Latest / Ryder Lee / DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PSYCHIC SPIES | DALE E. GRAFF

Transcript

DIRECTOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PSYCHIC SPIES | DALE E. GRAFF · Ryder Lee

0:30
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Raise by Giants Live discussion. Good to
0:33
Speaker 1: see everyone in the chat and any channel members and
0:35
Speaker 1: or moderators out there, and to anyone that's listening to
0:37
Speaker 1: the replay, thanks for joining us. And if you're listening
0:40
Speaker 1: to audio only, because the show is also a podcast,
0:44
Speaker 1: so be sure to follow the show on Spotify, Apple podcast, Amazon, iHeartRadio,
0:48
Speaker 1: and Google Podcasts. You can download the audio only episodes
0:51
Speaker 1: on whatever podcast platform you listen to. The show drops
0:54
Speaker 1: on those platforms almost immediately after it's released on here.
0:59
Speaker 1: And also we are viewer a supported show. We don't
1:01
Speaker 1: have any sponsorships, advertising or affiliate programs. It's just me,
1:05
Speaker 1: so if you'd like to help support the show, PayPal
1:07
Speaker 1: and buy me a coffee links or in the description.
1:10
Speaker 1: And also you can send in super chats in superstickers
1:12
Speaker 1: if you would like a question or comment to be
1:14
Speaker 1: highlighted during the show. Channel memberships are also available in
1:17
Speaker 1: a great way to help support the show monthly, and
1:19
Speaker 1: when you become a channel member, you get access to
1:21
Speaker 1: bonus episodes for being a channel member, and there's a
1:24
Speaker 1: huge back catalog, so click the more button underneath the
1:27
Speaker 1: title of this video that the drop down of the
1:29
Speaker 1: description of all of my links, including the links to Shine,
1:32
Speaker 1: sign up to be a channel member, and also my guests.
1:36
Speaker 1: The links are there as well. A clockwork. Shining is
1:39
Speaker 1: now available worldwide for viewing sore. If you live in
1:43
Speaker 1: Canada or Australia or anywhere else that the movie wasn't
1:47
Speaker 1: available for you on Amazon Prime or Apple TV Plus,
1:50
Speaker 1: you can now rent or buy it on Vimeo. The
1:53
Speaker 1: link is pinned to the top of the chat and
1:55
Speaker 1: it is also in the description. So with that down,
1:59
Speaker 1: we have with us today. He's a researcher, writer, author,
2:02
Speaker 1: and international speaker known for his insights into the process
2:05
Speaker 1: of the mind. He is a former director of the
2:08
Speaker 1: Government Stargate Project, the Army Intelligence and the DAS Program
2:13
Speaker 1: Research and Applications of Remote Viewing. Dale E. Graf, Welcome
2:18
Speaker 1: back to the show, my friend. How's it going?
2:19
Speaker 2: Hey, listen, it's just great here. I'm just here relaxing
2:22
Speaker 2: and waiting to see how this develops and looking forward
2:26
Speaker 2: to the questions and the dialogue we can generate here.
2:29
Speaker 2: As a fascinating topic, and I've been wrapped up in
2:33
Speaker 2: it for many decades, so it's not news to me,
2:38
Speaker 2: but always welcome to look at new ideas and new discussions.
2:43
Speaker 1: I think it's news for some people because remote viewing
2:46
Speaker 1: and this idea of consciousness outside of our body has
2:50
Speaker 1: become really popular in them coming years. And I really
2:55
Speaker 1: appreciate you coming on. And I think for those I
3:00
Speaker 1: haven't seen our previous discussions, you've been on a couple
3:03
Speaker 1: of times before. We did that big Stargate roundtable with you,
3:06
Speaker 1: Lim Buchanan and Angela Ford, which I thought was really nice.
3:09
Speaker 1: I would like to do another one in the future
3:11
Speaker 1: with you guys. But take us back to the beginning
3:14
Speaker 1: to give the audience a little refresher and how you
3:16
Speaker 1: got involved with the Stargate program. From my understanding, you
3:22
Speaker 1: had a small remove viewing unit at Wright Patterson Air
3:26
Speaker 1: Force Base. What year did this begin if you can remember.
3:30
Speaker 2: Yes, I did, and I did have a small unit there.
3:33
Speaker 2: It's really considered unofficial because you never documented it, but
3:39
Speaker 2: the commander and the chief scientist certainly affirmed our existence
3:45
Speaker 2: and in fact brought us into some projects. So it
3:49
Speaker 2: certainly hint backing. But at that time in nineteen seventy six,
3:53
Speaker 2: when I established or look at a few people that
3:57
Speaker 2: could actually do what was different mind at that time
4:01
Speaker 2: is remote viewing. You know, this is nineteen seventy six,
4:05
Speaker 2: this is the middle of nineteen seventies, and this is
4:08
Speaker 2: not a topic. You're going to go running around the
4:12
Speaker 2: big banner saying, hey, listen, I'm thinking about doing in
4:16
Speaker 2: the remote viewing projects. Listen to me. You know, you
4:19
Speaker 2: don't do that. In fact of the latter resistance to
4:23
Speaker 2: the whole concept of SAW, which is now you know,
4:28
Speaker 2: kind of accepted as a research term for the overall
4:32
Speaker 2: blanket of the phenomenon which remote viewing is one term.
4:37
Speaker 2: And remote viewing, of course, was originated at the Stanford
4:40
Speaker 2: Research Institute a few years earlier. So by the time
4:44
Speaker 2: I came along and generated the contract that Foreign Technology
4:51
Speaker 2: that's the Air Force part of intelligence analysis at Roy
4:55
Speaker 2: Pattison Air Force Base in nineteen seventy six, couple of
5:00
Speaker 2: years into the research, but there was no operational activity
5:05
Speaker 2: at that time in the government, and my little group
5:10
Speaker 2: at the Fund Technology Division between nineteen seventy six and
5:14
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty actually did a few of the first operational projects,
5:18
Speaker 2: and one of them, of course, was became really well
5:21
Speaker 2: known at that time. Because now that's some years ago,
5:25
Speaker 2: it's almost what forty fifty years ago, and it's probably
5:31
Speaker 2: not that well remembered anymore, but it's sort of coincident
5:35
Speaker 2: because of Jimmy Carter. Of course we know the recent
5:40
Speaker 2: situation with him one hundred years old. Quite an achievement,
5:45
Speaker 2: but Jimmy Carter actually was aware of one of our
5:48
Speaker 2: projects and talked about it openly. And that was the
5:51
Speaker 2: first operational project in the Department of Defense. It was
5:55
Speaker 2: locating a missing Russian airplane TU twenty two. It was
6:02
Speaker 2: a fairly large supersonic bomber that had crashed. It was
6:07
Speaker 2: a Air Force Soviet pilot that was flying from Libya
6:13
Speaker 2: and he decided to actually defect and fluid south just
6:18
Speaker 2: to get away from everything until he ran out of
6:21
Speaker 2: fuel and so he bailed out an airplane crash somewhere
6:25
Speaker 2: in Africa. And that was a big service project, you know.
6:28
Speaker 2: I was brought into the CIA and Air Force and
6:32
Speaker 2: other groups were mobilized to go to the center field
6:36
Speaker 2: team to Africa to locate the airplane before somebody else did,
6:40
Speaker 2: to extract his electronics and get the intelligence information from
6:44
Speaker 2: it that we could in the performance statum. Because I
6:48
Speaker 2: didn't go to the field, but I was in a
6:51
Speaker 2: state and place at right Pattison and I was used
6:56
Speaker 2: in a remote viewer a woman that was really quite
6:59
Speaker 2: capable of the talent, and attasked her to come up
7:04
Speaker 2: with landmarks that would help the team in Africa find
7:10
Speaker 2: the airplane, because they have been looking for almost a
7:13
Speaker 2: week and couldn't find it and every ready to give
7:15
Speaker 2: up and leave country. So my protocol is very basic
7:19
Speaker 2: and the only information was we're looking for a missing airplane.
7:23
Speaker 2: Didn't say where it was, just illustrated with a photograph
7:27
Speaker 2: of the top of airplane, and asked her to describe
7:31
Speaker 2: its flight path and where it crashed. And the way
7:35
Speaker 2: I've been working with people at that time was just
7:37
Speaker 2: to have them sketchy impressions, nothing complex, just thattch what
7:42
Speaker 2: you perceive. I did not have a complex protocol. I
7:45
Speaker 2: was using a very basic, very basic approach like how
7:49
Speaker 2: put off and Russell Cargy is initially that's right when
7:53
Speaker 2: he did the first remote viewing experiment. So I had
7:56
Speaker 2: her go through the simple protocol and relax and focus
8:02
Speaker 2: on the airplane that I'm showing you, and the question
8:07
Speaker 2: is this missing airplane? Can you come up with landmarks?
8:10
Speaker 2: And then she drew a sketch, and I recorded it
8:14
Speaker 2: in the files and provided it to the team, the
8:17
Speaker 2: search team, and then a little later I was called
8:21
Speaker 2: in for a follow up, which was would be phase
8:23
Speaker 2: two of the project uh and that was the way
8:26
Speaker 2: I've written it out. Phase one was a sketch. Phase
8:28
Speaker 2: two has worked with maps, and so we were brought
8:31
Speaker 2: into a room and there was a huge wall map
8:36
Speaker 2: of a topographics really a topographic map that basically covered
8:40
Speaker 2: the home wall. This is the search area. Can you
8:44
Speaker 2: can you match your sketch with anything on that map?
8:47
Speaker 2: And then she did and Mark came up to the
8:49
Speaker 2: mark and the map, I mean with a marked in
8:52
Speaker 2: the map based on her sketch, a lake in the
8:55
Speaker 2: mountains and the flight paths directions. She received it that
9:00
Speaker 2: we sent that coordinate from the map and her marketing
9:04
Speaker 2: to the field and the team took that coordinate and
9:08
Speaker 2: flew with their helicopteris about fifty sixty miles away from
9:13
Speaker 2: the search area because they they had given up an
9:17
Speaker 2: area they were in so they were willing to try anything.
9:20
Speaker 2: So we were well outside the area they were looking
9:24
Speaker 2: and when they landed at that spot was the coordinate
9:29
Speaker 2: that we provided and they walked around and a little
9:32
Speaker 2: clearing there was. There was some natives there and came
9:36
Speaker 2: by to see what was going on, and one of
9:38
Speaker 2: them had a piece of metal. Then they showed them
9:41
Speaker 2: within a mile or two where they found the medal,
9:44
Speaker 2: and that was where the airplane crushed. So the information
9:48
Speaker 2: brought brought the helicopters pretty much close to where it crashed.
9:53
Speaker 2: And had we not the helicopany not got there at
9:57
Speaker 2: that time we left the country the next day, we
10:00
Speaker 2: would never had access to the airplane. So it was
10:04
Speaker 2: an example of how you worked with people on the
10:07
Speaker 2: field and in the search team. So essentially her data
10:12
Speaker 2: allowed the government, the intelligence community to actually locate that airplane.
10:19
Speaker 2: And of course then that made big news in the
10:22
Speaker 2: Pentagon and President Carter heard about it and even though
10:25
Speaker 2: it was a highly classified program.
10:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, I actually have a clip of Jimmy Carter here
10:30
Speaker 1: talking about it that I made on my reels on
10:33
Speaker 1: my channel here, so we can listen to it really quickly.
10:36
Speaker 3: It's great, strange and inexplicable event. It has been discussed publicly.
10:42
Speaker 3: Is at one time we had a small plane go
10:45
Speaker 3: down somewhere in Africa. We needed very much to find
10:49
Speaker 3: out where that plane had crashed, and we were not
10:52
Speaker 3: able to find it by surveillance on our satellites. So
10:58
Speaker 3: the director of the CIA was also director of all
11:00
Speaker 3: the intelligence. A heard about a woman in California that
11:07
Speaker 3: was a medium, and he contacted her and she gave
11:12
Speaker 3: him the latitude and longitude of the plane's whereabouts, and
11:19
Speaker 3: the next time one of our space satellites went over
11:22
Speaker 3: that area relocated the plane where she said it was.
11:27
Speaker 4: Well, he had the essence of it right. We had
11:29
Speaker 4: the wrong person in the wrong place, in the wrong
11:32
Speaker 4: source was a helicopter that flew in. I give him
11:35
Speaker 4: credit for it in saying it was a woman that
11:38
Speaker 4: did it, even though he called a medium. Of course,
11:41
Speaker 4: this was an Air Force woman. She was not a medium.
11:44
Speaker 4: She was a remote viewer.
11:46
Speaker 1: Right, that was Rosemary Smith?
11:48
Speaker 2: Correct, Yes, that's correct. I didn't use her name initially
11:52
Speaker 2: because at the time when the program was in nineteen
11:55
Speaker 2: ninety five is declassified. I was still uncertain about theification
12:00
Speaker 2: of the search project in Africa. That was really a
12:04
Speaker 2: special access project with names in the incident and all
12:09
Speaker 2: the activities was highly guarded in the classified channels. I
12:13
Speaker 2: didn't put out any information other than what was released
12:17
Speaker 2: in the in the NBC news release, which is simply
12:20
Speaker 2: the bare essence of it. So at that time I
12:24
Speaker 2: didn't mention her name, even though when I wrote my
12:27
Speaker 2: book a couple of years later, I did use to
12:31
Speaker 2: suit the name for her. But I'd be more than
12:35
Speaker 2: happy henceforth to use her real name. She really deserves
12:39
Speaker 2: the credit for this thing.
12:41
Speaker 1: And what happened to her after this? Where did she go?
12:45
Speaker 1: After your Air Force small unit was kind of combined
12:50
Speaker 1: and you went to DA and Army intelligence. Where did
12:53
Speaker 1: she go?
12:54
Speaker 2: Yes, there was some peculiar actions that occurred after to that,
13:01
Speaker 2: and uh, you know, it's it's kind of I can
13:05
Speaker 2: laugh and chuckle about them now kind of. But apparently
13:10
Speaker 2: the whole project, the whole concept of remote viewing and
13:15
Speaker 2: the ability that some people have to describe distant scenes
13:18
Speaker 2: in places and locate things, it was not really that
13:23
Speaker 2: accepted to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
13:25
Speaker 2: at the time. I think that was because he was
13:29
Speaker 2: trying to protect a certain project, the X Missile Basing
13:34
Speaker 2: mobile missile project. And the feeling that we got that
13:39
Speaker 2: many of us picked up years later, was that the
13:44
Speaker 2: thought was that if remote viewing is valid, which we
13:47
Speaker 2: demonstrated quite it was not just from that incident, but
13:51
Speaker 2: also from the years of research. Then Soviet remote viewer
13:57
Speaker 2: could locate the MX missile in in this mobile unit,
14:01
Speaker 2: and therefore that would potentially defeat the concept. So the
14:06
Speaker 2: idea was, well, you just well the idea of you
14:10
Speaker 2: don't view it, don't let anyone in the decision making
14:13
Speaker 2: process even think about it. So, you know, this is
14:16
Speaker 2: kind of roundabout, but maybe that's what led to the
14:18
Speaker 2: decision for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force
14:21
Speaker 2: to cancel a program. So that led to me leaving
14:28
Speaker 2: the Air Force and translating to transferring to the Defense
14:33
Speaker 2: Intelligence Agency. Then about a year or so of that event,
14:37
Speaker 2: and continued then with viewing interface and research coordination with
14:45
Speaker 2: the s R research team from from d i A.
14:49
Speaker 2: I couldn't do it anymore in the Air Force because
14:52
Speaker 2: everything was canceled.
14:53
Speaker 1: So so just what year was this? What year? Do
14:57
Speaker 1: you remember? What year?
14:59
Speaker 2: It was? Nineteen? I moved down there and then Rosemary
15:03
Speaker 2: stayed on. She was a actually, you know, I had
15:08
Speaker 2: to talk about ranks. You know, I tend to be
15:11
Speaker 2: a very neutral kind of guy. I don't care if
15:14
Speaker 2: an individual is the lowest ranked official or the highest general.
15:19
Speaker 2: I can said people equal in the way at a
15:22
Speaker 2: personal level. And Rosemary was not a ranked official. She
15:26
Speaker 2: was an airman. I think it was called first class,
15:29
Speaker 2: so she was not in the officers class at all.
15:33
Speaker 2: She's not a fan in her captain, and I think
15:36
Speaker 2: the fact that she got this visibility from an unranked person,
15:45
Speaker 2: so to speak, really really bothered the hierarchy. So there
15:50
Speaker 2: was there was some pressure on her, some personalized type
15:55
Speaker 2: of thing. You know, we refer to this at homeum attacks,
16:00
Speaker 2: you know, so and now he's experienced that myself. You know,
16:04
Speaker 2: you couldn't have done this unless you had collusion and
16:07
Speaker 2: blah blah blah. But but we had n s A
16:10
Speaker 2: and a cra A confirmed that there's absolutely no way
16:14
Speaker 2: that the information could have we could have founded any
16:17
Speaker 2: other the airplane could be found any other way. But anyway,
16:21
Speaker 2: after about a year a year or two of this
16:23
Speaker 2: striveration and a lot of them, you know, I hate
16:29
Speaker 2: to use the work animosities, but there was a lot
16:31
Speaker 2: of resentment towards not just myself but also also to her.
16:38
Speaker 2: I really really regreted that happening for a woman, and
16:44
Speaker 2: it actually led to the point where she resigned Air
16:47
Speaker 2: Force and moved out of the area. I kept in
16:51
Speaker 2: contact for a couple of years, and then our communications
16:54
Speaker 2: kind of drifted away from that, and I didn't really
16:58
Speaker 2: have any any further reasons to remain contacted with her
17:02
Speaker 2: at the time. So I was contact about ten years.
17:09
Speaker 2: About five years ago, I didn't have a connection with
17:12
Speaker 2: a relative, and I learned that she had died sometime,
17:19
Speaker 2: so it was from some complicated issue of disease or whatever.
17:23
Speaker 2: I couldn't get to details, unfortunately, but anyway, I certainly
17:28
Speaker 2: honor what she did in It's an unfortunate situation that
17:34
Speaker 2: because of her little rank that she was treated so poorly,
17:38
Speaker 2: and then because of the visibility the project got, we
17:41
Speaker 2: both ultimately received a lot of personal criticision. It didn't
17:47
Speaker 2: bother me. I'm neutral to that, you know, I'm accustomed
17:52
Speaker 2: to this topic and people react to it. It was
17:57
Speaker 2: disturbing the Chief of Staff of the Air Force would
17:59
Speaker 2: makes a dramatic decision and canceled the project totally. And
18:07
Speaker 2: particularly was such a good result, and it was not
18:10
Speaker 2: just President Carter that talked about it, even though he
18:13
Speaker 2: got his facts straight. From twenty thirty years later, although
18:16
Speaker 2: at the time shortly after it, after the event, he
18:20
Speaker 2: did talk about it in public sessions, public venues, at
18:26
Speaker 2: graduation ceremonies or whatever at colleges. I think he briefly
18:31
Speaker 2: mentioned it, and the factual data at that time is
18:34
Speaker 2: more in line with the reality of an air force psychic.
18:39
Speaker 2: He used the term Pchey and now a Californian medium.
18:45
Speaker 2: So then thirty or forty years later, when he finally
18:49
Speaker 2: wrote his book Full Life, he got it all messed
18:52
Speaker 2: up in the video he displayed, I think as a
18:55
Speaker 2: result of promoting his book, because he was pretty much
19:00
Speaker 2: liked what he had in that book.
19:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, I had heard that he had talked about it previously.
19:05
Speaker 1: That clip was from ninety five, and I think that
19:09
Speaker 1: he talked about it a little bit earlier than that.
19:13
Speaker 1: That was one of the later ones that he that
19:15
Speaker 1: he talked about it with, so he might have had
19:17
Speaker 1: it more accurate from the earlier ones. But that's the
19:21
Speaker 1: only one that I could find. And obviously the footage
19:23
Speaker 1: is like all like star footage that I made and everything.
19:26
Speaker 1: It's just of his voice, just to give people a
19:29
Speaker 1: visual aspect of you know.
19:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm just pleased that even mentioned it. The facts
19:36
Speaker 2: are basically correct, finding a missing airplane in Africa. You
19:41
Speaker 2: didn't go to details beyond that. He didn't talk about
19:44
Speaker 2: being a defector. You didn't talk about the field team
19:47
Speaker 2: going over with a helicopter with that. You know, that's
19:50
Speaker 2: details that only only I know and can come out
19:54
Speaker 2: many years later when the program is Nevertheless, it's a
19:59
Speaker 2: landmark in the field of operational remote viewing. And I
20:04
Speaker 2: did a few other projects with Rosebery and one or
20:08
Speaker 2: two other people at FTD before I moved to d
20:11
Speaker 2: i A. And then I linked up was a newly
20:13
Speaker 2: established Army instcom unit remote viewing unit that was established
20:19
Speaker 2: at Fort Meat, Maryland, late nineteen seventy nine. So and
20:23
Speaker 2: then I connected with them and eventually moved up and
20:27
Speaker 2: became the director of the unit. And at that time
20:30
Speaker 2: about nineteen eighty nine nineteen ninety created the name. I
20:35
Speaker 2: actually created the name Stargate, and at that time, of
20:39
Speaker 2: course it was from that point on, but it's been
20:42
Speaker 2: used now in retrospect. It was there other program names
20:47
Speaker 2: that were control program names that are connected with the
20:53
Speaker 2: Ford Meat unit that goes back to the origin in
20:56
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy nine, nineteen eighty, you know, so you might
21:01
Speaker 2: have seen these terms before going to build with real
21:04
Speaker 2: flame central lane, and then you know, we moved. We
21:07
Speaker 2: have to change these. In the government control programs, you're
21:13
Speaker 2: required to change code words, uh, if it's special access
21:17
Speaker 2: or even if it's a limited access, frequently in every
21:21
Speaker 2: couple of years, three years maybe, So when it was
21:25
Speaker 2: time to get a new code word, when I became
21:29
Speaker 2: more directly involved, the words target didn't exist in the
21:34
Speaker 2: list of code words that are that are given to
21:37
Speaker 2: us to choose from. It's a big publication, a couple
21:41
Speaker 2: of hundred or maybe hundreds of words that you go
21:45
Speaker 2: in and pick one whenever you want to established a
21:48
Speaker 2: special access program and then you have to run now
21:51
Speaker 2: through the security division. So the program part is actually
21:56
Speaker 2: the security parts of the SAP Special access. So I
22:02
Speaker 2: didn't like any of the names and the listings. It
22:06
Speaker 2: just didn't ring with me, you know, you know, I
22:08
Speaker 2: did not didn't feel visionary enough, didn't motivate me to
22:14
Speaker 2: come up with a cement mixer or or the turbine
22:17
Speaker 2: blade or what are these crazy words. I didn't have
22:22
Speaker 2: the human touch or the visionary touch. So I just
22:27
Speaker 2: somehow one evening driving home from Fort Mead through a
22:33
Speaker 2: swamp heading back to southern Maryland where I lived at
22:36
Speaker 2: the time of going through a fog misty night and
22:42
Speaker 2: you know, the clouds cleared and there's this little sunlight,
22:45
Speaker 2: a little starlight out there. I said, yeah, it's it's
22:48
Speaker 2: like a gate looking through, like a portalte st iGATE.
22:51
Speaker 2: That's it. So the next morning, came back to the
22:54
Speaker 2: group with other words that we were sitting around at
22:58
Speaker 2: that time. I threw that on the table. You know,
23:01
Speaker 2: after some debate, we all came across with the agreement
23:04
Speaker 2: that's a good word. Let's go with it. So I
23:07
Speaker 2: had to write a memo that went through the command
23:10
Speaker 2: section up into the Secretary of Defense level. Can you
23:14
Speaker 2: believe that just just a change of word the code word.
23:18
Speaker 2: So I did that and I had almost walked that through,
23:22
Speaker 2: went through the Deputy Secretary Defense level again and get
23:27
Speaker 2: his approval, which he ultimately I did. And so that's
23:33
Speaker 2: how we got the word stargate esto in this desk
23:37
Speaker 2: code word the special access code work for LIS activity
23:42
Speaker 2: that don't continue on for me, Well, it's kind of
23:45
Speaker 2: an interesting story, and you know, you're not a routine
23:49
Speaker 2: by any means, but I like the word, and now
23:52
Speaker 2: it just seems to be linked with all of them,
23:56
Speaker 2: which might be a bit unfair because some of the
23:59
Speaker 2: early work deserves the publicity too, you know, the grill Flame,
24:05
Speaker 2: Central Lane is certainly a viable time period and they
24:10
Speaker 2: all deserve their they were spot in the sun, if
24:13
Speaker 2: that's what this is. Just because this was the latest
24:17
Speaker 2: word and now it's being used sort of by many
24:21
Speaker 2: people to compense the higher effort. Wi's lit unfair, but
24:26
Speaker 2: you know, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna complain about that.
24:29
Speaker 1: A lot of the names have all been lumped in together,
24:32
Speaker 1: like if you were to get on Wikipedia and look
24:34
Speaker 1: up you know, I've been the Google. Like the government's
24:37
Speaker 1: psychic spy programs. It lists like all of them, and
24:42
Speaker 1: a lot of them are combined in that was never
24:45
Speaker 1: a part of Like Syndicate was an SRI program and
24:50
Speaker 1: they say the Syndicate was a part of the d I,
24:52
Speaker 1: a Army intelligence And it's just like a huge jumbled
24:55
Speaker 1: up mess and it becomes very difficult to figure out
24:58
Speaker 1: like the continuity of all this. But it's also really
25:01
Speaker 1: interesting because you just mentioned that it was Center Lane.
25:04
Speaker 1: I think that that was the very first name of
25:06
Speaker 1: it with Center Lane, then gone to the Wish Girl
25:08
Speaker 1: Flame some Streek and then it just keeps going on
25:11
Speaker 1: and on and on. And that's been a contention of
25:15
Speaker 1: you know a lot of people with the Stargate name,
25:18
Speaker 1: like they for people that don't know about the program
25:21
Speaker 1: and exactly what d I a Army intelligence was doing.
25:25
Speaker 1: It was collecting foreign data on you know, foreign intelligence targets.
25:31
Speaker 1: They believed that it was more literal than that. They
25:35
Speaker 1: think that it was you know, an actual stargate, that
25:39
Speaker 1: that the government was opening up a real like portal
25:43
Speaker 1: stargate for people to go through. And it's become synonymous
25:47
Speaker 1: with like Stargate, the Star Trek, Stargate SG one or whatever,
25:53
Speaker 1: and it's it's just gotten super convoluted.
25:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, and you know, it's just some interesting force
25:58
Speaker 2: is here the name stargate. It just sort of looked
26:04
Speaker 2: like a nice neutral inspirational term. About a year later
26:10
Speaker 2: is when the book came out, and then shortly after
26:16
Speaker 2: that TV series, So then there was the Stargate the
26:19
Speaker 2: conspiracy book or whatever that it was called that came
26:23
Speaker 2: out after this. So I can see why people get
26:26
Speaker 2: confuted and there was zero connection. You know, you had
26:30
Speaker 2: no idea that it would be you know, that word
26:33
Speaker 2: then following on after because we were classified at the time,
26:38
Speaker 2: So how did anybody know that we even existed in
26:40
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety five? So all these other terms books came
26:45
Speaker 2: out even before that. So it's just all like a
26:48
Speaker 2: coincidence in a way that's really odd when you think
26:53
Speaker 2: about it. I could how could that all come about?
26:57
Speaker 2: And in fact, in the book that was written Stargate,
27:02
Speaker 2: I think it's the one that has the conspiracy concepts
27:05
Speaker 2: in it at.
27:07
Speaker 4: The very end.
27:08
Speaker 2: They actually they actually have a quote from something I
27:11
Speaker 2: said in my book that I published in two thousand,
27:16
Speaker 2: so borrowing heavily on that whole idea, I think. But
27:22
Speaker 2: you know, it does fit the idea of portal. You know,
27:25
Speaker 2: I hadn't really thought of that, but you know, when
27:29
Speaker 2: in retrospect, how does the phenomenon work? You know there's
27:35
Speaker 2: something behind us that's portal like, and you know we
27:39
Speaker 2: use the urn aperture when we talk about how do
27:42
Speaker 2: we perceive viewing images? You open up the aperture, but
27:46
Speaker 2: what does that mean? Okay, you're focusing on something and
27:49
Speaker 2: something opens or the portal in the brain. You know,
27:52
Speaker 2: maybe just simply from one part of the brain to
27:55
Speaker 2: the other. They're not necessarily going into the verse. But
28:00
Speaker 2: you know, it's a I think it's a useful concept
28:03
Speaker 2: because it motivates you to think beyond yourself. And you know,
28:09
Speaker 2: when we want to do remote viewing or any form
28:11
Speaker 2: of side work, we kind of have to put ourselves aside.
28:16
Speaker 2: You have to get rid of our intellectual, earth bound
28:20
Speaker 2: stuff and go more into this creative side of us.
28:25
Speaker 2: You know, in creativity, you can't say that this is
28:29
Speaker 2: truly off earth bound. We're doing something beyond our ordinary being.
28:34
Speaker 2: You know, whether still is only restricted to brain networking
28:39
Speaker 2: or not, I don't know. But when you get to
28:42
Speaker 2: them cipherenomen not to remote viewing, it's pretty clear that
28:46
Speaker 2: it is going beyond or the concept of what we
28:52
Speaker 2: would conventional science defines us as the brain mind. So, yeah,
28:57
Speaker 2: there's something beyond the portal.
29:01
Speaker 1: You could have called it. You could have called it
29:03
Speaker 1: portal gate.
29:05
Speaker 4: You know.
29:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, wellt's see, it's an interesting word. And one of
29:10
Speaker 2: the resistance is in my own mind that I had
29:13
Speaker 2: with that word. It wasn't not too far from that
29:17
Speaker 2: big flap with Nixon and well, oh which I gate
29:23
Speaker 2: led water Oh yeah, I forget not the gate there,
29:28
Speaker 2: but you know that was a water gate stuff. So okay,
29:32
Speaker 2: it's it was our It was still better than the
29:35
Speaker 2: words that were in in the book that we had
29:38
Speaker 2: to choose from. And it's unfortunate there was linking now
29:44
Speaker 2: to something that's way beyond what what we were doing.
29:48
Speaker 2: Well we even the intention behind the word. Uh, it's
29:53
Speaker 2: just just just a neutral word that seemed to invoke
29:57
Speaker 2: innovation and creativity and reaching beyond yourself, which is what
30:02
Speaker 2: you have to do when you want to actually work
30:05
Speaker 2: in this field. You know, you put yourself aside and
30:10
Speaker 2: focus on something beyond yourself. And you know, wherever your
30:15
Speaker 2: concepts are, you know, in remot viewing training, you have
30:20
Speaker 2: the idea of your access the matrix, But what is
30:22
Speaker 2: that just another concept? Just like it's like for those
30:26
Speaker 2: that are familiar with some of the metaphysical literature, certainly
30:30
Speaker 2: you know you must have come across Edgar Casey and
30:34
Speaker 2: the Cautioned records, you know, so we're talking about something
30:38
Speaker 2: of that conceptual nature, and I like to think of
30:41
Speaker 2: it somewhat more technological or needed. You know, sure, matrix
30:47
Speaker 2: which follows of course a lot from the movie The
30:51
Speaker 2: Matrix as well. But thinking in terms of holographic structures
30:57
Speaker 2: or the holographic universes, it's something that that might not
31:02
Speaker 2: be too far off, because it may well be the
31:06
Speaker 2: fundamental levels of reality we live in, some kind of
31:10
Speaker 2: giant holographic concept or constructs. So it's which would be
31:17
Speaker 2: similar to a matrix in a way, but maybe not
31:19
Speaker 2: as mathematical orange or linearly you might say. Lined up
31:28
Speaker 2: as a matrix tends to make you think. But a
31:30
Speaker 2: holograph is a nice concept because this is more pictorial.
31:36
Speaker 2: It's more, it's more, it really is. A holographic is holistic.
31:41
Speaker 2: A small piece is the same as the large, so
31:47
Speaker 2: as above still below, So it fits in in a
31:50
Speaker 2: way with similar metaphysical notions that have prevailed for millennium,
31:56
Speaker 2: even though we don't use the word metaphysical in it,
32:00
Speaker 2: although I mentioned it is an interesting Some are about
32:04
Speaker 2: to start in a couple of days called the Metaphysical.
32:07
Speaker 2: Some that you might want to, you know, look into
32:10
Speaker 2: the Google lot and find find what that's about, happen
32:14
Speaker 2: to be one of the presenters about twenty of us.
32:19
Speaker 2: So I see a nice link between the older ideas
32:25
Speaker 2: how this type of phenomenon might function. Even though some
32:28
Speaker 2: of the concepts and are not maybe as much much
32:32
Speaker 2: in vogue anymore as they were a century ago, but
32:38
Speaker 2: it still has the idea of going beyond ourselves. Uh,
32:43
Speaker 2: you know, I don't see how you cannot avoid that thinking.
32:48
Speaker 2: And so when we do that, it is we're opening
32:50
Speaker 2: up something, whether you call it a gate or a
32:53
Speaker 2: portal or a passage away, that you're accessing something that's
32:59
Speaker 2: not within or a new way of knowing.
33:02
Speaker 1: So what do you feel about like channeling and like
33:05
Speaker 1: scrying and you know this stuff like that. Do you
33:09
Speaker 1: think that that it's all kind of connected because I'm
33:12
Speaker 1: kind of I'm kind of getting this impression that if
33:15
Speaker 1: you're getting solid information and the information is good, I
33:19
Speaker 1: don't understand how it can be like bad, right, because
33:22
Speaker 1: there's so many different modalities that people use. Like Angela
33:26
Speaker 1: Ford always talks about how she you know, used you know,
33:30
Speaker 1: a different modality and she wasn't necessarily remote viewing according
33:35
Speaker 1: to the actual protocols of remote viewing. She was, you know,
33:40
Speaker 1: doing automatic writing. And but there were some people within
33:43
Speaker 1: the unit that was strictly just all about following the protocols,
33:47
Speaker 1: which I also understand. I see both sides of it.
33:50
Speaker 1: I understand both sides. But do you think that you're
33:53
Speaker 1: accessing the same type of information no matter the type
33:58
Speaker 1: of modality that you're using, whether that's channeling, whether that's mediumship,
34:02
Speaker 1: whether that's remove viewing, scrying, or you know, like Angela
34:08
Speaker 1: does with you know what she talks about.
34:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, there's only really one data source. And
34:15
Speaker 2: like you think of the center of something in a
34:18
Speaker 2: wheel and all these spokes leading to it from different directions,
34:21
Speaker 2: you know, spoken the left side could be channeling or sprying,
34:25
Speaker 2: and spoken on the right side could be what we
34:27
Speaker 2: call remote viewing, and the protocols that go along with that,
34:32
Speaker 2: whatever brings you into that center place, into that matrix,
34:35
Speaker 2: into that cosmic hologram, if you will. That's where the
34:39
Speaker 2: information is now. The path that particularly spoke could maybe
34:45
Speaker 2: lead to certain interpretations along the way that may be
34:51
Speaker 2: not relevant as relevant to the actual data as the
34:56
Speaker 2: raw data or the basic data is. So they variations,
35:02
Speaker 2: you know, describing for example, it's just an old term,
35:05
Speaker 2: but it's just it's more the visual part of the perception.
35:09
Speaker 2: And in the early days, as there was really no
35:14
Speaker 2: distinction as to what the what the path was, uh
35:20
Speaker 2: or even names other than here you sit down and
35:23
Speaker 2: describe do it. You know, there might have been some
35:25
Speaker 2: kind of conceptual link between the viewer or the person
35:30
Speaker 2: that was in the laboratory room trying to perceive the
35:34
Speaker 2: whereabouts of a beacon person. You know, so there was
35:37
Speaker 2: that conceptual link. That's something out that links. Okay, So
35:42
Speaker 2: then okay, so that that worked, but there was never
35:45
Speaker 2: anything that said there had to be a procedure us.
35:49
Speaker 2: It came about from just simply focusing on the intent
35:53
Speaker 2: to achieve a certain goal. Okay, so right, that worked,
35:58
Speaker 2: and now then they or when protocols were developed, that
36:04
Speaker 2: came about a lot because psychologists that explored or that
36:10
Speaker 2: we're brought into this to give their opinion on what
36:13
Speaker 2: we were doing. Not we persue, But at that time
36:17
Speaker 2: I was that directly wrong. But I was on the
36:20
Speaker 2: prophy of it, what remote viewers were doing. So there
36:25
Speaker 2: was was no explanation. But as in anything, it's got
36:30
Speaker 2: to be a training for it. So there must be
36:33
Speaker 2: a training method somewhere. We didn't really have any other
36:36
Speaker 2: than goal focus. It worked, okay, So the protocol was
36:43
Speaker 2: developed government paid for that. There was Ano's ideas, and
36:48
Speaker 2: you know, it's been successful. And I think that works
36:51
Speaker 2: because some people need to have structure, other people do not.
36:57
Speaker 2: It's not simple. And so for those that are the
37:02
Speaker 2: comfortable with structure, great, wonderful that'll work and knows that
37:08
Speaker 2: or more say, okay, I'm a goal oriented person. What
37:11
Speaker 2: do you want to know? Is it an image? Is
37:13
Speaker 2: it a thought? Is it an impression? What is it
37:16
Speaker 2: you want to find? What is it going to discover?
37:19
Speaker 2: Forget about the steps to get there. Let my subconscious
37:22
Speaker 2: mind figure that out. And that was that's sort of
37:25
Speaker 2: the mindset and I used to that myself, that their
37:30
Speaker 2: idea in the dream work I do. I'm torn between
37:34
Speaker 2: two modes here, the conscious state remote viewing and what
37:39
Speaker 2: we can perceive in a dream state. And you know,
37:43
Speaker 2: I'm quite comfortable either one. But in the dream side
37:48
Speaker 2: of the experience, it's simply a matter of saying, Okay,
37:52
Speaker 2: I desire to perceive this target or this rejective boom,
37:56
Speaker 2: that's it. There's no protocol if you want to call
38:01
Speaker 2: what I just said the protocol, and that's it. So
38:05
Speaker 2: then you, of course allow your subconcsous mind to get
38:09
Speaker 2: to work on it, and you have most of the
38:11
Speaker 2: night to do it. And of course there's a version
38:15
Speaker 2: of a short shorthand version of that that we called
38:18
Speaker 2: extended the remote viewing and that was just a euphanism
38:23
Speaker 2: for something we didn't really understand, but it was not
38:28
Speaker 2: the standard remote viewing. It it was sort of a semi relaxed, well,
38:32
Speaker 2: it relaxed in between state between the awake approach that
38:38
Speaker 2: was used with the protocol called remote viewing and a
38:42
Speaker 2: dream state where you just simply have the goal and
38:47
Speaker 2: then wake up later with the information. So extended remote
38:51
Speaker 2: viewing is not necessarily an a sleep dream, but it's
38:55
Speaker 2: somewhat in between. In parapsychology, we have what's called the
39:01
Speaker 2: hypno gogic states, that impression between a state of awareness.
39:07
Speaker 2: There's also hypnotomic h where you go to sleep and
39:10
Speaker 2: then where you wake up. That that intermediate state where
39:14
Speaker 2: you can get impressions that are SI or SACH based,
39:20
Speaker 2: and so this is pretty much where this extended remote
39:24
Speaker 2: viewing mode exists. So so that doesn't use any protocol
39:29
Speaker 2: other than the necessary definition and the motivation and their
39:35
Speaker 2: goal setting that comes with any any more natural approach
39:42
Speaker 2: to side development. And again, the the programs that exist,
39:52
Speaker 2: you know, which are offshoots of Ego's technique are again
39:58
Speaker 2: are very useful and the mean a to people. But
40:02
Speaker 2: my experience over the years and dealing with some of
40:05
Speaker 2: those have gone through these training programs, after several years,
40:09
Speaker 2: they don't even bother with them anymore. So early on useful,
40:14
Speaker 2: but later on you may just sort of move on
40:17
Speaker 2: and accomplish the tack perfectly efficient way.
40:22
Speaker 1: What kind of words would you tell yourself, because you're
40:26
Speaker 1: essentially saying that you can program your dreams pretty much
40:31
Speaker 1: to give you information. What kind of words would you
40:36
Speaker 1: tell yourself before you went to sleep in order to
40:40
Speaker 1: find the information that you want? Like, what would you
40:44
Speaker 1: say to yourself? Is it just affirmations? Do you meditate
40:47
Speaker 1: before you go to sleep? Like what's that process?
40:50
Speaker 4: Like?
40:51
Speaker 1: Is it simple as saying, you know, show me what
40:53
Speaker 1: the pyramids look like? Or like? Is it that simple?
40:58
Speaker 4: No?
40:58
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, basically that's the idea behind it. But depending
41:04
Speaker 2: on what you have jerke you is. But let's say
41:07
Speaker 2: I'll use an experimental situation that just comes up a
41:10
Speaker 2: lot with the groups I work with and the International
41:14
Speaker 2: Association for the Study of dreams in their conferences usually
41:18
Speaker 2: usually have what they call contests, but really just simply exercises.
41:24
Speaker 2: And the setup is there's a photograph or a picture.
41:29
Speaker 2: We'd like to use pictures and photographs and the sealed
41:34
Speaker 2: in an opaque antalope, and the dreamers, the people that
41:39
Speaker 2: want to perceive the content of that that end will then,
41:45
Speaker 2: prior to sleep, sometimes even during the day before that,
41:51
Speaker 2: just sort of stop and meditate a little bit and
41:54
Speaker 2: study intention something like, well, tonight, I just order to
41:58
Speaker 2: have a dream. I desire to remember the dream very clearly,
42:07
Speaker 2: so that I have the details in mind. When I
42:10
Speaker 2: so something like that, you can muddel around and then
42:14
Speaker 2: right before you go to sleep you repeat that tonight,
42:17
Speaker 2: I desire to dream about the objective. Now, if the
42:21
Speaker 2: objective is to dream about the picture in that sealed analope,
42:26
Speaker 2: that's the objective. You stay you side that, or if
42:30
Speaker 2: you're not doing any an experimental situation and you want
42:34
Speaker 2: to say, locate something, and then the objective would be tonight,
42:40
Speaker 2: I desire to have a dream that presents information about
42:43
Speaker 2: the location of the unknown object or a person. That's it.
42:48
Speaker 2: That's it. You don't anything more to go on. Now
42:53
Speaker 2: that I'm oversimplifying here, of course, to get to this point,
42:58
Speaker 2: I'm assuming that you've had your numbering and you can
43:02
Speaker 2: sort out material from the subconscious from the dream side.
43:08
Speaker 2: That's not you sold out the personal stuff and focused
43:12
Speaker 2: down on only what's relevant. That takes a little bit
43:15
Speaker 2: of practice and timing, but ultimately what I just said
43:19
Speaker 2: is the process really simple to the point. Now, you
43:23
Speaker 2: may not get everything that you like in the first shot.
43:27
Speaker 2: You may get just a fragment of it. You don't
43:30
Speaker 2: know that for sure, but as you see a feeling
43:32
Speaker 2: that comes along with the dream, and then you'll say, well,
43:36
Speaker 2: that doesn't seem complete enough. Maybe I didn't get the
43:39
Speaker 2: objective accurately enough. You go back again the same night
43:45
Speaker 2: or at this time in the second night. So is
43:48
Speaker 2: the way of repeating is not the most time efficient,
43:51
Speaker 2: of course, but you can get to really accive dating
43:55
Speaker 2: this way.
43:57
Speaker 1: So do you speak this out loud or do you
44:00
Speaker 1: speaking in your in your head?
44:02
Speaker 2: Well, just speaking in your head, think it right if
44:06
Speaker 2: you want. Initially you might have to do a little
44:09
Speaker 2: bit more walk around and mumble to yourself. Don't know,
44:11
Speaker 2: you want to overhear what you're saying too.
44:13
Speaker 4: Much.
44:13
Speaker 2: They think you're going to work.
44:16
Speaker 1: But you know, now, well, if you're in the privacy
44:18
Speaker 1: of your own home, it would be a problem.
44:21
Speaker 2: When you walk around nowadays, I'm often startled by people.
44:26
Speaker 2: I don't they're they're talking. I look around as nobody
44:29
Speaker 2: near them because they're talking into the little microphone that's
44:32
Speaker 2: hanging at their neck. So so it doesn't matter today
44:36
Speaker 2: whether you mumble to nothing.
44:39
Speaker 1: People think that you're just on the phone. Yeah.
44:43
Speaker 2: So, but what I just said, you know, I'm not
44:44
Speaker 2: trying to oversimplify, but it's it's enough. It's what you
44:49
Speaker 2: do is how you can achieve this ability, you know,
44:55
Speaker 2: dreaming about something that's not known to you or or
45:02
Speaker 2: maybe even anyone if it's a double blind experiment. So
45:05
Speaker 2: it doesn't really matter. Yuh. Now, I've done some experiments
45:09
Speaker 2: recently where I'm using an AI program and I don't
45:18
Speaker 2: so I have the dreamers that I'm working with.
45:22
Speaker 1: R program meaning augmented reality.
45:25
Speaker 2: Well, no, what I'm what I'm I don't know what
45:30
Speaker 2: you want to call it. But what I'm doing, what
45:32
Speaker 2: I'm doing with a few groups, with a few people,
45:35
Speaker 2: is I have them intended dream about the target picture
45:42
Speaker 2: objective that's pretty much what it is. And now it's
45:47
Speaker 2: I could define it a little bit more. I could say,
45:50
Speaker 2: dream about the picture that you will be, that you
45:54
Speaker 2: will observe three days from now. Okay, that would be
45:57
Speaker 2: the so called feedback picture, where they I should see
46:00
Speaker 2: that the actual target. You know, ultimately you need you
46:05
Speaker 2: need to get some kind of feedback. You don't necessarily
46:09
Speaker 2: must have it, but it's nice in the beginning to
46:12
Speaker 2: know what it is, how well you did it's called
46:15
Speaker 2: so in a way, it's part of a learning that
46:18
Speaker 2: goes on as well. Maybe I skipped over that a
46:21
Speaker 2: bit too fast, but anyway, ultimately you may you may
46:25
Speaker 2: need less of that. But let's say initially the target
46:29
Speaker 2: really is it's either one or two things. It's the
46:33
Speaker 2: target wherever it exists in whatever holographic or matrix. That's
46:38
Speaker 2: what you want to perceive. But ultimately, if you're going
46:41
Speaker 2: to get feedback, you're going to see the picture. So
46:44
Speaker 2: then the target could be the feedback picture. And there's
46:47
Speaker 2: a big discussion that goes on. Right now, are you
46:51
Speaker 2: perceiving the feedback or the picture wherever it is in
46:54
Speaker 2: this matrix of this holographic universe, And you know, I'm
46:59
Speaker 2: going to pass and that we still we still argue
47:01
Speaker 2: about that. But as long as you get feedback, it
47:04
Speaker 2: could be the feedback picture. But for the purpose of
47:07
Speaker 2: this discussion here, let's talk about the feedback picture. So
47:12
Speaker 2: then then when you the experiments that I've been doing
47:17
Speaker 2: are normally, when you have a parapsychological or SIA experiment,
47:24
Speaker 2: you need to draw extracted picture randomly from some large
47:29
Speaker 2: target pool, you know, again, to satisfy all the statistical
47:35
Speaker 2: neutral homoges home genius types of requirements that you want
47:40
Speaker 2: to use when you do statistics. So what I have,
47:45
Speaker 2: what I requested the dreamers do is then seek dreams
47:51
Speaker 2: about the picture that they will be shown. You say,
47:54
Speaker 2: three days from now. It's my typical period. Now, sometimes
47:59
Speaker 2: that picture has chosen almost immediately after I pass on
48:05
Speaker 2: that tasking that same night. I'm the only one that
48:08
Speaker 2: knows it, of course, but the dreamers won't know this
48:12
Speaker 2: for three days after I received the scripts and all that. Okay,
48:17
Speaker 2: So that's part of this one method one procedure. The
48:21
Speaker 2: other is what I've been doing lately is I don't
48:24
Speaker 2: even choose the picture until after the scripts are reported,
48:31
Speaker 2: and I'm using an AI platform to choose the photograph
48:37
Speaker 2: elements after the dreams recorded. So in essence, the picture
48:43
Speaker 2: does not exist anywhere at the time of the session.
48:46
Speaker 2: So you really are going somewhere into the future. I
48:50
Speaker 2: don't know where that future is. Then it's the debate
48:54
Speaker 2: that will go on for a long time what is
48:57
Speaker 2: the future? And that's the interesting thing about this work.
49:01
Speaker 2: It generates more deep questions and it resolves. You know.
49:06
Speaker 2: Then we get into concepts like retro causation and is
49:10
Speaker 2: the future moving toward us? And we just pick up
49:13
Speaker 2: a little bit ahead of time. There's how does the
49:16
Speaker 2: future really exist? Yeah, so there's when you when you
49:21
Speaker 2: have a target picture that doesn't exist now anywhere, So
49:26
Speaker 2: where was it between the time of the perception and
49:31
Speaker 2: when you actually retrieved the picture from the ethers so
49:34
Speaker 2: to speak?
49:35
Speaker 1: Okay, that's what Lim Buchanan talks about as well, like
49:39
Speaker 1: these the testing your of your accuracy, so that they
49:42
Speaker 1: would have, you know, some of the remove viewers like
49:46
Speaker 1: to test them. They would say, I mean, this was
49:50
Speaker 1: just an example. I don't know if you if it's
49:52
Speaker 1: one hundred percent accurate. You just gave an example of
49:55
Speaker 1: well can you you know, see what's going to be
49:58
Speaker 1: on the headline of Life magazine in two weeks.
50:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so.
50:04
Speaker 1: What you're saying is sort of almost the exact same thing,
50:07
Speaker 1: but with like this this dream statement.
50:09
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, yes it's similar. Now, yes it's similar. The
50:18
Speaker 2: I've done experiments in going into the future news three
50:21
Speaker 2: days to seven days ahead and a very specific spot
50:27
Speaker 2: in the newspaper for very and the results that provide
50:32
Speaker 2: very clear details about that picture seven days in the future. Now,
50:37
Speaker 2: seven days in the future almost eliminates any intention the photograph.
50:45
Speaker 2: The photographers not there yet, the event hasn't yet happened,
50:49
Speaker 2: So you really are jumping ahead in time now. If
50:52
Speaker 2: you say I just wanted to perceive to cover the
50:56
Speaker 2: magazine coming up tomorrow, that's not quite right far enough,
51:00
Speaker 2: because the editors know, the photographer knows, the artist knows
51:05
Speaker 2: what is what's coming your way. So it's not truly
51:09
Speaker 2: in the future. It exists somewhere now. But when you
51:14
Speaker 2: jump ahead seven days at least or even more, of course,
51:18
Speaker 2: it doesn't exist anywhere. So this is why I like
51:23
Speaker 2: to work in that far in the future, to distance
51:26
Speaker 2: myself from what I call the artifacts of current knowledge
51:32
Speaker 2: or expectations or plans that people have an intention of
51:38
Speaker 2: the editor to do this or the photographer to do that. Tomorrow,
51:43
Speaker 2: I'm moving out of that time frame and jumping ahead
51:48
Speaker 2: to get that out of the way. And it still works.
51:52
Speaker 2: So in the protocol I mentioned before, where nothing exists
51:58
Speaker 2: until later you use some AI platform to generate a picture,
52:05
Speaker 2: that picture didn't exist anywhere at all, and nobody intended it.
52:12
Speaker 2: There was no editor, there was nothing planned for it.
52:15
Speaker 2: It just was brought together, you might say, at a
52:19
Speaker 2: certain time through some random processes in the future. So
52:25
Speaker 2: these prompt some really interesting thought here, and you know,
52:30
Speaker 2: it's bothered me over the years since I've been doing this.
52:34
Speaker 2: Initially you really didn't want to really believe. The results
52:38
Speaker 2: were disturbing to me because, you know, on the one hand,
52:42
Speaker 2: we have the idea of free will. On the other hand,
52:46
Speaker 2: I see data like this, and how could that picture
52:49
Speaker 2: be so precise seven days or ten days ahead. How
52:55
Speaker 2: could all that have been orchestrated for that person to
52:59
Speaker 2: be there, for work great to be there, or that
53:01
Speaker 2: animal to be walking past at that precise moment when
53:05
Speaker 2: the photograph is taken ten days, seven days, ten days ahead.
53:09
Speaker 2: You know, it's bothering you to me that this can happen.
53:15
Speaker 2: So yet it does, and even undertainous cases where people
53:22
Speaker 2: have these incredible experiences then years ahead and then there
53:28
Speaker 2: comes a time and that precise situation occurs ten, twenty
53:32
Speaker 2: thirty years later. You know, it's really really incredible. So
53:37
Speaker 2: I don't know, not particularly a philosopher, then maybe I
53:41
Speaker 2: don't want to be.
53:44
Speaker 1: Yeah, that brings a lot of things in the question
53:46
Speaker 1: if it is free will or if it's a pre
53:51
Speaker 1: preconceived destination of time. I think there's a lot of
53:54
Speaker 1: debate and argument about that. If you know, we really
53:57
Speaker 1: do have free will, we have control of our doubt,
54:00
Speaker 1: or if we're if we just have the ability to
54:03
Speaker 1: take a different path. But it's ultimately going to lead
54:06
Speaker 1: to the same destination no matter which way you go.
54:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's coming. You know, it almost seems
54:13
Speaker 2: that both things seem to be working. If if it
54:18
Speaker 2: were a personal thing, and I would have a perception
54:22
Speaker 2: whether it be through a conscious state, remove you in
54:25
Speaker 2: session or green state about say an incident that's not
54:31
Speaker 2: comfortable that I feel that it involves me. You know, ten
54:36
Speaker 2: days from now, you know, I have enough detail to
54:39
Speaker 2: identify where that incident is. If there's anything I can
54:43
Speaker 2: do to avoid it, I will do that. So the
54:47
Speaker 2: incident may still happen, but I'm not in the picture.
54:51
Speaker 2: So I extracted myself from that future. Although that basic
54:54
Speaker 2: event that went on to happen as perceived by not
54:59
Speaker 2: only my self, about others as well, because because many
55:03
Speaker 2: times these future incidents, particularly if they are headline type incidents,
55:09
Speaker 2: are actually perceived by many people, they just don't talk
55:12
Speaker 2: about them. You know, well, sometimes wonder but you know,
55:16
Speaker 2: well we can, we can pick on these these school shootings,
55:20
Speaker 2: for example, because I sort of common, I hate to
55:23
Speaker 2: say it, relatively common in the in our consciousness, in
55:28
Speaker 2: the headlines. So what is happening, you know, the days
55:33
Speaker 2: before with the parents or the children. Wouldn't wouldn't you
55:39
Speaker 2: think that one of them would either the parents, one
55:43
Speaker 2: of the parents or some of the children wouldn't have
55:46
Speaker 2: a perception of some something coming their way that they
55:50
Speaker 2: should be prepared for or avoid. You know, I think
55:55
Speaker 2: I think these happen. I think people have these perceptions,
55:58
Speaker 2: but they don't talk about.
56:00
Speaker 1: I've had it happened to me before, but I didn't
56:04
Speaker 1: really know what to do with the information and I
56:08
Speaker 1: had received like this vision that because I was going
56:12
Speaker 1: out kayaking with a group of people in the ocean
56:16
Speaker 1: and I saw a vision. I've talked about this a
56:18
Speaker 1: few times, but I think it's bears repeating. I was
56:23
Speaker 1: going out kayaking, I received a vision that somebody was
56:26
Speaker 1: going to be hit by a boat on the kayak.
56:31
Speaker 1: And I was like, okay, well what do I do
56:33
Speaker 1: with this information? Like do I not go out? Or
56:37
Speaker 1: do I go out? And then you know, to try
56:39
Speaker 1: and you know, protect the people that I'm with, And
56:43
Speaker 1: of course I didn't tell anybody, you know, and so
56:46
Speaker 1: I decided to go out. And then it turned out
56:49
Speaker 1: that I was the one that got hit by the
56:51
Speaker 1: boat on the kayaker. And no joke, no lie that.
56:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, but say you might have been done and prepared
57:00
Speaker 2: for that, you were apprehensive, maybe your reactions were just
57:03
Speaker 2: a little different and you awarded a more major situation
57:07
Speaker 2: that might have happened. So, yeah, you were more directly
57:10
Speaker 2: involved in it. But if if I'd been and had
57:13
Speaker 2: that experience, and I probably would have then pundered that
57:19
Speaker 2: either through a meditation phase or through a dream phase,
57:24
Speaker 2: seeking additional information about that perceived event.
57:28
Speaker 1: Well, it happened like the day of, so it would
57:30
Speaker 1: like it happened that as we were on the way
57:33
Speaker 1: to kayak, So it wasn't like before or anything. So
57:36
Speaker 1: like it was just like a snap decision, like I
57:38
Speaker 1: either had to make a decision to go out or
57:41
Speaker 1: stay back. So there wasn't any like you know, it
57:45
Speaker 1: happened the day before or two days before or anything.
57:47
Speaker 1: It was like the day of, And I was like,
57:48
Speaker 1: oh man, what do I do well.
57:51
Speaker 2: I think in an air case, it prepared you. You
57:54
Speaker 2: were more probably more alert, and you may have done
57:57
Speaker 2: something slightly different to make it less dramatic. You know,
58:01
Speaker 2: I'm trying to look at this optimistically, and maybe had
58:05
Speaker 2: you been even super alert, you could have even avoided
58:08
Speaker 2: the whole incident. So I don't know. So there, I
58:11
Speaker 2: think there were some paths here that we're still open.
58:16
Speaker 2: But you know, you were certainly heading that way, and
58:20
Speaker 2: had it been more of a tragic nature for you,
58:24
Speaker 2: I think you would have not gone out. I think
58:27
Speaker 2: your subconscious mind would have would have overcome or done
58:31
Speaker 2: something to deviate you from that tragic path. So, you know,
58:38
Speaker 2: I've had sort of the opposite experience. I've been brought
58:44
Speaker 2: into a path that could have been tragic and helped
58:47
Speaker 2: avoid a tragic situation that I didn't need to be in.
58:51
Speaker 2: So it's just sort of the opposite of what you said.
58:55
Speaker 2: But it again shows a subconscious knowing that there's really
58:59
Speaker 2: ahead or can you be prepared, can you avoid or
59:04
Speaker 2: can you help it out in some way unconsciously subconsciously
59:11
Speaker 2: and up on the helping side. Uh, I could have
59:15
Speaker 2: avoided the situation totally, but then the tragic situation would
59:20
Speaker 2: have happened, and I would have really really regretted that.
59:24
Speaker 1: So because if I wouldn't have went out, then it
59:27
Speaker 1: could have possibly happened to somebody else and it could
59:29
Speaker 1: have been way worse.
59:32
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, you can't say for sure, of course, but
59:35
Speaker 2: you prepared, You were prepared for it. Whatever you did,
59:41
Speaker 2: it might have been a bit of a help to
59:43
Speaker 2: avoid it being even worse.
59:46
Speaker 1: Uh.
59:46
Speaker 2: And plus again it's given you an example. And I
59:50
Speaker 2: think many times we have these experiences so that we
59:54
Speaker 2: can illustrate to others these conscious things can happen. So
1:00:00
Speaker 2: I shook a lot of people in the viewing audience
1:00:02
Speaker 2: can relate to what I just said. Then they just
1:00:06
Speaker 2: don't see it at the time or if it happens,
1:00:10
Speaker 2: they don't like to talk about it. So you know,
1:00:14
Speaker 2: ultimately what I like to do, you know, is sort
1:00:17
Speaker 2: of bring all this together and people realize through my
1:00:23
Speaker 2: discussions and some writings we at a personal level. You know. Sure,
1:00:28
Speaker 2: you can talk all you want about Stargate and the
1:00:31
Speaker 2: previous names and whatever you did there, but I'm immediately
1:00:36
Speaker 2: looking ahead to what was just pointing towards what we
1:00:40
Speaker 2: learned from this. You know, it's not an issue where
1:00:44
Speaker 2: there's a protocol and people learn the procedure and then you
1:00:49
Speaker 2: go and grab what they can. You know, I don't
1:00:51
Speaker 2: see it that way. It's you're learning something about your
1:00:56
Speaker 2: inner nature and how you cannot with the universe, other people,
1:01:01
Speaker 2: the universe, the animal kingdom in the world, the universe.
1:01:06
Speaker 2: You have a feeling, you almost know that you have
1:01:10
Speaker 2: this connectivity. So then you can move on from there.
1:01:15
Speaker 2: How do I improve my life in a life of
1:01:18
Speaker 2: people around me and my loved ones. So you look
1:01:22
Speaker 2: at it from that point of view and not from
1:01:25
Speaker 2: the point of view or now I'm going to be
1:01:26
Speaker 2: this great psychic. I'm not. I don't want to be this.
1:01:29
Speaker 2: I could I could be this grave remove viewer and
1:01:32
Speaker 2: become a psychic detective and blah blah blah. Now now
1:01:36
Speaker 2: you're thinking more universal, Uh, how does this really add
1:01:43
Speaker 2: to the evolution of myself and others? I'm looking at
1:01:49
Speaker 2: it from that perspective now.
1:01:51
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting how people are like, well, if
1:01:54
Speaker 1: you're removed your your information is coming from you know,
1:02:00
Speaker 1: the ether, It's coming from this this kind of unknown
1:02:03
Speaker 1: aspect of Kashak records. Some people say or like, you know,
1:02:06
Speaker 1: an infinite data field that's like all around us, like
1:02:09
Speaker 1: you're talking about like the matrix. But then whenever a
1:02:13
Speaker 1: channeler comes in, it's not coming from the ether anymore.
1:02:19
Speaker 1: It's not coming from this infinite data field anymore. It's
1:02:22
Speaker 1: now coming from an entity or they perceive that is
1:02:26
Speaker 1: coming from an entity. Do you have any thoughts on that?
1:02:30
Speaker 2: Yes, I dug into this one time ago, and I
1:02:32
Speaker 2: was still going to dig into it. I know people
1:02:35
Speaker 2: of course, So again I have two viewpoints on this. Yeah,
1:02:40
Speaker 2: there could be some some something like an energy or
1:02:44
Speaker 2: consciousness source that lives more directly with the records out
1:02:48
Speaker 2: there with the go to the matrix, that becomes so
1:02:51
Speaker 2: like a messenger, you know, like like workery way back
1:02:55
Speaker 2: in great non Murcury, but scipios and those figures from
1:03:02
Speaker 2: mythology that the messengers that provided the connection between the
1:03:07
Speaker 2: above and below. So yeah, there is that idea. The
1:03:12
Speaker 2: other idea is that it's a way in which the
1:03:16
Speaker 2: individual perceives, from their point of view, how the only
1:03:23
Speaker 2: way information can be presented. So they personify it is
1:03:27
Speaker 2: an entity that's sort of created. Then you might call
1:03:32
Speaker 2: it an icon, an imaginary being that is then serves
1:03:38
Speaker 2: as that messenger. Sure, I can see how that can happen.
1:03:43
Speaker 2: And you know, working with dream imagery, you know some
1:03:47
Speaker 2: dream images, the figures in a dream and so real.
1:03:51
Speaker 2: You know, if I wouldn't know a dream, particularly if
1:03:54
Speaker 2: it's I said, well, that's an entity that is independent
1:03:58
Speaker 2: of me, but in it's the construct of my dreaming
1:04:02
Speaker 2: mind that showed up in that dream for that particular
1:04:07
Speaker 2: dream purpose. So in channeling, it could be just a
1:04:12
Speaker 2: representation of how the individual has trained back to the
1:04:17
Speaker 2: word training again, or feel comfortable or really sensus energy.
1:04:23
Speaker 2: It has a personal touch to a feeling that part
1:04:27
Speaker 2: may be extremely valid and meaningful and has a connection
1:04:32
Speaker 2: of a personal nature. It could go beyond the self. Yeah,
1:04:37
Speaker 2: so it certainly could and also it could be some
1:04:41
Speaker 2: exalted aspect of the universe is popping up.
1:04:48
Speaker 4: I don't know.
1:04:48
Speaker 2: I'm not willing any I can't judge. I'm just saying
1:04:52
Speaker 2: these these are valid ways of looking at the experience.
1:04:56
Speaker 1: Have you ever worked with a channeler? Do you think
1:05:00
Speaker 1: t is real?
1:05:01
Speaker 2: Well, the idea behind it works. Now, whether the concept
1:05:07
Speaker 2: is totally accurate, I don't know. It could be a
1:05:14
Speaker 2: way in which the individual believes that data is presented,
1:05:21
Speaker 2: but more can I say. It could be what the
1:05:24
Speaker 2: individual says, or it could be the way people look
1:05:29
Speaker 2: at the data in a way it's presented and make
1:05:32
Speaker 2: their own evaluation of what it is. But for the experience,
1:05:38
Speaker 2: it seems very real. I can deny that. You know,
1:05:42
Speaker 2: like a near death experience. You're not going to take
1:05:45
Speaker 2: that away from someone who has the experience. So it
1:05:51
Speaker 2: may well be that there is in essence that has
1:05:57
Speaker 2: a reality to it is between the individual subconscious and
1:06:03
Speaker 2: you know, the records out there, so that that works
1:06:07
Speaker 2: as a as a messenger style individual the Greek ascibios
1:06:15
Speaker 2: or the leader Mercury, the concept of mercury as a
1:06:19
Speaker 2: messenger between the above and below. So there there are
1:06:23
Speaker 2: these concepts work? So what the reality is behind them?
1:06:30
Speaker 2: You know, even a neutral concept may not be neutral.
1:06:33
Speaker 2: They may may be oversimplified. Now, now, if remove your
1:06:39
Speaker 2: access system of records or access the holographic universe, it
1:06:45
Speaker 2: doesn't mean it's not something between me and that data
1:06:49
Speaker 2: that's also having a role to player. They call it
1:06:53
Speaker 2: the higher self if you will, uh, you know, you know,
1:06:57
Speaker 2: the the self behind my conscious self, you know, and
1:07:03
Speaker 2: you know the awardeness behind the dream is a term
1:07:08
Speaker 2: that's commonly used in dream work. What is aware? How?
1:07:15
Speaker 2: How can we be aware of what is aware of
1:07:19
Speaker 2: us when we dream? Our subconsciousness is something beyond that
1:07:24
Speaker 2: that showed up in the dream. So I don't know,
1:07:30
Speaker 2: is it part of you know? I can only go
1:07:32
Speaker 2: so far with it, and then I turned back to
1:07:35
Speaker 2: my practical self. Okay, those are concepts.
1:07:40
Speaker 1: Well. I think that if remote viewing, because I personally
1:07:44
Speaker 1: believe that remote viewing is definitely real and it can
1:07:48
Speaker 1: be scientifically proven in a lot of cases, But it
1:07:52
Speaker 1: depends on the person that's doing it. Are they accurate
1:07:56
Speaker 1: and the thing. It's like that with anything, it's like
1:07:59
Speaker 1: that with channeling. I think the channeling also can be real.
1:08:04
Speaker 1: But it depends on the person that is claiming that
1:08:07
Speaker 1: they're doing the channeling, because just like with everything now,
1:08:10
Speaker 1: there's there's you know, there's frausters, there's hoasters, there's people
1:08:14
Speaker 1: that are just making stuff up. You know, they're just
1:08:17
Speaker 1: closing their eyes and pretending that they're getting this information.
1:08:20
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's a common thing with within the everything.
1:08:23
Speaker 1: It's not even just in this community, it's with all
1:08:25
Speaker 1: topics and all things. So I think the channeling is real.
1:08:29
Speaker 1: I think the remote viewing is real. It's just that
1:08:31
Speaker 1: it's being kind of covered up and you know, downgraded
1:08:37
Speaker 1: because a lot of the people that claim that they
1:08:39
Speaker 1: can actually do this really can't do it. Yeah.
1:08:44
Speaker 2: Right, so we bought down here. Okay, just look at
1:08:48
Speaker 2: look at the results. What is the day? How much
1:08:50
Speaker 2: of that can you evaluate and verify? And I know,
1:08:53
Speaker 2: if you can't do it at the moment, then maybe
1:08:56
Speaker 2: in time the truth will come out and then you'll know.
1:09:00
Speaker 2: So we try to stay I'll try to stay away
1:09:02
Speaker 2: from what we call esthetery topics, topics that sometimes remote
1:09:09
Speaker 2: viewers get themselves into, or anyone for that matter, even dreamers. Then,
1:09:17
Speaker 2: but it was the perception is that it's something you
1:09:22
Speaker 2: know that that could be beyond you know, some extraterrestrial
1:09:28
Speaker 2: speaking to us or something like that, or or which
1:09:32
Speaker 2: may or may not be the case, but you cannot verify,
1:09:36
Speaker 2: you cannot validate that. But now there's information coming out
1:09:40
Speaker 2: of that concept. Yeah, well then the information is correct.
1:09:44
Speaker 2: It still doesn't tessify the concept that that's an individual thing.
1:09:50
Speaker 2: And the problem I see with this, and I'm comfortable
1:09:54
Speaker 2: with whatever people's concept or model is, I just don't question, Okay,
1:10:00
Speaker 2: don't It's like a TV program many years ago. I
1:10:03
Speaker 2: think it's one of the detective programs where it's actually
1:10:08
Speaker 2: would say, just give me the facts. Don't give me
1:10:11
Speaker 2: your concept, don't give your method, Just give me the facts.
1:10:16
Speaker 2: Don't talk to me about how you got there. So,
1:10:18
Speaker 2: you know, kind of the way I look at it.
1:10:22
Speaker 2: And sometimes it's that's fine, But if an individual is
1:10:28
Speaker 2: really locked into a certain method and they want to
1:10:31
Speaker 2: try to convince others, that doesn't work too well either.
1:10:34
Speaker 2: Your best keeping your concepts to yourself and my view,
1:10:38
Speaker 2: you're just looking at the end result. Now, sometimes run
1:10:42
Speaker 2: into difficulties in looking at people's information or reading coming
1:10:47
Speaker 2: across some videos I see or something. Sometimes there's an
1:10:53
Speaker 2: interpretation that's laid on the data that's not necessarily valid.
1:11:00
Speaker 2: The data might be okay, but it's interpreted in such
1:11:04
Speaker 2: a way that it's totally wrong. So, you know, some
1:11:10
Speaker 2: people might be a certain incident and attribute it to
1:11:15
Speaker 2: a certain cause, and there's no way that that cause
1:11:18
Speaker 2: can be proven. You know. I've seen examples where you know,
1:11:24
Speaker 2: remote viewers or somebody not just remote viewers, claim that
1:11:29
Speaker 2: the World Trade Center was, you know, are orchestrated by
1:11:34
Speaker 2: some government conspiracy. I've actually seen this stuff in videos,
1:11:41
Speaker 2: so that the data they present doesn't doesn't verify that
1:11:46
Speaker 2: at all. It might come up with destruction and planes
1:11:50
Speaker 2: hitting it and whatever, but the next step, the cause
1:11:54
Speaker 2: of it or the motivation behind it, it's not there.
1:11:57
Speaker 2: It's invented and put in. It's an over the viewer
1:12:02
Speaker 2: or the dreamer interprets it. Oh, it's got to be
1:12:06
Speaker 2: somebody else doing it that you couldn't be a foreign nation,
1:12:10
Speaker 2: you know. So the interpretation problems are coming into this
1:12:15
Speaker 2: when you're looking at what's out there in the press
1:12:17
Speaker 2: or within the public media, and these are the things
1:12:20
Speaker 2: I'm concerned about. I see a lot of that not
1:12:23
Speaker 2: a lot. But I see the incidents where the data
1:12:26
Speaker 2: might be okay up to your point, but the cause
1:12:30
Speaker 2: and the interpretations are off track. And you can't disprove
1:12:34
Speaker 2: something that has a subject of interpretation or a bias
1:12:40
Speaker 2: in it. So there there are issues in terms of
1:12:44
Speaker 2: how do you work or understand some of the material
1:12:47
Speaker 2: that we come across in the media. Some of it's
1:12:51
Speaker 2: kind of disturbing to me. But you know, I just
1:12:55
Speaker 2: shorted my shoulders and say, well, the is that really
1:12:59
Speaker 2: whens pointing toward maybe it isn't back off from the interpretation.
1:13:07
Speaker 1: That's amazing what you just said. It's hard to prove
1:13:09
Speaker 1: something that has a subjective interpretation. I mean I think
1:13:12
Speaker 1: that I think that that implies a lot of things.
1:13:17
Speaker 1: And it's interesting that you bring up these entities and
1:13:20
Speaker 1: like extra treasturals and stuff. Because I was just Sean
1:13:23
Speaker 1: Ryan just had Skip at Water on his channel and
1:13:26
Speaker 1: they were talking and I was, you know, talking to
1:13:28
Speaker 1: Lim Buchanan about you know, Skip out Water and Skip
1:13:31
Speaker 1: said that he was an operations and training officer at
1:13:35
Speaker 1: the Stargate program, and Lim Buchanan said that he never
1:13:38
Speaker 1: trained anyone, that he was just a monitor. And but
1:13:43
Speaker 1: that didn't stop him from saying that he was also
1:13:45
Speaker 1: a trainer. But the interesting part of the discussion that
1:13:48
Speaker 1: he had with Sean Ryan was that he was talking
1:13:50
Speaker 1: about dreams. And you know, skip out Water isn't a
1:13:54
Speaker 1: he was never a remote viewer, and I believe you
1:13:59
Speaker 1: are not a remote viewer either. You were the director
1:14:02
Speaker 1: of operations at the at the unit, but you've had
1:14:05
Speaker 1: interesting things with dreams. And then he says that he's
1:14:08
Speaker 1: also had very interesting things happened with him with dreams
1:14:12
Speaker 1: as well, And I thought that that was a really
1:14:14
Speaker 1: interesting connection how he's not a remote viewer. He had
1:14:19
Speaker 1: really strange dreams where he was contacted by these entities,
1:14:22
Speaker 1: so he says, and then you also have really interesting
1:14:29
Speaker 1: things with dreams, and you know, having these pre precognitive dreams.
1:14:35
Speaker 1: I guess you could.
1:14:36
Speaker 2: Say, yeah, but see, I don't have an interpretation as
1:14:41
Speaker 2: to where the data is coming from. You know, just
1:14:44
Speaker 2: there many years ago when I first became involved in
1:14:49
Speaker 2: dream work, and back again in the nineteen seventies at
1:14:52
Speaker 2: the same time I became involved in remote viewing. Yeah,
1:14:56
Speaker 2: sure I had dreams that could have been interpreted that way.
1:15:00
Speaker 2: But when if you come in from a union perspective
1:15:03
Speaker 2: and look at it symbolically, which which felt comfortable to
1:15:08
Speaker 2: me that I could see a lot of that imagery
1:15:10
Speaker 2: this representative of connections with a subconscious mind. So I
1:15:15
Speaker 2: didn't see anything beyond me being involved in some of
1:15:18
Speaker 2: that imagery. So I'm not running around saying I'm contacted
1:15:22
Speaker 2: by ET. So no, that's not my experience. Now you
1:15:28
Speaker 2: mentioned not. It's true I was not. I was not
1:15:32
Speaker 2: an official viewer, but you know, I did go through
1:15:37
Speaker 2: some protocols at SORRO and did fairly well, and I
1:15:42
Speaker 2: did things on the side, and I did occasionally chip in,
1:15:48
Speaker 2: but never really you know, did a lot, but with
1:15:52
Speaker 2: the project, a lot I did with private groups. So
1:15:58
Speaker 2: it's not that I haven't done viewing. I do just
1:16:02
Speaker 2: not not visible. I don't make an issue of it.
1:16:08
Speaker 2: And the reason I don't is just assume not have
1:16:11
Speaker 2: that be a distraction from what you might call my
1:16:17
Speaker 2: objectivity on the field. But also I want to really
1:16:22
Speaker 2: focus more on the other neglected side, which is the
1:16:26
Speaker 2: dream side, and I feel this is an important area
1:16:30
Speaker 2: that is not really considered in general, and this is
1:16:36
Speaker 2: really quite important. You know. It goes back to something
1:16:38
Speaker 2: I said earlier using that example of school shootings. You know, okay,
1:16:46
Speaker 2: people are not going to be running around doing a
1:16:48
Speaker 2: remote viewing succession, either parent or child and saying, Okay,
1:16:53
Speaker 2: what what I need to know in the week ahead
1:16:57
Speaker 2: remote viewing, even if they know the basics of how
1:17:01
Speaker 2: to do it, But more likely they would have a
1:17:05
Speaker 2: spontaneous dream. It's just going to be a natural occurrence
1:17:11
Speaker 2: because we are by nature concerned about the future, more
1:17:16
Speaker 2: some more so than others. And that's why they are
1:17:20
Speaker 2: so relatively many precounting to dreams and people that are
1:17:25
Speaker 2: reported and many many more that are not. They happen.
1:17:31
Speaker 2: So if they're going to happen, can't we be better
1:17:34
Speaker 2: prepared as a society to work with them? And a
1:17:40
Speaker 2: good example would be parents and children. Uh, parents listening
1:17:45
Speaker 2: to the children that they're going to that school. Did
1:17:48
Speaker 2: you have any disturbing dreams over the past week or so? U?
1:17:52
Speaker 2: And even the parents themselves. And so by this this dialogue,
1:17:56
Speaker 2: which I think is certainly feasible, could be and in
1:17:59
Speaker 2: some of my colleagues in the dreamwork community are actually
1:18:02
Speaker 2: striving to have that happen. So when this opening occurs,
1:18:07
Speaker 2: that opening up occurs and We're not talking about the
1:18:10
Speaker 2: remove viewing protocol here, because that requires another mindset, so
1:18:14
Speaker 2: to speak, a different kind of approach. I'm talking about
1:18:17
Speaker 2: something that's really already happening. It's natural. Not that remote
1:18:23
Speaker 2: viewing isn't natural, but it's not as natural when you
1:18:27
Speaker 2: confine it to a strict protocol. But in the dream
1:18:31
Speaker 2: work that's already there, you already have that potential it happens.
1:18:36
Speaker 2: So this can be mobilized, This can be more aware
1:18:40
Speaker 2: of and in general population, and I think if that
1:18:45
Speaker 2: could occur, there could be many people being better prepared
1:18:52
Speaker 2: and even getting out alerts to law enforcements, say be
1:18:55
Speaker 2: on the lookout tomorrow something like that, that's the school
1:18:59
Speaker 2: or whatever. So yeah, I'm just citing a very specific
1:19:02
Speaker 2: example where I think in the future this whole field
1:19:08
Speaker 2: can be can be hope phenomena and a little ability.
1:19:11
Speaker 2: It can can be a more universal use for all
1:19:16
Speaker 2: of us.
1:19:18
Speaker 1: Wasn't China working with children a long time ago with
1:19:23
Speaker 1: like psychic abilities.
1:19:25
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, I'm aware of that. I'm seeing some of
1:19:28
Speaker 2: the reports and there have been some recent activities. So yeah,
1:19:34
Speaker 2: years ago, I actually sponsored for someone to travel there
1:19:40
Speaker 2: in the eighties to have the first first time visitation
1:19:46
Speaker 2: with some of the researchers. In the report that was
1:19:50
Speaker 2: written was not as favorable because the conditions were really loose,
1:19:56
Speaker 2: the controls weren't not great. That could have been queueing,
1:20:00
Speaker 2: but then again that could have been a bias. So
1:20:02
Speaker 2: I don't know. So I put out in a back burner. Yeah,
1:20:09
Speaker 2: interesting stories, but I'm not sure. But now apparently in
1:20:13
Speaker 2: some later stuff. I don't follow this that much anymore,
1:20:16
Speaker 2: but apparently in some recent stuff that I've heard about,
1:20:19
Speaker 2: and also through some presentations A couple of years ago
1:20:24
Speaker 2: at the Society for the Scientific Explanation the s S,
1:20:28
Speaker 2: there was some a report presigned that made it look
1:20:31
Speaker 2: like some significant work was done with a Chinese student
1:20:35
Speaker 2: there or Chinese children that's demonstrated really statistically strong results.
1:20:44
Speaker 2: There's although some research that was done in Mexico with
1:20:47
Speaker 2: children using different procedures that yielded really strong statistical results. Yeah. Sure.
1:20:55
Speaker 2: And even in the early days of the rhyme works,
1:21:00
Speaker 2: the the basically ISP testing cards of the five symbols,
1:21:04
Speaker 2: which are not very exciting but it's used for because
1:21:08
Speaker 2: it's convenient. Children contended that the examples or experiments were
1:21:16
Speaker 2: in school settings. But children did really quite well spectifically
1:21:22
Speaker 2: on this kind of testing. The children have been tested
1:21:27
Speaker 2: over over the over the decades, and even even in
1:21:31
Speaker 2: the Aboriginal Aboriginal societies, individuals were tested and did did
1:21:37
Speaker 2: extremely well so in these tests. But you know, you
1:21:41
Speaker 2: don't you don't see this being continued. I don't see
1:21:44
Speaker 2: too much reputa replication of that works. You can't say
1:21:48
Speaker 2: a lot about them, but there's enough evidence to say, yeah,
1:21:52
Speaker 2: the children can do can do well. Whether it's in
1:21:54
Speaker 2: China or in Australia, or or in Brazil or in
1:21:59
Speaker 2: Mexico or anywhere. You just have to go and test them.
1:22:04
Speaker 2: Then you'll find out and be surprised.
1:22:10
Speaker 1: Do we know. Do we know if SRR were running
1:22:16
Speaker 1: any test on children?
1:22:19
Speaker 2: No, best of my knowledge when I was involved, but
1:22:23
Speaker 2: they did not do any testing with the younger generation. No,
1:22:29
Speaker 2: I'm not aware of anything. I don't think they did.
1:22:32
Speaker 2: I think I would have come across it by now,
1:22:34
Speaker 2: or certainly during the time I was involved with them
1:22:37
Speaker 2: between nineteen seventy six ninety I certainly would have come
1:22:42
Speaker 2: across something. But what they might have done with children,
1:22:46
Speaker 2: and if they did, it was sort of off to
1:22:48
Speaker 2: the side. Something they did sort of was a personal interest,
1:22:52
Speaker 2: but not not anything formal. So yeah, but you know,
1:22:58
Speaker 2: in different groups will occasionally do this in psychology departner someone,
1:23:04
Speaker 2: they might somewhere they might choose two groups and adults
1:23:08
Speaker 2: and children. I think they work at Princeton might have
1:23:12
Speaker 2: done that. I have to help check that. I don't
1:23:17
Speaker 2: remember them. They looked at gender differences with their methodologies.
1:23:23
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if they worked with children. It's a
1:23:26
Speaker 2: good question. I'm going to look into that. It's asually
1:23:29
Speaker 2: it's actually bring that up. That's a good question.
1:23:34
Speaker 1: Some people have reported that that they were involved in
1:23:38
Speaker 1: some kind of studies as kids, but again, you don't
1:23:41
Speaker 1: know if they're just making this stuff up. And some
1:23:42
Speaker 1: people have reported this happening, and you know the public
1:23:45
Speaker 1: schools where they were given some kind of strange tests
1:23:51
Speaker 1: to be put into some kind of other program, and
1:23:54
Speaker 1: there's no way to verify any of that. So it's
1:23:58
Speaker 1: kind of like, oh, well, I don't really know what
1:24:01
Speaker 1: the what to think of it.
1:24:02
Speaker 2: Well, I would not think much of that. That doesn't
1:24:05
Speaker 2: make any sense to me, So I really don't believe that.
1:24:10
Speaker 1: And obviously the government obviously, you know, the i A
1:24:14
Speaker 1: and Army Intelligence would never be using children in their
1:24:19
Speaker 1: programs right now.
1:24:21
Speaker 2: We would consent forums. The big thing we had to
1:24:24
Speaker 2: go through was the human used requirement and especify exactually
1:24:30
Speaker 2: what you did, who was being involved, and how you
1:24:33
Speaker 2: did it. Anything beyond that and you would have been canceled.
1:24:37
Speaker 2: You would have been fired. No hope. We had struct requirements,
1:24:42
Speaker 2: so you know, no, it's not not a possibility now.
1:24:47
Speaker 2: The c i A back in the early sevent just
1:24:49
Speaker 2: some crazy things, uh, And that's what led to the
1:24:53
Speaker 2: tidening up the human used requirements in the government throughout,
1:24:57
Speaker 2: not just the c i A, but that that was
1:24:59
Speaker 2: a fall off from time came I said, Larry and
1:25:01
Speaker 2: the LSD crowd and some mk Altar at work. I
1:25:06
Speaker 2: was doing weird things back in those fudgy days of
1:25:12
Speaker 2: the drug world. So but that's you know, nothing nothing government.
1:25:20
Speaker 1: Well, before I let you go, I just got one
1:25:22
Speaker 1: more question for you, and we're gonna wrap it up
1:25:25
Speaker 1: for today. From my understanding, you and doctor Verona were
1:25:31
Speaker 1: basically responsible for keeping the program running from nineteen eighty four,
1:25:37
Speaker 1: doctor Verona being former CIA I believe, and then he
1:25:41
Speaker 1: was transferred to DA and high up in the DA
1:25:45
Speaker 1: when Army Intelligence wanted to shut it down, and you
1:25:48
Speaker 1: and doctor Verona convince Congress to switch it from Army
1:25:53
Speaker 1: Intelligence program to ADA program to keep it running until
1:25:57
Speaker 1: ninety five.
1:25:58
Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. Yeah. The first time doctor Rona was
1:26:02
Speaker 2: at the d i A, he was the Directorate of
1:26:05
Speaker 2: the Technology and Threat Director of Division, and that was
1:26:10
Speaker 2: the one that was the group that I was then
1:26:14
Speaker 2: transferred into from from the Air Force. And he so
1:26:19
Speaker 2: when I came on board in the eighties and eighty
1:26:22
Speaker 2: eighty one, and when the Air Force had dropped the funding,
1:26:28
Speaker 2: Rona and I and there was another individual involved with
1:26:32
Speaker 2: James Sallier, we actually put together efforts to raise funding
1:26:40
Speaker 2: for either from her own coffers or from a couple
1:26:44
Speaker 2: of times we went over to DARBA, the Defense Advanced
1:26:48
Speaker 2: Research Project Agency, and we're able to mimber, that is,
1:26:53
Speaker 2: military transfer funds over to d i A in that
1:26:59
Speaker 2: interval to keep the research fighting flowing. But that's the
1:27:03
Speaker 2: research side. Now, on the operational side, which is suffered
1:27:08
Speaker 2: from suffered from the research which began in nineteen seventy
1:27:12
Speaker 2: nine at the Fort Media and spirheaded by for that
1:27:18
Speaker 2: water and some of the colonel's generals in Inscom Army
1:27:22
Speaker 2: Inscomb Army Intelligence and Security Command. I'm cut that off.
1:27:27
Speaker 2: But then it was closed by Army in nineteen eighty
1:27:30
Speaker 2: three eighty four. And when that was canceled or closed
1:27:35
Speaker 2: as when Ravona and I got together and I actually
1:27:38
Speaker 2: wrote all the bill justificated position justification in all the
1:27:44
Speaker 2: paperwork that was that was a nightmare. How do you
1:27:49
Speaker 2: talk about this topic? We're not talking about it? You know,
1:27:53
Speaker 2: what do you tell? What do you tell Congressional budgetment viewers?
1:27:57
Speaker 2: Just remote viewing, but it's not remoteing. Know, we had
1:28:00
Speaker 2: to stay away from words that would be too confusing.
1:28:03
Speaker 2: So I know how we all did that. But we
1:28:06
Speaker 2: got that through the budget people, and you had to
1:28:10
Speaker 2: transfer the people and into new builds. You just couldn't
1:28:14
Speaker 2: transfer the arbitrarily you had. We had to create a
1:28:18
Speaker 2: whole space, which we called the built. So we got
1:28:22
Speaker 2: that approved to Congress and then we did did the transfer,
1:28:26
Speaker 2: and then became the army people came along with that.
1:28:30
Speaker 2: Uh So they just simply started working for the d
1:28:33
Speaker 2: i A. Even though they were army people. They were
1:28:37
Speaker 2: no longer an army unit. They were d i A unit.
1:28:40
Speaker 2: Now see d i A is as a manager of
1:28:42
Speaker 2: all Department of Defense and Service intelligence activities, so it's
1:28:50
Speaker 2: a central manager of the Department of Defense. So we
1:28:54
Speaker 2: were the overseas the managers of all of there intelligence
1:28:59
Speaker 2: groups in principle, whether it be Army Inscome or the
1:29:04
Speaker 2: Foreign Technology Division of the Navy intelligence activities. In fact,
1:29:09
Speaker 2: they published the work that was generated by them, and
1:29:13
Speaker 2: in fact I did some of that reports from FTD,
1:29:17
Speaker 2: but they came out under a d i A cover,
1:29:20
Speaker 2: so you really wouldn't know that it was generated at
1:29:24
Speaker 2: by Air Force. It was we did that, and then
1:29:28
Speaker 2: it defends that de I A cover was put on
1:29:30
Speaker 2: that report, So that is sort of how that worked.
1:29:33
Speaker 2: And we had some byline in there, but you really
1:29:36
Speaker 2: had to dig for it to find out where it
1:29:38
Speaker 2: really came from. So yes, so that's what happened. We
1:29:43
Speaker 2: were able to then do administrative work, which almost took
1:29:49
Speaker 2: a year to get fully accomplished in nineteen eighty four
1:29:54
Speaker 2: five and then and then it moved on from there
1:29:58
Speaker 2: until ninety five when everything everything went south so to speak,
1:30:05
Speaker 2: you know, transferred to the CIA for the simple purpose
1:30:08
Speaker 2: of canceling. And I just want to make one point
1:30:11
Speaker 2: about that all this stuff floating around about the CIA archives,
1:30:15
Speaker 2: the CIA files, they're hardly any CIA documents in those
1:30:20
Speaker 2: thousands of reports, all Department of Defense documents or documents
1:30:26
Speaker 2: that is funded by the Department of Defense. So it's
1:30:30
Speaker 2: a misunderstaining to call the CIA files really they really
1:30:37
Speaker 2: funded their defense files.
1:30:39
Speaker 1: But you know, that's what I find too. As people
1:30:41
Speaker 1: were saying that this was a CIA remote viewing program,
1:30:46
Speaker 1: it was the CIA's remote viewing.
1:30:48
Speaker 2: Program or what I'm like, CI You're bolt through program.
1:30:51
Speaker 2: In fact, the work programs even problematic because we never
1:30:55
Speaker 2: really you know, it existed from year to year until
1:30:58
Speaker 2: maybe the last couple of years as we had multi
1:31:01
Speaker 2: year funding, but every year over touch and go, every
1:31:04
Speaker 2: going to exist next year or not. So this is
1:31:07
Speaker 2: true for the research side. It was basically true for
1:31:10
Speaker 2: the for the what I call it in house, the
1:31:15
Speaker 2: for meet you. And there's no guarantee that was going
1:31:18
Speaker 2: to continue beyond the year most too, and it depends
1:31:21
Speaker 2: upon a lot of reviews and approvals for the budget
1:31:26
Speaker 2: and justifications to Congress. You know, I spent a lot
1:31:32
Speaker 2: of time with Congressional committees giving briefings, either with doctor
1:31:40
Speaker 2: Ravona or independently just to update them on the unit
1:31:46
Speaker 2: activities and the research activities. So without that interface, without
1:31:50
Speaker 2: that those reviews we needed to do them more than
1:31:54
Speaker 2: once a year, in including Pentagon level budget review in
1:32:01
Speaker 2: the program managed review teams. We were kept busy throughout
1:32:09
Speaker 2: the year justifying the existence of the research and the
1:32:13
Speaker 2: operational activities. So yeah, it was interested. It gives you
1:32:19
Speaker 2: an interesting job, to say the least.
1:32:23
Speaker 1: I think that you should give way more credit than
1:32:26
Speaker 1: you deserve. Your essentially had the very first remote viewing
1:32:30
Speaker 1: unit ever and you save the program and you created
1:32:34
Speaker 1: the term stargate and everybody knows, yeah, I mean.
1:32:39
Speaker 2: It was surprised and lingers like that, you know. And
1:32:42
Speaker 2: of course one of our colleagues has created was focusing
1:32:49
Speaker 2: on one aspect of that which is really wonderful at
1:32:51
Speaker 2: the center of land group looking at more and operational.
1:32:55
Speaker 2: So that's that's fine to have that recognition for that
1:32:59
Speaker 2: group too, because they were instrumental and continueing the history
1:33:02
Speaker 2: of it. Of course, Dargate then, of course sort of
1:33:05
Speaker 2: encompasses in the general thinking now by usage of all
1:33:12
Speaker 2: but you know, in principal project words that we generate
1:33:16
Speaker 2: for special access it should be in principle should replaced
1:33:20
Speaker 2: all previous In practice, you don't. You can't really do that.
1:33:23
Speaker 2: You can't go back and rename everything. And I wouldn't
1:33:27
Speaker 2: want to keep keep the independence of the various segments
1:33:33
Speaker 2: of the effort viable invisible, not just the last portion
1:33:38
Speaker 2: of it. So but yet I like the name Dargate,
1:33:43
Speaker 2: not because I particularly created it. I just still like
1:33:47
Speaker 2: the name so well.
1:33:50
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you for your effort, and thank you
1:33:52
Speaker 1: for you know, saving the program and when you did
1:33:57
Speaker 1: with doctor Verona, and thank you for creating the name.
1:33:59
Speaker 1: Even though it's all is a lot of confusion and
1:34:01
Speaker 1: a lot of speculation and theorizing, I still think it's
1:34:04
Speaker 1: a really good thing because it's been brought to the
1:34:06
Speaker 1: forefront of a lot of people's mind and it's a
1:34:09
Speaker 1: really popular topic right now. And Dale, thanks so much
1:34:13
Speaker 1: for coming on. I really appreciate it as an honor
1:34:15
Speaker 1: and a privilege to have you on. Can you let
1:34:16
Speaker 1: people know where to find you online or plug your website?
1:34:20
Speaker 1: Have your website in the description of the video already,
1:34:23
Speaker 1: but let people know where they can find you.
1:34:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, I enjoyed talking about this.
1:34:26
Speaker 4: You know.
1:34:27
Speaker 2: I don't go out of my way to do it.
1:34:29
Speaker 2: But it's fun to go back. But I also really
1:34:32
Speaker 2: like to look forward as well, and it's what's the next,
1:34:36
Speaker 2: the next, what are the next thirty years of start date?
1:34:39
Speaker 2: You know, just to follow on what will happen now?
1:34:43
Speaker 2: You know, I'm really really interested in that. I'm going
1:34:46
Speaker 2: to write a paper on that. Okay, well, thank you
1:34:49
Speaker 2: for having me.
1:34:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you and thanks everyone in the chat. Really
1:34:53
Speaker 1: appreciate you all. Please be sure to hit the thumbs
1:34:55
Speaker 1: up button to help the channel on the algorithm, sure subscribe,
1:34:58
Speaker 1: hit the bell like on as well for notifications, and
1:35:01
Speaker 1: check out the documentary on vimeo. The link is in
1:35:04
Speaker 1: the description. And we'll see you guys next time.
1:35:06
Speaker 2: Bye bye, m kahm