Mister Edwin C. May. Welcome to the Shawn Ryan show.

Well, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm looking forward to it, man.

I have been looking forward to this interview for a long time, ever since he kind of popped up on my radar with Joe McMonigal, brought you up several times. And his wife, Scooter and I eventually connected us, which I'm super thankful for. And, man, I'm just totally fascinated with this subject, with remote viewing, eSP, Stargate. And so I just. psychic at all.I'm sitting in my office, right, and finally I said he's going to be really angry. So I eventually showed up an hour late, pulled up in front of the hotel, he came running out of the hotel. How long have you been here? I just got here. Oh, thank God. I have no way of reaching you. I couldn't meet you at five. So how did I do that? One explanation is I use my own unconscious psychic ability that we all have to maneuver through life more efficiently than I would otherwise have and there's a lot of data to support that other than just my own personal experience. Pretty interesting, very interesting.Why do you think people like Joe are able to access this so much more efficiently and deliberately than others? Than others?Well you could train me, get the best high jumping trainer for the Olympics and train the tail off me and man I can clear six inches not 6ft, no matter what. So some people have innate natural skill. Joe is one of them. They're a group of people who think they can train to almost an unlimited skill level and you can't do that. You can only train to whatever the native skill level is why Joe had that and Angela has it. Other people do. About 1% of selected population have a native skill set for that 1%. That's a huge number. When you think about it. It's much larger than the number of people that can learn piano well enough to give a recital at Carnegie hall. So our job is to figure out the answer to that question. I mean, right at the moment, I'm working with some neuroscientists in Brazil to try to figure out what makes the difference between Joe's brain or somebody like him and someone who can't do remote viewing under lab conditions. If we figure that out, we make a giant step forward.What are they saying so far, nothing yet. Nothing yet.It's a very difficult problem. They don't even understand much of standard neuroscience. That's something as weird as this.What do you think?My colleague and I wrote a paper together and published it in what's called Sage, is there must be something that works better when that thing, whatever it is, is changing compared to when that thing is not changing, because otherwise, that's the way our other sensories work. Maybe the ESP, sensory part works the same way it does, and we found it. And that turns out to be something a little harder to describe, is the changing of the entropy of the target system. And that works extremely well.Can you elaborate?Sure. Best way to do that, as an example? Entropy is a measure of chaos and things that are. For example, if you put your water, which has molecules bouncing around it like man, and put it in an ice tray and stick it in your freezer, it freezes them. What happens is that's a serious drop in entropy because it's less chaotic. Now, there's a side issue here called the second law of thermodynamics, which I don't have to get into. If you reach behind your fridge, you know, it's pretty warm behind the refrigerator. The heat that's taken out of the water to make ice is overly compensated by the hot behind the counter behind the fridge. But nonetheless, that change of entropy that's called is what correlates with the quality of remote viewing, and there's no doubt about it. Now, we have nine studies that all agree about that. So it says it is, in fact, a sensory system. Now, we understand how if you're looking on the beach and the sun is sinking into the Pacific, it is well known those photons hit your eyes and how that carries the information into your eyelids. It doesn't tell you anything about how you're going to respond to those photons hitting your eyes.You know, you and I are sitting on the same beach. You start crying because you got engaged on that beach. I'm crying because my mother killed herself on that same beach. It's the same photon. So all that is generated internally with each human being. But still, in terms of the remote viewing stuff, the correlation with the entropy is gorgeous. Now, it's really quite well established.You had mentioned five sensories. You know, sight, smell, taste, touch. What am I missing? What are the other sensories that you were?Oh, the new ones?Yes.Well, echolocation. People can talk and drive a complicated system on a bicycle and avoid all the accidents.I just saw a mini dock on this.Yeah, that's one magnetic field sensing for some people.What is that?To sense magnetic fields, you know, in fact, they worry about, well, there's a power line over me. My sensory system tells me, don't be near that because it's disturbing the magnetic field and I can experience it. Some people have that ability. Not everybody. Not everybody can do echolocation. Not everybody can do remote viewing. It's like other human skills. There's a big spectrum.Have you looked at mediumship?Interesting door. There's two kinds of mediumships. Excuse me. One is informational medium. A medium sits there and communicates with a disincarded entity, let's say. And you're finding out what that person has to say. Your old Uncle Harry passed away and you want to ask questions about it. And so on my way of thinking, if Uncle Harry was a moron during life, what about the left death experience wised him up any. But the question always is. It's really interesting. I'm going to take a small break here on the talk. There is a worldwide organization founded by Margaret Mead, a very famous woman. She was in charge of the american society, no, AAA's American association for the Advancement of Science. And she inducted the parapsychological association as one of the affiliate members of that organization. And they still are part of that. So it's a very serious thing. Okay. So I was a member of the parapsychological association for years. And I went to the current president. I was president one year and on their board and all that. I went to this fellow, his name is dean Raden. I said, dean, I'm quitting the organization. He said, okay, what can I bribe you to do to stay for another year?And I sort of said, how much are you offering me? And he said, okay, we'll give you. How about the career achievement award? I said, okay, fair enough. So the rules are that if you get the career achievement award, which I got, that you give an invited talk at the next year's convention about all your glorious contribution to sci research. Okay? So I'm there in my coat and tie, and I'm behind the podium, and I said, look, you guys have known me for 30 years, and my contribution to this field is well established that I walked in front of the podium and put my hands on my hips, and I'll say, now, let me tell you what's wrong with you bastards. I ripped everybody apart, including me. I said, look, I'm a physicist. There is no way in hell I should be doing psychophysiology measurements. What do I know about that? I'll make all the mistakes that the people who started that made mistakes, and we are all amateurs in that regard, including me, we're wasting our time. I would never invite a student to get into this area until they get a serious degree in some other discipline.And I bragged a little bit. And then I said, it's actually something that's sorrowful. And that is, I held a 20 year career job where I was paid industrial scale wages and benefits and vacation and all that sort of thing, medical care. And I had no other job at parapsychology research. And as far as I know, and it's been confirmed, there's no one else in parapsychology history that can make that claim. And that's pathetic. You need to have a way to make a living that way. Why would you do it? So I don't know if I can say this on camera, but I'll say it and then you can edit it out. I said, you know, I've been studying. I'm a physicist. I don't know anything about psychology, but I've been studying Freud a little bit. And, you know, dramatic way I did it. I said, you know, I've discovered why women are not as good remote viewers as men. Well, that turns out not true. I just said that and I hesitated and I said, penis envy. And the whole crowd started laughing hysterically. And I said, that is the right response to stupidity.What I said was made up and stupid. Now, I'd like to know, how come you don't have the same response when you are pushing quantum mechanics as an explanation for this phenomenon? You could have heard a pin drop. That was the whole point of the thing. People came up to me, boy, we loved your talk. I thought they were dialing the tar and feather company to come and grab me. That paper is written up. It's been sanitized, so it isn't quite so grim. I can send a copy to you if you want.Thank you.Because it does raise an issue. There are three things that we don't know. No one knows. Number one, how long does, if you have a psychic experience, how long does it last? And that's really important to know. If everyone comes in bursts of milliseconds, there's no point in putting in an MRI machine, because that takes 10 seconds to do anything, let alone milliseconds. Forget about it. And second one is when most particular good remote viewers do not have control over their remote viewing. In fact, Joe and I talk a lot about what opens this. Look, if we have access as humans to all space at all time, and we were cognitively aware of it, to use a technical psychiatric term, we'd go bogus loony in a heartbeat. You just overflow that information in your head. So the question proposes then, what opens that door to that vast array of information, and what closes that door? We don't know the answer to either of those. One example of which we did a study with Joe McMonecle at Stanford, and we didn't get any result in the study. Part of the reason is everything that was happening to Joe psychically happened to him when he was pulling into the parking lot.He did not have control over that. So by the time we wired him up, the psychic stuff was over. And that's a serious problem. In fact, I sent back $150,000 grant. I had to study skin conductance in an MRI in Scotland with psychic stuff. And I decided I don't know who to put into the scanner or when. That's a waste of money. And I sent the money back and we reprogrammed it. These are serious issues. And I've got some experiments on the drawing board now to test some of them, but it's a real tough problem.Back to mediumship, okay?Oh, yeah, sorry, got diverted there. The other form of mediumship is called physical mediumship, and my colleague Sonali Bathmadawa is main person behind this. With her colleague in Brazil, Everton Miraldi, and she found 2500 or so documents dating back to the 15th century on physical mediumship. Now it's all fraud, all of it. And what that means, I mean, not our views. This is in the literature. People are with top scientists of the day, including Michael Faraday, a well known physicist. And the other problem with it is it's primarily contained into one culture. Remember I said earlier, things are pan human, it can't be in one culture. This is in the spiritist community in Brazil mostly. And, you know, they get pretty clever. Now, my colleagues down in Brazil have spent a rather huge sum of money to redo the experiments. I kept saying, all you're doing is making better measurements that had gone before, and we'll see. But I don't think it's real.You don't think so? You don't think any mediumship is real?No. Physical mediumship. Physical mediumship, yeah, but informational mediumship, of course it's real. In fact, Julie Bechel from University of Arizona, she formulated what's called the Winbridge Institute and actually wrote a chapter in one of her books. They now are doing grief counseling by using this method. Uncle Harry passed away, and the other history survivors are grieving. So the medium gets in touch with that person. Disincarded entity. If it's real, in a sense, it doesn't matter whether it's real or not.So, I'm sorry, this is a little bit of information overload for me. So the two types of mediumship, again, are what?Informational medium.Informational medium.They give you information about what the disincarn that survive a bodily death. That person is talking to the medium, and that medium is telling you what the medium. What the spirit told her. Physical mediumship means creating things out of thin air, like ectoplasm, this weirdly weird stuff. Or physically, man. It was called table tipping. In the early days. The tables would rise up, and it's all done in the dark. Tables would rise up and move, or table wrapping. You'd heard people banging on the table, spirits doing that.And physical mediumship is what you're saying is.That's what I'm just telling you.It's all fraud.I think so.According to your research, you had brought up the magnetic fields, which actually caught my attention about people who maybe don't want to walk under power lines because it interrupts a magnetic field. What do they. What do they say about that?It's a very controversial area. There's a woman I know in Moscow, Natalia Nebadaba. She did the definitive work on. If you hold your cell phone up to your ear, like a lot of people walk around all the time. Is that radiation hurting your. Hurting you in some way? And the answer for her research? No. She got the Lenin prize for her excellent work in science. She's come to visit me in Palo Alto. Interesting woman, very smart. She works for an organization called the Institute for higher nervous Activity. Like that. I don't know whether that's what she meant, but very competent. Whether or not there's danger for living under a power line, I really don't know the answer. I don't think anybody does. But a lot of people think there must be, and they choose never to live under them.So what do you think about people that have this sensory.Magnetic sensory? That's a real phenomenon. I mean, for example, if you have hemoglobin in your it means mind over matter. It's a long, long thing. And there are two ways of thinking about that. One is behavior of a physical system, that you need statistics to understand whether something's really happening and, or what's called macrophages, that you don't need statistics. Like you just levitate to the ceiling, you don't need statistics. The guy's doing it. Right. So I argue with my colleague in India right now. There's something called poltergeist. Have you ever heard of that term?No, I haven't.What that means is noisy ghost. And so there's a lot of work on poltergeist phenomenon. Very strange things happen, and I leave the door open that maybe something interesting is actually happening there. A very respected guy taught for 50 years at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, and he wrote a number of books on poltergeist. And he saw this one case where the classic case is, it's a very religious family. And with a brand new infant and a prepubescent teenager, it didn't matter what gender. So Arthur Hastings was his name. He's passed away quite some time ago. Arthur writes a story that he was witnessing firsthand. There was this teenager, that classic case. This little baby boy was lying naked on the bed, and he watched a set of rosary beads fly off the dresser, wrap the beads around the genitals of this little baby boy. And Arthur had to reach in to pull them off. What is going on with that? That's hard to fake. It seems to me that's an example of large scale something or another.Was that real?I trust Arthur. Yeah.Wow. Wow.Now, my colleague in India, who's a neuropsychologist, thinks, well, there can be what is called group hallucinations. And on this book, the last author here is a guy named Lloyd Oyerbakh. Because the first version was written like it was written by. Designed by a committee. And it read that way. And I said, lloyd, can you fix this for us? So he rewrote the whole book. I'll tell you a side story. It's his story. You'd be interesting to have him come and talk to you. He's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one. And there's an aircraft carrier. The enterprise permanently docked in Alameda, California, as a museum. And he was on the board to get it set up safe for humans. And there are all kinds of funny stories. He talks about that, that a whole bunch of engineers were sitting in the below deck aircraft hangar, and I not open to the public yet. They see three guys in world War two, military uniform, running along a gangway high up. He said you could see them, but you couldn't hear them. And everybody in the room saw them, and they disappeared. You're not supposed to be here.And they didn't answer and just disappeared. Then poor Lloyd got the impression with all his buddies were trying to make this place safe. They were joking with him all the time. Hey, talk to your ghost buddies. We need some more chain. We've run out of chains. And ghosts are supposed to have a lot of chains. Oh, yeah, right, right. They came the next day. There were mounds of chains all over the deck. Where the hell that came from? The story of his hay talks I liked the best. One of the board members was really a grumpy old guy and just didn't want to prove anything. And screaming and yelling. So they said to Roy, is there anything you could do not to hurt this guy, but to make the. Make the idea. Real to him. Well, it was a typical lightning storm like we had yesterday here. And a tree hit in the parking lot of this in Alameda. And the tree fell over and crushed this poor guy's car. He wasn't in it, thank goodness, at the time. So what the hell's going on with that? And Lloyd's written a whole book about it.In fact, I'm having lunch with him Sunday.Oh, really?Yeah.So Lloyd talks about he's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one, you say?Definitely not.This brings me this interview is not going the way I had planned, but I'm just gonna go with it. But I just want to say in your introduction, we had said that you believed. It sounds like you believe consciousness dies with the body.I do.And so if you believe your colleague, your former colleague and friend, Lloyd is hunting ghosts and he's not crazy, how.Do I square that round hole? Yes, very good question. And lawyers agreed with this. We talk about this a lot. That the assumption that this is a disincarded entity. A ghost, even though they call it. They call it ghost, noisy ghost. But it may not be that way. There may be some other mechanism of the more normal type. Not fraud. Some other mechanism that might be involved in that. Psychokinesis. All psychokinesis, if it's real. And to me, it's an open question. Not true on micro psychokinesis, but macrocycles is still open and Nevin Lance, a psychologist, to write the risks of remote viewing, which there are serious risks. One is, depending upon the personalities. You begin looking at your own Persona in terms of your ability to do remote viewing. And that is a huge, huge psychological mistake. We've had to let people go. People at Fort Meade have had to let people go, who go, to use a technical term, crazy for doing this stuff. It's rare, but it happens. So most people handle it just fine. I mean, you know, hey, fine. No problem. I'll come back tomorrow.So you're saying that some people that have this. Have this ability and realize that they do have the capability wind up driving themselves crazy? How so? And why?I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist.Does it bother them that they have the capability?No. It bothers them that they failed. It bothers them that they failed those few people. I asked Nevan Lance, the psychologist. I said, nevan, how do you integrate what your remote viewing ability is with the rest of your life? He said, I don't know. I wish I could integrate the rest of my life as well.What are some of the other risks?I don't know. I think that's the main one.That's the main risk.Yeah.Is just dealing with failure.Yeah. If you start believing your stuff too much, it seems to me I'm just overlaying my own thinking out loud rather than any serious stuff about it.So you're saying basically, remote viewers will get emotionally attached to their capabilities and.Sort of disastrous for them as well as to the unit.Okay. Okay. Well, 1992, it sounds like you started some type of a relationship with the Russian KGB.I did. I'm an honorary member, not of a KGB. Turns out I first went. I think it was even before no. 92 was the first year. An expat Russian named. Her christian name was Laura V. Faith. Her russian name was Larissa Velaskaya. Very, very talented woman. She worked with Kogan in his classified research laboratory on PSi. Why the hell the Russians let her out, I have no idea. But she immigrated first to Israel because she's jewish. And then she came to the states. And over a long period of time, she ended up getting a citizenship, becoming a Christian, and then working teaching Russian at the defense language school in Monterey. And we hired her out of that. She got a clearance. And so I went to Moscow with her probably four times, one of which was all the way out to Novosibirsk. And she was very protective of me. So one time we were, I guess one of the last time we were together on that trip, I was giving a talk at Moscow State University. She was translating for the students. And, you know, I'm dressed like, I'm more dressed now the way than when I normally dress.I had a t shirt on it, and the students were looking like students. And two guys in suits walk into the back of the room. Uh oh. Two guys in suits. This isn't a good deal. Turns out they were from the Ministry of defense, and they wanted us to come with Larissa and I to come with them. And we went to. Do you know what a scif is? Have you heard that term, Scif?Spent a lot of time in a skiff.Me too. So drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it, but in the middle of that, the way, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexa e or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the russian culture. Okay, so in the middle of all this, he had to staff. He was still working for the. He was still in the military and his staff was there at the table. And yeah, Joe was with us. And I. I've got pictures of him and Sabin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. But I said, alexey, Jordovich. And he interrupted me and spoke to me. The only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English.He said, ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexei. And his staff went. Then he switched back into Russian, and it was being translated by Victor, Victor Ruble, and said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIa know I want a joint program with you guys. And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism, because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30 page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three star in charge of Dia in the Pentagon. And he was all excited, oh, this is really great, because it's cheap. A bottle of scotch kit of everything you need, and there's. You're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks.I'll look him up and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. Never happened. cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.Did any of the kids accomplish that?Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.Oh, in China for sure.What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.So they were there to collect from you, not share.Yeah.What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?Well, that's in China.Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.At the time, never at the same time. Correct?1%.Yeah.So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.Sure.Okay.And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.So we're talking three, maybe.Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.So that could have been total bogus.Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.Same principles, same, same testing, same just.What we did here.And they developed that on their own.Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.Oh, so they shared literally nothing.They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

psychic at all.

I'm sitting in my office, right, and finally I said he's going to be really angry. So I eventually showed up an hour late, pulled up in front of the hotel, he came running out of the hotel. How long have you been here? I just got here. Oh, thank God. I have no way of reaching you. I couldn't meet you at five. So how did I do that? One explanation is I use my own unconscious psychic ability that we all have to maneuver through life more efficiently than I would otherwise have and there's a lot of data to support that other than just my own personal experience. Pretty interesting, very interesting.

Why do you think people like Joe are able to access this so much more efficiently and deliberately than others? Than others?

Well you could train me, get the best high jumping trainer for the Olympics and train the tail off me and man I can clear six inches not 6ft, no matter what. So some people have innate natural skill. Joe is one of them. They're a group of people who think they can train to almost an unlimited skill level and you can't do that. You can only train to whatever the native skill level is why Joe had that and Angela has it. Other people do. About 1% of selected population have a native skill set for that 1%. That's a huge number. When you think about it. It's much larger than the number of people that can learn piano well enough to give a recital at Carnegie hall. So our job is to figure out the answer to that question. I mean, right at the moment, I'm working with some neuroscientists in Brazil to try to figure out what makes the difference between Joe's brain or somebody like him and someone who can't do remote viewing under lab conditions. If we figure that out, we make a giant step forward.

What are they saying so far, nothing yet. Nothing yet.

It's a very difficult problem. They don't even understand much of standard neuroscience. That's something as weird as this.

What do you think?

My colleague and I wrote a paper together and published it in what's called Sage, is there must be something that works better when that thing, whatever it is, is changing compared to when that thing is not changing, because otherwise, that's the way our other sensories work. Maybe the ESP, sensory part works the same way it does, and we found it. And that turns out to be something a little harder to describe, is the changing of the entropy of the target system. And that works extremely well.Can you elaborate?Sure. Best way to do that, as an example? Entropy is a measure of chaos and things that are. For example, if you put your water, which has molecules bouncing around it like man, and put it in an ice tray and stick it in your freezer, it freezes them. What happens is that's a serious drop in entropy because it's less chaotic. Now, there's a side issue here called the second law of thermodynamics, which I don't have to get into. If you reach behind your fridge, you know, it's pretty warm behind the refrigerator. The heat that's taken out of the water to make ice is overly compensated by the hot behind the counter behind the fridge. But nonetheless, that change of entropy that's called is what correlates with the quality of remote viewing, and there's no doubt about it. Now, we have nine studies that all agree about that. So it says it is, in fact, a sensory system. Now, we understand how if you're looking on the beach and the sun is sinking into the Pacific, it is well known those photons hit your eyes and how that carries the information into your eyelids. It doesn't tell you anything about how you're going to respond to those photons hitting your eyes.You know, you and I are sitting on the same beach. You start crying because you got engaged on that beach. I'm crying because my mother killed herself on that same beach. It's the same photon. So all that is generated internally with each human being. But still, in terms of the remote viewing stuff, the correlation with the entropy is gorgeous. Now, it's really quite well established.You had mentioned five sensories. You know, sight, smell, taste, touch. What am I missing? What are the other sensories that you were?Oh, the new ones?Yes.Well, echolocation. People can talk and drive a complicated system on a bicycle and avoid all the accidents.I just saw a mini dock on this.Yeah, that's one magnetic field sensing for some people.What is that?To sense magnetic fields, you know, in fact, they worry about, well, there's a power line over me. My sensory system tells me, don't be near that because it's disturbing the magnetic field and I can experience it. Some people have that ability. Not everybody. Not everybody can do echolocation. Not everybody can do remote viewing. It's like other human skills. There's a big spectrum.Have you looked at mediumship?Interesting door. There's two kinds of mediumships. Excuse me. One is informational medium. A medium sits there and communicates with a disincarded entity, let's say. And you're finding out what that person has to say. Your old Uncle Harry passed away and you want to ask questions about it. And so on my way of thinking, if Uncle Harry was a moron during life, what about the left death experience wised him up any. But the question always is. It's really interesting. I'm going to take a small break here on the talk. There is a worldwide organization founded by Margaret Mead, a very famous woman. She was in charge of the american society, no, AAA's American association for the Advancement of Science. And she inducted the parapsychological association as one of the affiliate members of that organization. And they still are part of that. So it's a very serious thing. Okay. So I was a member of the parapsychological association for years. And I went to the current president. I was president one year and on their board and all that. I went to this fellow, his name is dean Raden. I said, dean, I'm quitting the organization. He said, okay, what can I bribe you to do to stay for another year?And I sort of said, how much are you offering me? And he said, okay, we'll give you. How about the career achievement award? I said, okay, fair enough. So the rules are that if you get the career achievement award, which I got, that you give an invited talk at the next year's convention about all your glorious contribution to sci research. Okay? So I'm there in my coat and tie, and I'm behind the podium, and I said, look, you guys have known me for 30 years, and my contribution to this field is well established that I walked in front of the podium and put my hands on my hips, and I'll say, now, let me tell you what's wrong with you bastards. I ripped everybody apart, including me. I said, look, I'm a physicist. There is no way in hell I should be doing psychophysiology measurements. What do I know about that? I'll make all the mistakes that the people who started that made mistakes, and we are all amateurs in that regard, including me, we're wasting our time. I would never invite a student to get into this area until they get a serious degree in some other discipline.And I bragged a little bit. And then I said, it's actually something that's sorrowful. And that is, I held a 20 year career job where I was paid industrial scale wages and benefits and vacation and all that sort of thing, medical care. And I had no other job at parapsychology research. And as far as I know, and it's been confirmed, there's no one else in parapsychology history that can make that claim. And that's pathetic. You need to have a way to make a living that way. Why would you do it? So I don't know if I can say this on camera, but I'll say it and then you can edit it out. I said, you know, I've been studying. I'm a physicist. I don't know anything about psychology, but I've been studying Freud a little bit. And, you know, dramatic way I did it. I said, you know, I've discovered why women are not as good remote viewers as men. Well, that turns out not true. I just said that and I hesitated and I said, penis envy. And the whole crowd started laughing hysterically. And I said, that is the right response to stupidity.What I said was made up and stupid. Now, I'd like to know, how come you don't have the same response when you are pushing quantum mechanics as an explanation for this phenomenon? You could have heard a pin drop. That was the whole point of the thing. People came up to me, boy, we loved your talk. I thought they were dialing the tar and feather company to come and grab me. That paper is written up. It's been sanitized, so it isn't quite so grim. I can send a copy to you if you want.Thank you.Because it does raise an issue. There are three things that we don't know. No one knows. Number one, how long does, if you have a psychic experience, how long does it last? And that's really important to know. If everyone comes in bursts of milliseconds, there's no point in putting in an MRI machine, because that takes 10 seconds to do anything, let alone milliseconds. Forget about it. And second one is when most particular good remote viewers do not have control over their remote viewing. In fact, Joe and I talk a lot about what opens this. Look, if we have access as humans to all space at all time, and we were cognitively aware of it, to use a technical psychiatric term, we'd go bogus loony in a heartbeat. You just overflow that information in your head. So the question proposes then, what opens that door to that vast array of information, and what closes that door? We don't know the answer to either of those. One example of which we did a study with Joe McMonecle at Stanford, and we didn't get any result in the study. Part of the reason is everything that was happening to Joe psychically happened to him when he was pulling into the parking lot.He did not have control over that. So by the time we wired him up, the psychic stuff was over. And that's a serious problem. In fact, I sent back $150,000 grant. I had to study skin conductance in an MRI in Scotland with psychic stuff. And I decided I don't know who to put into the scanner or when. That's a waste of money. And I sent the money back and we reprogrammed it. These are serious issues. And I've got some experiments on the drawing board now to test some of them, but it's a real tough problem.Back to mediumship, okay?Oh, yeah, sorry, got diverted there. The other form of mediumship is called physical mediumship, and my colleague Sonali Bathmadawa is main person behind this. With her colleague in Brazil, Everton Miraldi, and she found 2500 or so documents dating back to the 15th century on physical mediumship. Now it's all fraud, all of it. And what that means, I mean, not our views. This is in the literature. People are with top scientists of the day, including Michael Faraday, a well known physicist. And the other problem with it is it's primarily contained into one culture. Remember I said earlier, things are pan human, it can't be in one culture. This is in the spiritist community in Brazil mostly. And, you know, they get pretty clever. Now, my colleagues down in Brazil have spent a rather huge sum of money to redo the experiments. I kept saying, all you're doing is making better measurements that had gone before, and we'll see. But I don't think it's real.You don't think so? You don't think any mediumship is real?No. Physical mediumship. Physical mediumship, yeah, but informational mediumship, of course it's real. In fact, Julie Bechel from University of Arizona, she formulated what's called the Winbridge Institute and actually wrote a chapter in one of her books. They now are doing grief counseling by using this method. Uncle Harry passed away, and the other history survivors are grieving. So the medium gets in touch with that person. Disincarded entity. If it's real, in a sense, it doesn't matter whether it's real or not.So, I'm sorry, this is a little bit of information overload for me. So the two types of mediumship, again, are what?Informational medium.Informational medium.They give you information about what the disincarn that survive a bodily death. That person is talking to the medium, and that medium is telling you what the medium. What the spirit told her. Physical mediumship means creating things out of thin air, like ectoplasm, this weirdly weird stuff. Or physically, man. It was called table tipping. In the early days. The tables would rise up, and it's all done in the dark. Tables would rise up and move, or table wrapping. You'd heard people banging on the table, spirits doing that.And physical mediumship is what you're saying is.That's what I'm just telling you.It's all fraud.I think so.According to your research, you had brought up the magnetic fields, which actually caught my attention about people who maybe don't want to walk under power lines because it interrupts a magnetic field. What do they. What do they say about that?It's a very controversial area. There's a woman I know in Moscow, Natalia Nebadaba. She did the definitive work on. If you hold your cell phone up to your ear, like a lot of people walk around all the time. Is that radiation hurting your. Hurting you in some way? And the answer for her research? No. She got the Lenin prize for her excellent work in science. She's come to visit me in Palo Alto. Interesting woman, very smart. She works for an organization called the Institute for higher nervous Activity. Like that. I don't know whether that's what she meant, but very competent. Whether or not there's danger for living under a power line, I really don't know the answer. I don't think anybody does. But a lot of people think there must be, and they choose never to live under them.So what do you think about people that have this sensory.Magnetic sensory? That's a real phenomenon. I mean, for example, if you have hemoglobin in your it means mind over matter. It's a long, long thing. And there are two ways of thinking about that. One is behavior of a physical system, that you need statistics to understand whether something's really happening and, or what's called macrophages, that you don't need statistics. Like you just levitate to the ceiling, you don't need statistics. The guy's doing it. Right. So I argue with my colleague in India right now. There's something called poltergeist. Have you ever heard of that term?No, I haven't.What that means is noisy ghost. And so there's a lot of work on poltergeist phenomenon. Very strange things happen, and I leave the door open that maybe something interesting is actually happening there. A very respected guy taught for 50 years at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, and he wrote a number of books on poltergeist. And he saw this one case where the classic case is, it's a very religious family. And with a brand new infant and a prepubescent teenager, it didn't matter what gender. So Arthur Hastings was his name. He's passed away quite some time ago. Arthur writes a story that he was witnessing firsthand. There was this teenager, that classic case. This little baby boy was lying naked on the bed, and he watched a set of rosary beads fly off the dresser, wrap the beads around the genitals of this little baby boy. And Arthur had to reach in to pull them off. What is going on with that? That's hard to fake. It seems to me that's an example of large scale something or another.Was that real?I trust Arthur. Yeah.Wow. Wow.Now, my colleague in India, who's a neuropsychologist, thinks, well, there can be what is called group hallucinations. And on this book, the last author here is a guy named Lloyd Oyerbakh. Because the first version was written like it was written by. Designed by a committee. And it read that way. And I said, lloyd, can you fix this for us? So he rewrote the whole book. I'll tell you a side story. It's his story. You'd be interesting to have him come and talk to you. He's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one. And there's an aircraft carrier. The enterprise permanently docked in Alameda, California, as a museum. And he was on the board to get it set up safe for humans. And there are all kinds of funny stories. He talks about that, that a whole bunch of engineers were sitting in the below deck aircraft hangar, and I not open to the public yet. They see three guys in world War two, military uniform, running along a gangway high up. He said you could see them, but you couldn't hear them. And everybody in the room saw them, and they disappeared. You're not supposed to be here.And they didn't answer and just disappeared. Then poor Lloyd got the impression with all his buddies were trying to make this place safe. They were joking with him all the time. Hey, talk to your ghost buddies. We need some more chain. We've run out of chains. And ghosts are supposed to have a lot of chains. Oh, yeah, right, right. They came the next day. There were mounds of chains all over the deck. Where the hell that came from? The story of his hay talks I liked the best. One of the board members was really a grumpy old guy and just didn't want to prove anything. And screaming and yelling. So they said to Roy, is there anything you could do not to hurt this guy, but to make the. Make the idea. Real to him. Well, it was a typical lightning storm like we had yesterday here. And a tree hit in the parking lot of this in Alameda. And the tree fell over and crushed this poor guy's car. He wasn't in it, thank goodness, at the time. So what the hell's going on with that? And Lloyd's written a whole book about it.In fact, I'm having lunch with him Sunday.Oh, really?Yeah.So Lloyd talks about he's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one, you say?Definitely not.This brings me this interview is not going the way I had planned, but I'm just gonna go with it. But I just want to say in your introduction, we had said that you believed. It sounds like you believe consciousness dies with the body.I do.And so if you believe your colleague, your former colleague and friend, Lloyd is hunting ghosts and he's not crazy, how.Do I square that round hole? Yes, very good question. And lawyers agreed with this. We talk about this a lot. That the assumption that this is a disincarded entity. A ghost, even though they call it. They call it ghost, noisy ghost. But it may not be that way. There may be some other mechanism of the more normal type. Not fraud. Some other mechanism that might be involved in that. Psychokinesis. All psychokinesis, if it's real. And to me, it's an open question. Not true on micro psychokinesis, but macrocycles is still open and Nevin Lance, a psychologist, to write the risks of remote viewing, which there are serious risks. One is, depending upon the personalities. You begin looking at your own Persona in terms of your ability to do remote viewing. And that is a huge, huge psychological mistake. We've had to let people go. People at Fort Meade have had to let people go, who go, to use a technical term, crazy for doing this stuff. It's rare, but it happens. So most people handle it just fine. I mean, you know, hey, fine. No problem. I'll come back tomorrow.So you're saying that some people that have this. Have this ability and realize that they do have the capability wind up driving themselves crazy? How so? And why?I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist.Does it bother them that they have the capability?No. It bothers them that they failed. It bothers them that they failed those few people. I asked Nevan Lance, the psychologist. I said, nevan, how do you integrate what your remote viewing ability is with the rest of your life? He said, I don't know. I wish I could integrate the rest of my life as well.What are some of the other risks?I don't know. I think that's the main one.That's the main risk.Yeah.Is just dealing with failure.Yeah. If you start believing your stuff too much, it seems to me I'm just overlaying my own thinking out loud rather than any serious stuff about it.So you're saying basically, remote viewers will get emotionally attached to their capabilities and.Sort of disastrous for them as well as to the unit.Okay. Okay. Well, 1992, it sounds like you started some type of a relationship with the Russian KGB.I did. I'm an honorary member, not of a KGB. Turns out I first went. I think it was even before no. 92 was the first year. An expat Russian named. Her christian name was Laura V. Faith. Her russian name was Larissa Velaskaya. Very, very talented woman. She worked with Kogan in his classified research laboratory on PSi. Why the hell the Russians let her out, I have no idea. But she immigrated first to Israel because she's jewish. And then she came to the states. And over a long period of time, she ended up getting a citizenship, becoming a Christian, and then working teaching Russian at the defense language school in Monterey. And we hired her out of that. She got a clearance. And so I went to Moscow with her probably four times, one of which was all the way out to Novosibirsk. And she was very protective of me. So one time we were, I guess one of the last time we were together on that trip, I was giving a talk at Moscow State University. She was translating for the students. And, you know, I'm dressed like, I'm more dressed now the way than when I normally dress.I had a t shirt on it, and the students were looking like students. And two guys in suits walk into the back of the room. Uh oh. Two guys in suits. This isn't a good deal. Turns out they were from the Ministry of defense, and they wanted us to come with Larissa and I to come with them. And we went to. Do you know what a scif is? Have you heard that term, Scif?Spent a lot of time in a skiff.Me too. So drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it, but in the middle of that, the way, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexa e or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the russian culture. Okay, so in the middle of all this, he had to staff. He was still working for the. He was still in the military and his staff was there at the table. And yeah, Joe was with us. And I. I've got pictures of him and Sabin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. But I said, alexey, Jordovich. And he interrupted me and spoke to me. The only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English.He said, ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexei. And his staff went. Then he switched back into Russian, and it was being translated by Victor, Victor Ruble, and said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIa know I want a joint program with you guys. And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism, because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30 page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three star in charge of Dia in the Pentagon. And he was all excited, oh, this is really great, because it's cheap. A bottle of scotch kit of everything you need, and there's. You're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks.I'll look him up and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. Never happened. cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.Did any of the kids accomplish that?Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.Oh, in China for sure.What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.So they were there to collect from you, not share.Yeah.What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?Well, that's in China.Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.At the time, never at the same time. Correct?1%.Yeah.So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.Sure.Okay.And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.So we're talking three, maybe.Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.So that could have been total bogus.Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.Same principles, same, same testing, same just.What we did here.And they developed that on their own.Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.Oh, so they shared literally nothing.They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

is there must be something that works better when that thing, whatever it is, is changing compared to when that thing is not changing, because otherwise, that's the way our other sensories work. Maybe the ESP, sensory part works the same way it does, and we found it. And that turns out to be something a little harder to describe, is the changing of the entropy of the target system. And that works extremely well.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. Best way to do that, as an example? Entropy is a measure of chaos and things that are. For example, if you put your water, which has molecules bouncing around it like man, and put it in an ice tray and stick it in your freezer, it freezes them. What happens is that's a serious drop in entropy because it's less chaotic. Now, there's a side issue here called the second law of thermodynamics, which I don't have to get into. If you reach behind your fridge, you know, it's pretty warm behind the refrigerator. The heat that's taken out of the water to make ice is overly compensated by the hot behind the counter behind the fridge. But nonetheless, that change of entropy that's called is what correlates with the quality of remote viewing, and there's no doubt about it. Now, we have nine studies that all agree about that. So it says it is, in fact, a sensory system. Now, we understand how if you're looking on the beach and the sun is sinking into the Pacific, it is well known those photons hit your eyes and how that carries the information into your eyelids. It doesn't tell you anything about how you're going to respond to those photons hitting your eyes.

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

You had mentioned five sensories. You know, sight, smell, taste, touch. What am I missing? What are the other sensories that you were?

Oh, the new ones?

Yes.

Well, echolocation. People can talk and drive a complicated system on a bicycle and avoid all the accidents.

I just saw a mini dock on this.

Yeah, that's one magnetic field sensing for some people.

What is that?

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

Have you looked at mediumship?

Interesting door. There's two kinds of mediumships. Excuse me. One is informational medium. A medium sits there and communicates with a disincarded entity, let's say. And you're finding out what that person has to say. Your old Uncle Harry passed away and you want to ask questions about it. And so on my way of thinking, if Uncle Harry was a moron during life, what about the left death experience wised him up any. But the question always is. It's really interesting. I'm going to take a small break here on the talk. There is a worldwide organization founded by Margaret Mead, a very famous woman. She was in charge of the american society, no, AAA's American association for the Advancement of Science. And she inducted the parapsychological association as one of the affiliate members of that organization. And they still are part of that. So it's a very serious thing. Okay. So I was a member of the parapsychological association for years. And I went to the current president. I was president one year and on their board and all that. I went to this fellow, his name is dean Raden. I said, dean, I'm quitting the organization. He said, okay, what can I bribe you to do to stay for another year?

And I sort of said, how much are you offering me? And he said, okay, we'll give you. How about the career achievement award? I said, okay, fair enough. So the rules are that if you get the career achievement award, which I got, that you give an invited talk at the next year's convention about all your glorious contribution to sci research. Okay? So I'm there in my coat and tie, and I'm behind the podium, and I said, look, you guys have known me for 30 years, and my contribution to this field is well established that I walked in front of the podium and put my hands on my hips, and I'll say, now, let me tell you what's wrong with you bastards. I ripped everybody apart, including me. I said, look, I'm a physicist. There is no way in hell I should be doing psychophysiology measurements. What do I know about that? I'll make all the mistakes that the people who started that made mistakes, and we are all amateurs in that regard, including me, we're wasting our time. I would never invite a student to get into this area until they get a serious degree in some other discipline.

And I bragged a little bit. And then I said, it's actually something that's sorrowful. And that is, I held a 20 year career job where I was paid industrial scale wages and benefits and vacation and all that sort of thing, medical care. And I had no other job at parapsychology research. And as far as I know, and it's been confirmed, there's no one else in parapsychology history that can make that claim. And that's pathetic. You need to have a way to make a living that way. Why would you do it? So I don't know if I can say this on camera, but I'll say it and then you can edit it out. I said, you know, I've been studying. I'm a physicist. I don't know anything about psychology, but I've been studying Freud a little bit. And, you know, dramatic way I did it. I said, you know, I've discovered why women are not as good remote viewers as men. Well, that turns out not true. I just said that and I hesitated and I said, penis envy. And the whole crowd started laughing hysterically. And I said, that is the right response to stupidity.

What I said was made up and stupid. Now, I'd like to know, how come you don't have the same response when you are pushing quantum mechanics as an explanation for this phenomenon? You could have heard a pin drop. That was the whole point of the thing. People came up to me, boy, we loved your talk. I thought they were dialing the tar and feather company to come and grab me. That paper is written up. It's been sanitized, so it isn't quite so grim. I can send a copy to you if you want.

Thank you.

Because it does raise an issue. There are three things that we don't know. No one knows. Number one, how long does, if you have a psychic experience, how long does it last? And that's really important to know. If everyone comes in bursts of milliseconds, there's no point in putting in an MRI machine, because that takes 10 seconds to do anything, let alone milliseconds. Forget about it. And second one is when most particular good remote viewers do not have control over their remote viewing. In fact, Joe and I talk a lot about what opens this. Look, if we have access as humans to all space at all time, and we were cognitively aware of it, to use a technical psychiatric term, we'd go bogus loony in a heartbeat. You just overflow that information in your head. So the question proposes then, what opens that door to that vast array of information, and what closes that door? We don't know the answer to either of those. One example of which we did a study with Joe McMonecle at Stanford, and we didn't get any result in the study. Part of the reason is everything that was happening to Joe psychically happened to him when he was pulling into the parking lot.

He did not have control over that. So by the time we wired him up, the psychic stuff was over. And that's a serious problem. In fact, I sent back $150,000 grant. I had to study skin conductance in an MRI in Scotland with psychic stuff. And I decided I don't know who to put into the scanner or when. That's a waste of money. And I sent the money back and we reprogrammed it. These are serious issues. And I've got some experiments on the drawing board now to test some of them, but it's a real tough problem.

Back to mediumship, okay?

Oh, yeah, sorry, got diverted there. The other form of mediumship is called physical mediumship, and my colleague Sonali Bathmadawa is main person behind this. With her colleague in Brazil, Everton Miraldi, and she found 2500 or so documents dating back to the 15th century on physical mediumship. Now it's all fraud, all of it. And what that means, I mean, not our views. This is in the literature. People are with top scientists of the day, including Michael Faraday, a well known physicist. And the other problem with it is it's primarily contained into one culture. Remember I said earlier, things are pan human, it can't be in one culture. This is in the spiritist community in Brazil mostly. And, you know, they get pretty clever. Now, my colleagues down in Brazil have spent a rather huge sum of money to redo the experiments. I kept saying, all you're doing is making better measurements that had gone before, and we'll see. But I don't think it's real.

You don't think so? You don't think any mediumship is real?

No. Physical mediumship. Physical mediumship, yeah, but informational mediumship, of course it's real. In fact, Julie Bechel from University of Arizona, she formulated what's called the Winbridge Institute and actually wrote a chapter in one of her books. They now are doing grief counseling by using this method. Uncle Harry passed away, and the other history survivors are grieving. So the medium gets in touch with that person. Disincarded entity. If it's real, in a sense, it doesn't matter whether it's real or not.

So, I'm sorry, this is a little bit of information overload for me. So the two types of mediumship, again, are what?

Informational medium.

Informational medium.

They give you information about what the disincarn that survive a bodily death. That person is talking to the medium, and that medium is telling you what the medium. What the spirit told her. Physical mediumship means creating things out of thin air, like ectoplasm, this weirdly weird stuff. Or physically, man. It was called table tipping. In the early days. The tables would rise up, and it's all done in the dark. Tables would rise up and move, or table wrapping. You'd heard people banging on the table, spirits doing that.

And physical mediumship is what you're saying is.

That's what I'm just telling you.

It's all fraud.

I think so.

According to your research, you had brought up the magnetic fields, which actually caught my attention about people who maybe don't want to walk under power lines because it interrupts a magnetic field. What do they. What do they say about that?

It's a very controversial area. There's a woman I know in Moscow, Natalia Nebadaba. She did the definitive work on. If you hold your cell phone up to your ear, like a lot of people walk around all the time. Is that radiation hurting your. Hurting you in some way? And the answer for her research? No. She got the Lenin prize for her excellent work in science. She's come to visit me in Palo Alto. Interesting woman, very smart. She works for an organization called the Institute for higher nervous Activity. Like that. I don't know whether that's what she meant, but very competent. Whether or not there's danger for living under a power line, I really don't know the answer. I don't think anybody does. But a lot of people think there must be, and they choose never to live under them.

So what do you think about people that have this sensory.

Magnetic sensory? That's a real phenomenon. I mean, for example, if you have hemoglobin in your it means mind over matter. It's a long, long thing. And there are two ways of thinking about that. One is behavior of a physical system, that you need statistics to understand whether something's really happening and, or what's called macrophages, that you don't need statistics. Like you just levitate to the ceiling, you don't need statistics. The guy's doing it. Right. So I argue with my colleague in India right now. There's something called poltergeist. Have you ever heard of that term?No, I haven't.What that means is noisy ghost. And so there's a lot of work on poltergeist phenomenon. Very strange things happen, and I leave the door open that maybe something interesting is actually happening there. A very respected guy taught for 50 years at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, and he wrote a number of books on poltergeist. And he saw this one case where the classic case is, it's a very religious family. And with a brand new infant and a prepubescent teenager, it didn't matter what gender. So Arthur Hastings was his name. He's passed away quite some time ago. Arthur writes a story that he was witnessing firsthand. There was this teenager, that classic case. This little baby boy was lying naked on the bed, and he watched a set of rosary beads fly off the dresser, wrap the beads around the genitals of this little baby boy. And Arthur had to reach in to pull them off. What is going on with that? That's hard to fake. It seems to me that's an example of large scale something or another.Was that real?I trust Arthur. Yeah.Wow. Wow.Now, my colleague in India, who's a neuropsychologist, thinks, well, there can be what is called group hallucinations. And on this book, the last author here is a guy named Lloyd Oyerbakh. Because the first version was written like it was written by. Designed by a committee. And it read that way. And I said, lloyd, can you fix this for us? So he rewrote the whole book. I'll tell you a side story. It's his story. You'd be interesting to have him come and talk to you. He's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one. And there's an aircraft carrier. The enterprise permanently docked in Alameda, California, as a museum. And he was on the board to get it set up safe for humans. And there are all kinds of funny stories. He talks about that, that a whole bunch of engineers were sitting in the below deck aircraft hangar, and I not open to the public yet. They see three guys in world War two, military uniform, running along a gangway high up. He said you could see them, but you couldn't hear them. And everybody in the room saw them, and they disappeared. You're not supposed to be here.And they didn't answer and just disappeared. Then poor Lloyd got the impression with all his buddies were trying to make this place safe. They were joking with him all the time. Hey, talk to your ghost buddies. We need some more chain. We've run out of chains. And ghosts are supposed to have a lot of chains. Oh, yeah, right, right. They came the next day. There were mounds of chains all over the deck. Where the hell that came from? The story of his hay talks I liked the best. One of the board members was really a grumpy old guy and just didn't want to prove anything. And screaming and yelling. So they said to Roy, is there anything you could do not to hurt this guy, but to make the. Make the idea. Real to him. Well, it was a typical lightning storm like we had yesterday here. And a tree hit in the parking lot of this in Alameda. And the tree fell over and crushed this poor guy's car. He wasn't in it, thank goodness, at the time. So what the hell's going on with that? And Lloyd's written a whole book about it.In fact, I'm having lunch with him Sunday.Oh, really?Yeah.So Lloyd talks about he's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one, you say?Definitely not.This brings me this interview is not going the way I had planned, but I'm just gonna go with it. But I just want to say in your introduction, we had said that you believed. It sounds like you believe consciousness dies with the body.I do.And so if you believe your colleague, your former colleague and friend, Lloyd is hunting ghosts and he's not crazy, how.Do I square that round hole? Yes, very good question. And lawyers agreed with this. We talk about this a lot. That the assumption that this is a disincarded entity. A ghost, even though they call it. They call it ghost, noisy ghost. But it may not be that way. There may be some other mechanism of the more normal type. Not fraud. Some other mechanism that might be involved in that. Psychokinesis. All psychokinesis, if it's real. And to me, it's an open question. Not true on micro psychokinesis, but macrocycles is still open and Nevin Lance, a psychologist, to write the risks of remote viewing, which there are serious risks. One is, depending upon the personalities. You begin looking at your own Persona in terms of your ability to do remote viewing. And that is a huge, huge psychological mistake. We've had to let people go. People at Fort Meade have had to let people go, who go, to use a technical term, crazy for doing this stuff. It's rare, but it happens. So most people handle it just fine. I mean, you know, hey, fine. No problem. I'll come back tomorrow.So you're saying that some people that have this. Have this ability and realize that they do have the capability wind up driving themselves crazy? How so? And why?I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist.Does it bother them that they have the capability?No. It bothers them that they failed. It bothers them that they failed those few people. I asked Nevan Lance, the psychologist. I said, nevan, how do you integrate what your remote viewing ability is with the rest of your life? He said, I don't know. I wish I could integrate the rest of my life as well.What are some of the other risks?I don't know. I think that's the main one.That's the main risk.Yeah.Is just dealing with failure.Yeah. If you start believing your stuff too much, it seems to me I'm just overlaying my own thinking out loud rather than any serious stuff about it.So you're saying basically, remote viewers will get emotionally attached to their capabilities and.Sort of disastrous for them as well as to the unit.Okay. Okay. Well, 1992, it sounds like you started some type of a relationship with the Russian KGB.I did. I'm an honorary member, not of a KGB. Turns out I first went. I think it was even before no. 92 was the first year. An expat Russian named. Her christian name was Laura V. Faith. Her russian name was Larissa Velaskaya. Very, very talented woman. She worked with Kogan in his classified research laboratory on PSi. Why the hell the Russians let her out, I have no idea. But she immigrated first to Israel because she's jewish. And then she came to the states. And over a long period of time, she ended up getting a citizenship, becoming a Christian, and then working teaching Russian at the defense language school in Monterey. And we hired her out of that. She got a clearance. And so I went to Moscow with her probably four times, one of which was all the way out to Novosibirsk. And she was very protective of me. So one time we were, I guess one of the last time we were together on that trip, I was giving a talk at Moscow State University. She was translating for the students. And, you know, I'm dressed like, I'm more dressed now the way than when I normally dress.I had a t shirt on it, and the students were looking like students. And two guys in suits walk into the back of the room. Uh oh. Two guys in suits. This isn't a good deal. Turns out they were from the Ministry of defense, and they wanted us to come with Larissa and I to come with them. And we went to. Do you know what a scif is? Have you heard that term, Scif?Spent a lot of time in a skiff.Me too. So drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it, but in the middle of that, the way, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexa e or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the russian culture. Okay, so in the middle of all this, he had to staff. He was still working for the. He was still in the military and his staff was there at the table. And yeah, Joe was with us. And I. I've got pictures of him and Sabin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. But I said, alexey, Jordovich. And he interrupted me and spoke to me. The only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English.He said, ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexei. And his staff went. Then he switched back into Russian, and it was being translated by Victor, Victor Ruble, and said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIa know I want a joint program with you guys. And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism, because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30 page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three star in charge of Dia in the Pentagon. And he was all excited, oh, this is really great, because it's cheap. A bottle of scotch kit of everything you need, and there's. You're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks.I'll look him up and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. Never happened. cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.Did any of the kids accomplish that?Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.Oh, in China for sure.What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.So they were there to collect from you, not share.Yeah.What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?Well, that's in China.Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.At the time, never at the same time. Correct?1%.Yeah.So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.Sure.Okay.And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.So we're talking three, maybe.Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.So that could have been total bogus.Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.Same principles, same, same testing, same just.What we did here.And they developed that on their own.Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.Oh, so they shared literally nothing.They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

it means mind over matter. It's a long, long thing. And there are two ways of thinking about that. One is behavior of a physical system, that you need statistics to understand whether something's really happening and, or what's called macrophages, that you don't need statistics. Like you just levitate to the ceiling, you don't need statistics. The guy's doing it. Right. So I argue with my colleague in India right now. There's something called poltergeist. Have you ever heard of that term?

No, I haven't.

What that means is noisy ghost. And so there's a lot of work on poltergeist phenomenon. Very strange things happen, and I leave the door open that maybe something interesting is actually happening there. A very respected guy taught for 50 years at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, and he wrote a number of books on poltergeist. And he saw this one case where the classic case is, it's a very religious family. And with a brand new infant and a prepubescent teenager, it didn't matter what gender. So Arthur Hastings was his name. He's passed away quite some time ago. Arthur writes a story that he was witnessing firsthand. There was this teenager, that classic case. This little baby boy was lying naked on the bed, and he watched a set of rosary beads fly off the dresser, wrap the beads around the genitals of this little baby boy. And Arthur had to reach in to pull them off. What is going on with that? That's hard to fake. It seems to me that's an example of large scale something or another.

Was that real?

I trust Arthur. Yeah.

Wow. Wow.

Now, my colleague in India, who's a neuropsychologist, thinks, well, there can be what is called group hallucinations. And on this book, the last author here is a guy named Lloyd Oyerbakh. Because the first version was written like it was written by. Designed by a committee. And it read that way. And I said, lloyd, can you fix this for us? So he rewrote the whole book. I'll tell you a side story. It's his story. You'd be interesting to have him come and talk to you. He's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one. And there's an aircraft carrier. The enterprise permanently docked in Alameda, California, as a museum. And he was on the board to get it set up safe for humans. And there are all kinds of funny stories. He talks about that, that a whole bunch of engineers were sitting in the below deck aircraft hangar, and I not open to the public yet. They see three guys in world War two, military uniform, running along a gangway high up. He said you could see them, but you couldn't hear them. And everybody in the room saw them, and they disappeared. You're not supposed to be here.

And they didn't answer and just disappeared. Then poor Lloyd got the impression with all his buddies were trying to make this place safe. They were joking with him all the time. Hey, talk to your ghost buddies. We need some more chain. We've run out of chains. And ghosts are supposed to have a lot of chains. Oh, yeah, right, right. They came the next day. There were mounds of chains all over the deck. Where the hell that came from? The story of his hay talks I liked the best. One of the board members was really a grumpy old guy and just didn't want to prove anything. And screaming and yelling. So they said to Roy, is there anything you could do not to hurt this guy, but to make the. Make the idea. Real to him. Well, it was a typical lightning storm like we had yesterday here. And a tree hit in the parking lot of this in Alameda. And the tree fell over and crushed this poor guy's car. He wasn't in it, thank goodness, at the time. So what the hell's going on with that? And Lloyd's written a whole book about it.

In fact, I'm having lunch with him Sunday.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

So Lloyd talks about he's a ghost hunter and not a crazy one, you say?

Definitely not.

This brings me this interview is not going the way I had planned, but I'm just gonna go with it. But I just want to say in your introduction, we had said that you believed. It sounds like you believe consciousness dies with the body.

I do.

And so if you believe your colleague, your former colleague and friend, Lloyd is hunting ghosts and he's not crazy, how.

Do I square that round hole? Yes, very good question. And lawyers agreed with this. We talk about this a lot. That the assumption that this is a disincarded entity. A ghost, even though they call it. They call it ghost, noisy ghost. But it may not be that way. There may be some other mechanism of the more normal type. Not fraud. Some other mechanism that might be involved in that. Psychokinesis. All psychokinesis, if it's real. And to me, it's an open question. Not true on micro psychokinesis, but macrocycles is still open and Nevin Lance, a psychologist, to write the risks of remote viewing, which there are serious risks. One is, depending upon the personalities. You begin looking at your own Persona in terms of your ability to do remote viewing. And that is a huge, huge psychological mistake. We've had to let people go. People at Fort Meade have had to let people go, who go, to use a technical term, crazy for doing this stuff. It's rare, but it happens. So most people handle it just fine. I mean, you know, hey, fine. No problem. I'll come back tomorrow.So you're saying that some people that have this. Have this ability and realize that they do have the capability wind up driving themselves crazy? How so? And why?I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist.Does it bother them that they have the capability?No. It bothers them that they failed. It bothers them that they failed those few people. I asked Nevan Lance, the psychologist. I said, nevan, how do you integrate what your remote viewing ability is with the rest of your life? He said, I don't know. I wish I could integrate the rest of my life as well.What are some of the other risks?I don't know. I think that's the main one.That's the main risk.Yeah.Is just dealing with failure.Yeah. If you start believing your stuff too much, it seems to me I'm just overlaying my own thinking out loud rather than any serious stuff about it.So you're saying basically, remote viewers will get emotionally attached to their capabilities and.Sort of disastrous for them as well as to the unit.Okay. Okay. Well, 1992, it sounds like you started some type of a relationship with the Russian KGB.I did. I'm an honorary member, not of a KGB. Turns out I first went. I think it was even before no. 92 was the first year. An expat Russian named. Her christian name was Laura V. Faith. Her russian name was Larissa Velaskaya. Very, very talented woman. She worked with Kogan in his classified research laboratory on PSi. Why the hell the Russians let her out, I have no idea. But she immigrated first to Israel because she's jewish. And then she came to the states. And over a long period of time, she ended up getting a citizenship, becoming a Christian, and then working teaching Russian at the defense language school in Monterey. And we hired her out of that. She got a clearance. And so I went to Moscow with her probably four times, one of which was all the way out to Novosibirsk. And she was very protective of me. So one time we were, I guess one of the last time we were together on that trip, I was giving a talk at Moscow State University. She was translating for the students. And, you know, I'm dressed like, I'm more dressed now the way than when I normally dress.I had a t shirt on it, and the students were looking like students. And two guys in suits walk into the back of the room. Uh oh. Two guys in suits. This isn't a good deal. Turns out they were from the Ministry of defense, and they wanted us to come with Larissa and I to come with them. And we went to. Do you know what a scif is? Have you heard that term, Scif?Spent a lot of time in a skiff.Me too. So drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it, but in the middle of that, the way, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexa e or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the russian culture. Okay, so in the middle of all this, he had to staff. He was still working for the. He was still in the military and his staff was there at the table. And yeah, Joe was with us. And I. I've got pictures of him and Sabin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. But I said, alexey, Jordovich. And he interrupted me and spoke to me. The only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English.He said, ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexei. And his staff went. Then he switched back into Russian, and it was being translated by Victor, Victor Ruble, and said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIa know I want a joint program with you guys. And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism, because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30 page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three star in charge of Dia in the Pentagon. And he was all excited, oh, this is really great, because it's cheap. A bottle of scotch kit of everything you need, and there's. You're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks.I'll look him up and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. Never happened. cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.Did any of the kids accomplish that?Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.Oh, in China for sure.What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.So they were there to collect from you, not share.Yeah.What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?Well, that's in China.Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.At the time, never at the same time. Correct?1%.Yeah.So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.Sure.Okay.And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.So we're talking three, maybe.Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.So that could have been total bogus.Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.Same principles, same, same testing, same just.What we did here.And they developed that on their own.Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.Oh, so they shared literally nothing.They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

and Nevin Lance, a psychologist, to write the risks of remote viewing, which there are serious risks. One is, depending upon the personalities. You begin looking at your own Persona in terms of your ability to do remote viewing. And that is a huge, huge psychological mistake. We've had to let people go. People at Fort Meade have had to let people go, who go, to use a technical term, crazy for doing this stuff. It's rare, but it happens. So most people handle it just fine. I mean, you know, hey, fine. No problem. I'll come back tomorrow.

So you're saying that some people that have this. Have this ability and realize that they do have the capability wind up driving themselves crazy? How so? And why?

I don't know why. I'm not a psychologist.

Does it bother them that they have the capability?

No. It bothers them that they failed. It bothers them that they failed those few people. I asked Nevan Lance, the psychologist. I said, nevan, how do you integrate what your remote viewing ability is with the rest of your life? He said, I don't know. I wish I could integrate the rest of my life as well.

What are some of the other risks?

I don't know. I think that's the main one.

That's the main risk.

Yeah.

Is just dealing with failure.

Yeah. If you start believing your stuff too much, it seems to me I'm just overlaying my own thinking out loud rather than any serious stuff about it.

So you're saying basically, remote viewers will get emotionally attached to their capabilities and.

Sort of disastrous for them as well as to the unit.

Okay. Okay. Well, 1992, it sounds like you started some type of a relationship with the Russian KGB.

I did. I'm an honorary member, not of a KGB. Turns out I first went. I think it was even before no. 92 was the first year. An expat Russian named. Her christian name was Laura V. Faith. Her russian name was Larissa Velaskaya. Very, very talented woman. She worked with Kogan in his classified research laboratory on PSi. Why the hell the Russians let her out, I have no idea. But she immigrated first to Israel because she's jewish. And then she came to the states. And over a long period of time, she ended up getting a citizenship, becoming a Christian, and then working teaching Russian at the defense language school in Monterey. And we hired her out of that. She got a clearance. And so I went to Moscow with her probably four times, one of which was all the way out to Novosibirsk. And she was very protective of me. So one time we were, I guess one of the last time we were together on that trip, I was giving a talk at Moscow State University. She was translating for the students. And, you know, I'm dressed like, I'm more dressed now the way than when I normally dress.

I had a t shirt on it, and the students were looking like students. And two guys in suits walk into the back of the room. Uh oh. Two guys in suits. This isn't a good deal. Turns out they were from the Ministry of defense, and they wanted us to come with Larissa and I to come with them. And we went to. Do you know what a scif is? Have you heard that term, Scif?

Spent a lot of time in a skiff.

Me too. So drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it, but in the middle of that, the way, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexa e or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the russian culture. Okay, so in the middle of all this, he had to staff. He was still working for the. He was still in the military and his staff was there at the table. And yeah, Joe was with us. And I. I've got pictures of him and Sabin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. But I said, alexey, Jordovich. And he interrupted me and spoke to me. The only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English.He said, ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexei. And his staff went. Then he switched back into Russian, and it was being translated by Victor, Victor Ruble, and said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIa know I want a joint program with you guys. And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism, because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30 page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three star in charge of Dia in the Pentagon. And he was all excited, oh, this is really great, because it's cheap. A bottle of scotch kit of everything you need, and there's. You're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks.I'll look him up and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. Never happened. cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.Did any of the kids accomplish that?Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.Oh, in China for sure.What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.So they were there to collect from you, not share.Yeah.What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?Well, that's in China.Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.At the time, never at the same time. Correct?1%.Yeah.So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.Sure.Okay.And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.So we're talking three, maybe.Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.So that could have been total bogus.Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.Same principles, same, same testing, same just.What we did here.And they developed that on their own.Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.Oh, so they shared literally nothing.They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

drink that much at all. The next day, I was filling my glass with water. No one noticed. Well, maybe no one said about it, but in the middle of that, the way, the way you refer to senior Russians is not just Alexa e or General Savin. You use the middle name, which is really important. Yurovich means son of Yuri. It's a really important part of the russian culture. Okay, so in the middle of all this, he had to staff. He was still working for the. He was still in the military and his staff was there at the table. And yeah, Joe was with us. And I. I've got pictures of him and Sabin. In fact, I gave it to your colleague for you, showing they were completely blitzed on vodka. But I said, alexey, Jordovich. And he interrupted me and spoke to me. The only time in the 20 years I've known this man in English.

He said, ed, we're our friends. Call me Alexei. And his staff went. Then he switched back into Russian, and it was being translated by Victor, Victor Ruble, and said, I know you've been trying to get my organization chart. Here it is. And I know you're going to report a contact report. You have to write it up. Yes, sir. That's true. What you have to do is let the people at DIa know I want a joint program with you guys. And I said, on what? He said, well, you have the same problem we do, and that's terrorism, because people were blowing up subway stations in Moscow. And I said, I would be honored to join you on that. So I wrote up a 30 page, relatively classified document and handed it to the three star in charge of Dia in the Pentagon. And he was all excited, oh, this is really great, because it's cheap. A bottle of scotch kit of everything you need, and there's. You're not putting anybody in harm's way. It's ideal. And they want to do it, and we want to do it. And the three star said, well, okay, I'm going to Moscow in a few weeks.

I'll look him up and we'll get moving on it. So I walked out of his office in the Pentagon, and you could practically hear him throwing the paper in the burn bag. Never happened. cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.Did any of the kids accomplish that?Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.Oh, in China for sure.What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.So they were there to collect from you, not share.Yeah.What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?Well, that's in China.Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.At the time, never at the same time. Correct?1%.Yeah.So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.Sure.Okay.And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.So we're talking three, maybe.Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.So that could have been total bogus.Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.Same principles, same, same testing, same just.What we did here.And they developed that on their own.Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.Oh, so they shared literally nothing.They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

cover on Angela and I there. And what happened is just rather astounding that I gave a talk in English, and it was being translated into Russian, and I showed the example of this Ingos clay model of this radar site. It did not. That piece did not show up in the 40 minutes video they published. Fortunately, I have a friend in the audience who sent me a video of that, so they're a little nervous about that. I had the same problem. I was giving a talk. I was invited with four other westerners to go to Hong Kong on exercise perception stuff, funded by a guy named Bingo Wu. That's his name.

He's a very wealthy character. And the five westerners were there, plus 100 young chinese kids. Kids. I mean, really, kids who were trained by qigong masters, supposedly all kinds of psychic ability. I eventually had to go up to Bingo Wu later, and I said, don't ever do that again. This is child abuse with these kids because they had to conform to the western standards of activity. For example, they claimed to be able to put a matchstick in a jar, seal the jar, and then by psychokinesis, break the matchstick. So because they sort of believed their own story, they said, you, ed, you can make your own. Here's a bottle, and you can put your own matchstick in there. So I wrote. Wrote some stuff on my matchstick, so I know it was my match, and I put it in there. And we could use clear wrapping tape to keep making sure that it wasn't opened. I then put some symbols on the bottom of the can to make sure it was my can. And this poor girl, she was probably 15 or 14. She had it in her forehead for 40 minutes, and nothing happened.

And she was distraught. And fortunately, there was a guy there named Simon Juan, who speaks totally fluent Chinese, but he's british. He speaks English with a british accent because he was on the british government, a liaison on matters of trade with China. And I said, you know, simon, please comfort this girl for me, because I was not angry with her in the slightest. And eventually she. And so I have a picture of the three of us hugging each other. It was really sweet. And I went up to Bingo woo and complained bitterly about it, but she could not do it, and she was distraught.

Did any of the kids accomplish that?

Nope. And one of the things that they had 100 kids, 100 of them, and they divided them into two teams on a basketball court. And all of the we westerners were sitting and watching this happen outside. And the idea is these blindfolded kids were going to throw a ball through a hoop. It wasn't a game of basketball. They were just free throw through the hoop. Except I got pictures I can show you from my computer. The kid's like this, looking through his blind. It's so completely, utterly obvious. But what the hell can we say? Nothing. One example they had there, and it was a teleportation thing. There were two boxes. One labeled the english letter a and the other box labeled english letter b. Very clever. They had an object in box a with a small tv camera in box a and a small tv camera in box b. And the idea is, one of these Chigong kids would arrange God knows how to have the item in box a appear magically in box b and be tape recorded by the video. Neat idea. Except the kid was left alone, not supervised, while this was going on.

And oddly enough, the two video cameras both quit working. Isn't that odd? Yeah, right. So the guy who ran all that said and translated into English, we would like to offer you a job to come and direct our laboratory so we do this correctly. So one of those rare times that was my ethics were in good shape. I said, look, there are great scientists in China. You don't need an old guy from the west. Tell you what, if you would like, I would help you pick the right person from China if you want me to do that. Simon came up to me and whispered in my ear. He said, ed, I'd never let you take that job. Why? Because you'd like to leave China one day?

What are. So. It sounds like we were a lot more advanced, at least in their eyes.

Oh, in China for sure.

What, what were some of the similarities that you saw that. How the KGB or how the Russians were running their program versus Stargate?

They were, they were not very self. They were not particularly open about it. They were pleasant.

So they were there to collect from you, not share.

Yeah.

What do you think about the number of remote viewers? I believe you said there was 120 something remote viewers as compared to what, our six?

Well, we had. Sri only had about five or six at any given moment. And Fort Meade wasn't much better, so.

We'Ll double that number. Twelve. They have 120. Are you're talking about experiments that were done where the kid was left unsupervised, the cameras cut out?

Well, that's in China.

Yeah. I'm guessing miraculously theme the kid broke.

You know, come on, it's obvious what happened.

But I guess what I'm getting at is were our. Were we pickier or have we just not found the amount that they have found yet.

What do you mean? I mean. I mean, we're not being picky. You never leave a participant ever alone with the apparatus. We never do.

Yeah, I mean, that's not what I'm getting at. I guess what I'm getting at is at the time, let's just say, would twelve be a fairly accurate number? Twelve remote viewers that the US had.

At the time, never at the same time. Correct?

1%.

Yeah.

So twelve less than twelve at any given particular time.

Sure.

Okay.

And Russia, few of them at Fort Meade. Joe McMonicle and Angela Ford may be one other person, produced actionable intelligence the rest of them didn't.

So we're talking three, maybe.

Yeah. Joe would be better off telling her or Angela.

Better yet, less than ten. Yeah, they have 120.

What I'm asking and never show us results. Not one result have I seen of their remote.

So that could have been total bogus.

Well, I did have a measure. Joe and I were there at the same time. We got to do a joint remote viewing with Elena Klimova. And Joe, she was the top russian remote viewer. She was damn good. And I had control of that, so I knew what was going on.

Same principles, same, same testing, same just.

What we did here.

And they developed that on their own.

Well, I. I don't know about that. What they do when I'm not there, that was what I ran. I had control of everything. I don't know what they do on their own.

Oh, so they shared literally nothing.

They never share anything. And Victor said, it's part of the zeitgeist of russian military. They never declassify anything. And I didn't show them any classification, any classified stuff at all, period.

Very interesting. Going back to, going back to Sri, you know, we're talking about right now, we're talking about remote viewing. What, are there any other sensory. I mean, you were basically. We're talking about non lethal future type weapons. Correct. I. When it comes to remote viewing, were we researching anything else that maybe was similar to remote viewing that I don't know about?

Well, there's been a lot of efforts in the field at large, parapsychology field at large to look at remote sensing of various kinds. Like, can you separate different categories of music? For example, Joe did his first remote viewing ever on camera called put to the test. And I had that video that the ABC people sent a person who's a location scout for movie industry out to me for two days worth of training about how to pick sites. Then I was hands off after that. And she chose six sites about around the Houston area. And it was. And it was done. The lawyers had control of it, so nobody could do anything. And so on. Long story short, Joe remote viewed it and nailed this site, which happened to have been a Houston channel, Ocean channel, for shipping. And right in the middle of the trial, a huge russian vessel docked right in the middle of the trial, where there was an outbound experiment there. And Joe was back in the studio, but he nailed it. And he said, I hear loud noises from the scene. I have no idea what it is. There's something large there.

I don't know what it is. Blew the mind of the interviewer, who didn't buy the story to begin with. But I called up Joe. He called me, rather, when it was all over. And I said, boy, congratulations, you know, you did this remote viewing your first time ever on national television. How the hell do you do that? He said, do you think I did remote viewing on national television? I wouldn't do that. I did it over breakfast before I went to the studio. Doesn't matter when you do it, you know, you give yourself the tasking. They're going to do something. I'll figure it out. Then he faked it on camera.

Wow. Do you understand what I'm well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.Man, what do you think of that?Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.You don't think so?I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.Do you believe in telepathy?I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?Come on, out with it, 703.I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.Okay.You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.What feedback?I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.I want to know why that's the case.Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

well, write an article on pull no punches, which I did, and got it published in the Journal of Parapsychology. Everything I said in that article was wrong.

They only looked at one year over instead of 20. That was correct. But that's not why they closed the program down. And it wasn't until we had released by the CIA all the stuff they said, why the program closed. What happened was, and we have the quotes, and it's in volume four of the Stargate archives, that. But the cold War was basically over, and the Congress was saying, we've got all this money going to the intel community. We don't need to have that much money anymore. So the Congress ordered CIA to slim down, get rid of all these small programs. And if you don't do that, they threatened to close the CIA. Actually not our view. That's released by the CIA themselves. And I think the reason it closed is that we just were on the chopping block, along with a whole bunch of other programs, negating everything I said in my original paper.

Man, what do you think of that?

Well, when a guy from the Pentagon and I spent with Joe ten years trying to get Stargate started again, the working staffs and defense analysts in Swan loved the product that we had. But upper management said no. And I think that's too bad, especially with terrorism these days. Now I'm convinced that no way in hell are they doing it secretly.

You don't think so?

I do not. My clearances have all dissolved, so I don't really know why.

Do you think they're not doing this under a different name on a different program?

I hope they are doing it, but I don't think so because there is so much pushback. The only reason our program survived is we had a bunch of heroes. John Glenn was a hero. Senator Cohen was a hero. Two other people, and I can't remember their names right now. They protected us from the wolves who were trying to shut us down. And same thing happened with 407 in Russia. They tried to shut him down. And the head of the general staff was supporting it, so they couldn't close it down. People are terrified of this stuff. In fact, Charlie Tartt wrote a whole book about. Article rather not a book about the fear of psy. For example. If you really believed in telepathy. Get out of my fucking head, man. I'm thinking about stuff that you have no business knowing, what it should be. And people really get scared of that.

Do you believe in telepathy?

I believe that it's impossible. And the reason is this. You and I are going to do a telepathy experiment. Right now I'm thinking of a number between one and a thousand. What is it?

Come on, out with it, 703.

I take my pistol, shoot myself in the head. I carry myself to the grave knowing you got the right answer. Oops. I just told you you got the right answer. So the question is, where did you get the information? Did you get it out of my mind or the feedback? The only way I can prevent it. The only way you could possibly get it out of my mind is to kill myself. But the minute you find that, the answer. If there's an answer book, which there isn't, when I'm dead. You. It's not an experiment anymore.

Please help me understand what you're saying, okay? Cause I'm not. I'm not receiving it.

Okay.

You pick a number from one through 1000. I say 703, you kill yourself. Why do you kill yourself?

Because if I say you got it right, then the question is, from where did you get the information? Out of my mind or from the feedback you got later.

What feedback?

I told you the answer. You got it right. That's feedback? Yeah. If you were precognitive enough, you'd look into the future. You're getting a pat on the top of your head because you got the answer right. Whatever. The way to think about this, if you were in college and a scuzzball and you're having an important exam that is going to affect the rest of your life. So you sneak into the professor's office and there's an answer book in there from the questionnaire, and you study it really carefully or maybe even photograph it. Boy, you're going to do really well on the exam. Suppose you could do that precognitively. You're going to do really well on the psychic exam, so to speak. In fact, we use that terminology in our writing, peeking into the answer book. If it. If a study does not have an answer, it's not a study. Now, the answer may not be what you want, it may be different than what you want, but there is some result, and the result we consider as the answer book. And you have access to that by precognition. In fact, Sonali and I wrote a paper together collapsing the problem space of informational people getting information by psychic means.

So are you saying I looked into the future to get 703 saw you? Tell me. Good job. Came back, said the number.

Yeah. Now, if I kill myself, you never get that. Now, we didn't invent this kind of stuff. I mean, we concretized it by doing the arithmetic and all the stuff you need to do to. To make sure that it's real. It simplifies things. Precognition simplifies the whole game. And we don't know how to stop looking into the future. You could say, well, I'm getting it from direct. Well, how do you know? You don't know that. The big mystery is how the hell the information gets there in the first place. For example, Sonali in India is going to generate from a collection of photographs, one photograph tomorrow, but you're going to remote view it today. How the hell does that work? And it turns out we figured out to divide the problem space into two. Two and a half, actually. Problem space, number one. How does that information get from India tomorrow to right here today? That is 100% a physics problem. Doesn't depend upon my nose or me or you or anybody. It's a physics problem, and they worry about it. In fact, there's even a whole discipline supported by the American Institute of physics called quantum retro causation.

It is possible for information to go backward in time from the future to the present, but the present cannot go backward in time to the past. Don't worry about why that's the case. But it's true.

I want to know why that's the case.

Because the past is quantum mechanics. The system has already been measured. It's collapsed. The state vector has collapsed. You can't undo what's been done, what's been done, but until it's been done, it can influence the present. Now, that doesn't mean the way. It's the way it works, but at least it's a plausibility argument. How? The physics domain. There's a guy in, in physics department, excuse me, of Amsterdam, in university there, called Eric Verlinde, and he said we should throw away gravity as a force. It's not a force, which it isn't. It's geometry. And there's a real problem with gravity. There's no quantum base to it. So the four basic forces, that's the only one that doesn't have a quantum mechanical base. So let's get rid of that and talk about entropy. That, and he derived Einstein field equations, Newton's equations, and all the stuff of physics based on entropy. And I want to go talk to this guy, because if it's an entropic force, then there's a carrier. The problem is every. Excuse me. Everything that we know about and getting information that can be used has a carrier associated with it. You are listening to me and getting information because the carrier is the sound waves going to your eardrums.

If you have an alarm clock going off in a vacuum chamber, you can't hear it. So we need some carrier right now, and we have no idea what it might be. Information coming backward in time. But Verlinda has an idea that might be worthy of thought, so that's half the problem, let alone how it gets into your brain. But once it's in the brain, oh, by the way, the physics, people can worry about and not care about extrasensory perception. That's a physics problem, all right. Once it's in the brain, leave aside how it got there for a wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.Why bother?Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.What do you think consciousness is?I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?Oh, okay.It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.I think that's a worry for a lot of us.No kidding.Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.How long have we been at this?We've been going for about 5 hours now.Oh, geez.So before in between four and 5 hours.Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?What do I do for fun?What do you do for fun?Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?Yeah, of course.An 83 year old man, you look.No, you screwed it. 84.84?Yeah.Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.One last question.Yes, sir.With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.Well, thank you.I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.Returned to you, sir. Thank you.I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.Cheers.When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.

wanting more stuff. Now we can go to statistics and Jessica Otz will bore you to tear on the statistics. But nobody buys statistics.

Why bother?

Good question. I thought a lot about that because, you know, I've put a lot of effort in, so a lot of colleagues around. I mean, I don't want to give the impression I'm the only guy doing this. I'm not by any stretch. I guess I'm relying on Chuck Honerton's view of that, and I tend to agree with it, that we may, we humans are faced with really interesting questions about do we survive our deaths, for example? Everybody's interested in that, including me. Can I have a brief comment on that before I go a little further? I was invited as to be a participant at the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture in Kolkata, India. I was the resident materialist of the bunch. And long story short, there was. One of their monks was beating up on me and saying that there's something called promissory materialism. I don't know if you've ever heard that term. You're right. I can't write down an equation for love. But I promise you, by next Thursday, two in the afternoon, well, maybe a thousand years from next Tuesday, we'll have an answer. Right? But so he started defending me on that promissory materialism, and he was a bright guy, totally fluent English and PowerPoint.

Useful. So I went up to him afterwards, I said, swamiji, your whole philosophy I love much better than mine that you survive your death and you get to do all this other stuff. I wish that were true. Mine is last breath. And thats it. I said, but you have to modernize. Youre basing it on philosophy 3000 years old. And that was before we knew about brains and about genetics and all that good stuff. He said, you have to modernize that. And we worked for about five years together, he and I, over the net. Wasnt Zoom in those days email to try to figure out ways in which to modernize us. And we figured out he couldn't do it. So it remains in the realm of philosophy. At least he was interested in it, and so was I. So that was a sidestep. But you asked me, why do it? Because I think humans, including me, want to know the answers to these more spiritually oriented questions. Do we actually survive our death? Or better yet, how do we communicate with one another? We need to do a hell of a lot better job we're doing now, for sure, and things of that nature.

What is consciousness? Is Tononi right about consciousness and all of those questions? Maybe sci research, as at current exists, may not answer those questions, but at least it's no new tools in the toolbox that someone later on will be able to use them and help them answer those questions.

What do you think consciousness is?

I think it's an emergent property of our brain. Straightforward. And to know, I buy Tononi's story tremendously. I will send you a link to that book, by the way. You should get it. It's fabulous.

Thank you. Thank you, Edwin. We're wrapping up the interview. And you know, with all the stuff that you've been involved with and all your studies outside of remote viewing, what do you think we should be looking into as humans? You mean, is there anything that's come across your radar that you think that has to do with the subject?

Oh, okay.

It could be totally random. But what I'm asking, when it comes to ESP, human sensory, what haven't we touched. What do people not know about? What should we be looking into?

That's a good question. I mean, if I knew what we haven't touched, I'd go touch it. I'm more concerned politically where we at as a culture, not only our country, but similar countries around the world. And that's a big threat to everybody. And this stuff's not going to help that at all, I don't think. But that to me, is a bigger worry for me at the moment.

I think that's a worry for a lot of us.

No kidding.

Well, Ed, I just want to say thank you so much for coming on.

My pleasure. It was far more interesting than I thought it would be, to tell you the truth.

Oh, man. I could. I could go on here, but.

How long have we been at this?

We've been going for about 5 hours now.

Oh, geez.

So before in between four and 5 hours.

Doesn't feel that way at all. Actually.

Goes by quick, doesn't it? But is there anything that I should be asking you that I haven't asked so far?

What do I do for fun?

What do you do for fun?

Well, I used to play a lot of golf. I'm horrible at it, but I still like to play it. My wife tricked me into it, damn it. Because I said, I'm not a Republican. I don't own one pair of checkered pants. Buzz off. So she conned me into it, carrying her clubs one day, and I said, oh, geez. And you're a physicist. Trouble is, being a physicist and knowing about golf, those are incompatible. You should not worry about in your head what's happening to the ball and how it's going to. The other thing is, I do a lot of walking in San Francisco Bay area, long distances, 11 miles on a crack.

That's pretty amazing for. Can I say your age?

Yeah, of course.

An 83 year old man, you look.

No, you screwed it. 84.

84?

Yeah.

Oh, man, we are in amazing hell.

No, I'm on my 84th trip around the sun. I've been there. It's boring. Same old son.

One last question.

Yes, sir.

With all of the remote viewing and I've listened to, I researched Joe for a long time before he finally came out here. And there was a lot of stuff. When it comes to outer space, are we alone? That kind of stuff. What do you think about that? Are we alone?

Well, who is it? I'm forgetting the long since dead philosopher or semi philosopher. He said his view was we're serially alone, which is pretty interesting. The way he worded that was we've been only to announce ourselves as a species to outer space since the invention of radio. So if there are other critters out there, and the probability of critters being there is virtually unity. If you look at the total number of, first of the number of galaxies, the number of stars in each galaxy, and the number of planets that are m class planets like Earth, I mean, the probability that there's life elsewhere is, in my view, damn near unity for sure. Now, whether we'll be able to meet it or not is another question. But Carl Sagan and what he said was, we're serially alone, because in the years that it's been 150 years since we had radio and intelligent species like we are, we're going to put ourselves out of business very quickly with global warming, we're going to kill ourselves off. So give us a thousand years from the invention of a radio, the next thousand years we'll all be gone. He says that's inherent to other species as well.

So what's the probability of two 1000 year chunks in 5 billion years? It's very small that they're lining up. Pretty interesting argument. Whether it's true or not, who the hell knows?

That is an interesting argument. I've never thought of it like that.

Because we are. I mean, we're. No one's paying. I mean, we are very. I wrote my first paper, scientific paper, in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1968. An upper atmosphere heating by high altitude water vapor. And we even knew then that we are in a climate shift. We had no idea then back then that as humans were involved in it now, there's no question.

Well, thank you.

I won't be around long enough to know whether we're burning ourselves up.

Well, Edwin, I just want to say it was an honor to interview and sit here and have this conversation for the honors.

Returned to you, sir. Thank you.

I am. Thank you. Very happy that we met and I just wish you the best. Thank you so much.

Cheers.

When I'm doing research for the show, booking, travel, or communicating with guests, I always browse the web incognito. But did you know incognito mode is not enough to hide your browsing history? All your online activity is still visible to tons of third parties, unless you use ExpressVPN. Without expressvpn, you're vulnerable. ExpressVPN is the best on the market because it reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure, encrypted servers. And it's easy to use on all your devices. Fire up the app and click one button to get protected. It's even rated number one by top tech reviewers like CNET and the Verge. In my line of work, online security is paramount, and that's why I choose ExpressVPN. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com sean. That's exp ress vpn.com Sean and you can get an extra three months free expressvpn.com sean.