AI 整理 : 遠隔視 : Edwin C. May の長時間インタビュー

2025年6月26日 · 約205分

前置き

Edwin C. May に対する 3.5 時間に及ぶインタビュー動画を AI(NoteboolML)で整理した。彼は軍の遠隔視プロジェクトの責任者だった人物。他の遠隔視関係者には見られない冷徹な科学者としての見解が聴ける。たとえば…

Robert Monroe が考案した Hemi-sync の効果を否定
スプーン曲げは PK ではなく、合理的な説明が可能
死後の意識の継続はない

といった主張をしている。

AI 整理

音声概要

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/13fcf1c9-7835-4ab3-9c7e-f14b039af9bd/audio

概要

リモートビューイング：意識と科学の探求

この文字起こしは、ショーン・ライアン氏がエドウィン・C・メイ氏をインタビューする「ショーン・ライアン・ショー」の一部です。

メイ氏は、リモートビューイングやESP（超感覚的知覚）に関する長年の研究について語り、特に米政府の「スターゲイト・プログラム」の元ディレクターとしての経験を紹介しています。彼は、リモートビューイングが特定の個人の能力ではなく、トレーニングによって引き出される汎人類的な現象であると述べ、科学的な観点からそのメカニズムを追求しています。また、

リモートビューイングがかつて国家安全保障に利用されたことや、現在の政府機関での活用状況についても語られています。

注意

以下の AI 整理や文字起こしに

チャック・ホンマ
チャック・ホナートン(Chuck Honerton)
チャールズ・アーナートン(Charles Arnerton)

といった人名が登場するが、それはどれも "Charles Henry Honorton" のこと(*1)。Whisper AI の聞き取り結果がそのまま反映している。

(*1)

Charles Henry Honorton とは…

詳細(ChatGPT 4o)

Charles Henry Honorton

生年月日：1946年2月5日（米国ミネソタ州 Deer River 出生）死没：1992年11月4日、心臓発作（スコットランド・エディンバラ）職業：アメリカの超心理学者（parapsychologist）

キャリアと研究の軌跡教育・初期活動 1965–66年にミネソタ大学で学び、同時期にMinnesota Society for Psychic Research の研究コーディネータを務める

1966年：Institute for Parapsychology（ノースカロライナ）で研究フェローを務める

1967–79年：ニューヨークの Maimonides Medical Center で研究員→主任研究員→研究部門ディレクターを歴任

主要研究と業績 Ganzfeld 実験（感覚遮断によるESP実験）を1970年代に統括。1974 年の論文で最初の報告を行い、その後1982年までに少なくとも42件の実験を主導

1982年以降は、自動化プログラム「Autoganzfeld」を開発し、1989年までに240名、329セッションの実験を実施。ランダム化・環境制御を強化した形でデータを収集

1985年、批判派の心理学者 Ray Hyman と共同で「Joint Communiqué」を発表し、実験手法や統計分析の改善点を協議

著名な論文 Honorton & Bem による共同論文「Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer」（1994年、Psychological Bulletin）。Honorton死後に Bem が完成させた査読論文であり、彼の科学的方法への姿勢と自らの研究に対する批判的検証が示されている

政府との関わりと Stargate プロジェクト CIAやDIAの「Stargate Project」関連文書には、Honorton の名が研究審査委員として登場。超心理学的手法の有効性検証に携わっていたことが確認されている

他のリモートビューイング専門家（Puthoff、Targ、Swannなど）とは異なり、Honorton は主に基礎研究（実験手法・統計解析・再現性の確保）を担っていた。

人物像・評価「超心理学の中でも最も顕著な研究者の一人」と評価され、Susan Blackmore や parapsychology 関係者によってその死は衝撃と悲嘆をもたらした。

研究においては懐疑的な批判にも真摯に向き合い、批判派との対話や改善に取り組む姿勢を貫いた。批判に対してもデータを公開し、共同検証に協力していたことが報告されている。

詳細

STARGATE計画に関する詳細なブリーフィング資料このブリーフィング資料は、「STARGATE計画の舞台裏」と「リモートビューイングと意識の探求」、「心霊研究のフロンティア」からの抜粋に基づき、STARGATE計画、リモートビューイング、および関連する超心理学研究の主要なテーマ、重要なアイデア、および事実をまとめています。

STARGATE計画の概要とSRIにおける研究体制

STARGATE計画は、当初「STARGATE」という名称ではなく、機密保持のため「Center Lane」「Grow Flame」といった未分類の名称で呼ばれていました。このプログラムは、SRI（Stanford Research Institute）の広大な敷地内で行われ、特定のセクションは「暗号ロックドア」で厳重に管理されていました。

これは、SRI内で他では許されない活動を行うためであり、実際にはワインやケーキを伴う誕生日パーティーのようなレクリエーションも行われていました。研究者たちは「一生懸命働き、一生懸命遊んだ」と述べられています。

SRIは独自のインターネットシステムを所有しており、所内でのリモートビューイングのデモンストレーションも行われました。当初は懐疑的な意見も多く、「あの馬鹿ども、この詐欺的でくだらないナンセンスは排除したと思っていたのに」という反発の声もあったものの、参加者の中から素晴らしい結果を出す者も現れました。

リモートビューイングのメカニズムと実験

アプティチュードテストと被験者の選定:

リモートビューイングの能力を持つ被験者を見つけるための「アプティチュードテスト」が存在しました。このテストは「二重盲検法」で行われ、実験者も被験者もターゲットを知らない状態で行われます。ターゲットは屋外の風景に限定され、動物や交通手段は含まれません。これは、被験者の「内部ノイズ」を減らし、サイキック能力が発現しやすい環境を作るためです。

テストでは、被験者は絵を描いたり、言葉で描写したりして、脳内に浮かんだイメージを表現します。成功例として、チャック・ホンマ氏はコンクリートの建物、木々、そしてピラミッドを持つ風景を正確に描写しました。SRIのテストでは、600人中6人（1%）の被験者が能力を示しました。これは、能力が遺伝的に受け継がれる可能性を示唆するものです。

情報伝達のメカニズム:

リモートビューイングは「感覚システム」であり、情報が変化する対象により敏感に反応するとされています。例えば、静止した星よりも動く衛星が注目を集めるように、エントロピーの変化（例えば、液体窒素の急速な蒸発による大きなエントロピー変化）がリモートビューイングの質と相関することが9つの研究で示されています。

チャック・ホンマ氏は、情報が未来から現在に逆行して伝達される可能性を示唆しています。これは「量子逆因果律」として物理学の分野で議論されており、情報は未来から現在へ伝わるが、現在から過去へは伝わらないとされています。

脳とサイキック能力:

チャック・ホンマ氏によれば、すべての被験者は「共感覚」（synesthesia）を持っているとされています。これは、感覚システム間で「クロストーク」が生じる現象であり、例えば白黒のものに色が見えたり、音楽を体に感じたりするといったものです。これは、リモートビューイング能力と脳の特定の構造や機能との関連性を示唆しています。ただし、ロシアのやり方とは異なり、脳の特定の部位が特定の行動にのみ関連すると考えるのは誤りだと指摘しています。

懐疑的な見解:

チャック・ホンマ氏は、リモートビューイング以外の超常現象に対しては懐疑的な姿勢を示しています。

ヘミシンク (Hemi-Sync): 「悪い神経科学」に基づいているとし、その効果を否定しています。脳波の「ヘテロダイン」効果によって半球同期が起こるという主張は、科学的に検証されていないと述べています。
過去生 (Previous Life): 「信じない」と断言しています。その理由は、証拠がすべて自己申告によるものであり、「我々人間は、個人的な経験を正確に描写するのが非常に苦手である」ためです。
テレパシー (Telepathy): 「不可能だと信じている」と述べています。その理由は、情報源が相手の心なのか、それとも実験後のフィードバックなのかが区別できないためです。
スプーン曲げ (Spoon Bending): 「衝撃変形」という科学的説明があることを示し、真のサイコキネシス（PK）ではないという自身の見解を述べています。

研究と資金提供、政府機関との関わり

SRIでのリモートビューイング研究は、当初CIAが資金を提供していましたが、後にForeign Technology Division (FTD) の空軍、Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) へと資金提供元が変わっていきました。チャック・ホンマ氏は1985年にSTARGATE計画のディレクターに就任しました。

「ハウ・プトフとラッセル・ターグがスターゲイトを始めたのであり、私はその指揮を引き継いだのです。彼らが去った後、私は責任者となりました。」

DIAからは「研究ではなく、情報収集」のための資金提供が多かったと述べています。CIAが41回も新たな任務を依頼してきたことからも、その有用性が伺えます。シャットダウンされる前は、19の最終利用者機関のうち17が継続を望んでいたと述べられています。

SRIは初期の運用作業をすべて担当し、国防省や国務省からの依頼を受けていました。例えば、DMZ（非武装地帯）の下にある韓国のトンネルの位置特定に貢献したことがあります。また、ジョー・マクモニーグルが将来の特定の場所を「完璧に言い当てた」エピソードも語られています。

ロシアのリモートビューイングプログラム:

ロシアも同様のリモートビューイングプログラムを運用しており、アレクセイ・ユーリエビッチ・サヴィン博士（哲学と数学の2つの博士号を持つ）が指揮していました。ロシアのプログラムは軍によって厳重に監視されており、リモートビューワーは「白兵戦や武器の訓練」も受けていました。サヴィン博士は、訓練の動機付けとして「弾丸が頭上を飛び交っているとき、彼らは非常に意欲的になる」と述べています。

ロシアのプログラムは米国と同時期に始まり、同様のテスト手法を用いていましたが、情報共有は一切ありませんでした。「彼らは決して何も共有しない」とされており、それはロシア軍の「時代精神」の一部であると述べられています。

チャック・ホンマ氏は、DIAに対し、ロシアとのテロ対策におけるリモートビューイングの協力を提案し、承認を得ました。「ボトル1本分のスコッチで済むほどの費用で、誰かを危険にさらすこともない。理想的だ。」と述べられています。

超心理学研究における課題と今後の展望

チャック・ホンマ氏は、超心理学研究の「アマチュアリズム」を厳しく批判しています。「私は物理学者だ。サイコフィジオロジーの測定を行うべきではない。それについて何を知っているのか？」「この分野に学生を巻き込むことは決してしない。他の分野で真剣な学位を取得するまでは」と述べており、きちんとした科学的基盤を持った専門家が研究に携わるべきだと主張しています。

研究にはまだ多くの「知らないこと」があると指摘されています。例えば、「サイキック体験がどれくらいの期間続くのか」という点や、それに応じた適切な測定方法（MRIの10秒単位の測定とミリ秒単位のサイキック現象の不適合など）が課題として挙げられています。

「クラスとして、これ以上存在の証拠を必要としない種類の現象がある。今、我々が焦点を当てるべきは、それが実際にどのように機能するのかである。」という見解は、研究の方向性が「存在の証明」から「メカニズムの解明」へとシフトすべきであるという提言です。

個人的な考察と哲学

チャック・ホンマ氏は、リモートビューイングが「人間特有」の能力であり、どの文化圏の人間でも訓練によって引き出せる「スキル」であると考えています。

死後の意識については「意識は肉体とともに死ぬ」と信じており、幽霊（ポルターガイスト現象）については、それが「非物質的な存在」であるという仮定に疑問を呈しています。

宇宙における生命の存在については、非常に高い確率で「生命は他の場所にも存在する」と信じています。これは、銀河の数、各銀河の星の数、そして地球のようなM型惑星の数の多さを根拠としています。

timeline と主要関係者

タイムライン

1972年:

SRI (スタンフォード研究所) にて、HoweとRussell Targが、後のStargateプログラムとなるESPプログラムを開始。当初から1979年頃まで、SRIが全てのオペレーション作業を担当。
CIAがSRIのESPプログラムに初めて資金提供を行う。その後、CIAは問題に直面し資金提供を打ち切る。

1979年頃:

米空軍の外国技術部門（FTD：Foreign Technology Division）がSRIのESPプログラムへの資金提供を引き継ぐ。担当はDale Graff。

不明な時期 (FTDの資金提供後):

Dale Graffが国防情報局（DIA：Defense Intelligence Agency）へ異動し、SRIの契約担当となる。DIAからの多額の資金提供を受ける。
同時期に、Ingo Swannがハル・パトフの許可を得て、SRIのニューヨーク市オフィスで実験を行うことを開始。これはフォートミードのグループがIngo Swannによって訓練されるきっかけとなり、彼らは「行動可能な情報」をほとんど生み出さなかったとされる。

1982年:

Russell TargがSRIを退職。

1985年:

HoweがSRIを退職。
本話者がStargateプログラムのディレクターに就任。
米陸軍医療研究開発軍（Army Medical Research and Development Command）のGeneral Ratmanからの1,000万ドルの契約を獲得し、Stargateプログラムに資金が提供される。この契約には3つの監督委員会が設けられた。

プログラムの活動期間中 (1972年〜プログラム終了まで):

遠隔透視実験:通常の遠隔透視実験が継続的に実施される。「Have laptop will travel」方式で、どこでも実施可能な簡易的なもの。
Jupiterに土星のようなリングがあることを、NASAが画像を公開する数ヶ月前にJoe McMoneagleが遠隔透視で正確に記述。
木星の衛星イオの食の時間を±10秒の精度でGaryが遠隔透視で特定。
変化するエントロピーが遠隔透視能力を高めるかどうかの実験（「エントロピー爆弾」と呼ばれる液体窒素を使った実験）を実施し、効果を確認。
米韓非武装地帯（DMZ）下の北朝鮮のトンネル探索に協力。
特定の地理座標における人物の未来の位置をJoe McMoneagleがほぼ完璧に遠隔透視。
Lawrence Livermore Laboratoryにおける高エネルギー電子加速器の「指向性エネルギーシステム」を遠隔透視で追跡する8時間セッションを実施。
遠隔透視能力の適性検査を実施。被験者ショーンは最初の試みで、コンピューター選定された目標（具体的な建物と風景の複合写真）を正確に描写し、良好なスコアを出す。
SRI全体で600人中6人（1%）が遠隔透視能力を持つ「被験者」として選ばれる。
意思決定増強理論（Decision Augmentation Theory）を開発し、発表。ESPは信頼性に欠けるが、意思決定をわずかに正しい方向に補強できると提唱。
- PK（念力）実験:サルモネラ菌の突然変異率を従属変数とする細菌学的研究で、念力をテスト（トリプルブラインド方式）。
- スプーン曲げの現象を調査。当初は本物のPKだと思われたが、Gary Langford（冶金学者）によって「衝撃変形（shock deformation）」という科学的説明がつき、PKの信仰は消滅。
クリミアにいるネズミの行動を変えようとするモスクワの人物の事例を受け、少量のPK研究を実施。ロシアとの交流:本話者とLarissaはロシア国防省の招待でロシアを訪問。
- ロシアの遠隔透視スパイプログラムを運営していたAlexey Yuryevich Savin（GRU所属）と会談。彼の訓練生の一人であるElena KlimovaはJoe McMoneagleと同じくらい優秀な遠隔透視能力を持っていたと評価。
- テロ対策の協力に関して30ページの機密文書を作成し、国防情報局（DIA）の3つ星将軍に提出。FSBの承認を得て、ロシア側との協力を模索。
ロシアの軍事組織はアメリカのプログラムとほぼ同じテスト方法を使用していたが、お互いに機密情報を共有することはなかった。

プログラム終了後（時期不明）：

CIAが41回にわたって新たなミッションを要請。
19のエンドユーザーのうち17が「もっと欲しい」と要求。

現在の状況（インタビュー時点）:

エディンバラ大学が超心理学研究において優れた成果を上げていると評価。
意識と遠隔透視のメカニズムに関する研究を継続。アンジェラと共にブラジルで脳スキャンを用いたケーススタディを計画中。
遠隔透視能力の持続時間や脳内のメカニズムといった未解決の課題に取り組んでいる。
テレパシーは「不可能」であると主張。
臨死体験や「幽霊」の概念については、現時点では哲学の領域に属すると考える。

キャスト・オブ・キャラクターズ

本話者 (Edwin May):
- 実験核物理学の学位を持つ。
- 認知科学研究所の執行役員で、以前はSRIインターナショナルのESPプログラム（Stargateプログラム）の一部に所属。
- 49年間、超心理学研究に従事。
- 1985年にStargateプログラムのディレクターに就任。
- 遠隔透視能力の科学的探求において指導的な役割を担ってきた。懐疑的だが、経験的証拠に基づく実証主義的なアプローチを重視。
- ヘミシンク、火星のUFO、前世、テレパシーといった概念には懐疑的。
- 幽霊やポルターガイスト現象の存在は認めるが、それが「肉体を離れた存在」であるという仮定には同意しない。
- 物理学の知識を活かし、情報が未来から現在に逆行する可能性（量子逆因果律）を遠隔透視のメカニズムとして考察している。
- シンセスタジア（共感覚）を持つ人が遠隔透視能力に優れていると示唆。
Howe (ハロルド・パトフ):
- Russell Targと共にStargateプログラムを立ち上げた人物の一人。
- 1985年にSRIを退職。
- 本話者をコンサルタントとして雇い、彼をこの分野に引き入れた。
- Ingo Swannがニューヨークで実験を行うことを許可した人物。
Russell Targ (ラッセル・ターグ):
- Howeと共にStargateプログラムを立ち上げた人物の一人。
- 1982年にSRIを退職。
- 本話者の遠隔透視セッションの面談手順の師匠。
- 相貌失認（顔の認識ができない）の症状がある。
Joe McMoneagle (ジョー・マクモニーグル):
- Stargateプログラムで最も優れた遠隔透視能力者の一人。
- 木星のリングや、特定の地理座標での人物の未来の位置を正確に透視するなど、驚くべき成果を上げた。
- 自身の体験を「まるで当てずっぽうのようだ」と表現することがある。
Ingo Swann (インゴ・スワン):
- Stargateプログラムの初期の重要な参加者。
- "a bitch on wheels" と称されるほど、気性が荒い人物。
- カリフォルニアでの実験を嫌い、ニューヨーク市にあるSRIのオフィスで実験を行うことを主張し、許可された。
- フォートミードのグループを訓練した人物。本話者は彼が「科学者ではない」と批判し、彼の訓練によって「行動可能な情報」がほとんど生み出されなかったと指摘。
- 蛍光灯の光が自身の遠隔透視を妨げると主張し、実験室の照明を太陽光スペクトルのものに変更するよう要求した。
- 自身の失敗を他のもののせいにする傾向があった。
Gary (ゲイリー):
- Stargateプログラムの参加者の一人。
- 木星の衛星イオの食の時間を±10秒の精度で遠隔透視で特定した。
General Ratman (ラットマン将軍):
- 米陸軍医療研究開発軍（Army Medical Research and Development Command）の司令官。
- Stargateプログラムに1,000万ドルの資金提供を行った。
- 本話者と親交が深く、非常に聡明な人物として描写される。
Dale Graff (デール・グラフ):
- 米空軍の外国技術部門（FTD）および国防情報局（DIA）におけるSRIの契約モニター。
- 自身も物理学者。
- 本話者の個人的な友人。
Alexey Yuryevich Savin (アレクセイ・ユーリエヴィチ・サヴィン):
- ロシアの遠隔透視スパイプログラムを運営していた人物。
- 哲学と数学の2つの博士号を持つ。
- GRU（ロシア軍情報総局）に所属していた。
- 訓練生に徒手格闘や武器訓練も施していた。
- 「弾丸が頭上をかすめると、彼らは非常に意欲的になる」と発言。
Elena Klimova (エレナ・クリモワ):
- ロシアの遠隔透視スパイプログラムの参加者の一人。
- 本話者によって、Joe McMoneagleと同等に優れた遠隔透視能力を持つと評価された。
Victor Rubel (ヴィクトル・ルーベル):
- 元ソ連軍人、現在は米国市民。
- Larissaの死後、本話者のロシアでの「保護者」を務めた。
- ロシア軍は機密を解除しないというロシアの気質について説明した。
Bev Humphrey (ベヴ・ハンフリー):
- 本話者と共にタホ湖で行われたスプーン曲げのコースに潜入調査した人物。
Gary Langford (ゲイリー・ラングフォード):
- SRIのプロジェクトに参加していた冶金学者。
- スプーン曲げが「衝撃変形」という科学的現象であることを実演し、説明した。
Chuck Honerton (チャック・ホナートン):
- 本話者が、なぜこの分野の研究が「統計」ではなく「人間の興味」によって推進されるのかという問いへの答えとして言及する人物。
- 「人間は死後も生き残るか」といった根源的な問いに関心を持つ。
Jessica Oswald (ジェシカ・オズワルド):
- 統計について「退屈するほど詳しく話せる」人物として言及されているが、統計だけでは人々に受け入れられないという文脈で名前が挙がる。
Mitch Krukoff (ミッチ・クルコフ):
- サミュエリ研究所から資金提供を受けていたデューク大学の心臓専門医。
- 「非常に賢い」人物として言及される。
Bob Monroe (ボブ・モンロー):
- モンロー研究所の創設者。
- ヘミシンク（Hemisync）という技術を提唱したが、本話者からは「悪い神経科学」として批判され、科学的な検証がなされていないと指摘される。
Charles Tart (チャールズ・タート):
- 高名な心理学者で、変性意識状態に関する初期の決定的な研究を行った人物。
- 本話者が超心理学の分野に入るきっかけとなった人物で、彼の講演を通じてBob Monroeを知り、科学的なプロトコルを学んだ。
- エディンバラ大学でPhDの取得を支援されたが、心臓病により死去した。
Larissa (ラリッサ):
- 本話者の同僚であり、ロシア訪問に同行した。
- その後亡くなった。
Angela (アンジェラ):
- 本話者がブラジルで脳スキャンを用いた遠隔透視のケーススタディを行う予定の人物。
Sean (ショーン):
- インタビューアー。本話者から遠隔透視の適性検査を受け、良好な結果を出した。

AI との対話

スプーン曲げと衝撃変形

Me:

timeline 回答にある

Gary Langford (ゲイリー・ラングフォード): SRIのプロジェクトに参加していた冶金学者。スプーン曲げが「衝撃変形」という科学的現象であることを実演し、説明した。

の衝撃変形に関する部分を敷衍して。

SRIのプロジェクトに参加していた冶金学者であるゲイリー・ラングフォードは、スプーン曲げ現象を「衝撃変形（Shock deformation）」という科学的なメカニズムで説明し、その「本物のサイコキネシス（PK）」に対するエドウィン・C・メイ氏の信念を覆しました。この現象についての詳細は以下の通りです。

メイ氏の初期の体験：エドウィン・C・メイ氏は、自身と同僚のビバリー・ハンフリーがカリフォルニア州レイクタホで行われたスプーン曲げのコースに参加しました。このコースは、参加者がピラミッド型の帽子をかぶり、大きなピラミッドの下に座るなど、睡眠や論理を制限するような環境下で行われました。メイ氏は、この状況下でフォークの歯を小さな結び目に織り込むことができ、また、自身が持参した「ギリシャ文字のオメガのようなハンドルを持つ非常に丈夫なスープスプーン」も、コースの主催者によって簡単に曲げられるのを目撃しました。この経験から、メイ氏は当初「本物のPKを目撃したかもしれない」と考えました。
ゲイリー・ラングフォードの登場：SRIに戻ったメイ氏は、プロジェクトの同僚で冶金学者であるゲイリー・ラングフォードにこの体験を話しました。ラングフォードはメイ氏に、同じ種類のスプーンがまだ残っているかと尋ね、メイ氏からスプーンを受け取ると、メイ氏の目の前で同じスプーンを曲げてみせました。
衝撃変形のメカニズム：ラングフォードは、この現象を「衝撃変形」と説明しました。これは、金属を曲げ始め、その動きを止めずに継続すれば、簡単に曲げることができるというものです。途中で動きを止めると何も起こりませんが、動きを続けると、金属は「ゴムのように、あるいは非常に滑らかなもののように感じる」とされます。つまり、これは精神的な力によるものではなく、物理的な特性を利用した現象であることが示されました。
メイ氏の信念の変化：このラングフォードの実演と説明により、メイ氏の「本物のPKを見た」という信念は消え去りました。彼は、自身も同じ方法でスプーンを曲げることができるようになったものの、今はもうできないと述べています。このエピソードは、SRIの研究チームが超常現象とされる事柄に対しても、科学的な検証と説明を重視していた姿勢を示すものとして語られています。

量子逆因果律

Me:

ブリーフィングに記載された

…の箇所についてできる限り、詳しく敷衍して。(*2)

(*2)

「チャック・ホンマ」という名前は Whisper AI の文字起こしミスで、正しい名前は "Charles Henry Honorton" だと Web 調査で判明しているので、敷衍にはこの正しい人名を使って。

と指示すると、NotebookLM は

NotebookLM はこの質問には答えられません。言い換えるか、別の質問をしてみてください。

と融通が効かない。

NotebookLM

ご提示いただいた「チャック・ホンマ」というお名前の英語表記についてですが、提供された資料中では、**「チャック・ホナートン」（Chuck Honerton）**という人物が言及されています。これは、超能力研究において、人類が死後も生き残るかといった深遠な哲学的・実存的な疑問に関する見解を示す人物として、エドウィン・C・メイ氏が言及し、彼の見解に依拠していると述べています。

ご質問の箇所にある**「情報が未来から現在に逆行して伝達される可能性」、すなわち「量子逆因果律（Quantum Retrocausation）」**については、チャック・ホナートン氏が直接示唆しているとは明記されていませんが、エドウィン・C・メイ氏がその概念を物理学の観点から詳しく敷衍しています。

メイ氏による「量子逆因果律」に関する説明は以下の通りです。

量子逆因果律の定義: この概念は、情報が未来から現在へと時間を逆行して伝達されることが可能であると示唆しています。これは、アメリカ物理学協会（American Institute of Physics）によっても支持されている学問分野全体として存在します。
非対称性: ただし、この律には非対称性があり、情報は未来から現在へ伝わるものの、現在から過去へは伝わらないとされています。
過去に逆行しない理由: 過去に情報が逆行しない理由として、メイ氏は量子力学の観点から説明しています。**過去のシステムは既に測定されており、「状態ベクトルが収縮（collapsed）」しているため、「一度行われたことは元に戻せない」とされています。しかし、「それが（未来で）行われるまでは、現在に影響を与えることができる」**と述べられています。
リモートビューイングとの関連性: メイ氏は、この量子逆因果律が、リモートビューイングにおいて情報がどのように未来から現在へと到達するのかという、「物理学の問題」の半分を構成していると考えています。彼は具体例として、「インドのソナリが明日写真を選ぶが、あなたはそれを今日リモートビューイングで記述する。一体どうやってそれが機能するのか？」という問いを挙げています。
情報の媒体（キャリア）の課題: 現在のところ、未来から現在へと逆行する情報の「媒体（carrier）」が何であるかは不明であるとメイ氏は語っています。彼は、音波が耳に情報を運ぶように、情報が伝達されるためには何らかの媒体が必要だと指摘しています。アムステルダム大学のエリック・フェアリンダという物理学者が、重力を力ではなくエントロピーに基づいたものとして捉えるアイデアを提唱しており、もしそれが「エントロピー的な力」であれば、媒体が存在する可能性もあると、メイ氏はそのアイデアを「検討に値するかもしれない」と述べています。 • 物理学の問題としての独立性: メイ氏は、この情報の逆行伝達の問題は、**物理学者が超感覚的知覚（ESP）について考慮することなく取り組める「物理学の問題」**であると位置づけています。この量子逆因果律の概念は、リモートビューイングのメカニズムを解明する上での重要な仮説として、メイ氏の研究グループが取り組んでいる課題の一部です。

fact-check

この敷衍（メイ氏による「量子逆因果律」に関する説明）は嘘くさいので、ChatGPT-4o で fact-check すると…

以下の解説について fact check して。

「量子逆因果律」に関する説明は以下の通りです。

量子逆因果律の定義: この概念は、情報が未来から現在へと時間を逆行して伝達されることが可能であると示唆しています。これは、アメリカ物理学協会（American Institute of Physics）によっても支持されている学問分野全体として存在します。

非対称性: ただし、この律には非対称性があり、情報は未来から現在へ伝わるものの、現在から過去へは伝わらないとされています。

過去に逆行しない理由: 過去に情報が逆行しない理由として、メイ氏は量子力学の観点から説明しています。**過去のシステムは既に測定されており、「状態ベクトルが収縮（collapsed）」しているため、「一度行われたことは元に戻せない」とされています。しかし、「それが（未来で）行われるまでは、現在に影響を与えることができる」**と述べられています。

ChatGPT 4o

以下、提示された「量子逆因果律」に関する記述について、事実確認（fact check）を行います。

1. 「量子逆因果律の定義」について

「情報が未来から現在へと時間を逆行して伝達されることが可能であると示唆しています」

この表現は、一部の量子力学的仮説や解釈に基づいた、極めて限定的な理論的提案であって、量子力学の主流的解釈とは異なります。

たとえば、Aharonov らの「双方向境界条件」(Two-State Vector Formalism: TSVF) などでは、未来と過去の状態ベクトルが現在の状態に影響を与えるとされ、「未来→現在」方向の因果性を扱うような記述もあります。
しかし、これは主流物理学で確立された法則や標準的な量子論ではありません。

また、

「アメリカ物理学協会（American Institute of Physics）によっても支持されている」

この主張には誤解があります。AIP（American Institute of Physics）は物理学の広報・出版団体であり、「支持」や「承認」という形で理論を公式に認定するような立場にはありません。AIP出版物に載った研究はあっても、それは個々の研究者の仮説であり、AIPの公式見解ではありません。

→ 結論：誇張または誤解を含む記述。学会が「支持している学問分野」という表現は不正確。

2. 「非対称性：未来から現在のみで、現在から過去には伝わらない」

この点は、前述の TSVF（双方向状態ベクトル形式）などの文脈で、一部の物理学者が仮説として議論しています。ただし、この「非対称性」は量子論の標準的な時間対称性（ユニタリ発展）と矛盾する可能性があり、学界では仮説の段階に留まっています。

→ 結論：特定理論では提案されているが、広く認められた現象ではない。

3. 「過去に逆行しない理由」：測定済みゆえ状態ベクトルが収縮している

この主張には、量子測定における「波動関数の収縮（collapse）」の概念が背景にあります。確かに、コペンハーゲン解釈では測定によって状態が収縮し、確定した過去となると解釈されます。これは多くの教科書にも準拠しています。

「それが（未来で）行われるまでは、現在に影響を与えることができる」

この記述は、たとえば 量子遅延選択実験（quantum delayed-choice experiment） や 量子エルサレム解釈（弱測定 + post-selection） などを意識した表現と思われます。

→ 結論：一部の量子解釈では議論されているが、あくまで測定の時点で結果が確定するという前提に基づく。標準量子論の一要素として扱うのは適切ではない。

総合評価（Fact-check まとめ）

項目	評価	コメント
量子逆因果律の定義	誤解を含む	一部の理論的仮説であって、AIPや学会が支持する「学問分野」ではない
非対称性の主張	限定的に妥当	一部の理論に見られるが、定説ではない
測定による不可逆性	概ね正確	コペンハーゲン解釈に準じているが、あくまで解釈の一つにすぎない
未来が現在に影響	仮説段階	TSVFや弱測定理論などでの仮説。定説ではない

必要に応じて、以下の論文や理論を確認するとよいでしょう：

Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and J. L. Lebowitz (1964): Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser 実験（Kim et al., 2000）
Weak Measurement and TSVF（Aharonov et al.）

何か特定の論文や名前（たとえば「メイ氏」）についても確認したい場合は、そのフルネームや出典を補足してください。

文字起こし

(transcript 1of4)

（以下は Shawn Ryan が Edwin C. May を招いてインタビューしている動画の文字起こしです。話題は remote viewing です。3.5時間に及ぶ長大なインタビューなので、全体を 1of4 から 4of4 に 4分割しています。広告部分は削除ずみです。）

Mr. Edwin C. May, welcome to the Sean Ryan Show. Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm looking forward to it. Man, I have been looking forward to this interview for a long time. Ever since you kind of popped up on my radio with Joe McMonigle, brought you up several times, and his wife, Scooter, and eventually connected us, which I'm super thankful for. (0:00:30)

And man, I'm just totally fascinated with this subject, with remote viewing, ESP, Stargate. And so I want to say thank you so much for coming. You're most welcome. It's a pleasure to find someone with the excitement that you already have for this discipline, because that's rare in this country, for sure. Really? Yes. I don't know. I think it's a growing subject again, then, because I see a lot of people that are interested in it. (0:00:59)

Well, you probably have heard the phrase that it's the work of the devil. I've heard that several times. Yeah. Just a brief anecdote on that. I had a contract from the Air Force, about $1.5 million, and a nameless senior Air Force official said, that's the work of the devil. Kill that program. And they took the money back. Really? Yes. Didn't even want to look into it? (0:01:24)

Nope. Interesting. Yeah. Because we're not the only ones looking into this, from what I understand. The Russians are. Yeah. Who else is looking into this? Actually, there was a Hungarian fiction writer by the name of Arthur Koestler. I don't know if you've ever heard of him or not. When he passed away, he bequeathed a huge sum of money to Edinburgh University in Scotland to do psi research. (0:01:49)

And when they first started that, they did a worldwide search to see who would be the first professor to occupy that chair. And an American won that search. Bob Morris is his name. And he moved to Scotland, and everybody was nervous at the university about all this weird stuff. But he became head of the British Society of Psychology, not Parapsychology. He spawned about 100 graduate students in PhDs in parapsychology. (0:02:21)

And then Edinburgh University was in fact proud of this, and it was on the front page of their website. So it's an amazing school in Scotland today, even. How many governments are looking into this? Are you aware? Certainly the Russians are. Hungarians are, with not a lot of effort. There's a big effort going on in Brazil now. In Brazil? Yeah. And of course, Scotland, and Darby in the UK, a number of schools. (0:02:57)

What is it? At Greenwich University, there's a group doing work there. Who would you say is maybe on the forefront of this? Right now, beside our group, I mean, seriously, I would say Edinburgh University. They're doing very, very good work. Monroe? Monroe Institute. They don't do parapsychology research there. I didn't hear what you said before. At Edinburgh University, they're doing excellent work there. (0:03:32)

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Well, I can't wait to dive in. (0:03:36)

Like I said, I'm fascinated. So kind of how I want to do the interview is we actually had spoken at breakfast about a kind of an aptitude test. Am I correct on that? That's a good way to word it, yeah. If somebody may have capabilities. Call it remote viewing. Remote viewing. Yes. So it's an aptitude test for remote viewing. So I think that would be a great way to kick off the interview. (0:04:07)

Okay. So we'll start there and then we'll get right into kind of how this popped up on your radar and how you eventually became the director of the Stargate program, which I got to be honest, I can't even believe I'm sitting across from you right now. So super fascinating. Thank you. But, you know, everybody gets a gift on the show. I don't know if you knew that. (0:04:33)

I did not. So there's yours. Oh boy, is it edible? Actually, it is edible. Go ahead, dive in there. I was just being goofy about it. Go ahead, open it up. Okay. A little something for the ride home. Those are Vigilance Elite gummy bears. Oh my goodness. They're legal in all 50 states. Oh, too bad. I was hoping for... And they're made right here in the USA. Fantastic. In Tennessee, I hope? (0:05:04)

Actually, they're made in Michigan. Okay. Hey, hey. Thank you, that's kind. You're welcome. So we'll kick it off with a introduction. And this might take me about 30 minutes to get through because you have such a extensive background. Okay, go for it. Here we go. You hold a degree in Experimental Nuclear Physics, the Executive Director of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, previously part of the ESP program at SRI International, that's Stanford Research Institute. Spent 49 years studying psychic research. (0:05:49)

You were the previous director of the U.S. government's program to apply ESP to matters of national security interest, also known as Stargate. In 1996, you founded Laboratories for Fundamental Research, which is still active today. The author of over 90 peer-reviewed papers and over 300 technical reports. You've given public talks about intelligence collection at the World War II famous site, Bletchley Park in the UK. Presided over 70% of the funding, $22 million, and 85% of the data collection for the government's 22-year involvement into parapsychological research. (0:06:34)

Accumulated over 12 years experience in experimental nuclear physics research. Fluent in a variety of 3G and 4G computer languages, including F, Fortran, IDL, Visual Basic, MATLAB, SQL, and various machine codes. Traveled often to Moscow, beginning in 1992, and has become friends with the U.S.'s former enemy, the KGB. I can't wait to dive into that. And your colleagues are physicalists, that is, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and does not survive death. (0:07:17)

What am I missing? No, not a thing. Well, one issue, how Stargate came into existence, the name, because that was the last of about seven or eight names preceding it. I've always wondered that. (0:07:28)

I walked out of the Pentagon with a colonel who was in charge of all this stuff. And he said, guess what? We've changed the name of the project. It's now called Quantum Leap. And I said, do we have to? Quantum Leap progress is the smallest possible progress at above zero. And Stargate was then born as a result of that. Wow, wow. Why did they change the name so much in the beginning? (0:07:53)

Well, because these were unclassified names and it was part of security to keep it secure. Okay. There was Center Lane, Grow Flame, and a whole bunch of stuff like that. Interesting. Interesting. I'm nervous about this test I'm about to take. Oh, don't be. It won't hurt at all, promise. What if I flunk it? Probably will. Most people do. Don't worry about it. Oh, man. (0:08:18)

Now, I want to give you a little background about it. When we humans, and I presume you're a human, some of my friends are questionable about that with regard to me. But most humans have multiple conversations going on at the same time in their head. You're worrying about the lighting and all that, and you're having a conversation with me. I'm thinking, well, gee, what am I going to do for dinner? And I hope this thing doesn't go too long, that kind of internal conversation. (0:08:43)

But it's not relevant for what's going on at this moment, so we edit it out of what comes out of our mouth. We all do that. It's just part of being human. And so, why not allow someone trying to be psychic to do the same kind of internal editing? So, I'm going to tell you a little bit about what a potential remote viewing target is not going to be. (0:09:09)

For example, if you get a metal image picture of your mother cooking a hot apple pie and it's cooling on the counter in the kitchen, please, please don't tell me about it, because there's no food in this target pool. There's no indoor sights by this spot. There are no people here. There are no buildings. I mean, there are no inside shots and so on. (0:09:32)

There's no human artifacts like rakes and shovels and things like that. No transportation devices. All that stuff, if it comes in your mind, just don't put it down on your paper. Don't tell me about it. Other than that, it can be anything outdoors. Period. Anything. So, only outdoor stuff. That's right. Interesting. So, that allows you, and it works beautifully for us, to allow potential participants or subjects, if you will, to have that internal sensor reduces the background noise substantially and allow what psychic ability can emerge from the noise. (0:10:09)

So, only, okay, so when I'm doing this, only think about viewing something from the exterior or that's outside. Yeah, and I have a stylized interview with you about that to aid that. I don't know what the target says. The concept is called double blind. (0:10:28)

You don't know what the target is. I don't know what it is. And in fact, when you're remote viewing, it hasn't even been chosen yet in the computer. So, I can't clue you or cue you in some way. Well, maybe it should be a kangaroo riding a camel across the desert, except there are no animals in this thing either. Okay. So, that's the whole idea is to just to reduce the internal noise. (0:10:54)

Also, do not expect a multimedia extravaganza between your ears. Most people, even our most like Joe McMoneagle, say it feels like he's guessing sometimes. Okay. So, it's not a vivid thing, which we'd like it to be, but it isn't. Would it be better to explain the aptitude test before I take it or after? I'm not sure what you mean. I would like to talk about what I'm about to do. (0:11:25)

Okay, go ahead. Or should we just do it and talk about it afterwards? Let's just do it and we'll talk about it afterwards. Here we go. Yep. Moment of truth. It's some moment. Okay. Do I close my eyes? No, no, no, hang on. What I'd like you to do is just write your name and the date and time anywhere on the corner somewhere. (0:11:52)

It doesn't matter where you put it. What is today? Today is May 9th. May 9th and it's about 25 after, 35 after noon. Now, like any kind of a job, I have to instruct you what it is I want from you. So when you're ready, I'll give you what's called the tasking, what I'm asking you to do. And it's very simple. Okay. Let me know when you're ready. (0:12:18)

I'm ready. Okay. Sean, please access and describe a photograph I'm going to show you in about 15 minutes or less from now. Okay. And the idea is to put down whatever pops into your mind first. Don't overthink it. Whatever pops into my mind first? Subject to the conditions we mentioned. And you can tell me as you write it in words or draw pictures or build it out of clay or whatever you want to do with it. (0:12:51)

It doesn't matter. So you're thinking about it. Don't think about it. Just respond to it. Talk to me. I'm just drawing what came to my mind first. Which is it? Should I tell you what I'm drawing? You can't show it to me even. Should I keep drawing? Well, no, no. Just capture what your experience is. Okay. That's a circle on top of a point. (0:13:34)

Is that what it is? That is a pyramid with the moon above it. And then this is some kind of... All right. I don't know. I was envisioning some kind of like circular maybe cloud above it. Don't go into that detail. Okay. Suppose you could sit on top of what you call the pyramid and gaze out in front of you. What do you see? (0:14:02)

It can't be animals. (0:14:07)

Can't be any of that. What does the landscape look like? Okay. What did you write? I wrote a barren desert with a couple of dead trees. Okay. With no leaves on them. All right. Excellent. Let's take a short break here. Okay. We'll come back to it in a moment. Interesting thing about a break is we don't want to talk about what your experience is or anything like that. (0:14:36)

We'll talk about something else. Like what are you going to have for dinner? What movie did you recently see? Did you see... I don't know. Did you see the Oppenheimer movie at all? That was a strange movie. Don't go. Okay. I can tell you a... Is this the Civil War movie? No, no, no. This is over the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer built the atomic bomb. (0:14:56)

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I can't believe I just... See, I'm not letting go of what I'm... All right. So, when we're finished here, I'll give you a link to an Amazon Prime movie called The Day After Trinity. And that is an accurate portrayal with the real people that did the work. It's an excellent film. Okay. Let's get back to it. I'll retask you. (0:15:19)

New paper? Pardon? No. The paper's good enough. And I want to get on record by saying the interview procedure that I learned, that I'm using with you, to a great deal I learned from Mr. Russell Targ. He was brilliant at that job. And I honor him for teaching me that. Excellent guy.

(advertisement skipped)

Okay. Onward. So, retasking. Sean, please access and describe a photograph in drawing or pictures or words about a photograph I'm going to show you, say, 10 minutes from now. Go for it. This is a different one. Nope, same picture. What if something different's in my head? Write it down. Helps if you write words to help me understand the squiggles that you draw as well. (0:18:41)

Okay. What you got? I got a house, which is actually a concrete house. Okay. A big pond. All right. And then just vegetation, trees. Excellent. Okay, and I'm going to surprise you. We're going to cut the session off now. Okay. Why do you think I'm doing that? Exercise is complete? Because I'm drawing something completely different than what I did before. Well, no, I'm doing it because we like, as humans, to fill in the blanks. (0:19:14)

Well, there's a house there. It must have X, Y, Z on it, or that pyramid must be whatever it happened to be. So, we'll call a stop to it. And I now do a little... the job comes to me. Now, the target has not yet been chosen. I have no idea what it is. So, I cannot... I'm going to analyze your results. Bear with me one second here. A little bit of homework in here. (0:19:41)

This computer, oddly enough, is very slow. May I have the sheets, please? Thank you. Excellent. Okay. Now, see, I can't... I can't put words into your mouth. So, for example, here you say... you draw a building and it's very clearly the shape of a building. So, I have no trouble thinking it's not a kangaroo. It's a building. So, you get a credit for that. (0:20:20)

What I'm doing, and I don't want to get into the technical details, is called fuzzy set analysis. I'm trying to encode what you said in a way that this computer can understand to do the arithmetic with Lukma, no hands. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. You've got trees. And we've got this stuff here. And I'm not going to describe what I'm doing here because this is going to be public. (0:20:47)

And we don't want people to have to guess this list I'm doing here. This circle thing that you drew here, what did you say here? That is like a body of water, a lake or a pond. Okay, thank you. Okay, I think that's pretty good. Pressure's on me, not on you. I feel nervous. I feel anxious. (0:21:11)

If you're anxious, so am I. All right, all right. I want this to work really well. Okay, now the computer goes to work by itself. What it means is it still hasn't chosen a picture yet. Really? Yeah. Now, it doesn't pay any attention to what I put in there because that would be cheating. In other words, it would choose a picture that matched what you said. That's not happening in the code. It just doesn't do that. (0:21:36)

But now it's going to randomly pick a picture for us. All right. This is a demonstration. The participant is Brian. And this is trial number one. And Target Beaver's the right answer. Hmm. You'll be rather pleased about this. Pretty good. Are you kidding me? No, why? Can I see it? Yeah. Well, lots of trees, big concrete buildings, and there's a pyramid on top. Where's the body of water? (0:22:32)

Buzz off, Buffalo. Actually, the metric here... Can I show that on camera? Would that be possible? Sure. I just want the audience to see how awesome my remote viewing capabilities are. So there it is. Not bad for a first attempt, actually. Quite good. We have a metric called figure of merit. And the way that is, there are 300 photographs in here. This could have been any one of them. (0:23:07)

And we had a team of people, like nine people, encode them in such a way that a computer could understand them. It's technically called a fuzzy set, and let's not go there any further. But that's been pre-coded. So what I did was to get a fuzzy set of your response. And then the computer does a Venn diagram. Well, not technically, but something like it. (0:23:29)

It says, how close is your description? Two things it asks. How accurate was your response? In other words, of all the things in the target, what percentage did you get right? The answer to that question is about 53% of what you said was correct in the target. But that isn't enough. I want out of all the things that you said, what percentage of what you said was correct? (0:23:55)

I mean, see the difference? One is, what percentage of the target did you get? And the other part is, what percentage of what you said was right? I mean, maybe you said everything was correct. No. Actually, you said 52% of what you said was correct. The product of those two numbers is what we call the figure of merit. And when that's above a certain threshold, and when we use this to make money on the marketplace, that threshold is 0.452. Your number was 0.28. Wasn't good enough to bet money on. (0:24:30)

But only about 20% of Joe's is, or 20% of Angela Ford's are. No kidding. In fact, it almost never misses above when it's that good of a remote viewing. So congratulations, Sean. I'm really pleased. You did a damn good job of it. So if I was... what would you have me do next? (0:24:53)

Go on with the interview. If you were looking at me to see if I had these capabilities, would that be a, let's move on to the next test, or would that be a... Yeah, but not right away. Thanks for showing up. If we need you, we'll be in contact. Not quite. I mean, tell me why it would be a mistake to have you do it again right now. (0:25:18)

Because I would overthink it. Not only that, one has to ask the musical question, from where does the information arise? And we, my colleague and I, have been worrying about that a long, long time. And that is, did you get it from looking into the future and seeing the picture, another precognition? If you did that, but 20 minutes from now you have a different picture, how would you be able to sort that out in your mind, which precognition pays attention to it? (0:25:50)

No. So we only collect data, like with Angela Ford, two sessions a week. Two sessions a week? Yeah. That fast of sessions? Mm-hmm. Wow. Actually, the fastest one, one of our participants is a psychologist named Nevin. And I say, okay, please ask this and describe the same thing I just said to you. So he said, oh, there's a tree and a path, I quit. (0:26:18)

It was over in about three seconds of it. There's got to be something more. But no, that's exactly all that was there. He just nailed it. No kidding. Yeah. So I got a 50% on the, like a 53% I believe you said on the drawings and a 52% on what I said was actually in the photograph. Yeah, exactly. So what would be a close the book, don't contact us, we'll contact you, thanks for showing up? (0:26:48)

Well, if never on a single issue like this. Okay. I'll give you a hint. I don't know if Joe would like this, but it's the data. I have something close to 1500 remote viewings done by Joe. And five pictures are chosen, only one is the right answer at each trial. And so there's a 20% chance of getting it right by luck alone. His score is 44% hit rate. (0:27:20)

Statistically, that's off the charts. But think about it, that means 56% of the time, he blows it. Interesting. And he's one of the best people we've got. Interesting. So how was it? Was it fun? I want to do it again. No, I'm not going to let you. I know, I know. We can do that. I'll tell you, I can do this. In fact, I work primarily through Zoom now. (0:27:44)

I've got a woman in Milan, Italy, who's a crackerjack at this. No kidding. So I do the interview over, you know, and then she sends me the response by email. And I do the same thing I just did with you. So is this some sort of a hobby for somebody like that? Or what do they do with it now? (0:28:04)

Well, what she does, she works with some people in finding lost people, people who have disappeared. Okay. I think Joe probably told you that, that he worked with a Japanese on exactly that issue. But she does it for someone else doing the same sort of thing. Interesting. Is this stuff still within government? I know that the project shut down. I would love it to be. And probably is a good time to dig into that a bit. (0:28:31)

A Navy SEAL, who will remain nameless, invited us to try to restart Stargate. This was after Stargate was closed. And it never actually happened, but for technical reasons. But I think what's interesting is that... What do you mean technical reasons? The person in charge, I don't want to mention her name, was an intelligence officer in Hawaii. And there were other reasons I wanted to put her out of business. (0:29:10)

So the money didn't come forward and we actually didn't do the experiment. But it turns out that the working class people, not the managers, like the intelligence officers, love this stuff. It works extremely well for them. That answers questions they couldn't get by normal intelligence means. The problem is we try to get it started again at the management level, flag officer level, kill it. (0:29:39)

They wouldn't take it. Interesting. Can I ask when that Navy SEAL invited you to give the presentation? Was it recently? No, not recently. Probably 15 years ago. 15 years ago? Yeah. Okay. So people ask me, do you think the government is still doing it? My answer is, I hope so, but I don't believe they are. Okay. And surprisingly enough, most of the money came under Republican administrations. (0:30:10)

No kidding. Yeah. Why do you think they aren't doing it anymore? For a number of reasons. First off, intelligence collection has drastically improved over the years compared to what was going on during the Cold War. And so it's not needed as much. It's often used in law enforcement. There's a book written by a sociologist called The Blue Shield. And when he analyzed the workings of sidekicks with police departments. (0:30:45)

And sometimes that's quite valuable. But in terms of the intelligence collection world, it's not needed as much as it used to be. Okay. Literally. I mean, it's noisy data. It should never be sole-sourced. And I don't mind saying this in public. I was on a television interview show on Nightline. And opposite me was Robert Gates, CIA director at the time. And Larry King, I think it was, the fellow interviewing me. (0:31:25)

In the green room, they said, you should interrupt and make it really lively. And I caught the previous director, Robert Gates. My moan fear was sitting there. I was going to call him Bill Gates. So I called him Mr. Director all the time on TV. And it turns out that, he said, there was no actionable single-source. He used the term single-source application. That was correct. (0:31:52)

That was useful. (0:31:53)

And I said, excuse me, sir. You should never sole-source information for actionable intelligence. We got into trouble that way, haven't we? So Larry King said, let's move on. And that's true. And there were, I mean, it wasn't perfect, but it was good enough to keep people coming back. Very interesting. Thank you. Well, we're going to move into the beginning of your career. But before we do, I have a subscription account. (0:32:30)

And it's Patreon. They are top supporters. They've been here since the beginning. They're the reason that I get to have this awesome job and interview amazing people like yourself. Thank you. And so one of the things I do for their extra support and love is I give them the opportunity to ask the guest a question. All right. So this question comes from John Paul. Excuse me. (0:32:59)

In your research into psychics and remote viewing, was there any indication of a spiritual or extradimensional connection that may have suggested that viewers are being helped by or connecting with other entities, spirits, watchers, or other beings that then transmit information and visual perception of remote locations back to the viewer? No. No. It deserves a better answer than that. It was a very interesting question. (0:33:30)

Those are important questions. Humans have been worrying about that ever since we scampered down from the trees. Those are really important questions. There's an idea in physics that says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So our approach has been just straight hard-line physics, physiology, and psychology. And physiology. And these spiritual issues, however important they are, and it may influence people's reason to do this, but the question is, is that part of the mechanism by which it occurs? (0:34:08)

I don't think so. And the reason for that is, if it's pan-human, what it means is remote viewers can be found in Beijing, China. They can be found in Saudi Arabia. They can be found in India. Even found here in Tennessee, for goodness sakes. Oh my goodness. In California. It goes across. There's no cultural reason this does not work. And that is very good, I think more than substantial evidence, that it's a genuine phenomenon part of the Homo sapiens species. (0:34:43)

And if that is true, and it's a big if, let's say, then it can't depend upon a particular spiritual worldview. Because there are so many different spiritual worldviews. Including having none. Most of our people are non-religious at all. Fascinating. Now maybe meditation, which I don't think I would go so far to call that religion, but a way to quiet your mind. There are many techniques. (0:35:11)

There was a conference arranged by our colleagues in Brazil. It took place in Alexandria, Virginia. And there were five remote viewers and three managers. And what was fascinating to me, I went on for two days, we tape recorded the whole thing, that there was no two remote viewers that did the same technique. One person does it by dreaming. (0:35:35)

Another person does it like we just did business like across the table. Other people have tried meditation. Other people have tried music listening to that first. I mean, there are whole kinds of really bizarre ways. It doesn't matter. If you want to stand in the corner and spit nickels out of your mouth and do remote viewing that way, we're happy with that. Whatever works, works. (0:35:55)

And our job is to try to figure out what is going on with that. What is going on? And we can talk a little bit about that later on in the interview. Mechanisms. I would love to do that. So what you're basically, what you're saying is that you think that this is species specific to humans. Yeah. Now, not exclusively, but what that means is there isn't a culture in Central Africa, let's say, or in Norway, that can't do remote viewing. (0:36:27)

Anybody, any human can do it. Now, like any other skill that humans have, there's a spectrum. Some people really get on with it. Some people can't do it at all. And most people are somewhere in between. So maybe we get into some history before we dive into your nuclear physics career. Go ahead. Since we're on the subject. But, you know, I had spoken about this with Joe on the show here. (0:36:55)

And it sounds like, if I remember correctly, it sounds like he thinks the same thing. Maybe we've lost, maybe the majority of the species, or maybe lost is the wrong word, but we've lost the ability to do this. Or at least we're having troubles accessing it. So if this is human specific, when, I mean, what's the evolution of this? And how did we, how did the majority of us, am I saying this correct, lost the capability? (0:37:32)

Or at least don't know how to access. I think I disagree with Joe on that. I see no evidence that we've lost it. I could be, I don't want to misspoke, misspeak. Now, I'll tell you why. I mean, as we'll talk later on in the interview, I've done a lot of work with the Russians now. And there's a cultural difference between Russia and the U.S. One of this is that it was kind of a misnomer in my view that the Russians are non-religious. They're very religious. (0:38:07)

They're like six or eight churches in the Kremlin alone. And Stalin attended one church each week through entire years of the Stalinist era. They're very religious, but it's the Russian Orthodox Church. And if you've ever attended a Russian Orthodox ceremony, there's nothing but mysticism. You go, there's no pews to sit there. You stand around and the priest never even looks at you. He's mumbling something incoherent to an icon on the wall. (0:38:40)

So it's very kind of mystical. Whereas after Luther and the rise of Vatican II, what's happened, unfortunately, is we've taken mysticism out of the practice of religious things. The Roman Catholic Church can give the Mass in local language instead of Latin. And so my wife thought about this and I'm digging into it with some colleagues. (0:39:11)

That one of the reasons ESP is so well accepted within the culture in Russia and not so here is that they're used to mysticism. And people hear, well, what do you mean? Take the mysticism out of it. And frankly, our work is not mystical at all. It's hard-known physics, physiology, and arithmetic. Fuzzy sense. I want to reiterate, maybe I've misspoken, but I remember talking to Joe about how communication was in early times, talking caveman times, that communication was a lot more efficient and deliberate than it is now. (0:39:52)

And the conversation was basically saying as language came about, it took us longer. It takes longer for me to describe to you what I'm thinking and trying to convey to you at this moment in time. But rewind, you know, thousands and thousands of years ago, it was pointing, grunting, expression. And what he was saying is as we started to travel more and more in groups and safety, that we kind of... and language was kind of developed that our thoughts and the way we communicated became less efficient. (0:40:36)

And so maybe what he was... I should have listened to this before this interview, but maybe what he was saying is that because of the overcomplicated communication that we were developing, some of the other things may have slipped. Well, remote viewing isn't so much about conversation. It's about action. I mean, there was a fellow by the name of Rick Stanford, no longer with us, a psychologist, who invented a procedure. (0:41:11)

And basically the bottom line of it was, if this is true, that it's innate to human beings, some are better than others, that we probably use it at a level of unconsciousness. We don't know we're using it. And I can give you a firsthand experience like that. I was teaching at City College of San Francisco, physics. And a colleague of mine was coming from the East Coast into San Francisco. And part of a convention in downtown San Francisco is before cell phones. (0:41:36)

And we had arranged that I'd pull up in front of the hotel at five o'clock in the evening, and we'd go out for dinner together. Okay, it's about a 25-minute drive from the school to that. And I'm thinking, well, to get there at five, I've got to leave here a quarter after four to avoid traffic. I said, I'm not going to do that. It's a big, giant pain. (0:41:57)

And I gave myself all kinds of arguments why I don't want to do it. Not psychic at all. I'm sitting in my office, right? And finally I said, he's going to be really angry. So I eventually showed up an hour late, pulled up in front of the hotel. He came running out of the hotel. How long have you been here? I just got here. (0:42:16)

Oh, thank God. I had no way of reaching you. I couldn't meet you at five. So how did I do that? One explanation is I use my own unconscious psychic ability that we all have to maneuver through life more efficiently than I would otherwise have. (0:42:33)

And there's a lot of data to support that other than just my own personal experience. Pretty interesting. Very interesting. Why do you think people like Joe are able to access this so much more efficiently and deliberately than others? Well, you could train me, get the best high jumping trainer for the Olympics and train the tail off me. And man, I can clear six inches, not six feet, no matter what. (0:43:08)

So some people have innate natural skill. Joe is one of them. There are a group of people who think they can train to almost unlimited skill level. And you can't do that. You can only train to whatever the native skill level is. Why Joe had that and Angela has it, other people do. About 1% of selected population have a native skill set for that. (0:43:30)

1%? That's a huge number when you think about it. It's much larger than the number of people that can learn piano well enough to give a recital at Carnegie Hall. So our job is to figure out the answer to that question. I mean, right at the moment, I'm working with some neuroscientists in Brazil to try to figure out what makes the difference between Joe's brain or somebody like him and someone who can't do remote viewing under lab conditions. (0:43:58)

If we figure that out, we make a giant step forward. What are they saying so far? Nothing yet. Nothing yet? It's a very difficult problem. They don't even understand much of standard neuroscience. That's something as weird as this. What do you think? My colleague and I wrote a paper together and published it in what's called SAGE, which is a respected journal online, called Extrasensory Perception, a Multiphasic Model of Precognition. In other words, we have a testable hypothesis of how this might work. (0:44:40)

Now, it turns... I don't know if you've heard the term synesthesia. I have not. Synesthesia is well known. About 4% of the population experience it. People who have synesthesia, called synesthetes, they see numbers in color. They experience music viscerally in their stomach rather than listening through their ears. It's sort of like crosstalk about various parts of the sensory systems in the brain, and that's been confirmed with a functional MRI and so on. (0:45:10)

So, for all of our participants, including Joe and Angela, they all have synesthesia. All of them. And that is a huge clue about what's going on. And what that means is, in the white matter of the brain, there's a lot of communication going back and forth across the brain. And we posit, it needs to be shown if it's true or not, that someone who is really psychic, like Joe, will have much more hyper-connectivity inside the white matter of his brain than the average person will. (0:45:41)

If that's true, we're home free. So, we're working toward that end. Wow. Very interesting. How long have they been working on that down in Brazil? Two years. (0:45:54)

Two years? We're just barely getting started. In fact, Angela and I are going down to Brazil sometime later this summer as what's called a case study. We're going to put her in a scanner and see how her brain is configured compared to baseline people. So, we shall see. I can't wait to hear about that. Well, let's dive into you. Okay. So, nuclear physics. (0:46:22)

How did we get into nuclear physics? What was the interest? Well, I went to a boy's boarding school from seventh grade onward. So, my sophomore year, I took biology and I thought, I'm going to be a biologist. My junior year, I took chemistry. No, no, no, I'm going to be a chemist. Guess what my class, what was in my senior year was physics. (0:46:44)

And that's goofing around a little bit. But the real serious issue, I've never had a good memory. And in physics, you don't have to remember as much stuff as you need to in these other disciplines. There's no complicated Latin names for stuff and things of that nature. And you can remember just a few basic things and derive other things that you need because you're pretty good at arithmetic. (0:47:08)

You don't have to remember it. And that's part of the reasons why I did it. I got interested because the toys were fun. Accelerators and high-speed electronics and things like that was lots of fun and I was darn good at it. How long were you involved in nuclear physics? Well, kind of graduate school, which I started in 1963. And I finally quit doing that in probably 1970. And I had a second postdoc. (0:47:41)

I was a postdoctoral researcher in nuclear physics at the University of California at Davis, California. And I thought, I was in the academic world and I'm about ready to go to my second postdoc appointment at the University of Indiana. And I flew to Indiana and I told my prospective new boss, I can't do this anymore. The toys are fun and I'm good at it, but I just don't care about the underlying issue. (0:48:04)

Nuclear structure and nuclear reaction mechanisms, not nuclear power or bombs or any of that stuff. And he said, okay, we'll leave the job open for a year. And I said, okay, if you want to, but I'm done with it. And my father went ballistic. We put all this money and all this education and you're tossing it aside. Well, I didn't actually toss it aside. (0:48:27)

I'm still using it, the techniques. When did you work for the Rand Corporation? Oh, golly, I was 20 years old for the next five, six years as a summer student. I loved it. I was in the earth and planetary sciences doing atmospheric physics work at that time. What is the Rand Corporation? Can you explain that? Yeah, it's an organization. It's kind of a think tank based in Santa Monica, California, right on the beach. (0:48:58)

It's kind of a marvelous place to work. (0:49:00)

It's very theoretically oriented. And if I were a better theorist, I'd probably still be working there because it was so much fun and interesting. They do everything from upper atmosphere physics, which was what I was involved in, to mutual assured destruction during Cold War. That came out of the Rand Corporation, that whole idea. Or if all of a sudden Chicago left the map in a giant explosion, we would, according to the Rand Corporation, which was then accepted as policy, we would not immediately go to war. (0:49:32)

That might have been a mistake, a horrible mistake. But if it were a hell of a mistake, that's one thing. But if other missiles were on the way, then we're on, we go to war. And I thought that was a wise decision at that time. I loved it. It was good fun. Were you involved in researching future weapons and things of this nature? (0:50:00)

Under Stargate, yes. We wanted to know the answer. Not the development of the weapons. More importantly, was Remote Viewing capable of sensing exotic new weapons? The answer to that short answer was yes. Okay, so that goes into Stargate. Okay, there was a couple of loose ends I wanted to tie up there. But let's move into, so you gave up your career as a nuclear physicist. (0:50:28)

How did you get into, I mean, 49 years of research that has to do with ESP? Very good question. My boss at the University of California at Davis was a guy named John Youngerman. And I didn't know anything about psychic stuff, never heard about it at all. And he came to me and he said, Ed, would you like to help me do this really interesting experiment? (0:50:52)

I said, what are you talking about? Well, there's a pendulum going back and forth, back and forth. And the pendulum had, at the bottom of it, a really very carefully designed, very silver good mirror. And the pendulum was designed, Youngerman did all this work, not me, I was just there. And it had a heartbeat period, boom, about one swing each second. And we could use laser interferometry to know the position of that pendulum, down to a fraction of a wavelength of light, very accurately. (0:51:25)

So it's a really accurate thing. And then we want to know whether people can concentrate on it. And by magical psychokinesis, mind over matter, could they either increase or decrease that swinging pendulum? That was the whole idea. The problem is, it was sensitive. That means it's sensitive to everything. And the end of the story was, we had probably the most sensitive Interstate 80 truck detector in history, which was two miles away. (0:51:55)

(transcript 2of4)

So we had to give it away. But, I was like in my early 30s, 31 or so. And I saw an advertisement by a well-known psychologist, Dr. Charles Tart, Charlie Tart. He did the definitive work early on on altered states of consciousness. In fact, he was mentioned even in the movie called Altered States. And he said, well, there's a weekend seminar here by a guy named Bob Monroe, who I'd never heard of, Monroe Institute. And, oh, nothing better to do, I'll go and listen. (0:52:29)

They're talking about out-of-body experiences. (0:52:31)

Out of what? Huh? Out of body? You gotta be nuts. What are you talking about? So here's this 50-year-old guy up there, talking about the weirdest thing I've ever heard in my life. That he gets out of his body, and while he was out of his body, pinched his girlfriend on the butt and raised a slight welt. I'm like, oh, really? And he wrote a book called Journeys Out of the Body, which I'd recommend. (0:52:50)

I have it on my shelf at home. Read it. Read it in two sittings. And I thought, well, he's a businessman. I'm a physicist. I can do this, if he can. And so I gave it a good college try for a couple of nights. Nothing happened, and I put it away on the shelf, saying, oh, it's all silliness. Well, I was down at UC Berkeley, doing straight physics in the cyclotron lab there. (0:53:15)

And I saw another flyer saying, The Science of Extrasensory Perception. The science of ESP? Are you kidding me? So I wanted to go hear that talk. And that talk was given by a guy named Mr. Charles Arnerton, who's no longer with us, I'm sorry to say. And he was talking science. I mean, really, statistics and double-blind protocols. And I learned about that from him, and he became my mentor, actually, and got me into this field. (0:53:41)

Really? Yeah. Where did you go from there? He went to Edinburgh. We actually helped him financially to get to Edinburgh to do his PhD. He never finished college, but he was a very, very clever, smart fellow. And Edinburgh took him on as a PhD student, and he dropped dead on the scene there, unfortunately. He had a congenital heart problem that took him away. (0:54:07)

Oh, man. Yeah. But, I mean, your research, from what I understand, never ceased. So where did you go from there? Well, I met Ingo Swann. Ingo Swann's a well-known artist and psychic, and we did some work together with Chuck Arnerton at Maimonides Medical Centre in Brooklyn. In the Department of Psychiatry, in the basement, they had a parapsychology lab doing dream telepathy experiments. And that's been written up by the chairman at Yale University. What is dream telepathy? (0:54:50)

Somebody's in an isolated chamber going to sleep, and they're monitoring movements of the eyes while the person's asleep, so you can tell when they're dreaming. Because when you're dreaming, you get what's called REM sleep, back and forth, back and forth. And so an experimenter would see on the chart that he's sleeping. He'd press a button, and somebody down the hall had viewmasters. Those things would click three-dimensional pictures of a scene, and they were supposed to project somehow, magically, that information into the person's dream. (0:55:22)

Then, in the morning, when they woke up, they had the actual viewmaster that was used for the stimulus, plus three others. And the participant had to decide which one was the right one. And that worked exceptionally well. (0:55:40)

So the viewmaster was a... It's a round thing with little slide pictures in it, all of the same theme. And it's three dimensions when you look through it, and you click on it to the next view of the same scene. And so one of those scenes would have been in their dream? Yeah, not scenes, but one of the whole disks. The disk of a viewmaster was all on the same theme, but different views of the same thing. (0:56:11)

Okay. So there were different viewmasters with different scenes all together. And the person had to pick out which one was the right one. What do you mean, the right one? The right one that was... The one the person was staring through while the person was dreaming all through the night. Oh, and that worked. You bet, big time. So you kind of came into this as a skeptic. (0:56:41)

It sounds like... Yes. But you came in as... to the presentation to the Monroe Institute as a skeptic. Then you got... you were really drawn to the science talk. Yeah. Worked with them, then moved over to this. What... I mean, so what... Well, there was one amusing thing, though. When we'd answer the phone in the basement of Maimonides Medical Center, we'd say, Hello, Division of Parapsychology, may we tell you who's calling? And that cognitive dissonance on the phone, what are you talking about? (0:57:16)

But that was really good research there, actually. How long did that go on for? Run by Stanley Krippner, a well-known name in the field, who's just turned 90. And Alan Vaughn. And Alan Vaughn introduced me to Ingo Swann. That's how I met Ingo, actually. And so what was... when you were doing the... sorry, what was it called? Dream? I was not involved in the dream research. (0:57:45)

You were not involved in the dream research. What were they looking for? Say they made the connection. Okay, the dreamer is able to identify... Yeah, now the question is how and why. And we're still asking that question. But what Chuck Arnington said, no researcher wants to stay up all night. It's a hard way to get one set of data all night, because you have multiple dreams. (0:58:11)

Dreaming time over the night, four or five times each. So you don't get... as a researcher, you don't get any sleep. So he said, well, what is it about the nature of dreaming that makes us seem to work? So he guessed that it's what's called somatosensory reduction. In other words, you don't feel cold or hot, and your body is in a very comfortable, relaxed chair. (0:58:37)

So he said, well, there's other ways to do that besides being asleep. So he invented something from the research elsewhere in Germany called Ganzfeld, meaning whole field. And what they do is they put you in, and it's an extremely interesting thing. They take a ping pong ball, cut it in half, and gently glue it over your eyes, and shine a soft red light in your face. So no matter where you look, you just see a patternless feature of the same kind of color, no gradients in it at all. (0:59:11)

And do the same thing with your ears with very quiet, white noise. What you hear is, shhhh. So there's no pattern. And what happens, it is bizarre as hell. I've been a participant in those kinds of studies. You know your eyes are open, you're told to keep your eyes open, and you know it's red, and all of a sudden, it's dark. The red experience vanishes. (0:59:33)

Your brain says, well, there isn't any patterns here, we give up. So it's a kind of altered states of consciousness, except it happens in 20 minutes, not all night long. And when that happens, then they do the same thing with the view masters or more sophisticated ways of picking a target. The participant still has to choose which of the four possible targets is the right one. (0:59:59)

So when the red goes away in the brain, it sounds like the brain essentially shuts down. (1:00:05)

In that vision, yes. Is the participant aware of what's going on, or are they completely... No, they know they're doing a side experiment, but they don't know what's happening outside of their world. Are they conscious enough to know that the red light is gone, and react to it? Yeah, I've been there doing it, not as a participant, you know, just to experience what the Ganzfeld is like. It's bizarre. I know my eyes are open, but it's just black. What the hell's going on? (1:00:34)

Now, that gets to an interesting point for later on, because all of our sensory systems, the big five that we know about, there's more these days than we have five, they're all more sensitive to things that are changing than things are not. So you're lying outside on a nice clear night, no street lights, what have you, and you see the stars, it's really beautiful. What catches your attention is the satellite that goes over. (1:01:00)

And cops have blinking lights on purpose, because steady lights are not as attractive as something that's changing. So that gets us to something more interesting later on about a mechanism, how this works. Can we explore that right now, or would you rather wait? So we argued that if the S in extrasensory perception really is sensory, then the big five things we know is there must be some thing that works better when that thing, whatever it is, is changing compared to when that thing is not changing. (1:01:37)

Because otherwise, that's the way our other sensories work. Maybe the ESP sensory part works the same way. It does, and we found it. And that turns out to be something a little harder to describe, is the changing of the entropy of the target system. And that works extremely well. Can you elaborate? Sure. Best way to do that is an example. Entropy is a measure of chaos. And things that are, for example, if you put your water, which has molecules bouncing around it like mad, and put it in an ice tray and stick it in your freezer, it freezes them. (1:02:22)

What happens is that's a serious drop in entropy because it's less chaotic. Now there's a side issue here called the second law of thermodynamics, which I don't have to get into. If you reach behind your fridge, you know it's pretty warm behind a refrigerator. The heat that's taken out of the water to make ice is overly compensated by the hot behind the counter, behind the fridge. But nonetheless, that change of entropy, that's called, is what correlates with the quality of remote viewing. And there's no doubt about it now. We have nine studies that all agree about that. (1:02:57)

So it says it is, in fact, a sensory system. Now, we understand how if you're looking at the beach and the sun is sinking into the Pacific, it is well known those photons hit your eyes and how that carries the information into your eyelids. It doesn't tell you anything about how you're going to respond to those photons hitting your eyes. (1:03:20)

You know, you and I are sitting on the same beach. You start crying because you got engaged on that beach. I'm crying because my mother killed herself on that same beach. It's the same photons. So all that is generated internally with each human being. But still, in terms of the remote viewing stuff, the correlation with the entropy is gorgeous now. It's really quite well established. (1:03:43)

You had mentioned five sensories, you know, sight, smell, taste, touch. What am I missing? What are the other sensories that you were... Oh, the new ones. Yes. Well, echolocation. People can talk and drive a complicated system on a bicycle and avoid all the accidents. I just saw a mini doc on this. Yeah, that's one. Magnetic field sensing for some people. What is that? (1:04:19)

To sense magnetic fields. You know, in fact, they worry about, well, there's a power line over me. My sensory system tells me don't be near that because it's disturbing the magnetic field and I can experience it. Some people have that ability. Not everybody. Not everybody can do echolocation. Not everybody can do remote viewing. It's like other human skills. There's a big spectrum. Have you looked at mediumship? (1:04:49)

Ah, interesting door. There's two kinds of mediumships. Excuse me. One is informational medium. A medium sits there and communicates with a disencarded entity, let's say, and you're finding out what that person has to say. Maybe your old Uncle Harry passed away and you want to ask questions about it and so on. My way of thinking, if Uncle Harry was a moron during life, what about the left death experience wised him up, didn't he? (1:05:19)

But the question always is. It's really interesting. I'm going to take a small break here on the talk. There is a worldwide organization founded by Margaret Mead, a very famous woman. She was in charge of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And she inducted the Parapsychological Association as one of the affiliate members of that organization. And they still are part of that. So it's a very serious thing. (1:05:55)

Okay, so I was a member of the Parapsychological Association for years and I went to the current president. I was president one year and on their board and all that. I went to this fellow. His name is Dean Radin. I said, Dean, I'm quitting the organization. He said, okay, what can I bribe you to do to stay for another year? And I sort of said, how much are you offering me? And he said, okay, we'll give you how about the Career Achievement Award? I said, okay, fair enough. (1:06:24)

So the rules are that if you get the Career Achievement Award, which I got, that you give an invited talk at the next year's convention about all your glorious contribution to Psy research. Okay. So I'm there in my coat and tie and I'm behind the podium. And I said, look, you guys have known me for 30 years and my contribution to this field is well established. (1:06:47)

And I walked in front of the podium and put my hands on my hips and I'll say, now, let me tell you what's wrong with you bastards. I ripped everybody apart, including me. (1:06:57)

I said, look, I'm a physicist. There is no way in hell I should be doing psychophysiology measurements. What do I know about that? I'll make all the mistakes that the people who started that made mistakes. And we are all amateurs in that regard, including me. We're wasting our time. I would never involve and invite a student to get into this area until they get a serious degree in some other discipline. (1:07:20)

And I bragged a little bit and then I said, it's actually something that's sorrowful. And that is, I held a 20 year career job where I was paid industrial scale wages and benefits and vacation and all that sort of thing, medical care. And I had no other job at parapsychology research. And as far as I know, and it's been confirmed, there's no one else in parapsychology history that can make that claim. And that's pathetic. (1:07:53)

You need to have a way to make a living that way. Why would you do it? So I don't know if I can say this on camera, but I'll say it and then you can edit it out. I said, you know, I've been studying, I'm a physicist. I don't know anything about psychology, but I've been studying Freud a little bit. And, you know, dramatic way I did it, I said, you know, I've discovered why women are not as good remote viewers as men. Well, that turns out not true. I just said that. And I hesitated and I said, penis envy. (1:08:35)

And the whole crowd started laughing hysterically. And I said, that is the right response to stupidity. What I said was made up and stupid. Now, I'd like to know how come you don't have the same response when you are pushing quantum mechanics as an explanation for this phenomenon. You could have heard a pin drop. That was the whole point of the thing. People came up to me. Boy, we loved your talk. I thought they were dialing the Tar and Feather Company to come and grab me. Now, paper's written up, it's been sanitized, so it isn't quite so grim. I can send a copy to you if you want. (1:09:13)

Thank you. Because it does raise an issue. There are three things that we don't know. No one knows. Number one, how long does, if you have a psychic experience, how long does it last? And that's really important to know. If it only comes in bursts of milliseconds, there's no point putting it in an MRI machine, because that takes 10 seconds to do anything, let alone milliseconds. Forget about it. (1:09:37)

And second one is, when most particular good remote viewers do not have control over their remote viewing. In fact, Joe and I talk a lot about what opens this... look, if we have access as humans to all space at all time, and we were cognitively aware of it, to use a technical psychiatric term, we'd go bull goose loony in a heartbeat. You'd just overflow that information into your head. (1:10:02)

So the question proposes then, what opens that door to that vast array of information, and what closes that door? We don't know the answer to either of those. One example of which, we did a study with Joe McMonagle at Stanford, and we didn't get any result in the study. Part of the reason is, everything that was happening to Joe psychically happened to him when he was pulling into the parking lot. (1:10:29)

He did not have control over that. So by the time we wired him up, the psychic stuff was over. And that's a serious problem. In fact, I sent back a $150,000 grant I had to study skin conductance in an MRI in Scotland with psychic stuff. And I decided, I don't know who to put into the scanner or when. That's a waste of money. And I sent the money back and we reprogrammed it. (1:10:56)

These are serious issues. And I've got some experiments on the drawing board now to test some of them. But it's a real tough problem. (1:11:05)

Back to mediumship. Oh, yeah, sorry. Got diverted there. The other form of mediumship is called physical mediumship. And my colleague, Sonali Bhattacharyya, is main person behind this with her colleague in Brazil, Everton Miraldi. And she found 2,500 or so documents dating back to the 15th century on physical mediumship. Now, it's all fraud. All of it. And what that means, I mean, not our views. This is in the literature. People are with top scientists of the day, including Michael Faraday, well-known physicist. (1:11:54)

And the other problem with it is, it's primarily contained into one culture. Remember I said earlier things are pan-human, it can't be in one culture. This is in the spiritist community in Brazil, mostly. Okay. And, you know, they get pretty clever. Now, my colleagues down in Brazil have spent a rather huge sum of money to redo the experiments. And I kept saying, all you're doing is making better measurements that have gone before, and we'll see. But I don't think it's real. (1:12:26)

So, you don't think any mediumship is real? No, physical mediumship. Physical mediumship. Yeah, but informational mediumship, of course it's real. In fact, Julie Beshell from the University of Arizona, she formulated what's called the Winbridge Institute, and actually wrote a chapter in one of her books. They now are doing grief counseling by using this method. Uncle Harry passed away, and all the survivors are grieving. So the medium gets in touch with that person, disincarnated entity, if it's real. In a sense, it doesn't matter whether it's real or not. (1:13:09)

I'm sorry, this is a little bit of information overload for me. So the two types of mediumship, again, are what? Informational mediumship. Informational mediumship. They give you information about the survival of bodily death. That person is talking to the medium, and that medium is telling you what the spirit told her. Physical mediumship means creating things out of thin air, like ectoplasm, this really weird stuff. It was called table tipping in the early days. The tables would rise up, and it's all done in the dark. Tables would rise up and move, or table wrapping. You'd hear people banging on the table. Spirits doing that. (1:13:52)

And physical mediumship is what you're saying is all fraud? I think so. According to your research. You had brought up the magnetic fields, which actually caught my attention, about people who maybe don't want to walk under power lines because it interrupts their magnetic field. What do they say about that? It's a very controversial area. (1:14:28)

There's a woman I know in Moscow, Natalia Lebedeva. She did the definitive work on, if you hold your cell phone up to your ear like a lot of people walk around all the time, is that radiation hurting you in some way? And the answer for her research, no. (1:14:41)

She got the Lennon Prize for her excellent work in science. She's come to visit me in Palo Alto. Interesting woman. Very smart. She works for an organization called the Institute for Higher Nervous Activity. I don't know whether that's what she meant, but very competent. Whether or not there's danger for living under a power line, I really don't know the answer. I don't think anybody does. But a lot of people think there must be and they choose never to live under them. (1:15:05)

So what do you think about people that have this sensory? (1:15:09)

Magnetic sensory, that's a real phenomenon. I mean, for example, if you have hemoglobin in your blood, which we all do, hemoglobin has a magnetic aspect to it. So it's not at all surprising that, in fact, homing pigeons get to where they're going because they can see the Earth's magnetic field, feel the Earth's magnetic field in their own blood. And some humans can do that also that are better at it. (1:15:40)

Fascinating stuff. Fascinating stuff.

(advertisement skipped)

We're going to get into some SRI stuff. So in 1975, you joined the ongoing U.S. government-sponsored work at SRI, formerly called Stanford Research Institute. You became interested in parapsychological phenomenon and in 1985 became the program's director. (1:19:03)

Can we dive into how you got involved with SRI? Well, it was late 75 as a consultant. That was arranged by Ingo Swann. Okay. Because Ingo and I had worked together at Maimonides Medical Center and published some of our results. And he couldn't tell me that it was all classified. But he said to me, you know, you're a physicist. Gee, I'm involved in some work at SRI that involves physics and I'd like to know whether you'd be interested if I were to bring it up. (1:19:41)

And I said, well, I need to learn more about it. Well, let me go talk to the people in California about it first. So I found out later Ingo threw one of his infamous tantrums and screamed and yelled. So to defend himself, I think Hal hired me as a consultant. My job was, because being a physics manager in experimental work, not theory, there was a magnetometer that was being used at the laboratory. (1:20:11)

And the idea was that Ingo was supposed to use his psychic ability to distort the magnetic field around the magnetometer. And I said, OK, fair enough. I'm good at debugging these things. Let's see what happened. So I went and I bought a few dollar bar magnet, little tiny bar magnet. And the magnetometer was in the lab and I was outside in the hall and I just walked doing this with the bar magnet, flipping it back and forth. (1:20:41)

And the strip chart recorder followed my thing. In other words, it wasn't as well isolated as it should have been. So in a sense, I did my job as to show that it's, hey, don't put much faith in this. Fix it or quit. It was funded by the Navy, actually. So that was part of it, what started it. And I ended up being a consultant all the way up until 79 and finally they decided to hire me as a senior research physicist. (1:21:13)

And my consulting was not part time. I was a full time consultant. Okay. Yeah. So they hired me as a senior research physicist and went on from there. What kind of stuff were you guys getting into there? Well, the agency, well, first of all, people think of our program as a CIA program. They accounted for less than 2% of our entire funding. Really? (1:21:43)

Yeah. They didn't fund us. Well, let's talk about... Effectiveness was 1%. Were you on there when the agency started funding? I was there while it was still funding it. But not at the beginning? (1:21:55)

No. Can you talk about, do you have knowledge about what caught the CIA's interest in this program? Yes. In fact, it's in one of my published books about it because the CIA released it. One of the things that's really fun in my briefing is to make fun of the CIA, which I do extensively, because the Congress ordered the CIA to release everything. Now, so there are like five or six copies of the same paper with different redactions on each of these paper. (1:22:29)

So I've got a letter signed by William Casey, the director of CIA, where his name is not redacted. All the other versions of it, his name is redacted. And it says, you know, released by the CIA with this number, you know, so I'm not breaking any laws, right? They did it. And the only thing they redacted in the whole damn thing was the author of the memo to Casey starting the program. (1:22:56)

And they didn't redact his name. And we redacted his signature, and you can see that because a little bit of the part of his signature sneaks out underneath the redaction. Wow. Come on, guys. I mean, they didn't give a damn, you know, they were just doing it all together. But what caught their attention to give any funding whatsoever? Very good question, and I think I know the answer to that. (1:23:22)

It was Ingo Swann, actually. Ingo was doing some work, first of all, back up, there's an organization in London called the Society for Psychical Research. And it was founded in 1882 by some of the top scientists of that era. And that spawned a number of sister organizations, one of which was called the American Society for Psychical Research, based on 73rd Street in New York, Manhattan. In fact, I was invited to give a talk there, so I went to my management at SRI. They did some background and said, oh my God, that's older than the American Physical Society, so go, which I did. (1:24:01)

But the ASPR worked with Ingo Swann. And it turns out that Ingo could describe some randomly chosen target above the tiles in the roof over his head. And a guy named, I think it was Ken Kress in those days, an agency fellow, S&T shop guy. Science and technology. Yeah, right. Said, well, if this is real, we probably don't think it is, but it has intelligence implications if it is real. (1:24:35)

And long story short, it was real. Who was the first, well, I guess not who, what was the first agency? I mean, this went to, lots of organizations got, caught interest in this. I mean, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Yeah, I know exactly how it moved. Intelligence arms of the Army, Navy, Air Force, In-Marines, U.S. Secret Service, Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. I mean, all of these organizations caught wind of this and expressed interest. (1:25:11)

Well, let's put it this way. (1:25:15)

Eventually. Eventually. Basically, the CIA was in deep trouble because of the Nixon administration. And they wanted to get out of business themselves. They already had a big problem on their hands. And FTD, Foreign Technology Division of the Air Force, based out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, took it up after that. Our contract monitor was a guy named Dale Graff, and he's still around, delightful man, personal friend. (1:25:47)

And he was the contract monitor. And so we had funding from FTD from the Air Force for a while. And then a long, very complicated story, doesn't matter how it happened. But Dale shifted over to the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he left FTD as a civilian employee to the Air Force. And he went, he's a physicist, and moved to actually Boeing Air Force Base, which is part of the DIAC, Defense Intelligence Agency Analysis Center is what that's called in Washington. And then he became our contract. (1:26:26)

We got a lot of money from DIA. What were they wanting you to do? Unfortunately, not research. It's all intelligence collection. So they kept giving us tasking to do this. This was long before Fort Meade remote viewers were involved. No kidding. So this... Yeah, we did it for the most part until 1970, probably 1979. So was the funding to actually collect or was... the funding was to collect? It wasn't to research? (1:26:59)

No, absolutely. And we bitched and moaned about it. We did have... we could do some research because we heard, well, the Russians are doing so-and-so. Well, is that real? So we would do research to see whether that had any validity to it or not. What was it the Russians were doing that caught their attention? Well, let's see, quite a number of things. One of the things were somebody down in Crimea had... I think there were rats running around. (1:27:27)

And somebody in Moscow was using their influence to change the behavior of the rats. And we said, OK, we're not going to do this with rats, but it involves psychokinesis. So we did some psychokinesis research. Can you talk about psychokinesis? Yeah, it means mind over matter. It's a long, long thing. And there are two ways... two ways of thinking about that. One is behavior of a physical system that you need statistics to understand whether something's really happening. (1:28:02)

And... or what's called macro-PK, that you don't need statistics, like you just levitate to the ceiling. You don't need statistics, the guy's doing it, right? So... I argue with my colleague in India right now. There's something called poltergeist. Have you ever heard of that term? No, I haven't. What that means is noisy ghost. And so there's a lot of work on poltergeist phenomenon. Very strange things happen. (1:28:34)

And I leave the door open that maybe something interesting is actually happening there. A very respected guy taught for 50 years at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology. And he wrote a number of books on poltergeist. And he saw this one case where... The classic case is it's a very religious family, and with a brand new infant, and a prepubescent teenager, didn't matter what gender. (1:29:07)

So, Arthur Hastings was his name. He's passed away quite some time ago. (1:29:12)

Arthur writes a story that he was witnessing firsthand. There was this teenager, that classic case, this little baby boy was lying naked on the bed. And he watched a set of rosary beads fly off the dresser, wrap the beads around the genitals of this little baby boy, and Arthur had to reach in to pull them off. What is going on with that? That's hard to fake, it seems to me. (1:29:36)

That's an example of large-scale something or another. Was that real? I trust Arthur, yeah. Wow. Wow. Now, my colleague in India, who's a neuropsychologist, thinks, well, there could be what is called group hallucinations. And on this book, the last author here is a guy named Lloyd Auerbach. Because the first version was written, like it was designed by a comedian, it read that way. And I said, Lloyd, can you fix this for us? So he rewrote the whole book. (1:30:14)

I'll tell you a side story, and it's his story. You'd be interested to have him come and talk to you. He's a ghost hunter, and not a crazy one. And there's an aircraft carrier, the Enterprise, permanently docked in Alameda, California, as a museum. And he was on the board to get it set up safe for humans. And there are all kinds of funny stories, he talks about that. (1:30:41)

That a whole bunch of engineers were sitting in the below deck aircraft hangar, and not open to the public yet. They see three guys in World War II military uniform running along a gangway high up. He said, you could see them, but you couldn't hear them. And everybody in the room saw them. And they disappeared. You're not supposed to be here. And they didn't answer and just disappeared. (1:31:12)

Then poor Lloyd got the impression that all his buddies were trying to make this place safe. They were joking with him all the time. Hey, talk to your ghost buddies, we need some more chain, we've run out of chains. Ghosts are supposed to have a lot of chains. Oh yeah, right, right. The next day there were mounds of chains all over the deck. (1:31:32)

Where the hell that came from? The story he talks about I like the best. One of the board members was really a grumpy old guy and just didn't want to prove anything and screaming and yelling. So they said to Lloyd, is there anything you could do not to hurt this guy, but to make the idea real to him? Well, it was a typical lightning storm like we had yesterday here. (1:31:56)

And a tree hit in the parking lot of this Alameda and the tree fell over and crushed this poor guy's car. He wasn't in it, thank goodness, at the time. So what the hell's going on with that? And Lloyd's written a whole book about it. In fact, I'm having lunch with him Sunday. Oh, really? So Lloyd talks about basically he's a ghost hunter. (1:32:19)

And not a crazy one, you say? (1:32:21)

Definitely not. This brings me... this interview is not going the way I had planned, but I'm just going to go with it. But I just want to say, in your introduction, we had said that you believed... it sounds like you believe consciousness dies with the body. I do. And so if you believe your colleague, your former colleague and friend Lloyd, is hunting ghosts, and he's not crazy... How do I... square that round hole? (1:32:53)

Yes. Very good question. And Lloyd's agreed with this. We talk about this a lot. That the assumption that this is a disincarnate entity, a ghost, even though they call it, you know, they call it ghost, noisy ghost. But it may not be that way. There may be some other mechanism of the more normal type, not fraud, some other mechanism that might be involved in that psychokinesis. (1:33:21)

All psychokinesis, if it's real, and to me it's an open question. Not true on micro psychokinesis, but macro psychos is still open for me. But it does not necessarily require a disincarnate entity. That's an open question. I might be wrong. Hey, I've been wrong before. What do you think happens when we die? Nothing. You think we're just dead, lights out? Yep. How did you come to that conclusion? (1:33:52)

Well, I can't say by experience yet. Talk to me 10 years from now, we'll figure it out. I've done a lot of reading and most neuroscientists believe that consciousness is an outgrowth of the brain, an emergent property of the brain. And if that is true, consciousness cannot survive burning the brain in a crematorium after you're dead. Can't do it. Have you looked into near-death experiences at all? (1:34:32)

I haven't, but I've certainly looked into the research. There's an organization called the Templeton Foundation. They spent $5 million on research labs all over the world to address the question of near-death experiences. And Templeton is well-known for spiritual things like that. And they publish, you can go to their site and read it, that the idea was that they cannot find data to support that that is a real phenomenon. (1:35:02)

The experience is real, but whether that, you know, you see your dead grandmother and you go in the light, you see the light, all those things. Trouble is, it's an interesting report because they say those are kind of expectations now, didn't start off that way. When you have a near-death experience, and Joe had two or three, I think, and he saw the rain going through his fingers. (1:35:28)

I think even he saw the light as well, if I remember right. Did he tell you the details of his near-death experience in Austria? He, was this when he was poisoned? He did. Good. I normally don't mention that. So those are interesting open questions, which gets to the point, people ask me, why the hell are you doing this research? Any kind. And for me, the answer is, I'm just quoting Chuck Honerton, actually, he said, you know, we may not be able to solve these questions about do you survive your positive death? (1:36:07)

And what is the meaning of life? And all of those important, serious questions. (1:36:11)

It may be that we are adding tools to the toolkit that somebody 50 years from now will be able to answer those questions. Do you, with what you've come up, the fact that you think that consciousness dies with the body and there is no afterlife, I mean, does that... Well, Jews don't believe in an afterlife to begin with, for starters, but that's not why I don't believe in it. (1:36:38)

Is that, do you fear death? Not that I know of. In fact, it seems to me, there was, I guess I can use a Star Trek example, which I was really loved. And briefly, the Star Trek was going around some planet and they had a visitor from the planet there who was a brilliant astrophysicist. They knew that the star for that planet was going to go supernova and he was working on the details to stop that from happening. (1:37:18)

And he has a romance on board the spaceship. And he says to the woman, I have to go down for my exiting ceremony. What are you talking about? On our planet, when you reach 60 years old, you gather your friends and relatives around and at the end of the party, you're dead. And he said, we do that because we need fresh blood. We need new people, new thinking. (1:37:41)

But you're trying to solve... No, no, no. And so he talks, she talks him out of going down to the planet for his exiting ceremony. And all the relatives come up and are ashamed of him. And finally says, I've got to go. And she says, I now understand. I'll have the pleasure of being there with you. So in some sense, I feel that way. (1:38:04)

In fact, let me ask you this way. I've got a magic pill here. If you take this pill, you will live for the next 150 years with perfect health. Would you take that pill? Probably not. Why? Because I do believe in an afterlife. Okay. And I look forward to getting there. Okay. Fair enough. That's a good answer. That's one of the best ones I've heard. (1:38:34)

I wouldn't take it. Because part of life is the renewal. Can you imagine working for the same boss for 150 years? Forget it. It's bad enough our congress on both sides of the aisle, they're all too bloody old as far as I'm concerned. We need some young folks. I can definitely agree with that. Yeah. So that's a serious critique. I mean, part of the problem is, you know, here you are, World War II vet or maybe 50s, and you see a problem. (1:39:09)

And boy, you go through the process, you finally get elected to Congress. By the time you get there, the problem no longer is relevant. But you're stuck in that realm. And you see that all the time. And I don't care what party you're talking about, you see it all the time. That's a terrible way to run anything. (1:39:26)

Agreed. Agreed. So let's not get into politics. Yeah, let's not do that. But, you know, the other answer to that is, there's a lot of beautiful things about life. Family, lots of stuff. You get to see them growing up and all that. We're all just trying to get through it. And everybody, you know, I don't know any other way to put it, but everybody's got their shit. (1:39:57)

Everybody's got their ball and chain they're dragging around, you know, with them as they go through life. And it gets heavy. It gets real heavy at times. And, you know, I believe when we go, we leave that ball and chain behind. But that's interesting. You don't fear nothingness. Now, I've never been confronted on the battlefield where I'm facing death straight on. And we'll see when my time comes. But right at the moment, no. (1:40:32)

And I'll tell you what I'm doing. I'm retiring from Psy Research the end of this year. Because my... how would I refer to her? My step... not stepdaughter. It would be daughter-in-law. My daughter Jamie is married to a woman named Laura, as a matter of fact. And she is a grief counselor. (1:41:06)

She's Jewish and a grief counselor at one of the big health organizations called Sutter Health. And we've become really close friends. She is helping me transition. And she bought me a book about, oh, it's a centimeter thick. And it's entitled, You're Dead Now. Now What? And what that is, is very... it's not about survival or bodily death. What it is, is documents. It's a book of... not to read, but to fill in. (1:41:30)

So that people left behind will know where you're... what your passwords are, what your bank account numbers are, and all the details that people have to undo when you're gone. I loved it. I just absolutely loved it. And we could have an honest discussion about death. And it was actually fun. Believe it or not. I'll take your word for it. But, wow. (1:42:00)

Well, let's get back to SRI. Speaking of death. We were talking about, you know, the agency, what caught the agency's attention to get the funding. Who was the first intelligence organization to fund SRI? Was it CIA? Yeah. And then everybody else followed. Was it shortly thereafter? CIA quit. Because they were in trouble already. So it was picked up then by FTD. And then Delgraph went to DIA and they were funding us. (1:42:34)

And then I landed a $10 million contract with the US Army Medical Research Development Command in Fort Detrick. And the commander there was a two-star general and M.D. And I thought, oh man, he's got two strikes against him. He's a doctor. Oh no. And a general. Goodness me. Turned out he was the most fascinating man I ever met. We became really close friends. And Diane and I were, when his son got married, at the head table with him. (1:43:06)

He spoke N number of languages. I don't know how many, including Mandarin. Just a very clever guy. And what he wanted to spend, he took... Do you know the term MIPR? Have you heard of that? Government funding? (1:43:19)

No. The Congress cannot, in fact, fund anybody except an executive branch agency. They can't fund SRI or me or you. So they have to send the money, called MIPR the money, to some other organization. So that's how we got most of our money that way, by Congress directly. But Garrison Rattman, Gary Rattman, took $10 million out of his own department funding, not money coming from Congress, to figure out how does this stuff work. (1:43:58)

And he was the first one to say, we are doing research here to figure out how this worked. Now it's not well known, and it's not secret, we did have some remote viewers on board spacecraft. Remote viewing our targets on the ground. We wanted to know whether the Earth was a shield or not. It was not. You put remote viewers in space? We didn't. Gary Rattman did. (1:44:29)

(transcript 3of4)

Our job was just to run the experiment on the ground. Let's talk about that. No, let's not, because I don't know any more about it than what I just told you. It's not written up at the CIA anywhere. Okay. Alright. Not because it's secret. It's just one of those things you try and see what happened. How about daily life at SRI? What were you guys doing on a daily basis? (1:44:56)

Having lots of fun. Because we had special clearances that most of the people at SRI did not have. And we had one whole wing of the building, second floor, and cipher lock doors at each end. That meant behind those doors we could do stuff that no one else could do at SRI. Like when we had birthday parties, we had wine and cake and all kinds of good stuff. (1:45:24)

Had parties and stuff. We worked hard and we played hard. We had Friday afternoon Psy Media Emporium on the upstairs third floor of the building, a lab. We'd show movies and have popcorn and beer. Neither of which, well, we weren't supposed to have beer, but we did anyway. But that play hard was very, very important because it was a team organization. And when I took over the team, it was really a whole shift. (1:46:00)

And a good one, I think. And they enjoyed me as much as I enjoyed them. How were you guys doing your recruiting? That was hard. Because you can't legally in California, maybe in the whole country, ask your questions on a recruit to join the research group that you are not supposed to ask. Does this bother your religious sensitivities? Really important question. I figured out a way to sort of tease that out of somebody because it's really important. (1:46:38)

We had an 06, Colonel Pete McNeilis sat on my head for four years and drove me crazy. He was a devout, devout Roman Catholic. And what we were doing absolutely violated his whole principles about everything. And it just caused us just a huge amount of grief. How would you recruit your subjects such as people like Joe? (1:47:07)

That's a different story. The Army and Fort Meade, the big question is how can we get more psychic intelligence officers? And today we still don't have, in fact the folks down in Brazil are asking that same question. We have psychologists looking at every sort of personality factors, doesn't matter. Health factors, yeah, it plays a role. Genetics factors, we don't know. But none of the normal tests of skill of any kind, external skill. (1:47:44)

The only thing we can do to find who's good at it is have a room full of people try it. And do it two levels. Pick the 10% best people in the room. Have them come in one at a time for eight sessions and then decide whether they're any good or not. And when we did that, it was as much as 600 people over time. (1:48:08)

1% of them performed excellently under laboratory conditions. And that's frustrating. That's why we're hoping in Brazil if we get a neurological signal in an MRI, that's much better to find people. So you went through 600 subjects? They were in groups. For example, two alumni groups from Stanford, a group from Mensa. And they were pissed off that the Stanford group beat them, which I predicted would be the case. (1:48:45)

Mensa people, too much in their heads. The U.S. Geological Survey group, which was right around the corner. And SRI itself. In fact, it was really interesting. SRI has its own internet system. And so I started asking, we're going to have a brown bag lunch. We're going to do some remote viewing. And one guy, I've forgotten his name now, just went, we thought we got rid of those morons, this fraudulent nonsense bullshit. (1:49:14)

Why are we doing this? Blah, blah, blah. Well, we had 50 people from SRI sitting in the room. And this guy was in the front row like this. Oh boy. He did the best in the room. This can't be real. Okay, come on, we're going to do our eight sessions on you. He scored beautifully and we're still good friends. He says, I think I can fake it. No, I'm sorry. You're screwed with it. You have this ability, my friend. Own it. (1:49:41)

Out of 600 people, we got six subjects. That's 1%. Yeah. And so, you know, when you're trying to figure out if this is, if this is genetically passed on, you know, what kind of, what kind of experiments are you conducting? None. To try to figure this out? None. None. That's very difficult. I'm not, I'm not, our group don't have, we don't have the skill set to do that. The folks down in Brazil do. (1:50:18)

You, you need to do familiar work. You have to, you have to familiar me in within families. And we have a couple of data points that suggest like Angela Ford is an identical twin and I had the pleasure of working with her identical twin. And at least with one trial, she seemed equally as good as Angela. And Joe claims that his fraternal twin was equally as good as he, but I never met her. She had passed before that. (1:50:48)

So two data points don't make a model. (1:50:50)

That's where we are. What, what type of experiments were you conducting? Just regular remote viewing like we just did. And what, when did it? I mean, that's a better bread and butter thing that I just did with you. Have, have, laptop will travel like the movie, Have Gun Will Travel. I mean, the experiments, did they not develop into anything else? Or was it the same experiment over and over and over and over again for 10 plus years? (1:51:24)

We've gotten very sophisticated about it. I mean, I brought in a whole new mathematical approach to it, which people have wondered, how do you know in advance whether a particular remote viewing is good, bad or indifferent, particularly if you're doing intelligence collection? You don't want to invest a lot of money if it's bullshit. So how do you prevent that from happening? And until our group didn't know, but now we do know how to do that. Confidence calling, so to speak. (1:51:52)

Was SRI experimentation strictly on, well I know it wasn't strictly on remote viewing, but what, what else were you guys conducting studies on? We did a bacteriological study, a PK on Salmonella bacteria. And the dependent variable is the mutation rate of the bacteria. And there's a whole group at SRI that, that studies that sort of thing. It was kind of funny because we were triple blind. The head of that department knew what we were doing, but the person making the samples of Salmonella bacteria, we had nine test tubes and she'd pour them into nine test tubes from the same batch and label them one through nine, lock them in an empty fish tank. (1:52:41)

And one of our colleagues, Beverly Humphrey, would go and collect it. They'd put a tarp over it and she'd wheel it across the campus to our laboratory, you know, right by the, you know, the active ingredient of food poisoning right next to the cafeteria. We've got to be careful about that. But the idea was two, two ways. Participants were asked to take the three test tubes on the left and decrease the mutation rate by psychic means, who knows what, by psychokinesis. (1:53:14)

The three test tubes on the right, increase it, leave the three alone. That was one condition. Another one was randomly, depending on which participant, you could pick any three test tubes you want to increase the mutation rate, pick any other three, any ones you wanted for the decrease, and then the ones left over you left alone. That worked extremely well. And we have a different reason why that might work. Had nothing to do with psychokinesis. (1:53:47)

What is the reason? Well, there's a variation, there is a statistical variation in mutation rates anyway. So if you could use your psychic ability to find the ones that are faster mutating anyhow and say, I'm going to increase it there, you're not doing anything, you're just picking out ones that are more likely to be increasing and ones that are more likely not to be decreasing, using remote viewing, so to speak. (1:54:13)

In fact, we developed a whole procedure and published it called Decision Augmentation Theory. In other words, ESP is not good enough to make major decisions, you should never do that because it's unreliable, but it can augment your decision a little bit in the right direction. And that works. (1:54:34)

In 1985, I believe you were named director of Stargate. Yeah. Can we talk about how that happened? Sure. What those conversations were like? Well, I was standing on very tall shoulders. Howe put off and Russell Targ. They started Stargate, not named by that then. Russell left Greener Pastures in 1982 and Howe left in 1985. So I inherited the directorship. I'm glad, I loved it. (1:55:12)

That's a big deal. I'll bet you were glad. What did you want to change about the program, if anything at all? Is that an interesting question? Better communication. Howe was a very talented guy, still is. I liked the guy a lot, but he just hardly communicated with anybody on anything. We used to joke behind his back, his right hand doesn't know what his left hand is doing. He used to work at NSA, and I think of that as a Navy guy. (1:55:46)

And that might have influenced it, but it was hard to get Howe to communicate with you. And with me, I'm the other way around. I communicate too much. When NSA, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, when any of these government organizations would approach, who would they approach when they wanted somebody to remote view a target? Would they approach SRI? Would they approach Joe specifically? Were you a part of that? (1:56:17)

Well, before the Fort Meade group were involved, which means up to from 1972 all the way up to 1979 about, SRI did it all, all the operational work. And so Howe would get a notice from, I don't know, Department of State. One of the things we worked with was the Korean tunnels under the DMZ zone. Where the hell that came from, I don't know. But some of those things, they contacted either the people, well, they were the funders, so they would call SRI and we would RFP, request for proposal. And we'd give it to them. (1:57:11)

What are, were you present during these remote viewings? Which ones? Any of them? All of them? As director? Well, from 1985 onward, yeah. What are some of the most fascinating ones that just stick out in your mind? I'll bring one up. Okay. That I want to ask you about. When I had Joe in here, he had talked about, he remote viewed Mars, I believe, maybe it was 1 million BC and saw, and there was a pyramid. Are you familiar with this? (1:57:54)

Yep. I'll let you pick it up from there. I don't believe a word of it. You don't believe a word of it? Because you can't get, psychic functioning requires data feedback that it was correct or not. You cannot prove that statement. Okay. That's why I don't buy it. Well, I appreciate you saying that. Yeah. What are some... Well, that's a fantasy. In fact, do you know that there was a group called Heaven's Gate that had mass suicide in California? Because one of the remote viewers from Fort Meade said, ah, the Cahote comet is coming by and it's followed by a spacecraft full of lizard people. He remote viewed that. (1:58:38)

And they're going to come and invade the earth and eat all your youngsters or whatever the hell it was. And 40 people, I don't know what the number is, I made it up, but a large number of people literally killed themselves out of fear. And I got called into it, what the hell's going on? I was asked by the cops about that. (1:58:56)

That's the danger of making remote viewing without feedback. He had no idea what the hell he was talking about. That's the danger. Makes a lot of sense. What are some remote viewings that you witnessed that did have feedback? Sure. That were accurate? Yeah. One of the things that the Department of Energy was interested in, could we use remote viewing to sense directed beam energy systems? And we had two that they paid for, $50,000 for remote viewings for each, for one viewing on that problem. (1:59:44)

And one of them was called Project Rose, it was very classified at that time. It was a microwave, high-powered microwave generator in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at Sandia National Labs. And we didn't know that, of course, at the time. We were held blind. And said, here's the geographical coordinates where this person is going to be standing a week from today. Tell us what you see. And Joe absolutely bloody nailed it. (2:00:19)

He said, it's a, whatever it is, I mean, I can show you the PowerPoint on it, but he drew a, in fact, it'll bring an interesting thing up here in a minute, a contained environment. And he drew something that looks like a microwave generator horn, and some other details, detailed about it. And he said, this thing is a testing, it's testing, destructive testing of something. He didn't know what it was. (2:00:55)

And it turned out, that's exactly what this thing was doing. They were shining this high-energy microwave thing on electronics to see what the effects were on the electronics. It was called Project Rose. And, however, about a month later, we gave Joe feedback by driving to that location. And on the way there, the Sandia had a solar collection farm, a huge, maybe 100-meter field of mirrors, focusing the sun's energy on the top of a tower. (2:01:25)

And the tower was sparkling like crazy with all that. And we're stopped there. And I said to Beverly Humphrey, let's put a sack over Joe's head. He shouldn't be seeing this, because it's in his future. And his whole responses were full of mirrors. And the target had nothing to do with mirrors, which raises a really interesting question. But he nailed it. We showed him the generator, and it worked really fine. (2:01:49)

We did another one on a high-energy... What was the interesting question? Pardon me? You'd said that that rose an interesting question. Oh, yeah. Okay. In fact, I'm designing a study now to study this very effect. Look, let's suppose you're doing a remote viewing. Somebody randomly chose something, and it was a gas station. And on the way to give you feedback, there's a building on fire. Oh, my God, look at this. And that is far more interesting for you to remote view than the actual target system. (2:02:25)

Okay. Yeah. So the question then is, how do you prevent that? I don't think you can, actually. So actually, Joe came up with this idea. We did an experiment to test whether this business of changing of entropy, does that help people remote view? (2:02:45)

And we did that by creating sort of an entropy bomb, as it were, that the experimenter would be out at the site, and half the time, she would pour liquid nitrogen into a bucket full of balls, and that would evaporate in eight seconds. And that would be a huge change of entropy. And that catches the remote view, it's like a flashlight in a dark room. With some caveats, it worked beautifully. (2:03:10)

Now, there's some funny odd things, you know, outside a Catholic church, the priest would come out, what are you guys doing? Oh, it's an experiment. Don't worry, this big cloud of stuff's coming out of this box. A lot of very funny stories about that. But Joe made the point, it was really, really interesting. He said, you know, to prevent the things I was just telling you, the tasking was this. Okay, Sean, please access and describe the first thing you see when we take off the blindfold. (2:03:44)

In other words, instead of driving to the gas station, and here's a building on fire, we'd have the blindfold, you wouldn't even see the building on fire, and it would take it off looking at the... and that worked beautifully. In fact, much more precisely than I imagined. Because in the middle of the study, Angela Ford's twin sister passed away, and she couldn't come out to California. So I flew to do the finish up her trials at her house. (2:04:12)

Now, that means I can't take her to the site. But everything else worked just the way it's supposed to work out in California, except when I found out what the site is to be, I said to Angela, I wouldn't tell her, I said, please put on the blindfold, and we'd sit patiently on her couch as if I was driving to the site. And I'd say, okay, we're pulling into the parking lot now, Angela. And I had unprofessional photographs of the site where it was predefined where you stand and where you're supposed to look at first, that was all predefined. So I would take Angela to a blank wall, hold that picture for that site right in front of her, take off the blindfold. (2:04:49)

It was statistically equivalent to doing it in real time at the site, as opposed to the photograph. That worked beautifully, a piece of Joe's research. Wow. Wow. What are some more, what are a couple of other ones that you've, that just blew you away? It had to do with the directed energy system, again, a high energy, high energy electron accelerator at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. And I actually, I cheated in some sense, at least in my briefings, and I'll fess up to it every time. (2:05:26)

There were, Joe was to do remote viewing in eight hour segments, saying, track this guy that's going to be on site somewhere in the Bay Area. And after the whole thing was over, we had, one of the women on our project was a right sitter for United Airlines, so she had a private pilot as well. (2:05:54)

And we flew over Lawrence Livermore Lab at a high enough altitude we wouldn't get into trouble. And I took pictures that flattered the data. Didn't need to, because the Air Force was funding this, and they did the analysis, not me. But in my briefing, it looks overwhelmingly delightful. And I say, don't believe this as much, as good as it looks, because it isn't, because I took pictures to make it look good. I fess up to that every time. But it's very, very stunning. (2:06:24)

I mean, Joe, for example, described the headquarters, the office building at Lawrence Livermore Lab, the shape of the building and the right number of floors, and he got that right. Because that's where the guy was planning for the execution later on. Wow. Pretty impressive stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Anything else that really sticks out? Anything in space? You know, Ingo Swann did a project going, quote, out of body to Jupiter. And he did a, quote, flyby by Jupiter. I said, Ingo, how the hell do you know where Jupiter is? You can't find Jupiter on a map. How did you know how to do that? He said, I have no idea. I just said, here, Jupiter, here I come. (2:07:16)

And he was the first to describe, in advance of NASA, that Jupiter had rings like Saturn. Pretty impressive. I mean, what is going through your head? Well, hold on. Let me... I want to know what's going through your head right now. My mind is blown. Oh, dear. So, what was the time between when he had remote-viewed Jupiter and found out that there were, and saw rings, to actual imagery of it? (2:07:49)

I don't know what happened, Chuck, but it was not immediate. It was months. It's only months. Yeah. And so, what's going through your head after they came with that imagery? Oh, that's impressive. Are you kidding? Well, we did another one, the remote viewer. It turns out that Jupiter has a whole bunch of moons, and one of them is called Io, and it goes around Jupiter very rapidly. It's very close to the surface. (2:08:20)

So, it suffers an eclipse every orbit. So, I went to my boss at SRI because Bullivan Watch Company wanted to give an award for somebody with the most interesting experiment on time. So, I said, hey, I want to go get that. And so, my boss said, are you interested in winning the Bullivan Watch Company, or do you want to actually do the experiment? (2:08:48)

I said, I really want to do the experiment. So, he said, I'll fund it for you. So, with this participant, we'd be up at three in the morning. So, I had... the remote viewing was, tell us a time when you remote view the moon of Jupiter and it's half lit. That was the definition of the eclipse time. (2:09:14)

Half lit by the shadow of Jupiter. I forgot how many trials we did. It was quite a number of them. (2:09:18)

And he was right within plus or minus 10 seconds. Now, the question is, in what time frame did he get that? Did he get it before the... because we had to hire a telescope at Chabot College to make the measurements for us. Because how do we know when it was? Which they did for us. We paid them for it. So, the question is, did this participant named Gary get it in Jupiter's time, which was 40 minutes ahead of the telescope, because it was 40 light minutes away? (2:09:51)

Or did he get it in... so, the question is, where do you think? In other words, is remote viewing faster than the speed of light? Jupiter time. That's when it appeared. But the question is, did he actually get the data at that time? I think what happened is, he got the data... he had his experience at that time, but he was actually getting the data from precognition of the next day's photograph we showed him the answer. (2:10:30)

And that's really hard to separate out. Wow. Wow. Some of these things are pretty hard to do, actually. Yeah, I could imagine. Actually, I can imagine. You know, wow. Come on, you hear... You see why I have so much fun with it. And it's challenging, and it angers me that we can't figure out how to do this better than we do. Yeah, you know, and I'm learning a lot. (2:11:06)

So, what's the Fort Meade piece? Are they an in-between? What I'm starting to understand is SRI's Stanford Research Institute, this wasn't their sole focus. You were the director of a program within Stanford Research Institute, correct? Oh yeah, SRI does a whole lot of stuff, sure. I did not realize that. And so, was Fort Meade the bridge between agencies and SRI? No. Russ Targa and I completely agreed on this, that... It started with Ingo Swann. Ingo was... he told me once that I should not be his friend because he's a bitch on wheels, and that was an understatement. (2:12:06)

And he said, I hate flying out here to California to do your stupid experiments. There's an office in New York City for SRI, let me do the experiments there. And Hal said, sure. And Ed and Russ Targa said, no, no, no, he's not a scientist, you need supervision on this. Well, Hal said no. And that started something we're paying deeply for even now, an Ingo Swann cult. (2:12:35)

That Ingo went there and trained, I mean, he was a brilliant guy, but he's not a scientist. And that started the Fort Meade people went up and were trained by all this guy, and almost none of them produced actionable intelligence. So these are two totally separate entities. Yeah. Almost competitors. No, our job, my job, was to do research to make their job better. (2:13:02)

Okay. And they never opened any of my classified emails. Well, that's a shame. Yeah, it's definitely a shame. They could have had a much better product. (2:13:14)

When did the hemi-sync come into play? It never did. It never did? Mm-mm. Do you believe in the hemi-sync? Not at all. The reason is it's bad neuroscience. It's just not right what they're doing. How so? I've had conversations with Joe about it because it was... Can you describe what hemi-sync is for the audience? Yes. Hemi-sync is supposedly this, that based on radio technology, that if you get slightly different frequencies in your ears, that you get the sum and difference of those frequencies, that's called heterodyning. (2:13:55)

And that supposedly is what's hemisphere synchronization. That's where hemi-sync comes from. Except that was put out by Bob Monroe himself, and it has never yet, to this day, been put to a test. I've asked Joe that. Have you had any neuroscientists check that out? And the answer is no. And Bob Monroe was not a neuroscientist, but it's part of the milieu of this company. (2:14:24)

And people go, and they have a wonderful experience. I don't mind people having experience about it. But in terms of whether it improves or doesn't, or related to a remote viewer, who knows? So you don't consider anything to enhance this, or... you're looking strictly at factual information. Pardon? You're looking at strictly factual information that's been tested. I have to. It's weird enough as it is if I start putting goofy stuff in there. (2:14:59)

Is there anything else that you... that is... that you're not buying off on that has to do with the remote viewing space? Such as the hemi-sync? Yeah, remote viewing flying saucers on Mars. You know, in fact, Joe makes this big point in his book, his remote viewing secrets, and all the stuff that he writes. And we've given joint talks together at Monroe, actually. (2:15:29)

And I love the guy dearly, and we're brothers. And the question then becomes, if it's a study, and I didn't invent what I'm about to tell you. If it is a study, there has to be an eventual answer to that study. Maybe it's not what you expect, some other answer, who knows? But there's some result of that study. If you don't have a result of a study, it's fun to do. It's fantasy. (2:15:55)

You have no idea what you're doing. And so, if you have something, and a guy by the name of Stevenson, Ian Stevenson is his name. He did the definitive work at the University of Virginia on survival after bodily death work. Very clever guy. And even he said that he cannot separate, experimentally, whether someone's having an experience of a former life, or they're using extrasensory perception to get the same data. (2:16:30)

And that's a real tough question. I didn't invent that, he did. But we've taken that and put mathematics behind it to where you can actually test whether it's decision-making or something else is going on. If it's decision-making, psychically decision-making, or is it a causal effect? And we can test that. You just mentioned previous life. What are your thoughts on that? (2:16:56)

Don't believe it. Because the evidence is self-reported. All of it. If you want to know something that is really bad, we humans are horrible at describing our personal experiences accurately. We are. In fact, there are two jobs that people do. One is a magician. And the other is a therapist. I come to you as a therapist. Gee, Sean, I just met this fantastically beautiful woman today. She is funny and cute and brilliant and all of that. (2:17:40)

And you said to me, Ed, when are you going to understand you hate your mother? That's the point. In fact, there's books written on it. In fact, there's even a short video online that you can look at called The Invisible Gorilla. I recommend the book written by these two people. And they outline all the ways in which we are masterful at fooling ourselves. (2:18:04)

So I'm skeptical about that because I get fooled equally well. In fact, Doug Henning was a really magnificent magician. And Chuck Arnold and I went to a Broadway show of him doing this stuff. And it's really amazing. So I told Chuck, I'm coming back here tomorrow and I'm going to figure out one bloody trick how he does it. So I sat there at the center, seventh row center. I could not figure out any of it. Or better yet, there's a guy, Dale, I'm blocking on his name. He'll come to me in a minute. (2:18:44)

And he's a brilliant researcher and Darrell Bem is his name. And he was at our house for dinner in Palo Alto. And after dinner, a lot of fun, Diane was sitting at the head table. I was sitting to her left and he was sitting to her right and our daughter was next to him. He said, okay, I'm going to do a trick. This is a trick. Now I'm going to push this cold quarter that I have through this solid oak table into a cup. (2:19:16)

So he goes, clink. Yeah, that's a trick. Now I'm going to break the rules and show you how it's done. So he said, it's sleight of hand. The coin is already in the cup before it goes under the table and you think it's still in my hand. All right. So when he did it again in slow motion, knowing armed, A, that it's a trick, B, you know, when and where and how it's happening in slow motion, you can see it happening. (2:19:44)

At full speed, you couldn't see it. I don't trust my observation, firsthand observation of anything. Really, we're, we're terrible at that. And so a lot of this BS online comes from that sort of stuff, unfortunately. I mean, I was, I was blown away. Damn it. I know you're cheating, but I can't see it. That it's happening. In fact, I went to the, I was giving a talk at the SPR and in the Society for Psychical Research in London, and they were bragging. (2:20:21)

I was the last on the docket, teacher day, they call it, and everybody was bragging their field research. They see this, that, and the other thing. (2:20:29)

So I put in this 20 second video called the invisible gorilla, and I'm going to blow it for you there. What it shows, and you can go online and see it, but now I'm ruining it for you. There is two teams, three, three people with black jerseys on and three people with white jerseys on, and each team has their own basketball. And the idea is that they, the people with white jerseys can only throw their basketball to other white jersey people. And the black, black jersey people, the same thing. (2:21:03)

They don't cross match their balls. All right. And your job is to count up the number of times a white jersey person tosses a ball to another white jersey person. Now, I set it up at the SPR. I said, you know, we've been doing this research for some time and don't understand, we Americans are so much better at it than you Brits. So the, oh yeah, I'm going to count to four. And right in the middle of this 22nd video, a guy dressed in a gorilla suit stands right in front of the camera and goes, nobody sees him. (2:21:41)

They do not see this gorilla. It's called the invisible gorilla. And I think there are two people out of 70 in the room that saw the gorilla. And the point being is, and they said, you bias this. I said, yes, indeed. And you guys bias yourself when you're out in the field. We're all susceptible to biases. And the book called Invisible Gorilla is very interesting because there are all kinds of other examples of the same problem. (2:22:10)

How do you explain that? Oh, well, terms. You focus on what you are biased for and you tend to ignore the details. So you're so focused on who's passing the ball to who that you miss a gorilla in front of the screen, banging his chest. In fact, what they do, it's really interesting. They've done eye tracking. You know, you can put eye tracking on your eyes. (2:22:40)

The people are watching the gorilla, but it doesn't appear in their consciousness. Which is really interesting. Say that again? Okay. They can see that they're counting the balls going back and forth, but their eyes are noticing the gorilla because they can follow the fact that the gorilla is moving. And they eye track that that's happening. At the same time, they're trying to look at the ball at the same time. (2:23:12)

So they are seeing it. They're not just registering it in their consciousness. Wow. What are some other examples of that? Oh, one I like a lot. It's online as well. You can see this. I come to you, a total stranger here in downtown Nashville. I'm trying to get to the Grand Ole Opera Theater. I got a map, back in the days when people had maps. (2:23:38)

And so I'm here and you start pointing all this stuff out to me on my map. (2:23:43)

In the middle of our conversation, two colleagues of mine carrying an opaque door walk right between us. Rudely so. And I change places with somebody carrying the door who has a map. 80% of the time you don't realize you're talking to a totally different person. Even when the gender changes or the race changes. It's just amazing. It's just so... we are not tuned at looking at the total unexpected stuff. (2:24:17)

It's fun to watch that happen. It really is. Very interesting.

(advertisement skipped)

All right, Edwin, we're back from the break and we're getting ready to dive into some of the stuff we were speaking about at breakfast when it came to the Oversight Committee. Okay. So, what can you tell us about what you were experiencing with the Oversight Committee? (2:27:49)

Well, when General Ratman, with the Army Medical Research and Development Command, funded us, he said he wants to have an oversight. People who can overview us. We actually had three committees. One was a scientific oversight committee. Another one was a policy oversight committee out of the Pentagon to make sure we were doing what we were being told to do. And then we had medical oversight. (2:28:21)

It turns out that the Army has more strict rules on dealing with human subjects than does the National Institutes of Health. So we had to make sure that was the case. For example, we were forbidden to use women in psychokinesis experiments based on them. Because we don't know about this, maybe there's a field effect and if they're pregnant and we kill the fetus, you know, all that stuff. (2:28:49)

So we had all those masters. The scientific oversight committee consisted of 12 individuals who were the who's who of science during that era. Two Nobel laureates, one in physics and one from the medical world. He was the Doctors Without Borders kind of guy. Their job had threefold. One is to review our protocols for each study before we actually collected any data to prove them. (2:29:24)

Well, it turns out we were pretty good at that, so that was a fairly fast turnaround time. The second job that they had, which they never actually used, was to have drop-in privileges unannounced to watch what was going on. They never did that. They never did that? No. We paid them $750 a day for their work when they came to SRI. Third one is that we had to write up, I guess my first time running the show, I had something like 13 different tasks that I had to do this year. (2:30:01)

And each one had a final report and so on. We submitted the final reports before sending them to the client, the government agency, to the oversight committee. They had the rights to respond in writing. In volume two of the Stargate Archives book, their stuff is all there. I published it. Critiquing us. And then they would come to SRI and meet in person with us. (2:30:29)

And that was, for me, a thrilling experience. We won about close to 80% of the arguments that we got into with these guys, but the best part of it was the 20% we lost. Because we learned how to do the product much, much better. If you say, were they all convinced about the reality of ESP, absolutely none of them were. (2:30:57)

But they were all convinced we were doing the best science one could do in the topic. It was amazing. And we had one guy on the oversight committee who was chief of statistics, head of the statistics department at UC Riverside. And he was all wrapped around the axle over our fuzzy set arithmetic. But I showed him one of the examples that had no data other than just the example, in fact I'm going to show it to you later, of remote viewing of a directed energy system. (2:31:37)

He saw that and says, now I get it. Well, I really went after him on that. I said, why are you accepting something that is unacceptable? There's only one trial and you're accepting it and you're rejecting years worth of work on this because you don't like the arithmetic? He sort of troddled off with his tail between his legs. Was that the same directed energy thing that Joe had remote viewed with the mirrors? (2:32:08)

Yeah, Joe did all... we had actually three, but we only published two of them. There was an underground nuke which we nailed. But we didn't... never went anywhere. Can you tell me about that? Well, we just didn't do it. Joe, I don't know if he actually ended up doing remote viewing of it or not, I don't recall. The captain in the Air Force who was protecting... it was done by AFTAC. Air Force... what's that? AFTAC. Threat Assessment Center. That's AFTAC. Did the Oversight Committee present any challenges for you guys? (2:32:50)

Yeah, it was a good challenge. They said, you know what you should do? Design your experiments that everybody's cheating. And make sure that they can't... even if they were cheating, it wouldn't affect the result. That was a challenge. How would somebody cheat on a remote viewing project? Well, that was before we did everything pre-cognition. It's really hard to cheat when the target hasn't even been chosen yet, so how can you cheat? (2:33:19)

But there's sensory leakage, for example. Somebody who knows the target comes through the room and signals to the remote viewer what the answer is. Why would they do that? Oh, God knows why people cheat, period. I mean, have you experienced that happening? No, we never saw that. Are there any other methods? Oh, sure. On the Gonsfeld, where everything has to go through electronics, so the person in the Gonsfeld is listening to stuff. (2:33:52)

Was there sensory leakage, inadvertently, because of the crosstalk between the experimenter and the sender? So it's not really cheating, but it's a way that results get cloudy and you can't believe them. Would you find that the remote viewers are looking for some type of an edge? Quite the opposite. You know, they have these experiences and they're meaningful to these people. They don't want to be accused of cheating themselves. (2:34:26)

(transcript 4of4)

This is real to them. They're not cheating. How would the remote viewer experience a failure? I mean, I think you had mentioned that Joe was correct 40% of the time. (2:34:39)

Oh, he was 44%. 44%. So how do they... because I could imagine there's got to be some type of a psychological component to this as well. I mean, athletes deal with this. A lot of people don't... you know, not everybody knows how to deal with failure. Failure can get in your head. You see it with athletes. They get into a slump. It takes something miraculous for them to get it back. (2:35:07)

You know, maybe somebody's making bad grades. They get into a slump. Somebody... and I mean, just from my own experience being an operator in the SEAL teams, I mean, people... if you have a bad house run and... Yeah. You can get into slump with anything, right? And so I would imagine with a 44% success rate, which you're telling me is phenomenal... It is. (2:35:35)

How do they take failure? Well, it turns out that's wholly individually dependent. Joe's just fine with it. Hey, it doesn't work all that time. Who cares? Angela Ford, same thing. When we're doing associational remote viewing to make money on the stock market or something like that, she only gets hits 20% of the time. And that's fine with her because it makes a lot of money. (2:36:07)

So... but the other side of that, we've had people we've had to dismiss. And Ingo Swann was one of them. Ingo Swann would scream at Hal. You're five minutes late. You're ruining my rise time. And then he starts blaming... What does that mean? You're ruining my rise time. That's Ingo saying he's preparing for his study. He's getting risen for it to do the study. (2:36:33)

I'm just quoting Ingo. I have no idea what it actually means. Ingo required us to change all the fluorescent light bulbs in the entire lab to solar spectrum. Because the regular ones are destroying his remote view. He was really to blame everything else on his failure except himself. And that came later in his career. That's why he himself quit. We had some other people. (2:36:58)

In fact, I've been trying for years to get Joe McMonigle and Nevin Lance, a psychologist, to write the risks of remote viewing, which there are serious risks. One is, depending on the personalities, you begin looking at your own persona in terms of your ability to do remote viewing. And that is a huge psychological mistake. We've had to let people go. People at Fort Meade have had to let people go who go, to use a technical term, crazy for doing this stuff. (2:37:34)

It's rare, but it happens. So most people handle it just fine. Hey, fine, no problem. I'll come back tomorrow. So you're saying that some people that have this ability and realize that they do have the capability wind up driving themselves crazy. How so? And why? I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist. Does it bother them that they have the capability? No, it bothers them that they failed. (2:38:02)

It bothers them that they failed. (2:38:04)

Yeah, those few people. I asked Nevin Lance, the psychologist, I said, Nevin, how do you integrate what your remote viewing ability is with the rest of your life? He said, I don't know. I wish I could integrate the rest of my life as well. What are some of the other risks? I don't know. I think that's the main one. That's the main risk? (2:38:27)

Yeah. Is just dealing with failure. Yeah, if you start believing your stuff too much, it seems to me. I'm just overlaying my own thinking out loud rather than any serious stuff about it. So you're saying basically remote viewers will get emotionally attached to their capability. Big time, you bet. And it's really disastrous for them as well as to the unit. Okay. Okay. Well, 1992, it sounds like you started some type of a relationship with the Russian KGB. I did. (2:39:08)

I'm an honorary member, not of a KGB. Turns out, I first went, I think it was even before, no, 1992 was the first year. A expat Russian named, her Christian name was Laura V. Faith. Her Russian name was Larisa Valenskaya. Very, very talented woman. She worked with Kogan in his classified research laboratory on Psy. Why the hell the Russians let her out, I have no idea, but she immigrated first to Israel because she's Jewish. And then she came to the States and over a long series of times, she ended up getting a citizenship, becoming a Christian, and then working, teaching Russian at the defense language school in Monterey. And we hired her out of that. She got a clearance. (2:40:00)

And so I went to Moscow with her probably four times, one of which was all the way out to Novosibirsk. And she was very protective of me. So one time we were, I guess one of the last time we were together on that trip, I was giving a talk at Moscow State University. She was translating for the students. And, you know, I'm dressed like, I'm more dressed now the way I normally dress, I have a t-shirt on. (2:40:36)

And the students are looking like students. And two guys in suits walk into the back of the room. Uh-oh, two guys in suits. This isn't a good deal. Turns out they were from the Ministry of Defense. And they wanted us to come with, Larissa and I, to come with them. And we went to, do you know what a skiff is? Have you heard that term, S-C-I-F? (2:40:58)

Spent a lot of time in a skiff. Me too. So we went to a Russian version of a skiff. And in there was Alexey Yuryevich Savin. This guy who I gave you pictures of, who ran the Russian remote viewing spying program. Don't slouch this guy, he has two PhDs, one in philosophy and one in mathematics. And he had a group of remote viewers, 120 remote viewers, in his program. (2:41:30)

We probably never had more than 25 at any given time. (2:41:35)

And men and women, and their remote viewing group was called 10,003. And Joe and I both have medals about this big, that we're honorary members of the Russian remote viewing group. Wow. Yeah, I meant to bring my medal with me, but I have a picture of it, you can see it. And he was, I've never met him in uniform, but he was reporting to the head of the general staff, which would mean in our world that would be equivalent to reporting to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That's how high up this was. (2:42:13)

Well monitored by the Russian hierarchy military. GRU loved it. When Jai was there once with Joe, we had a group meeting with a whole bunch of remote viewers. They're remote viewers, and I got to work with one of them, Elena Klimova, who was equally as good a remote viewer as Joe. He trained them in hand-to-hand combat, weapons training, that sort of thing. And I said, Alexey Yurovich, what about remote and remote viewing, you don't understand? (2:42:52)

He said, well, when the bullets are whizzing over their heads, they're highly motivated. Because he took them into the Chechnya war. He retired, Savin did, and we became really good friends, and I've given talks to his students and all have you. But we were sitting around a table after a two-day conference. The first day, which we were all slugging down, I mean, that would be a Russian shot of vodka. (2:43:31)

Not this, that. He had to swing it in one gulp. I had 11 straight of those. I should have died. I mean, I was really miserable. I'll bet you were. Because I don't drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it. But in the middle of that, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexey or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. (2:44:01)

Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the Russian culture. So in the middle of all this, he had his staff. He was still in the military. And his staff was there at the table. Joe was with us. I've got pictures of him and Savin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. (2:44:34)

But I said, Alexey Yurovich, and he interrupted me and spoke to me the only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English. He said, Ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexey. And his staff went... Then he switched back into Russian and was being translated by Victor Rubel. And said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. (2:45:00)

And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIA know I want a joint program with you guys. (2:45:14)

And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism. Because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30-page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three-star in charge of DIA in the Pentagon. And he was all excited. Oh, this is really great, because it's cheap, a bottle of scotch kit, everything you need. (2:45:43)

And you're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three-star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks. I'll look him up, and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. (2:46:07)

Never happened. So it never went anywhere. It's interesting, because I was wondering, you know, what does the oversight committee think? I mean, you're dealing with classified information, a lot of classified information at the time. I can't imagine a relationship with the Russian KGB going over well. Well, that was FSB by then. The KGB was long since dissolved. But I had to get approval, because I had SCI level clearances to do this, and I got them. (2:46:44)

And they approved it. You bet. What did you, I mean, what are some of the, what did you think of the Russian remote viewing project? Was it more advanced than us? Did they come farther along? I talked to Victor. Victor Rubel was in the Red Army. He's now an American citizen and a delightful man. And after Larissa passed away, he was my minder in Russia, and damn good at it. (2:47:11)

I mean, he was protecting me no matter what. But Victor said, you know, the Russians never declassify anything. I mean, I've got a 40-minute video from Russia Gazeta Company, which is probably the go-to newspaper for military issues. We were front page, full front page cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is, it's just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English and it was being translated into Russian. And I showed the example of this, of Ingo's clay model of this radar site. (2:48:04)

It did not, that piece did not show up in the 40-minute video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that. So they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk, I was invited with four other Westerners to go to Hong Kong on extraterrestrial perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name. He's a very well-fit character. (2:48:37)

And the five Westerners were there, plus 100 young Chinese kids, kids, I mean really kids, who were trained by Qigong masters. Supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. And I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later and I said, don't ever do that again, this is child abuse for these kids. (2:49:01)

Because they had to conform to the Western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis break the matchstick. So, because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, Ed, you can make your own, here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote some stuff on my matchstick so I know it was my match. (2:49:32)

And I put it in there, and we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14, she had it in her forehead for 40 minutes. And nothing happened. And she was distraught. And fortunately there was a guy there named Simon Kwan who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he speaks English with a British accent. (2:50:08)

Because he was on the British government liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, Simon, please comfort this girl for me. Because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she, and so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other, it was really sweet. And I went up to Binga Wu and complained bitterly about it. (2:50:33)

But she could not do it, she was distraught. Did any of the kids accomplish that? Nope. And one of the things that, they had a hundred kids, a hundred of them. And they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the We Westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. (2:50:55)

It wasn't a game of basketball, it was just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blindfold. It's so completely, utterly obvious, but what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes, one labeled the English letter A and the other box labeled English letter B. Very clever, they had an object in box A, with a small TV camera in box A, and a small TV camera in box B. And the idea is one of these Chagall kids would arrange, God knows how, to have the item in box A appear magically in box B and be tape recorded by the video. (2:51:46)

Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone. Not supervised while this was going on. And, oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said, translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. (2:52:14)

So one of those rare times that my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China, you don't need an old guy from the West. Tell you what, if you'd like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear, he said, Ed, I'd never let you take that job. (2:52:36)

Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day. What are... so it sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes. On China, for sure. What were some of the similarities that you saw, how the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate? They were not very self... they were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant. (2:53:06)

So they were there to collect from you, not share. Yep. What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120-something remote viewers as compared to, what, our six? Well, we had... SRI only had about five or six at any given moment, and Fort Meade wasn't much better. So we'll double that number. (2:53:35)

Twelve. They have 120. Are... But I mean, you're talking about... You're talking about experiments that were done where the KIB was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out. Well, that's in China, yeah. I'm guessing, miraculously, the, you know... The KIB broke, you know, come on, it's obvious what happened. But I guess what I'm getting at is, were our... were we pickier, or had we just not found the amount that they had found yet? (2:54:03)

What do you mean? I mean... I mean... We're not being picky. You'd never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do. Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is, at the time, let's just say, would 12 be a fairly accurate number, 12 remote viewers that the U.S. had at the time? Never at the same time, correct. (2:54:27)

One percent. Yeah. So 12... less than 12 at any given particular time. Yeah, sure. Okay. And Russia... The rest of them didn't. So we're talking three. Maybe, yeah. Joe would be better off telling, or Angela better yet. Less than 10. Yeah. They have 120. Hmm. And they never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote. So that could have been total bogus. (2:55:04)

Well, I did have a measure... Joe and I were there at the same time, and we got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova and Joe. She was the top Russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on. Same principles? Yeah, same everything. Same testing? Just what we did here. And they developed that on their own? (2:55:31)

Well, I don't know about that, what they do when I'm not there. That was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own. (2:55:41)

Oh, so they shared literally nothing. They never share anything. And Victor said it's part of the zeitgeist of Russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classified stuff at all. Period. Very interesting. Going back to SRI, right now we're talking about remote viewing. Are there any other sensory... basically we're talking about non-lethal future-type weapons, correct? So, when it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about? (2:56:37)

Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large, to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music, for example? Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera, called Put to the Test, and I have that video. that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for a movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. (2:57:16)

I was hands-off after that, and she chose six sites around the Houston area. And it was done, the lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything, and so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge Russian vessel docked, right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experimenter there, and Joe was back in the studio. (2:58:00)

But he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the sound, I have no idea what it is, there's something large there, I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe, he called me rather, when it was all over, and I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television, how the hell do you do that? (2:58:27)

He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the task, they're going to do something, I'll figure it out. And then he faked it on camera. Wow. Do you understand what I'm asking? Are we looking into anything that might be, I mean, remote viewing is, it's hard for people to believe, it's something that we still don't understand. (2:59:01)

And so what I'm asking is, are there other types of ESP that we're looking into, other than remote viewing? That we don't, that I don't know about? Well, I think other people, I mean, the fields, there are 300 members of the Parapsychological Association, and I think almost none of them are doing remote viewing. What are some of the other things they're researching? Well, there's the Gonsfeld, which is remote viewing-like, but they're all psychologists, that's why it's called parapsychology. (2:59:38)

So they're interested in, you know, what are the personality variables that make this person do good, or is someone who is really creative, does that affect the performance in the Gonsfeld, and so on and so on. (2:59:51)

What is the Gonsfeld? They're not looking at mechanism. We're the only group that I know of that is looking at, trying to figure out the mechanism, how this works. In fact, Ray Hyman, in fact, there's a joke. The two biggest critics, and this is their true names, Hyman and Alcock, I swear to God, they're the critics of this field. But Ray Hyman was, I think he's still alive, a psychologist from the University of Oregon. I know the guy pretty well. (3:00:28)

And they formed an organization called PSYCOPS, the Committee to Investigate the Scientific Claims of the Paranormal. It's no longer that name, it's just called Skeptical Inquirer. But PSYCOPS, Jessica Otts, an amazing statistician, and she and I went to Buffalo at the 20th Congress of PSYCOPS. And Ray Hyman was giving a talk at the beginning, and he said to the assembled skeptics, do not underestimate parapsychologists. (3:01:05)

They are the best methodologists he's ever met. I went up to him after, I said, Ray, my God, it took a lot of courage to do that. He said, yeah, but it's true. So even Ray, at that, in front of those people said, there are classes of things we no longer need any further evidence for its existence. What we should be focusing on now is how the hell does it actually work. And he's right. (3:01:33)

You know, when I interviewed a gentleman, John Alexander, and he was talking about spoon bending, he was talking about plants having consciousness. I mean, did you, were you a part of any of that type of research? Not whatsoever. I would not be. Although there was a variation on it. Bev Humphrey and I went covertly undercover. (3:02:03)

There was a course on spoon bending up at Lake Tahoe in California. So before going up there, I bought some really heavy duty soup spoons that had the handles would look like a Greek letter omega, which makes it damned hard to bend. Okay, so we get up there on a Friday night, and it's three, Friday night, all day Saturday, all day Sunday, as food, sleep and logic deprivation. (3:02:31)

Which turns out to be a big deal, so you don't get your head in it. And God help me, I'm going to tell you this. We're sitting with pyramids on our head in front, underneath the big pyramids. And I tell people, you know, if you put your bananas under your pyramid, it'll be sharp enough to shave with later on. And we got around to bending stuff at two in the morning. I mean, early in the morning on Monday, I don't remember what time. (3:03:01)

And I'm sitting on the floor cross-legged, my whole body is falling asleep from my hips down. And I'm weaving the tines of forks into little knots. So I have no idea what's going on there. I'm not in a shape to know what I'm doing or not. I was conscious enough that the guy running the show came by me, and I reached in and grabbed one of our big spoons. (3:03:24)

And I said, can you bend this? He said, oh yeah, you go... And he wrapped it around, not the ball of the spoon, but this part of the spoon. (3:03:32)

So driving home, I said to Bev, Bev Humphrey was with me, I said, maybe we saw some genuine PK here. So I got back to SRI, and one of the people on our projects, Gary Langford, is a metallurgist himself. He said, do you have any of those spoons left over? I said, oh yeah, get me one. So he goes, does the same thing right in front of me. (3:03:55)

He says, it's shock deformation. That if you do that, and you hesitate, it'll freeze on you. But if you just keep going, you can do it. I learned how to do it then. I can't do it anymore, but I was able to do it myself. Thus went away my belief that we saw genuine PK. What was it? Shock what? Shock deformation. How does that work? (3:04:20)

Well, you start it like that, and if you start it and stop, nothing will happen. If you start it and keep going, it's easy to bend. It will feel like rubber or something really smooth. And these are metals? Yeah. Metal spoons. Oh, you bet. These are the ones with the omega shape. And he bent it. Yeah. But there is a scientific explanation on how that happens. (3:04:47)

Yeah. Is there anything else you looked into that was similar to any of this? No, that's the only weird stuff we ever looked into. We didn't do healing. Because, you know, what defines healing? Healing? Healing. Helping sick people. And there are a lot of people doing that. For example, I was funded by an organization called the Samueli Institute in Alexander, Virginia. Run by a fellow that used to be part of NIH Alternative Medical Approach to Medicine. And so he was looking at these odd new medical things. (3:05:36)

One of which was a guy, he funded a guy at Duke University, who, I think it was Duke, yeah, in North Carolina. That guy by the name of Mitch Krukoff, very clever, clever cardiologist, not cardiologist, a heart specialist. And Mitch wanted to know, good question, what other things could he do to improve his ability to help heart patients? So he had, I forget the number, how many other things they looked at. (3:06:17)

You know, vitamin, exercise, diet, and so on. One of which was intercessory prayer. People praying for their well-being. And they did a five-year study, they called it the Mantra Project. And sure enough, after all things said and done, they did what's called a factor analysis. To figure out, was there anything in this mishmash of a whole bunch of stuff that mattered? And the answer is yes, the only thing that mattered was intercessory prayer. (3:06:43)

And so, because Mitch is a well-known guy, he got a $750,000 grant from NIH to study intercessory prayer. In terms of, does it actually help his patients? So, it was pretty interesting because what I didn't know, if you get funded by NIH, you can't have randomization done by somebody in the project. (3:07:11)

So, there's kind of a satellite companies around medical schools who do nothing but randomize participants into control and effort groups. They don't even care what the study is. Okay, so he did the study. And one of the funniest damn things, there were solid Christians who wouldn't do this because there were non-Christians praying for help. Praying for their help. Oh please, come on. Turned out, it failed categorically. (3:07:40)

So, I talked to Mitch Krukoff about it and I said, that fits our model of decision augmentation. Meaning, that in the five years of, you had your people with a bias in favor of this working, pressing the buttons to randomize your people. Not cheating. I'm not accusing anybody of cheating. But using unconscious ESP to sort patients in such a way it looks like it was a genuine effect. (3:08:12)

But it's not. And since this other group was doing the randomization, they didn't give a damn. No wonder it didn't work. And I think my bet is, 50 years from now, the only part of Psy, one major part of Psy that will survive is this decision augmentation model that we put together. And you should look up, you should get Jessica Utz to come here. (3:08:37)

She, I've known her for a really long time. Her name is Jessica Utz, U-T-T-S. She used to be head of the department at, in statistics department at UC Irvine. I can send you her contact for her. I'll do it. I'll reach out. Yeah, she is terrific. She has this ability to, she published a book called Seeing Through Statistics. And there's not one equation in the book. (3:09:08)

She wanted to have a book that people who read newspaper articles, who mention statistics, can get some idea what the hell they're talking about. And I said, hey, how come you have all these trees in the damn cover of your book? She says, think about it. Oh, seeing through the trees. Oh, please. She became, in 2016, the chief statistician in the whole damn country. (3:09:37)

She was head of the American Statistical Association. Became chair of that. And I've got, I'll send you the link on my YouTube channel. She gave the presidential address, which was 70 minutes long. Seven minutes of it was her ability to say in front of this collective body her belief in extrasensory perception and what she's done in that domain. I called her up and said, geez, you're brave. (3:10:06)

She says, no, I'm telling you the truth. And it's just a brilliant piece. And the introduction is longer than her talk in the seven-minute section. I thought I knew her really well. We were good friends and spent time at her house. And she and her longtime, not her husband, might be a common-law husband, if it were. And we... She said, it has to happen. (3:10:30)

Very, very impressive. That's real stuff. Yeah, I'd love to... She'd be good for you to interview her. Have a chat with her. (3:10:40)

Yeah. That would be fascinating. So 1995, it sounds like Stargate came to an end. What was, what was the decision that led to that? Why, why did they end it? Good question. That's a really good question. First of all, there was what's called a CDA, a Congressionally Directed Activity. The Congress ordered the CIA to do a 20-year retrospective of this whole program. And if they felt that there was quality in this program, they were then to take over the program from DIA. Okay? (3:11:26)

And so they hired the American Institutes of Research to do the study. Supposed to be a 20-year retrospective. And they produced what's called the AIR part, American Institutes of Research reports, great big thick document. They wouldn't give me a copy of it. Okay. They gave Jessica a copy. They had Jessica and Ray Hyman as counters to each other, a skeptic and a believer. (3:11:57)

And... I walked into Senator Cohen's office at the time, he was still Senator, and I said, Hey, I don't have a copy of the AIR report. He said, Oh, here's mine, take it. He then said, Do you think you can refute this? And I said, Well, yeah. And he said, Well, write an article and pull no punches. Which I did and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong. (3:12:30)

They only looked at one year over instead of 20, that was correct, but that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff, they said why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that the Cold War was basically over and the Congress was saying, We've got all this money going to the intel community, we don't need to have that much money anymore. (3:13:01)

So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA, actually. Not our view, that's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block along with a whole bunch of other programs. Negating everything I said in my original paper. (3:13:29)

Man, what do you think of that? Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe 10 years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts and so on loved the product that we had, but upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now, I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly. (3:14:07)

You don't think so? I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know. Why do you think they're not doing this? Under a different name, a different program? I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so. (3:14:23)

Because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And the same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down, and the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. (3:14:52)

People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tart wrote an article about the fear of psi. For example, if you really believed in telepathy, get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing what it should be. And people really get scared of that. Do you believe in telepathy? I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment right now. (3:15:24)

I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it? Come on, out with it. 703. I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave, knowing you got the right answer. Oops! I just told you, you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? (3:15:49)

The only way I can prevent it, the only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find the answer, if there's an answer book, which there isn't when I'm dead, it's not an experiment anymore. Please help me understand what you're saying. Okay. Because I'm not receiving it. Okay. You pick a number from one through a thousand. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself? (3:16:23)

Because if I say, you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later? What feedback? I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback. Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future, you're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. (3:16:50)

The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. (3:17:10)

Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result. (3:17:35)

And the result we consider as the answer book, and you have access to that by precognition. (3:17:40)

In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together, collapsing the problem space of informational psi, people getting information by psychic means. So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703, saw you, tell me, good job, came back, said the number. Yeah, now if I'd kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff that you need to do to make sure that it's real. (3:18:17)

It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. (3:18:47)

How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two, two and a half actually. Problem space number one, how does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem and they worry about it. (3:19:11)

In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of Physics called quantum retro causation. It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case, but it's true. I want to know why that's the case. Because the past is quantum mechanics. (3:19:46)

The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo... What's been done. What's been done. But until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now that doesn't mean that's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How the physics domain. (3:20:12)

There's a guy in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Fairlinda. And he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So of the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. (3:20:30)

So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That... and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is, everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. (3:21:02)

You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums. (3:21:09)

If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be of information coming backward in time. But Fairlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought. So that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain... oh, by the way, the physics people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem. (3:21:42)

All right, once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a moment. Then it's a neuroscience problem. They don't give a damn how it got there. And the article we wrote, working with the Brazilian folks, this is testable. About hyperconductivity in the brain and the white matter and so on, blah, blah, blah, all this technical stuff. It's testable. Might be wrong, but at least it's testable. (3:22:08)

The problem is what transfers whatever this is coming in into something the brain can recognize. We know about retinas in our eyes, we know about the sensory systems in our nose and so on, but we don't know a psychic retina, so to speak, for remote viewing. What do you think it is? No idea. I really have no idea. I mean, you don't lose sleep at night thinking about this? (3:22:30)

Oh, I think about it all the time. You don't have theories? I'm not smart enough. I'm not a theorist. That's the problem. You figure it out, I'll test it. It's very difficult. Well, what we're hoping for, and that's why we're taking Angela to do what's called a case study. Just her, mushing her hand to an MRI machine. If we are lucky, I mean really lucky, her brain will be different, quantitatively different than a large number of base brains that they look at. (3:23:04)

Highly unlikely that it will be, but if it is different, then we can say, well, it's different because of this, this, this, that, and the other thing. That gives us a clue of how to see whether we can find psychics that way. Wow. Yeah. Wow. Big time. We're not counting on it by any stretch. A better approach to find subjects is to get involved in the synesthesia community. (3:23:32)

Because since I mentioned over breakfast that all of our participants have synesthesia. What is that? That's where you get crosstalk in your sensory systems. You see black and white things of color and so on. It's crosstalk of your sensory systems. Oh, we spoke about this at the beginning. (3:23:58)

We spoke about that when you hear music and you feel it in your... Okay. Okay. Man, I can't just, I mean, it's almost like there's some type of unknown organ that's at work that's receiving that information. Just like your nose, ears, eyes, mouth, you know, touch. Well, probably it's going to be more distributed than that. (3:24:19)

In fact, the only thing that I'm aware of, and I could be wrong on this one, that the Russians are big on identifying each part of the brain as associated with some behavior, and that's simply not true. (3:24:27)

With one exception. That is, there's a very small part of our brain which is dedicated to face recognition. And Russell Targ, for example, that part is not functioning for him. He can go to a party with his wife and not recognize her from other tall, similar women because he cannot recognize her face. The same with me. So if we're meeting for lunch, he'll hear my voice. I'll say, hey, Russ, good to see you again. At least he knows it's me. (3:25:01)

And that's a very standard problem. Some people have this, that for reasons unknown, that part of their brain is not functioning properly. So I don't expect a little chunk over here for consciousness and a little chunk over here for liking salt. You know, seriously, this conversation with you has inspired me to maybe not resign. Quit. It's too much fun. Keep going. Keep going. You know, with everything that you've studied and are there any key things that make you believe everything that you've studied, you know, over the course of 49 years? (3:25:49)

It's not an event. It's collectiveness, the whole thing. I mean, for me, it's self-evident of this, the number of successes in the operational work. We're not cheating with that. And, you know, there are skeptical people in your business looking at this. Hey, we want to come back with more study. I mean, even the CIA came back with us 41 times with new missions. They wouldn't do that if it weren't useful to them. (3:26:18)

After it was shut down? No, before it was shut down. Before. Yeah. So, no, it's more the collective thing. For me, probably the most convincing evidence is that 17 of the 19 end users came back with more, wanting more stuff. Now, we can go to statistics and Jessica Oswald bore you to tear on the statistics, but nobody buys statistics. Why bother? Good question. I've thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not, by any stretch. (3:27:06)

I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example. Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch, and long story short, one of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. (3:27:53)

You're right, I can't give it right down an equation for love, but I promise you by next Thursday at two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer, right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism. (3:28:09)

And he was a bright guy, totally fluent in English and PowerPoint useful. So I went up to him afterwards. I said, Swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine, that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath and that's it. And I said, but you have to modernize. You're basically getting on philosophy with 3,000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the over the net, it wasn't Zoom in those days, email, to try to figure out ways in which to modernize this. And we figured out he couldn't do it. (3:28:58)

So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it and so was I. So that was a side step. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job than we're doing now, for sure. And things of that nature. What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness? And all of those questions, maybe Psy Research as it currently exists, may not answer those questions. But at least it's new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions. (3:29:54)

What do you think consciousness is? I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous. Thank you. Thank you. Edwin, we're wrapping up the interview. And, you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into? (3:30:34)

As humans, you mean? Is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject? Oh, okay. It could be totally random, but what I'm asking, you know, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched? What do people not know about? What should we be looking into? That's a good question. I mean, you know, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. (3:31:03)

I'm more concerned politically, where we're at as a culture, not only in our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that, to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment. I think that's a worry for a lot of us. No kidding. (3:31:29)

Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on. (3:31:35)

My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth. Oh, man. I could go on here, but... How long have we been at this? We've been going for about five hours now. Oh, jeez. In between four and five hours. It doesn't feel that way at all, actually. Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far? (3:32:03)

What do I do for fun? That's important. What do you do for fun? Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, dammit. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day. And I said, oh, jeez. And you're a physicist. (3:32:29)

Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about, in your head, what's happening to the ball and how it's going to... no. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in the San Francisco Bay Area. Long distances, 11 miles at a crack. That's pretty amazing for... can I say your age? Yeah, of course. (3:32:54)

An 83-year-old man, you look. No, you screwed it. 84. 84? Oh, man. We are in amazing hell. No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old sun. One last question. Yes, sir. With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to... I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff when it comes to outer space, are we alone, that kind of stuff. What do you think about that? (3:33:33)

Are we alone? Well, who is it? I forget. The long-since-dead philosopher, semi-philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. And the way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. (3:34:08)

If you look at the total number of... first of all, the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy and the number of planets that are M-class planets like Earth. I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it is another question. But Carl Sagan, and what he said was we're serially alone because in the years that it's been, what, 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming. We're going to kill ourselves off. (3:34:45)

So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. (3:34:50)

He says that's inherent to other species as well. So what's the probability of two 1,000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small. Pretty interesting argument, whether it's true or not, who the hell knows? That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that. Because we are, I mean, we're, no one's paying, I mean, we are very, I wrote my first paper, scientific paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1962 on upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. (3:35:26)

And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then, back then, that as humans were involved in it, now there's no question. Well, thank you. I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up. Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview you and sit here and have this conversation. (3:35:48)

The honor is returned to you, sir. Thank you. I am, thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.

情報源 : 動画(3:37:33)

Edwin C. May - Psychics in Space, Dream Telepathy and Remote Viewing Saturn ｜ SRS #122

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0u0JqwQDJQ

(2025-06-26)

前置き​

AI 整理​

(*1)​

アプティチュードテストと被験者の選定:​

情報伝達のメカニズム:​

脳とサイキック能力:​

懐疑的な見解:​

ロシアのリモートビューイングプログラム:​

タイムライン​

1972年:​

1979年頃:​

不明な時期 (FTDの資金提供後):​

1982年:​

1985年:​

プログラムの活動期間中 (1972年〜プログラム終了まで):​

プログラム終了後（時期不明）：​

現在の状況（インタビュー時点）:​

キャスト・オブ・キャラクターズ​

AI との対話​

スプーン曲げと衝撃変形​

量子逆因果律​

(*2)​

fact-check​

1. 「量子逆因果律の定義」について​

2. 「非対称性：未来から現在のみで、現在から過去には伝わらない」​

3. 「過去に逆行しない理由」：測定済みゆえ状態ベクトルが収縮している​

総合評価（Fact-check まとめ）​

文字起こし​

情報源 : 動画(3:37:33)​

前置き

AI 整理

(*1)

アプティチュードテストと被験者の選定:

情報伝達のメカニズム:

脳とサイキック能力:

懐疑的な見解:

ロシアのリモートビューイングプログラム:

タイムライン

1972年:

1979年頃:

不明な時期 (FTDの資金提供後):

1982年:

1985年:

プログラムの活動期間中 (1972年〜プログラム終了まで):

プログラム終了後（時期不明）：

現在の状況（インタビュー時点）:

キャスト・オブ・キャラクターズ

AI との対話

スプーン曲げと衝撃変形

量子逆因果律

(*2)

fact-check

1. 「量子逆因果律の定義」について

2. 「非対称性：未来から現在のみで、現在から過去には伝わらない」

3. 「過去に逆行しない理由」：測定済みゆえ状態ベクトルが収縮している

総合評価（Fact-check まとめ）

文字起こし

情報源 : 動画(3:37:33)