ITC pioneers Tony Rathman and Ron Yacovetti, founders of Staticom, share their groundbreaking approach, which uses white noise, filtered radio static, to "carry" voices across realms in real time.
Host Stephen Berkley got to hear the voice of his late best friend, Jeffrey!
---
Listen to the podcast here
Welcome to the show. Let’s chat. This the show that seeks to better understand how to best communicate with our departed loved ones. I’m your host, Stephen Berkeley. Our guests, Tony Rathman and Ron Yacovetti.
We have an interesting interview. It’s the Staticom Project with Tony Rathman and Ron Yacovetti. I’ve been talking to these guys before we started and I’m fascinated. I can’t wait to get going. With that said, and without further ado, over to you, Stephen.
Thank you, Gary. A few announcements before we begin. We normally do two episodes per month. One live on the first Monday of the month and one pre-recorded mid-month. This month, we’re doing two live episodes because I want to try something a little differently with my friend from Psychic Medium, Veronica Drake. We agree that it would be done with a live audience. On November 18th, we’re doing a live show at 7:00 PM Eastern or 4:00 PM Pacific, which is one hour earlier than usual.
We’ll use the same Zoom link we’ve been using but we’ll send that reminder as we approach that showtime date. Now, this show in general has always been about exploring the different ways we can reach through the veil and connect toward departed loved ones. That includes connecting with the help of instrumentation. I’ve shied away from using any electronics to facilitate after death contact for two reasons. One, there are practitioners out there who will promote their results using ITC, which stands for Instrumental Trans Communication. More specifically using an ITC known as EVP or electronic voice phenomena.
They will tell their results in a way that feels sensational to me and that can be a bit of a turnoff. The second reason why I’ve balked about using devices and this may be just personal to me and it’s this. If the presumed voice of my departed loved one is not sounding like a human voice or not sounding like a voice that’s familiar to me, the experience ends up feeling a bit mixed.
The first time my parents came to visit me at college, they greeted me with heavy French accents, for example, and they’re not French speakers. I may still feel their affection for me but their presentation would have felt familiar and, therefore, somewhat alienating. Maybe some people can easily overlook stuff like that I can’t. I prefer to use connection methods that feel more organic I suppose.
Our guests, however, are working with technology to communicate with beings residing elsewhere but they are doing so in a way that I felt compelled to have them speak to us. Tony Rathman and Ron Yacovetti, both with extensive experience in professional paranormal investigation and spirit communication using technology, have been communicating regularly with whom appeared to be intelligent energies, some known to them, some unknown to them, in real-time. Tony and Ron, welcome to the show. Let’s chat.
Thank you for having us, Stephen. We look forward to speaking about this.
Thank you. We’re honored to be here.
Direct Radio Voice (DRV)
There’s a lot to unpack here. You are using technology that’s known as direct radio voice or DRV for short. What is direct radio voice? What are you doing that’s different with it?
Direct radio voice is the methodology itself and this is one of the things that we strive to do. It’s to delineate between the method and the components of it. Direct radio voice was before, if everybody knows, the spirit boxes or the ghost boxes, which are what I call the Q-tip of the paranormal because the Q-tip is a cotton swab. We call it a Q-tip because the brand has made itself synonymous with the method or with the thing itself.
In the paranormal community, ITC or instrumental trans communication has become synonymous with the sweeping ghost box or spirit box. That became the norm, but before that made itself the supreme thing, there was direct radio voice, which was born out of EVP research where they used white noise for audio support during EVP sessions, running water and radio static. Direct radio voice had been all but lost because of American media and all the ghost shows. They completely disregarded it and went with Frank's box or the Sweeping Ghost Box.
In 2019, my partner Lotus Gonzales and I brought back direct radio voice because we couldn’t believe it after seeing folks like Marcello Bacci, Dr. Anabela Cardoso, and Ernst Senkowski, what they had gotten the efficacy of the method compared to a spirit box that nobody was doing it. We brought it back. No radio broadcast. Baron of radio emissions or whatsoever. No sweeping. No spring. No spring reverb. No blinking lights. We started nurturing that and doing it. We experimented with heterodyning frequencies. We did a bunch of different things to see if it would enhance and clarify.
About a few years ago, Tony and Cherie Rathman got on board, which for us was a huge kick in the quasar as far as progress goes because they’re both very good at what they do. Tony is one of the most brilliant builders of spirit boxes over a number of years but he never sold any. From a research perspective, which is what we were doing, not selling anything. We found that to be quite inviting.
Not to mention that they were great people and doing great work. We brought back direct radio voice and they teamed up with us. Now, we’ve moved to where it is. The name Staticom, which we can get into later, came from the fact that we no longer source the white noise from a radio. The name direct radio voice did not seem appropriate any longer.
You folks are doing something different with direct radio that other people are not doing. Tell me what you’re doing that’s different and why it’s important.
We’ve got a couple of things different. First and foremost, Ron, through his historic journey through the pioneers of ITC, paid very close attention to what Radovic said and what Marcello Bacci said about the fact that spirits will speak faster than humans can interpret what they said. One of the first things and Ron noted this right off the bat, he had gotten a message that he thought just said on. It turns out he said, “I slowed this down 50%.” It didn’t say on. It said Ron. There were two or three sentences after it and it was his mother who passed away responding to him when he said, “Can you say my name?” She said, “Ron, it’s mom. It’s Lucy,” which was his grandmother. They said, “We’re connecting.”
The first thing when Ron and I got into his discussion about this, he said, we need to find a way to slow down live white noise in real time. That was one of the major changes from direct radio voice to Staticom is that all the processes that happen. If you go and record EVP you take it home. You load it into your system after the conversations complete. You do all the filtration. You amplify it. You may speed it up, slow it down, and reverse it. Whatever.
All of that for us is done in real-time meaning making the true definition of ITC what it’s supposed to be, two-way communication. We can slow it down in real time to make it perceivable. We can clean it up. We can filter it. Also, it’s completely audible to us and then back to them creating real-time two-way communication.
We looked at what ITC was good at and what it was arguably cynically criticized for not being good at. That was one of the things. They said the voices come in faster than a human vocal track can speak, let alone detect like Tony mentioned. We looked at slowing it down. The other thing we looked at was if this is supposed to be real-time dialogue. When you take your recording home, the moment of contact is over. As ITC researchers or experimenters, why do we wait till we go home to do everything to make the audio discernible?
To make sure I understand what’s happening, you basically take a radio or I think you use a white noise generator. Do you have it handy? Could you hold it up for us and see what it looks like? Is that your white noise generator? Could I hear what it sounds like? It sounds like static.
It’s not from this. I’m playing it on an app.
You plug that in and you basically purify it. You take all the artifacts out, so you’re captured. You have the white noise generator and you’re filtering out all the electronic artifacts or radio wave artifacts from it, so you have a clean canvas for which they could speak on. They could use and manipulate frequencies and create a voice. Is that right?
The white noise generator doesn’t have any connection to RF waves. They don’t exist. There’s no radio waves involved in the process of creating the white noise, which is the whole point of removing the radio because scientists like Ron said, would just say you’re getting straight radio waves. White noise alone or a white noise generator does not have the ability to pick up radio waves, walkie talkies, baby monitors, or CBs. Nothing. There are no RF signals involved in the process. That eliminates it for one. Two, white noise has no audible data. No syllables. No words. No sentences. Technically, there should be no speech there at all but there is.
It’s like a very clean space. Having it clean, is it so the process can’t be corrupted or is it because somehow, it’s easier for the energies to use clean space to emit sound?
Our theory on it is that through a process known as stochastic resonance, which is the use of white noise to amplify a signal that’s undetectable. Technically, those voices are in our environment all the time but the white noise through stochastic resonance allows those undetectable signals to become detectable. The white noise through a white noise generator has a spectral frequency of one meaning that every sound the human ear can hear 20 hertz to 20 kilohertz is all a spectral frequency of one meaning the same level. When a spirit speaks, they’re going to overlap a couple of those frequencies within the white noise and then it pushes their voice up through the stochastic resonance it raises. What we do is we go through and cut the white noise out off the bottom leaving just the voice remaining.
Any frequency that enters white noise, if it matches one of those. Those two will resonate and you’ll get amplitude from it so that is where it’ll stand out. The filtration takes care of everything else that is still at the spectral frequency of one then its completely closed circuit. As Tony was mentioning, it doesn’t receive a signal. It can’t record. We did that also to take the low-hanging cynical fruit of getting radio voices off the table. We don’t necessarily think it’s volitional. Could it be? Yes, but we try to at least stick to what we can know and what science may tell us. Not overstepped boundaries and creating narratives. Could it be volitional manipulation of frequencies? Perhaps.
Is there any way for us to empirically ground that in any kind of evidence? Probably not. We think what’s happening is to take the mystical woo out of it. By all of our heads, radio stations are playing. There’s music flying past our heads in different stations. We don’t hear it because our sensory input, our dashboard of dials, our sensors for the environment around us doesn’t register it. The second you turn on a radio, what does the radio do? It modulates the experience so it is within which your sensors now pick it up. We think the white noise and the stochastic resonance modulates an experience we would not otherwise have, but now through the amplitude, we can hear it.
The Nature Of Spirit Communication
I could play something that I captured. When I met you folks, we had a session. First, let me say what was cool about the session. I said this to Tony already. You put the machine on and we were just talking and I started asking questions like, “How do we invite spear people into the room? How does this all work?” You said, “You had your headphones on, Ron.” You said, “They’re in the room right now. There’s always people in the room and I could hear them. They’re talking.
You put it on for me and I heard what it sounded like a cocktail party. I was like, “That’s them? We didn’t have to call anybody. They’re just like hanging out and you’re capturing them.” That blew my mind a little bit but then I asked you this question. I’m going to ask again. They don’t have voice boxes. Whatever sound that I’m hearing, they’re creating for me. Why would they be creating sound before I’m even in the room or even present?
My answer to that is because they’re not creating the sound for you. They’re talking to each other. They have a life on their own and they’re communicating with each other. All the device or the method does is allow us to hear a signal we can’t hear like a radio takes an RF wave and turns it into speech or music. Staticom takes spirit voices and allows us to hear them.
Everything I’ve ever heard through mediums or anybody that’s interested in paranormal will tell me they’re not talking. They’re just transferring their thoughts to each other. You’re saying that they’re talking.
I said that loosely meaning that they’re communicating with each other. Whether they’re creating vocal sound waves, I would think probably not because as a spirit, if they are truly energy alone, then they don’t have the ability to create a vocal wave or the other ones have human ears to pick it up.
Yet, sound was being created before we even started our session. Your equipment was picking that up.
No different than if radio waves are going by you now, but only till you turn the radio on do you hear it.
At that moment, we don’t believe that Elton John is singing to us but the fact that we’re picking up the song at the time through the modulation of the device. It’s been called in the past from some of the pioneers like Constantine wiretapping to the dead or wiretapping to another dimension, if that’s perhaps what it would be. Essentially, we’re being enabled to hear something that’s outside of our dashboard of dials for hearing through the modulation of the white noise in the residence.
The Purpose Of Spirit Sounds
I understand that neither of you will be able to answer this question, but I’m putting it out there just to see what you’re thinking because I’m still curious. They’re creating sounds. It could only be for our benefit or it’s for each other, Tony, just now. If it’s for each other, why would they create sound for each other if they could just transfer their thoughts energetically?
That takes a little dissecting, but whatever method they’re communicating with, and I don’t know that that sound but if consciousness survives death, you’re definitely going to still interact with consciousness as a whole or the others who are part of it. To think that we would be in this life, which we’ve learned to communicate, and then go to another and not have any communication. That would seem like a strange diversion to me of that theory. What Staticom does to be able to take, however, they’re communicating and make it receptable so that we can understand it. That would be my best definition of what’s occurring under what variables. That I can’t answer.
If consciousness survives death, you're definitely going to still interact with consciousness as a whole or with others who are part of it.
Getting To Hear Stephen’s Late Best Friend
That’s going to have to be satisfactory enough for me. What happened was, after I got so excited about the cocktail party that I was hearing. I said, “Can I invite someone into the space that I know?” I asked if I can and Tony said, “Go for it.” I said, “My best friend, Jeffrey, is on the other side. Jeffrey, can you please come?” We had to wait for a few minutes. I was surprised because in my mind, I had invited him to this session.
Earlier in the day, I said, “We’re going to be meeting at 8:00. Make sure that you are present.” Anyway, I was surprised that he wasn’t already present. He had to be called in, but I was very happy when Tony said, “It seems like Jeffrey is here because somebody said Jeffrey is here.” Tony, I think you said, “Jeffrey, if you’re here, say, ‘Hey, Steve’” You both heard the hey and then you heard “Hey, Steve.” You both are skilled in hearing sounds that are a little bit not that easily decipherable for the rest of us. I was a little bit disappointed, but then Tony said, “Spirit, as loud as you can, say “Hey Steve.” We all heard very clearly, “Hey, Steve.” I’m going to play that clip because we could benefit from that.
“If you have other questions, ask away. I was going to say that it sounds like Jeffrey is here. Jeffrey, if you are here, could you acknowledge me by saying something like, “Hey, Steve.” I heard the hey. Right there. That was it right there, “Hey, Steve.” Jeffrey, can you do me a favor? Can you repeat that exact two words again as loud as you can say, “Hey, Steve.” Right there. Did you hear that? It was great. Yeah. Right there. There’s no possible way that that could be fudged. No. That’s crazy. That’s very cool. I’m happy now. He’s here though, Steve. He’s here.”
It didn’t sound exactly like my late best friend. There was a voice coming out of pure white noise that was identifying me as his friend and I’m going to assume that was Jeffrey and that felt pretty great. I didn’t think that would be possible to hear his voice or a voice like that during my lifetime. A big congratulations to both of you for developing this technology and allowing me to have that experience.
We appreciate that. Sharing it with the public is one of the things we get the most fun doing because a lot of people have profound moments like that. We did an expo. Tony did an event and we both had stories where people heard very personal things and they we’re in tears. There’s no way for us to fudge this and infuse into the closed-circuit process and any words about people and things that we don’t even know. When somebody gets something out of it that isn’t us, we’re very happy to see that happen.
It is what we think of communicating with consciousness. We think as a whole, as Tony mentioned, we’re communicating with consciousness. We do think that communication as well as reality is mental. That would explain them talking amongst themselves. It would explain how the process would need to be modulated for us to detect it. Certainly, those moments, we were very happy that we were able to do that for you.
Current State Of The Staticom Project
That was fantastic. Now, where are you now with the Staticom project? You’re doing these expos and you’re getting the word out. This technology is out there and it’s getting refined. Improving all the time. You’re able to understand it more easily as time goes on. Where are you now with it and where are you planning on going with it?
As I said, it’s still in its ensigncy. We’re demonstrating it in as many places that we can. As I said, Ron and Lourdes have been doing expos all over the East Coast. My wife and I have been doing shows and demonstrations of what’s possible. We did four at the Orpheum Theater and Sedona. The same thing Ron was saying, we had a mother and daughter in the audience and they were flat out asking questions. Her son, the daughter’s brother, had passed away. She asked, “What was his dog’s name?” We didn’t know the answer.
The answer came flying out and they looked like in shock that they heard it and asked question after question after question. What do you think of this? What should we do about this? They received the answer after answer. They were in tears by the end of the presentation because they heard it, understood it, and knew who it was. This consciousness, this voice gave the answers that only they knew were correct.
We had a similar instance, too. There was a woman who lost her son when he was fifteen. She heard James, a drummer, and my mom and he was named James. He played the drums and that was his mom and then a voice said something. Lourdes, my partner, who is a court reporter by trade. When the argument comes up between warbles and artifacts with the audio engineer versus the court reporter who’s to train linguists listening to language. I’m going with the court reporter every time because she doesn’t have to know how language behaves. She has to know what it sounds like and she does. She heard a voice say, “Mention the cookies,” and she said that out loud. The woman started crying because she brought cookies to the event that day.
Addressing Skepticism And Challenges
Those are two examples of evidence. Let me ask you this. You mentioned skeptics earlier. What challenges have you been faced with from skeptics? How have you addressed them?
The two main ones were the radio voices, which we removed by not having a radio. The warbles and artifacts one, which is almost laughable at a certain level because if through the phenomenon known as Pareidolia, where we’re hearing what we want to hear and putting messages together. In instances like Tony just mentioned, they didn’t even know the name of the dog but they heard the word and it happened to be the right answer.
If Pareidolia in fallible hearing was happening at the rate that we’re told it’s happening in the paranormal to thereby discredit all the audio evidence that is captured across the globe that has almost identical characteristics to the data to say that that’s pareidolia in fallible hearing. There would have to be other instances documented through data in life where it happens elsewhere.
You can’t tell me that pareidolia is predatory to the paranormal like when I’m listening to spooky stuff. All of a sudden, my hearing is fallible. Where’s the guy who walks into a supervisor and they go, “You’re fired.” He goes, “What? A raise? That’s fantastic.” “I’m sorry, pareidolia. My prescription ran out.” Where’s that story? You would have to have that.
Voices would have to be coming in wrong and being misheard far more often. That would be causing calamities in society. Can we hear wrong sometimes? Yes, that does happen but not at the epidemic rate that we’re told that it does happen. That’s where it’s pushing the envelope a little too far with this pareidolia thing. That’s our take.
I don’t remember which one of you said this before. I think it may have been wrong but I’m going to be like let both of you answer this question. You said, “The paranormal community is lacking in critical thinking. Skepticism is good. We need more of that in this field.” What did you mean by that?
Tony can give his own answer. For me, we need proper skeptical parsimony. I think we need to look at things and it was funny because I saw before when somebody had put in a chat about flying in the face of a lot of what we’re told about the afterlife. The afterlife stuff that we’ve been told a lot of for years is built off of axioms. Axioms are beliefs that are held unquestioned, just their truths. We don’t even second guess and a lot of those are built on what people say, “That was logically thought out.” What is logic? Logic is a collection of axioms.
We’re told a lot of things that nobody questions. Mirrors are portals to other dimensions. I’ve never seen that happen. I’ve never been in a location that was alleged to be haunted. Threw a coin into a mirror, and it came out the other one. Could it happen? Perhaps. Have I seen it happen? No. It has no empirical grounding whatsoever. We get into an area where we could theorize any silly freaking thing out there and you can’t prove it’s not true. Do we have a reason to think that it is?
I wrote an academic paper on stone tape theory in psychometry because the paranormal field is very rife with people who will say, “Science can’t talk about this. It’s paranormal. It’s supernatural. It’s beyond what science can do.” They go, “Let me prove it to you by calling in physics.” That’s science. You can’t do that. You have to be in league with what science tells us. You have to have an ontological perspective. An ontology is a study of the nature of being, the what is and that’s a philosophical issue. That's metaphysics.
The paranormal field thinks metaphysics means spiritual stuff. It doesn’t. It literally means that which stands behind physics. Science tells us what nature does, what we’re going to see next. Not what it is. That’s a philosophical argument. That’s an ontology and that’s what we try to look at what’s behaving that we’re observing.
Thank you, by the way, Ron. That was well said.
I will say that one of the differences that we found where we see with Staticom compared to a medium. When people say, “Maybe you’re communicating with extraterrestrials.”
I mentioned that last time.
We don’t think we are. At least, I don’t think we are. The reason is because it is a stretch that is completely empirically inadequate. We can’t support it in any way to say that a different species, a different race of creature would have the same empirical references, the same syntax, or the same referential things that we have in our language, which are probably amongst humans archetypal to say that they’re from some other galaxy and they have those same things or could translate it.
When I say I have a steaming show, you know what I mean because what a stream is. To assume those things and to say like an alien being, you could say the same thing with a dolphin. That would be alien to our mental processes. We don’t have any reason to think nor have we ever translated dolphin to English like you could Chinese or Turkish or Japanese into English because there has to be a translatable factor involved. With electronic communication, I don’t think that’s present.
With a medium, however, because symbology and metaphor may be how they get their stuff, especially through symbols. Through somebody’s cognition being infiltrated, you could have their mind represent to itself a message to then be interpreted and then deciphered. We do this in dreams. A part of our brain that does not function in language will do that to the other part.
You’ll have a dream that your briefcase or your computer bag is on a skateboard rolling down the street and you’re chasing after it. Maybe the message is, you need to pick up your life and start doing something. You’re dragging your feet a little bit and the important stuff is getting away from you. Maybe that’s the message that you take from it the way a psychologist would break down a dream. We think that aspect of a medium would have where we don’t have a translatable factor in ours. We hear it in the language that we know when it comes out.
The Nature Of Spirit Entities, Soul, & Afterlife
Now, when we first started our session, you gave me a sample. When we first started the sample, either Tony or Ron asked, “How many people do we have with us?” We got back to the answer of three. About ten minutes later, one of you asked the same question because you knew that more people would have entered the room by now. You could hear all the chatter.
It sounded like more people entered the room. The answer was the second time, 90,000. Now, what are they doing? Why are they coming to see us? Who are they? Have you developed any relationship with any of these beings that you’ve never known before? Have you asked questions like, what’s the message for us? Why do you want to communicate with us? Has that come up?
We’ve asked so many questions. I wouldn’t even know where to begin listing them. We’d spend your entire show just covering what we asked. One of the things that we had to do when we started to get responses was to take a look and to be able to put together a philosophy of what we believed reality to be. That made us take a step back and look. It also made us look not only what we believe, what we believe to be true, what we believe to happen and how we believed it occurred but it also made us take a look at what we believed in how they were communicating to us.
When you say, if the numbers went from three to whatever the second number was and it increased that much and you asked, why are they here? Why did they come here? One of the things that Ron and I have discussed over and over is that we don’t believe they have to come or go from anywhere to communicate. It is through consciousness, which we have as being a human being which then we believe shares information with collective consciousness then we become part of collective consciousness again when this life is over.
For them to answer or communicate, they don’t have to come and go from anywhere. They are everywhere. All they have to do is take that information, grab a hold of it, because it’s right in front of them, and repeat it back to us. One of the things we questioned, Ron used to hold up in his hand his glasses and say, “What am I holding?” The answer would come back glasses.
When this life is over, spirits don't have to come and go from anywhere to communicate. They are everywhere, and all they have to do is take that information and repeat it back to us.
The question was, how are they getting that information? Who’s the one person outside of whoever else is in the room, who’s probably thinking glasses as he’s holding him up? Definitely Ron and probably every other person in the room watching him do it. There are all the answers they need from everybody thinking about it. It’s communicating with consciousness.
To be clear too, because this gets conflated sometimes, too. We don’t think that we’re thinking our thoughts into the devices. I know with radio communication that was a big thing. People go, “Aren’t your thoughts coming through?” That opens up a whole other can of worms. If you have a room of 50 people, what governs whose thoughts come in over other person’s thoughts? Why don’t they all come through and make a big mess that’s completely inaudible?
We have no reason from a physics perspective to see that we can think on a frequency that a radio can receive and then somehow through no FCC cooperation or whatsoever. We’re broadcasting our thoughts. We have no reason to believe that. It’s complete fantasy and an appeal to magic, but people do because the science fiction think that some of these things are possible. We think it’s consciousness. We don’t claim to know, but we look at what makes the most sense without clashing with what science tells us.
We think that we’re communicating with consciousness. We know that we are conscious. We had somebody one time on a show say, “Spirits can see and hear without eyes and ears,” which I thought was fascinating because I thought that was also an appeal to magic. If we are supposed to be spirits also, why would we have billions of years evolved ocular and auditory systems for the purposes of surviving and being able to interact and know our environment? If, as spirits, we could see and hear without them, would we not then have already eradicated blindness and deafness if our spirits were able to handle those jobs without our eyes and our ears working?
It seemed impossible, but if we are all fractal parts of one universal consciousness all dissociated from one another, which is why we can’t read each other’s thoughts then it would stand to reason. As Tony mentioned, when somebody sees something, they’re contributing it to consciousness. We think that the spirits who don’t have eyes and ears or whoever’s coming through the consciousness, is grokking that information through it being input to the collective from those who are through sensory input doing so. That’s what we think. Could we be wrong? Perhaps. In the paranormal field, we have not heard a more streamlined less full of theoretical entities that are not necessary for the purposes of sticking with a narrative. We have not heard one, but that’s what we think.
I asked this question last time also. If you can corroborate it, because I’ve heard quite a bit about how we all go to this back to the source when we leave this form. All our loved ones are pretty much operating on that side as source, with source, and are not individuated until they are called upon by a loved one or by somebody over there. Could you corroborate that or give me your personal beliefs on that?
I’ll speak to it quickly then I’ll let Tony if he has to share his on it. I think what we believe is along the lines of what you just said. We think that we’re communicating with consciousness and if somebody ceases to exist physically but their consciousness continues that their experiential states and everything that they had would be what continues then it would go back to the collective consciousness which is that universal cosmic mind. We don’t think that it’s consciousness that is substrate independent, which is to say we don’t think that their individual ghostly consciousness floating around communicating with us that are external to consciousness at large.
We think there’s one consciousness. We’re all fractal parts of it. We identify as individuals, which is something nature shows us in dissociative identity. One mind that appears as multiple centers of identity. We think that’s the model that nature gives us for how things work. Through that, we’re able to communicate with each other but then, at the same time, we’re connected to the greater. If you think about a memory and you think about the car you were in and the music you were hearing and that gives you a certain feeling you were in. That’s, as you said, things being called together that were interwoven and were part of the same fabric of that emotional or experiential state.
We’re all fractal parts of one universal consciousness. We identify as individuals, but we’re all part of the same fabric of that emotional or experiential state.
How do they play tennis with each other? If they’re all one. How does that work?
The concept of all one means that they share the information, the combined information. Whereas, we as humans, we have personal agency meaning that we can control and make our own decisions. It’s a concept of your free will. Now, we’re not saying you lose that but when you return to the collective consciousness, you’re returning to the broadband information that was collected continuously over life cycles and individual life cycles. Can we call for an individual and have that personality come forward and respond? Yes, we can. The exact variables of how that occurs, we can’t answer that but have we seen it occur? We have.
I’m enjoying this conversation. I’m about to turn the show over to Gary so he could do a Q &A. You folks would stick around for a Q &A from the audience. I want Gary to ask his first question for himself.
To speak to what you were just saying, couldn’t it be both? They are individualized in the afterlife, yet plugged into a level that we aren’t in the physical to the universal consciousness. Does that make sense?
It sounds like they were saying that.
It’s possible. To put a finer point on it, when we express what we think may be the case. A lot of times, what we’re doing is we’re trying to come from, as I said, a skeptical parsimonious point of view, which is having the least things built into the theory or the hypothesis that we can speak to. Could there be a personal agency and could there be that individuated state also in collective consciousness in NAFA? There could be. We’re not aware of any reason we have to support that. I think that would become more of a matter of belief and what one thinks the belief.
We all know when we think of somebody and the phone rings and there they are. We’re tapped into that same consciousness. We’re just not as aware of it in the physical sense. We’re individualized here. Over there, both could be possible. Literature throughout the ages has supported that theory. I’m just speculating. We’ll never know till we get there.
Message Of Hope
I’m going to ask one more question, Gary, and then I’m going to let you take the reins. Tony and Ron, I’ll let you guys either share together in unison or you could do that individually. If you could share one message from your years of work and research to those who are grieving, what would you most want them to know?
The most important thing is the lesson that although they are no longer here, they still exist. They are still in touch and around. Staticom has done amazing captures to prove that. As I said, we were talking about getting messages with personalized information that there’s no way we could have known or manipulated and to have them emotionally break down because they know the answer was correct and who it came from.
The most important thing is although our loved ones are no longer here, they still exist. They are still in touch. They are still around.
One of the biggest things Ron and I always end every presentation we ever do is, it’s fascinating it is to speak to people that have passed over to the other side. Remember to communicate those messages to the people that are here now. Let them know you miss them. Let them know you care about them. Make sure that’s known here and now before anyone passes.
Before you need all this equipment to hear from them. Hear the response.
That is how we end every presentation. I tell everybody that was the one thing my mother wanted more than anything. It was just to call her more and we try now with what it is we do. If you have the opportunity to mend fences, tell people you love them or miss them. Do it now because that’s way cooler than being able to try to do it through instrumentation and then lay back on your belief and hope that it is what you think or feel that it is. I would second that 100%.
That’s a beautiful and very important message. Thank you.
Important Links
Tony Rathman – Instagram
Ron Yacovetti – Facebook
Comments