Two More Ft. Meade Remote Viewers Go Public On The Jeff Rense Program
Transcript of the Jeff Rense Program, Sunday, October 1, 2000.
(all former military remote viewers in the US Army's now legendary Ft. Meade Program)
Guests are: Paul H. Smith, Gabrielle Pettingell, and Bill Ray
Transcript by Skye Turell
- email@example.com 10-04-2000
[Transcriber's note: Some text has been slightly edited for easier reading.]
JEFF: Welcome back, everybody. Tonight, a fascinating conversation with three of America's best remote viewers...all of whom were trained for and served in the Army's legendary Ft. Meade remote viewing project. It is always a mind-bending experience to talk to some of these talented people.
OK, let's get started and we're going to begin things with a return guest. It is always an honor and pleasure to have Paul Smith on the program. Paul served for 7 years in the government's remote viewing program at Ft. Meade, Maryland, from 1983-1990. During 1984 he became one of only a handful of government personnel to be personally trained as a Coordinate Remote Viewer by Ingo Swann, at SRI International located at Stanford out here on the West Coast.
We're going to have Ingo on the program for a return visit sometime soon, for you Ingo Swann fans. He is truly a legend in his own time.
Paul Smith was the primary author of the government RV program's CRV Training Manual and served as theory instructor for the new CRV trainee personnel, as well as recruiting officer and unit security officer. He wore many hats. This is such an intriguing subject...you're going to be amazed.
He's credited with over 1,000 training and operational remote viewing sessions during his time with the unit at Ft. Meade. He was raised in Nevada, enlisted in the Army in 1976 and is a Middle East expert. This has been his bailiwick of interest and professional expertise for a long time. And I do want to ask Paul how he views what is going on in the Middle East right now, which is not good.
He's got a BA from BYU in Mideast affairs, art and English. A Masters from the Defense Intelligence College, Middle East concentration there, and is enrolled currently in a Ph.D. program in philosophy. A fitting capper... specializing in consciousness and philosophy of mind.
Welcome back, Paul. How are you?
PAUL: I'm great and I'm glad to be here.
JEFF: That's a nice picture of you on your website, by the way.
PAUL: That's when I was younger and skinnier.
JEFF: Well, you can't tell with the camouflage gear, though. Do all former Ft. Meade viewers have weight problems?
JEFF: They all complain about their weight, I'm telling you. Lyn grumbles about his weight. They all say they'd like to lose some weight.
PAUL: Lyn and I have the biggest problems there, something about metabolism or something.
JEFF: I think there's a link (smile), I'm going to pursue this. Might be a good project for my Ph.D. The link between remote viewing and body weight.
PAUL: If you can find one and can solve the problem, I'd be happy to hear about that!
JEFF: In all these years dealing with the whole UFO issue, I think there are only a dozen Ph.D.'s in Ufology, or anything that relates to it, here in the United States, which to me is very interesting. That's an off-topic remark, but with such a profound interest in this most perplexing of all enigmas you'd think that the academic community would take a little more interest in it.
PAUL: Mainstream academia is a little leery of all these kinds of things. If someone were to get a Ph.D. in Ufology, it would probably be from one of the folk study programs or something like that. The whole UFO phenomena is kind of treated...
JEFF: They'd have to treat it as some kind of strange, off-beat subject. You have a business. You're out of the Ft. Meade program, you have been for 10 years. You started something very interesting, for short it's RVIS, Inc. There's a great website that's linked to your name at the top of my homepage at rense.com. Remote viewer.com, shortened up to very simple terms, rviewer.com
Tell us about RVIS, why did you start it?
PAUL: I'd retired from the Army and started it in January of 1997. I'd retired from the Army about 3-4 months before. Was trying to sort out what I wanted to do and frankly remote viewing I felt was where my future lay. I wanted to change the paradigm and it seems like you need to have resources to do that.
JEFF: Is that a Capital "P," or a lowercase "p?"
PAUL: I like to put a capital "P" on it. The currently world view that there is nothing but that which you can measure, nothing exists except the physical universe. Maybe remote viewing is some strange version of physicality, but no, at least it's not accepted by the mainstream at the moment.
JEFF: If you're successful in changing it, Paul...how are we going to deal with the public in this country, at least, the part that has been truly "dumbed down" to the extent that most 12-year olds can't write a simple sentence anymore. How are we going to convey to this next generation of leaders in the country that there is so much more to our consciousness than we are led to believe or encouraged to believe by the Establishment.
PAUL: That is a challenge, but of course failures of education don't mean the people themselves don't have native abilities, both intellectual or in this case, so-called paranormal. It's something that people can exercise no matter how well educated they are. It would seem that there's a way to reach them even if they don't have a post-graduate degree in something academic.
JEFF: I've often said that college is an impediment to advancement, intellectually anyhow. I know a lot of people who say, "Gee whiz, I just spent 5 years in college and I don't know what I was doing there. I did spend a lot of money, however."
PAUL: If it was a real impediment, I'd be in real trouble because I spent so many years there.
JEFF: Well, you're still at it. See, you're an addict.
PAUL: Part of the problem is that people go to college thinking it's a career school or vocational school. College is always intended to give somebody an education and prepare them to be a citizen in the society they're in, with the added benefit that maybe they learn something they can use as a career.
JEFF: So many of them view it as a postponement of responsibility. Let's keep maturity and adulthood at the door as long as we can. It's party time. Maybe it's better to retire when you're young than when you're old.
PAUL: The interesting thing about remote viewing, especially the way we teach it, people tend to find out more about themselves and I think they develop a more mature outlook on life when they actually learn how to do this.
JEFF: You're very kind in the way you understate that. People "tend" to find out more about themselves. I would say they discover an awful lot more about themselves, at least the people I know in the business. How can you not?
PAUL: That's true. It can be very revealing. You learn about things, not only that you can do that you never thought you could, but you learn about how your inner processes work that you never knew.
JEFF: That knowledge is an instant certifier or new confidence, is it not?
PAUL: It definitely is. Of course there can some real stress and hard work in between. People often times will start on a course in their life that requires a lot of hard work and some risk and they stop part way through and never realize the actual fulfillment that comes when you successfully accomplish something.
Somebody takes one of our courses, they finish it whether they want to or not. Well, you can always opt out, but if somebody embarks on it, we work hard on them and by the time they're done, I think that they realize they're accomplished something worthwhile.
JEFF: Tell us about Remote Viewing Instructional Services, Inc -- RVIS.
PAUL: Our mission, of course, is to teach people how to remote view and it's a way of earning an income that helps promote our other agendas. I kind of feel like we have two missions in the company. One is to teach people how to remote view in this particular technology that we've learned and developed. The other mission is sort of a public outreach thing, educate people about remote viewing, even if they aren't going to be our clients down the road, we want to present remote viewing in a responsible way and help them understand what it's all about, just for the sake of them understanding it.
JEFF: That begs the next question: There are many people, not bus loads, but many people out there who have been teaching remote viewing for quite some time now, some with less sterling reviews from the RV community than others. How are you going to distance yourself from some of the flakes?
PAUL: I don't think we'll even need to do that. I think the distancing will come in that direction. We'll just present remote viewing and teach it in as legitimate a way as we can, based on all the years of experience that the three of us together have.
JEFF: You mentioned 3, and we have three guests on tonight, not just Paul. We've got Gabrielle, who's coming up shortly. She is also a Ft. Meade veteran. And then a surprise guest later on. Someone who is literally making his public debut tonight, even though he has been known for some time on the Internet under a pseudonym or an alias. He is another Ft. Meade grad and he's terrific. So, he'll be on with us as well tonight. We've got a total of 3 from Remote Viewing Instructional Services.
The aggregate number of years that RVIS has on-staff now, is more than impressive, Paul. Do you know how much altogether?
PAUL: It's over 30.
JEFF: 30 years of extraordinary remote viewing in service to this country, by and large at Ft. Meade, but certainly carrying on today with RVIS. It doesn't get any better than this. If you're interested in remote viewing, Remote Viewing Instructional Services and Paul Smith is the ticket.
JEFF: I'm back with Paul Smith and two other extraordinary guests standing in the wings. Gabrielle Pettingell...and then a surprise guest coming up a little bit later on, someone who have been well-known to all of you in the RV community. You're going to be pleased to at last put a real name on the alias that has been used. I guess we could call RVIS it a company, couldn't we, Paul?
PAUL: We've been incorporated for three years.
JEFF: What do we call it? It's really an institute in a way, I guess.
PAUL: Ultimately that's the goal -- to have a one-stop shop for remote viewing, where people can come and learn not just remote viewing but the other skills associated with it like tasking of remote viewers and analysis of remote viewing data and those kinds of things. 'Course that's down the road quite a ways.
JEFF: You can change it to RVI, you can drop the "S".
PAUL: Remote Viewing Institute?
JEFF: That's it.
PAUL: I think there is somebody out there with that name already.
JEFF: Maybe you can buy it from them. People sell strange things these days.
Your ability is underscored by your classical training in Mideast politics, Mideast history. You are really an expert in the Middle East. We talked before the program for a few minutes about the state of affairs over there, which is not good by any measure. Dozens of Palestinians dead and close to 1000 wounded now in the last 4 days. It's not looking real promising at the moment. What are your views on this, and you have, again, a depth of perspective that few people enjoy.
PAUL: I want to be careful about the word "expert." That can have negative connotations. I like to consider myself a specialist in the Middle East, with a certain educational background and opinions.
The situation is...it's unfortunate the way it's turning out right now.
There looked like some real promise with this peace process they were going
through. And then things fell apart a little bit.
you really see promise in the peace process? I never saw much. I saw a
lot of talk, a lot of hand-shaking. Even Arafat says that if he compromises,
he's a dead man. Maybe I'm looking at it with a jaundiced eye. It didn't
look good from the beginning. It's going where I thought it would. But
I'm not an expert or a specialist. I'm just a pedestrian.
PAUL: The fact that they got as far as they did, I think, was historical -- of
huge historical importance. That's the closest they've ever come on agreeing
on the situation. But now it's fallen apart. I suppose that's not a surprise,
there are a lot of people who don't want it to happen the way it is. And
I lay the blame for that on both sides of the fence, I'm not a partisan
of either the Israelis or the Palestinians.
about remote viewing the Middle East? Have you anything to offer? For those
of you who are new to the concept of remote viewing, we might want to mention
that remote viewing is not constrained by time or space and forward-viewing
and backward-viewing are quite possible and achievable.
Have you tasked anyone to check out the Middle East?
PAUL: No. For one thing, it hadn't occurred to me.
The issue with trying to determine the future using remote viewing...of
course, everyone wants you to be able to tell the future. They want to
know what's going to happen with their lives; they want to know what's
going to happen with their country, with their world.
the most fun of all.
PAUL: It is. And in fact, it's possible to do it, it's not easy to do it and
be successful at it. In fact, more frequently than not, you fail at it,
just because of the nature of remote viewing the future. The interesting
thing is that you can remote view the past just as well as you can remote
view the present. But when you try to remote view the future, some other
factors come into play that make it a bit more difficult to do.
PAUL: This has to do with my notion of time. The idea that I don't believe the
future is fixed and my experience with remote viewing, and that of a number
of other people, is that the future is not fixed, that it hasn't happened
yet. But what we do have is extending out from the present moment, a number
of possible alternative futures, if you will. Some of those are more likely
than others and if you remote view into the future, you're taking kind
of a gamble as to whether you'll pick the alternative future that ultimately
occurs. Because there are a lot of variables that can happen. Every time
another decision is reached -- a decision point in the stream of time is
reached -- it can go one way or another, or another way. There are some
random factors effecting that. One alternative future and not another one,
and if you chose to remote view the one alternative future that doesn't
get actualized, then your data turns out to be wrong.
people would say that another non-actualized future may have become reality
on another dimension.
PAUL: That's another theory about time and when we talk about this stuff it is
mostly theorizing. We don't have any evidence for which one is right. All
I can talk about is the timeline we seem to be in and sometimes you pick
the right future, and sometimes you don't.
said. For people listening who are intrigued about remote viewing and would
like to know more, what do we tell them when they say, "OK, I take the
course. Aside from learning more about myself and how I work and what consciousness
is all about, what can I use it for?"
PAUL: That's always the $64,000 question. What good is it? And I'll start off
with the simplest answer and that is you become more than you were before.
And that's what many people are looking for. Here is something that our
society says you can't do, here's something our society says doesn't exist.
And yet a person comes, takes a course, actually succeeds in describing
a target that they have no way of knowing what it is. Maybe on the other
side of the world. They're cued by a set of numbers and they describe it
and it's an amazing thing to them. It helps self-actualization, the thing
that Maslow talked about years ago, the psychologist.
in and of itself, would be such a consciousness-expanding and maturing
event that I think you can get the drift, those folks out there who are
interested, where remote viewing can take you. It can take you many places,
all of them fascinating. Maybe the most fascinating of all is to learn
more about yourself.
great pleasure to have back Paul Smith, one of America's most talented
and able remote viewers. A graduate of the Ft. Meade group, the U.S. Army's
long-standing program into remote viewing. Remote Viewing Instructional
Services, Inc. -- RVIS -- is Paul's business. Two of his associates will
be on tonight, as well. We have 3 folks who will be sharing ideas, concepts,
experiences about remote viewing.
Paul, for our listeners who say, "Remote viewing, what is that?" We
don't want to leave anybody behind, so give us a couple of sentences or
so on what remote viewing is and how long it has been recognized as an
ability that can be improved upon.
PAUL: Remote viewing is a perceptual process. It's a perceptual channel in some
respects, similar to the other senses, but coming in through a channel
that we don't know where it comes from. Hopefully someday science will
be able to discover that.
What it is...the ability of a person to describe a target (a geographic
site, a person, an event, something like that), that is shielded from that
remote viewer by distance or some kind of intervening obstacle or time.
And the remote viewer has no idea what the target is. They only have some
kind of cuing thing, like a number or something, that tells them to describe
a particular target. And they then proceed to describe it.
blind. You'd just be given a number '627.5836 West' or something like that,
and that's it.
PAUL: Right. They started off using geographical coordinates, but we refined
it to the point where you don't even need that.
PAUL: Called "encrypted coordinates." It's just a number that stands for the
mission that viewer's supposed to conduct.
me an example.
PAUL: I'll take an example from the old military days, because that's easiest
to see. Let's say that there is some kind of building on the far side of
the Ural mountains, the Soviets are doing something, we don't know what
it is. We want to know, but satellites only get a picture of the roof.
They can't get any radio intercepts from it. They can't get a spy inside.
So they turn to us as a last resort.
They give the project manager the coordinate of the building and he
turns that into an encrypted coordinate, just a random series of numbers
that stands for that building. And then they'll take a remote viewer, not
tell him anything about the target, not tell him what he's supposed to
do -- I should say "him or her" because we had a lot of women doing this
as well -- and the viewer would be in a room with a monitor, the monitor
would not know what the target was either, in most cases. They'd provide
the viewer with the number and the viewer would sit down and, using the
process that we teach people, would go through and starting from very simple
elements of perceptual type things, go all the way up through complex things
and try to describe the inside of this building, not ever having had any
kind of contact with it at all, other than their own mental abilities.
That's basically the format of it.
long was the Ft. Meade project in existence?
PAUL: The Ft. Meade actually got officially started in 1979 and ended in 1995,
what was that? ...17-18 years. But remote viewing was practiced longer
than that. It began in roughly 1971-1972 when Ingo Swann was doing some
experiments, in New York, with a number of people there, parapsychologists.
They hit the rudiments of remote viewing, developed those. It became really
supported in 1972 when Ingo Swann got together with a young physicist named
Hal Puthoff, at SRI International, the think tank that got spun off from
Stanford. Because of some of the preliminary projects they did there at
SRI, Ingo and Hal, they got funding from the CIA. The CIA were worried
about what the Soviets were up to, the Soviets were throwing literally
millions and millions of dollars -- that's dollars, not rubles -- into
was a gap.
PAUL: There really seemed to be. They were certainly outspending us to a great
along comes Ingo, the grandfather of American remote viewing really, and
sort of turned it around.
PAUL: That's exactly what happened. He, working with Hal -- you can't separate
the two really -- Hal and Ingo working together and then soon with the
assistance of Russell Targ, who came on. They created this program that
both did research into remote viewing to develop it further and also to
do operations. They did a number of operations, quite a few actually, before
the program at Ft. Meade got started. That was the program for many years,
up until '79.
all of you listening, keep in mind that this was a Top Secret, critically-important
effort to keep up with the perceived advances that the Soviets had made
in this field. We got into it officially in 1979 but as you just heard
Paul tell us, there were some missions, some taskings done prior to that
at the behest of the CIA and perhaps other government agencies as well.
And then came the end of the Ft. Meade project, the alleged official end.
We're going to talk about that, Paul, after our break.
Why did our government drop something that was remarkably inexpensive?
were the Intelligence Director for the (Ft. Meade) unit and you had access
to a lot of the data, if not all of it...
PAUL: Actually I was the Security Officer.
I say Intelligence? I meant to say Security.
PAUL: Being Security Officer wasn't giving much access to the data. As a remote
viewer, they tried to keep me dumb and stupid.
me how accurate you guys and gals were there. Just give me a thumbnail
sketch of it and then you can give me your answer.
PAUL: That, of course, would depend on the project and how well we were hitting
that day. But sometimes we were very accurate. Some of the stories of Joe
McMoneagle, some of his projects now in the public domain, you can read
about those, where he accurately described the Soviet submarine. We in
the project, after Joe, on a number of occasions were just as accurate.
amazing. And Joe has been on this program many times over the years. For
those of you who don't know much about remote viewing, it is truly amazing.
That's the best word I can come up with at the moment.
So, you had a very high, or at least reasonably high accuracy rate.
The question comes along, and I still remember Robert Gates giving that
little news conference or testimonial in front of some committee, saying
it just wasn't something they didn't think warranted the expenditure anymore.
Why, what's going on? And I ask this question every time, Paul. Do we really
think the government has dropped remote viewing? Now, I'm told that every
branch and most, if not all, of the alphabet soup folks have their own
interests in remote viewing, if not their own teams.
PAUL: I would like to think they're still doing it. I think it's important enough
that I would hope that my country was still pursuing that in support of
its own security.
if you're only 50% right, what's the cost? Food and clothing for a dozen
folks, a couple of administrators and compare that to the cost of one Abrams
PAUL: It's really an inexpensive thing. Of course, the average American would
think, "That's way more than I make in a year." But if you look at the
overall cost-benefit analysis it's really very inexpensive. Unfortunately,
although I'd like to think that it's still being used, I think the odds
are very against it's being used anymore.
PAUL: The reason is because of the kind of people who run bureaucracies. They
tend to be -- and there's a lot of research that backs this up -- they
tend to be linear thinkers, or they tend to "seeing is believing."
being so polite, Paul, it's amazing. There's another word...they're pinheads.
I don't want to put them down, but they do think in bureaucratic harness,
they just aren't free-wheelers. They just don't get it. And yet here's
a program that's a winner. Even if you're 50% right, that's an awesome
PAUL: I don't disagree with that. And you're right, we shouldn't put these folks
down, because there are some very very smart people who just happen to
have a bias against this whole notion of paranormal.
heard a couple of the stories about what happened with the bureaucracy
and allegedly why the RV program was cancelled. It is classically dumb,
but we'll leave that go.
We want to go back to what remote viewing can do for people. Certainly
it can lead to quantum leaps in personal growth and understanding of, not
only of ones own individual potential, but the potential of consciousness
in general. Which is an awesome concept in and of itself. Harness all that
power, we've got something.
What is the practical application of someone taking a CRV course from
PAUL: That's a very good question. There are a lot thing that people would like
to do practically with remote viewing. There are the standard things: You
want to find lost kids, you want to help solve crimes.
out who wins the 5th at Santa Anita?
PAUL: A lot of people want to try to do that, yeah. And, in fact, it's certainly
plausible that remote viewing could be used that way. You have to have
a certain skill level in order to do that. Just like with anything else.
there people that you know of who have used remote viewing to prosper,
shall we say, in the free-market economy we live in?
didn't even hesitate, folks!
PAUL: There are a number of people who are exploring it as an investment tool.
It's a very specialized type of RV methodology that they use, that we call
"Associative Remote Viewing." They are using it to predict the ups and
downs of the commodities market. Some are trying to use it to predict some
of the market indices and invest according to that. I know two cases, at
least, who seem to be quite successful. One of which, money in the bank,
made $70,000 during the last calendar year. I haven't seen the money, but
I trust him that that's the case, just based on about 4 hours a day remote
viewing during business hours.
the guy...sitting at his desk in a trance for 4 hours.
PAUL: Sort of like that.
out, but he's probing.
PAUL: That's basically what he's doing. His process is fairly complex. But $70,000
for a part time job, there aren't many jobs that will pay that way, certainly
have you introduce the first of our other guests tonight. She is a veteran
of the Ft. Meade team.
PAUL: I'm really pleased to introduce to you Gabrielle Pettingell. She and I
worked closely together for a number of years at Ft. Meade. She started
in 1987 and was there until 1991. She herself is very smart. She's got
a degree in Psychology, almost finished a masters in Physics, has got an
MBA from Wharton in business, which after she left the remote viewing program
allowed her to work for Arthur Anderson, big holding company for a number
her RV tools? We'll ask her.
PAUL: You can ask her that, it will be interesting to see what she says. She
spent a couple of years over in Moscow Russia. Her husband worked for a
bank over there. And, because of her MBA and her business experience, was
asked to be an adjunct professor at a very prestigious business school
there. So she's got great credentials, not just in remote viewing, but
in the conventional world as well. I think you'll find her very interesting
to talk to.
Gabrielle. You sound like you're about 22, just getting ready to graduate
PAUL: And she looks like it, too.
GABRIELLE: If you read Dave Morehouse's book, I'm also about 5 feet tall, petite,
with brunette hair -- all of which is false!
mean there are holes in Morehouse's manuscript? How do we pronounce your
last name, so we get it right?
GABRIELLE: Pettingell...it's a hard "g."
went to Moscow. This is interesting. They had to know who you were.
GABRIELLE: No, they didn't. That was the amazing thing. We think that everybody's
system is so much better than ours.
didn't know that you had been at Ft. Meade?
GABRIELLE: They never stopped me crossing the border and I crossed the border a lot.
They never questioned anything. It's amazing that we felt that they could
do that kind of stuff.
were you there, what years?
GABRIELLE: I was there from '96, to just before '99. Two and a half years.
got your merit badge from Moscow.
GABRIELLE: Oh, yeah. I kiss the ground here, pretty frequently, at the grocery store.
the people who gripe about this country, so many of them have never been
GABRIELLE: I don't complain anymore. I don't complain about anything. There is not
a thing in this country that you can complain about legitimately after
living over there, you really can't. The people over there, it's a hard
life. It's a rough life.
have some Russian friends from Kazakhstan. It's horrible, less than subsistence
wages for most.
GABRIELLE: And Moscow compared with Kazakhstan is like the Emerald City.
did you first feel you might have something special in this field? As a
child, or was it something that you grew into later on?
GABRIELLE: Oh, no-no. I was actually terrified coming to the project that I wouldn't
be able to do it. As an Army Officer I had been working as an analyst,
studying new technologies, and I'd bumped into the program. And I thought,
"I want to go work there. That's neat."
GABRIELLE: It didn't happen quite that easily. Later on I was notified that they had
an civilian opening, so I applied for it. They accepted me and I realized
that I was throwing away my career, having no clue whether I was psychic
or not, to go be a civilian at this unit. I had a couple of terrifying
weeks when I was using the last of my vacation time before I started work
thinking, "What if I can't do it?" Impoverished, nothing to eat, I'd end
up out on the street...
not a 5 foot tall, brunette hair and all that stuff. Somebody at the project
recognized potential in you. Who figured out that you had talent.
GABRIELLE: I think it's more a willingness to learn, and to be open-minded to experiences.
I think that's what they sensed. The training is rigorous, that I'd push
through the training. I think they recognized that I was open-minded, that
I was a creative-thinker, that I didn't have any kind of value system that
would prevent me from being a good psychic -- I hate that word -- but a
good remote viewer. They have a complete belief. I can train anybody to
remote view, and I know that I can do that. It is a human capability, it's
just a matter of whether the person is willing to put up with my training.
They felt that I had the right attitude.
sound so humble about this. Paul, they certainly had criteria to pull people
into the program. She had to pass some kind of profile.
PAUL: Yes, we give a battery of psychological tests. You had to fall within certain
parameters and she did that. The general research shows that someone who
is little bit smarter, and extroverted, and likes to think about things...she
met all those criteria and so we thought she was a good risk.
were talking to Gabrielle just before the break about several things. She
applied for Ft. Meade program, was accepted. What are your most enjoyable,
most exciting memories of that?
GABRIELLE: Aside from learning to view, having successful operations, I guess my favorite
moment was when I got to demonstrate it to Congress. They actually had
me do a session, and Paul was the monitor for that session.
How many Congresspeople attended?
GABRIELLE: I don't want to go into too many details on that because I'm not sure if
they would want that. At the time they were approving our funding and so
they wanted us to demonstrate it. That was just a peak experience.
did, and you nailed the target.
GABRIELLE: I did nail the target. It was a very exciting moment. It was a hard environment
to remote view in, obviously, with people watching you. But it was exciting
and I nailed it and the program continued.
it didn't continue indefinitely. Were you surprised when it was abandoned.
GABRIELLE: No, I wasn't, because they never really used it to the degree they could
have. We knew it, we knew a lot of the time we were doing operations, it
was like test operations, as opposed to the information getting out to
who in the community really needed it.
GABRIELLE: It was frustrating, but you can understand. In a bureaucracy you know who
you're dealing with. You're grateful that you're alive at all. That's reality.
You hope there's somebody out there still doing it.
you guys are.
GABRIELLE: We are and we're hoping to really start building on that. We want to really
start exploring and building. What can we do with it in corporate America.
That's one of the features that we want to start taking to companies. We're
just starting to have those conversations and starting to think "what do
we need to look at," how can we test it, what type of tasking do we need,
and that type of thing.
From that point of view, if you come back to us in a year and ask "what
good is it?" we hope to have a better answer.
Director of Operations, you'd better have an answer.
GABRIELLE: I would like to comment that one other, besides the personal development
angle is that it's fun. It is a peak experience.
can hear your voice, the first time you really drilled something on a test
and got it right, you were excited, weren't you?
GABRIELLE: And not only that, but when I was just a novice viewer I remember being
tasked and it turned out it was a crater on Mars. I had drawn a beautiful
accurate rendition of that crater and it seemed that the colors, the reds...
When I found out what the target was, there is nothing compared to saying,
"My goodness, I saw Mars." It's a peak experience.
So, what good is it? Well, we're still working on the utility in the
non-intelligence world, we're trying to figure out ways to apply this,
more simple ways of using this technology and expand on it. But still,
as far as why you should spend your money to take a course, because there's
nothing else like it. There really isn't.
the bumper sticker: Remote Viewing -- There's nothing else like it!
When you were looking at Mars and you were just given a series of numbers,
no possibility of a connection, when you were looking at Mars in your mind
and going through the process, how vivid in our world would you see it
in your mind's eye. Give us a mental painting of how vivid that crater
was to you.
GABRIELLE: It comes in bits and pieces. It's almost like somebody's taking quick little
glimpses of textures and color and bit and pieces and throwing them into
your brain. It's not like looking at a vista or something like that. You're
getting it in bits and pieces. It's almost not pleasant. Sometimes you
do go into what we call "bilocation," where you actually do have the sensation
of being somewhere else, but in that case you become a rotten viewer because
you can't report. Your just in an altered state and out of it. So you're
trying not to go so deep that you have that sensation.
You're getting these bits and pieces of data, you're drawing things,
it's a fairly quick process so you're really not putting it altogether.
If I start to say, "Oh, I'm on Mars!" I would blow the session because
I would start thinking about Mars and start to read into it. I could be
dead wrong, it could be in the Grand Canyon.
it comes in like a mosaic in pieces?
GABRIELLE: And there's an element of a sensation. You definitely are in some kind
of different mental state. So you do have that sensation. It's not until
you put it all together at the end that you get the rush of "Oh, I nailed
it!" During the session, you might feel you are really on-target, but you
don't know that until somebody tells you what the target was.
an overview of the security aspects, classified aspects of the years at
Ft. Meade. How much of what you did there can you talk about now openly?
How much of it remains classified, national security and all that?
PAUL: The process is unclassified, but a lot of the operations aren't. They're
still classified. And some of them will probably be declassified whenever
the CIA gets around to doing that. But there are some operations that will
probably never be declassified, because they still have certain security
implications, what they call sources and methods. We may have had a tip-off
of information from some very sensitive source and by revealing the project...
have to protect the source.
PAUL: Some of them will be declassified eventually, some of them probably won't.
if you are successful with Paul and our surprise guest coming up, at RVIS,
in training the public and in indicating to people that this is not just
a growth thing, but is a viable tool in our society and our world, are
we running a risk here? The only analogy that comes to mind is teaching
people how to be really good computer hackers, in a way. You're hacking
consciousness, aren't you, in a way? Is that a fair way to look at it?
Is it dangerous to give people these tools? Can it be used to corrupt our
world by people of ill will?
GABRIELLE: Just about everything can be used to corrupt the world. Fire was a good
thing; fire is also a bad thing.
about ethics in terms of candidates for the program. Is there a code of
ethics at RVIS regarding a code of conduct for those trained in the field?
GABRIELLE: Our screening process, we want to find people who want to use it for the
GABRIELLE: That's hard to do, too. You have people who may have come into the program
that you think were applicable, and then you find out they aren't. We did
have people at the unit who fell into that category. If you misuse something
eventually it's going to come around and bite you. You just have to hope
that that will happen. Some people will take it and try to engage in something
like industrial espionage. But what's the saving grace? The saving grace
is that it's not 100% effective. You always need corroborating data. They
have to do conventional spying in order to get the corroborating data and
hopefully they'll get nailed when they're doing that.
wait til the competition released the product, "Oh, he was right!" I'm
still trying to figure out how the Russians didn't know who you were. Talk
about a bureaucracy that failed!
GABRIELLE: It did make it nerve-racking the first couple of times I went through the
border. It was nerve-racking.
us, Gabrielle, about the differences as you perceived them, and as you
experienced them, between men and women when it comes to being able to
be a good remote viewer. Are there any?
GABRIELLE: I don't think so. I really didn't see a difference. I've trained both men
and women and I really didn't see a difference in their ability. There
really wasn't a difference in the type of data, though I know each individual
viewer might have their own particular quirks, but I didn't see any tendencies
that went along the male-female lines.
You would think that women tend to be more intuitive, therefore they
should be better viewers, or should be more "psychic." But then you think,
men might tend to be more analytical so they'd tend to produce a cleaner
product. But I didn't see any of those patterns. The numbers that we had,
you can't make any claims anyway. When you're talking 10's of people, it's
not fair to draw conclusions. I myself would have trouble viewing things
that were particularly intense, like training sites like a prison or concentration
camp or something like that. I'd probably do an excellent job of describing
the facility, and the physical aspects of it, but I probably would not
be able to get the emotional aspects of it. I would just shut down.
that bilocation, or are you able to read the emotional aspects of it?
GABRIELLE: You do get emotional data. You do pick up any kind of information there
is. If there's people there, you will pick up on what those people are,
what they're doing or feeling. Some sites just have a feeling to them because
they've been used the same way for so long that they have a certain sense
to them. Like a religious site will definitely feel "religion."
sense the dogma.
GABRIELLE: Exactly. You'll feel that. When you do Controlled Remote Viewing, you use
a sheet that has different columns for different kinds of information.
One of them is emotional, others are for sizes, for dimensions, for colors.
So for whatever category of information you have, there's a place to put
me take you on a totally different tact here for couple of minutes. It
is said that the Communist Chinese are into this heavily. And they're scouring
their 1.1 or 1.8 billion -- whichever number you ascribe to -- population
for people who have a tendency toward this talent and they're trying to
go for...strength in numbers. That's what we're hearing anyway. They're
putting together a massive program of young people who have psi ability.
Any thoughts or comments on that?
GABRIELLE: I do think to some degree it's an advantage if you're a natural. But I
also a liability, because you've already developed habits that might not
be useful. If you have natural tendencies to being psychic and having these
abilities, and then we try to put you to doing it a certain way, you're
going to resist that because you've always done it another way. The way
you've done it might be more likely to have what we call analytic overlay,
where you have tainted data. Were your conscious processes are effecting
the data you're getting. Or you're analyzing it before you report it. It
twists the information.
So many times you'll have naturals that when they're on, they're incredible,
but when they're off, they're incredibly off.
the geopolitical sense, does it concern you that China is allegedly into
this very heavily?
GABRIELLE: Yeah, any country that could potentially a threat, it does concern me.
And it concerns me if we're not doing anything anymore. That's certainly
a concern. And they do have a strength in numbers. But then, they have
more of a bureaucracy than we did, so they're going to have the same forces
on their program saying, "This is whole bunch of hogwash and we're wasting
time." The types of people who run bureaucracies are not the kind of people
who believe in human potentials. They're going to have that pressure even
more than we do. Good evidence of that is that the Russians poured all
this money into it, but they didn't seem to have as much success. I think
that's because any successes they did have were probably squelched, similar
to the way our successes were squelched. But more dramatically so, because
they are even more bureaucratic than we were.
you had any contact with the Russian equivalent of Ft. Meade?
GABRIELLE: I myself have not. There are some people who talk to Russian people. They
just looked at naturals and what could naturals do. They did not try to
say, "Can we train them better?" It doesn't seem they had a structured
program to teach or train remote viewing, which is what we had.
it's time to bring on our mystery guest, our surprise guest. Paul, I'll
let you do a little background. This person is known with a pseudonym to
many people in the remote viewing field, but he's obviously a man of great
ability and has created a lot of mystery and intrigue during the time he's
been using this alter ego name, as it were. So, tell us about him.
PAUL: The people in the online remote viewing community know him as "Liam." He's
been going by this name because he still works for the government. Was
in a sensitive position overseas for awhile. But he started getting involved
in some of the email groups about remote viewing and now he's back in The
So I'm going to introduce to you William G. Ray, known as Bill Ray.
Bill is a good friend of mine. We trained together with Ingo Swann and
not only were we friends, but he was my boss for awhile as well.
me read Bill's brief bio for everyone. He's a former Commander -- this
is the top guy -- of the Ft. Meade RV unit and one of the five military
viewers trained by Ingo Swann. Bill spent over 3-1/2 years with the Ft.
Meade unit and has spent approximately 11-1/2 years with remote viewing.
He taught a CRV course in Europe for several years and that was the sensitive
part of it. Right, Paul?
PAUL: It was a private effort on his own to try to keep his hand in and teach
people who were there, who were very interested in it. Very low key, not
a retired U.S. Army Major, graduate with a masters in International Relations
from USC; over 30 years in intelligence, including 20 years in Europe.
Great to have you along, Bill!
BILL: Thank you, Jeff.
have remarkable patience.
BILL: I've learned that over the years.
would think you'd have to, to be a good remote viewer. You also have a
BILL: That's one of the advantages of being in New Mexico.
don't suppose you got that in Europe.
BILL: I didn't get that in the Netherlands, no.
was it like to be trained by Ingo Swann. I was going to ask Paul this,
and I yet may, but I wanted to save that question for you. Again, Ingo
has graced this program several times and will be back again. He's a totally,
utterly unique individual.
BILL: That he is. It was awesome. Ingo is a legend. Appears to be a dear sweet
man, but he's a very strict taskmaster.
BILL: Oh, that definitely. That's probably an understatement. He demands perfection
and hopefully he got it from us.
Ft. Meade unit in its heyday...what was Ingo's relationship to it? If any?
BILL: It varied from time to time. And a lot of his relationship was back-channeled.
We would talk to each other about things going on.
he a friendly guy to call, always accessible? Recognizing the importance
of what was going on, even if the bureaucracy didn't?
BILL: In fact at times he would initiate the call because the bureaucracy was
pulling things down or there were problems due to the bureaucracy. I received
phone calls from Ingo saying, "There's a problem here, Bill, this is what
we need to do."
you were Commander at Ft. Meade, how did that sit on you psychologically?
Being a commander of such extraordinary people with a gift that was being
polished, in 'process' all the time, just getting better and better. What
was it like?
BILL: Once again it was awe inspiring. It's strange, the entire time I was with
the Army, the only job I had that was possible to do, was the one at Ft.
Meade, which was actually impossible. We did the impossible on a daily
basis. The only job that was easy to do in the military.
your job, U.S. intelligence, and so on, so many years...30 years of intelligence
work altogether...you were in probably in the most unusual position that
anyone could be in, in terms of understanding the importance of the potential
of remote viewing for this government's intelligence effort. How did you
feel when Gates pulled the plug?
BILL: Like Gabi and Paul, I expected it. All decisions regarding the unit weren't
military, they were all political decisions. A thing called the giggle
factor. Politicians can't afford to be laughed at. If you recall, Mrs.
Reagan when she was consulting the astrologer, what they made of that.
just found out that Charles DeGaulle was using one for decades. Probably
most great world leaders in the last century have used psychic input.
BILL: Or at least opened themselves up to it. It's politically embarrassing.
It didn't matter how successful we were, everybody wanted access to it,
everybody wanted to use the unit, nobody wanted anyone else to know they
were using the unit.
understand they didn't want to be mocked and derided over it. They knew
it worked, but they were tentative.
you have fun doing this, Bill? I'm sure you were very serious about things.
BILL: Yes, I did.
humor in the remote viewing community.
BILL: There's a lot of it. I think one of the things that happens with remote
viewers, we tend to take things less seriously. Once you've been back in
time, once you've been all over the world, as Gabi was saying to Mars,
all of a sudden that traffic jam doesn't seem that important.
There were two reasons why I used the pseudonym. First of all, I was
hoping the Department of Defense would, somewhere along the line, get back
into the remote viewing business.
were playing a little head trip, were you?
BILL: Right. I was maintaining plausible denial. I figured as long as I was knowingly
associated with RV out there, there was a chance it could come back.
Bill, who was watching and reading the boards that you were targeting?
You don't have to give any names, but what kinds of people were you pitching
or playing this game with? Who were you trying to influence?
BILL: I was trying to avoid being linked with the publicization of RV. Once again,
so in case the project did come up again...
were still available. You want to get back in the harness.
BILL: I'd like to. I think that we were very worthwhile, but I don't think it's
going to happen, because of the giggle factor.
let me take you to another level in the government, let's talk about NSA,
NRO, ONI and all the rest. Why couldn't these agencies, who certainly could
scare up the funding necessary, have a couple of remote viewers they are
working with? Isn't that certainly something that's viable and logical?
BILL: Viable, logical, I don't know. There are many restrictions placed on the
RV community. RV is considered "human use." A human experimentation. So
you need yearly approval to go ahead and do it.
hold on, a lot of us are saying, wait a minute, Bill. These black operations
we hear so much about, certainly don't get yearly approval, they just go
ahead and do what they need. They've got as much money as they want.
BILL: Yes, but they don't involve human experimentation.
they certainly experiment on the unknowing American public over the years,
BILL: Which is why the rules were developed. And the second problem with the
super-secret RV unit that's rumored to be out there is, if you're so secret
that no one knows about you, then how do we go get you to target you?
you and your friends, Paul and Gabrielle -- well, you're not supposed to
know, so I'd have to keep this simple -- couldn't one of the other of you
task that as a target sometime? Check out and see if there is a group working?
you do something like that?
BILL: As long as the other two didn't know.
wouldn't have validation of it, but it might be a fun thing to do anyway.
Speaking of fun.
BILL: You have a devious mind, you know that.
me bring up a subject that has always been of great importance, and I have
only gotten occasionally, almost grudgingly, into it with people. People
in the field don't like to talk too much about it, and that's remote influencing.
Otherwise known as "RI." Let me ask you point blank, in Bill Ray's world,
does remote influencing exist?
BILL: No. It does not. There are certain ways to influence people by being in
contact with them, not using RV. As far as making contact...
I'm really alluding to are comments by other remote viewers in the past
who say that they have put up, to use the parlance of the Internet now,
"firewalls," to protect themselves from being probed by other remote viewers
in other countries. Protection not only from being probed, but perhaps
from being harmed, influenced, skewed, stressed, whatever. Does that make
any sense to you?
BILL: I think it's a little paranoid. No. One of the things we did do, particularly
in a hostage situation. We had a viewer who made contact with a person
who was being held hostage. We would try to comfort him when we left, we
would try to tell him we were looking for him, try to make contact with
him that way. I'm not sure whether that works or not, but it definitely
made the viewer feel better, when he came back, leaving this person in
the predicament they were in when they found them.
me go a little bit further down the road: so, the effort at remote influencing
was made, at least in some cases.
BILL: In a positive view, yes. If it was successful, I don't know.
could call it telepathy, we could call it a lot of things.
goes to the somewhat paranoid concept that other governments, the Soviets
perhaps had been working on RI, and the Chinese would love to bring a couple
of busloads of trained viewers and have them hone in on a target and destabilize
or deconstruct somebody's psyche. Does this, again, make any sense to you?
Do you think some people elsewhere might think that RI is viable, is possible
as a potential.
BILL: I do believe the Soviets did experiment with it. I think they spent a lot
of money and time, but I don't believe they had any positive results. There's
speculation that the Korean airline that drifted off-course was influenced
by Soviet RI folks, but I just don't think it's possible. I haven't seen
it, I can't do it and I don't know anybody else who can.
me take you to another level. If we have now just ventured ever so gingerly
across the threshold of psi, into the world of remote viewing, could there
be another whole level of power, of powers, that we might be able to access
someday? That would be beyond remote viewing?
BILL: I would hope so, yes. But once again, we're speculating. We don't know
how remote viewing works yet. And we may never know. But we know it works.
PAUL: Can I hop in here a sec? I wanted to comment on remote influencing.
was going to ask you to, and Gabrielle is next.
PAUL: You know there is some scientific evidence that we can effect things with
thought at a distance. PEAR lab at Princeton has had some positive relations
with the machine-mind interactions.
Ingo did it. He raised the temperature of something at a distance.
PAUL: The thermistor, yeah, and he had a interesting effect on a quark-detector
at Stanford as well.
are certainly limited demonstrations of what would appear to be RI.
PAUL: There's a much more interesting case, though. Larry Dossey talks a lot
about the power of prayer, where you get a lot of people praying for someone
and there seems to be a positive outcome in their health situation.
sure all of you have read Dean Radin's book. The old random number generator
thing. With Diana's funeral and the OJ Simpson verdict and there was apparently
some focusing, some harnessing of mass consciousness.
PAUL: Right. But now there's another side to the coin that people don't think
about. First of all, to cause these effects you have to have a lot of people
doing it. You know, they discovered the more people you have praying for
you, the better if you wanted to recover from cancer or whatever. And few
people seem to have a major effect. The same thing applied to the PEAR
experiments and to Dean Radin's work. If we lived in a universe where anyone
could influence someone else mentally at a distance and that person who
was being influenced had no defenses against it, we'd all be in serious
trouble. The guy in the car next to you, that you just cut off, is thinking
pretty bad thoughts about you.
see that's why I asked Gabrielle about this earlier. Is this potentially
a dangerous tool in the hands of some people? And as she pointed out so
eloquently, you never know about someone's true colors. Are they at their
core dark or light? You can't always see.
PAUL: I think we probably, assuming for the sake of argument that remote influencing
is possible, I think we have built in defenses to make us less vulnerable
to those things.
as in remote viewers, or 'we' as in all of us?
PAUL: We, as in human beings, across the board, as a race.
of like a blood-brain barrier.
PAUL: Somewhat, yes. I think that's probably a good analogy. So, does it work?
I dunno. We haven't seen any macro effects by it. There are a lot of claims
made, but when you start tracking those claims down, they can't provide
any serious evidence for it. It's anecdotal and it's non-repeatable. I
kind of agree with Bill on this, but I don't rule out at least some possible
you worked with Joe McMoneagle...he's been on the program many times, wonderful
man. You guys I guess had some interesting experiences, we'll talk about
those as we continue. He's doing consulting work, as a remote viewer, which
is what you folks are going to work to, in time, under Paul's direction
at RVIS. Does that appeal to you? Would the idea of industrial espionage
being far more than an idea now, it's an obsession for many. I'd think
the demand is going to be enormous.
BILL: Yes. We're looking at countering industrial espionage. Both domestically
and I would think internationally.
good. You know there's another issue to big industry and corporate hiring
of people. There are many people who are given a full astrological appraisal
before they're hired in key positions. Do you know anything about that,
BILL: No, that's interesting.
heard of it from several people who have done consulting work for companies.
Again, the giggle factor keeps it pretty much under wraps, but astrology
is far from gone.
long has it been, Bill, that you've been doing the Liam impersonation?
BILL: Oh, I don't know, 3 years maybe.
come clean tonight, William G. "Bill" Ray who is former commander of the
Ft. Meade RV unit and one of 5 viewers trained by Ingo Swann. Paul Smith
also trained by Ingo.
It's now time for Gabrielle to talk about remote influencing and her
take on that. Go ahead, Gabrielle.
GABRIELLE: Well, it would certainly explain the Monica Lewinsky affair.
been just waiting...sitting on that one!
GABRIELLE: I don't think that you can remotely influence someone. I'm of Paul's mind.
'forced' Clinton. The latest word from, I forget who, Dick Morris, I think,
says now there were hundreds of them.
GABRIELLE: Exactly. I do think now there is built-in human protection. I do think
there are phenomena like PK and healing that can be developed. I really
do think that we're in the total infancy of this technology. We really
are. All of us, I know, when we were going through training would experience
unusual things that hinted that other things could happen.
For example, when I was going through training and it was very stressful
thing, we could not keep a light bulb in my house for more than 3-4 weeks.
My husband had an electrician in because we were burning out light bulbs
brings up the issue of poltergeist phenomena.
GABRIELLE: Which a lot of people think is usually somebody who has some psychic capability,
a lot of times it's linked to girls in their puberty, going through a lot
of emotional turmoil. I think there's a lot left to be explored. For me
the hardest part about the program dying was the potentials which were
left laying on the table.
are now assembling together again, you and your colleagues to push those
potentials to their logical conclusion. At least get further down the path,
which is very exciting.
GABRIELLE: Exactly, and we don't have to deal with any more bureaucracies.
PAUL: Except the IRS.
let's hope there is remote influencing and you can get in there and straighten
that mess out. What about...you mentioned light bulbs burning out...would
sometimes you hear a pop, or they just wouldn't last long. Did you ever
experience streetlights going off and on when you were driving down the
GABRIELLE: Nope, not streetlights. I did have a really strange thing happen. I had
an old phone I didn't need anymore, I was taking to a friend. I was driving
down the highway and it kept ringing. It was right after I'd finished work.
This phone would just ring and ring and ring. I stopped the car and tried
to get the phone to ring.
it have batteries in it, Gabrielle?
GABRIELLE: No, it was an old-fashioned, ATT, no battery in it. I had a phone who was
an engineer look at the phone, and of course I couldn't tell him anything
about this. I said, "I thought I heard this phone ring, it was ringing
when the phone wasn't plugged in." He said it was impossible. So, I reported
this at work the next day. Paul said, "Well, why didn't you answer it?"
it's better you didn't. Rod Serling would probably say, "hmm, I dunno."
Was it ringing in normal cadence?
GABRIELLE: Yeah, it rang in normal cadence. It was the strangest thing. I was very
lucky I didn't have an accident because this phone was just ringing in
Paul, who do you think might have been on the other end?
PAUL: Oh, it was probably her own psyche. Talked to herself, but it was a long-distance
Ray, any strange events in your life that we would call paranormal?
BILL: I'm sure they happen.
on this program is one of them.
BILL: A strange event, yeah.
got an email from someone asking if husbands and wives can take your course
together and is there a discount? Half facetious with that. Do you have
married couples do this?
PAUL: Certainly husbands and wives can take the course. My second set of students
was a husband and wife team, I guess you could call them. Back in 1997.
They did excellently. There's some interesting research, PEAR lab and elsewhere,
that shows that bonded heterosexual couples actually do better in psychic
sorts of tasks than do any other kind of pairing: same sex, unbonded heterosexual
pairs. A married couple, at least in theory, should do better, if this
research really is valid.
[Transcriber's note: Please notice that Paul does **not** say that
heterosexual viewers or psychics are better than homosexual ones, or that
married psychics are better than single ones. 'Nuff said.]
it makes sense, if they are synched up psychologically, emotionally; certainly
psychically, and they would seem to be a logical partner in that little
PAUL: I would think so. So far that's been my experience. In fact when I do an
operational remote viewing, I have my wife monitor me. If I have a choice,
I have her do it rather than anyone else. Just in case there really is
that effect. And it seems to have worked so far fairly well. Many of my
operational sessions have been fairly successful. And I don't know if at
a greater rate than they would have been otherwise.
that for us, "Operationally focused."
PAUL: Well, there are two kinds of remote viewing sessions you can do, maybe
three. There is the training. Obviously you do sessions to do training
so you are successful. There are research sessions one can do, if you're
working for one of the laboratories. And then there are operational sessions.
An operational remote viewing session is one that is conducted in support
of someone who has a real world goal. They want to find out some information
that is essential, some kind of essential element of intelligence. Any
kind of thing that's a pact-liable case of remote viewing would be considered
an operational remote viewing session.
I mentioned Joe earlier. Certainly a legend in the field. As you will be
in a few years, so you have to get out in the open and expose yourself
to the folks. Keep Liam around, that's always fun. Keep posting under Liam.
Maybe you can get into arguments with him, Bill Ray against Liam. That
will really confuse them (smile). Tell us about some of your experiences
with Joe in operational remote viewing.
BILL: I came into the unit towards the end of Joe's military career. At the time
Skip Atwater was doing most of the monitoring. What we would do is, Skip
would go in the room with Joe. Joe worked ERV as opposed to CRV.
ERV real quick.
BILL: Extended Remote Viewing, basically going into almost a trance and then
reporting back. Skip would go in and monitor him and Skip would have an
earphone in. I would be listening outside. Skip would be concentrating
on maintaining Joe's level and I would be concentrating on the intelligence
problem. I would whisper into the phone in Skip's ear. We were doing a
session one time, it referenced an embassy in another country and two of
the people from another government agency who had been there about a month
earlier, were in the booth with me monitoring. We had sent Joe back 30
days in time, back to the period of time these people had been in that
embassy, trying to find something. They hadn't been able to find it.
Joe started reporting back, and starting reporting what had been going
on with these people who were there also. One room was very messy and he
was basically talking about the two people who were in the booth with me.
Talking about them 30 days earlier. They were both amazed.
And then something came up, we were looking for a certain problem. Joe
mentioned that there was a problem with the security guards at this place.
They were letting unauthorized people in. And that did turn out to be the
problem later on. Not only did we get the results for the problem the agency
had, but we got the additional result of identifying a problem nobody knew
All of you have at least one great book in you, if not 2-3 screenplays
from all of this, I'm sure.
BILL: If they would unclassify it all.
one of those things you have to live with. Boy, if they could only know
the whole story. Maybe one day we will.
Paul, you mentioned new developments in remote viewing at Remote Viewing
Instructional Services. What do you have that makes your program even more
cutting edge than it already is. You've got the greatest staff I could
PAUL: Having Bill and Gabi come on board is really beneficial because that expands
our capability. We've developed what we're calling an enhanced remote viewing
Basic Course. Taking the Basic course as I've been teaching it over the
last 3 years and we've added some of those skills that Gabi offers. We
going to do some personality profile testing and evaluation in terms of
remote viewing. Taking that into consideration in helping the students
learn then how they might approach it in their own individual way.
want to hear from you, Paul, about any paranormal experiences you may have
had in your life. You've had a very unusual life. Anything odd there? I
just got an email from our mutual friend Skye Turell, and speaking of Gabrielle's
ringing phone, she said, "I have a friend who unplugged her phone in order
to avoid a call that she knew would be coming in. The phone rang and she
answered it and proceeded to have a conversation with the guy, all the
time holding up the unplugged jack for her house guests to observe."
PAUL: Boy, he must've really wanted to talk to her. Y'know the really weird,
the very paranormal thing about me is that I've not ever had any paranormal
experiences, other than what I've experienced remote viewing. In fact,
I was pretty well convinced that it didn't work. When I was in junior high,
one of my classmates wanted to do an experiment. A parapsychology research
experiment, a classic one with the Zener cards, all the different cards
with the different shapes on them. I was a psychic brick. I was a total
failure at that. As far as remember, the experiment itself was as well.
So from that I concluded that there must be nothing to it, even though
I wanted there to be. I loved science fiction that dealt with ESP kinds
of things. But that was a total failure. Any attempt I'd seen, or tried
to do myself, as being psychic was a total failure. So I'd given up the
idea that it was a reality. It took me less than a second to change my
mind about that when I was asked to become part of the program, the logical
chain, I said, "If the government's doing it and they want to hire me to
work at it, that must mean they are having some success at it and that
must mean therefore that there's a reality to it, that it really does work.
you must have had to pass some kind of screening. Someone had to notice
you somewhere. Or did you seek them out?
PAUL: No, it was a very interesting synchronicity. I moved in next to Skip Atwater.
We had these government quarters. I was maybe 200 yards from the offices
of the remote viewing unit. Of course I had no idea that that's what was
going on there. I moved in next door to Skip Atwater, who was the operations
and training officer, the guy who essentially founded the remote viewing
unit at Ft. Meade. Across the street from the first Ingo trainee, a guy
named Tom. And poof, there I was. I had some interests that were different
from your average Army intelligence officer. They were actually looking
for intelligence officers who were competent in the field, as normal intelligence
officers, but who also had interests in things like maybe art, music or
maybe languages, creative writing. Anything that was sort of a right-brain
activity. Well, it so happened that I was interested in all of those. So
they got to know me and say, "Well, this guy fits the profile we're looking
for. We ought to give him the test and see if he comes out where we want
him to on the test." And I did, I guess. They gave me the test, said, "how
would you like to try this?" and I said sure, why not?
here's a question for all of you. Since Paul has opened the door to this
next one. I'm going to make a statement and let me get a response. We'll
take ladies first this time. Here's the statement: 'There are no coincidences.'
Paul's juxtaposition with those people...
GABRIELLE: Wow. That really strikes at personal philosophy. And I'm not sure it's
fair to link that to remote viewing. I myself believe that everybody can
remote view. I think there's just some people who will find it more difficult
more of a consciousness question, I understand.
GABRIELLE: I'm a quite religious person, so I obviously believe that God is involved
in the world. From my perspective, some things are not coincidences. As
far as the program goes, how I ended up at the program, it was my sheer
doggedness and persistence. I had bumped into the program when I was an
analyst. In fact, I had figured out the program. Somebody else had asked
me to look at some reports because they wanted to protect the source and
they were in a technology I was studying. My immediate reaction was, "Oh
great, we've recruited a Soviet scientist." I was trying to figure out
"who is he" I wanted to see before they released them. They felt the information
was important enough to go out to the community. But they didn't want to
release them if it was going to reveal the source. And so I pondered over
this for a month and then I told them -- there were a couple of different
ones -- and all of a sudden it hit me one night that there was only one
way they could get that information, even though I myself at that point
really didn't believe in psi phenomena. I knew of that, I asked where it
came from and they said this unit, but they wouldn't confirm or deny what
I'd figured out. I found out they had a military spot opening and so I
interviewed for it. It was an interview where they thought I didn't know
-- it was Bill Ray who interviewed me...
he didn't know that you'd figured it out.
GABRIELLE: No, he didn't. It was an awkward situation, do I tell him or not?
GABRIELLE: So Bill interviewed me and then they decided against me. I'm not entirely
sure why, but I'm pretty sure...at the beginning of the radio show you
said I sounded 21...I was carded until I was in my mid-30's. So I have
a feeling they didn't want a teenager at the unit. I was only a Lieutenant
at the time. So a couple of years later I heard through Ed Dames as a matter
of fact, that another spot had opened, a civilian spot and I thought "I'm
really suited for this." Not because I have any experience in it, but I
do have a degree in psychology. I'm very familiar with the needs of the
intelligence community and the tasking processes, what type of information
is of value.
you'd figured out the program's existence. They didn't know that.
GABRIELLE: He had witnessed that, he'd been somewhat involved when that had occurred.
So they pulled me over again and I went through the whole round of interviews
again. They decided I was worthy. And I had matured a lot. A couple more
years of experience...
dyed your hair grey for the interview.
GABRIELLE: That's how I stumbled into it. I aggressively pursued it.
Bill Ray, tell us about this. Rejected and then accepted?
BILL: There were three reasons why we didn't take Gabi the first time.
you know these reasons, Gabi? Is this Bill or Liam talking?
BILL: This had better be Liam, I guess.
me off the hook, Bill.
BILL: First reason, I think it's the one I gave her, we were looking for somebody
more experienced. Somebody better known in the intelligence community.
More background. The other two reasons, the second one, I wasn't quite
sure when I talked to Gabi, several things had to come together. Her husband
was going to do this and there was...I wasn't sure we could get longevity
out of her.
BILL: Right. And the third issue, Paul had recommended her. What I was worried
about was factions developing in the unit. Looking back from my perspective
now it wouldn't have happened in this case with Gabi, but I didn't know
that at the time.
lesser person could have caused some turmoil within.
BILL: I didn't understand the relationship between her and the person who was
recommending her. Worries that we would get a balance of power going in
one way and not another.
understand. The bubble gum wasn't a problem though, Bill?
BILL: Not really. I would have preferred somebody older, but we would have gone
ahead. She's a talented person.
PAUL: Well, Bill explained it. I was going to mention the name of the person,
but I think I'll skip that.
alright, I think I know who it is. And I'm not a remote viewer.
PAUL: Well, maybe you're better than you think.
is all very interesting. It's not easy to interview. Here's a question
for you, Bill. Did you ever task anyone to check out an applicant, without
them knowing obviously.
BILL: No, I would think it's probably illegal. 'Cause we'd be going and spying
the ethics here, friends? That's a couple of times tonight that you have
brought the ethical side forward and it's very important. The remote viewers
at Ft. Meade, and all of you listening. You can be very very proud of this
sacrifices they made on your behalf. I think we can all lament, to one
degree or another, the sad state of affairs that we have to deal with in
bureaucracies, as has been made abundantly clear tonight.
Here's another question, and I didn't get to you, Bill, about coincidences.
How do you feel about coincidences and synchronicities?
BILL: For an intelligence officer there are no coincidences. It's been my experience
that things happen for reasons. We can't always see when it's going on,
but looking back, there aren't many coincidences in God's world, I don't
Liam agree with you?
BILL: He's pretty smart in this area. You know the Irish, the way they are.
another question. I have always in my mind the fascinating stories that
Ingo shared with us about his ET paradigm. Let me ask each one of you to
comment a little bit on that because it is such a profoundly important
question. Gabi, you first. How about ET, UFOs? Have you ever been tasked
to look in that direction?
GABRIELLE: Yes, a lot. Definitely tasked, definitely got lots of data. I'm a fairly
scientific person, I know I come off as being a little bit light and flip,
but I've worked it a lot. And I've gotten a lot of information. It was
a lot of real interesting, neat and fascinating and some of the most fantastic
sessions I've ever done have been taskings against UFO type things. The
reality is that there is no corroborating evidence and knowing as a person
who trains, I could task someone against Jules Verne's book, "2,000 Leagues
under the Sea." And they would come up with all this great data about this
very unusual submarine, y'know. See what I mean?
Answer me this question when we get back, who tasked you with all these
UFO targets, ET targets? Very interesting.
who tasked you with the ET targets?
GABRIELLE: I'm not sure tasking is the right word to use. When I did all the ET sites,
I was still in training.
me an example of an ET site.
GABRIELLE: I didn't know exactly how they tasked it because the trainer would just
give me the coordinates. One thing was that meteor in Russia.
Tunguska Blast...it was 1908.
GABRIELLE: I did that as a session. That was one I remember.
you got ET data from that?
GABRIELLE: I got data that could probably be analyzed that way. Unfortunately what
makes it harder is that the person who is tasking it, 1) it was training
so the monitor was witting and, 2) I was a trainee and, 3) the trainer's
hobby was studying UFOs. So, from a scientific point of view it wasn't
a clean session. But, I did get ET type results from it. The neat thing
was that, but could you take it and run with it? I certainly wouldn't.
Just because it was incredibly tainted. It was very interesting.
question. Personally you don't have a problem with ET?
Even your religion?
GABRIELLE: None whatsoever and I actually think it would be really cool.
know what the Pope said? If there are ETs, they're all God's children anyway.
GABRIELLE: That's right.
Ray, what about you and the ET issues as far as remote viewing goes? I
know Ingo, he's had some amazing experiences.
BILL: Right, and I know Ingo's a little leery about viewing ETs. I've viewed
ETs as training targets, both for Skip and for Ed Dames. I think it's probably
a legitimate training target in that it'll get the viewer to report whatever
comes into his mind. But as Gabi says, there's no way to verify, there's
no way to validate what you view. I've had some strange data reported on
have no problem that we might be being visited?
BILL: No, none at all.
note that dear listeners!
GABRIELLE: We're all X-Files fans, too.
ringmaster, Paul Smith?
PAUL: I've talked about UFOs on here before. I actually kind of think that there
are what we call UFOs, some extraterrestrial involvement, some sort of
extraterrestrial civilizations as well. My religion supports that, as a
matter of fact. The one thing to keep in mind when you're talking about
doing UFO type remote viewing sessions, though, is the danger of what we
call "telepathic overlay."
If you do a session against a target that doesn't actually exist, then
your subconscious is going to try to find some kind of psychic signal to
give you an answer. And if the person who tasks you really believes that
thing existed, even though it doesn't, then you're just as likely to latch
onto that person's beliefs. So you produce this session, you produce this
really great data that substantiates that your tasker actually thought
about this target and all of a sudden this person is really convinced that
the target really exists. Even though it really doesn't. You give some
reality to a non-real thing. That's always a danger to be reckoned with.
That said, I think remote viewing can well be a tool for discovering
things about extraterrestrial involvement, perhaps. Understanding the caveats,
that if you don't have corroborating data you can't take the information
as anything more than tentative.
talk just briefly in our remaining couple of minutes, about the International
Remote Viewing Association, and you've got a big conference in the planning
stages right now, coming up for next year.
PAUL: Of course the International Remote Viewing Association was founded to try
and bring some sanity to the remote viewing world and we're slowly doing
that. We have a great webpage that is being put up by our webmaster, who
I'd like to put in a plug for: Shelia Massey. I guess she's probably got
a link at the bottom of the page. She's done that and the remote viewing
address for the IRVA?
PAUL: That would be www.irva.org. There's even an opportunity to do a remote
viewing test from there.
fun, I've been told about that and I did put a link up on my webpage. All
of you go to irva.org and you can have a little fun with the remote viewing
test. It's good.
PAUL: We're sponsoring a remote viewing conference next year. The one this last
May was a great success and we're hoping for an even bigger and better
New Mexico again?
PAUL: No, the first one was in New Mexico, the most recent one was in Mesquite,
Nevada. The next one, right now is not absolutely sure, but it's looking
like Las Vegas, just because it's the most inexpensive and easiest to get
totally agree with you and I don' t know why they can't get that UFO conference
switched over there. Nothing against Laughlin and Mesquite, but put it
in Las Vegas. There's more access, more people. I think it's a good venue
PAUL: We're shooting again for either Memorial Day or the first week in June.
That seems to be the best time. We have a bunch of guests in mind, we haven't
invited them yet until we get a concrete date, but I think we're likely
to get some pretty interesting folks. We had interesting ones last year,
and we're trying to do as well or better for this coming year. The RV conference
is going to be great, I think.
get a final comment, first from Bill Ray. Bill, anything you want to leave
us with here tonight? Liam, if you don't want to talk anymore.
BILL: The truth is out there and may the force be with you! Like Paul said, if
we can get some sanity to this and get back to the scientific basis, we'll
be a whole lot better off.
thanks so much for coming on and "coming out" tonight. Bill Ray's coming
Gabi, you're the one who's carrying the load there. You're the Director
of Operations. You're going to have to make it happen.
GABRIELLE: We're definitely going to make it happen. The operational thing is a little
bit in the future but training-wise all I can say is that if you have an
interest in it, it's worth every penny and we definitely won't let you
down. We've kept pretty much strictly to the Ingo methodology, from using
our CRV method you can learn any other very quickly. As opposed to the
other way around. If you go from ERV or something like that, to CRV, it's
much harder. We guarantee you won't be disappointed.
expanding job market for trained remote viewers? There is a market for
GABRIELLE: There is a market for that. We definitely want to build on that. Right
now there's not enough what I would call qualified operational viewers
out there, to really run a commercial operation. So our first goal is to
get more very well trained people out there and then start using them to
test different concepts that we're developing. We want to do it in a way
that's truly marketable. It's one thing to say that we've got this great
hit when we did this op. But it's another to say we've got X probability
on this type of scenario and that's what we want to provide to people.
It's going to be a little bit slow in developing, because we're going to
do it the right way.
Viewing Instructional Services, Inc., Paul H. Smith. It's your vision,
Paul. You've got two fabulous people and a great staff and you're on the
PAUL: A quick blurb, we do have an Enhanced Basic Course scheduled for the 25th
to the 28th of October. People can find out about that on the webpage.
are you doing the training?
PAUL: I'm in Austin, TX. That's where we're going to have it this time and in
fact we'll probably work out of Austin most of the time, but there are
going to be opportunities in the future to do it elsewhere. Gabi's in Florida,
so down the road a ways we may do something there. We're going to take
it slow, for the time being Austin's the place, but we'll see how it works
out. It depends on demand in a given region and our time schedule.
question for you, Paul. Where do you expect to be in 5 years with remote
viewing, as a talent, as a tool? Where are we going to be with it?
PAUL: Well, of course there are a lot of variables and it's tough to predict
because of that. I think it's going to be close to a household word. It
isn't yet, lots of people don't know about it, but given 5 years and the
intensity that people are coming to it with, I think it'll be a pretty
broadly known thing and it will be used for various kinds of projects.
said. Thanks for bringing Gabi on and for pulling Bill out of the closet.
It's been a lot of fun.