Live RV on National Geographic
Onto another topic… There used to be a day when you could trust a name like National Geographic. These were the folks who ferreted out the truth with cameras. I remember as a child sitting for hours in front of the television simply because National Geographic was going to show films of Africa, the undersea world, or something special about the world I otherwise wouldn’t have been able to see. They were the guys who went out there and found the truth and shot it for us folks who would never have the opportunity to otherwise see it. There was never any question as to their honesty. They’d never engineer a lie!
So let’s review exactly how my remote viewing segment, totally controlled by National Geographic, was filmed for National level television. We gave them the scientific rules for a hard core, replicable, double-blind remote viewing experiment. We told them it had been replicated in our lab and a number of other labs across the world thousands of times with significant results under the same conditions, and proffered the research for review. We also offered to put them in contact with other scientists who had also run exactly the same protocols in those labs. They accepted both the materials and the contact information. This is how the experiment was run:
1) They brought in their own person to select a large number of possible target sites within the San Francisco Bay area. This person was never introduced to me and was put up in a hotel in a completely different town. The name of the person and the town were not shared with either me or Dr. Ed May. This was to insure that we would never meet with nor contact this person throughout the experiment or the shoot.
2) All of the locations that had been selected as possible target sites were photographed and were kept under lock and key, secured by a law firm which was hired by National Geographic, also unknown to either Ed or me.
3) On the day of the shoot, the target was randomly chosen at the law firm and was carried to the location of the filming by a police officer who was hired by National Geographic. He carried a sealed envelope containing the target site to which an Outbounder was to travel. He also carried a sealed envelope containing five photographs, one of the actual target site and four additional sites which were bogus sites for judging. All of these had been prepared so that no one had touched them, so there were no fingerprints on them to tip anyone as to which site was the actual target site. He also carried a sealed envelope with a photograph of the Outbounder contained inside who no one up until that point had seen.
4) The Outbounder went directly from the law firm to the randomly selected site (at least I believe so, as they never told me exactly how the Outbounder got there.)
5) Once the cameras were rolling, Ed was handed the sealed target and the sealed envelope with the Outbounder’s photograph. He opened the Outbounder photo envelope and showed me the Outbounder photo. He asked me if I had ever seen the woman before. I said no. He then asked me to describe where she was standing.
6) I described and drew the actual target in less than 30 seconds. “Circle of dirt or gravel, with an art form in the middle. Flat.”
7) It was done so fast in fact, the National Geographic observer was extremely disappointed. So, I then said; “Gee, I guess that’s not much for a National level television show, is it.” I thought for a moment about the target. Then said; “So, why don’t I describe exactly how the Outbounder got to the targeted site,” which I then proceeded to do.
8) That is when I produced the drawings of the arches and entry into the area. When I was finished, I was asked to leave the area and they then handed the packet of five photographs to Ed. To reiterate, care had been taken to insure that no one had ever handled any of the five photographs inside the packet, so there would be no hints as to which photograph was actually the real target. Ed, who usually takes quite a bit of time and care to do his judging, took less than a minute to give me a first place match to the actual target site based on my drawings. He said on film that it was quite clear from my drawings which place was the target.
9) The Producer then called the Outbounder to ask where she was actually located. On finding out where she actually was, he asked that I sit in the front seat of the van so the man filming could film my reactions to our arrival at the site. He later told me he knew that what I had drawn was nearly a perfect rendition of the actual target.
10) Arriving at the site, we found two police officers who were not part of the production. One was California Highway Patrol who had been assigned to Home Security for Anti-Terrorism. He had seen them photographing down along the edge of the bridge and drove down to make sure they weren’t doing something wrong. The other man was State Security and he had arrived for the same reason. Both stayed when they heard that I was doing the RV, and had called in to their superiors for permission to stay so they could meet me. Both reviewed all of the materials. Both officers said based on what they saw, they would have gone directly to the bridge based on my drawings alone. They were both impressed, and I was asked to sign and autograph their day logs for both them and their Watch Commanders.
All through dinner that evening, all the producer and other personnel from National Geographic did was talk about how amazing the experience was and how they simply could not believe what they had witnessed. It was very clear that they were convinced that it was successful, replicable, and real. That was my 86th live demonstration of double-blind remote viewing on national level television, and at the time I was running an approximate 88% success rate.
By National Geographic standards, it’s a failure, non-scientific, non-replicable, and a waste of time. In the future, I might travel to Hell with their film crew to see snow balls form, but only if they bring their check book.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:56 am
I never got to see that episode, but viewers online told me that at the end they were kind of shocked about it.
It’s cool to hear about the real details of it finally.
I thought LIFE magazine was legit too. And then look at the disaster that was. Not that I really trusted the mainstream media in the first place, but when it comes to RV it really seems like nearly every source that can, has totally shown itself to be without honor.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:41 am
Simply outrageous. I wonder if it’s fear of psi and denial, not wanting to be caught dead standing next to a psychic, or what? How the mainstream continues to ignore hard scientific data just because it’s findings don’t fit into their personal models of reality is ridiculous. On what basis do they declare it “a failure, non-scientific, non-replicable, and a waste of time?” Forgive me but, what a crock.
Sometimes it seems the entire field (which, minus the marketing and hype of course, is already miniscule) is doomed from so many different angles.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 am
Hi Joe,
It must be so frustrating . I’m glad you keep chipping away at it though. I don’t know what they could have expected you to do further to prove yourself.
But you know what? Anyone in the viewing audience who has had any kind of experience like that, will look at the show and it will be validated for them that it IS possible. Forget the Bozos in suits, lol!
Linda
July 31st, 2006 at 9:58 am
It’s like anything, right? People believe what they want to believe, evidence be dammed. Or what they DON’T want to believe.
Keep doing what you’re doing, Joe. Eventually they’ll come around!
Mark
July 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Well Joe, it is a good thing that your experiences of life are not subject to the experiences, or lack thereof, of other people. ;)
One man’s unbelief has no affect on your belief, unless of course you let it and I figure that you will not allow others to mess up your world just because theirs is so limited. ;)
Keep on keeping on Joe. There are those people around you that embrace such things as do you, so, keep on……
healthy regards to you and yours
July 31st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
So now there are 2 police officers, some producers and numerous NG personnel who have seen the light. I assume their experince will radiate out to also affect their wives, children, work mates and friends in a positive way.
Excellent!!
The impact you’ve had on even one person has the potential to profoundly change the level of awareness of many. Let’s hope those producers integrate their new awareness into their work at some stage in the future. :)
cheers
Liz
August 1st, 2006 at 1:18 am
Sometimes you don’t realize how slanted a media outlet is until you get involved with it yourself. What issue of NG is this article in anyway?
August 1st, 2006 at 1:25 am
Oops, I mean when will it air? I almost forgot that part about it being ‘live.’
August 1st, 2006 at 9:02 am
Hey Joe,
I saw that episode. I was outside with our dog one evening when my wife yelled to me, “You better come in here, National Geographic’s doing a show about RV and Joe’s going to be on it!”. I ran inside and sat down in front of the TV, all excited, thinking to myself that - at last - RV would get some decent, respectable validation because this time the demonstration involved you as the viewer and Nat’l Geographic as the medium. When I saw that Ed was involved as well, I was even more pleased because it seemed that he would help to insure proper protocol was followed.
I watched as the van traveled to the outbound site. I told my wife, “There’s the arch or short tunnel-like structure that Joe talked about during the session”, just as the van went through it. The woman who acted as the beacon was obviously impressed. All in all, it looked like a good session and all completed in-protocol.
But then the National Geographic’s resident skeptics kicked in. They started pointing around the area, saying stuff like, “Well yeah, but he didn’t say anything about this or that” and “Some of the stuff Joe described would be true of almost anywhere”, etc. I was truly disgusted.
The fact that they were really stretching, reaching as far as they could and in any way they could, to try and minimize the validity of the remote viewing was painfully obvious. Since then, I’ve watched a few other Nat’l Geographic shows about various paranormal subjects and it’s always the same thing. These people are worshipping at the temple of scientism and stopped being true scientists long ago. It’s unfortunate.
Don
August 1st, 2006 at 11:38 am
Hello Joe:
A friend of mine taped the show for me. Great job you did there. Glad to hear the extra details about the security people who happened to be on site. You know, they might actually be contacting you sometime in the near future, don’t you think? (:-)
Regards
Robert
August 15th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Hello Joe! Thanks for your comment of this program. I saw it in Sweden and it was clear to me that something was not right in their way of presenting it, now I understand! I think we need another kind of media, in Sweden anyway. But who is going to start a new Discovery or National Geographics? We need people that has knowledge and passion and integrity. I think the media is underestimating their public!
August 21st, 2006 at 2:33 am
Joe, you must surely understand the media including Discovery Channel and Daily Planet tell absolute black and white lies about remote viewing, dowsing, etc. Come on!!
Plus, the fact that Tarot card readers and Brit psychics were used in the 1960s were able to SEE and report the corruption in the U.S. military to their handlers besides answering the actual ‘test’ questions being asked and were therefore not employed further.
Cognitive Sciences Lab where Ed May and James Spotiswoode work lost $500,000 one tme because they let slip the word ‘Tarot’ into one of their grant applications to the CIA/Congress.
Again, we all know that the term ‘remote viewing’ is simply the rephrased phraseology of normal psychic workers. The terms were invented by Ingo Swann and Hal Puthoff in order to be able to write up ’science’ study grants in the field which bible belt thumpers could not understand and therefore cancel.
Puthoff and Swann both went on from parapsychology labs on the east coast to actually utilize what had been learned. These labs, like the Russian bureaucrats wanted still more research to go on till the end of time. But Puthoff and the KGB told these labs and their stunted bureaucrats — that’s enough research already!! We’re happy to go with what’s been discovered and they did. White lab coats with project labels and clip-boards are cheap to rent after all.
Puthoff has or had at least an active brain and was sufficiently humble to actually ask me questions as to what I might know. That’s a professional scientist with an honest curiosity unlike the anti-science bozos in charge of these so-called documentary magazines. The New World Order provides the answers for this.
Instead, remote viewers whose pensions were on the line were expected to self-censor themselves so that embarassing facts would not get mixed in with the simple ‘test’ answers. Plus the fact that the claims made about being able to train just anyone to demonstrate these abilities was easy. Then they dropped these claims apparently. Especially due to the fact that “remote viewing training” was not the reason for the success of remote viewing. Rather, though some people are “trainable” — the original remote viewers were military individuals who were able to demonsrate psychic or paranormal abilities while operating in the field and were always able to return to base following black ops in other countries regardless of whether there were traps waiting for them because they could detect and avoid same.
Or another example would be an individual in air-sea rescue who was told to go out and pick up someone from a vast ocean, possibly a downed pilot in a dinghy and be able to pick out that spot in the ocean where he could be found strictly by instinct.
These people were just at the end of their prime but still hot stuff and were now required to fly remote viewing desks.
I would ask you Joe for your own interest not to locate Usama bin Laden who is likely dead for a couple years but rather how much Halliburton, etc. plan to steal next and/or questions along that line regarding Bush, Cheney and all the other criminals I believe to be running the U.S.