|
|
|
|
|
|
Faraday-cage screen rooms and underwater shielding have no negative effects on remote viewing. In fact, some viewers very much like to work in an electrically shielded environment. The well-known psychic Eileen Garrett showed me such a room that she had built for her own use, in her offices at the Parapsychology Foundation on 57th Street in New York City. Pat Price did his fine work from inside SRI's shielded room. In fact, recent findings from physicist James Spottiswoode suggest that both electromagnetic radiation from our Milky Way galaxy and the electromagnetic effects of solar flares degrade psychic functioning.
6 Electrical shielding seems to help performance, and so does carrying out experiments when the galactic radiation is at a minimum at your location. When the Milky Way is below your position on the earth, rather than above your head, it appears that you have a two-hour window of opportunity. It is still possible, however, to be abundantly psychic any time of the day or night. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1978, Hella Hammid and Ingo Swann successfully received messages sent from Palo Alto while they were inside a submarine submerged in 500 feet of seawater, 500 miles away.7 Hella and Ingo each had five file cards to look at later. Each card had a target location description written on one side, and a message to instruct the submarine to do some type of activity on the other, as a sort of code device. For example, the five targets were a large oak tree, an indoor shopping plaza, etc., and the messages were the kind of things you might communicate to a submerged sub that was out of radio contact because of the salt water, such as, "Remain submerged," or "Return to port," or "Fire at priority targets," etc. In each case my colleague and I would hide ourselves in Palo Alto at a specified time, and the viewers in the sub would have to describe our location. They would then look at each of the five cards to see which one best matched their remote-viewing experience, and the message to be sent was found on the back of the card. Both trials in this experiment were successful. (The statistical significance would be found by multiplying together the two I-in-5 events, to give a probability of p = 0.04, or less than four times in one hundred occurring by chance, which many would consider a significant result.) |
|
|
|
|
|