Tom Bearden – Excalibur Briefing


#Excalibur Briefing Book, by Tom Bearden, extracts from

Table of Contents
Foreword by John White- Introduction to Second Edition – Introduction to First Edition

Part One: A Sampling of Specific Paranormal Phenomena
– The Vestigia Mystery Light Experiment – Unexplained Generation of Electricity – Hyperfield Generation of Photon Patterns About A Bar Magnet Collector – Hyperfield Circulation Patterns Above a Magnetized Railroad Track – The Cyborg Effect and Orthorotational Sensitivity – Additional Factors Consistent with the Vestigia Experiment
Remote Viewing (see below)
– The Moray Radiant Energy Device
– An Atlantean Power Crystal? – The Crystal Skull – Metal Bending – Thought Photography: Stella Lansing – The Displacement Effect – Pavlita’s Psychotronic Generators – Cell-like Invisible Tulpoidal Forms
– UFOs : – Black Ring UFO –
Anchor Patterns (see below)
– Bifringement – UFOs in Water – UFOs in Clouds – UFO Seen by the Author – The Dennis Billings UFO Sighting – The Second Billings UFO Sighting – The Pascagoula UFO Sighting -Other UFOs
– Falkville Spaceman – Men-in-Black- Sasquatch – UFOs Over the Soviet Union – The Sighting Over Petrozavodsk – French Experiments with Psychotronics – Dowsing – The Strobe Effect – Kirlian Photography – Interaction of Biofield Thought and Spark Discharge- Kervran Effect – Psychic Surgery – A Deliberate Experiment with Kindling. – Fay Clark’s “Fireflies” – “Foo” Fighters
Water Monsters (see below)
– Cattle Mutilations – Big Mama

Part Two: A Theoretical Background for Understanding PT, UFOs, and Psi Phenomena, (see below) – Some Unexplained Mysteries of Physics – Uri Geller – My Approach to Psychotronics – Reality as a Paranormal Bridge with Two Ends – A Fundamental Correction to Classical Logic – A Physical Example – New Definition of Zero – Einstein’s Postulate – Synchronicity of Concepts
Primitive Perception (see below)
– Two-Slit Experiment
Photon Quenching of the Paranormal (Time) Channel. (see below)
Raindrop Model of Quantized Change. (see below)
Kindling Effect (see below)
Bioenergy Collectors (see below)
Psychometric Effect (see below)
– All Mass Is Charged: Everything Is Electrical
– A Funny Thing About Electromagnetic Field.
– Extinguishing Electrical Currents.
– Death Transmission Via the Paranormal Channel.
– Disease and Death Induction
– Dynamic Thought Constructs: Biofield Mechanisms
– Radionics
– Psychotronic Devices: A Simple Space (Quiton) Amplifier
– Typical Hieronymus Device
– Another Kind of Hieronymus Device and the Inceptive Cyborg Effect
– Probability: Throw of a Die
– Negative Time
– Time Oscillation, Quantum Change, and Mass – Mass Is a Time-Differentiation – Reality Is Like an Opossum – Biofield Concepts – Mass, Force, and 3-D Frame Rotation – Mass is Rotation of Hyperspatial Flux – Jitter or Dither Modulates the Primary Flux – The Untold Story of Quarks – Einstein’s Spherical Model of the Cosmos – A Charged Particle Is a Dual Closure of the Universe – Adding and Subtracting Dimensions – Mind Is Objective – The Skin Transducer Effect: Turning a Thing into Its Opposite – Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics – Spacetime Curvature Is Tricky – Multiple Realities (Many Worlds) – Clustered Orthogonal Worlds – Crosstalk Between Multiple Realities – Biofields: And Maverick Worlds – Hyperfield Flux in a Magnetic Field
– Life and Death
– The Holographic Hyperchannel Effect – Mind Linkage – Angels, Imps, and UFO Tulpas – Dreams and Unresolved Conflicts – Ghost Rockets and Flying Saucers: Materialized Tulpoids

Part Three: New Military Applications of Psi Research
– Background to Psychotronic Research in the US and the USSR – Psychotronic Background Since WWII – Electron Dissolution – The Contactee Wave and Cattle Mutilations – Radiation of the US Embassy – Disease and Death Transmission – Other Weapons – Hyperspace Howitzer Operation – A Possible Operational Test of Psychotronic Antiaircraft Weapons – Population Conditioner – A Midcourse ABM System – The Bell Island Incident – A Terminal ABM System – Sweep Mode, Sweeping Away a Nuclear Detonation – Zarg, Armageddon, and Linkage – Virtual States and Hyperspaces – Feynman Diagrams
– Nature of an Electromagnetic Wave
– Neutrinic Longitudinal Polarization Waves – A New Look at Modulation – Hyperspatial Aspects of Modulation
– The Eureka Concept
– Biophotons and Virtual EM Field of a Bio-organism
– The Priore Machine
– The Neurophone
– Soviet “Woodpecker” Signals

Part Four: Soviet Phase Conjugate Directed Energy Weapons
– Weapons That Use Time-Reversed Electromagnetic Waves
– Glossary- Bibliography

# Remote Viewing

In a classic series of carefully controlled experiments at SRI International, physicists Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ have shown that the human mind can produce evidence of its ability to see at a distance, and also to anticipate the future.

In their protocol one experimenter goes to a distant target, which is selected randomly for him en route, and a subject in the laboratory tries to describe the target scene, both orally and by sketching on paper. The experimenter in the field uses a random number generator to select one sealed envelope out of a group held by a controller accompanying him. The selected envelope is then opened, and that target becomes the target for the experiment. The targets are preselected with rigorous protocol by a group not involved in the experiment.

In the experiment shown here, the target selected was a rather unusually shaped playground merry-go-round, with handrails made of bent pipes, as shown in the two photographs. The laboratory subject, in addition to describing the scene verbally, made the sketches shown at the right. As can be seen, the channel is noisy, but there is definitely signal in it.

Puthoff and Targ also obtained some of the best experimental results when the laboratory subject was asked to describe the scene which the field team would see in the future, the target selection via random number generator not yet having been made. A wide variety of subjects—including persons hostile to parapsychology—were used by Puthoff and Targ in their experiments, with good results.

Each particle of mass in our bodies represents one closure of the entire universe—yielding a holographic reality—and deeper communication with ourselves is identical to communication with the universe, including any part of it, at any distance. Furthermore, in hyperspace the future and the past are all present. Since a particle does indeed exhibit a four-dimensional component for 1/137 of the time, each particle does connect to the future and to the past. With selective tuning and kindling any part of the holographic reality is accessible. However, because of the smallness of a single selective signal in the midst of the totality, the channel is quite noisy. For this reason skilled psychics—persons who have been found to have a greater fidelity of selective tuning—can be expected to produce better results than the normal person.

Puthoff and Targ’s results have also been successfully repeated by other experimenters.

# 2. Anchor Patterns, – Bifringement – UFOs in Water – UFOs in Clouds – UFO Seen by the Author – The Dennis Billings UFO Sighting – The Second Billings UFO Sighting – The Pascagoula UFO Sighting -Other UFOs

One of the interesting aspects of combined orthorotation into our normal three-dimensional space and out of it from hyperspace is an anchorlike pattern, shown in the next four pictures.

Photo 1 was taken by Ira Maxey, and it shows several tulpoidal forms, which are intersecting our frame in a white or photon-emitting anchorlike pattern. The curved part of the anchor pattern is due to the spinning or orthogonal rotation, and the shaft portion intersects it at right angles. Note also the clouds, whose water content is highly conducive to kindling of the tulpoid?into the first bioframe, in this case.

The second photo from Project Bluebook shows another anchorlike tulpoid ? this time the orthorotation is reversed, giving photon absorption?moving through the sky over a dock area by the water.

The third photo, taken in Wales, is one of several which clearly captured another anchorlike tulpoid in a photon-emitting mode.

The fourth photo, taken by Fay Clark in a darkened room, show very similar photonic patterns being emitted by Ingo Swann’s hands after Swann was asked to try to produce energy to be photographed. In the rightmost arc the shaftlike perpendicular bisector can be seen, associated with Ingo’s arm. Bioenergy and mind-energy are the same, whether being emitted from a single human system/mind or from a collective system/mind.

# Water Monsters

In the oceans and in every large body of water on earth, water monsters have been reported for centuries. Loch Ness in Scotland is of course one of the most publicized examples, but creatures of different shapes and sizes have been seen in large lakes and streams everywhere. This is not at all surprising when one realizes that a large body of water is a most excellent kindling reservoir, and bioenergetic forms are more readily kindled in such locations.

The large dead creature in photograph 36 was hauled off the bottom of the sea by Japanese fishermen in their nets, photographed, and then thrown back to prevent contamination of the catch of fish and to get rid of the stench from the decaying carcass. It is a pleisosaurlike creature’s remains, not similar to anything else known on earth. Predictably, scientists were almost immediately at odds as to what it was, and the carcass has been called a shark, a whale, a large elephant seal, a genuine plesiosaur, etc., by various “experts.” Nonetheless it was real and physical, and a good photograph was obtained of it.

Photograph 37 is one of the underwater photographs of the Loch Ness monster taken by a team from the Academy of Applied Science, Boston, Massachusetts on June 20, 1975. As can be seen by a detailed study of the photograph, this tulpoid is not clearly tuned or clearly formed. Many other photos of the Loch Ness monster have been taken, and various shapes and sizes and degrees of tuning have been recorded. In the Doc Shiels photos taken in 1977, Nessie is well formed but entirely different from the Academy photo. Also, Doc Shiels’ photo was subjected to computer analysis by Ground Saucer Watch, and the image exhibited a transparency that was disturbing to the analysts. On the other hand, such a transparency is to be expected from a partially materialized tulpoid which is not completely orthorotated into the zeroth bioframe.

In the Academy photograph, one can see—particularly on the color original—a form which has several conglomerated faces, which exhibits eyelike structures in several locations to suggest first a cowlike face and then a horselike face, and incoherently tuned earlike and hornlike appendages in several places. In fact, the Academy photo bears little resemblance whatsoever to a plesiosaur or any other more normal and coherently structured mammal or fish.

The Loch Ness monster is definitely a tulpoidal form, and the format varies appreciably from reception to reception due to distortions and variations in tuning. Nessiteras rhombopteryx is a much stranger beast than anything the dedicated scientists have yet suspected. In Part Two I will examine the scientific basis of tulpoidal forms.

# Part Two: A Theoretical Background for Understanding PT, UFOs, and Psi Phenomena from

Psychotronics, unidentified flying objects (UFO’s), and paranormal phenomena such as psychokinesis, telepathy, and precognition all have one thing in common: both mind and matter-energy are involved.

Hitherto, mainstream science has insisted on a rather arbitrary separation of mind and matter-energy. However, as we shall see, this separation is not based on good observation. For example, everyone exhibits in himself the ability of mind to affect matter. While theories of computers, control systems, and physics can explain human behavior once the physical system has been given an input signal, the original signal – intent, or what I call inception – is an unexplained mystery to ordinary science.

“Psychotronics” (a Czechoslovakian term) and “psychoenergetics” (a Soviet term) have been specifically designed to provide a framework for approaching the problems of mind, matter, and their interaction. If we can understand psychotronics, we will be able to understand better the interaction of mind and matter, including all paranormal phenomena, unidentified flying objects, and Fortean phenomena.

Let us therefore start by defining psychotronics. The prefix “psycho” refers to the mind. The suffix “tronics” refers to physics and physical devices. Thus the concept of psychotronics refers to a union of physics and metaphysics. Such an audacious concept can offer a solution to almost every present problem in meta physics, the foundations of logic, the foundations of physics, and the foundations of mathematics.

To begin with, it seems necessary to form a unified theory of mind, matter, and their interaction. It also seems necessary to reinterpret and extend electromagnetic theory. Logic itself must be advanced, for a part of reality, although “illogical” according to our present logic, is nonetheless true. In metaphysics we must solve formidable problems: the ontological problem (nature of being); the problem of mind, and the interaction of mind and body; the problem of change; and the problem of nothing.

It has been said that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. To tackle the problems of psychotronics demands the audacity to rush in where even fools fear to tread!

At this time, it may be appropriate to point out that all Western science, mathematics, and logic are founded upon three simple laws of logic, proposed and formulated by Aristotle. Since the entire universe cannot be described by these three laws – parts of reality are known to violate one or more of them and hence be illogical though true – it appears that we must be audacious enough to tackle and change the three laws of logic, if a new paradigm is to be constructed to solve all the presently unsolved problems.


First, no one knows what mass really is; we do not know for sure whether inertial and gravitational mass are one and the same. General relativity says it is, and we know from experiments that if any difference exists between inertial mass and gravitational mass that difference is very small indeed. But we do not know positively that there is not some small but finite difference. And we have no idea why the mass of a moving object increases with respect to a static observer. It is simple to calculate in special relativity how much the mass increases as a function of the velocity, but no one has the foggiest notion why this happens. Particularly so since an observer standing on the moving object and moving along with it sees no increase in its mass at all.

This poses a real paradox; if we try to assign some absolute notion to the idea of mass, then any object has an infinite number of masses, all at the same time and all different. There are two ways to determine mass: (1) by its resistance to a disturbing force, and (2) by its ability to occupy three-dimensional space. The latter requires that mass be volumetric, i.e., that mass be L3 dimensionally.

But look at the weird properties of a photon! If we measure its resistance to a disturbing force, we find that no force on earth can accelerate or decelerate the photon. If we measure the mass of a photon by the first method, it appears to have infinite mass. Yet if we measure it by the second method, it can have no mass at all, because a photon is not volumetric; it is two-dimensional. It therefore has infinite mass and zero mass simultaneously.

Furthermore, we can take the viewpoint that whatever its mass is, it can only have one. If that is so, then infinite mass and zero mass must somehow be the same thing! Which contradicts the three laws of logic. However, this should not concern us too greatly; many things contradict the laws of logic and are nonetheless true. So while it is presently “illogical” for infinite mass and zero mass to be identical, we should hold on to the idea that this may very well be true.

Additionally, one of the great cornerstone assumptions in physics is that gravitational field and electric field are mutually exclusive – i.e., they are totally different things. Yet a physicist named Santilli has proved that this is not so, and that they are either partially the same thing or totally the same thing. And there the matter stands, so we do not fully understand what electric field and gravitational field are, or how to go about turning one into the other, although Santilli’s work seems to imply that this is at least theoretically possible. We must therefore invoke a new concept of reality.


Uri Geller has demonstrated numerous capabilities: he has affected a magnometer inside a Faraday shield; bent and broken metal objects; caused a fresh flower to wither and dry in seconds; permanently changed the crystal structure of nitinol; altered magnetic programs on computer cards; influenced a Geiger counter; de materialized matter; and demonstrated the inceptive Cyborg effect, thought-photography, telepathy, and the Geller effect (the sympathetic stimulation of a psi-positive).

It is useless to attempt to explain the feats performed by Uri Geller in terms of the ordinary fields and effects of known physics. Nothing short of a new physics paradigm will suffice. This new paradigm must encompass both mind and physics within the same theoretical framework, if it is to succeed in explaining how mind affects matter.

In terms of present physics and logic, the mind is regarded as totally separate from matter. For mind and matter to interact, some aspect of mind must be the same as some aspect of matter, i.e., to move matter, a force is required. Force is the time rate of change of momentum. To generate a force capable of moving matter, mind must be able to change momentum. But since momentum can only be obtained from something which possesses momentum to give up, then the mind must somehow possess momentum.

If this is so, then the momentum must ordinarily exist in a separate three-dimensional space, since it apparently does not ordinarily exist in laboratory three-dimensional space. Such a situation requires at least six spatial dimensions and one common time dimension, such that the mind (mental phenomena) is a set of objective physical phenomena existing in an ordinary objective three-dimensional space, but one which is three orthogonalities away, spatially, from the laboratory three-dimensional space.

Mental changes upon physical objects would thus imply orthogonal rotation of mental objects from the mental three-dimensional space into or closer to the laboratory three-dimensional space. Everett’s many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics contains a structure where such representation is possible, and the MWI is consistent with the entire experimental basis of modern physics. Thus from the MWI it is possible to objectively model the mind and matter, and from that, psychotronics as well.


In twelve years of intensive work on this question, I have evolved a conceptual approach, which is consistent with present physics but extends it. A new concept of reality is involved, however, and severe demands are made on the individual to stretch his framework of comprehension. The perceptron concept is an abstraction that allows the modeling of perception itself – either mental perception or physical detection. The fourth law of logic (to be explained shortly) involves the age-old identity of opposites whose apparent necessity has baffled logicians, philosophers, and scientists for centuries. With the perceptron concept, we can at last comprehend how the identity of opposites is accomplished, and when it is accomplished.

This immediately solves the age-old philosophical problem of change. The fourth law also closes logic into a complete, closed metalogic, encompassing both physics and metaphysics.

Let us use as a definition of reality: reality is that which can be conceptually and mathematically modeled and fitted to the phenomena existing in one or more minds. Physical reality is that which can be modeled and fitted to the phenomena existing in all minds. Mental reality can be modeled and fitted to the phenomena in one mind. Mental and physical realities comprise “normal” reality. Complex or “paranormal” reality is that which can be conceptually and mathematically modeled and fitted to phenomena which exist in more than one mind, but not in all minds.

From perception theory I have succeeded in deriving a great deal of the present basis of physics, including Einstein’s two postulates, Newton’s laws, the law of gravitation, and the solution to the ontological problem. (Unknown to me at the time, Ives had already done so for Newton’s laws, the law of gravitation, and Einstein’s postulates. His work has unfortunately been ignored.) In addition, the photon can be seen to be an ordinary three-dimensional particle existing in a three-dimensional space that is orthogonal to the laboratory three-dimensional space frame. A stationary particle in the laboratory frame appears as a photon to the orthogonal spatial frame.

Einstein’s second postulate is usually stated as “the speed of light is the same for every observer.” Restated, this becomes “every photon in an inertial frame is moving at the speed of light, c, with respect to every particle in that inertial frame.” The corollary then follows immediately: every particle in that inertial frame is also moving at the speed of light, c, with respect to every photon in that inertial frame.

In a single three-dimensional space, this is incomprehensible. Taking two orthogonal three-dimensional spaces, with the photons in one frame and the electrons in the other, it is perfectly comprehensible.

From pure nothing – empty vacuum, absence of thing – one can generate everything, the presence of thing. Here is direct proof that ultimately opposites are identical. But to a mind rigidly programmed in three-law logic, such a truth is abhorrent. Physicists consequently have done nothing with the idea that all our physical laws – or at least most of the great ones – can be straightforwardly derived from a special kind of a “piece of nothing” which I call a quiton. And they have not seen that this constitutes a statement of a fourth law of logic – the identity of opposites on their common boundary.

It is interesting to note that the paper which was handed to an American reporter, Robert Toth, by a Soviet scientist, and which caused the KGB to seize Toth and charge him with receiving Soviet state secrets, contained just such a theory as the basis of a unifying theory of psychotronics. Yet none of our intelligence analysts seems to have picked up the overwhelming importance of what was in the paper, and Toth himself appears to believe that his KGB arrest was simply harassment. In fact the paper did contain material on the basic Soviet approach to psychotronics – and thus to psychotronic weapons – and it was indeed state secrets that had been given to Toth.

Everett’s many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, with which very few physicists are familiar, provides a needed correction to the conventional monocular interpretation of relativity, and it allows a theoretically sound basis to be constructed for psychotronics.

The conventional interpretation of relativity considers only a single observer at a time. But if you can accept so simple a concept as that both you and I exist simultaneously, regardless of how we move with respect to each other, then I assure you that physics is startlingly different from what you may have studied in the ordinary university physics text book.

Everett, originally a student of the world-renowned physicist Dr. John Wheeler at Princeton, for his Ph.D. thesis considered the problem of multiple simultaneous observers and worked out what this did to physics. His highly innovative thesis provided a totally new interpretation of quantum physics and defined a startling new kind of reality in which all possibilities are physically real and exist. This new physics is indeed very strange, but it is totally consistent with the entire experimental basis of physics today.

I discovered that all my perception theory could be fitted precisely onto Everett’s many-worlds interpretation.1 On that basis, a theory or schema of biofields was derived that provides an approach to a unified field theory. In fact, it predicts that any kind of field can be turned into any other kind of field, merely by correct and precise time synchronization. It also offers a physical and exact model of mind and mental phenomena and a mental and exact model of physical phenomena!

On this basis, a framework can be provided for psychotronics which is consistent with what we know of ordinary physics but which does not contain many of the limitations of ordinary physics. In a strange sense Everett wrote the physics for the all-mind or the Supreme Creator’s mind because an unlimited mind, so to speak, must already have thought of everything possible, and for an all-creative mind to “think” a possibility is for that possibility to be real.

1. Reality as a Paranormal Bridge with Two Ends
In Figure 3, I show the nature of the problem of paranormal phenomena. To understand it, we must first define more precisely some of the present concepts. First, what do we really mean when we talk of “physical phenomena”? To go into this, we must first destroy the notion that there exists some sort of separate, concrete reality totally apart from mind, for that notion is simply the old Cartesian assumption. It has long been refuted as far as having any absolute validity, and this is well-known to philosophers and to foundations physicists. According to Lindsay and Margenau in their Foundations of Physics. “physics has nothing to say about a possible real world lying behind experience.”

What is true is that we can experience and detect and know only a mental change – a change in the mind itself is all we ever experience directly. For experience invokes the mind; we do not experience phenomena until the mind – used in the greater sense of the word to mean any mental detection – changes.

Any detector detects or experiences only an internal change, never an external change, and this is true of the mind as well as a physical detector .

So we never experience external physical phenomena; we experience only our own minds. Specifically, each of us experiences his own mental phenomena.

But here we must be a little more precise about what we mean by “mental phenomena.” What we usually refer to are the mental phenomena in a single mind. And so we will take that as the primary definition: mental phenomena are the phenomena or changes in a single mind.

But then what do we mean by “physical phenomena”? For indeed this refers to something that is often remarkably different – or seems to be – from the phenomena or changes going on in our own heads. Before we jump to the extreme conclusion that physical phenomena are simply mental illusions, we should recall the Zen master’s approach. He demanded of the student whether or not physical phenomena were real, and the student replied that they were not real, but only illusions. Whereupon the master gave him a resounding knock on the head, and asked him whether or not the blow was real. The student replied that the blow was indeed real. Whereupon the master sent him back for further meditation, for he had learned nothing. He had not understood that “mental” and “physical” are not mutually exclusive.

If we look closely at how we may differentiate between mental phenomena and physical phenomena, we immediately hit upon a practical scheme. Physical phenomena can be shown to exist in the mind of any observer, be he human, insect, or whatever, so long as he has consciousness.

Suppose for a moment that I have a piece of chalk in my hand, held between my fingers. I can touch the chalk, feel it, and see it. I can even taste it if I wish. And so I hold up the piece of chalk and say: “This piece of chalk is not just a mental impression, it is physically real.” How can I prove it? And when I prove it, what exactly have I proved?

Now suppose you do not wish to believe the chalk is real. You simply bring in another observer; he looks at the chalk, he touches it, he tastes it, and he rolls it between his fingertips. He confirms that he also detects or experiences the chalk. Then a little bug flies in and lands on the chalk, crawling around on it, and poking at it with his little proboscis. He also by his actions confirms that he has it in his own little mind. In fact, we could bring in any sort of mind, and that mind could experience the chalk.

And this of course is the clue. What we have been calling physical phenomena can be shown to exist in every mind. And when we say something is physically real, this is all we actually mean. Nothing more, nothing less. And this is why physical phenomena are so solid and concrete; they are infinitely repeated. However, what we refer to as mental phenomena are in only one single mind and thus are not repeated at all.

Now let us do a little thought experiment. Suppose I have lapsed into some peculiar mental state because of the toxins from an infection I have contracted, and I am hallucinating vividly. Suppose I pick up what I vividly see, feel, touch, and taste as a piece of chalk, and I claim that it is real. Indeed, to me it is very real. And then suppose a second person comes into the room. He will not see the chalk, touch it, feel it, taste it, and it will not be real to him. Then suppose a third person comes into the room, and he does not see the chalk, he passes his fingers right through where I am seeing the chalk and does not contact or feel it, and he indeed cannot find it. Thus what we call a “mental phenomenon” can be shown to exist in one mind only. In this case of a vivid hallucination, the hallucinatory phenomenon was absent from the other observers’ minds.

But now let us change our thought experiment a little. Suppose now that I am absolutely fit and fine physically and mentally, and am not hallucinating. And suppose all the observers we bring in are also fine both physically and mentally, and not hallucinating. And suppose we get the following results: some of us can see, touch, taste, and experience the chalk, and others of us cannot see, touch, taste, or experience it, no matter how we try. In that case, what kind of phenomenon do we have?

Well, we cannot exactly say the phenomenon is exclusively mental or exclusively physical. But we also cannot say that it is exclusively nonmental or exclusively nonphysical. In fact, we have an example of a third class of phenomena which are presently not recognized by science. We simply have a paranormal phenomenon, one which can be shown to violate our definitions of mental phenomena and physical phenomena.

And we can in fact take this as the definition of a paranormal phenomenon: a paranormal phenomenon can be shown to exist in more than one mind, and it can also be shown not to exist in one or more minds, i.e., paranormal phenomena exist in more than one mind, but not in all minds. Our conventional science recognizes purely mental phenomena and purely physical phenomena; it does not recognize the third kind, since by the ordinary three laws of logic the third kind does not exist. Paranormal phenomena constitute a bridge across a river between two banks; our present science does not recognize the bridge, but only recognizes the two banks, as shown in Figure 3.

Paranormal phenomena thus appear erratic to ordinary objective science, for objective method after all is specifically designed to select only those phenomena that can be reliably repeated, and the nature of paranormal phenomena is such that they often (in fact usually) cannot be reliably repeated, except sometimes in a great many trials. Normal objective method, if rigorously applied, can only discriminate a statistical effect from a great many trials. Furthermore, if rigorously and lengthily applied, it will accumulate so many failures that it will cast serious doubt on whether the odd case that was paranormal was in fact nonaccidental.

It is for this very reason that orthodox science, which is devoted to scientific method and rigorous protocol, has remained so comfortably adamant that paranormal phenomena do not exist. The tool must be changed to fit the problem, and the present scientific toolbag does not fit precisely. The tools are useful, but they themselves are not decisive within the bounds of present protocol. The necessary change is quite simple: we must allow for the effects of mind, and for a union of both mind and physics, just as there exists in physics a union of both wave and particle. In other words, paranormal phenomena must be repeatable sometimes, by competent experimenters and observers, but not necessarily always by all observers.

“Ah ha!” the materialist is likely to exclaim, being unable to contain himself any longer. “Solid concrete reality always is solid and concrete, however, and you cannot change that. As long as that is true, then the laws of ordinary physics hold, and all is right with the universe. We can always select our phenomena which are present in all minds, and this after all constitutes immutable physical reality. In the face of that fact, all your arguments about mental phenomena in one mind and another kind of half-mental, half-physical phenomena are meaningless, for you are simply calling the superposition of purely mental phenomena on purely physical phenomena a third class, but it is a separable mixture, not a completely new kind.” And we may even be tempted to stir up a small bit of sympathy for the materialist’s view.

However, let us propose a resolution. If we can show that concrete, solid, real matter can become absolutely nonconcrete, nonsolid, and hence nonphysical, then that ought to settle the question. In a recent experiment it has been conclusively shown that two colliding protons pass right through each other in total violation of all physical rules, if their spins are exactly antiparallel. Protons are the central building blocks of all matter. In the nucleus of an atom, the protons and neutrons are continually switching identities, so even a neutron keeps turning into a proton, etc. And these fundamental constituents of everything solid and concrete and real just go right through one another, without any effect whatsoever, simply by aligning their spins properly. Collision theory fails, electromagnetic theory fails, and our concept of two particles bumping together fails. This experiment totally annihilates the idea that physical reality is something absolute. In fact, it establishes that physical reality itself is a function of the relations between the interacting participants; changing the relationships can simply cancel physical reality.

So perhaps our definition of physical reality has some merit after all, and perhaps there really are three classes of phenomena. The paranormal phenomenon is a bridge between mental and physical phenomena; specifically, every paranormal phenomenon must consist of an inseparably welded compound of the two. And the objective method and its consequent experimental protocol must be changed to reflect this fact, if we are ever to develop a viable theory of paranormal phenomena.

2. A Fundamental Correction to Classical Logic
Let us now make a fundamental correction to Aristotle’s three laws of logic. First, there is no independent existence to mental phenomena; there is a perception operation involved when we think. There is no independent existence to physical phenomena; there is a perception operation involved when we observe physical phenomena. Furthermore, it takes a finite piece of time for the perception process to occur. The logic symbol also requires a separate time interval; it represents a series of separately perceived operations that together comprise a decision algorithm. So let us impose this criterion upon logic itself so as to constitute “logical perception ” or the “logic of perception” or the “perception of logic.” We begin with Aristotle’s third law of logic, A or not-A. the law of the excluded middle.

We still insist that there is no such thing as A per se, but rather that there is a perceived A where A is the output of the perception process. Similarly, there is no such thing as not-A, but rather there is a perceived not-A where not-A is the output of the perception process. Let us think of a square box symbol as an abbreviation for the fact that perception has occurred, and anything written inside the box represents the output of that perception operation. We can speak of the box either as mental perception, a description of thought, or we can speak of it as physical detection, a description of an instrumentation system that detects and measures. Also, since each box requires a finite time to occur, we must carefully keep up with the individual little pieces of time, the delta t’s.

So applying this to Aristotle’s third law, we have A perceived or outputted in time one, and not-A outputted in time two. Note that to ascertain that A1 and not-A2 actually differ requires a series of operations in a separate time interval, in time three, that is assumed by the exclusive or symbol. Looked at in this way, Aristotle’s third law actually is the law of monocularity; it states that only one thing at a time is perceived. Actually we had assumed this when we assumed that perception was a

finite process, so it is nice to find that Aristotle’s third law justifies our assumption, once we understand the third law. The exclusive or symbol assumes a third operation in time three, whereby it is determined that perception output one and output two actually differ. But such an operation itself requires multiocular perception – i.e., collecting two outputs at once – and that in itself is a violation of Aristotle’s third law. The third law thus contains its own contradiction, and indeed each of the other two laws also contradicts the third law when one examines them meticulously. Each can only be established as true by invoking or involving an operation wherein the third law is not true.

In time three we gathered up what had been perception output in time one, A1, and what had been perception output in time two, A2, which we do not yet know is different from A1, and put them both through the perception process, getting only one output – let us call it B – in time four. By the nature of B in time four, we thus say in time five that the outputs in times one and two differ or not. In either time one or time two, there is no indication whatsoever of difference or sameness existing between output one and output two. Likewise, in time three there is no separate output one and output two, hence no indication of the sameness of, or difference between, outputs one and two.

So here we have arrived at the identity of opposites. There is no perception of difference between A1 and not-A2 in time three. And this constitutes a fourth law of logic: the law of the boundary, or the boundary identity of exact opposites. All that is necessary to identify opposites is to lose all perceptual distinction between them. And that is accomplished by multiocular perception, of perceiving the presence of both at once unseparated, hence the absence of either exclusively present. If A1 and A2 are exact opposites, then B4 = 0, and [A1, A2] 3 = 0. We thus have the solution to the problem of nothing. Nothing simply consists of the presence of the totality of all opposites.

Almost all the philosophers who have struggled with the problems of being, mind, and matter have faced the necessity for the identity of opposites, but none of them could understand how opposites could be identified. By careful accounting of the separate time intervals required for finite monocular perceptions, the mechanism for identifying opposites is immediately clarified and revealed. The laws of logic are simply laws of the operation of perception – nothing more, nothing less.

The new system of logic is closed. All present paradoxes – contradictions of one or more of the first three laws – are resolved by the fourth law, which contains the negation of each of the first three laws. The fourth law is in fact the law of the paradox. Note also that the hidden time-three operation, which has actually been the application of the fourth law all along, is implied in each of the first three laws. Identity or nonidentity between time-one and time-two outputs can only be established in a time-three operation. The fact that either A or not-A exclusively exists can only be established by a separate operation which establishes that nothing else is there. If separation of A and not-A is not permitted, then A and not-A cannot be distinguished.

Since these laws refer to perceptual operations, one can think of them operationally, or vectorially. To close the vectorial system prescribed by the first three laws, the opposite or negation of each of the three vectorial statements must be present, i.e., this follows simply from the definition of what constitutes a closed system, vectorially speaking. Since the fourth law contains the negation of each of the first three laws, then the four-law system is indeed closed, and the logician’s dream of a closed metalogic is realized. Furthermore, anything which contradicts any combination of the first three laws automatically is covered by the fourth law, which is the law of the paradox.

The new logic works as follows: either the first three laws apply (separation of A and not-A is permitted), or the fourth law applies (separation of A and not-A is not permitted). The fourth law applies only to – and in fact creates – a boundary. The first three laws apply only away from a boundary.

3. A Physical Example
Take the surface of a cube in deep space (Fig. 5). Call the cube “thing,” a three- dimensional concept. Call the empty space around the cube “nonthing,” a three- dimensional nonthing or absence of thing. If we are standing inside the cube and look at its boundary surface, we cannot find a single piece of that boundary surface that does not belong totally to the cube. So we can very reasonably proclaim that by the first three laws of logic each piece of the boundary belongs totally to the cube, to “thing.” But if in a different operation we are standing outside the cube, we cannot find a single piece of that boundary surface that does not belong entirely to the space surrounding the cube. So in this case, we can claim by the first three laws of logic that the boundary surface belongs totally to “nonthing.”

Then in a third operation we can state that, by the first law of logic, each and every piece of the boundary surface is identical to itself, and of course we thereby identify what was thing with what was nonthing. Specifically, what was thing in perception time one and what was nonthing in perception time two have been identified, by all distinction and separation between them being removed, in time three. Identifying opposites simply consists of “packing together” two previously separated perceptions into a single third unseparated perception. And all we have done is apply the fourth law of logic, the law of the boundary. Every single perceived thing has a boundary, where it both begins and ends its exclusive presence in perception output. And at that boundary, the fourth law applies. Thus the law is universal. The fourth law defines a boundary.

In fact, in any perception, all four laws are applied. They are applied in one of two fashions: (1) the first three are explicit and the fourth implicit, or (2) the first three are implicit and the fourth explicit.

There are more examples that have baffled mathematicians and logicians. All of these are simply boundary statements, i.e., statements involving the fourth law of logic. For example: “It is true that this statement is false”; “A line (length) is composed of points (nonlengths)”; “In a hologram, each part is the whole.”

Since logicians used only the first three laws, none of these statements was acceptable or understandable. By the fourth law, there is no problem with these statements. The first merely refers to the boundary between the operation used to establish “truth” and the operation used to establish “falsity.” There is another class of operation where neither truth nor falsity exclusively applies – i.e., a class of operation which cannot distinguish between “true” and “false. ”

The second statement has long been a painful trauma to logicians and foundations mathematicians. Today foundations mathematicians seldom attempt to define line or point. Instead, they simply say: “There is a class of entities called lines. There is a class of entities called points. Lines are made up of an infinite number of points. “This way, they avoid trying to explain how “length” (line) can be made up of “nonlength” (points).

However, they could easily have avoided the difficulty, and still retained the definition of a line as a length, and a point as a nonlength, in the following manner. “There is a class of entities called lines. A line is and has length. There is a class of entities called points. A point is and has nonlength. We may have a separate perception that shows nonlength, and another separate perception that shows length. In yet a third perception which infolds both the first two perceptual characteristics, we may say that a line is comprised of points so long as we realize that line and point do not separately and exclusively exist in the comprised-of state.”

By the same token, we can say that “the whole is comprised of the sum of the parts” only if we realize that “whole” and “part” do not separately and exclusively exist in the comprised-of state, but instead they inseparably and nonexclusively exist therein.

4. New Definition of Zero
To a monocular perception process, multiple presence constitutes absence of the exclusive presence of any particular one. Therefore such a multiple presence is monocularly unperceivable, and hence becomes a zero to a monocular detection process. This allows new definitions of zero, and a solution to the problem of nothing.

Consider that a monocular detection process asks the question, “Is there a single exclusive thing present in my input?” If the answer is yes, an output is generated and perception occurs. If the answer is no, no output is generated and perception does not occur. The answer “no” occurs in two fashions: either total absence, or presence of two or more simultaneously. For either of these cases, monocular perception gives no output, and perception does not occur, i.e., the absence of perception occurs.

Now note that the monocular perception cannot tell any difference in the two input conditions. To it, there is no distinction between the two conditions. The lack of any difference at all constitutes identity. Thus to a monocular perception process, condition one is identical to condition two when they are infolded together in condition three. That in fact derives the fourth law of logic. Total absence and multiple, unseparated presence are identical insofar as a monocular detection process is concerned.

5. Einstein’s Postulate
As an example of strange problems we can deal with in a four-law manner, let us examine a little more closely one of Einstein’s postulates of special relativity, which states that the speed of light is the same for every observer. Let us restate the postulate as “every photon is moving at the same speed relative to every particle.” We can pick any electron in the laboratory frame. Every photon in the frame is moving at the speed of light with respect to the electron, by Einstein’s postulate. Now let us pick any photon. By Einstein’s postulate, every electron is also moving at the speed of light with respect to this photon.

Now we can look at the situation from the viewpoint of the photon. With respect to it, every electron in the laboratory frame is moving at the speed of light, which violates the common interpretation that ordinary objects cannot move at the speed of light. In fact, three-law logic is violated but four-law logic is not violated. In four-law logic, an object can have infinite mass and zero mass simultaneously.

The electron’s frame and the photon’s frame are rotated orthogonal to each other. What we were calling a photon in the laboratory frame, is a perfectly ordinary three-dimensional object in its own frame, which is orthogonal to the laboratory frame. The electron (lab-frame) thus appears as a photon in the rotated frame of what we previously called a “lab-frame photon.” Either an electron or a photon is both three-dimensional and two-dimensional simultaneously – in fact, the concept of separate, exclusive dimensionality only applies after one or the other dimensional aspect has been exclusively separated (observed).

Mass is determined by the resistance an object poses to an accelerating or disturbing force. Mass is also tied to three-dimensional objects; i.e., it is an L3 concept dimensionally. A photon, moving at the speed of light, can neither be speeded up nor slowed down; hence in one sense it exhibits infinite mass. On the other hand, the photon (which is a three-dimensional object in its own frame) has lost a dimension in its intersection in the laboratory frame, due to orthogonality. Therefore the photon appears as a two-dimensional L2 entity in the laboratory three-space. And in that sense, the photon must have zero mass since it is only two-dimensional. By the fourth law, the boundary opposites are identified. Thus at the orthogonal boundary of three-space, zero mass and infinite mass become identical. And the photon exhibits both zero mass and infinite mass simultaneously because it is an entity that is on the boundary of the L3 “mass exhibiting” world. The photon has always happily behaved in a four-law manner, even though physicists could not comprehend its behavior with the three-law logic ingrained in their heads.

6. Synchronicity of Concepts
As is so often the case, two persons appear to have derived the new logic simultaneously, myself from perception theory and Hubbard from manifold theory.

Dr. J. Hubbard was one of the scientists who first developed the atomic bomb. His profound work fully substantiates the new logic and the new reality paradigm. Dr. Hubbard believes that the system includes language, logic, and the interaction of life-bearing systems. In short, he believes it includes psychotronics. The relationship between mind and matter is, like Santilli’s electric and gravitational fields, not mutually exclusive; they are either partially or totally one and the same thing. According to my research, they are both partially and totally the same thing, i.e., they are of exactly the same nature totally – a closure of the entire physical universe – but only partially intersecting, by a fraction of approximately 10-42. In the same fashion a mind is an entire physical world, but it only minutely intersects this physical frame, and then only in a portion of this physical plane.

Dr. Hubbard has shown that the four laws of logic emerge in the form of set relationships, that the single dimension parameter generates the second, third, fourth, fifth and up to Nth dimensions of the manifold, by repetitive operations on itself. This allows a firm basis for orthogonal intersections of one less than the dimensionality of the lowest-dimensioned intersector. It provides a firm basis for orthorotation and for my approach to psychotronics.


Let us now discuss how we form our concept of objects and their relationship. All our basic perceptual concepts are essentially built on primitive observation of the macroscopic universe, which is the primary reason that so many final arguments of philosophers appeal to the “natural man,” i.e., to how a primitive observer would react to the argument. The very idea of an object – a perceived object – is conditioned. Everything else we think of is then conceived as some sort of object or relation between objects. And that is why sets (of perceptual objects} and their relationships form the basis for axiomatic logic, mathematics, and physics. Set theory is simply the synthesized and abstracted game of elementary perception of the macroscopic world. Thus even the most abstruse mathematics forms a part of the game of perception and can be applied to perceived physical phenomena. This macroscopic, primitive perception is the basis of our concept of objectivity, and of our physical concepts of “observed” and “observable.” But if we examine carefully exactly how we perceive an object in the

macroscopic world, we realize that it is seen by means of photon interaction. We think of light being absorbed onto the surface of the object, and then emitted or reradiated from the surface, eventually entering the eye. There the photons are again absorbed by the material on the retina. The photo-electric effect then moves what are called electrons, producing a signal that goes to the brain for interpretation

What we see as an object has twice undergone interaction with photons of light. Furthermore, light itself cannot be detected, only its interaction with matter (in this case electrons). Thus the primitive perceptual operations of the human brain are correlated , one-to-one with photon emission and absorption interactions, usually paired interactions at the object reality domain. The concepts of object, mass, three-dimensions, and observation are directly correlated to the photon-mass interaction, and ultimately to the photon-electron interaction occurring in the human retina.

The ideas of boundary, surface, and change in primitive perception thus involve two contradictory and simultaneously mixed interactions, absorption and emission. Because they are constantly intermingled, primitive perception cannot separate the two. Thus the primitive concept of a boundary consists of a simultaneous duality. Here the object both begins and ends. Here opposites are identified. This is the basis for the fourth law of logic, the law of the boundary.

The dimensionality and orthogonality (spatially) of the primitive perception process are also interesting. Photon absorption constitutes spatial integration for the photon, dimensionally speaking, e.g., one additional dimension is gained by the two-dimensional light wave in turning itself into the three-dimensional mass state. The photon also adds its piece of time to the absorbing mass, converting the mass particle to mass time or space time – adding the fourth dimension. Photon emission constitutes spatial differentiation, dimensionally speaking. One spatial dimension is lost by a little hunk of three-dimensional mass turning itself into a two-dimensional wave. Going from outside the object toward the inside (to track along with photon absorption), the boundary marks the end of the two-dimensional wave region, so the object (or, more precisely, the interaction region) is spatially two-dimensional on the outside, and spatially three-dimensional on the inside. It also occupies the time dimension on the inside, but not on the outside. (This directly accounts for a difference in the spacetime inside and the spacetime outside, and that is why mass may be regarded as a curvature or change in spacetime, in general relativity.)

Going from inside the object toward the outside, the boundary marks the end of the spatially three-dimensional region and the beginning of the spatially two-dimensional region. So the object is now spatially three-dimensional on the inside, spatially two-dimensional on the outside. The inside now does not occupy the time dimension, while the photon emitted (the outside) does. So on the boundary, one spatial dimension is gained going in, and one spatial dimension is lost going out. Time is gained going in and lost going out, by the mass absorber-emitter.

Gain or loss of a dimension is accomplished only by orthogonal rotation between orthogonal spatial frames. Photon absorption constitutes orthogonal spatial rotation one right angle turn into the laboratory frame, while photon emission constitutes orthogonal spatial rotation one right angle turn out of the laboratory three-space frame.

This constitutes the observation process (primitively) per se, and this is what is hidden in Einstein’s postulate that the speed of light is the same to every observer . Every observer goes through this same process. Furthermore, rotations orthogonal to a three-space frame are orthogonal to all three-dimensional spatial physical entities in that three-space. As Einstein himself once pointed out, velocity can be regarded as simply the measure of rotation of an entity in a higher dimensional space; thus an orthogonal turn is a fixed velocity. Since light is orthogonal to the entire space, then the speed of light is the same to every observer in that space. While Einstein was apparently speaking of regarding the velocity of an object as a measure of its amount of rotation toward the time axis in four-space (from the direction of its velocity vector in laboratory three-space ), it can also be regarded as rotation toward a fourth spatial axis in a five-space (four length dimensions and one time dimension, all orthogonal. If one checks this, one will see that the projections in three-space are the same; i.e., to the laboratory frame observer, there is no difference observable. Thus the photon interaction may be modeled as orthorotation of an entity spatially in a five-space.

To the laboratory observer, this orthorotation constitutes pure dimensional integration and dimensional differentiation, and it constitutes or creates an object in the first place. The concept of object a priori involves the photon interaction as stated; if the photon interaction is not invoked, then the existent entity does not exist as a three-dimensional object at all, in the primitive sense. Outside this primitive process (dimensional integration and differentiation imposed upon the same region, which constitutes an object), all exists in the Omega nothingness void, with out frame or form.

Ultimate reality (specifically, action) is dimensionless in the objective sense; for the objective sense exists only after an operation has been imposed. A quantum it self is length less (and has no exclusive energy, time, or momentum) until differentiation is imposed upon it. Only after a quantum of action is fissioned does there exist a discrete piece of {change in) length, time, energy, mass, momentum, etc. I have already shown that perception itself can be modeled in terms of action quanta fission and fusion, and that most of the basic laws of physics can be derived from that model. {See my Quiton/ Perception Physics. ) Fission and fusion of action quanta involve orthogonal rotation between orthogonal three-spaces sharing the same fourth dimension (time) in common. The words change, interact, localize, superpose, operate, move, oscillate, act, cause, and determine are only a few of the words used in physics to conceal the basic occurrence of orthogonal rotation in higher dimensional space.

Finally, it should be stressed that i, the square root of minus one, itself constitutes an orthogonal axis, hence an extraspatial dimension. The addition of this quantity to electromagnetic theory allowed the resolution of formidable problems, and led to the direct formulation of electromagnetic theory. Thus electromagnetic theory already includes higher dimensionality and orthogonal rotation in hyper-space. In that sense, inductance and capacitance are merely vector statements of amounts of rotation, one in a positive direction and the other in a negative direction, toward an orthogonal axis in higher dimensional space.

The forming (beginning and ending) of a three-dimensional spatial object constitutes a time differentiation invoked on four-dimensional Minkowskian space, i.e., the process of observation or detection itself involves
a /aT (L3T) = L3
dimensionally speaking. This process is accomplished by orthogonal rotation, and the very concept of an object that has been observed, detected, or perceived implicitly involves this time differentiation invoked on a four-space.

Velocity also represents a statement of the switching of time into length, and length into time. It is therefore a measure of rotation of the spatial three-dimensional frame, as Einstein pointed out. By this switching (orthogonal rotating, orthogonal flipping) of the chopping of time or beginning and ending of a small piece of time, we create a little delta T, just as we do each delta L for an object.

But the photon interaction process is monocular. Each photon must attack matter individually, and live or die in the process. Each photon born from matter is also born independently. Thus the primitive observation process is monocular, since it is totally in one-to-one correspondence with photon interaction that is monocular. Thus the observed world is monocular, quantized, discretized. Because of the particular one-to-one correspondence between our primitive concepts and a single interaction, we can conceive the world in no other fashion, unless we change the very basic factor of one-to-one correlation. This in fact has already been done for physics by Everett, whose theory of the universal wave function incorporates multiple simultaneous observation, and hence direct insight beyond the limitations of the monocular correspondence to the photon interaction. My theory does the same thing in the fields of logic and mind.

# Photon Quenching of the Paranormal (Time) Channel.

The photon interaction constitutes a time-differentiating operator imposed upon L3T dimensionally (Minkowskian reality), which results in the creation of L3 dimensionality (objective, spatial reality). Aristotle’s three laws of logical thought are based on primitive observation, which in turn is in one-to-one correspondence to the situation where the photon interaction has been imposed and the time dimension destroyed, resulting in a classical or objective or spatial reality. Hence all our present logic, science, and mathematics are based upon this particular arrangement. As shown by the two-slit experiment, if the photon interaction is not allowed to occur, a fundamental particle refuses to behave in a classical, objective, spatial object manner; instead, it behaves in a nonclassical, nonobjective, wave manner if the time element interacts with it.

Mental phenomena occupy the same time dimension as do physical phenomena; however, the spatial dimensions of mental objects do not ordinarily occupy or intersect the spatial dimensions of physical objects. However, the time dimension is recognized by physics as objective; therefore, since the mind occupies at least one real objective dimension, it is objective rather than subjective. This suggests a model whereby mind is a real L3T Minkowskian four-space world, but one whose three spatial dimensions lie orthogonal to and outside the ordinary world’s three spatial dimensions. The mindworld and the physical world then have in common the same time dimension. Dynamic movements in each world (mind and matter) result in an exceedingly small crosstalk being projected into the other world, a crosstalk so small as to be virtual and normally unmeasurable. Establishing one-to-one coherence between crosstalk from a mindworld constitutes the creation of a biological organism. The crosstalk from the mindworld and a physical structure in the ordinary world to the physical world has previously been labeled inception by me, and a mechanism whereby such a minute psychokinetic effect on matter can be amplified to a macroscopically observable level, or even beyond, has been derived. Thus a fundamental mechanism whereby tulpoid activity (projections from the collective unconscious materializing into the ordinary physical world, in a format determined by the collectively higher levels of unconsciousness in the race, national group, culture, subculture, and personal unconsciousness) is developed and explained.

Before the intervention of the photon interaction, four-dimensional reality thus has a great deal of tulpoid dither riding upon its time dimension as a minute modulation. The photon interaction invokes a time-differentiating operation, stripping away or suppressing the time dimension, resulting in a spatial reality or objective reality being perceived or observed, and in the process separating mind and body by destroying the only common connection or channel. Because of the time-squelching action of the photon interaction, we do not see time or the mind in our ordinary physical observation. Also, we do not see the incessant stream of tulpoid activity that bathes the time channel.

The time channel is thus the mental channel and the paranormal channel. The photon interaction is the destroyer or squelcher of the paranormal channel. Apparently the squelch effect of light is not linear or constant, but is a variable and a function of the frequency of the light being utilized. From a synthesis of a variety of data in diverse fields, the following hypothesis has been arrived at to fit the experimental evidence: The quenching of the hyperchannel (the paranormal channel or the time channel) by photon interaction is proportional to the spectral luminous efficiency of the eye of the average human observer in the interval from the infrared to the ultraviolet. Thus the form of the paranormal squelching effect of the photon interaction is given by the operator € where
€ = m E T
and where m is a parameter which varies as some function of frequency. This hypothesis specifies m over the region from the ultraviolet to the infrared. In other regions of the frequency spectrum, the form of m must be determined by experiment.

There are several experiments which fit the hypothesis:
1. The induction of death and disease patterns from test cells to environmentally shielded healthy cells by Soviet scientists.a
2. The invoking of specific tulpa living forms and photographing them in the in- visible state with infrared film by Trevor James Constable.b
3. The visible light revival of appreciable fractions of cells killed with ultraviolet light and kept in the dark – dormant, unreproducing, for up to twenty-four hours.
4. Ingo Swann’s precise differentiation of the visible light spectrum (frequency region) where psychic seeing (similar to remote viewing) is blacked out.
5. The Fox and Miller experiments, in which cell-like protein forms that reproduce (i.e. are “living”) are generated when a primeval soup in the laboratory is bathed in ultraviolet light and exposed to strong electrical spark discharge (strong bioenergy collections).

a V. P. Kaznacheyev et al., “Distant intercellular interactions in a system of two tissue cultures,” Psychoenergetic Systems. Vol. 1. No. 3, March 1976, pp. 141-42.
—, “Apparent information transfer between two groups of cells,” Psychoenergetic Systems. Vol.1, No.1, December 1974, p. 37.
b Trevor James Constable. The Cosmic Pulse of Life (Merlin Press, Santa Ana, Calif. )

A corollary to this hypothesis is that, under certain conditions, reflected light may reverse the effect. Thus the effect of the full moon, which reflects a great deal of sunlight, can immediately be appreciated. The effect is to the time channel, hence stimulation of this channel stimulates the mental effects. The effects of the full moon on romantics, lunacy, and deeper life functions controlled by the unconscious is grounded in a factual basis.

Thus there is a very good reason why animal eyes tend to operate very closely to the infrared, visible light, ultraviolet region, with the eye usually adapted for the visible light region. In the infrared and ultraviolet regions, tulpoid phenomena would be readily visible or detectable, and an animal whose eye operated exclusively in one or the other of those areas would so often be distracted by the mental tulpoidal activity that it would prove disadvantageous to his survival against animal predators operating in the strongly squelched, visible light region. By the same token, animals whose eye operates further into the infrared or the ultraviolet than does the human eye are notoriously sensitive to paranormal phenomena before their manifestation to human observers.

The stimulating effect of reflected light, and particularly of light reflected from the surface of a planet or of the moon, also concerns several of the common practices of UFO investigators. It is common practice to dispose of a sighting once it becomes apparent that a planet lay in the direction of the sighting and was particularly bright at the time. However, such an optical condition can in fact serve as an initiation point for tulpoid activity to enter the ordinary reality frame. And in fact such conditions – and conditions when stars are very bright and twinkly in their reflections from the particles of the atmosphere – are conducive to UFO appearances, and this should be realized and taken into account. UFO’s in a great many cases will be observed to start or come into being from such appearances.

If we realize that the paranormal channel is the time channel, then the fundamental two-slit experiment of physics is itself a paranormal manifestation experiment. Thus when the photon interaction is invoked, a classical object and classical behavior result. When the photon interaction is not invoked, a nonclassical entity and nonclassical behavior result. The more interest is taken in a particular tulpoidal manifestation, the more the format is impressed in multiple minds and multiple unconsciousness layers and the more frequently the format is tuned in. Eventually a repeatedly tuned tulpa can become stable and permanent. Candidates for such tulpoids presently on their way to being stabilized are the Loch Ness monster and the sasquatch. Particle physicists may in fact be creating their own reality by the same process, as suggested by Josephson.

The process whereby visible light revives cells killed by ultraviolet light is presently considered under the term “photoreversal.” It is a moot point whether cells are living if they have laid dormant for several hours or even twenty-four hours without any cell divisions having occurred. The effect of a given dosage of ultraviolet radiation on cells is known to be greater when the radiation is flashed than when the radiation is continuous. This has been interpreted as due to a thermal reaction following a primary photochemical reaction, since increasing the temperature accentuates the effect of flashing. However, I suggest that flashing is directly related to the effect known as kindling, where, when the limbic structures of the brain are repetitively stimulated, the entire nervous system of the organism responds and goes into resonance (seizure). Soviet experiments have shown that such flashing of a telepathic sender enhances the reception of telepathic information. In the 1920’s and 1930’s A.G. Gurvich and his students found that a yeast detector’s threshold of sensitivity to mercury lamp radiation was about three orders of magnitude higher than the detector’s threshold of sensitivity to radiation of the same spectrum from biological material. (For a description of more modern work which may show a violation of the conservation of energy law, see L.L. Regelson, “A Paradox of Mitogenetic Radiation,” edited by H.S. Dakin, translation available from H.S. Dakin, 3101 Washington Street, San Francisco, CA 94115.) Regelson’s experimental. results point to the conclusion that the paradox observed with the mitogenetic radiation experiments is a universal physical phenomenon. In view of this and Kaznacheyev’s results, the entire area strongly warrants intensive investigation. Regelson’s group was actually attempting to find a new solution to the problem of wave-particle duality, strikingly parallel to my interest in the area.

Those frequency points where the quenching effect is minimized (i.e., where € goes through a minimum value) are referred to as “magic windows” or “magic windows between worlds.” Acker and Tiller have called them “interdimensional nodal points.” In the magic windows, energy from one frame or biofield can be more easily collected to orthorotate into another frame or biofield, since the rotational threshold is much lower. There is a window, e.g., between 38,000-40,000 Hertz, which can be stimulated with ultrasonics or electromagnetic radiation. The ultraviolet region contains a window, as does the infrared region. Many other windows apparently exist.

Trevor James Constable photographs paranormal phenomena (see below) through a filter that is open in the IR and UV regions, but opaque to visible light. Thus the filter blocks out the strong quenching effect of visible light and looks in two magic windows, IR and UV. Constable is thus able to photograph phenomena that are not normally detectable.

Frames excerpted from infrared motion picture footage show bioforms around the author on the Mojave desert in California before sunup. The bioforms change shape, position, and also appear to divide like amoebae at tremendous speeds. This sequence was shot at 24 frames per second. The whole happening shown occurred in approximately a quarter of a second. The author’s view is that such materializations into the infrared occur in response to certain positions, motions and orientations of the “target human”, which are poorly understood. He holds that the same factors govern UFO materializations in the earth environment.

Next page of photos: MORE MOVIES OF BIOFORMS, see at
Five successive frames from a motion picture recording of bioforms on the Mojave desert in California show the author performing the Star Exercise described in the text, with plasmatic bioforms around him. Sequence took place in less than a quarter second, yet the objects change position, apparently divide like amoebae and alter their form even in this brief time span. Footage was shot before sunup. Author’s view is that such materializations bear direct functional relationship to materialization of UFOs.

# Raindrop Model of Quantized Change.

What does not appear to have been realized to date in physics is that the photon interaction is the agent that creates objectivity itself, as is clearly established by the two-slit experiment . The photon interaction separates spacetime into space and time exclusively. An object, being something which occupies space (L3), is thus timeless. Objects do not exist in time, because the union of an object with time constitutes spacetime, which cannot be perceived, detected, or observed.

Only changes in (derivatives of) spacetime can be perceived, detected, or observed, but not spacetime itself. That with which light has not interacted is not objective. This is proven conclusively by the two-slit experiment, upon which all of quantum mechanics rests. In that experiment, if an electron emitted from the cathode and on its way to the two-slit region does not interact with light, the electron behaves in a totally nonobjective manner, appearing to pass through both slits at the same time. (Actually it goes around both spatial slits in time, and since both of the slits occupy the same piece of time, the electron can interact timewise with both of them.)

On the other hand, if the electron is struck by a photon before it reaches the two-slit region, it becomes a “hard, solid little baseball” and quite objective. In that case it can interact with (go through) only one spatial hole because it cannot interact in time. According to Feynman, this simple experiment contains the total and only mystery of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it cannot be explained in any classical manner. No physicist in the world understands it, although the pattern of repeated electron strikes on a collecting screen is quite easy to compute by simple trigonometry.

Let me now explain what happens to a mass when it is struck by a photon, absorbs the photon, and re-emits the photon. First, a mass is an L3 object; the concept of mass is not a function of time, but only a function of space. It is thus three-dimensional. The photon is also three-dimensional, but one of its dimensions is the time dimension. The photon, being built of action, is constituted of (Del.E Del.T) or ( L2Del.T) dimensionally.

When the photon strikes the mass and is absorbed, the (Del.E) portion is turned into mass by orthorotating one turn and becoming L3 dimensionally. The (Del.T) portion is thus united with the spatial mass to give a compound nucleus of space-time comprised of M Del.T1. This compound nucleus of spacetime is not perceivable. When a photon is re-emitted, it may or may not be of the same frequency and energy as the previously absorbed photon, depending on the absence or presence of any other perturbations. At any rate, a small bit of L3 spatial mass is orthorotated to give an L2 intersection with the laboratory frame, which turns the bit of mass into a small piece of energy, Del. E. In the orthorotation, a small piece of time is bitten off and joined to the Del. E to give a Del.E Del.T = h quantum of action, which now constitutes a photon. Photon emission thus strips away the time dimension, leaving a spatial object

Einstein pointed out that the velocity of an object may be visualized as rotation of the object in higher dimensional space. Visualized as spatial rotation rather than rotation toward the time axis, the velocity of light in vacuum c merely constitutes the rotation of a piece of mass by an angle of 900 to the line of motion, in the laboratory space in which we visualize the photon (the rotated piece of mass) as moving Thus the photon emitted from the mass is moving at c the velocity of light, because of its orthogonal rotation to the laboratory frame

Note that the spacetime compound nucleus has now once again been separated into spatial and time components. Time is moving with the photon. And that is why time moves or flows at c the speed of light in a vacuum. Time is carried only by the photon, and photon interaction with an object produces that object’s march through time. If the emitted photon and the previously absorbed photons do not have identical Del. E and Del.T components, then M2 will be different from M1 and the mass will have increased or decreased. Considering the photon to consist of momentum and length components, i.e., (Del.pDel.L) a similar diagram can be constructed. In that case, if the momentum and length components of the emitted and absorbed photons are identical, then M1 and M2 occupy the same position (M1 has not moved). If these components are different, then the mass M2 will occupy a slightly different position than mass M1 and the mass will have moved.

This, by the way, is the simple solution to the age-old philosophical problem of change. We simply identify M1 and M2 calling them the same object. We cannot detect, perceive, or observe the compound nucleus of spacetime in the middle. Thus we experience change as a thing becoming something else, but still being the same thing. This totally defeats the first three laws of logic. However, fortunately we can easily comprehend it since we have developed the fourth law of logic.

The raindrop model of quantized change is taken exactly analogous to the raindrop model of nuclear fission, as shown in Figure 9.

# Kindling Effect

G.V. Goddard and his associates in 1969 reported a peculiar kindling effect generated by repeated, periodic, low-intensity stimulation of the limbic region of mammalian brains. A sustained periodic signal input to the brain and central nerv ous system eventually sets up a cumulative resonance which increases in magni tude until the entire organism is in sympathetic resonance.

A laboratory rat at first continues to explore its environment in a normal manner when it is subjected to kindling. But after repeated stimulation at the same intensity, the rat will begin to rear up and its forelimbs will convulse. Eventually these bursts of electrical activity induce similar patterns in nearby brain regions, and the threshold becomes progressively lowered. Stimulation progresses to the amygdala, to the amygdala on the other side of the brain, to the hippocampus, to the occipital cortex, and finally to the frontal cortex. Kindling can start only in the limbic structures.

While kindling was originally thought to be a model of epilepsy, John Gaito of York University has reported that a different mechanism is apparently involved since the amino acid, taurine, which suppresses epileptic seizures in laboratory animals, does not prevent phenomena caused by kindling. Also, kindling apparently causes permanent changes in the neural circuitry. Pulsed repetitions of telepathic senders have also been shown to increase the reception of telepathic messages. Thus the kindling effect apparently applies to the paranormal channel as well as to more orthodox transmission channels. (For further details, see “Kindling, once epilepsy model, may relate to kundalini,” Brain/ Mind Bulletin, Vol. 2, No.7, February 21, 1977; pp. 1-2.)

The kindling mechanism is a far more general mechanism than epilepsy researchers have realized. Coherent time collection of bioenergy in one bioframe “kindles” toward the threshold of the next bioframe, which has a fixed threshold. When sufficient kindling occurs to reach the threshold, automatic orthogonal rotation of the kindled bioenergy occurs into the next frame. There it simply constitutes the kindling or superposition of the imperceivable subquantum state into the perceivable quantum state. This is the mechanism whereby one kind of field can be turned into another. E.g., thought energy (third biofield) can be kindled into second biofield (flux), which can be kindled into first biofield (electromagnetic energy), which can be kindled into zeroth biofield (matter).

# Bioenergy Collectors

Good collector mechanisms exist in great variety, in both living and inert systems. Many good collector mechanisms exist in the human body. One mechanism that collects bioenergy and orthorotates it into ordinary electrical field with appropriate induced currents is simply the electrical current in the human nervous system. This is particularly true of the current discharges from and between the nerve endings.

Another collector for bioenergy in a living system is the mitogenic radiation between the cells in tissue. Taken as a flux, this mitogenic radiation would seem to have both a photon nature and a nonphoton nature. The cells, in their membranes and fibrous internal structures, are continually collecting and kindling bioenergy into electron currents and photons. The electron currents represent collections from the virtual state into observable state, and may in one sense be regarded as the lifting of electrons out of the Dirac sea by direct kindling (coherent superposition of virtual state energy into observable state energy). These kindled currents are thus superpositions or modulations on the ordinary electrical activity of the cells, fibers, and membranes. The mitogenic photons are also produced by direct kindling of the virtual state into observable state, in this case, by kindling virtual state photons into observable state photons.

Spark discharges, such as are used in Kirlian photography, are extremely good collectors of bioenergy. In Kirlian photography the film records ordinary photon interactions; however, the spark discharge from the finger is collecting and kindling bioenergy into ordinary electrical energy (specifically, into electromagnetic field, which then affects the electrical flux pattern). Also, bioenergy is being collected and kindled into ordinary photons, thus changing the photon pattern being emitted. Furthermore, those photons being emitted are internally affected by the bioenergy that has not yet kindled to observable state electromagnetic energy, but is still virtual. Each photon carries the virtual state along in the little piece of time contained in the photon, and partially collected bioenergy which has not yet breached the threshold of observable photons is being carried in each emitted photon. These patterns are transferred to the grain atoms by photon absorption when the piece of time of the photon is momentarily added to the mass of the absorbing atom, and in turn are continually spread through the emulsion material atoms by the virtual photon fluxes of the charges, in both the nucleus and the orbital electrons of the atoms.

So the life pattern of a photographed object is captured on ordinary film – and indeed that pattern can be resonated through hyperspace with the object that was photographed, regardless of where the object is in the universe.

Note that there are many mechanisms inside stars and planets for the collection of bioenergy. We live in a vital, pulsing, living, breathing, bioenergetic cosmos, and life is everywhere. Patterns of life are riding in the light from the distant stars, from our sun, in the neutrino flux from the cosmos, in the graviton flux from the cosmos, in cosmic rays, etc. And so it is small wonder that living cells that form, reproduce themselves, and die can be induced in the proper primordial soup of nutrients when that soup of matrix forms and chemicals is bathed in ultraviolet light (one of the magic windows which contains a greatly enhanced transmission factor for bioenergy, hyperspatial energy, life energy), and stimulated by electrical spark discharges.

It would be interesting to perform the same type of experiments with concentrated light from distant stars, or with the mitogenic radiation from cell cultures, using environmentally shielded setups similar to those used by the Soviets in experiments with the transmission of death patterns.

Even stranger, bioenergy propagates along deBroglie waves, and so all possibilities are modulated by bioenergetic kindling and collection. Viewed in this light, Puthoff and Targ’s remote viewing experiments actually provided a multitude of probability paths to the viewer, and these probability paths were indeed kindling bioenergy of the distant, as yet unhappened event. The actual event in the future contains a great many additional collection kindlings due to the additional factors involved in determination (such as collapse of the wave function). A peaking of signal exists on the more probable happenings, and this extra signal along certain paths constitutes an increased signal-to-noise ratio in that particular channel. Thus an actual mechanism exists for seeing at a distance and for seeing ahead in time.

Particular note should be made of the pi meson collection mechanism in the nucleus of an atom. Each neutron and each proton in the nucleus of an atom is continually emitting and absorbing pi mesons, and thereby the protons and neutrons are continually interchanging from one to the other by passing along the positive charge. This activity produces the strong force which binds the nucleus together against the electrical repulsion of the electric forces due to the positive charges of the protons. The fantastic structurings and currents that result provide an electrical current which can and does collect bioenergy. A skilled psychic with good psychokinetic ability can thus focus on the kindling mechanism inside the nucleus and get a signal-to-noise increase of the kindling of his bioenergy in nuclei as op-posed to elsewhere in the material in other collection mechanisms. Several types of reactions can then occur. The protons may have their electric charges extinguished due to the extinguishing of the virtual photons producing the electric field on their pions. In such case, the atom simply loses its integrity, and some neutrons and photons are emitted from the atomic site into the surrounding material. This type of interaction thus locally softens a metal and produces severe heating in localized areas, changes in fundamental grain structure, and changes in fundamental characteristics of the metal.

It is by this mechanism and similar related reactions that metal bending can be and is accomplished by persons such as Uri Geller. The collection of bioenergy by graviton emission, absorption, and flux leads to antigravity and other psycho-kinetic effects. These are exhibited in rare levitation phenomena and more frequent poltergeist phenomena.

The list of collectors could be materially increased, but these should suffice to show the importance of the effect of coherent time collection, kindling, and orthorotation of one type of field into another. The collection of de Broglie waves is moving much faster than light, and for very slowmoving objects the collected and projected bioenergy on their deBroglie waves is moving at essentially infinite velocity. This accounts for the fact that Hieronymus observed an instantaneous cutoff of his monitoring signals from the Apollo astronauts when their space vehicle went behind the edge of the moon.

Looking over the list of collectors and carriers, it is obvious why even the best Faraday shields cannot shield out bioenergy communication. The deBroglie wave carrier alone will simply take the bioenergy right through any known substance – or more precisely, it will take the bioenergy around the three-space in which the barrier substance exists, since deBroglie waves are actually superluminal particles in a three-space more than one orthogonal turn away from the observer’s three-space. The implications for psychic healing and psychic surgery are obvious.

# Psychometric Effect

Every mass communicates with every other mass in the total universe, with hyperspatial/virtual crosstalk between all parts and all masses. This yields a mechanism for psychometry.

Inside the mass, we have a large number of collector mechanisms, of the types previously listed and explained. All objects in the universe are in communication with this object, particularly large or close objects. Those objects that come very near or touch the chosen object for a period of time are most influential.

Briefly, the internal dynamic collector mechanisms of the chosen object perform collection and kindling of the virtual state; thus each mechanism is slowly changed by the influence of other objects in the universe. This is very like the diffusion of heat. The chosen object also communicates part of the influx away, normally reaching an equilibrium with its surroundings when these surroundings are stable. As the surroundings change, appropriate changes are communicated into the internal collector mechanisms of the chosen object, and appropriately diffused away to other parts of the universe, until equilibrium is again reached that occur. It is thus a very exact record of its surrounding events.

A psychically sensitive person who touches the chosen object, or in some cases merely comes near it, enters into a communications exchange with it. His body-records diffuse into the local object, and those of the local object diffuse into his body. If the psychic is sensitive enough, he can gain impressions from the recorded events of the object. This is the scientific basis of psychometry.

A wide variety of data support this mechanism. Psychometry has been practiced since earliest times, and is still practiced today. A photograph is particularly indicative of the person photographed, since his entire record is imprinted psychometrically on the photograph.

Moreover, the entire record of the Earth is still in the earth, in all its detail. As indeed is the record of each star and its planets, riding on the light that reaches us from that star, and on the deBroglie waves from it. With operational biodetectors, we could easily read the records of the universe. NASA would do well to pursue this alternative in its attempt to contact extraterrestrial life, rather than point huge radio telescopes toward the heavens and listen to the kindled static from the stars. The static indeed contains the message, but not in a format in which they are prepared to look! It is in the virtual state, riding in each photon.

To a psychic who can see the human aura easily, the condition and much of the record of the person is in that aura, because the auric pattern is changed by all experience of the body, mind, and personality. Thus a good healer can see the aura of the patient, tell if another healer has been in contact with the patient (including often recognizing which other healer it was), and can recognize his own previous contact with the patient many years earlier. (See, for example, the story of Agpaoa as recorded by Sigrun Seutemann in Healers and the Healing Process. ed. George W. Meek, Theosophical Publishing House, 1977, p. 93.)

Scroll to Top