means, remote view, the Eiffel Tower at this location. You need a location, gives you a more than one Eiffel Tower in the world. And so then the viewer subconsciously knows what the target is and then the subconscious does the rest of work of getting them to the target of what is it? Of perceiving. Yes, perceiving the target and it goes on from there. Interesting. Have you ever heard of, I think it's called my 3 words or these 3 words? Was that a game? It's a website. Website. Oh, this might be really interesting for you. Okay. So it is a website that every square meter of the entire earth has a combination of 3 random words. Who did all that work? It's generated. And once it's generated, it becomes that. That is a cool idea. Right. So I could tell you paper, travel, scissors. Yeah. And that could be like a specific square meter in your backyard. This has got some real potential. Exactly. Yeah. It's like my 3 words or first 3 words or I'll look it up for you and I'll send it to you after. But if you wanted to essentially give someone a target, you could literally give them 3 words that are arbitrary. I don't even have to worry about that long. So okay. And it's down to the square meter. And so very, very specific. So if, for example, it's Apple. So Apple Rock, put up a bird feather right. If that's your normal bird feathers, two words, but Apple Rock feather, you could look those 3 words up on the internet and it would tell you where it was. That's correct. What 3 words is what it's called. It's what 3 words calm. And here we go. Okay. So I was, I was about very close to saying the 3 words that we were currently at, but that would probably be a mistake here. Yeah. People could find you. Exactly. Let's see. Let's go to, I don't know. We'll go to Paris. Okay. Paris France. More than one Paris is. So if I were to zoom in, as you can see here. So Paris, you see this little square pixel. Yes. So the square pixel next to it is tougher, solve letter. This square pixel is manuals, usages, instant. How cool is this? So now you've got essentially coordinates for every single square meter on the planet. Yes. Including oceanscape. Yeah. Yeah. The whole map right in the middle of the river, if you like, too. Look, boom. Right in the middle of the Sun is century repair sock. And if anybody else took those 3 words and punched them into what 3 words they would, they would get there. So this, this alone may have made it worth the trip. Right. Exactly. And what's interesting there is that you could also give a coordinate to that location. Yeah. And then you remove your mitra sock. Okay. And it might be one of the 3 words. might be, right? So that would be confusing. It would be confusing, but yeah. Interesting, yes. Can I ask you what was, what was it like working with Ingo and how put off? I mean, no, you can't ask me that. Just kidding. How was it like? Specifically, I would, I would ask about Ingo. I think I'm more curious about only because, because how's still around? I might have the opportunity to ask him myself one day, but Ingo is probably one of the most enigmatic figures in all of this in, for so many reasons, one because he was apparently a really great natural psychic, someone who could really pick up on things quite easily. Secondly, he helped invent the method for teaching remote viewing. Well, he actually invented the term. He invented the term. Yeah. And the original protocol, which is, I mean, is still with us. I mean, there's a generation protocol method going to that right now. And so, you know, potentially the most important figure in all of this. But it was also a very eccentric person, was an artist, just very, very interesting. And I would, you know, I think I speak for a lot of people. It would be awesome to have him with us today and just to be able to, you know, pick his brains. I'm sure you'd have a lot to say and a lot of things. But what was it like working with him, like energetically and everything else, like how was that? I got something to confess. I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I spend all day and night talking to people in the intelligence community, interviewing them, researching about, you know, secret programs, like the Stargate one. We're talking about right now. And then I go home and basically open up my entire life to my phone carrier. And they're not even trying to be sneaky about it. These guys just outright sell your information. And that's why this video is sponsored by Cape America's privacy first mobile carrier. So Cape is a mobile carrier with the same nationwide coverage that you'd expect, except it's built from the ground up around privacy. And it's not something that you think about every day, but it's actually mind blowing how much information we just freely give away. And so not to get too technical, but basically every phone has a permanent ID tied to your SIM. And it's called an IMSI and Cape rotates that every 24 hours. So basically every day your network thinks you're a brand new person. They also delete your call and text logs every 24 hours. Other carriers usually keep that stuff forever. And one SIM can switch between two networks, which means better coverage and you're even harder to track. And right now early adopters pay $70 a month instead of $99. And if you use code area 52, you save up to 33% on your first six months. Cape.co/area52 or go to the link in the description. Well, I have to tell you before I first met Ingo, the four of us went out for training in January 1984. And before I went out, the people who knew him in the office were telling all kinds of scare stories about him. Oh, he's really, he can be really, really dictating and really be kind of tough on you and bothering all this stuff. And he doesn't deal with nonsense, you know, and all kinds of stuff like that. So when I go out there and think, Oh, no, am I going to like him? Is this going to be hard? Is he going to be like another drill sergeant, you know, and whatever? And we had lunch the first day with him at the restaurant cafeteria associated with SRI International. How and him? And I don't remember who else anymore. I should have maybe I have it in my journal. I just didn't look it up. I was keeping a journal back then, mostly faithfully, you know? Anyway, he was just topot perfectly friendly and nice and open and genial and, you know, and it wasn't all like I had expected. But then we started class. And he was very much down to business guy when it was something that was important to do. And so, you know, he could be funny. We had a lot of fun. We told, you know, jokes, we mean wise cracks, that kind of thing. But, but if you, you felt like you were goofing off, he came down and we were both feet. And he was a great instructor. I mean, but very rigorous. It was tougher than college course I've been in terms of discipline. Yeah. Wow. Well, in college courses, I get away without taking notes. And usually that was okay. But with him, he required you took notes. And he kept an eye on you. If you weren't taking notes, you would find out quickly. You better start taking notes, right? He would, he would be very a servant. And he would be very insistent in demanding. What do you feel I can need it to be? Do you think there's a relationship there between him just wanting you to have put pen to paper or, you know, for remote viewing purposes for taking notes or was it because like stream of consciousness type thing where you're used to the act? It was actually he felt like taking notes by hand was essential to really integrating the signature consciousness. Okay. And he's absolutely right. I hated taking notes as laborious. It forced me to shift between right and left brain, you know, and I hate that anyway. It's painful, right? But he felt like taking notes. And then we had to write essays on what we had learned. And today, I'll let my students use their notes as reference to write the essays. He wouldn't let us use our notes even we had to do it out of our heads. And if he didn't like it, he scratched big red marks over it and hand it back and say, try it again. And then he come back, he's still like it, try it again. And my record was four tries before I got the way he wanted it. Yeah, it was insane. It was insane. But I tell you you did learn it. And that method has actually been strongly vindicated by research into the psychology of human learning today. That in fact, writing long hands, both notes and then recall through essay writing long hand, not with a computer is actually an exceptionally good way to actually retain knowledge that you're learning. And I've since come across a lot of articles, you know, it's science, papers and stuff about that. And essentially, you see, it was really an early adopter without approach. I don't know if there's something he read that suggested it at the time. Or if it was just he'd done that in school and recognizes a valuable approach. But it's been validated since then. And there wasn't the only thing that he introduced that since been validated. I think in a way, maybe being precognitive, you know, you know, psychically recognizing this in advance. Who knows? I mean, there's no way to find that out. But all I know is it's very successful and I make my students do the same thing. Yeah, it sounds like something you've applied as well. Do you also apply the same amount of hard discipline? Um, well, I'll take that as a yes, straight time. You have to ask my students, right? Yeah. But yeah, I think I'm somewhere in between, right? I am. I, I, you're not easy, you're not an easy teacher. No. Yeah. And in fact, they have to do 10 homeworks after they go home. Yeah. They get a, they get a tasking number. They do a session. They send it back to me. I go through it with a red pen and literally sometimes there's red all over their pages. This is what you did. I always, I always want to let them know when they did something right. Okay? I want to encourage good behavior. That's how I look at it. But I'm also not hesitant to let them know when they need to take some corrective action. And, um, and they appreciate it. One of the biggest problems in the training world in remote viewing today is you get teachers who don't want hurting by the self-esteem. I see. So they'll, they'll maybe work a session with a student and they'll bend over backwards to try and make that session to hit even if it's a total mess. They will come up with some way of justifying what the student did as being correct or accurate. But that's doing the student into service because then they don't learn what they're doing wrong and they don't learn what they're doing right. They just get a participant, participation badge every time they do it, you know, is a soapbox. I'm on. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But, but that's a major mistake in instruction is not to be honest with a student and not to help them learn to be honest with themselves. They can't learn either at all or nearly as well if they're not honest with themselves and they get honest feedback on what they're doing. So how important is it for the remote viewing teacher to be proficient at remote viewing? You could probably be a good teacher. I mean, some people are good ice school football coaches that aren't really good at football or haven't been at least, but they. Is that comparable, though? Well, in some ways, yeah, some ways. The key here is that they need to understand the game or understand the process implicitly. So skip out water is pretty good at teaching RV. You never did it in himself. How does he? How? Well, he'd tell you no because he's actually prescribed from doing it. The CIA folks when he first started out and then later DIA told him, you will not do this because our experience on the past MK Ultra, you know, was a big learning curve from the CIA. The researchers got involved in actually the research doing the research search themselves right on themselves, big mistake, okay? Because first of all, the implication of objectivity went away. There was no, they were not, clearly not objective about what they were doing. And if the research is not objective, the research is suspect from the beginning. So how never actually tried it officially? Officially, yeah, he did a couple times like when they did an investment project on the silver market. - That's right, yeah. And he did do some then. - Which, I think scored quite high, you didn't quite well. - They made over 200K for the investor. And they got a 10% slice of that to fund the school. They're building a Waldorf school and they needed some funding. And that's how they did it. As soon as the social development viewing project, the silver futures market is very successful. - And so he was a part of that. - Yeah. - Wow, okay, well, we gotta get you and Hal back on here one day. - Well, it'd be fun to have both of us together between the diner. - That would be fun, yeah, I don't know if you'll get him, but he does travel still, but his dance card is really full. - Sure, yeah, I would expect that. - Yeah, yeah. Is there possibly a defense against remote viewing? - Yeah, there's a very successful one. Yeah, you shoot the viewer. - Well, other than getting rid of the. - Well, so first off, I'm being actually semi-seriesly. - Well, yes, yeah. - One of the reasons it was so heavily classified and the most classified part of the program was the identity of the remote viewers. Because literally, as far as we know, the only way of stopping the remote viewing is to stop the viewer from remote viewing. And of course, the CIA are the KGB as a history of intervening quite radically in certain circumstances, taking people out if they are perceived as a threat. So we call it CL4, which is centrally level four classification inside the SAP, special access program. That was reserved for the identity of the personnel. And that was you had to be read onto the very highest level to have access to who was doing it. And it was because of that. Beyond that, there's apparently, as far as anybody's been able to find an NSRI, they put out a report to the CIA. They had actually looked into the possibilities of defending against remote viewing. They found nothing that worked. - Nothing that worked. There was no deterrent whether technologically or psychically that would. - Well, the interesting thing, you know, the first conclusion. Of course, there's this misbelief, particularly amongst the media, that it must be something electromagnetic, you know, 'cause everything that works at a distance is electromagnetic and our normal society, right? - Magic that we suffer from the same affliction. If people don't understand how something's done, they'll just say is it magnets? - Yes, yeah, well, yeah, it's good, yeah. So they were able to demonstrate very conclusively it wasn't electromagnetic. In fact, it worked better if the viewer is inside a Faraday cage, which is blocked out most of the electromagnetic spectrum. So there's nothing there that's gonna make it different. I mean, you could beam microwaves into somebody's brain, that's a mechanical intervention that's pretty drastic, you might as well shoot 'em, right? - Yeah, exactly. - So, but other than that, they never found anything. I mean, people play around with the ideas so my colleagues joke, well, yeah, I mean, if you wanna hide the nature of a missile silo, you put up Mickey Mouse balloons and play, you know, child, kids, tunes and stuff, you know, whatever and all this stuff. So that if a viewer comes in, they get all this and they think they're just off or something and they don't get it, I can't tell you for sure. It seems to me something like that was tried by the SRI folks. I might be wrong, might be misremembering this myth about that. - It feels like that would be a valuable, a value in effort, at least. I don't think it would work. - I don't think it would work. - I'd tell you why, because if a viewer, a really experienced well-trained viewer, is going to follow the intentionality of the tasker's intent and they will tease out the stuff they're trying to get despite distractions. That's one of the aspects of our training is you reject distractions, you go for the actual core data that you're trying to determine and trying to obtain. - And what is creating that pull towards the target in your opinion? Is it strictly the intention or is it something greater, something deeper, something, you know, Dr. Edwin May talks about how its entropy, I know that Dr. Julia Mossbridge talks about intrigue being some type of like a poll or polarizing sort of thing. - Well, intrigue in a certain way, a certain way is intent or it does involve intentionality, right? You can't be intrigued by something that you don't have a concept of. Intentionality in the philosophical sense, which is how I usually treat it. We have this idea of intention, intention means you're motivated to do something. But in the actual meaning of intentionality, that's this core idea of recognizing that there is a universe there, that there is something in the universe that you have your attention directed towards. You don't have to be motivated in this case, it's just you have to be aware of, right? And so in generally speaking, that's the kind of intentionally we were talking about. Now, when the tasker then comes up with intentionality, which is remote view of the Aiffel Tower, they add this added motivational thing. You know, they want to induce the viewer to do that. The viewers themselves though, their intentionality is to fulfill the tasker intention. And so it all works together to work you that direction. And if you know what you're doing, you're well trained and well experienced at going there. I'll tell you the story about my first remote viewing session 'cause it kind of applies here. - Okay. - Okay. So I guess I've been on the job for 10 days or two weeks, something like that. And Skip always wanted us to have an initiation event, right? And it was doing an outbound. And I mentioned an outbound process before. So Tom and Charlene, two of my associates there, were directed to randomly select the target and go to that target while I was in the viewing room doing what we call the ERV. This is where you're actually laying on a bed, mind a weak body of sleep, hypnagogic state is the tangible term. And of course, neither I nor Skip, who was my monitor knew where they went. And we're in the room, you know, sound dead and windows blocked. There's no way of seeing what direction they drove or anything like that. If we'd been looking, but. And so I start talking about, you know, when we start going, I start describing this place, it was a room and it was kind of off-cutter walls. And there were lacy curtains of the windows. And there were these little T tables and in the back, there was some kind of furnishing that had what looked like glass and things behind the glass in it, right? So anyway, I'm talking about all this stuff and Skip's going doing what he's supposed to be doing. And then the protocol is for this, that they would then come back and pick us up and take us to the target before they said anything about what the target was. So I'd get immediate right there, very present feedback, right? So I think a bag, they bring back donuts to us and we're munching the donuts and driving down the road and we get to the target, which was this massive water tower. There's a kind that looks kind of like a metal spider with a big tank and then all of these tubes coming down like spider legs. And I'm walking around to saying walking in and out, hugging the metal all this stuff, really discouraged because I didn't report any of that. And I'm thinking, oh crap, I've been here for two weeks and they're gonna fire me right now 'cause I had no success at all. There were much more lenient than that thing, goodness. Anyway, okay, okay, so we get back in the car, we head back to the office and we're driving down the road and all of a sudden they go, what's that over there? And Skip says who had figured it out. He figured out what was going on. And he said the very first thing he said was, if you don't remote view the intended target, it doesn't matter what you get instead. Okay, let's go, so we go over there, walk through the door of the donut shop, little tables, lacy curtains, counter in the back with donuts behind the glass. So Tom and Charlie had actually violated the parole call. You're supposed to go straight there and come straight back. They had stopped at the donut shop. Yeah, and I had homed in on that and my father-in-law later said, well, trust you to find the donuts. But the principal here is, I was distracted by that 'cause it was more interesting to my subconscious. But we, through the whole course of the training, it was drummed into us, go where you're supposed to go, not what seemed more interesting to you. But now this is the age old question in remote viewing. Did you, was that simply retro-causal? Did you only remove you the donut shop because you went to the donut shop? Yeah, was it pre-cognitive? Yeah. Or was it retro-causal? Yes. Okay. All right. That's a notorious question. Yeah, it is. Trying to tease out whether it's retro-causal, pre-cognitive, whatever is really hard to do. I, yeah, 'cause they did that after they'd been to the target. So, if I was reporting this at the time they were at the target. it and they went to the donut shop after there was a pre-cutting development there. I don't think, well, I have a whole chat for my dissertation, why retro causation, at least from future to past, or present to past is not possible. It doesn't work. Yeah, it doesn't work. Now, future to present can, but that wouldn't have been the case here. So how did that work? You know, I'll be the first to express ignorance. I don't know how this works. My model is that you can influence the present from the future, but that's as far as it goes. Now, the question is, can you influence the future from the present? And from a trivial perspective, yes, because every decision we make influences the future, but we want to talk about something more specific here. If, let's say you have a dream that you are crossing an intersection to get hit by a car the next day, and then you go and you stop before you go through the intersection, and then you go and the car goes by there and doesn't hit you. Did you influence the future? Or did you just remove your wrong, or at least dream perceiver wrong? And we don't actually have an answer there, but I think it's possible to actually, that was an actual case, by the way, that one of my students reported when it happened. So the courts still hour on most of this stuff. Sure, right. Which, of course, makes life still interesting, right? If we knew all the answers to these, what fund would there be? Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, definitely. It breaks your brain a little bit to think about it, because then the implications of such an event, or even perceiving something before you get there, but only because you got there, did you perceive it, like this weird loop that you're creating now, it really puts everything into question. And like you said, can I influence the present from the future? This is one that is really hard to wrap your mind around. But if that is the case, what are the implications of that? I mean, that's, they're great, right? Yeah. Well, this is actually one of the reasons why this hypothesis about multi-worlds, multiple worlds. What's an easy solve? Yes. I think it's belonging myself. It's just an easy way out. Yeah. Oh, people, well, I say belonging, I shouldn't say that, that's rejecting something I don't know enough about, right? But I think that a lot of what's said about it is belonging, kind of like with UFOs, as well, and a lot of what says about them, is belonging, because it is kind of just a way to solve problems and to come up with an answer. But we don't have any real evidence for it, which is one of the reasons why I have trouble with it. Supposedly, there are mathematical models that prove it, but mathematical models have been used to prove a lot of things that turn out not to be true. Yeah. And in fact, you get how many interpretations of quantum physics are all based on a mathematical model. Each one says something a little bit different. So I think the court is out. I'm not going to reject the idea of multiple worlds out of hand, even though it sounded like I did. I'm not going to, because we just don't know. But the other thing is we're not going to know, because at least as far as we know, there's no way of getting into one of these parallel universes. Not knowingly. Yeah. Well, not. And again, if we did, would we know that we got there? Yes. Exactly. Yeah. So I think it's fun to talk about. It's great to make science fiction movies about. You know, one of them. I loved High In Line and one of his last books was based on that notion, you know, they actually did get into these multiple universes. But I think drawing firm conclusions is way premature or so. Yeah, for sure. I tend to agree just because again, I'm probably too ignorant to even like fathom these great concepts. But as Twain said, all you need in life is ignorance and confidence and then success is sure. So you were tasked in 2011 with, I mean, in 2011, it's pretty recent. This is after you would have, you know, obviously left a military and everything else you would have been on, you know, your own terms and your own private ventures in terms of room of viewing. But in, and stop me at any point, they kind of got the, they got the whole band back together a little bit, right? For this, this was something some not not the entire one. But I mean, actually, nobody there was with Stargate, but me. Okay. Nobody. Yeah. In this particular case. Okay. Yeah. Really? Yeah. I these were, um, and you're talking about the viewers though. I'm talking about the viewers. Okay. But the people who arranged it, they weren't Stargate folks either, but a Stargate or was involved. I will say this put off was, was the technical advisor. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So you, just to be clear, there's certain things about this that you can't speak of. Exactly. And I want to make it full clear that I'm not here to prod you to push you in that direction. So whatever you're comfortable with. But you did mention on a podcast, you know, stop me if this is going too far, but you were tasked with remote viewing without you knowing, right? You were tasked with remote viewing the 2004 Nimitz incident. Yes. Okay. Okay. Good. So that's, that's fine. A few parameters here. That's good. Yeah. Um, but I think I can do this. Okay. We'll see, um, if they come and collect 50 K by Friday, I'll know I who've done. Okay. Yeah. Um, so, um, yeah, I was tasked to do this. I brought in six viewers, three monitors and a administrative assistant who was my best friend growing up. You know, much about remote viewing, but he's a great administrator. He was awesome. So anyway, um, and facility was prepared for us. I'm not going to say who did this. Um, and then we were tasked to remote view by who you mean the agency or entity that I put this together. Okay. Folks who were going to pay us. Yeah. Um, so we set it up. We, we got it going and we worked a bunch of sessions spent five days working this. It was as close as I have come to replicating what we did it for me. Uh, they even painted the rooms gray, which was awesome. You know, I had three viewing rooms. I mean, the sound dead and everything. It was awesome. Uh, I really appreciated the effort they put on this. Um, they, they, uh, the, um, clients, I'll use that word, the client provided two analysts who were also blind. Um, and there were, I figured it out eventually four levels of blinding on. This wasn't just double blind. This was quadruple blind, which I think in the end, contributed is not doing very well. I think the intentionality was way too downstream. Okay. But, um, there were other mistakes. Some of them, I made some of them they made. So, um, it was a learning experience. Watch I didn't get to duplicate unfortunately, because I think I would have been interesting. Uh, I think we would have had some even more suggest we had it. But the client, uh, essentially, he said there was no success, but reflecting back, I think there was. But afterwards, how said, well, you know what this was? And I said, no, when he said, he didn't call it the nimbum incident. He just described what happens. And I'm thinking, whoa, that's awesome. You know, that was really cool. But we did not describe that, unfortunately. So, um, but it was an interesting learning experience. And that's where I first heard about this, this event, the missing counter. And that would have been six years prior to when it became public in in a big way. Yeah. I think there were little bits and pieces that leaked out about it between them. And, and when, uh, Leslie Keen did her story, which I think that was the big reveal. 2017. Yeah. Yeah. And, um, and so it was intriguing. And I'm, I'm grateful. I at least got that much of a head, you know, I had an advanced notice on it. Safe to say that this wasn't, well, if it was, I mean, it was either a contractor or it was some, you know, some government affiliated thing, right? Because this is a sensitive incident that happened on a military platform. Yeah. Um, that being said, were, were you guys given the target afterwards? Or was that just kind of like as a friendly aside, hey, by the way, this is what happened? And unless my viewers are listening in on this, they never got feedback. Okay. So they had no idea, right? Okay. Um, that's interesting. Do you, okay, do you think feedback would have made for a better result? Well, it could have made going back to the clear result, but it may not have been useful. I see. Yeah. Because if they were just removing their feedback, that was already known. That's right. Yeah. They needed to remove you. What wasn't in any possible feedback? Yeah. What wasn't known. Yeah. And I frankly think, uh, first off, I think they had the analyst doing the tasking and they didn't know what the target was either. So they really didn't know what the task was for. I mean, that was one of the big problems. Normally, and they wouldn't tell me this, you know, they wanted me to be hermetically sealed in terms of blinding. Um, and so I did do some education with them, but I was not able to weigh in if there was some critical error they were making. And I think that probably was maybe the biggest thing is that the people were doing tasking didn't know what the task was for. Right. I don't know how they set it up. I don't know because I never got it. All I got was a tasking number myself on the project manager. is tasking number, right? And so they may not have, I'm presuming there was at least the notion that those are the Nimins encounter. But when you remote view the Nimins encounter, there are about, you know, there are dozens of moving pieces to that. You could have picked the radar scope on the cruise. I forget which cruiser it was. One of the ages system that did a lot of the reporting on this. You could have picked up just flying around and not gotten the UAP. You could have got all kinds of things. If you're tasking something like that, you need to be very specific. And so if they wanted to know what these things were, they needed to target us on the UAPs themselves. And the way to do that would have been, I think they've got some flare images of this thing going around, you know, pick a flare image, use that as a targeting mechanism. The object that appears in this photo at, you know, certain time, certain okay, because they have the lat logs. They can specify the location and all that stuff, right? It'd be very specific that it's this thing they want we want to know about that I'm thinking would have been much more successful tasking. And I don't think that's how it happens. Right, but you can't be sure, but that's, yeah, okay. Yeah. Well, that's very interesting on the last that first of all they would have, you know, and word, if I think I maybe heard you correctly, but you put together the team or you helped. I put the team together. They contracted with me. Okay. And then I subcontracted with the viewers, right. And then that pass through cost to the contractor. Yeah. Who are colleagues of yours that you? They're well, many of them were my students. And I picked the ones I felt I could perform the best on this. And they were pretty much broadly good, good. You're still are how exciting is that? Well, I mean for your students, I mean, hearing about all these tales of Stargate and psychic spies to then have your teacher come to you and be like, I've got a secret mission. We got to go. Oh, they were all eager to do it. They really were. And they're wonderful folks. I love every one of them. And they came and they did their best. They worked really hard. And I think we let them down a little bit because it wasn't done as cleanly as it probably should have been. I'm speculating because I don't know those parts to it because I was never allowed to be privy to them. So did you voice these concerns out to them post morning? No, because I didn't know how it was turning out. I mean, I was too blind to this almost. Yeah, I wasn't actually working with the viewers or the monitors. I was just managing. And so it would have been, well, one of the things I think they want to make sure I wasn't cheating in some way. Right. So if I didn't know anything that I couldn't pass anything on to them so that it looked like they were successful. And that's a legitimate concern, legitimate concern. But you're also undermining the success. What else the sensitivity of the thing as well and that these people aren't TSEI cleared or like, in this case, I don't know if the Nimitz thing, which is also the Tick-Tack thing and somebody's confused. I don't know that the Tick-Tack thing was ever actually classified into a degree. It was just close hold for a long time. I see. Yeah. But whenever the case, I assigned the NDA, although I wasn't on and have active security clearance at the time, I could have been, if there had been a classification involved, I could have easily had what did they call it, essentially a temporary read on. There's another word for it again, I think what it is right now. But I could have been then none of that happened. So it's interesting. I would love to have the backstory to that, but it's never going to happen. Do some of the people involved help you paint a broader picture of what this, like if this would have happened again or why this happened? Like, do some of the people, okay, you say how put off was involved? Oh, you mean the envelope within which this took place? Yes, correct. Does that give you like a, no, at the time they didn't tell me. Okay. Because I didn't have the need to know partly. I sense I found out. And it's pretty interesting. And I'd love to tell you about it, but I probably can at this point, unless we're maybe dinner tonight in the noisy room and over here or something like that. Could we say it would be recognizable to the people? Okay. Okay. Okay. You can draw your own conclusions for now. No, no, there's no doubt they know what was involved. Okay. Let's, let's circle back. How are you doing? How are you feeling right now? Do you want to take a break? Yeah, a quick break for probably in order. Sounds good. Were you ever tasked with the moon in any way? Yes. And will any anomalous results? Yes. Could you speak about this? No. Really? No. No, not really. Okay. Yes, you can. It wasn't all for the government, though. Okay. What do you mean all for the government? So some of it was that was a verbal slip there. It wasn't, it wasn't, I was thinking, right? I see. It wasn't for the government. Okay. I got you. Yeah. But it wasn't. It was English one. So I had the first time I did a project here, at least two, I think maybe three projects against the far side of the moon. The first time I think it was in '93 was still an active duty. English called me up and on the side, I did this session. He wanted me to work with him and and one other guy on this. In fact, it was a bit of an honor for all the people who knew that had remote viewing capability. He got ahold of me. Well, that was, I was very impressed with myself for about five minutes. Anyway, he gave me a tasking on it and worked it. And then a few years later, we did the same thing. He also had me remote view Roswell. I didn't know when I was doing any of them that that's what the targets were. I found out quickly as I got into it, the Roswell thing, particularly I'm doing this. It was just standard coordinates. I might have had a time frame in there, which would have been a little bit of a problem. But I don't remember that. And I started remote viewing and I got this weird thing. I'm not on the moon yet. Let's stick with Roswell. I'm really interested. Okay. So it was, I had impressions like two people were picked a pickup truck and a Dalton, maybe his son or something like that. And they're looking up at the sky and I want to like this, you know, kind of blocking up the brightness. Now, I think the thing crashed at night. So I don't know what was going on here exactly is like they're shading their eyes. They're like them into the sky and something really weird happened that freaked them out. In fact, that just occurs to me. That was on political shock. I could talk about that in one of my talks. But anyway, and I didn't get to me details about it. And partly because I think I started realizing I was talking about Roswell. And once you know you were doing something, if it's something notorious like that, all that stuff gets in your head. And then you don't know what signal and what stuff you're making up. But you figured it out during the remote viewing session. But that's substantial. Yeah. Does that happen a lot with big targets? It happened on the moon as well. Yeah. I'll tell you about that in a second. Now, I want to do a little sidebar here. One thing is that I usually refuse to do high profile targets like, for example, John Boney Ramsey. That was the big one. You know, the little girl that's getting that murder and call her out. Sure. Yeah. I refuse to do that one for a couple of reasons. One is it was notorious. And so, I mean, let me say this way. I would refuse to do one like that because it's notorious. The psychic space for one of a better term is polluted by so many different people trying to remove the target of different differing levels of expertise and quality that you just, it gets very cluttered noise wise. You know, it just gets noisy. Second of all, if I get into it. So, you know, another sidebar in the sidebar, when I do, when I have a basic course, I always do a demonstration session for my students on the Friday. We start on Monday on the Friday. And I wait till then because by then they know what they're looking at when I actually demonstrate, right? But I tell them specifically, don't give me any well-known landmarks. Like, don't give me the Taj Mahal. Definitely don't give me the Eiffel Tower or the Pyramids. These are used over and over and over again. Give me something that is unlikely to be something I know. Because if I get in on, for example, the Pyramids, I start getting this feeling of the Pyramids, then see my head. Yeah. And then I don't know if I'm making it up or not. If it's something that I, it maybe you've never heard of or whatever. And there's plenty of those kind of targets. Then I can actually comfortably describe it, sketch it, you know, give, give impressions and stuff about it. Sometimes come up with some really good results. I did like in my last class. I did. And those kind of targets are good. Now, if you do these notorious targets like, like, Roswell, yeah, Roswell or whatever and you find out what they are, all of a sudden, everything you've ever heard about it is there and you're fighting with that, trying to get through that to what might be actually legitimate data. Analytical overlay. Yes, exactly. Okay, so you get this idea from this boy and his father apparently looking something weird in the sky, something came down. And at that point, you realized it was Rosswell? 'Cause many UFO crashes have happened. What gave it away for use? I mean, subconsciously, that it was Rosswell. - I don't know. - Just annoying. - Yeah. - And did you, at that point, stop and say this is Rosswell? - I, I continued to try a bit, but I was fighting with that noise feature. - Right. - And so, I allowed it. - I a weld Rosswell, yeah. And of course, later, I got the feedback, it was Rosswell, right? Another case where I had that problem is, so this was a trans-material UFO, right? There was an Argentinian mine sweeper off the coast of Argentina off the coast of South America, and it was found to drift. It's kind of like the Mary Celeste, if anybody knows that story, right? The ship addressed a drift, food on the table, everything the way it should be, but nobody on the ship and no evidence of what happened to them. No blood stains, nothing, right? They're just gone, right? And that was the case with this ship, and I apparently had heard about this before, it must have been some talk in the office about it, but it would have been a while back. So, I didn't have any reason to believe that this was that target, right? And some of my colleagues removed you, and you got some very interesting things. Bill Ray for one, he was Bill reported that he got the ship and the impression of a UFO hovering off the stern, and all the crew going kind of crazy, and all jumping off the back of the boat, right? And I just got, I said, oh, this reminds me of that mind sweeper, you know, there was a band, because mind sweeper in the UFO or something like that. I actually have a transcript of the session, and it will break mind sweeper in UFO, trying to do some more stuff in it. It will break mind sweeper, couldn't get it out of my head. So, I just quit, 'cause I couldn't clear my brain to that. And then of course, I found out later, yeah, it was the mind sweeper in UFO. Oh great, I wish I'd gone further, you know. I have a tendency to come to understand the target and then it gets in my way from that point on. - Right, 'cause again, like you say, you don't know if you're making it up or not, because then you kind of, you think your subconscious might just be filling in the blanks. Your subconscious overlay. - You don't have a lot of conscious awareness. - Yeah, the conscious awareness is instead of the subconscious. - Exactly. Now, I've learned a bit better to deal with that. These days, and I think working some of the counter and I call these projects, help that. That come to recognize that there's noise here and just figure, you know, I'm gonna still collect as much information I can about this. It may be all noise, it may be partially noise. It may be no noise, but I'm not gonna know it unless I do it. And so, I basically drive on, not expecting that it's turned out to be real data, but not rejecting it either. I feel like there needs to be an extra stage for that type of information. - Yeah, a sidebar stage. - Yeah, sidebar stage, yeah, like off to the side of an AOL. - Yeah. - When you do targets, there's, as far as I know, six stages of a coordinate room. - Yeah, we actually call it control room. - Control room of you in my apologies, yeah. - Well, you know, it's a misnomer of coordinate room of you. - No, well, it was called coordinate room of being for a long time, and then we stopped using coordinates and then Engo said, he never wanted to call it that. Anyway, he agreed to call it coordinate room of viewing 'cause the military understood that concept. But he wanted to call it control room of viewing because really the whole purpose of it is to manage the process in the controlled disciplined way. And he felt like this idea of control room of use much more accurate as to what he and how we're trying to produce. - And you do six stages of that? - There are six stages, yes. - But you only have to work as many as necessary to solve the problem. - Right, sometimes you'll stop after four or three. - Yeah. - You know, really basic stuff, three is enough, but you go to four, usually I think more often. - Three is your, where your sketch is. - You do sketching and just basic concepts. And very often that answers the mail, that's all you need. But if you need to get into real more detail abstract, I call it as complex abstract concepts, then you wanna go into stage four. We're very often we'll skip stage five and I'll explain who I am in a minute. But if you really need to get into it, then you go into stage six. And stage six is what Inco called three-dimensional appreciation. I call it four-dimensional appreciation because time is also an element there. You can do timelines and that kind of thing in stage six. And Inco acknowledged that but he never referred to it. I think because he didn't wanna freak out the military guys again, right? So anyway, stage six is kind of fun because you can actually build a three-dimensional model of the target. You know, for example, say I fall tower, you may actually create, and I fall tower-looking thing out of clay or out of assemblages or something, right? Usually I'll have modeling compound. I use Scopey, that's, I think, so far the best I've found. You Scopey and toothpicks and sodas draws and pieces of tongue depressor and all kinds of stuff like that so that you can actually use different things to create what's in your head, right? You have a poster of closing counters of the third kind here and I call method on that, right? So in closing counters of the third kind, you have Richard Drive, his building devil's tower out of match, potatoes on the dining room table, right? That's stage six, CRV, control and mobility. And there is a reason that's in there, at least I'm drawing some conclusions. So, you probably never interviewed Jacques Villy, but would like to, I'm presuming sure why not. Yeah, Jacques, so, you know, the film, there's a French u-fall, just a UFO scientist in the movie, played by Marcel Chouffaut. And, of course, he's a lot shorter than Jacques, but he's based on Jacques Valle. And Jacques was the technical director or functions of technical director for Spielberg, in that movie, keep wanting to say it speed about Spielberg in that movie. And so, you know, but how did the removing stuff get it? Jacques was also at the time under class, you know, under clearances of classification and advisor to the remote viewing program, same time. Right, so, wouldn't be too hard to draw that conclusion. Exactly, yeah. Now, I'm sure Jacques didn't spill any classified beans, right? But, he certainly was in a position to say, well, you know, it might be more persuasive if you do it this way instead of that way, you know? Or, hey, you know, it'd be really cool if you hadn't built this psychically building this model of the thing. And, of course, there's a real dramatic scene there where drivers of building devil's tower, he's moved to the pool table now, he's got dirt and bushes and stuff. And he's got to, like, load in dirt to the window. Yeah, this is the window, yeah. He's building, you know, devil's tower, they're seeking plants, you know, little twigs in where the trees aren't all that stuff. And behind him on the TV is a video of devil's tower showing up on the TV from the reporting, you know? And you say, turn around, turn around, you know, and he doesn't, or maybe he does actually in that scene. He might turn around there. 'Cause he had to figure out somehow that he needed to go there. Was he removing the TV or the event? Well, okay, that's interesting. He's still around. We could ask him. Yeah. Now, that's interesting, the sixth state. Was there, was there any speculation on a stage beyond six? Yes. In fact, on my website, I have a blog. It's called the remote, sorry, no, my eyes starting to blink. Remote, whoops, there we go. Remote viewing slash remote perception blog. And I have an article there on stages beyond six. Because there's a lot of controversy about there. There's people out there who, you know, how it is in the internet world. You've got to know these subject matter experts that are Johnny cum lately and stuff. And they try and claim that things were different than they really were. I mean, we were with Ingo for a straight year, right? Plus, I interfaced with him for decades after that. A very often was a community. Visited Ingo and all that kind of stuff, right? And Tom McNair spent three years with him training. Tom was the guy Ingo referred to as his best ever student. And he was awesome. He still is awesome. Tom still occasionally do remote viewing. It just bulls your socks off, you know? And so we know him really well. And then these guys come along. They find some snippet of thing in the archives. And they draw all kinds of conclusions. You know, it's like you have a point. You can draw any line you want through that point. We have all these other points. So we know where the line goes, but they don't. And they don't believe us. They think we're disinformation agents. And we're lying about us. I mean, just it's stupid, really, it is stupid. But they'll say, I'll kind of say, well, Ingo had 18-- there's one say 18 stages besides, you know, so up through 18 past six. And somebody else that was claiming 24 or 20. Yeah, it's baloney. It's total baloney. There is a, you know, as to most rumors, there's some kind of basic kernel, tiny kernel, truth to the fact that-- or where that came from, right? And we go through that in this article. But now, yeah, he had two. One of which worked, one of which didn't. The one that worked was called stage seven. He ultimately settled on stage seven. It was phonics, where you could actually tease out the sound of the name of the place. Like channeling. Well, no, because you were relying on what it's called stage two in CRB, which is sensory input, which includes audio. OK. You pick a audio. And you're. you're just essentially leveraging stage two for losing increased enhancing stage two to where you sound out the sounds of what the what the name would be like. So, for example, one of the targets that Tom dang it, my eye is stinging. But if I can take a break, let me finish the story. Yeah. Okay. So one of the targets Tom was given was the alconi nuclear power plant in Georgia. Okay. And of course, he didn't know what it was. So he was done. Did great job build this model of his amazingly accurate. But he was doing the stage seven thing and he's okay. He's writing it on the page. OCO, we got that part right. And E at the end, and I think he came up with Ocoe instead of alconi. Yeah. Right. Total mess. Yeah. Total mess. I did one. It was actually pose grave in Westminster bearing yard in Baltimore. Edgar Allan Poe. Huh? Pose grave. Pose grave. Yeah. What's that? Edgar Allan Poe. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, as Westminster bearing ground, and Skip was running in me on it. And he had me try this stage seven stuff. And I was good. What? I had what? I know as well. We're, we're, well, or something like that. I don't remember now. I also have that session. It came out. You could tell I was trying to say Westminster, but I didn't get there. There's too many syllables, you know, but, but I've had a few experiences with stage seven. And Tom had some really nice ones and other people tried it. That's the only legitimate stage past six is phonics. That does sound like channeling though to the untrained year. I mean, perhaps when channeling though, somebody, somebody up here is telling you. Yes. And in remote viewing, you don't need a guide or anything else. Sure. Yeah. But to the onlooker, it might seem a little similar. Yeah. Somebody there going, whoa, whoa. Might. Yes. I see your reference there. Yeah. If you were just watching and didn't know what was going on, you might think that. Yeah. Yeah. But it doesn't internally. It doesn't bury. Yeah. It was just trying to phonetically get at what you're, what you're perceiving. Exactly. Okay. So, let's talk about the moon then. You had a moon session done with Engo. Well, I did. I did at least two projects worth. So, there's more than one session. Okay. But there's one that's memorable. I'd have to go back and review them all to tell you, give me any detail on, on all of what I did. Okay. But the one that's memorable. Somebody had contacted him and I still don't know who it was and wanted him to, they, this somebody felt like there was something on the first side of the moon that needed examination. And they had provided actually moon coordinates, lunar coordinates, or he had teased them out. It was one way or the other we had lunar coordinates. And so, he said, would you like to do a session, he didn't tell me it was the moon. And I said, sure. I mean, Engo asked me to do something like that. I was on board. Right. And so, he sent me the, the lat logs and I proceeded to do this session and I didn't recognize him as lunar coordinates. There's something that's a little bit different about him, but I would not done a lunar coordinate before. So, I didn't notice. And so, I'm working this and my first clue is the moon as I realized I'm having a hard time breathing here. So, I got this impression of landscape forms that were somehow rather, I got tangled up my heads out here. Landscape forms that were really quite sharp edge. You know, they weren't eroded in the way I was accustomed to seeing. And I'm thinking, that's odd. The light was quite harsh. And I couldn't breathe. And I thought, oh, he sent me to the moon at that point, right? And so, by this time is when I'd learned to deal with preconceptions, at least to some degree. And I just continued on and I got an impression of a kind of a deep cavern like chamber underground. And you went, went through this kind of cavern shape. And there was a passage tunnel that went down and there was a huge chamber underground that felt, it felt part natural and it felt part engineered. I'm personally not using the word manmade here, right? It felt part, part, part engineered part natural. It had been expanded essentially and made it to be useful. And I had the impression there were people and people again, quote, right, people and things inside of this chamber. And then I got the impression of something else that I'm shortening this up quite a bit. Something else that was kept trying to come out and knew I was there. And this is the first time and I think I would say the only time when I ever felt like I was being perceived while I was perceiving something at a target. Okay. It knew I was there. It didn't want to come out while I was watching, right? And so I'm still exploring it and trying to explore it. And finally, it had to come out and it merged and it was like a shaped kind of like a mountain ray. I have a sketch of, you know, maybe I can provide that to you. Oh, you want me to sketch it? Let's see, the one I did is better, but I'll give you a general idea here. So it's moving along kind of like that. Does that make sense to you? Yeah, it's craft. Yeah, yeah. But what was weird about it was that it seemed to be part biological and part mechanical or, you know, from one of better term technical technological. And this was long before either Stargate-ish, you know, well, Stargate and Lannis or or the second iteration of Battlestar Galactica, which had a combo biological, artificial kind of spacecraft. I had no antecedent or precedent. Maybe it's right. We're here, the precedent for this. It just popped into my head. This is both biological and and it seemed to be had a certain level of sentience and it seemed to have a certain level of self awareness. So there was an element of consciousness associated with this thing. And it knew I was there watching it and it was mad about that. It was not happy at all. But it was like it had a predetermined mission and it wasn't going, it couldn't deviate from that. So it goes sailing along up into the sky, it's being roughly here, being very annoyed that I'm busy watching it do this when I wasn't supposed to be there, essentially. So was I on? I don't know. This could all be fiction as far as I know, right? But it did have the feel of authenticity. That's the only reason I give it credence is because I felt, well, there's another reason to it in a minute to tell you, but it felt like I was getting something legitimate here. And there could have been details and stuff I got wrong. I recognized that, but it felt right. Now, was it, I don't know, I mean, remote union isn't 100%. You've done enough sessions to know that feeling. Yes. Generally speaking, that's true. If I'm on or close to being on, I can feel that. And I, you know, don't ask me how I feel I don't, I can't describe it. But just clicked sort of, you know. And so I don't know. And you said there was, there was another reason. Yeah, the other reason is because other details, like for example, I talked about this chamber underground and the tunnel and all that stuff. Ingo eventually sent me feedback for this. And it included the data that he had gotten and this one other viewer had gotten. And we all had reported about that tunnel from the tunnel in the chamber underground. You know, we should have sketched a little bit differently, but that was a feature we all three of us got. The other thing is that there were actually other anomalies that I sketched in terms of anomalies features, land features, they weren't anomalous. Geographic features and stuff that I sketched that he also included some feedback from an actual, I don't know, it was a NASA book of the legitimate book, you know, mapping the moon servers or something like that. And some of the stuff I sketched was there very plainly, as part of the lunar surface at that point. And so that helps me feel that, you know, after the fact, this feedback helped me feel that at least some of my stuff was on. And if some of your stuff is on, there's a higher probability that all of your stuff is on at least to some degree. So I talk about it. And now if I was, do it, had done it and felt like I was totally off, I probably wouldn't even talk about it. But I'm willing to talk about this because just felt legitimate to some degree. Do you now think, I mean, is there anything else that you've come across, either through, I don't know, back channels, people you know, other sessions that would corroborate some type of activity on the moon? Well, I'm trying to think of this as any chapter in verse I can cite here. Well, first off, there are ephemeral things that occur on the moon that are not explained. And in his book, Penetration, Ingo, cited some of these. But other generally speaking, I wouldn't say, I wouldn't call it Penetration a highly reliable source. There's a lot of speculation in it. But I know that's been documented. I've seen some NASA reports that people have put online that that suggests these anomalies. And of course, the mainstream scientists are trying to come up with explanations, but those are speculation too, you know? I am willing, I'm not willing to say that the stories that the true believers say about these anomalies are accurate, in fact, I'm less inclined to believe them than I am the mainstream scientists. But I'm also not willing to go on board with the mainstream scientists who say, oh no, it's clearly this kind of a thing, blah, blah, blah. When, if you look at it, it's not clearly that at all. That's their attempt to explain something they can't explain. And so, I don't know what it is, it could end up being a naturalistic phenomenon, a phenomenon because there's a bunch of them. But there's also a certain level of possibility that they are not naturalistic, that they are some kind of intentionally generated phenomena based on maybe aliens are on the moon. I think that there is a fairly decent chance, you know, I'm hedging all of these bets because there's no actual there there that we have access to, right? A fairly decent chance that there might be some kind of basing on the moon that's not Earth originating. - Yeah, sort of ancient structures, perhaps even, or remnants of something, if not something current. - Or, no, I think there's something, a fair chance or something current there. I mean, based partly on what I found on the first side of the moon and how it correlated with the angel and the other guy had, all of them. - I mean, Jonathan Monagal had also, I think in mind Trek, come across something on the moon as well, he was told to sort of turn around during his, - Well, he had Mars, did you see the moon? I can't remember. - Yeah, the moon was a mind Trek where he followed somebody, some type of soul or consciousness or non-physical being or something up through the atmosphere towards the moon, I think. - Well, I thought that was just trying to attract a foreign agent of some kind. - And then was told to turn around. - Well, the guy was dead. - Right. - And Joe said, "Well, I got so far and I can't go any further "and skipped, I think, was his monitor and said, "Well, why not?" He says, "I'm blocked for some reason "and it turned out that I was dead." - Oh, yeah. - And so Joe probably didn't want to follow him anyway, but he'd go to the light. No, don't go to the light in this case, but I don't know if it's the same thing. I'd have to go back and review mind Trek has been decades since I read it, so. - But that, I mean, that is interesting. And then when you look at the correlation with Mars as well, I mean, you were tasked with the face on Mars. - Well, and I don't know if I was. I did some of those Mars things, not on purpose. I was directed there. I think, "Dames, I may do one or two of them." - And "Dames." - Okay. - Well, he was kind of the wild card. - He was a wild card. I met Ed. I was lucky enough to spend some time with him. He's definitely a fun person to get a drink with or to go get a meal with. He's got stories galore. - You put a, anything with alcohol in his hand and you get great stories. - Absolutely. Yeah, he's a good time. - You need to go have to get drunk together on an expensive wine and trade stories back and forth. You know, Ingles were true. I'm not sure Ed's were, but at least Ingles believed they were true. Let's put it that way. - Yeah, so he did what Skip did except he did it a bit more sloppily, let's say. He would actually sometimes, I was complaining about this yesterday at the Urban Conference, too. I gave a talk on, if you absolutely, positively must remote you big foot, here's how to do it, right? It's a big foot stood for any kind of anomaly target you might do. And one of the ones he had us do was, I don't know, the Galactic Federation is Supreme Galactic Council. I don't remember the exact location. And the fact is people have last started that and they all have their different names for it. So I can't remember the correct name, but he added some more of you that. And it was just something he pulled out of his head. You know, he had no particular reason to believe it existed. He was enamored with the Eorantia book back then. And I think there might be something in there that suggested this idea to about a Galactic Federation or maybe you'd watch too many Star Trek readers, I don't know. But there's absolutely no reason to believe that a Galactic Federation exists. And there's actually some pretty good reason to think it doesn't. Most of them have you do the lots of physics, right? So well, and there's the idea of big numbers and huge universe, right? So the problem is, I mean, there's reasons not to think there isn't even such thing. But that just came out of his head. He didn't have any reason to believe that. So he would do these kind of things. Some of which were real like he had his do Rindles and Forrest. And the holy grail and these type of things as well, right now, the Ark of the Covenant. So let's say he had the metaphysically oriented stuff like the grail and like the Ark. And he had the reported UFO events. Like Rindlesham and some of the others. Of the time I had, I can't remember what they were, but like Kingman or like Kexberg type of crashes. Yeah, I don't know if you did those. I'm not sure how well known they were at the time. He mostly did ones that were well-known. I see. And then he'd do the fantasy ones. He had me remote view Titan. And I think he was expecting there was something there. But I don't know that he had any reason for believing that. He just thought there was something. What he would do, he would, you know, we do remote during the day, he'd go home and at two in the morning, he'd be doing his own remote during the universe. And he'd come back the next morning and say, you know how yesterday I told you how the universe would put together, I was all wrong. This is how it's put together now, right? I used to joke that Ed could take half a fact and jump to a conclusion. He was very, he had a strong need for closure, right? He did not like open ended things. He was very left brain in that respect. And so if he had half an idea, you know, then he would try and find some explanatory context that fit that into it just so he'd have that closure. And he over and over again, change his mind about what's going on. And then task is on remote viewing. Yeah, Coral Castle was one that you talked to me about that he had, was that right? Yeah, he'd figured it out. This is how he did it. He drew a whole diagram. This is how Ed did it. It was all, you know. That sounds like quintessential Ed. I mean, we really liked him when he was there, except we got mad at him because he was, he was running his blind on these anomaly targets for which we would never get any feedback. You just can't get feedback on these things. There's no point in doing that. That's where I got a bias against that he started off with talking about. Yeah, I think that's where you and Joe McMonogal would agree as well. It's like there's no point in doing those targets. Yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, first off, even if they're really can't do anything about him, so what? Yeah, and if they're wrong, how would you know? That's right. So anyway, yeah. So he would work us on a lot of these things and we'd get mad because we didn't get feedback. And to us at the time, it really didn't matter. I'm kind of glad he didn't know. I have to say that for Ed, that glad he did because it gives me something to talk about with you guys, right? And some of them I think were probably more credible than others. Well, so you had the Mars one, which I think would have been more credible because we had, you know, a manor. Yes, photos. Let's go back there. Let's go back there. Okay, so somewhere around the '84 or '85, how put off said, skip the JPL photos that Hogan eventually got ahold of and made a big fuss about the face on Mars and all that stuff. Skip had him way before anybody in the public dead as far as I know, right? Certainly, of course, we didn't have the internet either. So it was hard to tell. Nor was coast to coast around yet. So he had him and he would work various of us on those. And that was the origin, you know, it's back in the news again. This makes a cycle of saying, "Joan with Monaco and Mark doing Mars." It keeps coming around. People come stumble across the transcript to that and the archives. And they think they've discovered something new when it's been talked about for decades now. Jo, in fact, I think he has it in mind track of, remember, right? And, yeah, I interviewed Jo about it as well. - Did you, okay, yeah. - Yeah, I think everybody's done their own iteration on this story. - And now somebody, something I read this morning, there's somebody out named Ralph or Bruce or something like that, who claims to have done that. And if you listen to what he's saying, it sounds like he's just copying what Jo said. - Right. - And, you know, there's people out there who try and get their claim to fame by just, you know, saving off somebody else and making stuff up and all that. I mean, that's one of the big problems. We have all these folks making claims that if you dig into them, there's no there there. You know, they're just looking for attention. - There's a lot of that. - Yeah. So anyway, I think I'm off tangent on these all these soap boxes that I like. - That's fun. - So, yeah. - So Mars. - Mars, the face of Mars. - Right. So I don't remember what I may have done there. Jo's session was interesting. Skip posted him like a million BC or something like that or a million years before. - So that target was given to him by Skip? - Yeah. - Really? - Skip was his monitor, yeah. - Skip was the monitor. - So I'll give you the context. - Oh. - So Jo, I always thought, I always thought, oh, skip the monitor. Okay, because according to Jo, the way Jo tells it is that he was given a little envelope or that the monitor was given a little envelope. And that Jo didn't know the target. - Jo didn't know the target. - And then the monitor knew the target. - Yes. - The monitor gave him coordinates. He removed viewed. [BLANK_AUDIO] but he said he said it was the target was given to the monitor from folks at the DIA or something. Joe, Joe misremember a lot these days. You know, I hate to say that because that'll make him mad at me, but that's not how it happened. The transcripts is in the archives. Okay. And what had, and that was before we were at the transcript, but there's no names on them because it's numbers. Yeah. Right. And Joe's number, I don't know which one they used. He had three different numbers. They assigned the early viewers three numbers at least each so that if anybody did break into the program, they would think there was a lot more viewers in there were and they wouldn't know which viewers which. Right. I think Joe, well, Joe was zero, zero one, although he likes to say he was the first one assigned to the unit. He wasn't male. Riley was. Mel's number was zero one one. Okay. But Joe, he had various numbers. He might have been three seven two. I don't know. I have to see the tasker would have been skip and skip's number was I have this written down this word. I want to say skip was zero five one. Okay. And that would have been the number giving him the coordinates. No, for the guy who did. Yeah. Yeah. So it's a written transcript. It was from a cassette tape that skip recorded it. And then somebody transcribed it might have been our office secretary. She did most of the transcribing. And so you'd see if I've got the number right zero five one and then there's the question or the where the tasking number through the recording it. And then we'll say he uses zero zero one than his response. And you know, and sometimes they don't get transcribed right because as as Jeannie the secretary used to say, he sounds like he's got a mouth full of mush. And she had to transcribe and drive a crazy, you know, play it over. Well, because we're like in a hip and a logic state laying down. Exactly. So anyway, so skip. Okay. So here's the background. So Joe was closing in on retirement. They got a special contract with the Monroe Institute to do what they were calling advanced training. This was just kind of a benefit to Joe because he he served long and well. And just as a parting gift, they got the government to pay for him to go down to the Monroe Institute where his, I don't think he was married yet, but his future wife Bob Stett stepped on an ancestral cut scooter. Yeah, was and so he would go down the institute. They'd run him on various kinds of him missing taskings. Yeah, well, I think most of those remote junior related and skip would go down and work with him on some of these. And if I'm remembering this correctly, I mean, it's possible they gave the envelope to Bob and Bob ran him on it. That's what I think it was. Okay. Yeah. That's possible. But well, skip would have been the tasker, Bob would have been the monitor. The monitor. Yeah. Although I thought skip did it. I'll look at the transcript that'll tell me. Right. Anyway, whoever was and would ask him, you know, get him in there and then start asking him questions and and we're through it till the end. And that's what that was. Okay. And and all of these internet news sources, they'll say CIA remote viewer finds out, you know, stuff on the Mars and all that kind of crap. And and first of all, it was never the CIA. That's one of the here's another short bucks coming up. Can you tell the CIA never ran the program. So Congress in in 1994 in the in the budget market language assigned the program to the CIA took it away from DIA who didn't want it anyway and assigned to the CIA who it turns out didn't want it either. And so it was supposed to handle was supposed to happen on the 30th of June 1995. Well, CIA takes possession, gets the keys 1995 30 June and on the 30th of June 1995, they shut it down. Yeah. Well, mostly following the fallout from MK Ultra and everything else. Well, that was, of course, long under the bridge. Yeah, but I mean, they didn't want to be associated with anything like that. That wasn't the reason really. No, because they'd actually tasked us close to 40 times. Yeah, for, I think CIA was 42 times, wasn't it? Yeah, I'd have to look at my figures. I counted them all up. Yeah. But yeah, they tested numerous times during that period, right? Yeah, during the 20 years. In 75, they shot it. They they they left the pro they sent you with drew funding and moved away from it because MK Ultra, but we're talking 20 years later, right? No, there's there were some more details I can't because it would burn sources that I have, but but overall, John Deutsch, who was the director, was also infamous for hating remote viewing. He did not like remote viewing. Now, I don't know what role he may or may not have played here, but I can imagine it, right? Is that a religious thing? No, no, he was he had a nuclear physics background and he didn't believe in anything like I say, just skeptical. Yeah. And and we know he was like this because earlier when he was, I want to say, under Secretary of Defense or something, Dale graph was supposed to go in and brief him on the on the remote viewing program. It was Sun's Sun streak at the time, he's supposed to go in a briefing on it. And when he found out with a subject to the meeting was he actually threw Dale out of his office and said, I'm not listening to you. It's about remote viewing. I don't want anything to do that. You know, it's all that hippy-dippy stuff going on. Yeah, it's pretty much. Yeah. So so he was director at the time. And I think my my speculation, I think, is justified is that he played a role in making sure the CIA never actually did it. Now, here's what people don't realize about the canceling of the of the target program. You know, some of them say, well, the CIA just took it underground. They're hiding in the basement somewhere, right? But but that's not what happened. What happened was they did indeed cancel program. They kept the spaces. There was about a dozen personnel slots that came along with it. And this was when Clinton, the Clinton administration of the Republican Congress were downsizing everything. They were just just eviscerating the intelligence community. And the CIA was really happy to get 12 slots that they could assign anywhere they wanted. So that was another reason for canceling the program. They kept it on the books. And so they had these 12 billets. And they could assign those bills wherever they wanted if they shut down the the the operation part of the program. It was it was very cynical. But you know, they probably do did need those people. Anyway, so so they shut it down. And of course, people say, well, the CIA found that it wasn't no good. No use. You know, or talking about the American Institutes of Research report that that was published in September of 95 made public in November of 95, right? What they don't know is the CIA shut down the program at the end of June. They didn't start the research for that report until the middle of July. So the report that allegedly was the justification for shutting it down hadn't even been report hadn't even been created yet. So the so there so there was no way that they could have even known like if it worked or if it didn't exactly they were just outright declaring it didn't work. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That does seem a little nefarious. Yeah. Well under underhanded, I would say. Well, and if they had a reason for it is because you had several powerful senators and Congress people who were supporters of the program. That's how it got sent to the CIA. There's a belief that DIA wasn't doing a good enough job. And so there's some lobbying that went on that got them to include it in the in the budget. So bird. Was it Robert bird? Was that the Senator from West Virginia or well anyway, he's very powerful. He's like chairman of the Ways and Means or something like that. And his stat he had a staffer who was very big into this. And the staffer greased the skids to get the budget language to get it sent to the CIA because now there's way more to that story. Sure. His girlfriend was in the program. I see. And she didn't like the military. And she wanted the CIA to take over. She thought that was a better home for it, not knowing about John Deutsch. Right. Yeah. And so it would never fly. Yeah. So that's how it got into sent to the CIA where it was immediately killed. Right. There's a whole bunch of backsteroid political ins and outs about this. But then there's the I mean, there's the eternal question for something that costs so little that takes so little overhead. And so little effort would would it not be reasonable to say that at the very least they contracted this out to a private contractors? Well, that would be reasonable because they're giving these contractors billions of dollars for like nuts and bolts, right? Like wouldn't it be reasonable to say here's a couple million. Like I mean, it seems like nothing to them. Well, that's a logical thought. Now one thing to be aware of, you know, the skeptics are always hammering Parapsychology, saying I have people spend millions of dollars on this stuff and some waste of money and stuff. Well, if you actually do the to the numbers, all the money that has been spent in researching Parapsychology since they first started in the 1890s with the So society, society of cycle research in Britain and the ASPR here, since the 1890s, if you add up all the money that's spent on the research and including Stargate, that's still not allowed to buy you 1F35. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's ridiculous. Yeah, I mean, just the helmet of a pilot costs $1,000,000. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I always say, too. You know, $20,000,000 seems like a lot of money. When you're like $20,000,000 in 20 years, you're like, that's for the average person. It is. But for the military industrial complex, it's pennies and it's mostly paper and pens, but it would be safe to say that this in the hands of someone, whether that's, I don't want to speculate, but there's so many government contractors out there, SAIC, or these type of like government contractors that seem to have a bit of a, you know, perclivity to these type of things, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that like, we're still doing this? Like, what's the, I don't see the downside of doing this. Okay. So just not having a downside isn't enough to get the government to do things that it doesn't want to do, right? Right. And even during the history of the program, there was a lot of infighting about wanting to support it and wanting to get rid of it. For various reasons, I don't think it's the religious situation that's often touted, you know, people think it's the word good devil. I don't think it really played much of a role. Yeah, but it played maybe a little role. A small role. There is one instance that's actually the briefing, we have a chronology of briefings that took place in the, in the 80, 40, 85 period. One of them is, one of the Congress people, their staffer was opposed to it on religious grounds. And succeeded, if I remember in history, right, it's in my book, Reading The Enemy's Mind, but one of his more influential staffer succeeded in getting it taken out of the budget. And so thinking they killed the program, right? Well, no, that's when Stubborn came along. Ah, yeah. Yes. Stubborn came and funded it out of the income's discretionary funds. Yeah. Because he wasn't going to put up with that. Stubborn was a great guy, although he was also a problem. Definitely biased. Yeah. Well, not so much biased. He just didn't have a speed governor on him, you know, and, well, that's a whole different tale to tell here, but, but I don't, I think the religious, I mean, people exaggerated my opinion. But I mean, if, if somebody were, you know, to come to the Trump administration currently and say, China's remote viewing, like, I mean, that would be the easiest way to get the remote viewing program gone in the United States. I mean, I feel like that may have happened already in the past. Like, that's all it takes is like, oh, they're doing it. Okay. So let me go back. Sure. Okay. Because that's how it started with Russia. Yeah. The Russians were doing it. Yeah. And the CIA had, even whether they believed it or not, had to at least find out, make sure there was not a threat. Yeah. And that's it. And that's how that works. For 20 years, I mean, you'd, you'd think you'd know after one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The program was canceled it clearly was because the budgetary stuff went away and the viewers were fired literally. I know where they all went. Yeah. Yeah. And the doors were locked and they gave the building back to Fort Mead and you know, there was counsel. Now people say, well, they just buried it down in Langley. I don't think so. No, because all the good remote viewers weren't called back, right? Nobody was called back. Nobody called back. Um, and then, of course, 9/11 happened. And they were actually going out recruiting people, you know, remote viewers who were out there to help support 9/11, um, which tells me they didn't have a government program either. Or they used their own viewers, right? To find bodies. You mean, no, just to solve different problems on global war and terror and all that. Oh, okay. Yeah. So, um, so, so what, what is the story with it? Well, first of all, again, how and I were approached at a certain point by a third level executive in the, in the, in agency, I have to be careful. I don't want to throw in the bus here. But this, this person came to us and said, uh, it was like, uh, you've got the director, you got a deputy director, and then you've got an assistant deputy director, right? That was the level this person was at. The assistant deputy director level position to know what they had a program or not. And it came to Helen Mead and said, what would it take to get a program going to the CIA again? The question alone told me they didn't have a program, right? The CIA didn't have the CIA didn't have a program. So they, uh, we had an interview back and forth with the person, um, they went to their next level up, the deputy director level and said, look, I've done this research, you know, what do you think about getting a program going? And that person told this person, no way in hell are we going to do that. And that's a, that's a third rail we don't want to touch. And so it feels like such a shame now, feels like, I mean, clearly we're leaving something on the table here. Yeah. There's, there's, there's a, uh, an intelligence collection, intelligence gathering method that is not being used. Doesn't sound very, I'm not, yeah, I'm not done yet, right? I do know that during the global war on terror, they were looking for people out there in the world, they used their intelligence contingency funds to hire, um, to remote view. I know we're talking about people with a remote viewing reputation, not just random folks, right? In fact, I and my group were asked to remote view, try and find a missing soldier who had been, uh, kidnapped in a convoy attacked by, uh, by, uh, al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later became part of ISIS, right? So we actually did, I have all my, all my helpers, all my viewers got a nice little thing from the general signed in person by the general certificate for their assistance in this, um, and we ran into this deal. This is another sidebar, but you're getting used to that now, I guess, right? Um, the problem we ran into was that the, the person, the general that had asked for our help. They got a Lieutenant Colonel to help as well, uh, in terms of being the interface between us, uh, between us and the general and the task force on the ground, that's what you're looking for this guy. And we produced pretty convincing data. There wasn't directly locational yet, as often times you have to kind of narrow down, right? So the first thing I did was I got my viewers to do sessions, totally blind to this, and I got two blind analysts as well, because I wanted to test the legitimacy of the viewers data. So I produced all of the, the results of the viewers had given me these two analysts took it and analyzed it and, and really actually nailed the scenario, missing, missing guy wartime search and stats imprisoned, probably in the Middle East, they drew sketches of Moss and stuff, probably in the Middle East, all this kind of stuff. And so then I wrote up the report, pretty exhaustive, and sent it off to the Lieutenant Colonel who gave it to the task force and they trash-canned it. Because the made the mistake of telling them where the data came from, and, and, and they already had an ordinary bias against psychics, right? And so, um, how it should have gone is they evaluated that they told us what stuff seemed, would tell me what stuff seemed to be on, uh, close to the money, then I would go back and task those viewers, not telling them anything, just saying on page such and such of your session you talked about this, what more can you tell me about that? So I'm not introducing in you data except that, um, that we're, I'm interested in that, that there might be something there. That's the only thing that gets a little confirmation, right? We did not have the opportunity to do that. I think we would have found the guy right off. He's found two or three years later dead, you know, finally, yeah. And, uh, they just didn't buy the data, they didn't believe it, okay? So now, let me go back to the ultimate question, are they still doing in the government? Um, first of all, I'm absolutely sure the military services are not doing this. This, uh, they were doing, it's outside of their, their envelope, anyway, right? It was even at the time, but now they, they've got too many other priorities that are not doing this. A lot of things that we used to be called in for as the last resort are now being handled by technical means, like much more, uh, much more capable drones and satellite, so the satellite industry improves since then quite a bit. Um, but then the other thing is they, it's just not where they, where the services would want to go. Now, there's one place where it might be. And that's NSA, national security agency. Or as we used to say, no such agency, but whatever, anyway, the national security agency, they had a program the same time we did, because we knew their viewers. They were also being trained by and go, really? Yes. Well, and do we have a name of the program? No. Do you know the name? No. Okay. Uh, I didn't, uh, we didn't, they didn't reveal much about their program, but they did admit they were being trained for an NSA program. We knew them by name, which are, you're not going to get obviously the people, the people here. And, uh, I have not ever heard of the CIA canceled the pro, their program. Now, it doesn't mean they didn't see ideas, all kinds of things people don't know about, but there was a whistleblower some years ago who, uh, lose. to them still having a program. And I suspect they might. I hope they do. Do you think it has anything to do with the phenomenon? Would you suspect that like, because I think that's for me, okay, NSA obviously, you know, spying on people and, you know, for national security and finding, you know, domestic threats and whatever, that makes sense. But also, like you said, there are so many data collection platforms that are technical that can probably provide more accurate data than are remote. If you are quicker, you know what I mean? Yeah, there's still things that you just hack people's phones now and just listen in. It's so much more efficient to use technology in those cases, but in the anomalous cases, I feel like that's where, you know, and perhaps that's where Dr. Putoff, you know, that's why he continued to, you know, he was a part of, you know, whether it's bass or OSAP or like all these other offshoots of like studying the phenomena. I feel like that's really where remote viewing can be used because, you know, these aliens aren't using cell phones. Right. Well, I was, I tried to interrupt you for and that was rude to me. I apologize. But as I pointed out, even though a lot of the problems that that we used to be used for isn't a problem set anymore, there are still some things that tech means aren't going to resolve. And those are the things where remote viewing would still be useful, which is why I think, I hope the NSA is doing it because they can address some of those, right? But particularly, I like to joke that, so Churchill famously said the Soviet Union was a enigma wrapped in a riddle somewhere. There's something like that. Yeah. I like to joke about remote viewing being, I don't know that remote viewing is an enigma being used to solve a riddle, which is the UFO UAP stuff, right? If, you know, if you haven't got any of the means, it can address this, then you go to the only one that might have a chance. And that's essentially what you're saying here. Yeah, using an anomaly to look at an anomaly. Exactly. Yeah. But once you look at one, how can you just stop at one? That's the problem. I mean, this is worse than potato chips. Yeah, it really is because, you know, a lot of scientists, you know, the materialists science specifically will ignore the anomaly, you know, because it impedes on, you know, the formula or the proof or whatever it is. And so you just kind of, that's an anomaly. That's what it is, an anomaly. But when the anomaly crops up a lot, you got to take a look at the anomaly. Well, the UFO scope is not only an anomaly. It's an anomaly filled with anomaly. And so it's really hard to draw the line. I often say, you know, I think of it as like a house party. And when I get to know you, well, you can come in, you can have a beer, you can go in the fridge, whatever you like, right? So, uh, remote viewing, I know remote viewing. I've, I tried it for a year. I've interviewed people. I've studied. I've read a lot of the research. I'm confident to say, remote viewing is a thing you can come in big foot. You're going to stay outside. All right, I know my friends vouch for you. I know you seem like a nice guy. But if I let you in all of a sudden, I'm going to have, you know, reptilians in the fridge eating out of the, you know what I mean out of the pantry. And so I can't have that right now. But that's that's kind of what it is with this stuff. It's a floodgate. Yeah. Um, before we go to the audience questions, I do want to bring this back a little bit to some of the most anomalous targets. Um, are there any such targets that you'd want to just talk about to my audience that you think might be interesting in terms of NHI, in terms of, you know, having something anomalous on the other end of it. I'm sure you did a few. But is there any that stands out to you as like, Oh, that would be an interesting little tidbit on a target? Well, that's something I'd probably have to think about a while. Nothing's popping into my head. Okay. Did you ever have a session where the target was non-human intelligence? No, that was the specific target, but a subset of the target. A subset of the target. I mean, the lunar one we talked about one, um, the Mount Hayes one. I picked up people, uh, in present who were, uh, they really hated their lives right then. Could you tell me about that? Yeah, I got these people. I called them people, but I kind of put quotes around and said, I don't know exactly people. I don't know. But you know, it's like, and I'll use the AOL analogy here, right? It's like, you know, military members who are assigned to, I don't know, Greenland or some place, you know, there's nothing going on. It's the way from home, uh, that you, you can't go and surely, you know, there's nothing you, you're stuck here for the duration. I'm so sick of here. I just want to go home, you know, that was the attitude they had that I perceived. And these are people. People. They were sentient entities at the basic levels. They sentient entities. I call them people. They seem different than people in general. That was before I read, I knew that this was a, an ET-related site, right? And, um, and you know, I was just subscribing. I mean, and even though they didn't seem quite like people, I didn't know what to say about that. Um, they really had kind of normal kind of reactions to being isolated and, and stuck someplace doing a job that's maybe necessary, but not a lot of fun. And, you know, that, that was kind of the feeling I had about these guys. So interesting. Did you get any type of physical traits from them? No, I didn't. People asked me about that. And I, because I kind of, at the point, just assumed there were people, even though they felt different in some way, I didn't even bother going there. Right. Of course, there were a lot of things that I regret not doing today that I didn't do back then, but that's the way it goes. Would you, uh, I know you said you did a session yesterday at Irva, and I'm not going to ask you to do a session now. Right. Um, Paul will not unless you insist. No. But I didn't. Well, let me tell you. Sure. I wouldn't do it anyway. I make you do it. Really? Yeah. Yeah. I feel like that's a cop out. I feel like. No, it's not. I'll tell you why. Okay. So I had this argument before we wanted producers and stuff. Um, they want me to do the demo, right? Sure. In fact, I did this with, I don't know if you ever saw Suspect Zero. This movie had Ben Kingsley in it and Aaron Eckert and Terry Moss. Oh, it didn't add James consult on this. He was someone to consult. Actually, on film, on film, there's this video that's played in there. I don't think you actually see him, but you hear his voice talking about remote viewing, right? Um, but yeah, I did. Um, so, uh, it kind of bombed the box office in part of the reasons of the critics said, no, this is impossible. It's too fantasy fantasy, you know, remote viewing, that's nonsense and all this kind of stuff. And the director realized marriage. Um, I is, is it his last name's hard to pronounce. Look, mayor hit me, H-R-I-G-E, right? Marriage. No, there I've made a German sound to him. But anyway, um, he was hoping in the DVD release to, released to actually improve on that by having legitimate, uh, bonus features like he got an interview with Russell Targ. Um, he wanted to come and interview me and then get me to do a demo session for it. Okay. And he comes in and, and, uh, he's in Austin and he says, well, um, okay, which would be better? I mean, in fact, we were right there in, in the hotel, right? When I was going to do whatever I was going to do. He said, okay, well, uh, he's being very solicitous. He said, now we can do the interview right now or the demo. Uh, you know, I don't want you to be tired. I don't want you to be all, you know, sat in good form to do the demo. So which would rather do first? I said, it doesn't matter. He said, oh, okay. Well, which one you want to do first? I said, I'll do the interview because I'm not doing the remote viewing. And his eyes get like this because he's singing, oh crap, I just spent a lot of money. Bring out a camera crew and come here and now you're telling me you're not going to do, you didn't say this, but I can tell that's what he's thinking. Now you're going to tell me you're not going to do the, the one of the core elements of what I need. I said, I'm not going to do it. You are. And these guys got, I was getting bigger. He said, I can't do this stuff, although we use a different word, right? I can't do this stuff. He said, sure, you can. We got how to come in and monitor him, explain the outbounder process. And then I and a family friend who's staying with us, the young woman, um, went with the camera guy to, to a target location, which was the penny back of bridge in Austin is pretty iconic, but it's not something people normally associate with Austin. I think it's something down six street or the Texas tower at the university or whatever, right? So we go to the penny back of bridge. We do our thing. We walk around, we look at it, we take videos of it, all this kind of stuff. And then we come back to pick Elias and Hal up. And, uh, and of course, we didn't tell him what it was. We get in the car and we're headed down the road. And I told the camera man to sit over here in the back passenger seat. And marriage was up here in the front passenger seat. And I said, keep your camera on him because I knew what was going to happen. We're driving down the road. He and I are talking about random stuff, you know, to just have a good time. And I purposely was trying to keep his mind off of the session. We were driving down the road. And then when you come up over Capitol Texas highway, you can see the bridge looming on on the kind of on the horizon and come up over there and and he happens to look around. That's the target! He said that's what I you know, he got really excited. It's all on film and it's all in the book of these are the DVD We get there and he's just absolutely ecstatic about this. We go up above it We go down below go all over and he's going yeah I got this and I and I perceived this although some of it he didn't write down Which is it's too bad, you know, I tell my students if you don't write it down. It doesn't count But anyway the reason I do that I've done that many times I The first time I did this I did for an A&E project where I actually did the demo and They screwed it up. I told him exactly how to do a down bounder and they didn't do it right and I had marginal success on that And I realized if I don't have control of the process Then it's almost always going to get screwed up. Would you trust me to be the outbound? no And because there's another factor Okay, and that is if you have somebody else do the demo and they found this This is a model. They use the SRI they'd have a scientist or a journalist or somebody come in and wanted to see it done they started off Having you know calling in one of their best viewers, you know, hell I'm at or or somebody and then having them through the viewing while Somebody does the outbounder and then show the results to the the inquire or the person to come in and they say that's really cool But you might have fooled me. I don't know how you did it, but you might have fooled me. It wasn't a conversion experience They didn't necessarily believe what they were shown. Sure. Yeah, so there's this thing called first time effect in remote being where the first couple of times you do it You have actually a very high chance of it. I've done it. I've done it a bunch. So okay. Yeah, he's been a while. Yeah. Yeah, he has been a while. So So what and this was Ingo's idea he said well, why don't you have him come in count on the first time effect make them the viewer And so what it happens to come in and say okay, yeah England so and so we're going to go off to this target. Have a seat here. Here's a pen and paper and they say Just like just like you know I said I can't do this. Sure. You can they get that usually it was Well, it was either how or Russell that monitored and Roughly 80 just over 80% of the time they had a good success Mm-hmm. And then they believed it because they had done it themselves. They knew what they knew they knew what they didn't know. I mean, I'm already bought in I've already had my experiences Factor here. Yeah, is the audience. No, there wasn't an audience in those cases. Sure. This case. There's an audience. Yeah, if I do it They still don't know that it wasn't fake. Sure. If you do it, they might have much higher confidence Oh, I'm not sure about that. Yeah, they do. Well, they know you're a midget exactly also know you're trying hard to be sincere Sure, so well, what if we both did it Well, then you'd have to get an outbound team and somebody to to manage it um Well, we're not going to do it now because it takes time. So I actually would be willing to do something like this Yeah, in some future engagement. Okay, right. We'd have to set it up though. Yeah, we made sure that all the moving parts move properly Sure Yeah, it's a bit last minute you'd need At least an additional camera and somebody to man it. Yeah, we got I got a You know, we got I got an employee here or Vinnie or he's out there. I mean could set it up. Well Okay, I mean, I'd be happy to do it. I don't know if now's the time. I don't know the now's the time. I It's a bit last minute. Yeah, but you know in the future assuming I come back sure I would actually be willing to do this. Yeah, we could just set up the whole thing. Yeah, me too. It's a lot of fun So great. Okay. We'll set it up next time. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. I'm gonna go or we can set it up When we're somewhere else, which is even better. Yeah, because there's nothing familiar around exactly. Yeah, here you might guess Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. There's noise. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, let me go turn this camera. We're gonna get some audience questions Sounds good. So are we still recording? Yep. Oh, okay, but so so far you like how we've gone. This is great I love the riff. I love everything. I'm learning so much about this stuff and good. You know, this is the this is the This is the impetus for this channel was remote viewing You know, I got into it because my friend Nelson Who's a memory champion who I've told you about you probably met and He was I he was approached he won't remember me though, so he'll definitely remember you He was approached by these guys who were hired by Some type of hedge fund or something That were looking to train remote viewers to play the stock market. So associated remote viewing. I think I think um What's his name Brett Brent Forget his name now Regardless, he was then trained for an hour a day for a month to try and do this associative remote viewing had some really great You know success with it and he has a he's very left brain. I had a physics background Was kind of like I don't know if I you know believe in any of this stuff And uh and then he told me about it and I was like oh, it's fascinating I said I remember this the psychic spy documentary and everything else like yeah, I want to learn So he kind of taught me what he learned. I did it for a year documented that process. Oh, in that process Interviewed a bunch of people including Ed Dames, Jones, Monica, Ed May All sorts of people in and around this space and then um sort of put together this three part series And that's how the channel started was that was through Yeah, the first videos I should go watch this on my channel. Yeah, they were a little a little more cinematic a little more dramatic. I'd incorporate a little bit of story into their little bit of fiction, but it was it was definitely a lot of fun Okay, um, but the sessions were real and uh they were for me enough to convince me So you said you watched some of my videos. I should watch some of you guys some you guys some homework to do post uh post podcasts All right, let's go here Okay, yeah, this is actually a really good one From Frankie Oh, we're playing Jeopardy. I had no idea What have you remote viewed in the past that now can be verified this hard facts versus what you perceived initially So there's there anything that you remote view and you're like what is that? This is nonsense But now you're like oh my gosh. That's what it was. Oh, um, I mean a ton of stuff I mean we did a lot. I did a lot of well all of us did a lot of uh trainings Against targets that could be verified right away I'm thinking what this question may be referring to as things that Until recently. I may not have known the content of that you know if it was legitimate or not So that's a little bit different and let me think there was something What Well, I've talked about the stark session where I described the attack on a warship On US warship, but that was 50 hours later. I feedback on that. So that doesn't apply either What have I Has anything come up in the news recently that you were like oh, well, I can give some other examples I mean the Nimitz would have been one of those things. Yeah, that's one of them um Okay, so in some examples rather than think of what the perfect answer for this question come up with that yet But uh for example a stealth aircraft project. We were Taster remote view our own us stealth aircraft program because they wanted to find out how the Soviets would do How Soviet remote viewers might do against the program But they couldn't go out and ask them right they can say so how well can you remove your stealth aircraft? Because of course it was still in a sap. Yeah, that whole program was in a sap. What year is this? This was at 86 wow And yeah, and it was revealed um to the public in I want to say some were of 87 somewhere around there. So We removed you the year before it was publicly known And we didn't know it was an aircraft even, you know We asked to remove you it and and we proceeded to describe it. In fact, I was talking about this yesterday No, I'm sorry a couple of days go at the show power points of all the sketches and stuff um We removed you did In 86 June of 86. I think was cut off for the data and and described the aircraft with Weirdly shaped wings special Special skin that you know absorb radar and stuff radar other radar foiling devices And went through a whole list of things that actually perfectly described the stealth aircraft Okay, and we did some sketches most of them weren't particularly accurate But you know, we did identify as an aircraft which we didn't know when we started right But I actually success successfully sketched when there's very similar To actually both the f-17 with a detail and the b-2 which looks like this boldest whale kind of thing combined Mm-hmm And so I've got this kind of bolder shape But I've got the faceted camera cockpit windows like the f-17 and a v-tail on it and portrayed as a you know as a like a single engine kind of a fighter thing I found out later what the actual tasking was, you know We didn't find out for a year that we were we'd remote you the the stealth But as soon as that came out the papers we instantly knew what we've been working on And then you got confirmation for that. Oh, yes. Oh, wow. Yes So that was pretty cool. Yeah But I found out why I combined the two is because the tasking was for stealth aircraft plural, but aircraft is both plural and singular, right? So I when I think happen was my subconscious went out found the tart the target But they're said, oh no, there's two of them. What do I do? And then yeah, yeah, that must have been validating seeing that. Oh, it's awesome. Yeah, and Mel actually from the front, when he sketch looked just like a B2, it was amazing. His sketch. Wow. Yeah, very cool. So, um, if I think of that, maybe I know something that is much more, I know there's something I'm just not stuck. Sure. That's a great question. Happy to answer later. Yeah. Great question here. Once again, audience has the best questions. After all these years, I'm waiting for their dollars fall out of a slot after all these years. What do you think is the biggest mystery about remote viewing? The biggest mystery about remote viewing is the causality. Right. We do still do a lot of hand-weighting about it because we know what the stimulus is. It's the target. We know what the results are. That's what we produce the remote viewing process. How it gets from the target to our minds. We don't know the answer to that. I think part of the reason is because I don't believe it's a physical process. I think it's non-physical. Now mainstream science embraces physicalism, which is the dogma, it really is dogma, that everything in the universe of physical or a function of physical facts. I think remote viewing or the personality phenomenon are counter examples to that and show that that generalized statement is false. Obviously there are things that are physical, a lot of things that are physical, but I think that we see these things that aren't. And science discounts them. The principal in science is, if it can't be explained physically, then it doesn't exist. And yet the data exists. There's a ton of it and skeptic keeps saying there's no evidence for it. They are totally wrong about that. And in fact, they're in denial about that literally. But what that piece is is where the signal comes from and we don't know how to measure it, how to identify it, even how to see it. But we know what it isn't. We know what it isn't. I mean, it's not a frequency. It's not a way. We know it's not a particle. Yes, we know it's not electromagnetic. And that's really the only possible. Well, aside of quantum non-locality. But it is information. Well, yes, now we get it. When you start talking information, there's all kinds of hand waving going on there. Well, the universe is just made up of information. What the hell does that mean? No, I mean like like light, like information can travel on light. Like information can travel. But are we use it? What are we using to take that information? See, you are actually identifying the problem with this information theory that is ignored. Information requires a substrate. That's right. Yeah. And the way it is used when people talk about information as being the core element in the universe, they talk about is if it is the foundation of the universe, you cannot have information without something to carry that information, which means there's something else. Consciousness or love or there's a lot of speculative words that people use as the substrate. So vacuum. Yeah, so there may be a carrier, but it and it's possible because I'm not an initiative here, right? I don't know where everything there is. It's possible there are some odd physical phenomenon that actually does allow to work within a physical context. But based on all the evidence we have, I doubt it. In fact, my dissertation was based on that. It was an attempt to prove that physicalism is false. It was an attempt to prove that physicalism is highly in doubt or should be. And I think right now the evidence proponents, proponents of evidence is that there's something besides the physical element in the universe. Well, yeah, because we're beating our heads against a wall at this point, with materialism and yes, sad thing is of course science dismisses the possibility of non physical elements. If there is really a non physical aspect in the universe, they are never going to come to a bottom line on the final questions. And they, in fact, that was part of the final chapter of my dissertation is make that argument. If you refused, if you reject something that actually is likely to be the case, if you reject that, you are never going to have a complete description of the universe. No, I agree. I think that with every guest I speak with is becoming more and more apparent that that is the case. And I think a lot of people feel that that is truth, even though they might not have the know how to go ahead and prove it or study it or observe it. But I think the feeling there for whatever that's worth is that that rings true. That resonates as truth. Like there seems to be, you know, this idea that all is mental that, you know. And see, I disagree with that too. I, you know, that's idealism, right? Where, where everything is, is mind and, yeah, our pants, I guess it's not just this. Well, pants, I guess they're actually both, yeah, or allows for both. I don't want to get into the abstract philosophy here. Because there's other questions, right? But yeah, I think we have to be careful by by generalizing anything here. We have to be careful. Fair enough. So, yeah. Let's go to, oh, this is, this is a nice question. Lovely questions here from our audience once again. And if you want to go ahead and ask your own questions, yeah, if you want to ask your own questions, these are available to members. What are you most grateful for now in your general life that your RV skills have given you? You know, what are you most grateful for in your general life? Is that remote viewing? Yeah, is it the outlook on consciousness? Is it the information? Is it just the knowing or is it the friends you made along the way? Yeah. So, that's a, that's a good question. And it's relatively easy answer with a lot of words. Okay, right. So, what remote viewing is done for me? Okay. It's not that I've acquired a skill that's useful. It's not that I've acquired a way of making money in my retirement. It's not that I have lots of great stories to tell. It's that I recognize. I now have solid evidence for something I've pretty much believed all along, but didn't have was able to establish. And that is that we are indeed more than our physical bodies. For more than our minds, that mind is not constrained within the parameters of the brain. Okay. That's, of course, the physicalist answer here that that consciousness and mental processing all a function of brain processing of firing of neurons, that kind of thing. I think that the parapsychology evidence and the remote viewing evidence, I kind of touched on this a minute ago, is, is strong evidence that our minds are non-physical, that they can exist out of our brains. Okay. So, think what this implication here is, if physicalism is true, there's probably no such thing as God. There's probably no such thing as free will. Even people have tried to reconcile physicalism and free will for decades now. And so far, they pretty much failed. Right. The universe is the at least our physical universe is largely deterministic. And the parts that aren't deterministic are indeterministic. And neither one of you bring gives you free will. Okay. There's no angels. There's no, you know, all this kind of stuff. If the world is just physical. But the fact that I can, I could sit here at this desk and provably project my consciousness to the other side of the world, to a target that I have no way of interacting with, that I have no knowledge of, no awareness of, and accurately predict and describe and sketch that target is primary evidence that our minds are not confined to our brains. Which is also further evidence that they aren't strictly a function of brain processes. And that, I think, is probably the most important insight that I've gotten from all of this. Despite all the other benefits I get, that's probably the most important one. Yeah, it is pretty important. And it's a fun confirmation to receive. Yes. Yeah. It is. Here we go. One last one here. Only one. We've got plenty more. But I, I limit it to three or four. That's fine. I might have one last one after all of this. AOL is the mind's guess. That's a nice way of putting it. One indicator signals that you are projecting imagination rather than receiving a true signal. We talked about the feeling before, like, oh, this is a feeling that I'm on somewhere. That doesn't exclude there being some AOL in that sense. Sure. Is there anything objective that you can point to? Well, yes. In fact, in my basic course, I go through a series of them, right? So AOL, first of all, if you're getting a. And let it go overlay means your left brain speaks simplistically. And he psychologists out there will be scandalized when I'm talking right brain, left brain. But there that's a good way of talking about the same for so people understand it, right? So, um, what people talk remote, you know, I'm going to learn. Whatever they kind of anticipate before they've experienced it. They're going to get some clear image of what the target is in their head. There won't be any doubts about it. They'll be fine. And that's not what happens without going into a great deal of detail. When you, if you have a clear static vivid image in your head of the target, it's almost always wrong because what that is usually a construct of your left brain trying to answer the question, what is it? And it may pick up bits and pieces of the target through the right brain interface, right? Because that's where the sensory processing seems to be come home to roost, right? So it'll get bits and pieces of it and it'll take that and it'll go to work on it. And what I call a low bandwidth circumstance, where you get a very little bit of information sequentially through, sequentially enter your conscious awareness. And so it doesn't have much information to work on, and so it starts jumping to conclusions. And oftentimes that consists of borrowing from old memories, you know, extrapolating from what the data is and creating these images in your head. And they're almost always wrong. Sometimes they have pieces of truth in them, but particularly later on, if you get into a deep and remote viewing session, it has more data to work with, right? And so that's one. Another one is if you hedge, I talk about, you know, this, I can't do it right now, but words that suggest your hedging. So for example, like, if you say, well, it's like this, well, the first thing you know when you say one thing is like something else, you know, it's not that thing, right? So you say, well, it's like, let's say it's a lighthouse and you say, let's like a chimney, you know, like a tall industrial chimney, it's like a chimney, well, you can say right there, it's not a chimney because it's only like it, right? But then you, if you then proceed to describe and sketch, you get a fairly interesting representation that you can see, oh, it's a lighthouse, right? But that comparator word, that's what I was going to compare to word is a giveaway that you're probably dealing with in AOL because that's how the brain works. It draws analogies between things that conscious mind and then tries to sort out what a thing is by what it resembles, right? So there's some others to one is, I won't go through the whole list. But what about what about like a motion? Is there a certain sense of certain like tug at a heartstring or like a sense of overwhelming like, yes, this is it. Do you ever feel those like and is there like a knowing, just an absolute knowing that occurs? Not absolute. Right. In fact, the research, or I showed that whenever a viewer was convinced they were on, they were very often off and when they were convinced they were off, they were very often on, right? Okay. So there is no indicator that is objective. No, I talked about sort of vague feeling, that's correct. That isn't assertitude. That's just it leans in favor of being right. But if you absolutely convince you're right, you're usually wrong because what that means is your left brain is constructed, constructed, this convincing model of what the target is that's based on very little data and it's just a putting together of conclusions and stuff. But is the absence of that certitude then conclusively telling you, oh, this is not, no, not necessarily. The absence of certitude though suggests that you are withholding judgment, which is where you need to be. Where you need to be. Yes. Okay. It's quite complicated. Well, it's actually simple but conveying it is hard. Well, the ego gets in the way and then like your own mind gets in the way and that's it makes it complicated. Yes. You still learn things with every session about yourself, about your subconscious. I'm not necessarily with every session but I still do learn things. Sometimes I learn quite a bit. How to interpret information or? Yeah. Obviously, every time you make a mistake and you acknowledge a mistake, you're learning something, right? And I still make mistakes in the session. Sometimes there are mistakes I already made numerous times and I think I'll crap there. I did it again. You know, there's this thing called internal editing, which is where you have an impression and your left brain says no, that's impossible. So you don't write it down. You don't verbalize it. And later on, you come back and say, oh, it was right there and I didn't put it down. And my rule is, if it isn't recorded, it doesn't count. Yeah. Right. It's like, it's the old buster, Keaton philosophy, what the camera doesn't see, it doesn't exist. Yes. Okay. And my, I guess my last question, which will be a doozy, but is, you know, we spoke about this at the very top. I'll be the judge of that. Whether it's a doozy or not, okay, yeah. I want to talk about a little bit at least about the relationship between sort of the phenomenon and the Mormon religion and how, yes, it is a doozy. So you want to do another hour on this? We can do as long as you like, but I thought while I have you here, you know, there's not very many people like us to ask about this stuff. We were very knowledgeable on this. So I thought I'd take the opportunity. But, you know, in 1820, you have Joseph Smith, who encounters these two beings who come down from a beam of light, he describes brighter than the sun, you know, and deliver this sort of message to him. And then you have another instance in 1834 with Moroni. When he enters, Moroni, is it Moroni? We call it say Moroni, but Moroni, yeah, enters his room floating, glowing, and then proceeds to pass through the ceiling or go up and towards a light. You know, you have, you have also, what are they referred to as the, the, the, the, the Nephites, the three Nephites, which I think is such an interesting concept, because these are, are essentially beings that go around helping people, which we have so many stories about, somebody saying, oh, the stranger helped me on the side of the road, and I turned around and he was gone or whatever, and he told, you know what I mean? And so you obviously, who's, you've shown an interest in, you know, the phenomenon, and over the years, you're a part of these conventions that are, you know, heavily based in ephology. What connections can you say that you've given sort of credence to that are made between ephology and the phenomenon that we notice, and the stories of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon and, you know, everything from, from that side of, yeah, this is, this is a, could be an extensive response, but now, first of all, do you mind me mention another podcast on here? Sure. Okay. So Jeff, Jeffrey Michelov has is, oh, yeah, new thinking allowed, right? Great podcast. And I have an episode on there called, uh, remote viewing and Mormon metaphysics, where I get into some of these questions. I'll have a listen. So, that's just a side reference for people who want to dig into this some more, because I'm not going to get into it that deeply. Okay. So, um, first off, it's interesting. I find that, uh, Michel and Mormon, now I have to do this is politically obligated from the, it's the, the official name of the church is church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And we can abbreviate LDS church, usually speaking. We're not supposed to use Mormon anymore, because it started off as a pejorative name. Understood. Yeah. And, and the, uh, the church feels that we shouldn't enable that. Plus, um, Jesus Christ is the important focal point right here. And by just calling Mormons, we're kind of short changing the idea that church is named after Christ, right? Okay. So, now that I've got that out of the way, I will still use Mormon now that you guys know, right? We can use LDS as well. LDS works to, yeah, because it is the shorter, um, okay, so I have discovered LDS people tend to be more accepting of this phenomena, of these phenomena than many other religiously inclined folks. Um, and, and largely because we have a kind of a tradition that allows this to happen in our, in our faith. Now, at Fort Mead, we had Catholics, we had Mormons and we had, um, uh, Protestants, Protestants, Protestants. Thank you. I was seeing Evan Gehlkel, but we needed a bigger category of Protestants. And by and large, the Catholics seem to deal okay with this stuff and the more, because they also have a sort of tradition that allows for what we call paranormal stuff going through. Sure. Uh, Mormons did because of the same reason. The Protestants struggle a bit because of course the tendency and Protestantism is to label anything that isn't obviously from God as satanic. And, um, as far as Mormons are concerned, I think Catholics to some degree too is, um, not everything comes from God and not everything comes from Satan and that in fact, uh, we are agents unto ourselves and we can choose to use our own faculties and capabilities to do good or evil or neutral, right? Good or evil or neutral. Um, uh, and, uh, and we have a tradition, well, it's not a tradition, we have a doctrinal point that we believe that we've always existed as some kind of identity, right? Most, I'd say the most, at least Western religions have this notion and they haven't sorted it out exactly, but that we kind of came into existence with conception or with birth. That's when we became a human and our spirits started there. It's a half line, right? You have an origin and then it goes on from there, I'm going to break your stuff here. Um, Mormons is a whole line, right? We go back as far as forever and we go up and have the problem. aspect of going on forever, although maybe in different forms. In fact, I like to joke that worms believe in reincarnation, but it's linear reincarnation, not cyclical like we get from these religions. So we start off life as this identity, which is an intelligence, we call it an intelligence, it's like a packet of identity. We don't actually have a way of describing what it is, but it just existed, and we've always had this identity. Then we acquire a spirit body, which that's God and creating up for us, and then we acquire a physical body, which is a spirit in the physical body together, and then we go on at some point, we die, and the spirit separated in the body just to case, and then we believe in a literal resurrection, where we have it, get a new physical body and the spirit, right? So that's where the linear reincarnation comes from, right? Now, how does that pertain? Spirits have abilities that to do things without a body. So in other words, they can know things, they can move around, they can interact, and they do all these things, but they don't have a body, right? And they can communicate. Well, if you don't have a body, how are you communicating? It sounds like telepathy to me, right? And so, what about these other things? You can move without a body across space. That sounds like teleportation, right? So, there are analogs in the parasycology literature that matches these spiritual abilities. Now, again, according to more of a doctrine, when we're born into this life, there's this veil that is installed in us. Now, whether it's installed or just the results of the trauma of birth, I don't know, but we forget that past existence, the premortal life we call it. And we go through life here. Now, the doctrine is that one of the purposes being here is to learn how to unify our bodies in our spirits, in an intention and everything else. What I think is happening in the religious sense. Now, I don't normally talk about this in my business. I talk about non-local, non-locality and all that stuff. If I'm speaking religiously to somebody, what I think is happening when we gain remote doing skills, telepathy with all these things and these various paranormal abilities, is that we're just relearning what we used to know how to do in the pre-existence of the premortal world. So, these are spiritual abilities we always had. You know, we forget them when we're born, but then now we're relearning them, which I think is part of our mandate, really, again, speaking religiously to us, part of our mandate. We're here probably to learn these things. And when I explain that to a Mormon, they go, "Wow, that makes a lot of sense." And so, they tend to be okay with this stuff. What happens after that sort of communion? What happens after you've attained that level of spirituality or spiritual awareness in your physical life? Does it just restart? So, you said-- You mean, we're requiring, we're remembering these abilities? No, you just keep on going until you die. Yeah, but then you die, and then it starts again, where you forget, and you begin again. You know, that's, of course, that you-- We're in what we call a spirit world, the Mormon terms of spirit world. The body, of course, rots away. We're in the spirit world, and we still interact there with others, you know, with other spirits that are there, and there's learning, and there's repenting, and there's all the stuff you still do. It's a different order, a different level, than, of course, what we do here. But then when we are reunited with a physical body, we still retain all the knowledge we had. We're embarking on, that physical body is not mortal, according to what we've been taught. It's not mortal, it's now a immortal body, but it's still physical. And I think this makes a lot of sense to me, because you get a lot of-- It's like an angel. Well, yeah, I mean, all an angel is as somebody who's doing an errand for God. Angel means messenger, literally, in both Hebrew and Greek. It means messenger, so they're on an errand, they're on a mission. And so you could be an angel, that's a role, that's not a thing. Now, of course, that doesn't match the conception of angel a lot of people have, but that's okay. We don't need to get into that, those weeds, right? So reincarnation would essentially cease once you've learned those lessons? Well, no, I mean, it isn't the learning that does. It's the ontological process, you go from intelligence to spirit, to spirit, and body, back to spirit, and back to spirit, and body. So that's why I say it's a linear reincarnation. But after that part, I have no idea. The doctrine is that you stay spirit and body together for the rest of eternity, but you still learn things, obviously. Interesting. Which is good, because I'd be very bored if there weren't new things to learn. But when I explain it in those terms, my fellow members are generally pretty okay with it. They may not want to do it. They may not be that interesting. They're busy being alive today doing these things, but at least they don't reject it. That is really interesting that there is a way to weave this in. And that must, I suppose, strengthen your conviction to a certain extent. When you study remote viewing and you study all this and you try and lay it over your current faith and your current religion, you must be like, "Oh, this fits perfectly." And does that strengthen your resolve? It helps a lot. So in my philosophy program at UT Austin, there was another return missionary who came into the program. And philosophy is notoriously corrosive of belief. You realize this is how much we don't really know. Philosophy isn't designed to answer questions. It's designed to make the questions better that you ask. Now, hopefully we answer a few along the way. But a philosopher is fine by not answering questions as long as they come to understand to the higher level. That's the point of it. So this guy came in and he didn't have the virtue of knowing that our brains are non-local. That our minds are non-local. That our consciousness isn't just confined to the insides of our skull. And by the time he was done, he was inactive. In fact, he described himself as being an atheist because the whole argument in the philosophical world undermined his faith. Now, it didn't happen to me because I knew half of him were baloney. I had learned that there actually is ontological reality, non-physical existence. And that really took the wind out of a lot of those philosophical arguments. Because those are based on logic. And logic is based on the premises you start with. And they were starting on premises that I knew were false. Yeah, so. It's really interesting, Paul. I feel like I could talk to you. Just we could do a whole other four hours on just this stuff here because I'm, you know, very fascinating. I'm going to look into this a lot more just because I want to be prepared with some better questions for you as well. And I've already done, you know, quite a bit of studying on it. And it is just fascinating just to gain perspective from someone who's played on, you know, both sides of the team here. You're playing science, you know, guy who's part of like experiments and getting, you know, scientific. And then you're over here and you're like, no, but you're also someone with a deep faith. And then you're also someone who's challenging science and challenging faith to an extent as well. But true. I mean, that's true. I don't buy everything that I've been taught in Sunday school. And I question everything. You have to question your assumptions all along in all of these aspects. And what stands up to examination? Now, sometimes things have to stay that jury is still out on things like there might be stuff in more of a doctrine that I'm not sure about. But I also don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You know, I put it on the side because as I said before, I don't know everything. I don't know much of anything really compared to what there is to know. So you need to withhold judgment on a lot of stuff. Sure. Whether it's in science or religion or philosophy or wherever else. And that's kind of where I'm at. So, and there are some Mormon folk beliefs, particularly which I know aren't legitimate, you know. And those things, I just, if people want to believe them, I'm not going to argue with them. But there's a book of Abraham or. Well, that's a whole different rabbit hole to go down. And so, yeah, with the papyrus scriptures that were translated or. Well, it depends on how, yeah, don't even go there. Okay. That's another. Let me say this about about you. I am impressed about how deeply you have got into this stuff. And I think that actually make one of the reasons you're popular, I think, is because. You're able to delve into things that other people haven't even thought about. You know, I do a lot of podcast interviews. And generally speaking, they're good, but, but often they tend to be a bit superficial because of people themselves. The interviewers haven't necessarily done their homework. Of course, I do jump in sometimes and help them along with that, you know. But, uh, but I, uh, you're your high quality interviewer and I appreciate the opportunity. Well, thank you, Paul, and I, you're a high quality guest, but I do say so and person. Tell, tell my wife. I will. I will. Um, can you let the audience know where they can, uh, where they can find you? And, and if, you know, they're interested in learning, remote viewing, how they can contact you. Yeah. So, uh, my website is our viewer.com. That's a remote viewer without the emote. So R-V-I-E-W-E-R-E-R dot com, okay? And you can find most of anything you want there in general. I do have a lot of basic information that won't cost you anything. A blog, which I've written a bunch of interesting articles, including the great Santa Claus paper, which involves Ed Dame. You should go read that sometime, if you had. It's absolutely hilarious. Well, the story is hilarious, whether I did a good job with it or not, that's a different thing, right? And some fair amount of background remote viewing. So if I have a YouTube channel, it's called remote viewing/remote perception channel, and you've got my website, my book. I recommend my book, the essential guide to remote viewing. I am never gonna get rich with that book, but I didn't write it to get rich. I wrote it to actually to fill the gaps in a lot of people's knowledge. Particularly people who just found out about remote viewing, don't know a lot about it. It's kind of like a survey course, but it's much more interesting than a textbook. I tell, you know, there's stories in there that illustrate this stuff. I talk about where it came from, possible scientific explanations for it. Our skeptical arguments against it, and the solution to those arguments, there's three chapters on how to do a basic level experimenting with it, and so on. So I do recommend that book too. - I'll leave all the links below, Paul. You've been such a gentleman. So fun having you on, and I hope to do this again. - Hey, I hope so too, because I kind of like this area. - Thanks, Paul. - You bet, sir.