|
Inspired by the Edgar Cayce Institute for Intuitive Studies |
|
Inspired by the Edgar Cayce Institute for Intuitive Studies |
|
Interview with Beverly Jaegers By Henry Reed H: Bevy Jaegers, founder of U.S. Psi Squad, the oldest and premier psychic detective organization in the world. tell us a little about your work with the Squad: B: The U.S. Psi Squad is a group of police officers and civilians trained to use Remote Viewing and to direct it against criminal cases. We charge no fee, never volunteer, never approach nor interact with any families of victims. We only take cases at the request of law enforcement or Govern mental Agencies. An FBI Agent recently said she'd never heard of a case 'solved' by a 'psychic' - and referred to 'psychics' as "the second wave of predators" It is just for this reason that we have never volunteered on a case, and that we have never asked for nor received a dime. We never talk to a victim's family. That FBI Agent was apparently unaware of our work and history, not to mention was, as most do, lumping all 'psychics' into the same 'wannabe' group who call the Police on all high=profile cases. We are Specialists and Professionals who have learned to use our skills and to use them in specific areas, mainly unsolved homicides."
H: How did you get started? Are you naturally psychic or did you enter a training program? B: I never had a psychic nor a spiritual feeling, dream, hunch or experience of any type except one which I can tell you about later. I was raised in a family of police and real estate people and as far as I know I never heard the word 'psychic' in my life. No one in my family ever mentioned or went to one - and the only contact that comes even close was that my dad often made jokes about 'running the gypsies' out of town...(store front fortunetellers) No contact of any kind. As a grown person and a journalist-in-training, I was looking for some unusual subject about which to write and encountered in the science press some information about the USSR program in Psi and their Psi research, in 1961/2 at the library. Soon after, there was a big foofarah about Jeanne Dixon's 'Kennedy prediction' - and I thought that this might be interesting to do an article about. Also about that time the USSR revealed they could not find enough naturally talented people to study and had begun to train young college students to develop the 'psychic' abilities. My question at that time was "if Russians can learn, could Americans?" So I borrowed their techniques and began training myself. I did not do too well, until I met a person in 1965 who was a world-class remote viewer and offered to train me. In three months and a great deal of hard work, I could do what she could do. Soon I began to train others. H: You seem to be saying you don’t have native psychic abilities, but you discovered that you could learn a skill through training. One of your major messages seems to be to take remote viewing out of the area of the unusual and make it more normal. B: Yes, I think all people would benefit from reporters asking questions like that, and getting away from thinking in terms of the paranormal. People can learn to do it. Like tennis. Like learning any skill. H: What kind of skill do you think it is. Do you think that remote viewing is a psychic skill? B: Its related to psychic, but we don’t really understand what psychic is. There are people talking to the dead and other things, astrology and the like and it all gets lumped under psychic, and we don’t really know what it is. H: Do we know what remote viewing is? B: Yes, it has a clearer definition. H: I think the definition seems clear in terms of the process by which you perform remote viewing but it is less clear about what makes it possible to do remote viewing in the first place. B: Well, it’s a learned ability. I had a big argument with Dr. Rhine, because he didn’t believe that people could be trained, but since I had trained myself, I got into a disagreement over that one fact. He had never looked at it that way. He thought that these were wild talents that only certain people had. I think this was because of a number of people who were getting negative Psi, meaning results less than expected by chance. But when you put something to the test, like a typing test, it makes you under stress and you don’t do so well, as in testing any kind of ability. Like the quiz shows, where the person knows the answer, but can’t get it off the tip of their tongue, because of stress, and they end up losing the money. I think it was stress, rather than the lack of ability itself that was causing his negative results. H: Do you now engage in anything in particular to keep yourself "in shape" or do anything in advance of a job to prepare yourself? B: Keeping in shape is something we do by working as a Squad with what the Police send us to work on, archaeology researchers such as Patrick Marsolek, I began a dinosaur experiment with another scientist - and if there's time, I work 'targets' online on Dr. Dean Radin's site [editor’s note: see www.boundaryinstitute.org], or that another remote viewer might set for several of us to work. Participated in Alan Vaughan's precognitive.dream experiment several years ago. Sometimes we know the target--such as the Kursk submarine [editor’s note: you can see this work on Bevy’s website at www.uspsisquad.com] sometimes it is totally blind. No, there is nothing I do to prepare. I merely sit down with a steno pad - usually, and tackle the problem. Sometimes I do that at the computer, whichever = but more often the stenopad. (I was an exec. secretary and steno pads were a solid part of my life) I often work at night, however, most journalists/writers do that anyway as no one calls on the phone then, and I am still a working journalist. H: Do you have any experience to suggest that spiritual development plays a role in how you handle your psychic ability, the degree or scope of your ability, or the quality of that ability? B: No I do not connect spiritual development with my ability. I am too hard-nosed as a lifelong investigative journalist, I suppose. I realize that it is a factor to many in the Psi field, and I have no argument with them, nor their beliefs. (privately I feel that many 'project' a spirituality that is not sincere, which is a shame. I feel that the abilities I use every day are available to anyone, spiritually-developed or not - and there is no benefit to making a connection between the two. For instance - I was told a person could not see 'auras' unless they were 'spiritual' , by 2 Franciscan monks, and when I had learned by myself to see them, they were amazed as "you're not spiritual at all" they said. :) Since it is a simple blur of the eye required to see this energy, how could it be 'spiritual’? Most in my group are police officers or ex-police, and most of the group are male. They are of all faiths. I will say I believe that we all know there is a God....but it is not a factor nor topic of discussion (spirituality) in any way. We believe a person's philosophies, and religion, are their own private business. H: How did you get into police work? B: I grew up in a police family. A Police Detective came to me with an 'unsolved' case in 1968. My work was very instrumental in solving it. When some of my students wanted to try in 1971 a case out of the newspaper to see how they could do - they chose a missing woman. We were able to find the body. That catapulted me into the news--and the rest is history - as they say. We had to set rules immediately, that we would not volunteer our services, would not charge, and would never never interact with a victim’s family. These Rules are prominently Posted on our website [editor’s note: see www.uspsiquad.com/]. H: As in some movies or TV shows, have you gotten into the mind of
the B: Yes, I have gotten a good look into the mind of some criminals - at the request of the law enforcement officials. In one case, they could not break down the killer to confess. They asked us for a Profile to help with that and we said that he had a 'thing' about his mother - and if they asked him about her he would break. He did. We've done Profiling for years, like that, but do not pry for no good reason. Often it is the mind of the victim that must be probed, to discover how she/he became a victim and who was responsible. In doing this, you must go back in the time period to pick up that information, as we never deal with contact with the departed in any way. There is no need...and it goes against the grain to think of doing that. We have just completed such a job on a victim's mind to see if she is indeed dead, etc. In fact, we're still working on it. It is, however, very different than shown in movies, as we do not 'make contact' - merely observe. If you're familiar with the FBI profilers, our work is similar but more personalized as we make no assumptions based on any previous individual's mind set. H: Do you have any experience to suggest that the kindergarten wisdom, "It takes one to know one" applies to psychic police work? That is, there is a bit of larceny in everyone’s heart, and it takes a bit of the criminal mind in the police officer to connect with the mind of the criminal? B: No, I think being 'raised in the blue' sense gave me an edge with criminal activity - not to mention I am a crime buff and read true crime books or studies of the abnormal mind or books on FBI profiling constantly. I was raised on Perry Mason, Del Shannon and Mike Shayne as well - all detective fare. My one venture at stealing a comic book at age 10 was immediately foiled and I abandoned my future in crime.... One of my six helped herself to a mini-stapler and we made her go and give it back to the manager of the store. Embarrassment is a teacher without peer. Cops are cops--cops are like anyone else-- some good and some bad. You have to do what one FBI Agent said the other day to me "think out of the box" - that's the key. Never assume - never expect - you'll get kicked every time. The cops in my group are so straight it's hard to get them to bend over and give me a hug! HR: When reporters talk to you about psychic police work, what are
their most B: Reporters always want to know what case you are working - and the law enforcement never wants them to know. It is necessary to control the questioning so that I can answer their questions - and as a journalist and reporter myself, I can do that. If they want to know about some of the cases we have concluded and the Police don't mind - we can talk about that. HR: Many psychics report having helped the police, yet the police seem to routinely negate any suggestion that psychics have played any substantive role in their work. How do you foresee the situation changing, if at all, so that police will be trained in the use of psychics or psychic skills? B: The situation of Police denial will not change until the word 'psychic' is totally replaced by 'remote viewer' = and they understand that this is NOT some mystical power of some sort, nor some paranormal ability that they themselves don't have or can't develop. Most Police deny it because some other Department may make fun of them...simply that. Most people have a perception of 'psychics' as the same as tv's Miss Cleo or the 900 line frauds - so who could blame them for not knowing the difference? Eventually, when this is brought into the Police Academies being taught as an extended investigative tool, which it is-- it will be accepted. H: How do you use this skill for yourself? B: Only in Wall Street. H: You are interested in having the general public know that everyone has this skill, so I’m wondering what you’d want the general public to know about how they could use it. Many of them would not be interested in police work. B: No, many of my students are not interested in police work. Suppose you have three cars that you are considering for purchase. You can use remote viewing you can see which one would be the best to purchase. H: Now you’ve done that with the stock market, choosing which stocks to buy. B: That’s right. H: Another possible use I was thinking of, and I don’t know how you’d feel about it, or how people would feel about it, but couldn’t’ parents use this to check on their children? B: I’ve done that. I have six children. H: You can use it to make sure they are OK. B: Not to pry into their private business, but if they are not home from school when they are supposed to be, to make sure they are OK, or if they are going on a trip to some other place, and you want to make sure that they are there, that nothing’s wrong. H: What about using it to see if they are using drugs? B: I’ve never heard about that application, but I suppose you could. H: That would be an acceptable use of it? B: I think so, but I think a person would have to have developed remote viewing to a high degree before they could recognize that. H: Do you think there is any ethical boundary in parents using remote viewing to check on their children. B: I think it depends upon the age of the child. An older teenager, eighteen or so, they are going to do it anyway, you can’t control it. H: So you’d say the ethical distinction is whether or not by using the skill the parent could help the child avert some problem. B: Yes, I’d agree. H: So with a younger child you could use remote viewing to check on things, because you would be able to intervene, but with an older child, you’d probably not be able to control their behavior so you shouldn’t use remote viewing to see if they were using drugs. B: I think that after a certain age, it’s more or less prying. H: Well what about criminals? Is it prying to spy on them committing crimes? Would criminals need to be warned that a psychic eye is spying on them? In terms of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, do you think the criminal has any protection against psychic searches without due process? B: As to the criminals - well, don't you feel they have already broken the laws of God and man? Do they think that God cannot see what they have done? It would be interesting to see the ACLU try to prove that an investigative tool that they deny reality, has been used against someone's 'liberties'. The hows and whys of this are for the future. Persons raised in Police or law enforcement families tend to think that it is the criminals who have broken the Laws and all new forensic discoveries should and must be used to apprehend the lawbreaker or taker of human life. H: It’s interesting that you mention God knowing in this kind of situation. You see, I ask this kind of question because there is a mythical component to the question of the psychic and the police and the criminal. It is akin to the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve hide from God after their "sin." The criminal and the crime, is like the sin. The police is like the conscience, or "God calling." It is the search for truth and redemption. We can hide our secret crimes and criminals can hide as long as ESP is not allowed. It is like our imagined separation from God. We turn our face away, stick our head in the sand, as Adam and Eve hid in the bushes. To introduce the psychic into the criminal scene is like adding a spiritual component: "Your sins are seen." If criminals could not hide, because of all knowing police, then wouldn't crime go down? In this issue of our webazine, accompanying this interview with you, I have presented my essay on ESP and secrets (www.intuitive-connections.net). B: Would it not be better for us to see what is really happening in the mind of the criminal? To see what caused his crime? To see what began the process? Psychology is not a recognized science. It offers only a partial and flawed 'look' into these minds. Our science would offer a real look--which could only be good. In a strictly speculative sense, if a criminal knew he could not hide - perhaps he would not commit the crime? Those who kill out of illness of the mind might be seen and forestalled by compassionate treatment of the disease that is the problem. H: OK. Well this is one of the reasons I brought up this question was that you brought up a very interesting scenario about the ACLU trying to defend a criminal because the police, or the psychics working with the police, used remote viewing to apprehend that person. B: Yes. It happened in our work, but also, since most professionals and scientists deny that it exists, so how could they present a case like that. H: Right. I was wondering it might come up that based upon remote viewing the police would ask for a search warrant, but probably what would happen is that they’d have to work with remote viewing to find some evidence in another way that would allow for the search warrant. B: There are two cases where this has happened. In one case, a child had been kidnapped and remote viewing indicated that the child was still alive but was being held captive in a certain building. A search warrant was not granted on the basis of the evidence obtained by remote viewing. Well we had to wait until the child was dead. That was very distressing. In fact one of the individuals in my remote viewing group did quit because of that, a police officer. He had been willing to go into that building himself without a search warrant to find the child, but the police wouldn’t let him. In another case, a defense attorney attempted to call a mistrial because the police had not caught his client, that we had. But the state’s attorney was able to show that we were only used to find the body of the victim and we did not in any way procure the defendant. So the petition for a mistrial was denied. H: In the case of the search warrant that was denied, I imagine it was denied on the basis of it being non-substantial evidence, science not believing in remote viewing, rather than being denied on the basis of it being an unreasonable, or illegal search. I am very much interested in how society will come to integrate the reality of the psychic, or remote viewing, into its laws and ethical relationships that form our society. B: If all judges had this skill, no innocent person would ever be convicted. If all police had this skill, no innocent person would ever be arrested. And there’s a lot of talk right now about innocent people being put to death. H: Yes, that’s a hot topic. You have an interesting slant on it. On the other hand, there was something in the news about someone being convicted of growing marijuana in their house, where the police had detected it through an infra-red scan of the house. The court threw out the conviction, saying that the man had the right to expect privacy in his home. Now remote viewing would suggest that you could mentally scan someone’s mind, whereas most people would expect to have the privacy of their own mind. B: You can not really use remote viewing to read someone’s thoughts. You can do a profile, that’s very different. H: How is that different? B: A profile will give you characteristics, very specific characteristics about an individual. H: Would these be things that could be observed by someone who was in direct contact with the individual? Visible characteristics? B: Yes, or even if the person were not in direct contact. We have often been asked to provide profiles and what comes out are very similar to the FBI profiles., only we don’t use a computer and we can get more specific information. There was a case where a girl was murdered, and I was called in immediately on the case--at that point this fourteen year old girl was presumed simply to be missing--and I was able to use remote viewing to locate her whereabouts--her body, as it turned out--and also to provide a profile on the murderer, who was a serial killer. He had beaten an old woman to death. I wasn’t sure of the exact location of that body, but I knew that he would do it again, and that he would eventually be caught in the act of commission of the same kind of crime. He killed a second girl, and then with the third girl, she managed to get away, and was able to remember enough details about his vehicle that the police were able to apprehend him. He was arrested for attempted kidnapping. He fit the profile so well which I had provided that the police decided to question him further and he eventually admitted that he had killed those two girls. During the trial it came out that he had bludgeoned an elderly woman in the area that I had previously identified. H: Those kinds of results have to give you some satisfaction. B: It does, and it also shows the accuracy of remote viewing in terms of profiling. We had said his name began with a B, that he had Elvis Presley type side burns, and when he was caught these things were true, which was why the police decided to talk to him further. H: I know the police seem to always deny that psychics are helpful. I’d love to see you on Larry King live with a policeman, too, who would say about how you had helped them solve a case. B: We have a policeman in our group who uses it in his work. For instance, in one case, one of our policemen was called and told there was a bomb in a school building and he was to evacuate the hospital right next door. He remote viewed the bomb, and saw that it was not a bomb, but a dummy. He refused to go forward with the evacuation of the hospital because he felt that it might do more harm than good. H: That certainly required him to have some trust in his remote viewing. B: Well, he has worked with it almost as long as I have, since 1971. So he told them where he would find the bomb, in a blue bag, in the closet. And when they went in there, they found the dummy bomb right where he said they would. He put his job on the line. H: He sure did. B: Now we’ve had other policemen who could sit on the side of the highway and remote view passing cars. They could see which cars to stop, and when they would stop such a car, it would prove to be what they call "dirty." The driver was a criminal, was drunk, or there were drugs in the car. H: But in our laws, there has to be a reason to stop a car. B: They say it is good police work. No one questions that. H: Interesting. B: Can you imagine a parole board using remote viewing in their decision making? H: In terms of being able to prophesize about whether or not a prison inmate would commit another crime if released? B: Exactly. But we don’t call it prophesy. It’s a time warp, if anything, to enable you to see the future. H: I guess its an extension of what already goes on in human decision making. People make judgments based upon the evidence they see before them. B: Yes. But here evidence not seen. It’s going to take the public a long time to understand that this is possible. If an inmate comes before the parole board and they can see that he will be a productive citizen, there would be no harm in letting him out. But if you can see that he will commit more crimes in the future, then it would be better to keep him in prison. H: If I can take what you are saying in another direction, perhaps in the extreme, that someone should be available at the maternity ward at the hospital, and remote view all the babies there, and see which ones are going to turn out to be criminals and prevent their release. B: No, if you see that the child has the potential, if there is such a thing, then that child needs special care and counseling. You find that there are a great many criminals who had bad childhoods, they were brutalized, never taught right from wrong, never given an ethical structure. So if these children were given some training that is lacking now, then perhaps they would not turn out to be criminals. H: I think that you are right there. Please forgive me for twisting your ideas into these extreme examples, because it is a special interest of mine, that is, the integration of psychic abilities into social thought, and some of the consequences and how we deal with the tough questions that go beyond our usual assumptions about the limitations of human awareness. B: By the time such questions are really confronted, I’ll have gone on, but at the same time, what I’ve striven to do is to leave a body of thought, of evidence, of thinking, a record, of how it can be used for good, that will go on to the next generation. Many of the people in my group are younger than I. They are the next generation. As it becomes normal to society, and we get away from this ga-ga stuff of speaking to the dead and so on, and simply develop this skill, it will be seen as a useful ability in anyone’s life. A salesman can use it to decide which people would be most interested in what he has to sell. A builder can use the ability to see if what he is constructing has any flaws or if any problems might develop in the future. H: You can appreciate, I’m sure, how the acceptance of the reality of remote viewing opens up the question of the nature of boundaries. There are certain things that we hold to be our own exclusively, and we can hold on to them because of the nature of our three-dimensional physical world, like we can put our belongings in a safe, or put a fence around our property. But that sense of boundary is coming loose. Electronic media, for example, has us frightened about the loss of privacy, and it has business concerns worried about how they can protect intellectual property once it moves into electronic form. B: Well if we all lived in a perfect world, this would be no problem. H: The development of remote viewing is requiring us to grow morally, or ethically, to use this ability in a constructive manner, as is the case with other developments in science. B: That’s factual. There are many new technologies requiring this kind of moral development, and remote viewing is just one more. It helps you to make choices, or projections. You are not learning to become a superspy, you are learning to look at your world in a more complete way. There are very few people who talk about ethics in this field. I do happen to be one of them. H: I think it is a very interesting topic, one that really challenges our usual way of thinking. To give you one example, let me share with you one of the questions I’ve been asking people in the general public, and found that they have very inadequate answers. B: Let me have it, and I’ll see what I can do with the question. H: Well, to introduce the question, I was examining a potential remote viewing exercise where a person attempts to view the higher self of another person. A student raised a concern about contacting someone’s higher self without first asking that person’s permission. That got me thinking, and now to put it in somewhat technical terms, the question is, under what circumstances do I have the ethical responsibility to ask your permission before I engage in a process attempting to understand you? Now, normally, we think that if you say something to me, you’ve given me tacit permission to understand what you have said. But I can listen to the tone of your voice, the musical expression in your voice as you speak, and I can learn a lot about your feelings about what you are saying, feelings that you may not be aware of having. Going deeper, you could remote view into their lives and see past events that have made these emotions what they are and what has given a particular meaning and importance to what they are saying. At what point do you need to ask a person’s permission to understand so deeply what they are saying? And when I ask this question, about the only kind of answer I get is that if you use psychic means, then you have to ask permission. But we don’t always know when we are using psychic means to understand. I’m not sure, but I would imagine that the ethical equation here would have something to do with your intentions and with the anticipated impact of your understanding upon that person. If your intention is simply to understand, then maybe you don’t need to ask permission. But if your intention is to have an effect upon that person, then maybe you need to ask permission first. But think about this extreme example: you wish someone, "Have a nice day!" That’s kind of a blessing on that person. You’re possibly having an impact on that person--the same could be true by simply smiling at that person--but you are having an impact without asking permission first. Should we greet people by saying, "With your permission, I wish you a nice day, unless you have other plans!" So it gets complicated. . The trouble with that kind of ethical calculation is that when you understand a person, you can interact with that person in a more harmonious way and that has an effect on that person, and without their permission. So understanding a person can have an impact upon the types of experiences that person will have with you. So I find the question about asking permission of a person before attempting to understand that person a troubling question and I’ve found no satisfactory answer so far. What’s yours? B: Well, that’s very deep water you’re talking about. Now almost everyone has an empathic sense. Now I don’t have it like some people do. I would have to learn that as a separate skill. H: That’s interesting, by the way, that you can do remote viewing, but claim not to have the empathic sense, so remote viewing must be a very different skill. B: Remote viewing is a directed look. Empathic people don’t know what they do, whereas remote viewing is very intentional and a very specific process. One of my remote viewers is an empath and it is a problem for him. He can pick up bad feelings from friends when they are having a bad day, even when there is hundreds of miles separation between them. H: Right, I’ve met many people who have experienced this type of thing. B: I think all of us spend most of our lives trying to understand other people. We use skill, or just do it, but we all do it. We look for body language. Experts look at the colors that people wear. H: But in terms of looking into those deep waters, do you think remote viewing could be used as an extended ethical sense, to see the ethical boundaries of understanding someone? B: I think eventually, yes. When you are doing the remote viewing, most people have a specific objective in mind. The criminal profile, the abnormalities, these call for specializations. The U.S. Psi Squad is a group of specialists in looking into these kinds of things. H: Yet it would be interesting to see if anyone on your squad might be able to have some kind of notion of how remote viewing could be applied to see into the question of ethics. B: Well, in the examples of civil liberties we discussed, such a thing as the infra-red scan could tell you that some person had something going on, but it couldn’t tell you who that person was. H: Yes, and in the case of the video cameras recording people who run red lights, someone got off by saying that the camera recorded the license number of the car, but not who the driver was. B: That camera was poorly positioned. But I have a hunch that everyone has an electronic signature and the future of that kind of technology will mean that we’ll be able to pick up that kind of information. H: Well, we can identify people by their DNA, but we have to ask permission of the person, usually, to get access to their body to get a DNA sample. With the electronic surveillance of the type of signatures you are talking about, it can be done without getting permission, because you don’t have to enter the person’s skin. It’s available from a distance. B: If we become a more tightly controlled society in that way, these technologies are going to eliminate a lot of problems. If we find a person consistently driving in a reckless manner, speeding, going through red lights, then we can attend to that person and give remedial training, special courses, to raise their sense of responsibility. H: I guess that would be like doing DNA testing on children and when they find some signs that their DNA is marked for cancer, they could train that child in preventative measures. B: I believe that all abnormalities are a part of human nature. We all have a bad side and we spend our lives trying to get rid of or rehabilitate the bad side. But many of us don’t have the abilities to detect our bad sides. Greater awareness will give us the potential of greater control. H: You are really speaking as an advocate of consciousness. B: Exactly. H: The more conscious we are, the better equipped we are to make more informed choices. B: These new technologies would help us identify people who need special training and then we wouldn’t have criminals, unwed mothers and so on. H: I guess the problem now is that we might consider it too subjective a process to use something like remote viewing to detect such individuals. We have the scientific notion of consensual reality, and when you use observables to form a decision, then other people can look at those observables and check your decision making. But remote viewing is an invisible, inner process. But it is helping it become more accepted by the fact that you use a group of remote viewers and they come up with the same data, so there can be a consensual reality in remote viewing. B: Yes, that’s the idea. H: In terms of your own development of greater consciousness, how would you like to see your abilities further developed? B: My abilities need to be developed further so that more and more detail is gained. I am also determined to learn how to do what Ron Warmoth could do. Ron was the finest person ever to train himself in remote viewing of minerals, gems, oil and crystals under rock and earth. He was self-trained, first using a pendulum as in dowsing, then only the abilities of his own mind to locate these things as proven in numerous newspapers and in NEWSWEEK. I want to learn to see more clearly what is concealed under the earth, under rock or any natural barrier. I plan to do this by finding more tasks that involve just this skill. Working the Kursk under deep deep water was such a task [editor’s note: you can see this work on Bevy’s website at www.uspsisquad.com/]. Ron could see oil underground, or a certain color of gemstone in a minefull of other colored gemstones. I need to do that, too. (for an example of her work on a pebble, click here)H: In terns of increasing awareness in others, you don’t offer psychic readings to the general public, do you? B: No I don’t. H: But you do offer some training? B: Yes, my web site has a course offering, for $45, which I think anyone can afford. H: Yes, that is very reasonable. I note that you have a book, The Psychic Paradigm. Perhaps if you can get me a review copy of that book, I can get an article written about it for our next issue. B: Yes, I can get you a copy of that. H: Well, thank you, Beverly, for your time in having this interview. I’ll be sure to advise people to check out your web site, www.uspsisquad.com and to read your article, "The Edge of Tomorrow," that you’ve allowed us to reprint in our webazine. We’ll look forward to reviewing your book, The Psychic Paradigm, and maybe we’ll hear something from you in the future about remote viewing of ethical considerations. To see commentaries on this article
|
