A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

William Kautz

and was able to verify
three or four ‘of those right off the bat. For example, the high
electrostatic charges in the atmosphere just over the epicenter. This
had been picked up by a lot of Russians and Japanese, and later the
Chinese. Oddly, it hadn’t been reported in this country. Probably nobody

ever noticed it.

And a hole in the ionosphere over the epicenter—at least for medium to

large earthquakes, maybe not for small. Sure enough, there were a couple

of isolated reports from two big earthquakes in the Pacific where there
happened to be radar sounding going on right when the earthquake
happened, and the ionosphere disappeared about ten minutes before the
earthquake and came back about twenty minutes after the earthquake. So
there you got it. You see, weather, earthquake lights–that is, glows in

the sky above the epicenter–and animal behavior. So there were a number

of things that could be verified here by the proper kinds of
experiments. And I wish now we’d done something other than the animal
behavior experiments. But that’s what was chosen so we stuck with it.

David: What are you currently working on?

William: Oh, I’ve left all of that behind. I’m just writing a
book–Opening the Inner Eye–on intuition. I’m up to about the third
draft, and I hope it’ll done by the summer.

David: Is there anything you’d like to add?

William: Have you see the report by Buscurt on animal sensitivities?
This was a conference held at the USGS on what animals might be picking
up if they are picking earthquakes. Then there was a big report by
W.H.K. Lee which reviewed all the literature on animal behavior prior to

earthquakes. That’s one of those open file reports. I found it when I
was in the USGS library last April.

There was a project on Prairie dogs in Southern California sponsored by
the USGS. I don’t remember the names of the people involved but it was
one researcher in Southern California that got some USGS money to study
prairie dogs. Now, that was a case of focusing on one animal, in one
area, you see, instead of all animals in California. So he may have
gotten some decent results, but I don’t know. It was down in the
Parkfield somewhere where they were expecting an earthquake.

David: This was done after your study?

William: During. There’s a fellow named Jack Evernden at the USGS in
Menlo Park. If he is still there, he would remember probably. You could
just call him and ask him who did that prairie dog story. I don’t know
what finally came out of that. I think it continued a little later than
our project did, so maybe he did get something.

I had a thought that if you really wanted to get some interesting
results–and probably have more fun–you should work with people as
predictors rather than animals. You know, there are a lot of people who
are super sensitive.

David: Who get headaches prior to earthquakes you mean?

William: Well, it may or may not show up somatically, but they just
know. With my best intuitves we discovered there’s no problem in
predicting earthquakes if you want to do it–just as long as you don’t
make them public. Most of the attempts to use intuitives or even
psychics fail because the people are trying to make a name for
themselves, so they want the prediction to be public. And our society
can’t really handle that, so somehow the intuitive process is blocked.

But if you want to get them privately then there’s no problem. At one
point I was working with a chap at the Geological Survey–I’ve forgotten

his name and he later left–but he wanted to place instruments, and said

I can help you find good places to place instruments. So I asked one of
my intuitives to tell me where the five next moderate earthquakes in
California and Nevada will be, and she just reeled them right off. Four
of them happened exactly as she said–location, day, magnitude. The
fifth one, she says, I’m not sure about that one. There’s something
funny about it. And what happened was a nuclear test. She had the day
right though–she said it might be delayed a day or two– and she had
the magnitude right, but it wasn’t really an earthquake.

What that convinced me of was that predicting earthquakes is no problem
if there’s a good reason for doing it, but making public predictions in
the present social environment is not a good reason. So I think that is
where the potential lies. This is one of the ground rules on intuition.
People tend to look at it like seeing a psychic, that you could ask what

you want and you get an answer. But actually it’s not that simple, as
you have to take into account the whole situation in which the inquiry
was made and how the information is going to be used. That’s what
governs the flow and the clarity of the information that you get.

David: I’ve always thought that the greatest scientific advances are
made by people who have a good balance of rational and intuitive

William: That’s right, the balance is the main thing I think. If a
person’s got a good balance it makes up for a lot of missing intellect.
In fact, I’ve worked in my life with two scientists who were very poor
as scientists, but they had strong intuition operating. They were doing
great stuff, but they couldn’t prove it or make it credible to anyone
else. And I often wondered if that was why this information came through

them–because it gave them a boost, but it would never get out into the
public and be misused.

Pages: 1 2

Comments are closed.