2010 Professional Seminar: Entrained Mental Coherence Random Systems (Skip Atwater)

affect that. similar kinds of things are talked about in terms of decision augmentation theory. And then there's the concept that this person who did this psychokinesis test, whether it's in a game form or you just tell them, see those bits make them go up or make them go down. Seems to work. You know, a little side story. We actually have a picture someplace else where Bob Monroe visited the labs at Stanford Research Institute. There's just like classic historic picture with Pat price, Russell Targ. And Bob Monroe. And it's a really nice history keeper. But when I was working with how put off in the remote viewing project, he said, Well, you know, when Bob was out here, he did something really strange. And I said, Well, what's that? And so, they showed me this television display of these two, you know, arms coming out like this, this is where we would expect by chance this thing would wander around back, let me come over here more, Peter said, you wouldn't go. These people are much more interesting over here. I gotta stay away from the physicist. So so they're trying to explain to him, you know, okay, here's this thing going up and down, so forth and so on. And the actual place that determines, in science where these things are beeping is two floors down buried in concrete, so forth, and so on. And so, so they're trying to think, oh, maybe Bob Monroe can go out of body and go down there and mess with it, because that's what Ingo Swann did. But Bob didn't have an intellectual grasp of how do you generate random numbers and everything, he just put his finger on TV monitor, and drag the line up like that. And they went to lunch after that. Because they wanted him to get out of his body and go down there and mess with the device, you know, just like he just drag the line up with his finger, you know? So he was sort of a goal oriented kinda guy. All right, so you get the idea of that? What are these random number generator, things all about? Like flipping the coin, so forth, I had to have some sort of, you know, Photoshop depiction of a random number generator, because people are thinking, well, let's use that anyway. And that's a nonsense device, it really doesn't do anything. It's just It looks nice and complicated. And you know, you put stuff in, it sort of looks like my blender at home, that generates random numbers, you know, so forth. And so well, that's what they actually look like as little things like this. You plug them into the back of your computer, and we use three, two of them that looks sort of like this, the mind song has sort of fallen out of favor now. And these kinds of studies, we had a mind song device and Orion device. And we also had a device that counted the alpha particles colliding against the Earth, which are supposed to be occurring randomly. So it's an interesting kind of random device. So when I held this down, it goes too much. And I get to go at all. There you go. So between 2003 2005 Here, we did 14 gateways, in which we put devices in the program. Don't take too many notes. It's all in that paper open. Many independent channels. I'm always afraid to say something wrong need to write it down. But skip said, Oh, man, did I say no? Okay, and then for controls, we put random number generators in the lab, not outside Nancy pin over in the lab, and up on the hill at RMR during times when there are no programs at RMR. So our basic idea was to have these are in the local area in the NPC zone, and we're gonna put some over in the lab running at the same times, and we're going to put some up on the hill. So during eight weeks, we monitored when there was nothing going on during there was no programs. So if we let this thing run for a whole week, how would the data look at that point in time, nobody's there. You know, if it's some magic woowoo in the building, maybe it would change anyways, as opposed to when people are there doing the gateway. And up on the hill, too. So we reported on this back in what oh four, because it was sort of in its pilot analysis kind of thing. So we'll go over some of that. It's actually published now. Okay. There were some interesting events as you look at what went on during the week that seemed to show some changes going on. And notice the big sets of odds here which are interesting. The vibe flow exercise that happened On Wednesdays when vibe flow happens because you go through the fifth, okay? Now, what that meant is in 14 gateways, we walk through each day. And when vibe flow happened, there was this peak that went up. Okay? Now, if you think about it, I need to kind of explain it to you, you know, you go to college and you get grades, and it's your freshman, sophomore, you do a lot of pizza and beer and gain your 15 pounds and stuff. And then if you decide to stay at college, you have to try to balance that low grade point average. And pulling up on those past performances is tough. That's what was impressive, statistically, is we walked through days, and then we got this statistical peak happening, it had to be really big to pull up all those statistics that had been created the day before, because you're fighting against what has already happened. So to pull that up as a peak was stood to Stickley very interesting event, and had happened 14 times. So it was very interesting. Very interesting that was going on. And it didn't happen. Of course, when there was nobody in the building. 21:27 Another event was during the Super sleep that preceded vibe flow their analysis based on the comparisons of randomness, and not the other random number generators. Okay, what is usually done in the global consciousness project is they have, you know, can imagine going to the library and open a book, here's your list of random numbers. Obviously, that exists on a computer now. But there are predetermined sets of this is a random set, mathematically random set. And so they in the global consciousness project sheet, you can't turn off the world and let it run for a week. And then compare with that you have to have this table of truly random things. So they measured the eggs against this table of genuine, certified random numbers. Okay, so the preliminary analysis were all these statistics were really terrific and everything, we're against a table of random numbers, that's important, because we're going to switch that in a minute. So these fantastic concepts of Oh, my goodness, look at how this change was all against this idea of a predetermined set of random numbers. And there were certain assumptions made, you know, like everything went the same way all the time. And it does pretty much the trainer's, you know, follow a schedule. You know, on Wednesday afternoons, they do this, and Tuesday mornings, they do that, and there's a schedule they do. And they're pretty close on their times. And we actually had the trainers logged into the record, you know, at 1135 started program sets and such. And so that was part of the record. And they could sort of line up when people were on that exercise and try to get things organized as best they could over a six day run here. So this is just the depiction of one set of random number generators was here, three different kinds of random number generators, down in the white carpet room down there, hidden, there's a little shelf on top, and they were hidden and tucked behind there. And so you didn't know they were there. And you know, you were sitting around getting your debrief off your exercise, you'd say, oh, man, let's try this out. And this time, you know, because nobody really knew they were there. Of course, they knew now they were there. So that means I never met. And another set over here in the lab, running. And then up here inside the cabin, we had some more running and that's 1.21 miles away, by the way the crow flies. So we had the Nancy Penn zone, the lab zone and the RMR zone. Do it make sense? Okay, so if you think, how were these things counted, if you look at the first analysis, just look at the first 200 bits of data that were taken by the random number generators, compare them with the table of true randomness, you know, just to make sure and it comes out to match you know, within expectation of chance, it turns out to match that table. But if you take 226 million samples, there is a positive deviation at a in the predicted direction. That is, what happening in gateway is very different than the tables of randomness in science. That's okay. By that giant number, right. And there's extract unexpectedly strong negative deviation in the remote sites. Nevermind, we don't know what that means. Then Dean said that they had seen this before, interestingly enough, if there'd be a big earthquake in a certain place that affected all those people, the egg would be up in value didn't matter which way and 1000 miles away, the other one would go the other way. And they're doing just what I'm doing. They're just scratching their head, they're saying, you know, this can't happen. So nobody knows what that means. But look at the statistical things off 100 billion to one chance that this would happen. It doesn't happen. Nevermind. You know, what was it? Tom was saying you flip a coin, you know, nine times in a row, and it comes up heads. And that's like, whoa, that's strange. That's 1000s and 1000s of chances that that would happen. You flip it 20 times. It's like, how many people do you have to have flipping coins for how many years for that to happen by chance? This is like, way beyond that. This just can't happen. So what do you do with this record that you have that says this can't happen? Okay. This is what? Yeah, that's usually this one. I mean, you know, they go up, and they go down. Away from chance. Now, this is a whole week here. These are the days here. Okay, these are the days here. So they kept traveling further and further out and randomness. You know, in my mind, I like to think, because the Unity concept was more developed as time went on, the people were more bonded, they became of one purpose, so forth and so on. It's interesting that in 2004, when these first preliminary results came out, Dean Raiden said, Hey, can you get me a copy that vibe flow? And yet, he himself says, you know, it might not be that one morning, because there are actually three really nice things that happened during that morning. And it's also a cumulative effect of, you know, the people were ripe. They had all these exercises they did and all the sharing they did, and they were really right, by the time vibe flow happens here. So, you know, it's not just that one exercise. Ah, that's the one that's the best one to use. Maybe not. And then he said, Hey, can you give me a copy of that? So that's an interesting perspective. So here, we look up here at the overall difference between the workshops and the district controls. So remember, we're measuring what went on with the ones in the workshops, inside the workshops and the ones that the district controls trillions. Okay. So what's the problem here? It's too good. Okay, it took us seven years to get this published, because of the peer review process. This is too good. This can't happen. Now, interestingly, the peer regroup, peer group review, people were smart. They're saying, The problem here is that it looks as though the methodology is chosen by you, albeit subconsciously, to create these wonderful results. They're not quite going as far as what Tom went to which we'll talk about the rule of tau in a minute. But they're saying that there was a decision made not maliciously, but a decision made to use a set of statistics and a set of analysis rules that made this come out looking so good. Okay. And, I mean, these are scientific, academic credential people that have some respect, have some reputation, have some authority. And I don't think that's bad. I mean, we, if you're seeking someone to do