Paola Harris: I'd like to ask you if it's ok if I tape our interview, because it's better for me to get the exact words from you, and I don't want to misquote you.
Paul H. Smith: That's fine. No problem.
Harris: Right. I don't know if you know how I got your name. Last summer(1999), as I walked past the Boulder Bookstore I discovered a poster, on the window, advertising a talk you were giving. It piqued my interest, so I pulled it off.
Smith: That must have been after I had spoken there?
Harris: Yes. After you had spoken there. It was in August. When I first saw the flyer, I thought, "I'll get hold of him when I get back to Italy." By the way, that was too late, because I would have loved to have attended your presentation. Remote viewing is something I've always been interested in.
Smith: Well, we'll be around for awhile, so you'll have an opportunity, I think, at some point.
Harris: What do you do?
Smith: I teach people remote viewing; that's my job.
Harris: That's become a job now? Is it a spin-off from your military career??
Smith: Yeah. I was of course in the remote viewing unit from 1983 to 1990 for seven years. I retired [from the Army] in 1996. About three or four months after I got out of the Army, I set up a business teaching people how to remote view. Actually, I have several things going on at once. One of the things I do in order to raise money for my other activities is to teach people to remote view. I also do a fair amount of lecturing. My main goal in doing this is not to make money, but to try to correct the misconceptions in people's minds about what remote viewing is. Unfortunately, some of my former colleagues have fostered some of those misconceptions. Another reason I teach and lecture on the topic is to introduce people to remote viewing who have perhaps not heard of it or don't know much about it.
So, my current career with remote viewing is a kind of public outreach . I am also in a graduate program here at the University of Texas. I'm working on a Ph.D. in philosophy. This degree and remote viewing sort of cross walk with each other, as they are somewhat related.
Harris: The thing that you do make money at, is a private remote viewing kind of situation.
Smith: Yeah. I just make myself available to people who want to learn how to remote view and . . .
Harris: They pay you privately?
Smith: Yes. I no longer have any official connection with the Government.
Harris: No. I mean, well, we do have remote viewing here in Italy. We must, first of all, get a definition of remote viewing. If you extended the definition, could it be extended to psychic ability?
Smith: Yes. Remote viewing is a form of psychic ability. Perhaps, remote viewing is a bit stricter in its meaning, but, nonetheless, it's a part of the psychic domain.
Harris: You mentioned that you wanted to change misconceptions people have about remote viewing..
You know the magazine I write for is UFO oriented. I've got to tell you what my stance is. I'm not interested in the Government cover-up, as I think the government cover-ups are a foregone conclusion. I think that that we know that's the way it is, and there nothing that can be done about that. So, it's not my goal to get any kind of secret information from our interview.
I am interested, however, in the Stanford experiments and in Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann. Those were before you started, weren't they?
Smith: Yes. Hal and Ingo got together in 1972. Before '72 they didn't know each other. I don't know how much of this you want, as I can give you a pretty extensive discussion of it.
Harris: You know I'm curious because I talk to Hal all the time. Usually, he just sends me this antigravity stuff, which is not something I understand. You know I want to get into the other material that is more interesting to me.
Smith: Ok. What happened was that Hal was doing some fundamental physics' research for SRI (Stanford Research Institute ) and he got interested in tachyons particles which are theoretical. But if they do exist, they have a potential of going faster than the speed of light, and there is some discussion about them being able to retrograde in time, as well.
So, Hal wanted to find out about that, and he'd heard about a guy named CLEVE BACKSTER who was doing some experiments with plants. You know, hook up a lie detector to a plant and then cut off a leaf or something and see how it reacted. You know, that kind of thing? Cleve thought that maybe there was some way, if that effect was real, some way of using a laser to distress one plant, and then five miles away have a sister plant on a polygraph, and see if there was any effect. And, maybe, if there was, it would be explainable with this tachion theory. So he sent a letter to Cleve Backster outlining what he wanted to do.
It just so happened that Ingo Swann and Cleve Backster were friends, and while Ingo was over at Clive's house one day, an errant gust of wind brushed this letter off the desk onto the floor, right in front of him. And Ingo stooped over and picked it up and said, "What' s this?"
And he read Hal's letter to Cleve and wrote Hal a letter back saying, "Why bother with plants? Why don't we try doing this with human subjects or at least some similar experiments?" Hal agreed. And Ingo went out to SRI and had a very spectacular session on a scientific instrument they were trying to use as a subject. They never did experiment with any plants. They did all of their research from that point on with human subjects. That was how they got started.
Harris: But Ingo is exceptionally sensitive..
Smith: Well, Ingo says that he is not psychic. What he says, in fact, is that his history kind of suggests that he just sort of stumbled into the psychic arena. He was there in New York working for the UN as a translator and interpreter while he was trying to establish his art career. And he just happened to make friends with a bunch of people who were involved in parapsychology research through The American Society of Psychical Research there in New York.
Harris: Were the friends you speak of Heisenberg and Ted Sirios, those people? .
Smith: It would have been, no, it was Janet Mitchell, I think [and others].
Harris: So, in other words, he was working on this idea earlier? He had some idea about this before the two of them joined their research?
Smith: What happened was he met these people. He found out what they were doing and they, for a while, were asking if you want to try being a subject. And he'd say, "No, no, no!" But he started reading about it because he found it interesting. Finally, he agreed to be a subject, but he said there were probably better ways to do this.
He proposed some modification of the experiments which amount to, I guess you would call them pre-remote viewing, something like that before they actually refined the process. Those experiments were very successful and got a lot of notoriety. Ingo said it wasn't because he was a gifted subject. It was just because he opened his mind to a new approach and, you know, like any outsider coming in, often times the specialists, can't see the forest for the trees because they are so immersed in what they're doing. An outsider can come in and make one suggestion that changes the whole landscape. That's sort of what happened here. Now, anybody who works with this is bound to develop some capacity, and so that's what Ingo says. He wrote that he's not a gifted psychic; he just had some ideas and a lot of practice.
Harris: I understand that. I don't understand Uri Geller, though. Because, you know, I know Uri Geller went to Stanford, and I know he did some pretty amazing things because I remember hearing him talk in the '80s about his projects.
Smith: Well, Geller says one thing, and the people at Stanford say something else. He did some things that impressed Hal, but he was never able to do them under controlled conditions. [Point of clarification: Geller demonstrated remote viewing ability in the SRI lab, but failed to demonstrate PK abilities under controlled conditions].
Smith: Hal says that he thinks that Geller has some abilities, but he's just not quite sure about how they manifest, because they, sort of had to do it according to Geller's rules in order for it to work.
Harris: I've got to tell you something, though. I took pictures of Uri Geller, and he completely erased my film. I was really upset. The lab called me and said there was radiation all over my film, and they were so sorry.
Smith: "We'll replace it for free," right?
Harris: Yeah. Exactly. I still have that film, by the way.
Smith: When I talk about Uri Geller, people ask me questions about him. My standard response is "I really think he does have abilities, but as with any PSI ability, it isn't always readily accessible; you can't always access it for whatever reason." And if you go on the lecture circuit, and you're on the Tonight Show or whatever, you've got to perform, you know.
Harris: That's right.
Smith: And so if it doesn't happen to be working that day, you've got to come up with something that does work.
Harris: You got it, now. Exactly. But that's just logical. But getting back to you, how did you get into remote viewing? Were you in the Army, and you volunteered to do this?
Smith: Sort of. I was in the Army. I moved to Fort Meade through some rather kind of convoluted circumstances. I didn't originally intend to be there. And it just happened that I moved in next door to Skip Atwater who was the training and operations officer and across the street from one of their newly recruited sources, as well. My quarters were, maybe, a five minute walk from the office, you know. Of course, I didn't know any of this stuff at the time, as I had been in a Middle East analyst position . . .
Harris: Where you in Vietnam?
Smith: No, there at Fort Meade in Maryland. I had come into another intelligence organization, just to work on Middle East issues.
Harris: Ok. But you were in intelligence then?
Smith: Yes. I had been in the Army for, about six years by then. I'd been an Arab linguist and gone to officer candidate school and various things like that. None of this had anything to do with parapsychology, obviously. So I moved in, and they were, at that time, unbeknownst to me, looking for people with a certain set of criteria, because they had [three] positions to fill. And they were just about to embark on this new training program with Ingo Swann that Ingo called "co-ordinate remote viewing" back then.
They were looking for people, who might work, and I moved in. Their criteria were: successful in career, well-regarded by their supervisors, and other related characteristics. Normal people, basically average to above average intelligence, that kind of thing. Plus, one other factor they were looking for was someone who was involved in areas that were a little unusual for an Army officer, such as, art, music, creative writing, those kinds of things.
Harris: That's very interesting.
Smith: Right. They figured an interest is the arts indicated a right brain propensity, and even though that wouldn't necessarily guarantee the person would be good in their program, that was a screening factor. And they would then give them some evaluations and tests to see if they did come to close to what they were looking for.
So I moved in, and it turned out I was interested in art, languages, music, and creative writing -- all of those areas at once. When they got to know me, the light went on. So they said, "Hmmmmm." And they continued, "Listen! We're in this black program that does some interesting things that we can't tell you about, but we would like to give you some tests to see where you fall, you know. We're recruiting, and if you measure up, we'll offer you the opportunity to volunteer."
I said, "Well, ok. What the heck." You know, you're always looking for something interesting when you're in the Army. So, I took the tests and fell within the parameters they were looking for. The tests were basic personality tests. The program leaders were just looking for certain personality traits that research in the past had shown were . . .
Harris: Were any of the questions "Had unusual things happened in your childhood?" or "Did you have strange dreams?" or any of these types of questions?
Smith: Yes. There was one test which did ask those kinds of questions, but the goal was not to find out if I had weird things happen to me or if I did strange things. That was just part of the personality profile test.
Smith: What they were looking for. . . I don't know if you know. Maybe you do know the Myers Briggs?
Harris: Yes, I do.
Smith: So, Myers Briggs. It is a multi- phase personality test .
Harris: Random abstract thinkers and so forth?
Smith: They gave a lot of different tests. They were all personality and psychological kinds of tests. It turned out that I fell within the parameters they were looking for. And so they invited me in, and said, "Ok. We are going to take you on, and if you decide not to join the organization, you can not tell anybody that you ever heard about this! "So, I said, "Ok."
They said, "We use parapsychological means to conduct intelligence operations against foreign threats. And we want to know if you want to sign up?"
And I said, "Ok. Where do I sign?" I didn't even have to think about it. You know, once I understood what they were talking about, I knew it was something I wanted to do.
But, in anticipation of your next question, up to that point, to my knowledge, I had never had any kind of psychic experience or any kind of near death experience or out of body or any of that stuff. I just had had a pretty much normal life.
Harris: But, see, you didn't interpret it that way. You told me on the e-mail that when you were young, you were, and I remember this, you were . . .
Smith: . . . that I was able to find things. Yes.
Harris: You know that I don't believe in coincidences. I do believe that people are sensitive. And that this sensitivity, probably, your ability to find things, could also help you later on.
Smith: Oh, yeah. I think that correlation you just made is probably true. I would like to add one other thing, though. I think everybody has that ability. Some people can just, sort of intuitively, tune into it. You know, some people are more aware of it, or, you know, it's more sensible to them.
Harris: I agree 100%. Everyone has that ability. And this is a very good thing. This intuitive ability helps people in their everyday lives, if they would consider it a viable lesson or a viable training. I don't think our society considers it that way yet.
Smith: Right. I'm glad you said YET, because one of the things I'm working towards is to make it more acceptable.
Harris: You know, that's why I pulled the pamphlet advertising your talk out of the Boulder Bookstore window. Ah, yes! Because I am very interested in remote viewing, too. Now, to go on, you said that you were in a black OPS program obviously to do . . . And you can't talk too much about any kind of operation that you were involved in?
Smith: Let me correct something here. It wasn't a black OPS program. There are two facets to the military world -- that covert military world. One is operations, and one is intelligence collection. The operations' part, we weren't responsible for that. That falls under an entirely different department in the Army. And so we were involved in, it's just a black. . . and then, of course, that's jargon. . . The two words they use are covert, (and that's operational) and clandestine, (which is intelligence collection).
Harris: Right. Is there any particular incident or anything you CAN talk about that you were involved in then?
Smith: There's actually a fair amount that we can talk about. One story that I do tell many people about is the attack on the U.S.S. Stark, because it's very interesting. It's really not sensitive any more, either. Are you familiar with the attack on the Stark?
Harris: No, but talk about that.
Smith: Ok. What happened was . . . I guess I'll start from the beginning with this story. We have this thing we called a directed search, an open search, where we would be given a coordinate and, of course, we didn't know it was an open search. But they'd give us a coordinate, and the coordinate might stand for something, like "Tell us something important that is going to happen in the next 24 hours," or something like that. We'd go over it . . . We'd think it was just a regular session, which was usually directed against the facility or something. They'd give us the coordinate, and then we'd just describe the impressions we got.
Harris: And the coordinate was like 32 degrees left, 42 degrees, like that kind of coordinate?
Smith: That was the way it used to be. We used to use geographic coordinates, which were, like you said, latitude and longitude. But we discovered there were a couple of reasons not to do that, a couple of problems with that process. One was that the critics said that we would just memorize the places which the coordinates represented. This, of course, in itself, would be a pretty magical thing, anyway because there are billions of possible coordinates.
Harris: That memorizing would be too much trouble.
Smith: But there was a problem in that, once we had gotten enough coordinates, we sort of did get the feel for where in the world we were. So, it might be that we would get the coordinates for the Soviet Union, and we would automatically think of snow and ice and blah, blah, blah. That knowledge would actually get in the way of the viewing.
That was the main reason that they started using random numbers that stood for the actual mission target or mission. And, of course, it wouldn't be made known to the viewer what the mission or target was. The remote viewers would be given the number that stood for a particular target or mission. And then, in some magical way, their subconscious, the viewer's subconscious, would know where to go.
Harris: Yeah. Wow!
Smith: So, the coordinate is really just a random number that is assigned as an address for that mission.
Harris: That's interesting. Ok, go ahead.
Smith: So, anyway, I went over to the office, [or rather] to the operations building where we did all of our remote viewing and I sat down. The monitor gave me the coordinate, which I don't recall; it was just some random set of numbers.
Harris: You said the monitor gave you the random numbers?
Smith: Yeah. There were two people involved. There was the viewer, and then there was the monitor. And the monitor was just to give us the coordinate and make sure we stayed within and followed the proper procedures as we were going through our remote viewing task. There is a set protocol that must be followed.
Harris: Is any of that a briefing?
Smith: In fact, a lot of people would . . . Well, that's a different catch word for that, actually.
The monitor is there to kind of keep an eye on you, and you sit there and go through and describe what you've got. And, in this case, I started describing this vessel going through the water at night. And it was very large. I identified it as some sort of warship. I even had this impression that it was a U.S. destroyer, but I figured that was what we called "analytical overlay"; it was just mental noise getting in the way. So I kind of discounted it. But the happening was definitely at night.
I also got this impression of an aircraft flying along a long ways away. And the aircraft dropped something that was cylindrical and pointed. It had little fins on it and made a kind of roaring, guttering sound. And this thing, kind of flew around aimlessly after it left the aircraft, until, all of a sudden, I had this impression of it coming together with this vessel out in the water. And then there was smoke and fire and flames. I got the impression of people screaming and yelling and there were fire hoses and the fire . . . Then I got this kind of a sudden flash of fire and fire hoses snaking all over the deck of this thing.
Somehow this structure of the thing was leaning to one side. I went through all of the details about what I was seeing. I even described where the aircraft came from -- a land that was flat and sandy and was being directed by people who were a long ways away, in a city that had flat topped houses and was kind of Third World. That was the impression I got, with domestic animals in the streets and stuff like that. I had another impression that the people in this place spoke Arabic, but I discounted that as well, because I've got an Arabic linguistics' background, and I thought that I was just making that up, you know?
Harris: You were using your brain, your logic?
Smith: Yes, exactly. You have to be careful of that on remote viewing.
Harris: I know.
Smith: So, anyway, I gave this whole picture, and when I got towards the end of doing this, the monitor was kind of losing patience. And he said, "Oh. We had better quit here. You're obviously off." Because that wasn't what he was expecting to find out, you know. So we called off the session. It was Friday, and I went home and spent the weekend not thinking about remote viewing.
Early Monday morning, Skip Atwater gave me a call and said, "Hey, Paul, where's that session you did on Friday?"I said, "Oh, you mean that one I blew?"
"Get in here and get it. Didn't you look in the paper this weekend?" he asked.
The paper?" I said. "No." So I got the newspaper, The Washington Post, opened it, and on the front page I read the headline: U.S. frigate attacked by Iraqi missile in the Gulf, or something like that. The U.S.S. Stark had been sailing along when an Iraqi Mirage had fired a missile at it. It turned out actually the missile hit the frigate which was on the verge of sinking. Thirty-seven Americans had been killed and all kinds of terrible stuff happened. When I went back and matched the session with the actual event, I was pretty amazed. It wasn't until several years later that I was actually able to see the after action report. I had not reported one single false statement in that entire session. It was one of the cleanest remote viewings I had ever done. It was very surprising.
Harris: What year was that about?
Smith: It was 1987, May of '87. The interesting thing was that I had reported this event about 50 hours before it actually happened. It was quite an impressive sort of a thing.
Harris: You weren't remote viewing, though, Paul, when you did that. You were predicting.
Smith: It's still called remote viewing. It's just precognitive remote viewing, "JUST" precognitive remote viewing.
Harris: Another word for it is clairvoyance, in a funny kind of way.
Smith: You have to understand. Remote viewing does involve clairvoyance. Remote viewing is kind of like, I like to call it a cocktail of different things. It involves clairvoyance, it involves clair-audience, it involves, if you want to call it that, clair-smelling, you know. All of the senses are involved in remote viewing.
Harris: No, I understand. The only thing is, you were saying how a person could be trained to do this. But I'm not sure that everybody could be trained to know ahead of time. They could be trained to, probably, kind of like a radio wave, report what's happening simultaneously, or whatever. But, in advance?
Smith: Well, here's the catch. You can't think about this in terms of radio receivers and senders and radio waves and stuff. Because there's evidence to indicate that it can't be a send-and-receive kind of a thing.
Smith: It's somehow tapping into the fundamental basis of reality. Exactly how that is, I'm exploring. But I don't know if I'll ever come up with an actual answer to it.
Harris: May I ask you a question? Does it have to do with time?
Smith: Oh, yeah. In a way. For example, we do past viewing all the time. Accessing the past is the same as accessing the present.
Smith: The future is a bit harder to do. In fact, this [Stark session] was a little unusual.
Harris: It really was unusual.
Smith: Because, and this is my theory. People argue with me all the time, but my theory is that the future does not actually exist yet. What we have are various possible futures out there, any one of which can be activated by certain decision nodes being tripped, you know?
Harris: So you have a Richard Bach type idea here?The author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Illusions.)
Smith: Could be. I don't know. I know [the general idea is] not original with me, but, as far as my experience, it makes a lot of sense.
Harris: There are several possible futures Bach talks about in his books. But, that's a time problem. That's just what I asked.
Smith: Yes. And what happens is, the farther out you go, the less likely you are to get the right one. It becomes kind of a problematic thing. Right? Now, if you're lucky, you may pick up the right [future], or if it's an event that lays across a number of time lines, you increase the possibility that that one will be what happens. Right?
Harris: Right.The future can be changed by changing decisions.
Smith: And, also, the closer in you get, the more likely you are to be accurate. So, when you get people trying to predict the future of 30 years out, they're almost certain to be wrong, unless they are remote viewing some major event, some major thing that covers a lot of time lines.
Harris: What do you mean by the closer in?
Smith: The closer in time. For example, . . .
Harris: It's easier to remote view events of tomorrow than it is 30 years out?
Smith: Exactly. It's more likely that you will get it right, if it's tomorrow, than if it's 30 years out. But, you know, I don't know. There are still a lot of unsolved issues with this. The fact is that the future is, to some degree, accessible. A trained remote viewer will be on target somewhere between 60 and 80% of the time in any given session he does. And of that 60-80% of the time, he will be very accurate about 50% of the time. Ok?
Smith: But, if you go to the future, that % goes down. I figure that only about 20% of the time, do you get valid information about a future that actually materializes. And it might not even be that good. So, it just happened that I beat the odds on this one event -- the U.S.S.Stark.
Now, there are exceptions to this; there are ways of remote viewing where you remote view your feedback in the future, and that's a closed feedback loop, and that is accurate, quite accurate, in fact, that's very, very accurate.
Harris: A closed feedback loop? Ok. Will you explain that one to me?
Smith: For example, there is this technique called associative remote viewing, or ARV is how they abbreviate it. And they, Hal Puthoff and his crew out in California, used it actually to raise money for a non-profit school that they wanted to fund. They went for the Silver Futures Market. Ok? So, all they needed to know was whether it was going up. Was the Silver Futures Market going to go up or going to go down. And they had an investor who was going to buy if it was going up and sell if it was going to go down.
Now, in order to make remote viewing assist with this, what they did was, they might pick two objects. One stood for the market going up, and one stood for it going down. So, let's say a pencil and a hammer. I think that's usually what Hal uses as his example.
So, a remote viewer is supposed to describe what object he is going to be handed the day after the Silver Futures' transaction takes place.
Ok. So we're on day one, when the viewer is going to do the session. Day two is when the investor is going to decide whether to buy or sell. And day three is when the remote viewer is going to be told the results of his session. So, then, now, it's probably a little confusing. But I'll talk you through it, and we'll see how it goes.On day one, they say, we want you to tell us to describe the object that we're going to hand you on day three. And so the remote viewer, let's say, he says, "Well, it's long and yellow and wooden and pointed." And, so, obviously, he's describing the pencil rather than the hammer. Right?
So, they have decided the pencil stands for the Markets' going to go up. And so you want to buy.
Pencil means buy; hammer means sell. Ok?
He described the pencil, so they purchased Silver Futures on day two. And, sure enough, the market went up on day two. And that's what the pencil stood for. For the market going up. So, on day three, see, the remote viewer so far doesn't know anything about any of this stuff. He just knows what he described. On day three, they hand him the pencil and say, "This is the object, that's your feedback." And he gets the pencil, and it matches his description. He now has his closed loop. Right? So, he's basically sending himself information from the Future.
Smith: Are you confused?
Harris: Yeah. No, no. I get it. It's just using representations for what really is.
Smith: Well, it's only a . . . it's a symbol to indicate whether it's going up or down.
Harris: Were they pretty successful?
Smith: Yes. Yes, they were. They made $25,000 in 30 days.
Smith: Actually, they made more than that. What happened was that this investor said, "I'm going to invest. I'm not going to donate money to you. I'm going to invest according to what you tell me, and then I'll give you a percentage of my profits." So, they got $25,000, which was, I don't know what percentage, but if it was half, then, actually, they made $50,000 at that time.
Harris: Well, this is a whole other thing. We could get into a whole other discussion about people doing this kind of thing. (using remote viewing for personal profit/gain.)
But, I want to come back to you, because I'm interested in this process and because I have some questions about you and remote viewing.
You just mentioned this particular incident you were involved with. Were you involved also in finding out if people were guilty or innocent, in any kind of incident?
Harris: For instance, who the terrorists were in a certain situation?
Smith: No, we didn't do that. What they wanted us to do in terrorist situations was to do some prediction on that. And it didn't work. Well, if it did work, it worked too well. But, you know, if you predict something and they do something about it, it might stop the event from actually happening. Right? And then . .
Harris: Yes, but that's more than predicting. I am using the word predicting,because you are using the word predicting. It's really verifying. For instance, verifying that, I don't know, verifying who shot the Pope.
Smith: No. We didn't do that kind of stuff. I was telling you the kind of stuff we did with terrorism was . . One was prediction, which didn't work very well, and the other one was trying to locate, like hostages and stuff, which sometimes worked, sometimes didn't. No, we didn't get into verifying if someone was guilty or not. That's very problematic, because, first of all the courts wouldn't accept this as evidence.
Harris: I know. Never. All that's a whole other world and a whole other area.
Smith: Right. And, you know, plus you're getting into, kind of . . . It gets so subtle at that point, you know, trying to discriminate one human being from another that . . .
Harris: The next obvious question, and I have to ask you this, but you don't have to answer it, is "Was there mind control involved in remote viewing, too?
Smith: No, no.
Harris: I know I've heard stories, you know, the famous Summit Conferences where there were many people working on remote viewing or mind control in the other room, trying to get the important dignataries to sign peace agreements and other such stories.
Smith: Yeah. The rumors are, in fact, there are some substantiation to the rumors, that the Soviets were doing that kind of stuff. But, we were not doing that. Remember I told you about the difference between OPS and intel. collection? That would be an OPS responsibility, an operations' responsibility, and we would not be doing that stuff. Now, there have been people who claimed we did. In fact, I think Dave Morehouse in his book claimed that we did that. But we didn't. We did not get involved in that. That was not part of our charter, and, in fact, we felt that there were ethical problems with it.
Harris: Yeah. There are. Because you are controlling someone's decision making process.
Smith: Yeah. Well, I don't know. In an operational setting, somebody might have tried to do that, but that would have been an entirely different domain than the one we were in.
Harris: And you probably couldn't talk about it if you did do it. Not that you would, but I don't think the people that . . .
Smith: . . . that were doing it would talk about it?
Harris: Yeah. Because, the thing is, it could be for the benefit of mankind. There's a lot of things that could be done for a" just "cause. You know, the end justifies the means, type of thing.
Smith: Remote viewing is like any kind of technology: it has two edges. It could be very positive or it could be very negative, depending on how people apply it.
Harris: Exactly. Now, tell more about this training that you do do for people, you know, the remote viewing training. That was your career; so you have extensive training in that, also because it was you job. How does the training you do now for people enhance their lives?
Smith: That's actually a question that often gets asked. In fact, on my web page (www.rviewer.com), I have a paper way down deep somewhere that discusses why people learn it. I explain it this way. I compare it to parachute jumping, to a free fall, or whatever. You know, there are uses for parachute jumping. You can put military people into a situation; you can use it for para-rescuing; you can use it to put people into forest fires to put them out. You can drop supplies in some area that's been hit where there are no bridges and stuff. You can use it for a lot of practical reasons.
But, by far, the largest number of people who jump with parachutes are people who do it just for the heck of it. And that's the way it is with remote viewing. It could potentially be very -- has been -- very useful, in solving crimes and finding missing people and all that kind of thing.
Harris: Do you get this kind of feedback from people that you train?
Smith: I really haven't had many who wanted to learn remote viewing for practical uses or what you would call practical uses. They do it because it enhances them personally. They do it for self-realization, self-actualization. They're more than they were after they have taken the training than when they started, or, at least, they realize more about themselves. They have done something that society claims they can't do, and they prove to themselves that they can do it.
Harris: Right. I guess that's a good enough reason. The self-awareness one is the obvious one, especially with today's New Age kind of thinking. Going on, I was going to ask you specifically about Italy. The question I was going to ask you earlier about Italy, in general, was about earthquakes and volcanoes and such here. We've had two little earthquakes around Mount Vesuvius, here in Naples.
Smith: Oh? That didn't make the news over here.
Harris: No? I know. I'm telling you this. Naturally, I am curious. I was just wondering, if activity inside the earth here is good, because it's been predicted that this volcano is going to blow. I'm about three hours away from it in Naples. Can anything be done about looking at that to see if there is a problem here?
Smith: Well, you could. Of course, this is a future viewing. So you won't know . . .
Harris: Yeah. But it's happening daily here. We had one on Saturday; we had two today, little, teeny, but, earthquakes. Earthquakes under volcanoes are no fun!! It's not . . .
Smith: Particularly when they start getting more frequent and more intense . . . That suggests that there's something going on.
Harris: Yes There is nothing that can be done, I'm sure.
Smith: Move to Switzerland.
Harris: I thought about Switzerland. I'm curious about the earlier predictions. Did the remote viewers simply see the volcanoes going off? But, you know, WE (U.S.? or ITALY?) have a military base there. We have the GAETA the naval base, and, for sure, theNavy is aware of the predictions and are working on this issue. You know, I don't know what impressions remote viewers might get or whether they could ever even visualize what was happening here . . . It's also hard to ask you that, because, because you're just on the phone.
Smith: Well, here's how it might be done. . . . This is actually probably useful. This is how you would set up a remote viewing on whether a large, harmful event was going to happen or not. First of all, it would be best if you had two or three viewers, none of whom knew anything about the project. If the first thing you say to them is, "We want to know if the volcano is going to erupt or not." Bing! Everything they know about volcanoes is brought back into their mind by memory. And this prior knowledge by suggestion really contaminates what they 're going to do.
One of the prerequisites for remote viewing is that the viewers cannot know, up front, what the target is.
Harris: That's good to know. Ok.
Smith: That is very important.
Harris: Right. Then the remote viewers can't and don't put their personal experiences or conclusions on the present task.
Smith: . . . conclusions. Exactly. Yes That's exactly right. f you ever see anybody doing a remote viewing, and they claim something is going to happen, and, by the way, some of my own colleagues are really good at this. . . and they claim something is going to happen . . .
Be sure you always ask, "What was the task?"
Harris: Ok. How would you do that, though, Paul. Give me an example.
Smith: Ok. Let's work with your volcano here. Of course, this is future, and so it's one of . . .
There are two difficult problems with remote viewing: [What we call] "Search" and "Future." Both of those are [nearly] intractable, but they can still be successfully done. For your volcano project, I would get, let's say three viewers, none of whom know what the target is. I would take a number, let's say, take today's date and then add a project number -- 991011329. Let's say that stands for the mission, which is -- to describe the condition of Mount Vesuvius on, let's say, a week from now. Ok? -- On Oct 18. That's the mission.
All the remote viewers are given is the number, and then they will start describing what they see. Let's hope they will say: tall, hard, rocky, mountainous, mountain peak, flame, smoke, heat, hot. You know? If you get that kind of response from the viewers that suggests fairly strongly that the volcano is going to erupt.
Harris: Only the person that is training the remote viewer knows what the actual subject is?
Smith: Right. In fact, the person who is working with the viewer should not know what the subject is either.
Harris: The monitor?
Smith: Yes The monitor shouldn't know either. The one who knows . . . We have three levels. We have the viewer, who does the work, the actual viewing; we have the monitor, who helps direct it; and then we have the tasker, who knows what the project is and assigns the number. All that person does is give the monitor the number, not telling him what the subject is. The monitor then takes that number and goes to the viewer; together, they work the session. The monitor will take the results of the session back to the tasker and simply say, "This is what we reported."
The tasker might say, "Ok. You are on the right track. Go ahead and tell some more." And that is all he would say.
Harris: You know, that's totally amazing. You are really teaching me a lot here. I never knew remote viewing went that way. I honestly thought that a task was given. This procedure you explained is all new to me. This is interesting. The procedure makes the process of remote viewing more valid, because there is not any contamination.
Harris: Is this what you do with the audience? You give them, like a number, and you tell them what it was supposed to be?
Smith: Yes. What I do is, I have three targets, rather four targets, sealed in opaque envelopes. I know what those targets are, but I don't know which one is in which envelope.
Harris: So, you are holding an envelope?
Smith: No. It goes more than that. I let a member of the audience pick one of those envelopes.
Smith: I let a person from the audience keep that envelope, and I have him/her write the coordinate on it. And what I do is, we go with the date. Again, we use the date -- 991011. Then I might say, "Write OA on that to designate that particular envelope and the target that is represented in it. So I don't know what the target is either. I know it is one of four, but I have no idea which one of four. The person in the audience continues to hold the envelope. I then put the coordinate up, and they all write it down. Then they give their impressions of what they think it is.
Harris: And it works pretty well?
Smith: It works pretty well. Of course, in that setting in the audience, I don't tell them this up front, but that's one of the worst settings in which to do a remote viewing. It is in a group setting, they have been sitting there for an hour-and-a-half, and they are tired. You know, all of the members of the audience have all this stuff going on and through their minds that I've been talking to them about. Thus, clear, accurate remote viewing is harder to do. They are neither relaxed nor in a good quiet setting.
Harris: With this private practice you have, do you do one on one training?
Smith: Yes! I will train up to three people at once, but what I do is, I lecture to all of them in a group. And then I take turns taking them one at a time and working through sessions.
Harris: You are located in Texas, now, right? Do you do this training anywhere else?
Smith: If there is enough interest, I will go somewhere else. Although I have . . .
Harris: How long is a session? How long is the training?
Smith: Four days. Do you mean, how long was actual training I was given by the Army? In fact, it took us 18 months to get up to speed in this remote viewing.
Following some of Ingo's lead, I managed to get my program down to three, four-day sessions. My sessions are divided into three: basic, intermediate, and advanced.
Harris: That's what I was going to ask you.
Smith: The training days are very intensive. People come out of there shell shocked when they are finished.
Harris: I do understand. You know, I am curious as to why people take remote viewing training classes. Why ? Is it all for self-realization ?
Smith: For the most part. There are people who wish to use it in the civilian sense and operationally. But, in order to really get good at that, people have to go all the way up through the three levels. Most people are satisfied with the basic course, because it gives them successes and a consistent skill level at which they can continue to practice. But, to really get all the bells and whistles which allow you to do remote viewing more reliably and to get the real details and stuff, you really do have to take the intermediate course and go up through the advanced course.
Smith: I don't know if you're interested in my bio. You can look up some of my vitae on my website, under Paul H. Smith. My web site has all of that personal and professional information.
Harris: I guess we can pull that off. I think we can do that.
Smith: I can send you a photo that Robert Knight the famous music industry photographer, took. But I don't know whether or not I can let people use it.
Smith: In fact I'm working on a presentation in remote viewing and UFOs.
Harris: Oh, you are? Wow! Really quickly, what can you tell me about that? I am going to finish this up here.
Smith: In fact, I'm surprised you didn't ask me about UFOs yet.
Harris: With everything, Paul, this interview could go on for another two hours, at least. Everything you have to say is so interesting.
Smith: In fact, I'll send you a couple of e-mails of other things I've said about UFOs. Basically, it will brief you on my philosophy on the topic.
First of all, I accept, obviously that there are UFOs. Whatever they are is something that's on many people's minds. I actually do believe that there is life on some other planets and that the beings from that planet or those planets are probably interacting with us in some way. I am cautious about what portion that I accept because there is a lot of baloney out there, obviously. But I have participated in a number of remote viewings, some credibly done and some not so credibly done, looking at UFOs.
I was a sub-contractor, actually a contractor for PSI TECH, Ed Dames's outfit, for a number of years, until it just got so weird I just had to get out of it.
Harris: Have you ever remote viewed an extraterrestrial (ET) being?
Smith: No, not to my knowledge.
Harris: Not to your knowledge?
Smith: No. Although I have remote viewed artifacts. At least they seemed to be alien artifacts, like space ships and stuff like that.
Harris: If some extraterrestrial races look like us, you wouldn't be able to say whether you were remote viewing them could you?
Smith: Possibly, but not superficially. I mean, if you just happened on another entity you might not be able to determine unless you really went into it whether it was another human or not . . .
Harris: Or if it was an entity? of this place or not?
Harris: You and your Mormon background are very interesting to me, Paul. When you were talking about your doctorate in philosophy, that interests me, too, because you have a background that is very, very dense. Your degree in philosophy should allow you to tie together some of these pieces to the puzzle. Which is probably where you are going.
Smith: Yes That's why I'm doing an advanced degree in philosophy. Yeah.
Harris: I am very interested in what you have to say. You are extremely sincere, and I thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me and for granting me this interview.
Smith: That would be great, and I would be happy to respond. Right now my computer is sick; I tried to upgrade my operating system last night and it killed it. So I'm trying to figure out how to fix that. But that's a temporary inconvenience.
Harris: I'll keep in touch, though. Is there anything you want from us, other than a copy of this story, anything here?
Smith: Not right now. I'll be excited to see the magazine with the printed interview. I do actually have a couple of people in my church ward here who know Italian. They went on missions to Italy and learned Italian while they were there, so maybe I can get them to translate the article for me.
Harris: OK. I thank you so much for the interview. I am looking forward to this summer. If I can get the money together I would definitely like to do take your remote viewing course. It would be better for me if I could take the training with three people. Do you know three people in Colorado . . .
Harris: Yes, I would like to do that because it's a kind of destiny. I am a destiny believer. I'd like to see where to go with this, you know, especially in my work, too with the investigations that I am doing. And it's all tied up with philosophy, so I'm not surprised that you are looking at the philosophy
And I think that the search for anything that is extraterrestrial or beyond us is a search for ourselves.
Smith: There is probably some truth to that, actually. Yeah. Actually, there's a lot of truth in that. The search for truth is really what it all boils down to.
Harris: Well, we'll have to see what happens. Thank you SO much for the time and the interview. We'll keep in touch.
Smith: Ok. Great! I enjoyed talking with to you.
Harris: Bye, bye.