blog.McEagle.com

The question is, if you get information “psychically or through remote viewing” that might be useful to someone in power, do you tell them?

Of course not! My recommendation would be not to do it, unless you want an FBI case number after your name and a permanent file in their regional data bank where someone will go to it every time something really screwy happens and ask to look at his “nut-balls” listing, to see if anything cross references to you — because that’s exactly where you will end up and that’s exactly what will happen.

You could volunteer your information in some secretive way? Actually, that could prove to be much worse. What if you turn out to be right? If you are correct, then you are automatically suspected as involved and every effort will be made to hunt you down since you did deliver the information secretively. And since they have had to hunt you down, you are now automatically considered a righteous suspect, or at least until you are totally cleared (preferably by alibi.) Take my word for it. Out of any given 100 investigators, and I’m talking hard-core investigators, maybe two would believe you got it in your dreams or psychically in the first place, so you still get the case number and go in the nut-bag file drawer until you’ve solved at least five or six cases.

This is probably something not worth doing unless they come and ask you for it first. This means you must first develop a track record of some significance.

(Ding!) I heard that from the back of the room. “Gee, how do I do that if no one will ever listen to me or use me in the first place?” Great question!

Basically, it’s called sink or swim. You jump in. Ignore everything I just said. If you think you are that good and the information is that good, you pick up a phone and call someone at your local FBI Regional Headquarters and give them your name. You tell them you are a psychic [don’t try and explain remote viewing, they don’t care about it] and you have information you feel is important. Then you give them the information. They take it and put it all in the “Nut-bag File.” If it comes true, they will show up at your door and you will be seriously interviewed and asked where you were and what you were doing when it occurred. I hope you have a great alibi for where you were when it happened.

Now, you keep doing that, until you’ve established a track record that contains more accurate information than inaccurate information, at which point they will then take you out of the “Nut-bag File” and give you a confidential informant number, and may actually accept your phone calls. However, and this is critically important you hear this because I will only say this one time. If you tell anyone you are working for the Government or the FBI, and they find out you said that, you will go permanently into the “Nut-bag File” and they will never speak to you again. The rule is; if you talk about their business, they will have no business to do with you. And that is the same with every law enforcement agency I’ve ever had any knowledge of.

And, there is one louder and more significant word of warning that is even more important when it comes to important people in power and that regards the President of the United States. Never mess with the President unless you are absolutely, 100%, solid-gold positive about your information and can back it up with a track record that is Platinum-clad. The Secret Service is an organization that does not muck about or play games with anyone about anything at all. You do not want to go into their “Nut-bag File.” Once you go in, you do not come out.

There is one other comment I would add here. If this is a game you want to play in, then you can’t be just good at it, you must be very, very good at it. Because there are people in power who play on more than one side of the street and they do so simultaneously. Sometimes they even play on more than one street at a time. If you cannot see that psychically along with the information you are choosing to deliver, you may be playing in a very awkward game and be in for some very uncomfortable surprises.

As many of you know, I can be somewhat humorous when speaking. In the past, I have sometimes referred to remote viewing within the halls of government, the law, or bureaucracies as more like a ‘knife fight in a phone booth’ (then of course everyone titters and laughs.) But, no matter how many laugh whenever I make that statement, I’ve never made it to be funny. It’s absolutely true.

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.