My name is Ed Dames, I'm the President of PSI TECH. What we do is technical remote viewing. I'll get into that in a moment. I'll show you some examples of our work. We won't have time for questions before I get into the UFO arena. So if you'll hold on to those until my l8th minute, I'd appreciate it. (Can I have the next vue graph?)
The company was incorporated in 1989. There are six employees, all of whom are present duty or active duty Army Intelligence or Army Special Operations officers. Ingo Swann was our teacher. Ingo Swann was probably the western hemisphere's greatest natural psychic. He's been the subject of American Society of Psychial Research and British Parapsychologieal Association investigations for years. He became his own guinea pig out at Stanford Research Institute in the '8Os, just after Russel Targ left, Ingo Swann had some breakthrough discoveries.
To wit, he was able to develop a system, that he calls remote viewing, in fact I think that was a CIA term, scanning by coordinate, and that turned into coordinate remote viewing, now remote viewing. The system enables the remote viewer to acquire a target 100% of the time immediately, and then to produce great amount of detail with regard to the target. Not only did Ingo discover a method to do that, a structured systematic method, he discovered that he could train it. And so he did. I was one of his first students, and became his protege.
I trained the other people in my company. We bill ourselves as science and technology consultants. Most of the work that we do are against those types of problems, strategic and pinpoint, and we conduct remote viewing training. Primarily familiarization training. We have clients that we put through an eight session two week course. They do not want to go through the one year course. It is very, very rigorous. One of the reasons that Special Ops officers were required is because of the great amount of discipline that it takes.
We train the unconscious, and we've got to get through a lot to do that. Army officers and soldiers were unquestioningly obedient. They could be slapped around a lot, figuratively speaking. So they worked well as remote viewing sublects. (next slide)
In a nutshell, that's what we do for a living. And that's a big distinction, that we are trained, we are not natural psychics. We are guys off the street who had a job to do, we couldn't do it, we needed information about certain things, and we just didn't have any way to do it. We went to Ingo Swann and we asked does this stuff really work, and if so, how well, and how much detail can you produce? And that's where it started, about 1981.
The training program is rigorous. We depend upon trained remote viewers. The team that I was a part of, the group that was interested in remote viewing, explored a lot of other aspects, a lot of other ways of acquiring information, psychically derived information. Channeling, automatic writing, out of body experience, on and on and on. That was not successful because it was not consistent, it could not be relied upon 100% of the time. If my employees now don't get it right, they're fired. They have to be responsible for the action, their data. Our clients want correct data, and that's what we are trained to do, provide answers to those strategic questions. (Next slide)
This is what we've learned in ten years of applying remote viewing. We've taken it outside of the laboratory, we left Dean Jahn at Princeton University, we left the Puthoffs and the Mays', Ed Mays out at Stanford Research Institute. Everybody can do this who wants to. We tried every type of psychological protocol that we could find, and we threw them out the window. All that you need is somebody with extreme discipline, above average intelligence, and most people have that, and you can teach it. It's got to be learned and useful, it's just like language. It's innate ability, but you've got to acquire it as a skill. It is direct knowledge. It bypasses any analysis whatsoever. I'll talk more about that in a moment. It's a robotic, autonomic process. Not like remote viewing, but in certain respects not unlike it. Highly structured. It is not loose and free flowing.
When individuals remote view, there is military discipline required, to make sure that the very weak unconscious signal that is associated with the target is not being overcome or overlayed by analysis or imagination. Learning how to discriminate between target related data, and imagination, is a big obstacle to overcome. As one can imagine, the training is technically difficult and rigorous. Very, very frustrating. You are taught not to imagine. And that's a difficult thing to teach. (next slide)
We borrowed training models from several disciplines. We had to, in order to train it effectively. And these fit quite well. Electrical engineering, obviously, signal to noise ratio. Our surroundings, our conscious surroundings, are a much greater signal strength than unconscious, weak target signals. And by the way, acquiring a target takes two days to teach. It turns out that that was the easiest thing to do in remote viewing. I'll talk about the most difficult, but getting to the target and being on target is simple. It's easy to teach. And that's all that's easy to teach. Channel capacity. We've got to be able to hold a theta state to clear the remote viewer's impressions of the room, which he is in. He's in generally a homogeneous environment, a room with nothing on the walls and a table in front of him. Sometimes there's a facilitator, similar to a navigator on an aircraft mission where the pilot's concentrating on the target, not getting involved, where the scenery is on the right and to the left, and the navigatoris telling him, uh, there's something behind you. That's the only purpose purpose of the facilitator.
Filter theory, ** theory, feedback. In training feedback must be immediate. We are teaching the unconscious what we want it to do. Yes, it is smarter than our conscious in many regards. But initially we've got to teach it. We teach it via the autonomic nervous system, and via some proprietary training techniques that Ingo Swann developed. My company is licensed to teach those techniques by Ingo. Preconscious processing. Norman Dixon's book, he's an experimental psychologist in England, very important work. Unconscious attention. Unconscious attention is a theory only, but that's a very important theory as far as we're concerned. When we consciously turn our attention towards a topic, a person, place, thing or event, the unconscious will teach the unconscious to turn it's attention to, and make sure that it stays on target, that it does not get interested in something else. If my students, if this target were the room, if this podium were the target in this room, and my student started to talk about this bouquet of flowers, they would take a break and come back when they can get it right. This is the target. I'm not interested and my clients are not interested in those flowers. Theyare interested in this as the target right here. So it's a very demanding skill, and we're very demanding on our employees. I'm an employee. (next slide) As I mentioned, the training is directed toward the unconscious, but there are things that we have to do to work with the autonomic nervous system, which does respond to the target in a very real fashion. That was one of Ingo's discoveries. There's a response that the autonomic nervous system has to conditioning and to the target gestalts. Rene Warcollier discovered this in France prior to World War I, that those little scribbles and doodles that one produces in automatic writing, the first few, are really the whole gestalt of the site of the target, is somewhere encapsulated in that ideogram. And that was the beginning of this process, as trite as it may seem, it works.
The standards, the trainees work blind, by the way. The trainees are only provided with a randomly generated number, geared to the task at hand. If this podium is again the target, or the target is Abu Nidal the terrorist, and we need to find him in the world somewhere, I generate a random number. That is all that an experienced remote viewer gets, and that is all that a trainee gets. We train the way we would fight. We train the way we would operate. That's it. Just a number. The unconscious has to do the work. There's no front loading with target data. A very experienced remote viewer can get away with being frontloaded. But students, certainly not. We're trying to train the capability for the unconscious to go out and do the work. Standards for progression from stage to stage, and there are six stages of training, are rigorous. The trainee is given five targets, and the targets in the training stages move from the general, island, describe the island, what type of a place it is, a river. Higher stages would be as I mentioned finding for instance a specific individual somewhere on the globe, and making sure that I have enough descriptive data to say that's who the target is. So I can provide that to the client.
Those standards, the trainee must get five targets like that correct in a row, before they are allowed to move on to the next training stage. We are not in an altered state, per se, although I know that's arguable. The viewer is highly attentive. We're trying to maintain a theta state. We have a stack of bond paper in front of us and a pen. That's it. And, think about trying to do a difficult math problem while trying to monitor the instruments on a fighter plane going to a target. That describes the kind of complexity that we have. We have a proprietary structure, a check list that we go through constantly at a certain speed. A tachyoscopic sense. We're looking at a target and integrating all the data going across us. But at the same time, we're trying to hold the door shut on imagination, making sure our own egos don't get involved, and not analyzing the data. If for instance, one of my students has this room as a target and all I want to know at the early stages of training is that I have a room, tell me about the tables and the people. But if you say that is a meeting, or a discussion, you're through for the day. That's analysis. I want the raw data. My client will tell me if this is a meeting or a discussion. They have the other pieces of the puzzle. Remote viewing is not an end all. It just offers pieces of the puzzle.
And as an aside, that's the reason we got involved in the UFO work. We can sometimes provide the final pieces to the puzzle that will allow pattern recognition. But in the UFO arena, we were providing the very first pieces, and that has gone very far. (Next slide)
There it is. That's what's so frustrating, and that's why we like the military types, because you can beat them into submission. (laughter from audience). You really can, and they're used to being beaten, they're used to being ordered around, and there's no time to argue, there's no time to say, well why should I do this? That's the kind of person that we want. They're going to be getting a very profound tool, but it's very much an autonomic response. And so suppressing analysis of the unconsciously acquired data. That's difficult too. You really want to analyze. Many of our clients are providing us with targets that we know nothing about. We are not trained technologists, or engineers or physicists. We're trained observers. If we look at a brand new technology, we have no background, whereas we call one's thesaurus, we borrowed that from the Russians, the net sum of empirical data, memories that a person has. We might not have the background to do that, or to explain or to express what we are getting. So the viewer has to shift to simile, metaphor or analog to describe a particular target. But they are not allowed to analyze. They are not allowed to say, well it's like this. The moment where "like~' comes up, they have lost the target. (Next slide)
You've heard this word once today, and that's how we commence the target, that's how we perceive the target. It's never clear. When we train the students in the second stage of training, students begin to become, the targets, the sites that they are provided with, become vividly clear and that's the moment we break them away. We rip them off the site. We don't want them to get that close so they are experiencing the target. We do not want them to become aesthetically involved in the site.
Because if they are, they won't be of any use to me. I want them to stand off, and through a lens darkly, give me all the data that we need to do to complete the mission. The patterns that we get, the gestalts, we have a structure, a remote viewing structure, a pattern, a template that we overlay this gestalt, a way in which we break the gestalt out into its patterns. And then we take the data bits and we reconstruct the event. And the left brain sense, remote viewing is generally right brain, when you try to analyze with your left brain you've lost the target. And we put the event back together in the left brain sense, so it's usable to the client. That the client has information in terms of a concatenation of subject, verb object, and left brain sense that there's a written summary, there are sketches and detailed models if necessary. That's what the client wants. He doesn't care about the way we operate.
Targets are viewed as a continuum. If Dr. Laibow were my target, when we perceive Dr. Laibow in remote viewing we perceive her like this: where do you want it, from birth to death, some slice in between? The target is viewed as a continuum. We are outside the time when we remote view. The same way with a site.
Unconscious will. It's an amazingly powerful thing, we've found. After it's trained, it takes off by itself. It figures out the problems if our cues, the way we define a problem, are wrong, or we mess up or we do something sloppy, the unconscious gets it right anyway. Because it knows what our intent is, and it figures it out. Pretty. Sharp. It's a humbling experience to see that happen. (Next slide)
We approach the target with a very unique set of protocols. Through sensory impressions, though an ideogram, through a template with which we explore the target in a certain way. We constantly objectify the data in a set pace. It is probably a pace that's a function of the Schuman resonant frequency and brain waves, but nevertheless, as an applied RVer, we're moving pretty quickly across a page, filling a page up with data. Intangible ideas associated with a target. Tangible things about the target, in a room or otherwise. Targeting motions, activities, energies, all the sensory impressions are ordered, structured. And we place them down.
By doing this we can get closer contact with the target. We can use tactile kinds of things. Models, we can use clay or whatever we can do to get closer to the target. It looks like a math student at work if you weren't close enough, because they are really concentrating, and you don't want to break that concentration. They are in a specific state, a right brain state, they turn their attention to the problem at hand and they are concentrating. So it's a state of high attention.
I mentioned that the viewer must maintain a distance. Viewers work independently. They don't collaborate. Most of, some of my employees are out of my State, they are faxed a number, and they go to work. And they begin faxing me back data about ten hours later. A remote viewing session is approximately 45 minutes in duration. It can be longer if we use alternative techniques. We used to explore out of body work, but out of body is generally spontaneous and if we do induce it, the students or the remote viewers become so awed by the experience that they will come back and say, you should have seen, it was great! And I'll say, excuse me, did you get the parts that we need for this flux gate, could you describe how the plasma flows from here to there? We've got to go back to get that.
Or, if the out of body was done correctly, and the orientation has been taught, the person knew where their feet was, they knew that the room next door was not the building down the street, and they brought all the tools that we teach, spatial orientation, tools that we teach in remote viewing with them, then we can come back and do a summary. So, most of the time we do traditional Ingo Swann techiques.
We can't work through inclemencies. Physical inclemencies. If someone has to go to the bathroom, if they are hungry, anything that shuts down the autonomic nervous system, that would interfere with one's regular work at another office. Don't work that day, or take a break until you get over the inclemency, because you're not any good to me or to the company. (Next slide please)
0K, here's our limitations. We don't have time to get around these, to do the research yet. Probably around 1995 or 1996 we'll be able to work on these, but right now we'd have to call them limitations. Spoken words and numbers. If we are in this room and someone is listening to me speak, a remote viewer, only the ideas, every idea that I have, is attached to the words, can be grabbed and can be elaborated. Every single idea. We're looking at a blueprint for a biological weapon that Saddam Hussein has, we can't read theArabic, but we can extract all of the ideas, the dimensions, what kind of metal we're talking about, the smells, the taste, the bond angles at the molecular level, determining whether the agent is anthrax or a nerve gas. We can do all those things, but we can't read writing or letters. Why? That's analysis, and speculative analysis. I'm not a theoretician.
That's analysis, and whenever we start to analyze, we're in a left brain operating mode, and we've lost the target. Specific geographic locations. Anywhere, we know no limits. We've worked on targets all over the solar system and beyond. So long as someone gives us a coordinate, whether it's a *** coordinate to a galaxy or a geographical coordinate on this planet or on Mars or the Moon. We go right there and we immediately begin to describe the site. But if you asked us where we are, we can't do the reverse. We can't tell you what lottery number is going to pop up tomorrow. We can do the future. We can tell you what the person looks like who is going to buy the lottery ticket, where they're going to buy it, where they live, what kind of car they drive, but we can't do numbers or letters or spoken words. That seems to be analysis. (Next slide please)
There are only three more limitations. Orientation in time is difficult. We are not sure where we are at. If a paleobotanist gives me a piece of a flower fossil, and tells me to reconstruct that flower, we can do that. And we can reconstruct an animal or a person or a site for paleontologists. If we're asked where that is in time we have no idea. It could easily be the future or another planet as far as we're concerned. The references to the target are important, and we can follow associations forever, what did the animal eat, well it ate this, what kind of plant was that? What was its respiration rate? We can do all those kinds of things, but don't ask us where we are in time.
Remote viewing is outside of time. The unconsciousseems to be there. And in fact, in the absence of a theory, I like to think, personal opinion, not a working hypothesis, that the area from which we gather data, we like to call it the matrix, is outside of time or space, a single dimension. And we search it like an automated data base search. We go in with key words, well we train ourselves to do this. I'm sure that the unconscious can be trained to do any number ofthings. But this is how we use it for our business.
It's an automated data base search, very similar, where you go in with a key word that is immediately referenceable. If it's a general term you get general information but, although the unconscious can usually help you out with that and provide specific details. Any problem that requires analysis is outside the performance limit. We can't do that. We have back door approaches, sometimes. If you're trying to ask me, is this U-235 or U-238, I've got to know. I don't know how many orbitals, I can't count 235 versus 238 electron orbitals in this particular pellet. But I can ask you the question, is there a specific type of ore body from which the majority of 238 comes from?
And if you tell me, well, yes, in the Rocky mountains we have this particular ore and it's usually the one that we use to make U-238. And I'll say, we'll be back. So what we do is we take that pellet as a reference point. We backtrack all through the production process. And we look, because the production process is not going to tell us, the customer's desires, we go back to the mining site where the ore body is produced. We sketch the mine, we sketch the area, we come back to the client and say, where is this? Oh, well that's the Rockies. It's U-238. So there are backdoor approaches, as there are in any other business, to our work too.
I mentioned that our viewer's personal thesaurus is the net sum of experiences. If the experience isn't in there, you can't preconsciously process it. But you still know how to express it. We train that in remote viewing. You must use simile or metaphor, but you push that off in a certain spot and you label it as such. This is not site data, this is simile or metaphor. (Next slide please)
These are recently completed contracts that we've done for people, to show you the kinds of work that we do. Our friends from CIS will recognize the first one. The Tunguska Event, probably many, any of the Forteans in the audience will recognize that too. The Soviet Phobos II imaged anomaly, of all things, that was done as a contract for TREAT. They took the results to the Soviet Union. That was spacecraft that was decommissioned, that was put out of commission in orbit around Mars in 1989. And we were commissioned to detail, and I mean detail, what happened to that spacecraft. It was an enigmatic object in that just before it went out of commission it photographed a very mysterious looking object. And that appeared on several of the last photographic frames.
Projected Technologies. We went out about 80 years and looked at advanced deep space propulsion systems for a laboratory, an aerospace laboratory. We showed them the kinds of prototype technologies that we will have to go through, we described the key individuals who will be in the laboratories that would produce those prototypes, the types of present existing national and global tech bases. That's the present technologies that would be spun off to produce these kinds of things. We're not looking at anything that's a quantum leap of technology, an idea that we don't have now. Although, I've come across some of those.
You might have seen the newspaper articles or heard about the next one. It made the Manchester Guardian and the world wide press. The United Nations asked for our help. The head of the chemical, biological inspection team in Iraq found out about some work that we did looking for weapons of mass destruction in Kuwait City. And they had told us that the CIA, the KCB, British Intelligence and all the intelligence agencies had bottomed out. And they came to us as a tactic of desperation. I don't like my company to be thought of as that, but nevertheless, they came to us. And we helped them out to locate Saddam Hussein's biological warfare stockpiles. His hidden stockpiles. And we did that for them.
Accuracy in Media, a United States organization. We looked at the KAL 007 shootdown. There were some inconsistencies that they wanted checked out. Atmospheric Ozone Depletion. I'm sure that you can relate to this, my Russian colleagues. Projected consequences and remedial technologies. I can't talk about this. The client owns that information, but it's getting to the right people, in responsible decision making positions. Whether or not they do anything with the information. Actually, I can say this. There's nothing that can be done. That is one thing we learned. It's a very grim picture. Doesn't look like there are any remedies. That's as much as I can say about the contract. (Next slide please)
These are the things that we're doing at the moment. My colleagues and I are doing this, and we've agreed for German Public Radio to find Mozart's burial site. Evidently, no one knows where Mozart's buried, and it happens to be very important to some people. So we've agreed for German public radio to find Mozart's burial site.
Now, think for a moment. The familiarization course that we put our remote viewers through enable them to remote view. So, if one of my students ** the familiarization course, they could remote view, they would know how to acquire the target and produce data on Mozart's burial site. But it takes another twelve months of training, rigorous training, to enable a remote viewer to produce the exact distances and vectors and depths to enable us to find somebody's bones out in a field. Particularly if the bones have been blown up by World War II bombers or God knows what. And there's a lot of discipline involved. It's the difference between sport parachuting and halo (**) jumping in the military, military jumping. Or flying a combat mission or flying for sport. There's a world of difference. They're both flying, but one is a pinpoint mission.
Alien Technical Operations Site Study. That's our own in-house project that we have funding for, but we refuse to sell any of the results to the client. We've worked at that for ten years, and we treasure the information and the knowledge that we're getting from that. We have scientists working with us that are Nobel Laureates on site, at a UFO site that we found. It took us a long time to find it, and we're not about to allow someone to own that information. It shouldn't belong to anyone. And there will be a public announcement vis-a-vis that site in about a year.
In preparation, Alien Technology Transfer, an aerospace company has asked us to do some anti-gravity work. Some ofthe vehicles that are transiting the site that we have are very nice technologies. The people that build the B-2 bombers would like to have. We transfer the technology. We do the remote viewing on the insides and the outsides of hard vehicles. Some of them are not hard. We'll go into that later. And we attempt to establish the principles of operation. If it's too unfathomable for us, or it's too advanced and we can't get a handle on technologies, we follow the spacecraft back to it's point of origin, we're locked on to the people. And we go back in time, sometimes very far, to the point where the discoveries were made, the basic discoveries. To a point where we, as remote viewers, and as engineers, can understand the principles when they were discovered. And then we work the history of the craft back up, and put it together that way, over time. Needless to say, it takes a while.
A Remote Viewing Survey of Martian Surface Anomalies. Yes, there are anomalies on Mars. Non-fractal, is the buzzword that the technical community uses these days. They're real, there are cities, and we are attempting to do a systematic survey. Our preference, although it's up to the client, Cydonia Crater, both above ground and below ground. That contract could be extended to looking at the Martians themselves, the race, where they went, what's going on there. There are some things going on on the planet now. (Next slide)
This will add some legitimacy. This was a newspaper article, this was headlines that our firm made on behalf of the UN. I think that there are some people at the UN that are embarrassed that they had to do that. We did not publicize this. We're very discreet about client relationships. This got out to the press. In fact, PSI TECH was very quiet for the first two years of its existence. It was only after this press debacle that we became known to the public. And that's probably why I am standing here, which is a good thing. (Next slide please)
We have detailed summaries that go to clients, but this is an example of my vice president. My vice president is a Ranger Commander, a soldier's soldier. A very disciplined individual. This was one of his many sketches about where some of the stockpiles, this is chemical not biological weapons, were, beneath this training camp. And we provided the (***U.:I.} the points of hidden access to the training facility. We gave them sketches of clandestine biological warfare terrorist devices. Midair spray canisters that weregoing to be provided to terrorist organizations to be taken aboard aircraft, to be placed in airline terminals and turned on with a timer to spread nerve agent and anthrax out into the terminals. So, we're attempting to help federal agencies maintain a watch on that type of technology.
And my last vue-graph. If any of you are familiar with the UFO phenomena in the technical sense, you might remember Project Twinkle, way back in 1949, 1950? There was a greenfireball seen in many parts of the world, particularly in New Mexico. ** twinkle, a green flash, a green fireball, actually. But things are not as they seem. That's an artifact of the way in which that vehicle moves through different phases, through different relativistic speeds. And Twinkle turns out to be that vehicle "twinkling around' whatever it is interested in. But that was an artifact of its motion, and an artifact of the way in which it traveled.
That's the type of technology we're supposed to be remote viewing to feed back to aerospace firms. It is not easy. It is really not easy. I'd rather go for Abu Nidal, myself. I think I've got way too much to Cover on the UFONET arena, and I really don't want to take up any moretime. Maybe we could, could we put that on hold? (Exclamations from audience, end of tape of this session.)
Transcribed by [confidential]. Unintelligible words are indicated by asterisks. Paragraph construction is entirely arbitrary. Sentence construction and punctuation is often arbitrary. The speaker's remarks to the Vue-Graph operatorare usually summarized as: (next slide please).
Remote Viewing Data on UFOs
I would like to point out one thing. My company is a group of technicians. We take raw data. We are not theoreticians, we don't develop theoretical models, we're not smart enough to do that. We are reconnaissance guys, technical observers, we gather raw data based on a client's needs, generally of a technological and scientific nature. We provide that to the point of contact in science and industry, and we let the smart guys piece that together, articulate the guestion to us. If we have not answered the mail or solved their problem using an interim report, they provide us with enough detail for us to refine our targeting. To get down to the detail that they need.
Let me be more specific and let me use instead of Saddam Hussein's weapons, let me use a spacecraft, a nuts and bolts spacecraft.
If the client is now a space firm, let's hypothesize, that needs to develop an anti-gravity device, and based upon the hypothesis that some of the vehicles that we are photographing or have been photographed and are now remote viewing, takes advantage of something that they may be able to fathom, then we provide them with the detail they need to try to reconstruct first the principles of operation, and then the actual device itself. So, that would be, what kind of symmetry does the device have when it's stopped. We're dealing with some hard vehicles that move at relativistic speeds. For a number of years we had a very difficult time remote viewing them. You can imagine what it is like to be used to seeing things the way we see it in this time reference, and have a remote viewer view something that's moving at relativistic speeds.
In fact, not being very smart guys, and not giving this information, providing it to anyone outside the group, we developed a sort of myopia. We did not, and we began to analyze our own material. So we said, well, if they can fly through rock, they must be of another dimension. This is a buckaroo bonzai type of a dynamic. It turns out that that was wrong, because good theoretical physicists that we worked with in both the United States and Europe told us, based upon this type of flight, this type of dynamic, does not fit the Special Relativity Theory. These kinds of principles are perfectly normal in General Relativity. And this is how one would perceive something flying into a cavern. In some cases we have caverns underground, some on Mars, some on Earth.
Not big complexes, sort of parking spaces. And those are hollowed out areas with a platform. That is a place where something hard and physical lands. I'll discuss the abduction type of things in a moment. There we're dealing with very little that's physical and hard.
So we've got to turn, it's got to be a team effort. We're not an end-all. We can only provide the raw technical data. The scientific community has to put the pieces of the puzzle together to determine what we are dealing with. And that's our niche in the grand scheme of things.
The only information I have, and it is a lot of information, albeit, is the information that has been derived from specific targeting and/or recent client requests of specific vehicles. Work on the abduction side of the house is a different problem.
The hard vehicles are generally associated, I don't want to be too general, but the targets that we have looked at are transport vehicles. They are transporting material. I don't want to specify what at this time, because we don't want to interfere with certain activities. But they are transporting a type of resource, usually from Mars to Earth. Sometimes through time. I'll go into that, but not in great detail. They are very physical.
The abduction side of the house, we spent a long time looking at that, and we are dealing with things that I don't think we're going to fathom using the technologies that we have. We have a lot of hard data, but we don't have a lot of understanding.
Now, I could ramble on here and go through the whole chronology of this, how we, when we first found the tool, when we first developed this profound tool. We applied it toward everything that we could look at, willy nilly, one target to the next. An abduction here, a sighting here, a photograph, a *** photograph of a moving object here. But it was because of that lack of a systematic attack on the problem, we were not able to breach the lines and get an idea of what the agenda was. And we only now have some inklings into the agenda, but those were personal opinion. That's not the data that we give to a client. The client isn't interested in personal opinion. They're interested in the data that makes them money.
Can I build a machine with this data? Or can I answer a question if I'm a foundation or institute? Because we work for non-commercial entities, too. So, I'll tell you how naive we were, as former military intelligence and special operations officers, we felt that with this tool that was this very powerful, we could find the Southwest Base. After all, there's a Southwest Base, everybody says so, right? We're going to look for the Southwest Base. Easy target. And we were going to go in with guns blazing, shoot these little green guys, ask questions later, and move on!
No. Didn't turn out that way. We got educated along the way. We were not dealing with little green men. It's embarrassing to say that we ever thought that way, but we did. That's the military mentality. We got quite an education. So I'll allow you to ask me the questions, rather than trying to roll through a chronology that would take two days. Shoot.
Yes Virginia, there is no Santa Claus (laughter)
(Question from audience)
In the case of hard, we've had to go back and systematically attack the problem. Remote viewers have had to learn how to distinguish man made objects that almost always deal with combustion technology. Sometimes very esoteric, moving like a bat out of hell. But they fly backto a hangar. And they belong to us. We don't look at those because we're not supposed to. Bolides and meteors. We haveto learn how to distinguish between ball lightning and a meteor. A remote viewer has to understand within five minutes that he's dealing with something natural, and if that's not part of the target. If for instance, we're given the picture, we have to be able to derive the data within a few minutes, so we don't waste our time on that.
And then we've begun to classify what has been heretofore described or alleged to be alien in nature. The UFO problem. You have to split it up into its component parts. We have solid vehicles, different types. We haven't looked at all of them because we can't do that. Remote viewing is hard work. You look at one thing at a time. You don't get interested in the surroundings. Think of a pilot on a bombing mission. Intensely thinking about that target. No time for scenery. Indeed, it is difficult to perceive bogies coming over your shoulder. Somebody else has to tell you about that. Your full concentration is on getting the job done. Well, that's the way remote viewing is, a good analogy.
We've looked at hard vehicles. we've looked at where they come from, where they're going to. The abductions area totally separate issue. When we look at an abductee, something else is happening.
(Question from audience)
There are six employees in the company, I am one. The other five? There are two people, my vice-president is still a special operations officer in the Army. I'll give you two names, I won't give you the other three. There's a reason for that. Saddam Hussein has accused us of making him sick during Desert Storm. He accused my company of doing that. If for some reason he would find it in his heart to do us in, we'd like him to know that there's others where we came from. And we'll find at least his assassins. Major David Morehouse, Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Mel Reilly, Scandinavia, Wisconsin. That's all you're going to get. You don't mind if I protect my employees' privacy, do you?
(Question from audience)
We haven't studied groups. We look at targets, and then we associate what is at the site or the place with that target. If we look at the particular (interrupted by speaker) Yes. On hard vehicles, transport type of vehicles that we've followed to places, when the vehicle stops, it doesn't need an access way into an underground chamber, a hollowed out chamber. It just kind of appears there. Actually, it flies through. It doesn't appear to be beaming down or anything. It moves through the earth at relativistic speeds, it stops and parks, cools down for a moment, underground. In places on Mars and on Earth.
There are some small, what appear to be androids, they're living. But they don't have the same consciousness that we do. They're smart, and they move around to service the vehicle, unload certain things. Occasionally we see humans involved. But the humans are in a catatonic state. Almost an enslaved state. I'll talk more about that in a moment. That's not to say that this seems to be malign, in a general sense.
There are one or two crew members that exit the vehicle. These individuals are very interesting to me. It reminds me of being a soldier in an underdeveloped country. The attitude that one has, generally, is one of smugness, looking down one's nose at the indigenes. Because, if you guys were so good, I wouldn't be here. Yes, I'm here on a peace mission, but I'm still better than you. I'm packed with weapons, and you've got nothing, and I've conquered your country, but I'm here on a peaceful mission.
It's that same type of attitude that we detect from these pilots. And they're about five feet high, perhaps this high, have sharp features, narrower face, sharp ears, sharp nose. We have pretty good sketches of them. They're hairless. And they're downright cocky. They have a superior attitude vis-a-vis humans. And we've looked at their relationship and association with humans, in an intangible sense. That's how we explore the target. Association of ideas. Let's ask some more questions about the hard guys and the hard nuts and bolts stuff boefore we talk about the abductions.
The question was, do these people have empathy, do they experience love? We looked at a couple of different humanoids. They seemed to be different races, but that'ss peculation. Who knows what genetic engineering can do? When we follow a vehicle back to it's home world, and usually we have to go through a set of relay stations, boxlike large structures on airless worlds, that seem to act as reference points or transformers, really relay stations is a good term. If we don't have the technical term to express it, and of course we don't, we're dealing with an advanced technology, we must rely on analog, simile, metaphor, allegory in some cases, but the remote viewer labels it as such. And that is telling us, I don't have the word to express this correctly, the closest concept that I have at the preconscious level, preconscious processing, because there's no analysis, is relay station, move on to the next topic.
Yes, in fact, in the early 1980s we looked at some domestic scenes, if one might call it that, and just to get an idea of ergonomics, I mean, what's a cup like? Yeah, they're a little bit different form than we are, they're, how do they drink, and what do their utensils look like? What do their chairs look like? And how do they make love? Those were interesting things. And by the way, when a remote viewer works a target, once again, the target is only given a reference number. The remote viewer has no idea of what the target is. He works in the blind.
So, when you have a remote viewer reporting a room that is unlike any room that he has ever seen, we don't care about his comments, we want to know what's in the room. Then you get some surprised remote viewers later, when they review their work. Because they're moving too fast to look at the scenery when they're working themselves.
Yes, they have, the best way to describe their culture is an act of love that we saw, of love making, what we interpreted to be love making, made me feel more like an animal than I already feel. It was that beautiful. It was that esthetic. In fact, it was a moving experience, and I can extrapolate from something like that or guess that their culture is probably refined. I may be speculating, but I have a gut feeling that one could say that they probably are a fairly peaceful people.
I don't know if they have a sense of beauty. I never explored that in their minds. We can enter a person's mind, we can get into a dream state, we can extract the ideas, and we've done that in several cases. We have not done it for aliens, for humanoid aliens.
(Question from audience)
We don't know where we are in space. We have a German contract now, a possible contract, where we were given a galactic coordinate, using New General Catalog coordinates, second star from the right. Actually we're only given the Solar System. I think, what the client wants is to know whether there are planets around a particular star. I'm guessing, because he hasn't told me. Its a German client. Unless we're given a pinpoint, we can go there immediately. We acquire a target immediately. We're taught to do that. But when we follow something back, we have as difficult a time finding out where we are in space as we do locating a terrorist in a city. We can sketch a room, the city, the guards, the state of mind of the guards, the state of mind of the terrorist. Those kinds of things. But we're not sure exactly what city we're in. Hopefully, the client will know. And so we provide the finished pieces of the puzzle.
(Question from audience)
The first question is, do the beings recognize that they are being remote viewed? The humanoids do not. They are just like you and I, a person. You can't tell that you are being remote viewed. We go through, even if you are entering a person's mind, we go through the back door, through the unconscious. And we download ideas through the back door, so to speak. And only in two cases in ten years have we ever become aware that someone, that a human was aware that we were remote viewing them. Aliens, humanoid aliens, do not know.
The, what we have termed "transcendentals," which are the formless beings associated with the abductions, and there is a type of technology that they have, we call it transcendental technology, they know. They more than know. They seem to be able to edit and effect, and this we were not comfortable with this, we did not like it. We were cocksure of ourselves, and never suspected that something would be able to interfere with this powerful tool. But this can. When we look at abductions and we look at the system that's behind the abductions, they are very much aware of what we know, what we're doing, and what we're going to do. So that's the answer to that question.
(Question from audience)
They can edit data, and they can interfere to the point where if we look at certain things. For instance, there seems to be a group of human beings, just people like you and I. Only two hundred or three hundred of them on the globe. They're somehow in consort with this system. They're somehow in contact. And there's a physical vehicle in a deep space orbit that is associated with this idea. We haven't looked at that intensively.
(Question from audience)
There seem to be several levels of transcendentals. The human beings that I am talking about, the human people, and they are strictly human, are associated with the transcendentals. One of the points of association is a large spacecraft in deep orbit. Very far in deep space. I don't want to talk about that at this juncture, but these humans are interesting. When we try to track them down, in fact, I had a colleague once, we knew the humans carry around with them devices, small, technical devices. And I had someone from the military-industrial complex say, let's go in there and knock them out and get that device. And I think that may be the reason why when we try to pinpoint these individuals, we can't. We go zinngg! off the target somewhere else. And that was a long time ago, we're smarter and more mature now, and we don't do things like that anymore because we know it's dumb.
(Question from audience)
(Question about validity of John Lear undergroundbases, and about the "hollow earth" ideas)
I don't know anything about underground areas of the earth, in those terms. We do know that there are something like fallout shelters. Its like an insurance policy. They are something that would appear to be a fallout shelter type of an environment, where resources are stockpiled and there are some, what appear to be alien forms, humanoid forms, in a way, I'll elaborate upon this in a moment. There's a Martian connection, we haven't, and I don't want to talk anymore about it because it is speculative at the moment, we need to do a lot more work. Seems to be a type of a preserved being. We don't know if they're humans, or whatever. They're in a preserved state, and in underground chambers. The same places where these cargo ships land, and I use "land" of course, loosely. And that we have information on. The other thing about the hollow earth idea, you got me.
(Question from audience) (sense of question is, do you know if these are indigenous Martians, or are they only using that planet?)
Correct. We don't know yet. We can look at the forms, but we haven't gone back in time as we do with the vehicles. If the principles of operation aren't understood for a vehicle, we have to go back to a home planet or place in some cases. We don't move in time, we just shift our vision. Remember, it doesn't seem to be any movement at all. Like a database search. Go back in time and until the discovery was made on that planet, download those principles and those minerals, those materials, get that data, provide that to the theoretical physicists so that they can reconstruct the theoretical principles first, and then move forward to reverse engineer the technology, as best they can, if they can.
(Question from audience) Ability to distinguish aliens from humans
The transcendentals, although they are formless, they seem to be able to manifest themselves in every way, shape or form. Anything. I mean, this microphone, a person, dog, you name it. We've seen everything. There are several agenda here. One agenda is purely operational, which we can relate to as being former military. One agenda is very altruistic in terms of mankind, although it would seem not to be if you look at this slice in time only. And a few other sort of agendas.
The transcendentals, one of the agenda appears to be, based on our data now, not speculation, teasing us. Teasing with a purpose. Toying with us, playing with us. The scientific group that I work with know that we're being patronized, to some degree. We're being, they're facilitating us. They're feeding us what we want. We think we know why that is, and there's a contact site that we have as a result of remote viewing. We've finally answered the mail and got the ground truth the scientists wanted. But we have still got to determine what is going to happen at the site.
Whatever it is that we're dealing with, and it seems to be both the transcendentals and these other federation types, or whatever you want to call them. At some levels they interact. They call the shots at the site. We don't know what they're going to do. Our agenda is, guys, we're not smart enough to figure out all of this stuff. If you want to help, we found you, or you let us find you. If you want to help we're certainly asking for help. If you don't, personally, I'm going away, I don't have time for this, I've work to do. Its great entertainment. I mean, microwave, ultrasonic beams through your head. Lights, I'll read you a summary of one of my remote viewers, one of the technical summaries of things that happened at the site, later on. That's all fine and dandy, but I can't do anything with it. I have places to go and things to do as a businessman.
(Question from the audience) (What effect would a holographic projection have on remote viewing? Would you recognize it as such?)
No. We wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the other. Unless we happen to catch it. If we explored a place. If we didn't go deep enough, to us it would be like rolling across a valley and looking at a particular scene, remote viewing wise. If it were a true holographic projection, and we remote viewed that event, we would definitely distinguish it as not material. And we would be able to say that there is a projector. We would always be able to do that. I need to talk about the transcendentals here in a moment.
(Question from the audience) (Doesn't this activity seem to be increasing, and with remote viewing, can you find a point towards which the aliens are working?)
Is the activity increasing, and can we detect whether or not there will be a certain point where we have contact in the future?
(When they feel that they have achieved...)
When they feel that they have achieved. We don't know what they are trying to achieve. We only have inklings about their agenda. Its our hope, at least my hope, that we can learn more, at first it was scientific data, but just more knowledge. Knowledge for knowledge's sake. Even that gets boring after a while. That was our agenda at looking for contact. We don't know what their agenda is. We only know what their activities are.
(Question from audience)
No. What I said was, we had to learn how to distinguish human made UFOs from truly alien UFOs. All of the human made UFOs at this point in time, and there are some very exotic ones, seem to have associated with them in almost all cases, combustion types of processes. Number one. Number two is, except in a couple of instances, they always come back to Earth. They always land. And they always move into a hangar. At that point we say, whoops! Don't want to look at that. That's not aliens. So we move on to other targets.
(Question from audience) (The site that you were referring to, who will be the representatives of Earth at that contact, and when will it take place?)
The where is in the American Southwest, there's probably other places, I don't know, that's the one we found. You exploit your data. It's our feeling that the scientific community must validate this phenomenon. It's not going to take an Ed Dames, you know, or any of us. We're just not going to do it, folks. It's got to be scientists. They're the guys we've chosen as architects of the future. They're the ones that have to validate the phenomenon first. First they have to say it exists, in order to get things moving. And those are the paths we've chosen.
I think that one of the agenda that we've noticed is that kind of idea being accommodated. Every time a scientist brings a new instrument, and some of them are pretty exotic, to the specific site for measurements of ongoing technical activity, that's an objective, real thing. Then, we think we're going to get bells and whistles, no matter what the instrument is. And we have some basis for saying this, from work that we've done in the past in other areas. To the point where I'm speculating. Where a threshold number of scientists, very prominent scientists and engineers, will have collected the data that they need for them as intelligent men to say, by God, these kinds of observations and measurements are definitely correlated with what have heretofore been recognized as UFO activity. We can validate the phenomenon. Now let's move on to other agenda.
Sadly enough, though, you'll find that scientists, many of them, don't want to move on to other agenda. They just want to keep making measurements and recordings. Then it's time, once we validate it, to move into the area of thegeneral public.
(Question from audience) (Is the suggestion, then, that what these individuals are doing in performing their measurements is establishing a kind of a preliminary frame of reference which they in a sense will have, to make sense out of future manifestations of future agenda?)
I think they know what they're doing. The question is, I think everybody heard it. They know what they're doing. They are a heck of a lot smarter than us. We know they have access to every level of our mind. If they can do brainwave entrainment, make Manchurian Candidates out of people, they know what's going on. We're not kidding each other. Come on guys, ante up or should we go away, or what, what do you want us to do? That's my feeling about it. I'm not sure we're in as much control of that contact site as we think. We're really the ones under observation there, I feel. Not the UFOs.
(Question from audience) (About the 200-300 humans working with the aliens)
There is some type of a working relationship between the two to three hundred humans, that's a ball park figure by the way, remember, we can't do numbers. We'd have to look at one at a time. But there's an agreement, a working relationship, perhaps more, between the humans and an agenda, a federation type of agenda. I think it's curious that Carl Sagan has said that, gee, there's a lot of religious association with these things, maybe jokingly, I think it was tongue in cheek, he put forth the hypothesis that maybe other races have missionaries. And I thought it would be funny if people were plucked from this planet, trained as missionaries and gone back for covert operations. A lot of this stuff is covert. It's covert, clandestine in its nature. They're not coming out and giving us what we want on a platter. We've got to work for it, and I'm afraid if they did give it to us on a platter, we would get down on our knees to the Beings of Light and bow. Or, we would say, well, can you solve this problem, too? And this one and this one? So that's speculation and personal opinion. I have to associate.
(Question from audience) (What evidence do you have about their mission and their purpose?)
I don't want to speculate on their purpose. I would rather let other people do that. My mission is to provide people with data. You guys work out the, you get what you need, as scientists and engineers. You get the information that you need, and as sociologists, take those things and you work out the models.
(Question from audience)
The people that I work with are some of the smartest people in the world. And they've got some good models. And yes, when they get it together there will be a special body set up and the details will be released. That is one of the reasons, by the way, my company does not sell this particular project. This in-house project to anyone. Because if we do that, the client owns the information. We did a contract for TREAT, for Dr. Laibow, about a year ago. On the demise of the Soviet Phobos II spacecraft. That was a Martian probe that was decommissioned somehow, or went awry in orbit early in its orbit around Mars. I'd really like to talk about that, but I can't. Dr. Laibow owns that information. She was our client. I'm a businessman, don't forget. Not an institute, a foundation or a center.
(Question from the audience) (Are the aliens adversarial?) I don't know if they can defend each other. I have no information on that. We have seen curious things. Sometimes, when an operational vehicle, for instance, there's one class of vehicle that seems to be on patrol constantly. They do what has been termed Bean counting. When you count each other's countries' nuclear warheads or ***fIIRVs, that's called bean counting up at strategic levels. And you have patrol vehicles hovering over submarines, hovering over storage sites, nuclear storage sites. Always keeping tally on how many weapons are there and doing certain other things. And that's a physical vehicle that'sh ard to capture on film. It's only on one frame, and it's gone. When you remote view it seems to be longer. But again, we face the differences in framework problem. Sometimes those vehicles are shadowed by those mirror-like vehicles associated with the, what we call transcendentals. And there seems to be a feeling of, oh, traffic cop, or something like that, over our shoulder. It's a chase plane type of a thing that's very different, very differenti ndeed. There's nobody in it, and yet it's a tangible bubble of something moving through the atmosphere behind this physical vehicle. And we pick up feelings of a little bit of annoyance, having to look over one's shoulder as if "Boy, we could take some shortcuts here if we wanted to, but there's this traffic cop behind us and we can't." That's the only thing I can say about their relationship at that level. Otherwise, there seems to be an interconnection at other levels, but we haven't articulated it by any means.
(Question from audience) (have you looked at crop circles?)
We've done a cursory look at crop circles. All that we have to date, and it's just a cursory look, we think, we think, based on earlier data, and we can't state that there's an association, we haven't done the work yet, is, we have seen creating, rolling down in the night time, one or two spheres about that big, a bluish whitish tinge. We haven't watched them, I was talking with George Wingfield about this last night, and he asked if we had seen them do any of the circular movements, and we haven't. We've seen them roll down a line of wheat, what appears to be fairly slowly, although we haven't computed the frames of reference yet. And the wheat just bends. One of the things that we would like to do is look down at the molecular electromagnetic level to see what's going on when the wheat bends. That's the kind of things that we do best. We followed these spheres back up and out, to an airless world. It's another place. I don't know if it's a moon, an asteroid. I just don't know. And they settled down or nestled down in a type of nest. It's a metallic type of a dish. I don't know what it is. We haven't looked at it. And there seems to be 30 or 40 of these spheres, all bouncing around on this dish. And that's the only work we've done. (Question from audience) (Is this contact site you referred to a place you access physically, or through remote viewing?)
We found it via remote viewing, and we were helped in that it seems, almost as if we were allowed to see it. We went there, took a lot of work to find the place on the ground. We went there and a lot of fireworks began to happen. So we knew we had an active site. And we've been back on subsequent trips to make a number of measurements, and we're continuing that now.
(Question from audience)
No, no, we go back physically. Remember, we're not going to go any further. We're just not going to get any further on this problem unless scientists validate it. Let's not kid ourselves. So we take the scientists back, with a lot of equipment, we set up the equipment, physically at the site. All this junk. I sit back with a six pack of beer and say, "Here they are!" And actually, I am forced to man some of the equipment. And then they get the measurements that they need, and I say, "Guys ready?" And then we go home. So, that's what they need. When that's finished. We don't know what's going to happen, at the site. My biggest fear, has anyone seen Howard the Duck? My biggest fear is I'm going to be sitting there like Howard the Duck, and it's going to be a totally different agenda. That goes through my mind, and I say no, these guys are serious, and I'm sure they wouldn't mess around like that.
(Question from audience)
No, I said preserved humanoids. I do not know if (interrupted by comment from audience) They're in a type of a goop. In a type of a jelly-like substance. They are fed. Its not like they're in suspended animation. And it's not like their life systems have stopped and they're truly hibernating. They are kept alive. They're conscious. Their state is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. It's revolting. The minerals and the things that they're fed with, it will make you throw up if you are a remote viewer. Because you've got all the sensory impressions of being in this goop. We don't know what they are. There's a Mars connection. We do know that. But we haven't articulated the extent or the nature of the connection yet. Whether they're human, whether they're the Martians, whether they're the aliens that had an accident, I don't know. We just have a lot more work to do.
(Question from audience) Yeah, we have a whole lot of activity on the Moon. We've got activity on Mars, too. No, there's no humans involved in any of this, except by unwittingly. When ***that kind of thing, there's a brain wave entrainment that occurs, there's some programming that goes on, there are some nonsense programs that are installed. And people shake it off and say, "By God, did you see that, there were aliens laying there on the ground! I drove the truck over there." But you can't find any of them, because it's all up here. When you remote view those kinds of things, the truck drivers are running around, people are frozen at the wheel, and there's these spheres all over the place. And the whole area is cordoned off, and all the spheres go away, and there's a panic. Trucks driving around, those kinds of things. And that happens at the individual level, too. But mostly when people are asleep.
(Question from audience) (You mean there aren't...
Yes, there are permanent structures. But they have nothing to do with man. They are facilities of these, this federation, or whatever the heck it is.
(Question from audience) (NASA...)
I have never worked with NASA, except under the table. And, because people don't want to be associated with this kind of thing. They want to use you like a concubine, (laughter) when you have a good thing, right, down the street. But they don't want to publicly acknowledge it. And we respect that. We have to. You've got to respect the conservatism amongst those types of people. Interestingly, it's mostly captains of industry and people who have already made their niche in science that really use our, it's not the middle manager.
Yes, Victoria (Question from audience) (They are treating us like lab rats. What you are talking about is the type of alien that acknowledges the consciousness of humans and can interact on a conscious level. Only two or three hundred humans are in conscious contact. Why is it limited?)
I do have some ideas about the association, about those kinds of operations. Think of the United Nations or of a government, where you have a political body that makes the decisions and the instructions. And you have a military action arm. The guys that are flying around, moving whatever is in the goop, whoever those people are to Earth and to other places, some through time, by the way, whoeverthey are, seem or appear to be the action arm of something else. We may be dealing with different levels of evolution,and we're all working together. I don't know. It's a big mess. It's a complex issue. But we do know that generally speaking we're being treated like children. Because we act like children. Not getting smart enough, to do this. One of our agenda out at the contact site is to go there with that in mind. Guys, we see ya! Yeah, we're stupid, we're too stupid to figure it out. But we sure like to learn, and we're here to learn. And, if you want to teach us, feel free. And please do it within the next nine months. Because my contract expires. (laughter)
(Question from audience) (Of those two to three hundred people who you know are working with the aliens or transcendentals, do you regard them as Quislings or ambassadors?)
They look like covert missionaries. Oh, yes. The two to three hundred humans. Do I regard them as ambassadors or Quislings? Traitors? (Audience: yes, to the human race) Hmmnn. Traitors. I don't regard them as traitors. They're gathering information covertly. They look just like agents that I have known. I mean, they're doing the same types of things. They have some funny technical devices. And they are in contact with something in deep space. But other than that, I don't know much about them. They...well, I won't go into that.
(question from audience) Do you know if these people are from Earth originally?)
I don't know if they are from Earth originally. We haven't tracked target in time. We look at targets as a continuum, as I said the other day. We haven't tracked the targetas a continuum, as I said the other day. We haven't tracked them in time. I don't know anything about their origins. Or their destiny.
(Question from audience) (Can you tell us who your client is in this particular problem?)
In this particular case, the client has agreed that we will be free to disseminate a certain amount of the information. We're not free to disseminate the technical information. Only the information in a general manner. So that the public becomes aware. And I act as a cutout forthat. I act as a buffer, I take the flak from certain people. So that the hard scientists can do their jobs. The ostracism that some of them, they'll lose their jobs. You can imagine what a chief of state or someone in a leadership position, what would happen to them publicly in the tabloids, minimally, if they associate. No, things are changing a little bit, but not fast enough that we can openly associate with very dignified and respected scientists and engineers.
(Question from audience) Yes, I'm saying it's very dignified and respected scientists and people, other people.
(Question from audience) (The material that's being transferred, what's its end use?
The end use is a type of artificial food, almost entirely artificial food for these things that are, for a lot of different reasons. It seems to feed the humanoid types. They just extract the minerals from it and they eat it. But, it's also injected into this goop. It seems to be. We just need to do more work. To feed whatever is in that, living humanoid, in these tubes that are hooked up in banks along the wall. I don't know what they are.
(Question from audience) (Could you talk about the Yeah, let's look at a typical abduction. NIine times out of ten, now, there's about one percent that are different, and where things are physically moved, and people go somewhere. A typical abduction, a person goes to sleep, although this can occur when they are driving to work, or they're walking down the street, believe it or not. What we view, we view a person lying in bed. And once again, there's a white sphere, about that big, juxtaposed approximately two feet from the person's head, as they're lying in bed. There's another white sphere about this big, and it's off at an angle from the white sphere on about the same side of the room. There isn't much movement. The small white sphere moves a little bit, like it's on guard duty or something like that. That's just speculation, ofcourse. The white sphere stays there. The person, although they may report that they've gone somewhere and been abducted, the body is right there in bed. We've really spent a lot of time with this. And unless we're missing something, we don't have the software or the hardware, to process the data, for all intents and purposes the person is staying in bed. But their consciousness, when you enter theperson's mind, Zoom! you're somewhere else as a remote viewer. You are somewhere else. And we've had tours of the galaxy and God knows how far by doing that. Going through a person's mind during the abduction experience. We've learned a lot doing that, about certain things. But most of it's beyond us. We can't process the data. The only association, the only details we get, for instance if we were to remote view this meeting, if a company were to do that, we could get a rich amount of data that could go on for ever. Ever. We could pick one person and know everything about them, or anything that they were interested in. We don't do that, because that violates privacy. But that's what we could do. In the case of an abduction experience we get a single intangible idea. Only one idea. "Classroom." That is it. No matter how much we squeeze the problem, look at it any which way, get into the person's mind, feel the globe, try to do anything else, the only concept we extract from that event is the idea of classroom. Strangely enough, so that's what I've got, it's all I have.
(Question from audienee) (You said something yesterdaythat sort of chilled my blood, that the future is set in concrete. Would you comment as to when you think there will be a public release of this information, so that UFO phenomena will obviously be out of the kook stage?)
I stated the other day that the future seems to be locked in as much as the past. Using that as a premise, could we look at when this information would be released, and those kinds of things. First of all, the data that I have, from 1981 through now, indicates that working future targets, it comes about on those targets that we worked, perhaps 80 different things, the details happened precisely.T hat's not to say that everything is locked in. But when you see that happen that often, as an individual, I like you begin to get the feeling that maybe there's no way out of this. And maybe that's OK. And you try to develop a philosophy around that. I don't know if it's true or not. All we have is data, and we can continue to collect data. But it appears that things that we have looked at in the past have happened precisely, the way it is. When is this all going to come out? We can't do "whens" because we don't know where we are in time. Although, on the ozone contract that we have, that we did, I mentioned that the other day, the ozone problem. That took us out somewhere around 80 to 120 years into the future. We only have a general sense of how far out we are. There is another race present with us. We look differently. We're different. Our body shapes seemto be more durable. The remote viewers have described us as more durable. And you can integrate that into whatever database you have.
(Question from audience) (It had to have happened at some point in time close to where we are now)
Right, but you think of how long it would take to remote view, how long it takes. It's not like being in this room. It's through a lens darkly. In fact, as I mentioned, we train remote viewers to back off. We don't want them drawn esthetically into the target. They don't do their jobs. They need to maintain a distance so they ean pick up as much information in as short a period of time as possible.
(Question from audience) (To what extent have you been aware of military and government involvement with UFOs?)
Military and government involvement? Post, post Project Bluebook? After Project Bluebook? (I have no idea what level the country is involved with that.) It is safe to say that the country, the Department of Defense, has tried as hard as it can to craek this problem in other eras when they had a charter to do so. When the problem was perhaps viewed as a national security threat. And they failed. Do they have inklings and have there been events on military bases? Yeah. But nobody's figured it out. It's one of the reasons I'm in business and not still in the military.
(You have not seen the military working with the...)
The military doesn't work with the aliens. No. The aliens do what they want to. (Question from audienee) (With regard to the future,80 to 100 years, have we gotten rid of AIDS, and would you consider finding an AIDS cure possible?)
When we looked, as part of a eontract, we found ourselves in the future looking at the results of a particular problem, did we find that the AIDS problem was cured, and if it was, can we download the technology, get the results? I don't know about AIDS. There were very peaceful people still primarily concerned with survival. I can't go into the contract data, we don't own it. But the other problematic question is can we download cure to AIDS, and the answer is yes.
(Can the world hire you for that?)
When the world's ready it will hire me. For now they have my phone number.
What can I do? I can't go out and beg the world. I'm viewed, and still most of us are viewed as nuts, anyway, outside. Do you think I talk to my clients this way? Clients who have a job who are concerned with building roads and making airplanes and things like that? It's tough enough to get me to the top levels of management, to try to get contracts. Fifty percent of my contracts are with other nuts. Like us!
I can't go in there and talk about ET things because I'll be booted out, on my ear. So it's going to take some time. We're a new company, three years. That's not a long time they've been operating.
(Question from audience) (Another question on the abductions) How are we doing for time? (various audience replies)
No, we get the same concept every time we view an abduction of that type. We can't squeeze any more information out of the event. The only concept we get is classroom. Now if we go through the abductee, into the abductee's mind during the abduction experience, we're in a rich field, both in terms of astronomy and in terms of data. And there's just too much data to deal with at any given time. There's a lot of religious symbology, a tremendous amount of religious symbology. I wish I didn't have to say that, because it doesn't sound very professional, but it's data. And it's quite a beautiful experience, but we don't get paid to have experiences. We don't have enough time for employees to do that. They've got to get back to down to earth problems.
(Question from audience) (Would you give us a little tour of the galaxy?)
Gee. There's a lot of things out there. (laughter) Remember I told you we looked at, somebody asked about the culture. We looked at, just to get an idea, we looked at the ergonomics. Well, that particular place, we looked at the city, and we sketched the city. It was a very logical constructed city. There were concentrically, concentric circles of transportation routes on the surface, and then went down. It was like a reverse ice cream cone. With concentric circles of transportation routes and radiating spokes that were transportation. The habitats were along each of the spokes, in very orderly fashion, like one would find in Berlin or Munich, except more orderly than that. And people were very peaceful. We didn't look that much at the rest of the city. So a tour of the galaxy is mostly of a teehnical nature. We're really concerned with how people are travelling from one point to another. We haven't spent a lot of effort on their living places. We're looking at the ways in which they travel. That seems to be science's primary objective and agenda. There we have a lot of information on technologies which we are attempting to cope with as a group, not me.
(Question from audience) (There is a hypothesis, albeit a rather sketchy one, that goes something like this. The people who get interested in certain phenomena may do so because of something that may have happened to them at somep oint in time in their life. For instance, people involved in studying UFO abductions. There has been the suggestion that these people might be involved in one way or the other. My question to you is, well to your colleagues, have you found that some of you or any of you are in fact involved? I realize this is a personal question, but I'd kind of like to raise that because as it turns out, there's even some data that some of the debunkers are involved, too. Is this a coincidence, historically, that you are involved with, or is this just your job?)
There's things I can't say, because of my background. I just can't comment on, for other reasons. Because of, coming from a black background. You know, those kinds of. *** There is one man, there is one employee who we know has been an abductee. And we gained a lot of information about abduction experiences from remote viewing that employee. In fact, we sprung a fast one on him and had him remote view his own abduction. That was good. (laughter) It recreated all the panic and the claustrophobic effects he felt when, again, we remote viewed him. He wasn't going anywhere. He was frozen outside, standing like this in a catatonic state outside of his home in Texas. But his reports matched what we had in his mind. He was in a claustrophobic environment and felt as if there was something on his face, he couldn't breath. There was a feeling of panic. Something that kept telling him don't worry about it, those kinds of ideas. He found himself on another world where he was, actually, it looked like a press gang. The idea was, would you like to volunteer for this? That type of an idea. Where you were Shanghaied, literally Shanghaied to do some type of a work. Now, those could be symbolic concepts. When you're dealing with the transcendental side of the house, we've got to be very careful. That's the only type, time where you get symbology, and we're going to assume that we're being monkeyed with, based upon other things that have happened. So, not real solid data. As far as answering the rest of your question, we've thought about it. We just look like a bunch of average guys. I can't say anything else.
(Question from audience) (Do you ever see the grays?)
The grays. The only time I've seen anything remote viewing wise on contracts, the only time we've seen anything that resembles the grays are those guys that service the cargo vehicles in subterranean areas of Mars, and on Earth. We've seen them there. I haven't detect, I have to caveat that. I have to qualify that statement. We caught a glimpse once on an abduction experience, this was a medical doctor that was abducted. She was in her car, and it appears that in this case, it was the ten percent, one of the ten percent cases. That she was physically removed fromthe car, and we found her on a table, and there were people standing around and at that juncture the remote viewer slipped off the target. We have a sneaking suspicion that that may have been a, I don't know, if we caught a glimpse of something we weren't supposed to see, or those kinds of things. So, the other ten percent, it's blocked for some reason or edited out by some thing or ourselves. I don't know.
Maybe it's something we don't want to look at although our remote viewers are trained to look at, to experience fear at its primal levels. You know, you got to understand what that means. Viewers have to experience every type of experience, to be trained and recognize the experience. The Challenger Shuttle disaster is just one of many examples I could use. A trainee, not knowing what the target is, is inside of that capsule when it's eight minutes to the water. The capsule was pressurized. The people were alive. And they were on the way down. So the remote viewer has to experience in the minds of those people the horror, the grief, the sadness, all the things that eight people at once would realize on the way to the water. All of different backgrounds. Some military, some civilian, school, and it's a tough thing to do to a person. And you ought to see what they look like for the rest of the day. It ruins their day. That's what they have to go through in the long remote viewing course. And it's not an easy thing to do.
(Question from audience) (One of the comments you made yesterday, that caused consternation, was this idea that the future is stuck in stone. If you, as a philosophic experiment, were trying to remote view an event that you knew would have a certain outcome, then why not take personal steps to try to change that outcome?)
We can't remote view an event that we know will have a certain outcome. You mean something that we see happening, and attempt to remote view possible solutions.
(No, No. Actually, yourselves. You can remote view a building that you know is scheduled for destruction on January 31st because the town is going to blow it up. A week before, you personally decide to burn it down. See if you can actually change it. I know it sounds a little radical, but the concept is a matter of your own philosophy.)
For one thing, I can't confirm that the event is going to happen until we remote view it. We don't feel confident about anything anybody says is going to happen. We've got to remote view it before to have the confidence data. If you tell me that there was a bomb explosion on a plane, I'm not going to, that's fine if you're my client, but we're going to go back and have a look first. Before we shake our heads and say, oh, yeah, we'll come back with a bomb explosion, where it might have been wind shear or an altercation in the cabin or something like that. If a building was scheduled for disembodiment on a particular date next week, going to have to remote view it first to be sure that that's going to happen. Then, can we change it? I don't know. But I have to say one thing. I've had enough people, I've talked with enough people here at this conference, they've convinced me to try that. To try to change the future, and especially vis-a-vis that contact site. And that's a more, why not give it a try? I mean, it's probably a better, more healthy attitude towards what we're dealing with than, OK, we know this is going to happen, what can we do to save a portion of the population? Those guys may have the technology to do a lot more than that. And we may simply need to ask. It could be a much simpler process than we think, and it might not be so obfuscated as we all make it out to be.
(Question from audience) (If you were to do something as simple as to view an auto accident next week, and then go in and lock that car in a garage)
No wait. Auto accident next week. The only way we would capture an auto accident by remote viewing is to look at an intersection or to catch it incidental to another project. That's the only way we would see it. And then wewouldn't know how far in the future we were, because we~reshaky on dates. Specific dates.
(Question from audience) (Ed, I wondered when youstated this the other day you described the way you worked,it seemed that you indicated you were 100% correct)
(If you were going at it with that attitude, perhaps it presupposes that you're not going to be able to look at events that)
The question is, I stated the other day that it appears that at least what we would turn in to a client, and we can't make mistakes, we're under a lot of scrutiny, and for instance, we came public, for German Public Television, and said we're going to find Mozart's grave. If we can't deliver the goods, I'm finished. If I can, then I've got some more clients. We got to put your money where your mouth is. When we give something to a client, we're stating that what we provide the client is close to 100% accurate. We have other details that are second tier, third tier,information of a lesser confidence. And we don't provide those to a client unless they, the client wants them. So, you're suggesting that perhaps because we're only looking at things that are 100% correct, we may be imposing that percentage on those things. Having come here and talked with other people besides yourself, I think there may be some merit to that. I thought about this question. So I'm going to abandon my idea, it's just an idea now, I mean, I don't know whether it's true or false, but it's my impression. I'm going to abandon that impression, that things are unchangeable. Because I think that that is an unhealthy attitude to have with regard to whatever system that we're in contact with. And so that's changed me.
(Question from audience)
Am I digging into somebody's time? I don't like to do this, folks. (expressions from audience) It's not very polite.
(Question from audience) (Perhaps you could give us some insights into the Roswell Incident? I understand that you've remote viewed that)
From the cursory remote viewing that we've done of the Roswell site, it appears to be mass brain wave entrainment. I know that idea is violently rejected by all the conspiracy theorists, and many other people, (interjection from audience) Roswell incident? Oh, brain wave entrainment. It's actually quite easy to do. You know, most of you in here are familiar with brain wave patterns, the Schumann resonant frequencies? We evolved against a background of Earth pulsating and in tune with the Sun as it pumps the ions, pump the atmosphere. We evolved against that background and the electromagnetic part of us, brainwaves and our clocking frequencies, evolved toward a certain set state.
Ever since we were microorganisms or whatever the the heck we were. And those are brain wave patterns and why they are what the way that they are. If you monkey with those brain waves, you' re in a different, you're in an altered state. For any engineers in here, electronic warfare engineers, who are familiar with the term "range gate pulloff," where a plane is coming into the target and sending radar at the target and making sure it is locked on to the target. The target has electronic countermeasures to grab that signal from the radar, and very subtly shift it. in a doppler way and other ways, to make it appear that the target is over here. So the bomb is launched in a different direction. It's called range gate pulloff. It is possible, it seems, to do that with the human brain. To pull off the range gate. To pull off the frequencies. To mess with the modulation. And when you do that, you can possibly capture the signal. You can capture the signal, a person's brain wave. And then you can inject your own program. How's that?
No, yes, one, two, three.
(Question from audience) (Is it possible in the event of a kind of a war like Desert Storm, that you could have gone in there and remoted Saddam Hussein's head and come back and reported that this is going to be the way you say it is, that atrocities would happen, and that this would be the worst environmental disaster?)
As you saw from my presentation if you were here, we worked for a major oil company. The contract, we have some contracts we did with Fortune 1OO companies and one was entitled The Crisis Profile of Saddam Hussein. It was done during the Desert Shield era. Incidentally, Saddam Hussein has accused my company of making him sick. I think I mentioned that. We can't do that. At least, we don't think we can do that when we are remote viewing. But we were tasked by the client, the client was worried about oil prices, and they needed data to do some extrapolations and develop some algorithms. We went into his bunkers, his command posts, we looked at his battle plans, his deception plans. We looked at a number of other things, and we saw the, we saw some major bomb runs, and devastating, we got the mushroom clouds from the 16,000 pound fuel-air explosives. Big bombs.
The client asked us to do a six month projection. Actually, we went out a year on the territory. We got all the oil well fires, reported those to the client. At first we thought it was a nuclear weapon, because there were so many oil well fires. And by the way, we had trouble with the oil well fires. The remote viewers got all the smoke and clouds, but some of them approach a target, a major strategic area target, from a high perspective. So they can get an idea where they're supposed to be to solve a problem. At that distance we were not smelling the oil, the petroleum products. The aromatic carbons had dissipated, so we only had the black smoke. And at first we thought, well, it's not oil, what the heck is this, let's look at the origin. Only when we followed the smoke back to the origin and saw the oil well fires, could we call it an oil well fire. Most importantly though, for business purposes, was that we went into.
Oh!, Saddam Hussein's mind, that was an interesting thing. Analytically, I thought the man was very much like Stalin. Being an old soldier intelligence analyst. But when you remote view him, and you back traek into his mind, you find that some critieal events occurred when he was a child. And that he really felt, he hero worshipped the epic Babylonian figure, Gilgamesh. The knight on the horseback, you know, it was a big empire in those days, who loved his people and the people loved him. Saddam Hussein is very much a reflection of his people. What he does, he cannot make those people angry. Remember, there was a bomb attack,the debris was cleaned up immediately, people were recompensed for the injury and suffering, so that they didn't linger, turn into anger against their leader. That was really what controlled them.
And those kinds of things we provided to the client. But we also told the client that Saddam Hussein would be alive in December of 1991, walking around his palace after two assassination attempts, one a poisoning. And alive and kicking and well. That almost got the messenger shot. Think of Washington, D.C., an oil well company, in Desert Shield, this is before the war starts. We have every armament in the world over there, almost. And the Israel is saying, if you don't get him we will. And coming to the client and saying, he's still alive! But, that's a return client now, so. We have to rely on our data. We cannot analyze the data. We are taught to get it right. The unconscious is taught to solve that problem. Am I going too long, folks? (exclamations from audience)
(Question from audience)
Yeah, absolutely. That's what we do for a living. We explore future technologies. That's the kind of thing.Yes, ma'am?
(Question from audience) (You seem to have been very precise about some of the dates that you have given us. For instance, you said you saw Saddam Hussein in December 1991,
No, I did not mean to do that. What I meant was a year afterwards. Ballpark figure. We can't do dates. We can only get general analog senses based upon one's life experiences. Gee, it's been 15 years since I knew that girl, gee, it's been ten years since I've been fishing here, that kind of idea.
(Question from audience) (maybe we could save a portion of the population)
That's our intent now, saving a portion of the population. The idea was to get better at, to get some technological insight as to what we may do. Probably a pretty naive approach. I don' think it's a smart (interrupted by question) It seems that we're, from the data that we have, it looks like we're facing mass die-off. But I don't want to go into that. It's not my intent here. It was done for, that was a contract that was done for Scott Jones at the Human Potential Foundation in Washington, DC. I think it's Laurance Rockefeller and Senator Claiborne Pell support that. One's the chairman, one's a supporter of that. And he has that contract now, so feel free to contact him. The institutes, centers and foundations that we work for, I'm free to mention their names, they're not corporate clients. But I can't talk about the other contracts. Yes, I'm sorry, you had a question.
(question: What are the ethical implications of the contracts?)
The ethical implications of the contracts. Could you be more-specific? So that I don't have to be so general.
(to the effect that some clients will use the knowledge for good purposes, and vice-versa)
I've turned down many more clients than I've accepted. I have not been approached by a client yet that I felt was going to use information that PSI TECH provided them for anything other than business or economic or political analytical purposes. Most of the clients I've turned down wanted to know what the stock market's going to do tomorrow, and were money oriented things, and I just don't want to deal with that. I don't want it. We're limited resources, there are only six employees. We work hard, and we'd rather choose our contracts than monkey around with that kind of thing. I don't know what else to tell you other than what I said the other day. Yes, go ahead, Virginia.
(Question from audience) (Back to the abduction scenario, have you found that the examinations have been happening? You mentioned something about a woman whose body was examined. Has that come up in other contexts?)
No, it's never, uh, yes, it has. There is one other context in which it arose, but in a very different fashiona nd had nothing to do with this kind of table. We were exploring, some of our students are run through the wringer on archaeological targets. Sometimes because we like to see them, in house. The student doesn't know what they're working, and we'd like to explore it. There was something in South America, in the past, where there was a type of a vault, a room, and a table, and six robed beings, one of which was female, around the person, inside a vaulted chamber. And they walked around. One put one's hand above the solar plexus. There was some type of beam that came down from the apex of the room, and something happened. I don't know what that all means. We didn't explore it. That's the only other time we found that table and a person on it.
(Question from audience) (Is it conceivable that despite historical accounts of other cultures, for instance,that remote viewing has been done, that refinements of this state, this activity, and your ability to train people so well, so precisely to do it, that this may be, in your opinion is it conceivable that this is a gift?) No. No. There seems to be the hundredth monkey effect here, Sheldrake Principle. My students are better than I, the people who I designate as trainers, who have students, those students get better. And there was a paradigm shift here too. My children, I teach only children. I no longer teach adults. I have a training manager that teaches adults. I teach only children. And I can teach a child to read minds and do other things. Once you've worked with a child, it's too boring to work with an adult anymore.
(Question from audience) (Laibow) (Does that mean that you're the worst remote viewer?)
That's correct. I am not the best remote viewer in the company. Not by any means. And I don't pay my children to remote view, either. There's your ethics problem: I'm not paying my children. I give them an increased allowance. That should be it. Thanks.
(Laibow: we need to stop)
Wasn't my fault.