SC: You’ve made a significant scientific contribution towards a greater understanding of human potential. As one of the first U.S. scientists to study remote viewing, what have you come to realize about time?
HP: Ok, well I can imagine a number of things, of course to a scientist we usually think of time as a parameter for which equations are written, but when we get into things like general relativity, time gets to be a fluid kind of phenomenon. Nonetheless, it is still a mainstream description of time. When consciousness is included, things change radically. With the remote viewing experiments, some were in the future, some backwards in time. And as impossible as it seems from the viewpoint of a traditionally trained scientist, the statistical evidence for such a phenomenon bears out.
I myself did a series of experiments where we were challenged by a skeptic to see if we could predict silver futures for 30 days. At that time, we were trying to raise money for a school, so as an incentive, he would give us 10 percent of what he made. Well in 30 days on the market, we made 26,000 dollars. He made a quarter million. Instead of running 50/50 we ran 70/30. The harder nosed skeptics of course said it was just a lucky run, and that’s the usual answer.
SC: How have your years of studying non-locality, remote viewing, past and future operational data, and setting up the training for people to develop mind-matter interface skills influenced your scientific work?
HP: The natural sciences really have only a relatively small part of the picture. We have not just about reached the end of mapping everything; we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface.
It’s humbling to the degree that scientists would like to think that they really know a lot, but you’re forced to realize that you don’t. On the other hand, it’s inspiring, so you can be inspired, humbly, I would say.
SC: Which seems very interesting, because in light of the evidence and historical precedence, science should not be so arrogant.
HP: Yes, exactly. When we say science and when we say scientists, there actually is a real line in the sand: the line between chefs and cooks. There are chefs that creatively generate new recipes and there are cooks that just follow recipes, and it’s the cooks where you find the arrogant aspect. Since they only follow the recipes, they have the most resistance. The chefs of science are like Brian Josephson, a theoretical physicist who won the Nobel Prize at 22 years old, and now dedicates himself to the study of mind/matter unification at Cambridge. The skeptics, the cooks, are actually dogmatic.
SC: There’s also a problem in this field with the words, the labels, like the word psychic. There’s a tendency to think of psychics are “special” people, but you’ve been quoted as saying that you simply grabbed people off the street and were unable to find anybody that did not have the capacity to remote view, to move in and out of time.
HP: I totally agree with you. Along with the terms “psychic” astral projection, out of body experience, clairvoyance, you name it, all these labels have baggage. Whereas the people we tested were are all very normal.
My analogy is this: It’s like musical talent. You’ve got virtuosos on one end of the scale and people who can’t carry a tune no matter what at the other end of the scale, but the broadest group of people fall somewhere in the center of the bell curve, and in the research, that’s basically how it turned out. These skills, they’re just latent in everyone.
SC: The experience is so very important. What happens to your experimental subjects once they experience remote viewing?
The truth of the matter is, some of our best results came from government scientists who were subjects, and they brought their skepticism. They would get so desperate to try to figure out how we were manipulating the experiments. They looked for the loopholes.
There was one person who was really a hard case. He goes through a whole long process, experiment after experiment. He thought we had invisible speakers in the chairs whispering subliminally, or that we had helicopters following the outbound team and radioing back the targets, or that someone was cueing him with body language. It just went on.
Basically he finally had to accept his experience. And surprisingly enough to him, he would eventually report that it felt so normal. He stated what most people state. Afterwards, he would say, “well, it’s so odd, so weird. I’ve actually experienced it personally, and it feels normal.” It is normal, and if we had training, if it was a part of every school’s training, the paranormal would become normal.
In science, we are getting much more flexible about how we are measuring everything as we get deeper and deeper into relativity and what space really is. I mean, all the astrophysical things and the space/time bending and so on: even with physicists, these are artificial constructs. In figuring out how everything is in some sense connected to everything else, the question really isn’t how can these things that are so far apart stay connected or entangled. The question really is, how do things ever appear not to be entangled?
We had another guy once, Duane, and he agreed to be a subject. He was one of the off the street kind of volunteers. He was sitting there in the laboratory, and we had about five or ten minutes to go before an experiment with a magnetometer was to begin. Every now and then he would think about the magnetometer. There was actually a strip chart recorder attached to it, and when he would think about the magnetometer, the strip chart would show a response. And then he had this super flash of insight about the cup of coffee that was sitting on a desk…that the cup of coffee is actually registering something. He recognized that when he thinks about anything, or he looks at anything, there is an interaction going on, and that flash basically changed him…and he ended up signing up to work with us.
You know, we can write papers and talk all day long, but I agree with you, nothing beats the experience because it actually happens to you… the experience.
Hal Puthoff discusses the impications of remote viewing and where we are heading in the future of science and consciousness....
What are your thoughts about skepticism and remote viewing?