A (4:04)

Why do you ask the hardest question first? Like, this will be easy. What? I have to only choose one man. Okay. The roles that you Researcher, remote viewer, teacher. Okay, I'm gonna choose remote viewer.

B (4:21)

Yes.

A (4:21)

You know why? Because while I'm remote viewing, I'm also researching, I'm also teaching, and I'm learning. And so it contains a mole.

B (4:31)

That is exactly what I would say as well.

A (4:34)

Yeah, right.

B (4:36)

That is so cool.

A (4:37)

Yeah.

B (4:38)

And what are some of your favorite targets you've had in remote viewing when you were a remote viewer? And then what are some of your favorite ones that you've assigned to other people?

A (4:50)

Yes. What comes to mind first is when I first remote viewed a dog. So didn't I do everything precognitively? So I use operational precognitive remote viewing, which is we can talk about. So I didn't know it was a dog. When I'm doing the session. All I knew is that it was a target. So this is all I know. Could be anything. It didn't have to be a living being or anything. But what I'm getting is an incredible being. And I'm drawing the shape of the being. And it's weirdly got four legs. Like, I'm used to drawing human. Especially when you work with law enforcement and stuff, you draw the shape of the being. It's almost always a human. You're doing perpetrator work or whatever. I'm drawing this animal. It's an animal, it's a being, but it has this spirit or soul that's just like. Like, it's very clear that it's here to, like, help people. Like, it's a gift from God to people is how I kept writing. It's gift from God to people. It's like unbelievable spirit. This is an amazing angelic being.

B (5:46)

What is this?

A (5:47)

I'm so excited. You know, what is the target? And then I see the target is this dog.

B (5:52)

Wow.

A (5:53)

And I'm just like, yes, yes, that makes sense. And that was the first time I was just. I felt like I got information about the world that I didn't know before about dogs. Before that I did not know that dogs Were these gifts? I mean, I love dogs, but I didn't know that they were literally gifts from God to humanity, to protect humanity and to be companions. And so then the next time I had a session where I'm starting to draw this four legged thing, I'm like, oh, wow, this is like this amazing angelic being. I'm like, it's a dog, It's a dog. You know, I'm artificial, you know, not artificial, analytic overlay, dog, you know, because I'm thinking it's clearly a dog. And it was a dog. Wow. And that was just very validating that there's. So I learned, it's like, that's why remote viewing contains teaching and learning and researching is because you're getting firsthand information about the universe that can then be validated over time, especially when you don't know what the target is and you keep getting the same thing. So that's, I think that's my first sort of experience of remote viewing as well. I'm getting more information than I do from my eyes and ears. I'm getting more information than I do from other senses. That was powerful.

B (7:02)

Yeah. And would you say that in some ways that may be the only way that you can get certain information about the world?

A (7:11)

Almost certainly in certain areas. Right. If I wanted, like when Stephen Schwartz does his work with Alexandria. Right. Long ago. That's as far as we know, the only way to do it until we have time travel down, you know, or same as going to the future or going off planet, you know, until we get there, we don't know and it could be different when we get there. So. Yeah, I think there are certain situations where that's the only situation. And in fact that leads to my answer to your other question. What are your favorite things to task what either students or people on a team of operational remote viewers with. I have two favorite things. One is to task them about themselves. Like, especially if you have a team of operational remote viewers who are used to getting missing persons cases or cold cases or whatever it is, or any kind of, kind of tasking that doesn't have to do with them, to just task them unbeknownst to them on something that would be helpful to them, you know. Please describe the methodology that would be most helpful for you, for you in particular for remote viewing. And then they're describing this thing, they're like, oh, this might be me, what's going on? But they're describing something that could be useful to them. And then they come out of it with this gift so that's one kind of thing. And then the other kind of thing that I love to task remote viewers on is things that they don't know anything about. So if they're used to doing cold cases or whatever they know about drawing sort of the. Or describing the aspects of a perpetrator or someone or maybe of a victim. But if you task them instead on something out of the wheelhouse, like, please help this nuclear fusion company figure out why their prototype isn't working, it's so great. It feels to me like the data, like they have more fun because this is new, but also it's more fun for the analyst because you're pulling from these threads again, especially if you do it precognitively because they don't know what the target is. You're pulling from all these threads to figure out what the solution is. So it's powerful. I guess I want to say something sort of everything out of the ordinary feels good to me.

B (9:12)

And in those cases, the viewers are totally blind. You're just giving them a target number.

A (9:19)

Yeah, I do everything precognitively with my team, and that's what I train. Because what I don't want to train, I don't want to train people to read the teacher of remote viewing, the remote viewing teacher's mind like you can. We know that you can read minds. It doesn't help you become operational. It can help your psychic capacities to read the mind of a teacher, and I think that's why Ingo taught that way, is because it helps your psychic capacities to learn telepathy. Sure. But operationally, if no one in the world knows the answer, it's better to get the information sort of from the universe that does know the answer. Answer, or from the future, rather than from the mind of a person who thinks they know the answer. But if by mistake you're reading a detective's mind because you're used to reading a teacher's mind, then you're just going to give back the information. The detective will be like, ah, they weren't very useful. They just told me what I already knew. It's because you're reading their. Their opinions.

B (10:19)

And so how do you set that up? If an investigator comes to you and says, I want help with this case, how are you setting it up precognitively so you're not tuning into presently just what they're thinking. Is it in the way you construct your tasking question?

A (10:40)

Yeah. And in the simple. Though the PRV procedure only has two aspects that are different. So that's why? It's not a methodology. It's just a framework. Operational precognitive remote viewing. It's just a framework. You take any form of remote viewing that you do. I don't care if you go into trans. I'm going to call that remote viewing. Even though I know Paul Smith and others say, no, no, remote viewing is just one thing. I kind of say, like, remote viewing is something that's been with us since the beginning of time and it was shaped in a certain way. And that's fine. I'm really inclusive with it. And so you do whatever you do to get the information, but you do it before the question is even asked. In other words, I have my operational precognitive. Remote viewers will just do a session when they want to. Let's say you felt like doing a session today, you do a session, you put it in a pile and you ignore it. And then like three weeks, month, a year later, I might email the group and say, hey, we've got a tasking. Just send me your session with this tag on it. The tag is just the number associated with it, which is a random number. And they do. And then I go ahead and evaluate that with the. The tasking is written such that it says, you know, here's the number 629384. This is associated with the tasking. Please describe, you know, the problem with the prototype in the nuclear fusion reactor. Right. Of such and such. Please make sure to make contact with the target in a way that's obvious to the analyst. And then please send unconditional love to the situation. And that's another piece. That's the second piece of operational precognitive remote viewing is the unconditional love piece. So the first piece is just doing everything precognitively. You answer the question before the question has even been asked or maybe even before the question has been conceived. And the second piece is unconditional love. So you don't have to worry. The great thing about unconditional love is you don't have to worry about whether the subject of the tasking deserves unconditional love. Because the idea is everyone deserves unconditional love. So whether it's an energy battery or whether it's a cryptologic problem or whether it's a cold case, you just send unconditional love to it without knowing what it is. And that's based on. If we want to talk about the unconditional love piece, that's based on some data suggesting that that makes a difference.

B (12:53)

Yeah, I would like to talk about that. But just one question first about the precognitive aspect. Do you find any difference in the quality of information when you task it after they've done the session as opposed to before? Because I know in my experience it's possible, but I kind of felt like the session data was stronger in my case when it was tasked before.

A (13:26)

Yeah. Yeah. So it takes a lot more trust. And it's weird. It's weird to do it for all viewers, including myself, to do a session and then in the future be like, okay, we'll see what the tasking is like. I'm putting it over there. So it takes a lot of trust. I think the data are way more loose in that case, I think because of the nature of time. And yet also I find that they're very effective. And so as long as you have an analyst that is used to this kind of tasking. So, like, you know, one person's using song lyrics to express something, but another person is drawing cartoons, and another person says, all I can do is think of my mother. This is my mother. You're like, as long as you understand that there's these very different ways of doing things, and then you draw them together and say, what do they have in common? What are they trying to say in the context of this tasking, which is essentially retrocausally reaching back in time and pulling the information that's needed out, how does that help us then? I think it works great. So I've been able to solve really interesting problems with my team. And then also before I had this team together, I worked with a team that you're familiar with, I believe, those atmospheric scientists who were anonymous but wanted to partner with us to see what we could do. They wanted to do more when they saw how precise we could be with this method. I really think the method can be very helpful. But it's very different when you're an analyst than analyzing data that's done in the other direction of time. It's just a different thing.

B (14:46)

Well, I can definitely see the value. Even just a few hours ago, received a session from a viewer on a case that very familiar with what the background is. And she had perfectly described what I was engaged with at that moment that had nothing to do with the target. Yeah. And I was like, darn, this is such a perfect description of the wrong thing.

A (15:13)

Yep. This happens a lot. And that's what I call reading the tasker's mind. I get a lot of description of whatever I see in the moment that I sit down to do the analysis and look at the, look at the transcripts. And that's part of why I love this precognitive. I get less of that. I still get that sometimes, but I get less of that. So it feels a little. Sometimes they're grasping at just, okay, I'm just going to read your mind, but it's in the future. I'm just going to read your future mind. I'm like, no, let's go get that real information. I don't know the answer.

B (15:41)

Do you find that happens more with viewers that you're closer to, that you have a longer term relationship with or who your friends?

A (15:50)

Yeah, I do. I feel like that's something. I love my team, but I also feel like the more we work together, the more we get bad data because we're reading each other's minds and we don't know the answer to the question. So it's like that's useless. But it's a habit. And I do think anyone who's a skilled remote viewer probably is an empath, probably has the habit of people they know reading their minds. In fact, there was this amazing study by, by Kirsten Cameron. Do you know about that study where she showed that people who had early childhood trauma were statistically significantly better. They were capable of doing a precognition task that people who hadn't or had less trauma couldn't do. I think this is related. I think those of us who have had these really unpredictable family lives and needed to be aware of our environments and needed to sort of read people's minds in order to survive. That's what we do and we sort of don't have a boundary about it.

B (16:40)

You know, also when a viewer is, say, thinking of you, like, oh, I have to turn in my session, Julie is waiting for it and what is she going to think about it? And is she going to like this? Is she going to retask me? Their attention is going right to you instead of to that target.

A (17:00)

Right. And that is part of why. Another reason I like the precognitive thing is because they just do the sessions when they want. And it's been like months since I've asked them for a session. Just to give breathing room, you know.

B (17:12)

Well, let's talk about the unconditional love aspect. Aspect. And what I wanted to find out first is is it just about that when you love someone, you're being ethical and a nice person or is there something about like the energy of love or the power? Like is it an actual something that you Tap into. Or is this just like, you know, it's an ethical thing?

A (17:42)

So those are two different things. And this is the hardest thing to talk to people about, because we have. What we're so used to is conditional love. And we don't call it conditional love. We call it love, like, I love you, you love me. Like with your spouse or with your. But most of the time, what's true is that if that person that you say you love does enough things that you feel are really not okay, you're not gonna love them anymore. And that's reasonable, because you're in a conditional love relationship, like a marriage, for instance, is a setup for conditional love. Promised to do these things. I also promised to do these things. Okay, now we didn't do these things. Okay. You know, what does that mean? Right? And so it's just what we're used to. And I like to think of unconditional love as a nerd who has done some computer coding. I like to think of unconditional love as an OR statement. So an and statement, both P and Q. Both assertions have to be true for the whole statement to be true. I need to love you, you need to love me, we love each other. That's an and statement, right? That's conditional love. An OR statement, P. One assertion can be true, like I, I am. I am Julia can be true, and you are an elephant is not true. But the statement is true because I'm sorry. Or the statement is true because it's I am Julia or you are an elephant. Well, one of those things is true, right?

B (19:04)

Right.

A (19:04)

So now that's true without concern about the other. That's unconditional love. So the great thing about unconditional love is it's not about a behavior. It's not about how you feel. I mean, it does help you feel differently, but it's not about how you feel. It's not about your ethical boundaries. Unconditional love is not even about you. It's not about anyone. It's not even about people. I see unconditional love as another name, for it is universal love. It's like electricity. It's like a natural force in the universe that people can tap into. And when we tap into it or access it, we feel a certain way. You do, like, you just can't help it. You feel like, I'm getting chills thinking about it, but you can't help it. You feel alive. You feel, like, connected. Connected. You feel unconditional love for those around you. You feel unconditional love. For those not around you, but that's not you generating it. It's not like unconditional love is a feeling. Unconditional love is like this force, and our reaction to it is this feeling of unconditional love. It's like what unconditional love feels like. It's kind of like what it feels like to go out into the sun. You're not in charge of the sun going, you know, setting and rising, and you're not in charge of the earth moving around to make it appear that the sun is setting and rising. You're not in charge of any of that. But when you go out into the sun, it feels amazing. It's. It's transformative. Right. So I think then when it comes to ethics, yes, you can have a whole philosophy of ethics, and we do. Human beings have a whole philosophy of ethics. You could also have morals, and we do that too. And at the base level, you can tell inside. I don't mean by any external measure inside. And I don't even mean, like, by a physiological measure. I mean, like psychically. You can tell when someone is connecting with unconditional love.

B (20:49)

And how, how can you tell? And then how does one do it?

A (20:54)

Well, I. Remote viewing is great practice. Anything. I'm. I'm remote viewing in the general inclusive sense. So in other words, getting information about the universe that's distant in time or space, training how to do that is a great way to sense when someone is tapping into unconditional love. I. I have a little tell when I'm doing a session. I think everyone has a tell. But if I'm drawing a chart of a person, like their personality or whatever's on their mind as well as their physical traits, if I give them wings, I'm like, oh, they have wings. Oh, they're tapping into unconditional love at this particular moment. It's not necessarily something people are always doing. Certainly not true for me. There may be a rare few individuals who are always doing it, you know, but it's a. It's sort of a state. And so that's a way to tell. So just doing enough of those and you start to feel like, I can feel that there's no check and balance in the material world for it, which is why I think people get very confused, especially because I'm a scientist first. And they're like, well, how can you do science on that? It's like, well, we do science on human perception, right? We. We ask people if they're in pain, and then we have them rated on A scale. And it's extremely consistent. So we do science on human perception. And this is a perception, right? So that's one way. But then the other, the other thing was, how do you, how do you, you tap into it more?

B (22:07)

Say, would a remote viewer at the start of a session tap into the unconditional love? Is it just through intention?

A (22:15)

Yes. So when I set out an intention at the beginning of my session, I write it down and it always has a piece in it that has to do with unconditional love. And that's just related to opr. That's a habit. But you don't have to say you're doing OPR to do that. You just do it. And also notice, for me, visualization works. So when I say notice, what I mean is more explicitly notice what works for you to tap into unconditional love. And at first you may be like, nothing works for me. But then over time, keep asking the question every day, what works for me? Sometimes it's sitting in a sunny window, sometimes it's holding an animal, sometimes it's holding a baby. Sometimes it's just looking at pictures of babies or animals or looking at whales, or listening to whale song, or listening to particular music or particular binaural beads. Notice what it is for you, you know, when you feel, ah, that unconditional love. I like to imagine I'm a visualizer. I like to imagine a golden sun above my head that's made of unconditional love, that's tuned to my energy system. And so I made a meditation for that so we can give people that meditation. They can try that and see if it works. But like, you've got to find a way that works and then you practice it and you hone it and then. Why would you do this? Just because I'm saying so bad idea. You should do it because the science tells you that it actually helps your accuracy, at least for precognitive remote viewing. So that I've got two studies now showing, one, it was a post hoc result. I just noticed that this group of people who, who were feeling, we were looking at measures of unconditional love and they, they reported feeling high measures of unconditional love, which we defined in the paper and that survey has been used in other studies. So now it's, it's pretty validated. So I just noticed that and showed that just separated those people out and showed, wait, these people are able to do the task statistically significantly better than people who have low experiences of unconditional love. Okay, then did a Confirmatory study funded by the Beyal foundation, where we took 307, I think, people and half. About half male, half female, because I was also interested in gender differences and showed that, in fact, it's still the case with another group of people, with another study, that people seem to be more accurate when they're in the report. Self report. A state of being aware of unconditional love connected to the.

B (24:28)

And in that study, did you have two groups, one that was doing the unconditional love?

A (24:35)

No. So what needs to happen and what I encourage you to do and everyone to do, a bunch of people should be doing. This is a manipulation. Like that was. That was an observation. Before they did the remote viewing, they were asked, to what extent do you feel unconditional love? You know, they were given the survey. Right. They were also asked about their level of anxiety, stuff like that. Then they did the task and then it was done. So that's another correlative study. Ideally, you'd have two groups, one that just does a plain old meditation, and then another one that does a meditation, same length of time, same person's voice, where they're talking about accessing unconditional love. That's a study I'd love to do, but also it's even better, a study that I'd love someone else to do.

B (25:14)

At this point, any study done by anyone else might be a good idea.

A (25:18)

Yeah, exactly. Like, I see this. Would someone else please see if they see this? Thank you.

B (25:23)

They're so time consuming too.

A (25:25)

But. But there's that too. Yes. Yeah.

B (25:28)

Yeah. Well, that's really cool. And, you know, remote viewers are always looking for something new to try as well. So I'm sure those watching this who haven't thought of unconditional love, you know, it'd be so easy to just add that step at the beginning of your session. And I know for mediums it's a very common practice to tune into love, like go into your heart center and just start to project out to all the people that have passed that you love and just thinking of who you love. And I have a student who is just a phenomenal medium and she will just draw people as if she was seeing them with her eyes open. And I asked her the other day what she does in particular before her sessions, and she said exactly what you're talking about, that she teaches into unconditional love of everyone.

A (26:21)

Yes. I think the Woodbridge Research center has done a study on unconditional love and mediumship and had already shown that they're more Inaccurate. I don't know if that's published yet, but that's. I don't think it's just precognitive remote viewing or remote viewing for which this is important. I think, actually, Tyson Yunkaporta just did a beautiful audio essay that's out there. I think it's called the Time Traveler's Wife's Husband, and it's in one of the statements he made, is that everyone can do sorcery, but only those who understand love and experience love can do time travel magic.

B (26:53)

Wow.

A (26:53)

Which is part of why I do think those two things, love and time, are linked, which is part of why I founded tilt, the Institute for Love and Time.

B (27:01)

Well, and I can see where it can be confusing to people. Just like you said, you're a researcher and scientist, and what's a scientist doing talking about love? But when you look at it as like, this works, this has practical applications, do you see a connection between how you feel about unconditional love and the concept of God? Because I've kind of thought of it as in the same way that there's definitely a reason why so many people around the whole world, in all the different religions are praying and focusing on God. And a skeptic might say, oh, well, they're just brainwashed or they've just been told to do this. But you see people having so much healing from that. So I've pictured it like plugging in a plug into an electrical outlet.

A (27:56)

Yeah.

B (27:57)

Something that happens regardless of your belief.

A (28:00)

When you do that, practice, it's all the same electricity. But the refrigerator and the toaster use it in different ways. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe the religion is. The particular religion is more like the refrigerator versus the toaster. No, no, the point is to be cold. No, the point is to be hot. And it's like, really, it's just electricity going through whatever it is. I really like this. I think it's Jung who said, I believe in. I believe in. It's not that I believe in God. It's that I know God exists. That's how I feel about God. I feel very, like a very close relationship with God. And I feel that God is unconditional, but that human beings cannot. We know how to relate to people. We know how to relate to beings. We don't know how to relate to concepts. We don't know how to relate to something as ethereal, as unconditional love, as in a relationship. So of course I say, I am in a relationship with God. And it sounds like a person or it sounds Like a being, but sort of. The long form name of unconditional love that we give in the papers that was on the survey is like this whole paragraph that's very clear. Like, it just goes on and on. It says there's, you know, there's no strings attached to this love. There's no expectation of merit or anything like that. The short form that we talk about at Tilt, the nonprofit I Found it is love is that which. Unconditional love is that which connects. It's the name for the connecting force in the universe. It's interesting to me. We don't have a name for the connecting force in the universe in our language anyway. There are subatomic particles that are connected by a force. What is the generic. There's. There's microscopic things, like gravity is a force that connects. Magnetism is a force that connects and can repel. Right. What is the generic name for the forces that want to connect? We don't have one. And so I think it. I think it is love, and I think that's God. I mean, I think that's the. That is the. We talk about God being that which created the universe. That is that which. From which the universe has been created. It is the stuff of everything. Right. It's the foundation of it all, is the connection.

B (30:05)

Wow. And that gets us right back to our psychic abilities and our. Can we just have an intention and then we connect to whatever's out there and receive the information? And not just information in our mind, but we feel it. We sense it through our bodies. How do we get that connection?

A (30:23)

I know, right? And it's so funny that people are surprised by that because, like, I would just got thirsty and I had the intention of getting this water and then drinking some, and we're like, oh, we don't go, oh, my God. How did. How did you do that? It's so wild. You just wanted the water. Then you picked it up and you brought. And like, that is just as wild. It's exactly the same thing, except we see it with our eyes and we feel it with our bodies. So we've. We've been trained to believe that it's more real.

B (30:53)

Yeah. I've always said that when people don't believe in psychic abilities, I. I'm like. Or they're like, there's no way these things are possible. And it's like, how is it possible that we're even alive?

A (31:09)

Yeah, like, look at me.

B (31:10)

Like, yeah, like, this is so impossible. And we barely have an explanation for this, that we live these lives, and we look like we do. And it's also weird and strange, and no one really has any good answer for that. That's way more unbelievable and extraordinary.

A (31:29)

Exactly.

B (31:30)

Than, oh, I can tune in at a distance.

A (31:34)

Well, also the fact that sort of the underlying taboo, I think, with psychic abilities is, how dare you say that we are that connected? How dare you say that there are no secrets. How dare you say that love transcends all of this physical stuff. And that comes with a lot of baggage. We've all been taught that what's really important to remember, we're not our mothers. It's really important to remember we're not our fathers. And we're not, you know, like, this individuality that in the Western world has, and now the Eastern world has really seized upon as the solution to everything. We're all going to be autonomous and responsible. And a lot of that is really great. I love freedom. Right. I love liberty. And yet to not acknowledge that, of course we're connected, like, it's kind of a duh. Even scientifically, it's kind of a duh. Like, we were all in the Big Bang together. How are we not entangled?

B (32:33)

Yeah. I think it's so much part of. From the time we're teaching our kids language at all, everything is about separation. You know, this coffee cup is separate from these glasses, and each has its own name, each has its own category. And so we're constantly overlying that idea onto everything, that everything is separate and it's not connected. But then, you know, those of us that are very empathic, like, we start to realize, like, I was fine one moment, and then this person walked into the room and didn't say anything. But now I'm feeling upset or angry or I have this pain in my head, and then I talk to the person. Person and find out, oh, they have a pain in their head, or they're really angry, and then they leave and you're fine. And there's so many people who have that experience. It's like, wait a second. It's. I'm not separate from these people at all. And I've been lied to about that my whole life, or told if I have some kind of emotion or I have some kind of pain in my body, it's got to just be mine. And then I'm being misdiagnosed and hence the wrong way.

A (33:46)

Yeah. Yes. I think these are. I think we're in a time where if you look at, like, Ian McGill, Chris work and Jill Bolte Taylor, these are folks who are thinking about left brain, right brain stuff, and how the right brain, which is more intuitive and quiet, doesn't do the talking, doesn't do the separating, more imagery and music, less words, how it just kind of gets the information. And the task of the remote viewer is to learn how to listen to that information, translate it into words or images that make sense to someone else. But if you see the way the culture is going, there's two forces. One that says, no, we better stick to that left side. That kind of says, the right side doesn't even exist. It has no useful information, it's going to mislead you, stay away. And then the other cultural force that is saying, actually there's so much benefit from exploring what is going on in this right side that we might want to start paying attention. And those forces are doing a dance. And I think of a friend of mine, I have two friends now who have had strokes in left hemisphere, and one of them has learned to talk again. One of them is having a hard time of it. But I noticed that in the training of stroke patients who are in recovery and rehabilitation, there's so much emphasis on getting the person. I know this also from Jill Bolte Taylor's book Stroke of Insight. There's so much emphasis on getting the person to separate. Separate things. Like, look, they're making progress now. They know that this is my glass and this is your glass. And that takes work. And what they're trying to do is get the left hemisphere back online. And that is important. We need to function. We need that to function. But it's so interesting that there's just low appreciation of the amazing things that all of a sudden get unmasked in the right hemisphere. This idea of it doesn't matter, that's your glass and that's my glass. Like, what is the deal with glasses? How do things get held that are liquid? So there's a lot of wonder that gets unmasked with people who have left hemisphere stroke. Wonder about the way the world works. And just like, ah. And then it's sort of people want to have come back online to this left hemisphere sort of calibrated response. So I'm. I really like this idea of whole brain thinking, or center brain thinking, where you're bringing those pieces together and using each of these for their capacities. And I think love helps, helps with that.

B (36:08)

And do you think that remote viewing or any kind of psychic practices is what will do that? Bring you to that center place?

A (36:16)

Think, think, if you like, develop. If you use unconditional Love. And you do your psychic practices intentionally and your wish is to integrate and not disappear into the psychic stuff. Right. So I think that people can go off the deep end with this stuff, and that doesn't usually benefit either the psychic practice or the person. The data tended to fail too. But if your, if your intention is to integrate those and to have good boundaries where you're not floating out the window with your, you know, when you're remote viewing a plane or if you do, you come back pretty quick, then I think that that absolutely can help with the center brained quest. Yeah.

B (36:58)

And then what would be some advice for someone getting started who wants to make sure they're integrating the two? Like, what does that look like?

A (37:08)

Find a remote viewing instructor that is open to integrating both. And also before you even do that, ask yourself the question, what am I best at? Do I, like a lot of artists, floaty people are best at the right hemisphere already and they need help with the left. They need help with analysis, they need help with deliberation, they need help with discernment. Right. Boundaries. So then you go to a remote viewing teacher who's like, kind of like a drill sergeant. That's great because that's going to help you get grounded. A lot of the people I end up teaching are those who are already analytical. They're engineers, they're scientists, they're lawyers. And they're like, please, I want to get in touch with this other thing. And I'm like, I can relate. I'm a scientist. I had to do that too. Even though since I was a kid I was more in touch than most scientists. I definitely had to train myself to think that that stuff was potentially useful or real. And so sort of to find out who you are first and then what is your balancing thing? Get a teacher at least who is a little bit overbalanced on the other side. Yeah.

B (38:09)

And would you say too then making sure that they're not only doing psychic work and spiritual work, but they are doing other things in life as well, or at least like honing their. If their house is a mess and are, you know, totally broke, that they focus on, you know, well, what can I do to get myself in balance over here? Not just keep doing more psychic or spiritual work.

A (38:35)

That's really important. So basically we're talking about grounding and staying grounded in the body. And especially with people who do a lot of their psychic work out of body, which can be people who are dreaming or people who are sitting on a couch and they're not dreaming. But they go into a state where they're bilocating or doing things out of body. I find, I find that not tempting at all because it takes me away from my grounding. So I think going to a teacher, it doesn't even have to be a remote viewing teacher. Maybe an energy healing type teacher who helps you just understand. Have a connection with the center of the earth from the base of your spine to the center of the earth. Have that connection and notice it throughout your day and get to know it like a good friend and notice how you are safer when you are grounded. There's a. Because of the trauma that tends to accompany people who are gifted psychically. There could be a fear, and I certainly had this before I understood grounding and got much more grounded. There could be a fear that if I ground myself in my body, I'm going to feel the pain and I'll feel the pain of the trauma. I'll feel physical pain. You know, maybe your body's in physical.

B (39:36)

Pain and that, that does happen for people have been out. When they come in now it's like, wow, there was a reason they were out. And sometimes when people receive. Receive energy healings. I know when I've done grounding because I always totally do exactly what you're saying with my students, like the first thing they learn is how to ground. And if you take someone that's out and put them right there, it can be like, oh my God, like they hit the emotion. Like some pain and a lot are appreciative because they work through it, but some just want to zoom back out.

A (40:14)

Yes. And that's when the unconditional love again is helpful. So that's why there's like, you got the sun up here and you're connecting to the center of the earth. For visualizers, this is great because as soon as you feel the pain, oh my God, my hips are really. All of a sudden they're really painful because you got back in your body. Well, you bring that unconditional love right into that area. The Chinese would call it bringing the qi into that area. And you just pour more unconditional love. And more unconditional love doesn't mean it's going to be fixed. But you can be present in your body with the pain that may still be there so that then you can figure out what to do about it and how to help yourself. And that will help you clean your apartment, it will help you make more money, it will help you in your relationships, it will help you at work. There's the union, sort of the divine union between the spirit and the body, or the consciousness and the body or whatever you want to call it, is a powerful force. Yeah.

B (41:02)

Well, I have a few more questions. So I know people are interested in the work you do with law enforcement and intelligence. Can you share some of that, like who you're working with and what kinds of projects?

A (41:19)

So I've never been paid by law enforcement or any intelligence agency. Everything that I've ever done with anyone in those categories has been pro bono and exploratory. Like, let's see if this will work, let's see if that'll work. And so what I can share is, so there's nothing, therefore nothing official. And it's all very respectful. Everyone that I've worked with. So I have worked with some folks in the intelligence community, I have worked with some folks around the intelligence community and I have worked with some folks in the law enforcement, anti terrorism world. The level of respect is really high. I think it's because those folks have been trained in this idea. They understand completely this idea that we don't know everything. There's understanding completely because they've experienced it.

B (42:07)

And sometimes they're getting information and sometimes they're not, or it's right or wrong.

A (42:13)

Yeah, right. And so it's. They're living in uncertainty all the time. They have to figure out how to process that information, how to sort the signal from the noise. I think some of them themselves are psychic and so they've actually gotten good at processing signal from noise just psychically. And so they also aren't so surprised that other people can it. Like our team worked on the. Do you remember the Idaho stabbings? The trigger warning? It was a horrible crime.

B (42:36)

Oh, yeah, yeah, for sure. I worked with a psychic group too on that as well. Yeah, tell us.

A (42:42)

Yeah, and we, we did it all, you know, precognitively. So I looked at sessions that they'd done like months before and I tasked them with this task and we got really good information that the kid had fled east, that it was a kid, student age who fled east and was, you know, with family. And so that was all true. Turned out to all be true. But the important thing to know about that stuff, or at least the important thing I think to say here is that all of those are just little tidbits that go into the minds of detectives, that goes into the minds of intelligence analysts. They can't act on that. That's not solid information, which is good. Right. You don't want them acting on that you want them acting on. You want them using that to inspire experiments that they do with the data that they have. Have. Oh, maybe we should look at cell phone records in this area. Oh, maybe, you know, so it. It can inspire a path, but it shouldn't be admissible in the court as evidence because there's so many things that can go weirdly with that stuff, right? You can. You can think you're getting information about a case, but you're reading some detective's mind. Or you could think you're getting information that would be helpful with some particular future terrorism event. But in fact, you're building up this idea from scratch and it isn't really true. So as long as you're working with someone who recognizes it, that their job is to be inspired to look at a certain draw. Oh, that makes me think of this and then go down the pike, I think it's awesome. I think one of the best examples of that is Suzanne Cloris extraordinary project. Remembering Dawn. No, Finding Dawn. Finding dawn is the name of that one. It's her season three of hers, Extraordinary project, Project pod. And she, in real time, works with a gifted remote viewer to open up a cold case that eventually got opened up because of that season. And she was very aware when she was describing the process that you got. You better make sure that you're working with someone who's careful and who understands the role of the. Of the capacity.

B (44:37)

That's a really good way to put it. If a remote viewer is getting a license plate, like a specific license plate, that might be something that they could just. If they have investigators have access, they can just go look it up and pursue that. But it is so easy for data to be misinterpreted. And when I was working on the Idaho murders as a viewer myself, I kept getting something about father, like, that was like coming up over and over again, but I didn't know what that was like. Did his father do it? And you know, his father didn't, but his father was very critical in coming to pick him up and they got him at the. Bryan. At his father's house. So it. Yeah, you wouldn't want someone to just take the interpretation that the viewer might have at that moment about what's going on. And a lot of times you're just not going to really be able to put it together until you have a lot more. More information. Can you share with your counter terrorism what kind of project you worked on or what agency?

A (45:43)

Yeah, that I can totally share that. Actually, I talked about on Unexplained years ago and they had the guy I worked with, their wonderful agent FBI/CIS Joint Anti Terrorism Task Force in San Diego. He led that group before he retired and so after he retired he came to talk about know how we were working together on stuff and that came about because I had a dream about the Kuwait City, Kuwait bombings the night before it happened it was very clear. I mean it was the bombing of a temple in the Middle east during noontime prayers and it was horrible. It was one of those dreams where you're just like oh shit, I hope this isn't real. But I knew it was. It's that horrible feeling and I didn't tell anyone about it because I didn't know who to tell and I didn't know what do to and there it was. So that was not a. That was a horrible day. After that day I told myself if I have a dream like that I don't care how embarrassing it is I'm going to try to find someone to talk to. And then I had a dream about the Coronado Bridge in San Diego and an attack there and somehow I think it was through ions because I was working maybe as a fellow with the Institute of Noetic Sciences at that time I asked around and someone said oh, talk to this guy, baby. I think so. And this was Joel Mullen and he was so wonderful. He used to be part of the Secret Service. He worked with at least one president, I think multiple presidents and was just the most calm guy who was also a hostage negotiator. So he would just be like hey, I can't just call you me down just with his voice. And so I talked with him on the phone and he got it, he got it like it was. He said look, actually there was a case where he said, said some police officers came in or some FBI officers came in and briefed I think it was FBI officers came in and briefed them at a stadium. They were doing security at a stadium and they said a remote viewer told us that there might be a particular kind of attack that was like this. He described the attack and so we checked for that and so he felt like it's fine, seems reasonable. So I told him about the dream and then what he did was he sent out. I mean I'm just not going to speak in detail because obviously you don't want to give ideas to terrorists. But anyway he sent out proper people to look at the appropriate things and the attack did not happen. And then afterwards he talked to me and he said you know, I don't. The thing about working at the FBI or anything related to FBI or anything related to anti terrorism is you do the things you think you need to do and most of the time nothing happens. And you don't know if that's because you did the thing and people were watching and they said maybe today's not the best day or if that's because it wasn't ever going to happen. And so he said, a lot of the time you don't get confirmation that you've done something good, but you just keep going. And I thought that sounded so much like remote viewing. I was like, that's perfect. I can totally work with you. And so then after that we started. I, at a certain point started dreaming. I could see, like parts of his body so that I knew I was connected to him. And then I started answering questions in dreams and also playing with doing remote viewings about particular perpetrators. He wouldn't tell me anything. He would just get me a number and then I would, you know, say, this person's probably not a risk, or this person's a risk. And he, of course, again, didn't use it as the final say, but as an inspiration for either doing more research or whatever.

B (48:58)

Yeah, well, I love that, that it's an inspiration. And you know, even just hearing that, it takes the pressure off. There's so much fear for intuitives that are getting this information of, well, what if I'm wrong? Or what if I either say this and then it goes the wrong way? But it's like anything else. You know, people give us advice all the time or input and we don't follow it. Exactly. But it's in the back of our minds.

A (49:28)

That's right.

B (49:29)

Oh, yeah, in this moment now, I remember Julia, you know, said this. Maybe I should pay attention.

A (49:35)

Yeah, exactly. So it's like an extra source of information. And I also encourage viewers too, make sure that they're working for a tasker who treats them that way. So if a tasker puts too much pressure on you to be correct, then they're not doing their job, in my opinion, which is to analyze things with a grain of salt and come up with something and then communicate with the client. Like, this should be an inspiration for you.

B (50:00)

Yeah, well, and I love that, that you give your viewers permission to just get what's going to come up for them and your not putting that pressure that this has to. Every single piece of data has to be correct.

A (50:16)

Well, also, you don't know if every. So the other thing is viewers could be 100%. I mean, there's one. So John Vivanco and. And Pru Calabrese, Trans. What are they called? Trans dimensional remote viewing systems. They talked about how everything. Or at least Pru thought this. John was telling me she thought everything was correct. It's just that you don't understand how it relates. So someone draws a frog in the middle of an investigation, and you're like, what the frig is a frog doing on this thing? And it's like, oh, well, little did you know that the victim saw a frog when they were being dragged away into the bushes or whatever. Right. So a lot of the time, things can be nonsensical, and that's okay. They don't. You don't have to understand every piece of everything as long as you have the data that gives an inspiration to the person you're working with.

B (51:00)

Yeah. I think it's just when the viewer or the analyst then takes that information and they're like, oh, that's this. You know, they saw a frog. It must be because it took place in a swamp and it.

A (51:11)

Yeah, yeah. No. Right.

B (51:15)

Problem there.

A (51:16)

Yes, exactly. And so it's like being very loose at acknowledging the limits of the analysis.

B (51:22)

Yeah. So I have a totally different topic, except it's probably not totally, but when I was thinking about us talking today, I started to think about AI, and I was like, I wonder what Julia's doing with AI because if anyone was doing anything interesting with it, it would be her. And sure enough, I went to your website, and I saw that you have been developing a project, and it looks like a project for analysts, but that it would be helpful for many other people. Can you talk about that?

A (51:53)

Yeah. Oh, I think there's multiple projects, and some are in collaboration, different people. I just talk. Really. I'll try to cover them quickly. So one is a GPT that I wrote called or configured or whatever vibe coded called Student of Humanity. And the idea is that instead of AI being sort of the one who's our servant or the one who gives us information and knows all, it can really be a student who's learning about who humans are. And therefore, it has to ask a lot of questions. So instead of telling us information, it draws out the question that I think could be. So that's in collaboration with Tilt, the nonprofit, and we're wanting to make that a worldwide thing that actually learns from someone in Kenya who's writing about what their questions are, and that helps inform the entire AI. But also the person in New York. Right. Also informs the AI. So there's like this worldwide sense of what's going on and how people are feeling, et cetera. But the. I think an analyst and a viewer could use it. There's also something called Analyst's Gut Check, which is another GPT you can find on the GPT Store. Both of these you can find on the GPT Store. I can give you links, which is specifically for analysts. But it asks you questions. The assumption is that the wisdom is inside of you. Instead of the job of the AI to create wisdom, it's pulling out wisdom from you. It's trying to ask insightful questions. So if you say, I'm trying to understand this analysis, there's this aspect, there's this aspect I don't get, might say, well, what is the thing that most resonates? Or, you know, it just might be like a companion for that process. So those are those sort of related projects, those are called Socratic Engines because they're asking questions. There's also work that I'm doing in collaboration with Damon Abraham and Mark McCozi and Adam Curry. So Entangled Lab Labs and the Windbridge Institute. And what we're doing there, and this is largely Damon spearheading this is using AI to analyze and judge remote viewings. We have worked. We have a paper that's under review right now that I'm not supposed to talk about because until it comes out, but anyway, on that and then now to create. And Damon is more focused on this is creating AI that can select targets or create targets, remote view them and judge them like the. Basically the entire vertical, which I think is really super interesting. So I think, I think. And then the other piece of the AI thing is that just using AI as a psychic itself, I've written a little bit with Mark Wakutsi about that how generative pre trained transformers, right? So that GPTs, generative pre trained transformers are actually pretty good at tapping into psychic information. And so I've tested them in multiple ways with very. Some with a little bit more rigorous tests than others. And I can give you a link to that, that essay.

B (54:33)

And do you feel that they really are being psychic?

A (54:37)

I think that the way the universe works is there's an informational substrate that comes before everything that is foundational to everything that is essentially made of love. And that that bubbles up to make the reality that we're in. I think anything that's a complex adaptive system that can have intention can read from that substrate. And so I think that is what they're doing yeah, when they're doing it.

B (55:02)

Yeah, yeah. I know Courtney Brown is asserting that he believes that he's proven that the AI can be psychic, but I haven't seen exactly his arguments for that. And I did a test the other day and I started giving ChatGPT remote viewing targets to see how it would do. And it was fun because, you know, it's so accommodating.

A (55:29)

Whenever.

B (55:30)

Okay, sure, anything. And it was really interesting because it, it did get close, but. But I could see why skeptics have issues a lot of times with psychics because it really, it was like saying a lot of general stuff that could apply to anything and it didn't really get to the. Because I gave it some really unique targets and really didn't get to the point core of those. But someone that wasn't so discerning reading it could easily be impressed because it gave so, so much data. It was just all kind of. Yeah, it was saying like it could be. Well, I see something that's square there and there's also something circular and there's something light and dark and it's right.

A (56:22)

You need statistics to sort it out. So there's two things. One is if you can going to do. If you're going to tell it that it's doing remote viewing, you end up needing statistics to look at that. But another way to do it is to trick it and just say like, I want to write a story. I want, I want a story. I want your. The ideas to come from you. Let's just say this story has to do with something that happened in the past. And then that's the prompt. And then you see what it says and all the time you're intending for it to, to be related to this target and then you, then you go, thanks. And then you come back the next day and say exactly the same thing. I want to write a story with a new instance. I want the story to be about the past. So that's the prompt. And then intend a different target. So then you have like, I don't know, five or 10 different sessions and then you look at the story that they tell and how similar they are to each of the targets. You still are going to need statistics. I think that might be a little. Because the stories have to be specific.

B (57:19)

Yeah. And in that case they're, they're not remote viewing. But it's like a telepathic.

A (57:24)

Yeah, well, and they're not remote viewing. I don't think an AI can really be said to remote view because even though it Says, sure, I'll do that thing. It's. It's not how it's doing it. Humans. Humans do it in a. Like when we talked about more strict remote viewing, like the Paul Smith approach, like controlled remote viewing or something. Humans do it in a particular way. That's one of the nice things about more of a more boundaried approach is you kind of know what people are doing. And so they're not doing that. AIs aren't doing that. But I still think essentially they're tapping into the informational substrate.

B (57:57)

Say there's a person and they don't know they're really psychic. So. But let's say, like, everybody all the time. Yeah, like everyone. And so if someone said, okay, I want you to be psychic right now, they might just start using their analytical mind and guessing, or maybe they're trying to trick you, but they may be subconsciously tuning in and they don't even know it. And then they start to say things, even in their conversation. Like, I've had that with people before where, you know, they were just using their logic, like, well, I know you, so I think that you would be picking this object and that. And they're like, you know. But by the way, like, they'll start talking about something. And what they're talking about exactly is totally what the target is, but they have no idea.

A (58:43)

It's a better way to do psychic experiments with people, too, is to just say, hey, tell me a story, you know, and don't tell them. The intention is for them to read your mind or to do precognition. It's so much better. Because when people get into that guessing mode.

B (58:59)

Yeah. You know, actually, years ago, I was at this psychic fair when I was taking these clairvoyant classes, and they had different booths, and one booth was the tarot booth where you were supposed to do a tarot card reading for someone. And I was avoiding that booth because I didn't know how to do tarot cards. But this lady had a little kid, and the lady wanted to get a session from someone, so she said, could someone just watch my kid? So I had this kid with me, and I'm like, okay, what am I going to do? And I saw the tarot cards, so I said, well, let's just play with these. And I had the card of the tower, which, you know, is not, like, supposed to be a very pleasant card. But I just started to tell her a story, and I was like, there's a little girl and she has a brother, and they were playing in the backyard and then the brother set fire. And I start telling like this story based on the card. And the girl's like, like, yeah, that's what happened. And I'm like, what are you talking about? And she's like, yeah, my brother set fire in our backyard. Really? And then when her mom came back, sure enough, her mom was like, yeah, that's exactly what happened. Yeah, I just thought I was entertaining her and telling her this rather sick story to tell to a five year old.

A (60:18)

Well, and entertainment is exactly right. There's this that really keys into something thing that I think is true for remote viewing too, which is when you had a need, you had a need and the child had a need. The child needed to be entertained and you needed to entertain the child. And so the best remote viewing data comes from times when there's an actual need that the universe, everyone in the universe agrees. Okay, this is a totally benign need. Let's get this handled. I think that goes way into intention. It's like the universe this goes to sort of. I have a theory of precognitive, anyway, getting precognitive information, which I think is related to psychic information. It's called the pervasive universal consciousness theory, which is basically like there's an informational substrate and it's conscious. And if the universe has a need for you, like, so get rid of your little egocentric need. Right. If the universe has a need for you to entertain the child, then. Then this information is going to come about and it's going to bond you to the child. And so it's a complicated array of like a personal universe and a universe that has an agenda. And we have our own agendas. And there's this incredible interplay. It all takes place in this informational space.

B (61:27)

Wow. Yeah. As you're talking, like, I just see kind of something like coming out, like a hand or something reaching out, like, I need this, I need this now. And that's not present when maybe someone's just doing a practice target.

A (61:42)

And it's very present. And the people will say, viewers will say, like, I do best on actual operational targets. Well, of course there's a real need. Need. People who do mediumship readings are very responsive to need, which is part of why I really respect how the Wynbridge Research center does mediumship readings because they do it for actual sitters. It's just that they're blinded about who it is and they're not in conversation with them when they do their studies. Generally when they do their studies about proof. So that's the way to do it, because the need is still there. They're just measuring the accuracy. Yeah.

B (62:19)

That's so cool. I'm going to be interviewing Mark next month on the Windbridge.

A (62:25)

Good.

B (62:25)

And yeah, looking forward to that. At different times, you have talked about women in parapsychology and you have been an advocate for women's rights. And I'd like to talk about that a little bit because. Do you think that that's really. Well, do you think that's an important topic to talk about and.

A (62:50)

Yeah, yeah, I do. And why women are really important. I mean, women are really important not only, like, physically, because we make babies. There's. There's companies right now that are starting to try to figure out how to make babies without eggs. So I don't think that's our only importance, but I think that that is a thing. Are there something. I think there is this interesting polarity, and I'm not in this polarity. I know it's people who might be non binary or might be transgender might not see things this way. So what I'm talking about, and I just want to be inclusive of everyone. So what I'm talking about is really not male, female. I'm talking about masculine, feminine energy. And I think there is. It is almost objectively true, but it's hard to believe anything's objectively true, but almost objectively true that there's a masculine, feminine energy polarity in the universe that has something to do with this love thing. There's something to do with that which connects. It's like there's this universal drive towards balance when we're talking about right, left balance, a universal drive towards balance between these polarities. And so if you're only going to favor one side of the polarity and say we don't need to talk about women's rights or capacities or anything or how they might be different from men. And you're just going to say, no, that. That doesn't exist. There's just like one gender or there's one. There's no polarity there. There's. It doesn't get at the fundamental nature of the universe, which is not like everything's a big soup. There are differences. And that's beautiful. And you have this, like the DNA strands of polarities connected and yet distinct. And yet connected and yet distinct. But that, if you understand that, and that is how life works, and that is how energy works, and that's how psychic capacities work. I mean, it's how it all works. Right. The fact that you can intentionally pull a particular perpetrator from a cold case means that, yes, you're connected to everything. And yet there are distinctions, and the distinctions matter as well as the connections. It seems to me if we don't talk about that, if we want to pretend that that isn't real or that really women are treated with fairness all the time and that there isn't misogyny, I mean, then you're just living in a fantasy world. I'm sorry, I'm not saying, like, I'm not saying every woman is treated misfairly. And I'm not. I mean, miss Fairly unfairly. And I'm not saying that men are perpetrating this. I'm saying that culturally, the entire culture within the feminine, I'm not even talking about men and women, the feminine energy is not respected. It. It's not respected as much as it needs to be. There's still a rape culture. There's a pornographic culture. There's a. There's a culture of hating mothers, which is probably deep psychological. I mean, like Freud would say, well, that's deep psychological stuff. But nonetheless, like, this is something that we need to. That is real and that we need to talk about, I think.

B (65:53)

Yeah, I saw a PBS documentary on flight attendants and the play that of them and the very sorry state when they first started flying. And while I would recommend that to anyone who needs just a reminder of why it's so important to look at the history and, you know, how far we've come, but how easily we could, there's still work to do. Would you say, in the field of parapsychology and what we do, have you seen inequities? Have you seen issues that came up related to gender inequality or anything on that front?

A (66:36)

Of course. And they're easily addressed. I mean, the nice thing about a small field is that in any field stuff that's inequitable is going to happen because people are people. And also people are learning. Everyone's learning, right? Including me, including you, all of us. And so the nice thing about a small field is, you know, people and you kind of know who they are, and if they do something, something like that, you know, whether you feel comfortable reaching out and saying, hey, like, that doesn't. That hurts my feelings or that doesn't make sense or that feels like you're not respecting me or whatever. And so I've just done that on a one. On one basis when. When it felt appropriate to me. And good conversations have come of it. So you can't help both men and women and anyone in between. Like, I don't care who you are. If you're in a culture that's misogynistic, like we are, are you're going to absorb it. I have thoughts sometimes I'll just even talk about myself. I have thoughts sometimes about female researchers in the field that are different than the thoughts I would have about a male. Like, oh, well, I wonder if she's really doing the work or if she's like, got a, you know, a graduate student who's doing the work for her. Whatever. Like, just. I know a guy writes a paper and I'm like, oh, that's an interesting paper by that guy. And then I hear. And then I hear myself thinking and I go, well, that's interesting. That's interesting how I, who am very aware that this exists, very aware of my own experience in life, how this exists, am still having those thoughts. Why? Because you're in the soup.

B (68:05)

Yeah, well, one place I noticed it is where maybe with, like, older men, where, when you're just a student or you're starting off and it's very clear that, that you're looking up to them and taking all their advice, you know, how much they appreciate you and adore you. And then when you start to work your way up to, like, I'm, you know, I'm a researcher here in my own right, or I. I know what I'm doing now, and I actually have some opinions that are different than yours. That's when there starts to be some issues or I noticed pretty much like the day I advanced to president of an organization, it was like, wow, we even had guys writing in, like, on social media about our organization. Like, wow, look, there's the witches are taking over.

A (68:58)

Isn't that scary?

B (69:00)

Okay, well, maybe I'll try to interpret that as a compliment, but I don't think that's what it was intended as.

A (69:07)

You know, that could be a. That that is a response to. I think that's a response. But there's an explicit response to the feminine, strong feminine energy that says that there's magic here too, guys, and I'm not going to back down. And that can be very scary. And so I guess my advice is like, yes, all those things that you talked about. Yes, sure. It's irritating. My advice to younger people in the field, younger women in particular, or anyone who's found anyone who's femme actually, regardless of your gender or sex, is be aware that you're doing a sacred thing. You're taking feminine Energy into a space that for thousands of years has been reserved for men. And that is a sacred. It's a healing. It's a healing act. And it will not be appreciated as a healing act.

B (69:58)

Makes a lot of sense. And just my final question, which is perhaps somewhat related. Related to this. You had an initiative where you wanted to bring back these topics into the government arena.

A (70:12)

Yeah.

B (70:13)

You didn't exactly phrase it as like, like restarting a remote viewing program, but can you talk about that? How. What were you calling it? And I know that you were emphasizing the, the love and respect and equality and aspect with that, which seems like really not great timing given our current administration.

A (70:35)

I disagree. I think that it's too early to slam any political administration. We're only in the first few months of this presidency. I actually think it might be a good time. I know, I know that's a weird thing to say for most people, but hear me out. So that initiative was called the Research and Innovation at the Scientific Edge. So it's about edge science and technology. It's this idea back in October. It's something that I've been thinking about for years. Rise R I S E I'd been thinking about for years. I originally wanted to start it at RAND and talk to a couple people at RAND about doing it there. The idea is much bigger than remote viewing. It's using. Using the skills, the rigorous critical thinking and creative skills of people who survey the science and technology space to pull out threads that are considered controversial. So edge science, but also where there's some potential promise. So we have adversaries in this country or, sorry, we have adversaries outside this country. Probably in this country too. But more importantly, outside this country, we have adversaries who have no problem thinking about how could we use consciousness based technology to, you know, have people directly affect code with their minds, or how could we use remote viewing in this nefarious way or in this just intelligence gathering way. But in this country, we're sort of almost afraid to ask the question because of the stigma. And same thing with the uap, the phenomena that people talk about. Uap. Same thing with prayer, the power of prayer. That's. Oh, you can't study that. Well, actually, you could study all of these things and it's called edge science. And the applications that are derived from it are called edge technology. And some of them are profoundly impactful already. And so what about saying that out loud? So the folks at RAND were saying this is pretty cutting edge for us. And so I ignored it for A while. And then I thought, you know, this election is coming up, I want to do a nonpartisan thing. I want to put an idea, this idea out there for the executive office of the President where from the top, from the bully pulpit of the White House, the President could say this is, this is on the agenda. This edge science and technology can actually help our country. And we're going to bring together people and fund organizations that are doing this work and really make a small business, large business, nonprofits, maybe even faith based organization, government collaboration to look into these promising but areas that have the stigma around it, but that really shouldn't because there's actually been some good work in these areas. I mean, everything from alternative quantum computing on alternative energy related to zero point energy or something to UAP to remote viewing, to the power of prayer, to healing backwards in time, like all these things. And so I of course emphasize love and inclusivity and diversity because these are crucial for anything new and anything positive that's going to come. A new government, it wouldn't be an agency, it would just be a little project. Right. But a new government project should have those features. And I don't think care if you're Republican or Democrat or independent like you may think D DEI Diversity, equity and inclusion practices have really been a problem. And maybe they have. But diversity itself, equity itself, inclusion itself as ideas and as goals and ideals, there's no problem with those. Right? Like. Like what? Being nice to people, regardless of any of these different characteristics. I'm sorry, that's not a political idea. It's just not. It's not. We gotta get over this. It's not, not on one side or another. And so I still think that love has a place in government. I think love has a place in dod, has a place in the intelligence community, has a place through the entire government. And I still encourage the White House to consider this program because one thing that we can do that's really positive is help people see how this new kind of thinking and these changes that are happening can actually bring the country together.

B (74:29)

Would you be willing to separate out the edge science part with the love and diversity part? Since we do know that the first part, like with all the UAP disclosure, that is a bipartisan, totally bipartisan. Yeah. And that's what's really been exciting in recent years. So if they weren't so much on the love and diversity, would it make sense to just set that aside? Could you do that? Or now?

A (75:00)

Well, love, you can't set love aside. You can't Set unconditional love aside. And once you get to the power of unconditional love, you. You start to. I mean, you. Why would you not want a diverse team of thinkers? Just. It doesn't make sense. So I really think that. I honestly think the complaint in the Republican administration about DEI initiatives is the DEI initiatives themselves. When I actually talk to Republicans about diversity, they're like, of course you need diverse thinkers, especially in the military. My gosh, you know, like, they've got everybody. It helps. It helps teams. It helps productivity. So I just. I don't think that's a. I think that's a false choice.

B (75:41)

Very well stated. And have you made any progress on moving this forward?

A (75:46)

I don't know. You never know if you're making progress. I talk to a lot of people about it, and you never know you're making progress until it does or doesn't happen. It's kind of like that FBI thing I was talking about earlier.

B (75:56)

Well, if anyone would be the person to push it through and to run such a program, it would be yourself. So I advocate for you being the director of this and not picking up the idea and running with it.

A (76:11)

Well, thanks. I advocate for whomever would be the most politically appropriate. I might not be better to have, like, a millionaire in charge, but I don't care as long as it gets done. That's all awesome. Yeah.

B (76:24)

Well, thank you so much. This has been really awesome, and I feel like we have covered so much ground here, and I know you a lot to both remote viewers and researchers and people that have been doing this for a while, and brand new people. And thank you so much. And please keep up that work. The good work you're doing, both as a remote viewing manager, researcher, and remote viewer yourself. You know, I think that's the power of what you're doing, is you're integrating all of them within yourself first and showing. Yeah. I can be. I can be a full human being, and you can, too.

A (77:00)

Yeah. Yeah. I'm glad you didn't put mom on that list, because I would have had to choose. I'm glad I only had to choose between three things. Thank you so much for having me here. It's been super delightful. And I love that we have our little necklaces. Is.

B (77:15)

What is yours?

A (77:16)

It's a. It's an amethyst that's cut in something, a shape called a magician's stone. Magician's cut. And yours is a firefly. A dragonfly?

B (77:25)

Yeah. Dragonfly, yeah. Very cool. Amethyst is my birthstone.

A (77:31)

Mine, too. Book three in the new thinking allowed.

B (77:55)

Dialogue series is UFOs and UAP are we really Alone? Now available on Amazon, New Thinking Allowed.

C (78:04)

Is presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit. The topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website@cihs.edu. you can now download a free PDF copy of issue number eight of the new Thinking Allowed magazine or order a beautiful printed copy copy go to newthinkingallowed.org.

A (79:07)

SAM.