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

something for you, you know, you want to have someone that has a reputation of being successful. When you write a book and you want to get it to a publisher, you hire an agent to represent you to the publishers, the publishers have come to learn to trust certain agents, and that these people have really taken it seriously. And we're willing to take it to the publisher, because this agent says, Good, these stupid authors, you know, they're just authors. They don't know anything. Yeah, diamond doesn't authors. Yeah. So it's the same thing here, when you're getting something published, and you have a peer review thing. It's, it's really an honest, genuine attempt to publish good science. And we'll stop there. Over the years, things get, you know, perverted a little bit. But that's genuinely the attempt here. So 31:14 they wouldn't allow us to publish the results. So there's arguing back and forth about Well, look, here's some data, here's some events that happened, here's the data on it, what will you allow us to publish. And the first thing was no fair using the random tables of genuine random numbers that we've always accepted in the past, no fair using those, you have to use your controls, you must measure the difference between the actual controls you measured between the what went on, in the eight weeks when people didn't occupy the building, versus what happened. During the 14 weeks when people did occupy the building, you're only allowed to use your own control stuff. So that sort of eliminated the possibility that there people came in with an electronic charging them and buzzed the electronics on it. And of course, in the paper, it's all that's been tested. And you know, but at any rate, that was one thing. You know, there's other considerations about skip did it. He was the one that went and turned on the computers. And he has a vested interest in the Monroe Institute doing well. So it was Skip's powerful mind that was able to make this. And it was so powerful that he was able to raise them during programs and lower them after the 32:44 So at any rate, you know, that meant I had to get up early in the morning and make sure they were turned on. So I wasn't all that enthusiastic. But. So the idea, then we must use our own stuff, right, and can't use the random tables, we must use our own controls. So this is the overall result. Okay? This is the only result that they would let us publish in a bell curve, this is where things should have happened. That's where they did happen. And this finally made it through the peer review committee. The idea being that all things being equal on a bell curve, everything should have averaged out to be within the normal bell curve. And that's Oops, I'm sorry. And that's where they did wind up down here. Okay, so it took seven years to get this published. And this is a very interesting situation. I think we were waiting for Tom actually, you know, in a larger sense, we were waiting for Tom because we're gonna look at this through Tom's eyes, or what I see through Tom's eyes. Anyway, here in just a minute. Okay, so what did we find out in this study? We took some, we took some random people, we took people that came to the gateway. And we measured this fee field of randomness, by random number generators changing while they were here, there's some question about whether that really happened, but we do have some data. Okay. And we this really did happen and when they left the building for eight weeks, it was really different than when they were in there, maybe until we get over to Tom's world. So it's an interesting situation and during the overall correlation was point O A, during control periods. It was point seven, four. So what we would expect by chance, okay, so the eight weeks when we have everything turned on came out by chance expectation, the 14 weeks Then we had people in there, it exceeded chance expectation of changing the randomness. And the distant locations also produced random data. Okay, so they didn't let us publish all the other stuff. That's okay. Because we didn't know what was going on anyway, it's just there's the data, what are you gonna do with it? You know, kind of a thing. Okay. So didn't I have a nice short talk? Wasn't that wonderful? Until I got in the shower this morning. So let's talk about this. Let me try to talk about this. And I asked Tom to stay to help here. The way this happened mechanically is I go turn on the data at turn on the recorders on before noon, on the Saturday when people arrive, okay, so I had recordings from noon, Saturday when people arrive to noon, Friday, when they left, okay. And then that data was put in a file and saved to a disk. And every three or four programs, I would send discs to Dean. And every three or four months later, Dean would get around to mushing the data. Okay, so before we understand that timeline, let's look back at some of the things that Tom talked about. People try to measure psychokinesis in the past, meaning they set two random number generators running right. And they paint one green, they paint one red, and they go up here in the future to your friendly PK psychic, and they say, change the randomness of the red generator. Okay, and then they check the data. And sure enough, it was changed. Oh, my goodness, you change the past, right? But if they do that same experiment in the lab technician sneaks in and looks at the data without telling anybody this assumption fails, Hey, you didn't change the data? Oh, you aren't as good as you thought you were PK doesn't work backwards in time. And Tom says, let's look a little bit at actually what's going on there. This, since this data was not examined, remember, when the photons go through the slits, they are everywhere, every when until we observe them and measure them. Okay. So since the data had not been observed or measured, okay. When you came up here, you have to ask yourself, Is this decision argumentation theory? Or is it the intent? When you do the analysis, you have an expectation and intent that it will have changed? And it does. Sure enough, you analyze the data, which in your thumb, brain think is the result of what went on back here? Because it sure sounds like that. And it sure looks like I'm separate from you. And what went on back there that was meant to happen. And it sure seems like that was going on. But Tom is telling us, it's indeterminate until you observe the data. The photons are shooting through there. And they're going everywhere, every when you're in quantum non collapse, tell the AI can function. You observe it. And what you observe is based on your intent, you remember the staring experiments that were done, and then they were replicated by the skeptic. And they did the exact same protocols and the skeptic always got non non effect not statistically significant. But the Paris psychologist, what's your name out it? Yeah, Maryland, Maryland, out it ions now. That was sort of her specialty. And she seemed to always get results. Tom says, Be careful. Because your assumption that you've collected this data along here. Okay. And that what you're about to examine, has any connection to what went on back there is sort of questionable. No, I think you ended Tom by saying your intent can change it within the parameters of chance expectation, is that correct? Okay. 39:52 expectations can build 39:55 over time. Yeah. Okay. So if you chose correctly, then that makes it easy. sure to choose correctly the next time. And so when I draw my little chart, it really does go out the window. So what we're saying then is maybe the what's really happening in this? How did you phrase it? In this probability reality? What's really happening in this probability? Reality is when we examine the data, our intent is what creates our outcome of the data. And is only slightly maybe not, I don't know, I can't figure it out related to what we thought we were measuring. Okay. So in my case, when Dean and I were doing this experiment, we thought we had it squared away, right? So I, Saturdays, I measured this and I collect three or four gateways, I put them on a disk, I send them off to Dean, three or four months go by Dean accumulates and takes a look at the data after he has a grad student mush it together, and looks at. So it's kind of the same thing, in that the real experiment sort of happened backwards in time. And we're making an assumption that the information that I'm about to analyze has some relevance to what happened back there. 41:34 You don't want to throw everything out. You don't want to have a baby after death. Why remain we all experience mental coherence in a group, we all know when everyone's on the same wavelength, say always just you measuring it you influence the data we measured, it ignores the fact that 41:47 people in that group might have done something 41:52 you setting off or close to him. 41:57 It's a matter of, it's a matter of creating things out of there were patients in the hospital, at that time, they did produce data, and something did happen to them all. That's all that's true. What you're doing is modifying the results of data that are still in the future that haven't gotten the results, consistent results of that data yet, your intent, probabilities, and other data comes out. So what you end up with is a reality where surprise of all surprises, everything is connected. It's not a simple cut and dry, we were all pigeonholes, and we're not all one, we really don't often connect everything else. So it's 42:45 not just skip, who created it was his connections to everyone in that class. Right. 42:51 It's all it's all part of it. So it's not a simple thing. So the skip just created on his own. It was a combination of everything that happened, all the players that were involved in it, their expectations, their tents, including the people that were there, and the gateway program, it all kind of comes together. And at the end SKU has data that still unknown, it's still in the future yet that they it hasn't settled down. And it still can be influenced. It's been influenced all along by all these things. But now he can still influence it even more, because the measurement hasn't been made as to what that data is. So that's just another influence to be added with all the other influences that go in there. No, skip isn't going to change that data by a mouse outside of what the uncertainty was. Unless you do that in in layers, 43:47 as time goes by. And they and the issue here though, is we are driven by our semantic limitations to talk about this in terms of time space, about a world. It's not time space. So it's hard to get our watch some movie they called us humans, the guys with a little brains. It's sort of hard to get our little brains around this. And when you design the science experiment, you expect everything to behave in Newtonian way. You know, you've all heard about Joe mcmoneagle, doing his wonderful remote viewing demonstrations on television live where they shuffle the envelopes and roll the dice and go out to the thing. And you ask Joe Well, how did you do on that? He says, Well, I did it in my bedroom at home long before any of that happened. And they're like, pretty amazed that he did the remote viewing and then they're like, but how can you do it before we roll the dice? That's just some A game along the way, the target is still going to be the target you're going to so I'll just remote view it now you can roll your dice later, you know. 45:11 Different people in relation to Monaco have different relationships to time. That's true. So when you have a gifted observer, one of the things that I think maybe you're pulling your hair about there very few people actually, Yorker who have enough courage to look at Eugene Wigner work. And Eugene Wigner got the Nobel Prize, because he has said, essentially, no science is