Most of the work I've been asked to assist in involves missing persons, which unfortunately is one of the most difficult areas to use remote viewing for. There are many reasons for this, but the major ones are:
You can produce a near-perfect description of a location where a person is being held, is living, or within which a body has been hidden. But, if there are no local landmarks that are readily identifiable to a specific area or township, where in the world the location actually is, is quite difficult to pinpoint. (Unless of course you are using dowsing, and then there is a presumption that the map you might be using actually contains the location.)
Sometimes the missing person is dead. If the body has been dismembered and spread throughout an area, it makes identifying the location more difficult.
However, the primary reason why locating an individual is most difficult is the reluctance of the authorities to use the materials provided. They either do not understand how to appropriately use them, or they write them off as meaningless because they come from a "psychic" source.
Often this isn't the authorities' fault. In many cases they are completely swamped with material originating from various psychics that has not been coordinated, and many times replicates bad information, and in any case has no baseline through which to gauge it. Many of the people sending in the information are very well meaning, but do not have a psychic bone in their bodies. Without some way of properly analyzing the information and/or applying it, all it does is clog the system.
I usually do not assist or provide information to authorities unless I have been formally asked to do so ahead of time. Over the years I've established relationships with different prosecuting and district attorneys' offices, police departments, and detective agencies. Without some guarantee that something will be done with the materials, and that whoever is going to use the materials understands the limitations of the materials, it is a waste of everyone's time and energy from the get-go.
As an example, in the winter of 2001-2002, in my own county of Nelson, a small girl was reported missing. I returned home from giving a talk at The Monroe Institute around 10:30 P.M., and within minutes received a call from a county resident who knows what I am capable of. I drove to the house of the missing girl, which is located in the middle of some of the roughest terrain you could find in the Blue Ridge Mountain area of Virginia. Unfortunately, in an election a few months earlier the local sheriff had been replaced by a new sheriff who had no previous knowledge of either me or my capabilities. The new sheriff established a police line at the scene of the house (which is normal procedure), which I was not allowed to cross. I explained to some of his deputies who I was and offered to help, but was continually denied entry as a matter of rule.
After standing in the cold till some time after 2:30 A.M., I saw an old friend pull in. He is one of the game wardens from the area. I explained that I wanted to help and asked him to intercede, which he attempted to do. He came back out and informed me that "my kind of help" was not appreciated. I gave him a map I had been able to get from one of the search and rescue (SAR) people on site, on which I had marked a starting place that they should begin their search. I indicated on the map that they would find both tracks and signs as to the direction in which the girl had gone. He said he would see that they got the map and I went home.
I was unable to sleep the rest of the night because I was having very clear visions of the young girl wandering in the woods. I was very sure that I could help, but no one wanted me to. I remained in my office working until I received a phone call around 9:00 A.M.. At that time, I was told that the head of the SAR teams wanted to speak with me at the girl's home.
When I got there they took me to the search trailer, where I was introduced to the man in charge of the search teams who had arrived from Richmond. He showed me my map and asked how I knew they would find signs of the girl in the location I had marked?
I explained what I had done in support of government agencies for many years and told him there was no pertinent explanation for what I could do, I was just able to do it. He said they found exactly what I had predicted in exactly the place I had predicted it to be. He then asked me where I had been the 24 hours preceding the girl's disappearance. I knew that he was checking my alibi, which was a reasonable request given I knew so much about where the girl had been previous to her disappearance. Since I had been accompanied by others for nearly two days prior, I was eliminated as any kind of a suspect. But what if I had no alibi? What then?
In any event, he took me to their large search map and asked me, "If you had to look for her right now—where exactly would you look?" I put my finger on the lower right portion of the map.
"Here. Right here is where you will find her."
Well, that created a major problem. The area I had selected lay outside the overall grid of the major search area. In fact, it was almost two-thirds of a mile to the south and west of where they were searching, using dogs, helicopters, and about 175 people in teams of four to seven.
"We can't search in there yet," he stated. "We'll screw up the scent for the tracking dogs. We'll have to run a dog team through there, then we can go in with a search team. We'll also have to move our search grid to include that area and it will take a lot of time to do that."
I explained that I didn't think they had a lot of time. It had been down into the low twenties the previous night and the little girl was wearing a light blouse and otherwise had no protection against the elements. She had her dog with her, but the dog had wandered in earlier that morning exhausted and needing both water and food. They had not been able to backtrack the dog, or entice it to lead them to the girl. It just moved up under the house and refused to cooperate.
I asked if I could go in there alone. I knew that I could go directly to that spot on the map that I had pinpointed and leave very little trail going or coming that would mess with a dog team. In fact, the area they would have to enter from with the dog was up-wind and miles from the point of entry I wanted to try. I was told no.
Instead, they teamed me up with my friend the game warden and a couple of others and had us stand to the side and wait. We waited nearly six hours while the dog was taken through the area, and while they moved and did a regrid of the search maps they were using. I found out later that the dog team had in fact followed the easier route along a stream bed because they figured the little girl could not have gotten into the thick of it, being so little. They guessed that she would stick pretty much to a trail or somewhere easier to walk.
Eventually, they inserted two teams into the area that I had marked on the map. The team I was with entered from the west and north, and the other team was helicopter-lifted in from the top of the mountain to work its way outward toward our position.
Both teams converged on the body almost simultaneously. The mountain team found her body first and our team arrived at the location within ten minutes. The little girl was dead when she was found, and her body was within fifty to 75 feet of the location I had marked on the map.
I have no idea when the little girl actually died. There was evidence that she had fallen into a creek and completely soaked what clothing she had. Hypothermia would have been her greatest enemy from that point forward. I asked for a copy of the map that I had provided to the search teams the night before, and the request was refused. I asked to speak with the sheriff, in the hope of coming to some agreement about future incidents, but my request was denied. He didn't want to speak with me. Maybe I wouldn't have made a difference, but that is not what's material to this issue. What's material is the fact that people of proven and established talent can provide information through the use of psychic or remote viewing methodologies. When you haven't got any other kind of lead, it's the only lead!
It doesn't matter if the psychic's accuracy is 30 percent or 90 percent. If you haven't got a clue as to where to start, you take what you can to reduce the search area. If you have a 30 percent chance of reducing a search area and saving a life
, you take it.
I've been involved with two other search and rescue operations in my own county. In all three cases, my information was the last information that was utilized. In a second case, they used my information because they were forced to. After 45 days of searching for a missing park ranger on the Blue Ridge, they terminated the search. In cleaning out the files they found my original map, which I had provided in the first 72 hours. A father and son team volunteered to pursue the map location just to close out the file. They found the park ranger's body precisely where I had indicated they would on the map.
In the third case, all I could provide was a general direction and there didn't seem to be anyone to find within the county. It turned out the plane they were looking for crashed outside the county boundaries quite a distance from our search area.
In the final years of the Star Gate project, I participated in a simulation for tracking nuclear materials. For some reason, I have a gift for finding such materials, and differentiating between real or not real targets. In my mind's eye, I can actually see a greenish glow around the real versus bogus materials.
In the simulation we did for a department within the Air Force, real nuclear materials were intermixed with bogus materials and they were moved from site to site. I was asked to first determine which were the real materials, and then put them at the appropriate site. An independent analysis of the simulation's results indicated that we had shown a capacity for identifying and locating nuclear materials with an accuracy and reliability in excess of 90 percent!
It's obvious that if you can reduce the search area within an hour or two by 90 percent, it's a method you might want to use. The point being that, regardless of your belief in remote viewing reliability, if you have 25,000 square miles to search anyway, you might as well take the chance that RV is going to work since you have to start somewhere anyway. It's a lot better than making a random choice. I don't think I'd much care about the ridicule I'd be forced to face when it comes to tens of thousands of American lives vanishing in a mushroom cloud. I somehow feel I could find the courage to live with the ridicule.
The problems I've been trying to convey are almost overwhelming. They involve overcoming a person's natural desire "not to be ridiculed." Many people earn their position, usually a position of implied trust, through their reputation (the value of which is usually self-conceived and not valid in the first place) or by votes. They will not voluntarily risk those positions even for the lives of others. In fact, when it comes to life and death, they will be overly cautious in consideration of a possible lawsuit. This is further complicated by the fact that there is no clearinghouse or testing agency that can verify or validate good from bad psychics (remote viewers), or when material should be used or when it should not be. It's far easier just to take up the tired old standard: "This is ridiculous. It doesn't work, and it's a bunch of bunk." Then there is no risk to face.
While it is difficult, I continue to provide assistance where and when I can with regard to missing persons—especially criminal cases. But, because my time is limited, and because the value given the information depends on the authority's positions or attitudes, I do not do so unless asked specifically by the authorities involved, or in those special or rare cases where I can be assured that something will be done with the information. I've never charged money for such work, which in most years constitutes the majority of my remote viewing.
Chapter Sixteen
Put to the Test—on Live IV
I'm not sure if it was a direct result of the publication of my book or not, but an amazing thing happened one day in July of 1995. I received a phone call from a Ms. Ruth Rivin, who was representing a production company called LMNO Productions. She came right to the point. Would I agree to do a live remote viewing under scientific controls for live television? I didn't hesitate—Yes.
As we talked, it became apparent that there was a lot of discussion about the growing myth of remote viewing. The special project was still buried deeply within the bowels of the government, but as a result of my book, and others (including many who were misusing the term) a lot of statements were being made in public about the accuracy of remote viewing. Most of them were nonsense and completely unsupportable. When she had asked me if I would do it, I felt it would be a good way of presenting RV in an appropriate light and underscoring what it was really capable of doing. It wasn't perfect and everyone should know it. When I agreed, I told them that there was as good a probability that it would fail as that it would succeed. I was up front about the possibility and suggested they should do as much homework as possible with my colleague Ed at the lab before attempting to replicate it live and with a camera.
To their great credit, they did their homework, sending someone to talk with Ed and pursuing the appropriate knowledge of the protocols and how to implement them. By the time they called me back, they were making lists of cities that were possible candidates for the shoot. They told me they wanted to take me to a city that I had never been to before. I agreed. After going through two complete listings of cities, we finally found one that I had never visited on the third list—Houston, Texas.
The RV segment was supposed to be one of three major segments in a one hour show that was going to be syndicated, called "Put to the Test"—an ABC special. The idea was to put people who were making incredible claims in front of the camera and let them demonstrate their claims or abilities live. Ruth later confided in me that they had called a dozen people before me, none of whom would agree to do whatever they did live. They would only participate if it were a "reenactment" of something they had previously done. She told me that I had stunned her into momentary silence when I had agreed.
I can understand the others and their hesitation. Up until that point, anything I'd ever seen on the television regarding the paranormal was always done tongue-in-cheek or with that slight edge of ridicule. But something in Ruth's voice led me to believe that she was nothing but up-front about what they wanted to do. So I had immediately agreed.
The woman they sent to the lab in California, Susan Elkins, a movie location scout, was briefed well on how to select targets that might be used in the random selection. She arrived in Houston two weeks early, with the intention of selecting only targets that were significantly different from one another. They had to be stand-alone targets as much as possible and she was directed to try to use places or positions that were not famous or significant attractions in their own right. This would ensure a very diverse and well-differentiated target pool from which to pick. She was also given permission to use all of the greater Houston area, which encompassed more than a thousand square miles of space.
She successfully located and photographed hundreds of possible locations throughout the Houston metropolitan area, carefully placing each one into a separate folder. She shared these locations with no one else on the production team staff.
I arrived the same day the shooting team and moderator arrived. We went straight to an embankment in front of the skyline and did an introductory piece and shot a few B-rolls, which are ultimately used for background. This was my first introduction to television and to a television crew. The moderator, Bill Macatee, introduced himself to me and said that he actually didn't believe in the paranormal. He was concerned that it might come across in our interaction and he didn't want to offend me. I told him that was okay, that I didn't either. I suggested we could just wait and see how it turned out.
From there we rode directly to the hotel, where I went straight to my room. I told them I didn't want to see anyone or talk with anyone before the actual remote viewing. I was nervous about them sticking to the protocol: I wanted to be as blind to the possible target as possible, and was afraid that in their exuberance they might believe that giving me hints or something would be beneficial. But in reality they had stuck to the agreement. The only person who knew anything about the targets had sealed the envelopes and was out of contact with the shooting team until after the remote viewing was finish
ed.
While I waited in my room, they randomly selected four of the envelopes from the target pool and labeled them one through four to use during the following day's shoot.
A problem came up later that night that put kind of a comical twist on events. In their pre-shoot discussions, it had come up again that the person who had done the target selection for the target pool had been told specifically not to use a famous place or location within the Houston area.
This decision had been made based on a recommendation from Ed in California. He felt that doing so would create a major front-end loading problem for me, should I see or drive past one of their famous places, or might create doubt in the minds of the viewers. He rightfully believed that the more unlikely the actual spot chosen as a target, the more accurate the remote viewing would be. Being totally blind to the target is actually of great benefit. When it can be almost anything in a city, it leaves you no room whatsoever for making an educated guess. It leaves you with only being able to call on the remote viewing ability for an answer.
But they became more and more concerned that I might think they were going to use an important place as a targeted area within the city. So much so, they gave Ed a call and asked him what they should do. He said that since they wouldn't be using one of the more famous landmarks in the city, it would be okay to tell me that.
The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy Page 29
