Markdown lines 334–472 · Part 3 of 6
So it's a much more realistic concept of how things should be measured. You can't do that so
much out there in the real world because you have these things as though this isn't the real
world. Because all over the world you have these things placed in different physical locations.
And you would have to say, Okay, if there's nothing happening in the Africa monitor a week
where nothing happens in Africa, oops, something happened No, no. So they don't have the
kind of control and luxury we had to say there's this is an open week maintenance week for us.
We have no seminars going and skip it run over there and turn everything on to monitor and
empty weak. And I did that A times in the study. So the idea here was we had some realistic
concept rather than a table of random numbers to study. Okay. Now what that means is one
random demonstrator was in here, and I told you where it was on it's in the shelf of the White
Room in the monitoring this week, so you don't have to behave randomly if you don't want to.
And the other one is over here in the laboratory, okay, because just sitting running in the
background and the little sign on it, don't mess with this computer. It's busy. And the other one
up here in the cabin on the hill, and graphically that looks 1.21 miles away. I took my GPS
system and stood down here and recorded the coordinates of that And then I went up on the
hill and stood there and recorded the coordinates and the fancy mathematics of the GPS tells
you exactly how far it is away as the crow flies, you know, if you had to follow the road,
30:15
that would be one thing. But as the crow flies 1.21 miles away up to the top here. So that gave
us an idea of what we thought we'd be looking at. The idea here is in the Nancy pen zone,
would randomness change. Would it continue to change throughout this week? How about the
remote zone, the lab zone one? Or how about the remote to zone out here, up at Roberts
mountain retreat? Was there going to be a difference between, right where we were monitoring
and something far away? Didn't know, is this a field effect? As though it's a cause and effect
situation? Is this a field effect? Or is it a localized event, we would think that there must be
some localization of it, because what we see in the global consciousness project, when an
interesting thing is happening in one part of the world, the random number generators in that
part of the world behave interestingly. But in the rest of the world, it doesn't. To make the
whole world kickin, it has to be some sort of a huge news worthy, worthy event, when loads of
unneeded millions of people. Take a look at this, and they're very interested in you're talking
about it, and so forth and so on. That's when you see the 911 Bump, or a presidential election
bump or a Superbowl bump, with every every everybody's interested in it. But not if you have a
local fire or a plane crash or something like that, that doesn't hit the consciousnesses of a vast
amount of people. So there was some sort of concept or precedents here to think maybe there
is a localized event. But how localized is it? You know, is it the magic of the property line with
the Monroe Institute, you know, and we're visiting crude loving stew or you know, in the studies
done with healers, and junior healers, that was done up in Petaluma, California. And by the
time you were just south enough to get to San Francisco, those random number generators
weren't affected down in San Francisco. But they were just up north of the bridge up in
Petaluma. So they had some precedents for thinking about this idea. Here's another way to
investigate this phenomena. In a very nice controlled situation. You know, a lot of researchers
like to do things in prison environments, because you have complete control of your
population, and they can't refuse to participate in what goes on course, all of the decisions that
were made about society based on all these people locked up might not have been a good
idea to draw those conclusions. But at least it made for a nice controlled experiment. Well,
that's one of the things that has developed here, we have regular programs that are exactly the
same days long. And we do the regular same set of exercises for the most part, throughout we
have fixed ways to monitor things. So this has become a rich environment. For monitoring this,
we don't have to wait, it's not a good thing to say, we don't have to wait for the next Super Bowl
to see what's going to happen. We create it quite regularly around here, a lot more
opportunities to study it. So looking at this, we had over 66 billion random bits of information to
analyze in this, unfortunately, I collect all the data, write things up, and then I send it out to
Dean Raiden, who has some postgraduate students do this for him, helps him to earn his
degree in his thesis by analyzing all this information for us. Now, looking at just the first 200
bits of data, remember I told you before about the concept of in the days of old when there was
limited compute power back in the 80s, they decided to just take, you know, the first 200 bits of
data and throw everything else away, it was just too big of a pile to manage all of this. When
they looked at the work we did and they took the first 200 bits of data. There wasn't any
significant changes, just throwing the two and a bits of data away. But if we looked at 226
million samples, there was a positive deviation for the experimental data, experimental data.
This is experimental versus what the calibration runs, okay. The experimental data does mean
people in the gateway versus empty weeks. Okay, that's what this means here in the positive
data and you can think about that simply like the coin went heads too many times. Okay. Are
the pluses and zeros in the positive direction right? to a statistical level of point or five, okay, so
that's pretty good. What it means to say is, that probably isn't happening by chance, Steve,
what are the odds of point oh, one p value he's computing.
35:32
Three, three zeros and the 5.055.
35:39
Yeah, five changes in 10,000. So 212 1000, these are the statistical brothers were not to
share, they're related, but there is a statistical relationship between them. So that's pretty
strong odd. In other words, they're saying it only happens by chance, once in every 2000
times. So that's pretty good statistics, it's going up. The people in the positive direction here
that are in the Nancy Pen Center, the odds are it's going heads too many times in, this gets
more and more and more and more, the longer the week goes on. There's some sort of
building or cumulative effect of bonding between them. That's very interesting going on here,
when measured against those weeks when there's no activity at all. So we put the device in
there and you measure when people are there, it goes up to heads too many times. Okay, and
against when there's nobody in the building. Now, what's interesting is you look at this, the
strong naglee deviation in the district controls, that was not expected. We thought that maybe
at the district controls here, that it would be looking like the control weeks, we'll be looking like
the empty weeks. Okay. And in the district controls, I made sure there wasn't anything going
on up on the hill. And in the same way, if there was a gateway bridge going on down here, I
would not monitor that week, if there was also a lifelines going on up on the hill, because I
didn't want confounding variable. So I only measured when it was a gateway only. And when it
was totally empty, there was nothing else going on around here. That was sort of my job to
make sure I was collecting pure data, rather than having a bunch of people chanting around
the building or something during one of the empty weeks. That wouldn't have been good, right.
So this negative deviation 100, burned one odds of this happening. I mean, it didn't rain right?
To me, and a little note, he says, I believe this data, but this is too much, I can't possibly, I
mean, the odds of that happening, you're just too much into very, very interesting thing. You'd
think that at a distant location, they would behave neutrally behave randomly, much like our
calibration weeks, but they didn't. They behaved divergently. Love we mean here is these were
the ones that were monitored. In Nancy Pen Center, and these are the ones that were
monitored at the distant locations. Okay, so they don't say you could say these weren't hands
too many times. But these weren't tails too many times. Which was an unexpected result. Well,
it turns out that it is, it is not unprecedented. However, there are other studies, and you can
look up the references in the in the paper, you're welcome to look at, where when something is
measured quite high, here, it's measured quite low over here. We don't know why. But that
may be maybe the universe is trying to maintain its entropy. Right? It's trying to maintain the
balance. So if you suck on the straw here, something feels up over here. You know, I mean,
how can I explain it simply to you? Nobody knows why these things. We don't know what
causes this to happen. But here we have a localized phenomenon in conjunction with the
gateway voyage that is making it go heads to seemingly making it go heads too many times.
And just here across the street or up the hill, because tails too many times. And we can sort of
from the layman's perspective, saying oh, well, it's obviously trying to maintain a balance
overall. What goes on here, which may be the case there were other studies, this is not an
unprecedented situation. But it was certainly unexpected. Now, we went through several
iterations of this study trying to come up with something that is going to be acceptable to
publish to the community arguing back and forth about whether you should use the calibration
weeks is your standard? Or should you use the mathematically produced randomness? And
what are the two results if you do it this way, and it got to be a very long paper and very
complex. So we thought maybe we'll just talk about this alone and not worry about talking
about the other. Obviously, the conclusion is more study is needed. Instead, what we should
do here, let's look at the odds situation differently. Now the odds of these things happening
against the no or the zero point is one thing. It's going down. Tails too many times, it's going up
heads too many times, at point oh, five up here. And you know, too many times down here.
You can look at this differently in saying another way to is to say these things should have
gone together? What are the odds that they are separated by so much at the end of the week?
Which is what this line is? Okay, almost a trillion to one? Well over 100 billion to one, what are
the odds that they should have been separated by this amount? Too many? You know, it
again, derating was saying, Well, this is a believable number three zeros in the five p value of
point oh five, that's believable. But when you get up into these kinds of odds, you know, it's
like, something's gonna be wrong here. This can't be really happening, which means more
study is needed, right? Well, there's something else here going on that we haven't discussed,
either, which I hinted at before. Remember, we talked very briefly, as far as an example, when
I got started here about this idea of zero point energy in the whole universe is filled with this
stuff called zero point energy. But we can't tap into it, you can't plug into it, because it's all
counterbalanced with each other, therefore, it's zero. You know, if I put my voltmeter here, my
voltmeter, here, it's going to zero. If we could just change the phase relationship between
some of the power over here and some of the power over here, there would be tremendous
energy, then I could put my voltmeter in here. And they've actually proved that with something