If the radionic use of a physical "witness" to link to a distant target seems outlandish by the standards of orthodox science, then identifying a target based on a mere code or geographical coordinate must be considered utterly unworthy of mention. Yet the Stargate program, which was run by the government for almost 20 years, demonstrates that remote viewing and related human abilities are more than a hoax. Remote diagnosis and healing on the basis of a mere name and birth date, or location, are known in every traditional culture, while prayer groups, whose efficacy has been demonstrated again in recent studies (Benor, p 194-198), require little more than this information. Correct diagnoses obtained by psi healers on the basis of name and birth date ranged in accuracy from 60 to 93% (Benor p 48, 278) Adjunct-free distant mental interactions on living systems (DMILS) have been demonstrated in many controlled experiments and include statistically significant effects on bacteria, yeast, fungi, mobile algae, plants, animals, and humans (6; Benor p 287-8, 350; Braud & Schlitz 1991; Hirasawa & al, 1996; Yamamoto & al, 1996b; Hirasawa & al 1996; Yamamoto & al, 1998; Yamamoto & al, 2001; Kawano & al, 2001; Yamamoto & al, 1996c; Kokubo & al, 2000; Yamamoto & al, 1997; Yamamoto & al, 1999). Finally, we have also seen in earlier examples (Edwards, Safonov, Shubentsov) how mentally visualizing the patient helped the healer perceive not only the areas of disease, but also, sometimes, the patient's environment, including many details that were confirmed at a later date. This type of inadvertent remote viewing suggests that a common mechanism may be responsible for target identification in both RV and remote healing. What this mechanism may be, however, is one of the greatest enigmas that we are faced with today.

It is a truism to say it - that one must have enough information to uniquely locate a target. But what kind of information are we talking about? While one could argue that we are dealing with DNA (or its associated vacuum substructure) in the case of hair or blood, or a subliminal electromagnetic unique signature registered on the photographic film in the case of a picture, when we are given merely a name or geographical coordinate, there is no such physical fingerprint - only information, in the most trivial (or perhaps sublime) sense. But information implies meaning (to at least one individual), hence the fact that being given a (to the healer) meaningless name or location allows him to establish a true connection suggests that the connection is made through the minds of those who know this meaning, OR, indeed, that we all share One Mind, and that all information is available as long as one has a 'minimal synaptic connection' to it. Thus, while a name, birth date or geographical coordinate might not immediately appear to carry as many bytes of information as, say, a DNA sample, it is an intriguing question to consider whether placing such a target designation within a remote viewing or distant healing context might activate ALL the information available globally about this coordinate - much like the address of your primary school might open floods of memories - except that, in this case, the individual "modules" being activated belong not to one, but to over 6 billion brains. Such streams of intersecting information could easily designate a target in a unique way, and further provide information about present location, future plans, and so forth. This seemed to be the case with Harry Edwards, who routinely "glimpsed" the physical surroundings of his distant target in great detail (later confirmed - Benor p. 84); and also the mechanism for coordinate remote viewing and psychometric readings in forensic remote viewing, both of which are known to occasionally yield information about past or near-future developments associated with the target, and which MAY represent thinking processes (ie memory or planning) associated with the target, rather than actual time travel on the part of the viewer.

Experiment 4: To test the One-Mind hypothesis, we propose the following experiment: designate a fictitious location XY (ie a box located on the tenth floor of a five story building); tell ten different people various "characteristics" of this fictitious XY target, and also that someone will attempt to remote view it in the near future; then follow a normal RV protocol with multiple viewers and see what the operators come up with: if some of the fictitious characteristics show up, there's a fairly good chance that the One Mind model is correct. A further variation might involve an attempt by a qigong master to distantly focus on and effect a visible change on such a "target": assuming he is told that the target is a hexane sample, and that this is consistent with the various "clues" given to the ten participants, it would be most interesting to see if his perception or ability to lock onto the target is different than in the case of a real object, and also whether a subsequent RV experiment indicates any perceived changes correlating with the master's intent to alter the sample color by bromination (see "Bromination of Hexane" by Yan Xin)

Several very interesting observations related to this question have been made by Joseph McMoneagle (McMoneagle, 1997), subject Nr. 001 in the STARGATE program, and arguably the most prominent remote viewer in this country: in his over 15 years of experience designing, evaluating and participating in RV protocols, he noted that "coordinates have been incorrectly read, but the right target described; the spelling of a target's name [was] wrong, but the information [was] correct about the targeted individual; the system breaks down at the last minute and a target envelope isn't put where it is expected to be, but the description of the target is accurate anyway"; and finally, that, when several potential targets were present within a given coordinate area, the correct target was nevertheless the one that the operator locked onto (McMoneagle, page 132, 136). How can we interpret this? McMoneagle believes that intent (the intent of the remote viewer, the interviewer, the target selector, the analyst and the judge ) is the glue which holds RV together: "all of reality, as we know it, exists because we intend it to". Moreover, he believes that a feedback mechanism is at work behind RV and the even stranger, pre-cognitive episodes he experienced: in other words, that "at some point in the future, I will come to know the answer to whatever question has been put to me in the past. Therefore, whenever the information is passed to me in its accurate form, that is when I send it back to myself in the past" (McMoneagle, p 253) .

This may be true, but what if feedback is not provided? It should be very easy to test this model by simply comparing the success rate of a series of RV experiments where feedback is denied to the average success rate for the same operator and the same level of difficulty when feedback is provided in the usual manner.

"Feedback" may, however, represent more than just the protocol described above. One possibility explored by Matti Pitkanen's Topological Geometrodynamics model (see this issue) is that time-like entanglement may be possible between cognitive representations (spacetime sheets in p-adic domain of 8-dimensional universe) in such a way that experience is shared between past and future sub-selves: these sub-selves may, but do not have to belong to the same individual (ie may be associated with different real-domain spacetime sheets).

But how could a distant healer engage his target in the absence of even a subtle physical link (resonant transfer)? One wildly speculative notion is that, perhaps, the convergence of information has itself a "subtle body" in the form of a QHS pattern, and that the healer acts on this pattern with his modulating intent. Safonov and Shubentsov's reports (see section I) that the mental scanning of a patient's visualized body gives rise to the same sensations as if the body were physically present seems to point in this direction.

One type of study that seems to offer very promising directions in this vastly uncharted territory is the mapping of EEG profiles and other physiological parameters between sender and receiver during shielded, blind "tohate" protocols. In these experiments (conducted since 1996 in Japan), a sender and a percipient are located separately in two sensory-shielded rooms, and extrasensory transfer of information is attempted while both are connected to electroencephalographs. (The increase in alpha waves of receivers under the effect of external qigong, but not under sham qigong, has been repeatedly demonstrated [Tsuda, 1999; Sidorov 2001] and represents a useful marker of bioinformation transfer.) The sender transmits his intent during randomly selected intervals and the receiver attempts to guess the onset of transmission (or is simply monitored for neuromuscular and other physiological changes in some of the experiments). While most of the studies showed no significant conscious ability to correctly guess this interval, statistically significant correlations were consistently observed between the actual sending time and the alpha wave amplitude changes in the receiver; (the information transfer seems to be composed of two reactions, the first one noted in the occipital and parietal regions, followed by a second reaction in the frontal region). (Hirasawa & al, 1996; Yamamoto & al, 1996b; Hirasawa & al 1996; Yamamoto & al, 1998; Yamamoto & al, 2001) In addition, alpha wave sychronization (in both amplitude and peak frequency) was demonstrated between pairs of qigong masters and their receivers while they were separated by a distance of 4 Km (Kawano & al, 2001). Other physiological chages that correlated with the sending period (but not with non-sending intervals) were motion time (start of recoil) in the receiver (Yamamoto & al, 1996c) and receiver skin conductance fluctuations (Kokubo & al, 2000) Several studies also looked at the time lapse between the onset of task (sending) and the onset of subconscious physiological response in the receiver, and found it to be approximately 10-17 seconds (Yamamoto & al, 1997; Yamamoto & al, 1999).

Similar results have been demonstrated by Braud and Schlitz over a 13 year period (Braud & Schlitz 1991; 6), and include effects on electrodermal activity, blood pressure, muscular activity, brain rhythms, as well as the spatial orientation of fish, locomotor activity of small mammals and the hemolysis rate of human red blood cells.

The time elapsed between intent sending and subjective perception or characteristic physiological changes might give us important clues as to the processing mechanism of such non-local bio-information. Knowing exactly when a target has been engaged would allow us to focus a lot more precisely on the electromagnetic profile of the recipient during that interval, and could perhaps reveal typical signatures of a biofield/EM coupling, such as surges in biophoton emission, activation of specific brain modules and effects on in-vitro DNA samples of the recipient (while placed in a scattering chamber as described by Gariaev&Poponin), etc. We suggest continuing this series of experiments with the following variations: increasing the distance between sender and percipient and comparing effect size/response onset time; designating the target (percipient) by coordinate only (as opposed to using photographs or direct acquaintance); and taking simultaneous measurements of sender's/recipient's biophoton emissions while studying scattering chamber effects of their respective DNA both with and without simultaneous laser stimulation. If focused intent does indeed function as a laser-like frequency, it would be highly interesting to observe its effect on an adjacent DNA sample scattering signature at the time of demonstrated effective biotransmission, as indicated by recipient's alpha wave synchronization.