PAUL GUERCIO is co-founder of THE MERLIN PROJECT(r). MERLIN is the first, scientifically-based forecasting technology that combines equations derived from celestial phenomena with past historical data and blends that information into a "timetrak(r)" that accurately plots the chronology of future events. (Source: CNN, NPR, JOURNAL GRAPHICS)
Surfing the Waves of Change in your Future

by the creators of The MERLIN Project -- Paul Guercio and Dr. George Hart

In a world where timing often spells the difference between failure and success, MERLIN gives you a hedge on the Future. Think of it as a high-tech crystal ball through which you glimpse forthcoming periods of intense activity that indicate the best (and worst) times for launching projects, initiating and sealing business deals, getting married, scheduling non-emergency surgery, moving, taking on a new job -- in short, when to deal with major life issues. MERLIN is equally applicable to people, companies and countries.

MERLIN combines the exactness of planetary mathematics with recognized historical cycles to create snapshots of time by using a single moment as a starting point. These "chronographs" are highly individualized patterns, tracings in time that begin when we are born or a key event occurs. They depict chains of activity that are twofold: external factors (career matters, where we work or live) and internal factors (health, relationships, emotional concerns.) MERLIN pinpoints three elements about such periods of activity: the onset, the intensity, and the duration. It's the Next Step beyond The Celestine Prophecy.

While relating celestial movements to human events has long been a controversial subject, MERLIN's track record of timely and accurate predictions speaks for itself. Notable forecasting successes include: the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, the collapse of the Clinton presidency and the ascendancy of Dole, Leno's underdog triumph over Letterman, the emergence of JFK Jr., the demise of National Health Care and the Republican Revolution, the timetable for the breakup of the Soviet Union, and many others.

Overall, MERLIN's accuracy has approached 80 percent. In one controlled experiment coordinated by a group of scientists and skeptics, MERLIN assigned accident dates to their respective victims with an accuracy rate that outperformed chance odds by 30,000 to 1.

First conceived in 1989, the MERLIN Project came to national attention in 1991 when the NBC Nightly News broke the story of MERLIN's uncanny prediction of the stock market plunge in November of that year. Subsequently, MERLIN has been featured in magazines and newspapers around the world and its creators have been guests on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE three times in the last three years.

In the upcoming book, MERLIN will not only document its own successes and make new predictions for coming years, but it will also provide readers with several related tools, enabling them to make their own personal forecasts. Among the tools immediately accessible will be a Year-at-a-Glance calendar highlighting days in the coming year best suited for initiating projects, etc. A more extensive Book-of-Days provides the reader with a ten-year chronograph of activity that originates on each day of the coming year. An easy to follow guide is included which alerts readers to specific days likely to be favorable or troublesome to them. The book employs the easily understood example of waves and surfing to clearly explain how to use MERLIN.

Besides providing readers with highly customized personal timing tools, MERLIN will also present a clear conceptual framework which for the first time will provide a firm foundation for "legitimizing" traditional predictive systems like astrology. At the same time MERLIN will lay the groundwork for an entirely new 21st century science of pattern, information, intelligence and consciousness unlike anything which currently exists. A science as revolutionary as quantum physics, and as far reaching in impact.

There will be options available for readers to contact The MERLIN Project directly for highly specific, personalized chronographs related to career and personal activities. These options will include an nation-wide 800 number, a computer disk or CD-ROM which could accompany the book and beginning in April 1996 direct INTERNET access.

Direct spin-offs from the book will include an annualized version of the Book-Of-Days. With its highly useful timing information for personal and professional planning, it could easily become a yearly purchase akin to the Information Please or Farmer's Almanac.

about the authors:

Dr. George Hart is an SDI (Star Wars) physicist who specializes in the application of supercomputers to the mathematical modeling of systems exhibiting extremely complex behavior. In 1992, he received the prestigious British RANK Prize for his work in laser technology (for) "..benefiting mankind, especially in eye surgery" for inventing the excimer laser.

Paul Guercio is a nationally-respected futurist and a long-time student of traditional and esoteric predictive systems. His 25 years of research into the Psychical Sciences and subsequent collaboration with Dr. Hart directly resulted in the creation of the MERLIN Project. His clients include many prominent business people, politicians and celebrities.

The MERLIN Project has been featured in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, USA TODAY, the Associated Press and foreign press, CNBC, CNN, Larry King LIVE and TalkBack LIVE, the NBC Nightly News, NPR, ABC TalkRadio and MajorTalk.

Copyright 1996 by Paul Guercio and Dr. George Hart All rights reserved

Some thoughts about.. TIME and the FUTURE
From the creators of The MERLIN Project(r) Paul Guercio & Dr. George Hart

"MERLIN" is a computer-based forecasting technology that combines equations derived from celestial phenomena with past historical data and blends that information into a "timetrak(r)" that plots the chronology of future events. It is the brainchild of Boston-based futurist Paul Guercio and excimer laser inventor, MIT physicist Dr. George Hart. Since 1991, The MERLIN Project(r) has been a regular feature of CNN/Larry King LIVE.

MERLIN sifts through an immense field of tidal intervals in the Universe looking for points of convergence and resonance patterns. In essense, it is a very sophisticated (pattern) detection system (the particular patterns it has been taught to identify are at the moment, proprietary, for obvious reasons.) What we have discovered, however, suggests that "time" has a kind of genetic- like code and behaves much like a musical score.

Think of it this way. Time, in conjunction with your DNA coding influences the relative likelihood of you developing (for instance) early onset coronary artery disease or cancer while not being the ultimate cause/effect mechanism.

Our research suggests that "time" may have a similar genetic-like aspect, when vectored from a particular point in the past and then projected forward. A unique "wave-form" composed of it's own, original array of tidal movements, a little like a symphony. Events as we know them, may be a convergence point for a series of unseen clocks that you helped set into motion (or were set into motion) years before and are now (all) "chiming" simultaneously. The magnitude of the resulting "event" may be determined by the number and sheer size, i.e. interval/duration of the converging curves. The more clocks chiming, the bigger the event that occurs.

MERLIN was designed to "keep track" or these various tidal clocks and output a picture of the resulting convergence pattern in the form of a graph with "realtime" correspondences. A kind of "timetable of the future!"

MERLIN doesn't make predictions anymore than weather computers do. They keep track of converging weather systems, giving the meteorologist a jumping- off point to speculate (often badly) about tomorrow's weather. MERLIN does the same thing with Time! We then attempt to draw conclusions about how that period will playout in the real world. So far, our ability to pinpoint actual turns in realtime events and individuals lives, has been pretty remarkable.

But, it's the TIME SCHEDULE of change, its duration (and often it's magnitude) that MERLIN finds. Not the particulars of circumstance.

For those of you who are Market-oriented, it would be like having the NYSE (market) volume charts, in advance. You'd know the time coordinates of the change and it's size, just not the direction!

And that suggests another intriguing possibility. We may affect, even control to some extent, the particular circumstances that occur, just not the time schedule (or relative impact.)

Along those lines, I should mention that MERLIN is unable to give an equivilent amount of information in every situation. That's because it's system-driven. In perhaps 3 out of 10 instances (2 out of 10 at best,) it won't identify much of anything useful. That may be because we are still working with an experimental version of the program or because it will never deliver more than 8 out of 10. We're not sure yet. George and the Project team are still tooling up for the next generation of the program, but it will be awhile yet before it's up and running. Even then I'm not sure we'll improve the hit percentage much, certainly no more than 5 or 10%. Then again, when you can see even 70% ahead with any consistency, that's something to smile about especially when the best alternative at present is a coin toss!

It should be pointed out that when we saw the graphs for East Germany, the USSR, Romania, etc. in the late summer of 1989, we didn't know it was going to be the "end of Communism." Hell, it could just as easily been WW III and we were worried it might well be. My point is that the graphs would have looked exactly identical. There would have been no way to differentiate one from the other. In fact we looked at each other and agreed (that) we WERE seeing one or the other -- both of which seemed quite preposterous at the time, in case you've forgotten.

What we now know about the output of the system suggests that the future is composed of a number of (seemingly) unrelated factors and that the time schedule appears to operate independently of the circumstances that occur. The later seems to be governed by a kind of tidal clock-like mechanism and the former by the state of consciousness of the person or people(s) involved or by other factors that MERLIN is not designed to identify.

None of the MERLIN program is off-the-shelf. It was written entirely for this purpose including the orbital mechanics portion of the software, by a team of underemployed SDI physicists. The program queries you for a "genesis moment" (a beginning time,) a local "scan from" date and the frequency of the output desired (how often: daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) That's it. It then generates a portrait of the "time patterns" from that moment forward, with particular attention to the time frame requested.

We're often asked how much of the output requires human interpretation to derive a projection or forecast. That varies from about 40 - 60% which is roughly what the weather bureau also has to contend with. MERLIN only generates raw data, albeit in a highly compiled form. It only indicates points of converging "timepatterns" and determines the number and size of the curves involved. That is eminently useful in developing a working scenario or conversely, eliminating possible scenarios, but the system is never definitive in that sense. It just makes the practice of "going out on a limb" a little less of a crapshoot than it might have been otherwise. Scary but tolerable.

Also, just a brief word to those of you who think we're just recycling obvious predictions. It's not so much a matter of the particular call we made but how long ago we made it and the precision of the TIMING in the resulting event. When we said on CNN/LARRY KING in December (1991) that there would be a major change in the Pope's situation/wellbeing commencing in late summer 1992, we didn't know what form it would take, just WHEN it would put in an appearance. He could have died (almost did) or retired or had someone else take a shot at him. The Vatican could have become embroiled in some massive scandal or been implicated in the death of his predecessor (not an unlikely possibility someday.) The same thing holds true about the prediction for Saddam (that he would be BACK, which has now come to pass) or for Larry himself. Who knew, that Ross Perot would turn the KING Show into a staging area for a third party bid.

The point is MERLIN isolated the correct time frame and level of drama and found it a year or two or three before it happened.

I think part of what intrigued George about my work was that it was simple, elegant and system-driven. The variables are always the same and the change points are always obvious. You don't have to do handstands to find them.

George and I can see a day where MERLIN is an element in a more comprehensive forecasting technology, perhaps utilizing AI and things like "fuzzy logic" and not coincidentally, the insurance industry's acturial database to really do some fancy prognosticating. For now, MERLIN is not much more than a good (albeit high-tech) bloodhound, sniffing out interesting "scents." It accounts for no more than perhaps 50% of any forecast we might release. The balance is at present represented by a healthy grasp of current events and some serious historical knowledge and perspective. In short, grunt work.

Why is only (say) 50% of the forecasting (at best) done by the system? Because time, in and of itself can't predict circumstance, even if your timepiece is very sophisticated and pinpoints the location of (call them) anomolies or abberations. All you know is that a sizible "rip" will occur within a particular time window, plus or minus about 90 days. Weather forecasting, which operates by the same principles (if not the same variables) is often less accurate -- lots often. That doesn't seem to stop us from straining to hear tomorrow's "weather report," though. Even though we've said the program is not based on classical astrology, the system does, on the most fundamental level, share the same paradigm. However, MERLIN uses different principles for putting that paradigm into practice.

The basic paradigm both astrology and MERLIN use for trying to predict the future involves finding a core set of correlations between a pattern formed by the relationship between a number of scientifically predictable natural events and future events that the subject of the prediction will experience.

Astrology is based on the assumption that these correlations are already known or can be learned from existing literature in the field. A given set of zodiacal positions for the sun, moon and planets is assumed to influence a particular human activity in a certain way. There is no scientific proof that these traditional correlations are accurate, but the system is so complex that most of its practical applications are really metaphysical rather than scientific, so the whole question of "proof" is completely irrelevant.

MERLIN doesn't rely on a pre-existing set of correlations between natural events and human activities. It is based on decades of first-hand research involving specific "time patterns" and then devising a sophisticated program using those time patterns to make predictions.

Here's how one might design such a system. First, you would create a database describing the fluctuations of the set of predictible natural events you'd chosen. Next, you would lay out a time-line for the human activity you were analyzing, recording all the dates in the past on which major, dramatic events took place. Then you'd compile a chart that showed what each of the natural events was doing on a specific date. Next, you'd attempt to find a pattern that held consistent (within preset limits) for each date. If you found one, then you'd compile a chart of all the dates on which that pattern had occurred and compare that back with the timeline of the human activity to see how many times it had occurred on dates with no significant happenings involving the subject activity. If the number of "misses" was below a pre-set number, you could conclude that you had a significant correlation, and proceed to make a prediction of future "important" events on that time-line by simply marking in the dates when the pattern re-occurred.

This is actually a fairly simple paradigm, consistent with the characteristics that MERLIN exhibits. We're not going to elaborate further about what specific predictible natural events MERLIN employs, because if the system works, the identity of these events is our most valuable discovery. It can be protected only by secrecy, since it can't be patented or copyrighted.

This idea is a fairly easy one to understand, if one frames the proper analogies. Imagine, for example, time as a road running up and down a series of hills. Obviously, it's easier to travel faster when you're going downhill. So "important" events might tend to happen whenever time is "going downhill." Now, if one could just identify where the hills were by finding predictible natural events that were traveling on the same "road".. you get the idea.

In a sense, MERLIN follows the lines of what we might call "potential des- tinies" or "probable futures." Consider this. Suppose you have a racehorse capable of winning the triple crown. It is his "potential destiny" but only if he is trained and entered in the proper races. He will win if he gets in, but the potential remains unexpressed if he is put out to pasture or stud without being raced. As MERLIN sees it, the future or destiny is not fixed, but has sets of potentials with subsets of variables or factors which can increase or decrease a specific potential.

Here's an interesting reality-based variation on that flight of fancy that has actually been employed by a client of ours for the past couple of years.

She owns, breeds and races horses and has used MERLIN to determine what "genesis dates" for a foal might produce a champion (in their two and three year old years -- the racing years) based on the emerging trendline at that point in their development.

In the two years she has tried this as a model, the horse so designated has in fact turned out to be a major stakes winner in those years although she was unable to afford them as "weelings." Now she's wondering if you could breed a mare on a time-schedule that might allow a foal to arrive at the right point to catch that kind of curve. Smart lady!

It's interesting that historically it's been the 'non-scientists' or fringe researchers that have pioneered the major breakthroughs. Oh, maybe not so much in the last few years when official credentials have determined who gets heard, but over the centuries. Science, as we now perceive it was not yet even a toddler in the scheme of things and who knows, it may revert to that status again! Imagine metaphysics being required reading right along with quantum theory. Try not to laugh too hard because that day may be coming if we're ever going to progress past this dead zone we're in. Even the most hard boiled physicists I know keep whispering that "..there's magic down there!"

Here's a quote I'm fond of..
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; who's face is marred by dirt and sweat and blood. Who strives valliantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, but who knows the great enthusiasms. The great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. Who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, fails while daring greatly. So that his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
- Teddy Roosevelt

With MERLIN, we have merely expanded our universe of reference points to include many more of these known clocks in an attempt to discover if the larger episodes of time could give us a way to "tag" each moment, so as to distinguish it from any other. Before one can attempt to view time as a variable in the precipitation of circumstance, you need to have a way to capture it and compare it.

"Time-lapse" photography seems to be a good model. Individual snapshots taken over a long enough interval and then chronogically compared can tell a remarkably intricate story of what "time" did (actually what the elements did) to the "thing" you captured on film.

But consider this. If you (say) took away every other picture in the sequence, you could still make a good guess at what happened in between the frames. If you took away the final frames and had enough previous ones, you could still make a very good guess at the outcome. Problem is, you're limited to the pictures actually taken. You could speculate on what happened before the first one or after the last one but you'd be limited to the sequence of time covered by your actual universe of pictures.

Time clocks aren't limited unless our corner of the Milky Way goes belly- up. That's how come we can "predict" the arrival of Fall or the return of Halley's Comet. It's how come (when) Voyager2 arrived in the vicinity of Neptune, Neptune happened to be there. What we've never done is to intergrate all of those time functions that celestial mechanics creates into a comprehensive clock and then see what kind of time it tells. The more functions we include, the more precisely we can slice-up moments.

That's part of what "MERLIN" does, but only part. I like to think of it as "applied astronomy," number-crunching for more than the sake of crunching numbers.

Then the fun starts. If moments can be distilled down to a unique sort of "signature," what happens when you bounce one moment against another. Think of it this way. Suppose time is like music and each moment (subdivision) like a unique chord. Those of you know who ever studied piano know that if you strike a chord and hold down the pedal (which holds the note for those who don't know,) you can then play successive chords, some of which are pleasing in conjunction with the first one (the one you're holding) and others which are not. We can argue whether that issue of pleasing/displeasing is a subjective one but the fact remains that each combination would be, at least, different. Sheet music is essentially that; a notation of sounds bouncing against sounds.

MERLIN displays a "musical score" of moments bouncing against moments, a sort of motion picture of (the flow of) time from a given moment forward. Each moment would interact with all successive moments in a unique fashion producing a "symphony" from that moment on into the future. If that were true and you could track it (or forecast the "score" in advance) you could predict when that moment would climax in some crescendo or where the quiet passages would be or where the tempo would change.

That still would leave the issue of circumstance. Ok, so maybe you could forecast time as a kind of wave form. That wouldn't explain the form events would take; whether they would be -- good or bad. Exactly, and if we're right about time having at least an acausal effect, it suggests that the point of appearance of "uncharacteristic activity" or what I call "heightened eventfulness" is fixed in time by the genesis of the activity. In other words the beginning moment starts a clock that has an orderly pulse to it and the successive events are related to the initial event in more than coincidental ways.

A system built around this premise would allow you to locate the approximate "time coordinates" for successive events, perhaps even their intensity (relative to what preceded their arrival or followed their appearance) but not the qualitative circumstance that might occur.

To do that one would need to know the various emotional and psychological factors impinging on the situation or person being tracked. That is strictly a judgement call, non-scientific and entirely interpretive. If you knew exactly what those subjective factors were, you would probably still make the wrong call occasionally. That would, in all likelihood, never be an exact science. As Edward Lorenz, the father of Chaos Theory discovered with weather data, you can never have data precise enough to make exact predictions. No measuring device is sufficiently sensitive nor would you ever have enough reporting stations.

For those of you who know who Lorenz is and are therefore jumping to the conclusion that MERLIN has ties to chaos theory let me correct you now. There is no connection other than the fact that modern computers allowed the "invisible" to become, visible. I have been working on this theory for more than twenty five years and computers simply made the validation process possible by making the patterns visible. It's our suspicion that earlier civilizations in their magic and ritual forms, recorded similar expressions of this cosmology. They just didn't know what they had found.

TIME.. will tell, if we're right!

In terms of planetary equations both real and imaginary, it probably doesn't much matter which ones you use. They're all largely representational in the sense that they are a substitution for the actual phenomenon. The key is the consistency of the system you choose and the consistency of the rules of order you apply to it. If there is an error factor built-in; it's always built- in. Real systems and symbolic ones will generate equivilent information if they set to work observing the same (or a common) phenomenon, provided you don't confuse the rules that govern one with the rules that govern the other.

How come these patterns haven't been codified by now? Probably because most of the data has been accumulated by practitioners of soft (or what some like to call pseudo) sciences. No one looked or for the most part, even knew how or where to look. Nor did they get much help from practitioners in these areas, partly because of the contempt each camp has for the other and partly because there is no common channel for communication. They don't speak a language the other can or is willing to try to understand. That's certainly been true for at least the last hundred or so years. Hell, look at the ethnic strife erupting all over Eastern Europe. How could this still be going on after all these years? Same reason.

A real system vs a symbolic one? For puposes of discussion, money is a real system. Checks or credit cards are symbolic ones. If you hand someone a check or a credit card to pay your phone bill it represents money without being money. (Of course, money/currency is in itself symbolic -- representative of a level of confidence in a nation's economy by its citizens.)

Planetary motion is a real system; clocks are symbolic. But planetary motion may be itself representative of a (kind of) "heartbeat" of the Universe. The tidal effects we can see (and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands) are likely to be outnumbered by those we cannot. James Gleick ("CHAOS") wrote the following in a recent book (with nature photographer Eliot Porter.) He said, "..There are flows in Nature well beyond our perception that are (either) too slow or too grand to encompass."

We may have prematurely "decided" that time is nothing but a construct; a devised form of abstract measurement when in fact it may be "a breathing in, breathing out process in the Universe.." That when collated can define episodic periods. How would we know? Look what we're using for timekeepers and how little recorded history we have to work with. If the history of the Solar System were a 24 hour day, we appeared in (what) the last 3 minutes, maybe?

The celestial events we include in MERLIN are used only to calibrate. We are not in any way proposing a cause/effect relationship between celestial events and human events. If you're going to compare moments of time from the standpoint of moments being unique, you need some common denominator so that you can differentiate one from another. Our forms of timekeeping are too limited and repetitive to provide the scope needed. Therefore we have expanded the universe of "clocks" we're including. Each addition allows for a more precise "fix" on a moment to be developed.

Then, working with the idea that all "clocks" provide an "on-off" function or replicate a seasonal rhythm, we turned a team of physicists loose on the problem of detecting points of convergence of the theoretical cycles these various "clocks" might time.

Then, we turned the resulting program loose on a particular moment (that happened to mark the beginning of some momentous human event) to see what kind of a graphic it would generate. Also, to see if the resulting pattern in any way paralleled the actual sequence of circumstances of the event we chose to begin with. And to everyone's surprise and delight, it did!

The "height" of the measurement is generated by the program in response to the number of cycles cultminating at that particular instant and not some graph of history. The program has no idea that the beginning moment chosen has any historical inportance or the sequence of the historical event that it "mirrors." If there are parallels, they are unconnected by any mechanism we are aware of. And there are parallels!

An ordinary clock is very limited and unsophisticated for referencing. If, instead, you use all of the planets in our system, you have 9 clocks and therefore 9 reference frames. The more you include, the more precise your clock becomes, provided you choose your "timekeepers" carefully.

Before Newton and others defined gravity, people had explanations and basically guesses about gravity but they didn't accurately describe it. Astrology is a guess. MERLIN is set up with rules, equations and 'clocks.' Before Newton, there was no 'science' of gravitation; before MERLIN, there was no 'science' of historical event timing.

The reason we don't use a Fourier analysis on a historical event sequence is simply that we have no objective way of knowing which events are related to which "in time," since that is the variable we're using. All L.A. earthquakes, for instance, may not be related, even though they're all in the same earthquake zone or on the same fault line. That's the problem of using events as though they were related. It's how come market analysis using past performance data as your forecasting gauge invaribly breaks down. There is an assumption that they're connected, when in many cases, they're probably the result of multiple factors that aren't consistent.

MERLIN is working in a much purer "environment;" watching various "time functions" and not the entrance or exit (or repeat refrain) of the Ross Perots.

In other words, if you knew how to design your "sort" (which clocks to include, which were redundant, so on) the essential pattern would emerge. The problem is knowing how to apply it.

Lots of factors could effect the onset of a California earthquake that are not related in-time. MERLIN only finds those that are related in-time. Maybe certain stresses within plates follow long time curves, the intervals of which are of too long a duration to match any commonly accepted time frames. I'm not sure; we haven't spent a lot of time looking at earth movement. (A matter of funding; sound familiar?)

Instead of complex equations, MERLIN is using even more complex 'clocks.' In one domain, we may find the equations for the data complex and inaccurate, while in another domain, the equations become simple and precise. That is one reason we switch domains. What cannot be modelled in the time domain, may be modeled in the frequency domain or in MERLIN's case, the celestial star-time domain.

The sky pattern, perhaps inadvertently is (or seems to be) generating elements of what Dr. Hart likes to call "..a dance of pattern," that hints of a new science. Our attempts at describing it are admittedly crude but display a pronounced order and organization.

It's probably the realm of mandalas and music and information transfer and the impact of consciousness on concrete reality; subtle but unmistakeable. And very "strange."

In George's model, the "A world" is one of cause and effect; measurement, steady-state repeatibility. The "B world" is one of pattern interactions, a representational reality, where the symbol is the object. Where consciousness manipulates rules (or creates them.) Where like attracts like; where resonance is king and information lives a life of it's own.

I'm told that when you approach the "outer limits" of quantum theory, the rules start to behave strangely. Particles appear and disappear with equal aplomb and without explanation. We've assumed that we merely don't have all the rules. It may be that we've arrived at the transfer point between "A" world and "B." The place where expectation affect outcome, directly.

We think that we've stumbled onto a form of "bridgework" between these realities. That's why it's so difficult to find a paradigm for it; there really isn't one. And, that's why we can't easily put a standard measurement to it. How do you explain a "dance of pattern."

Some folks say that if you're superstitious, you notice coincidences more easily. What if noticing coincidences (or better yet, cataloging them) increases the rate at which they manifest themselves. Or if it is merely that they become more noticible, exactly how come they are so prevalent. Sheer number suggests some other explanation. And the more you notice them, the freakier they become almost to the point of absurdity. Except, you were validating them as they occurred and none of it is a figment of your imagination.

By "A" world rules; you're a nut case. But, what if them ain't the only rules? And George and I have found a straight-forward "scientifically-based" formula for analyzing them.

Perhaps an "outsider" can get us to the crux of this matter.....

Let's phrase it in the form of a question:

Do those of you who are skeptical of MERLIN conceive each moment of time as being qualitatively identical to every other moment of time?

It seems as though you do, else you would not be so hostile to this idea. But what Paul is saying -- and what MERLIN apparently charts -- are the QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES among various moments in time.

This notion is not nearly as "radical" as y'all try to make it appear. Space is not homogenious. A point in space at the top of a mountain is qualitatively different from a point in space at the bottom of the ocean. Both are qualitatively different from most of the points in space that lie in between them.

If the three spatial dimensions are not qualitatively homogenious (some are hard, some are soft, etc.), then why should the time dimension be so? There is no reason in the world that it should and, in fact, our experience with both space and time hints very strongly that moments in time are not identical with one another in a qualitative sense.

In colloquial terms, we might describe this as a "good day" or a "bad day." Or a "time of war" versus a "time of peace." A "lucky time" vs. an "unlucky time." Etc. Yes, in some ways those descriptions are subjective and psychological -- because they are qualitative. Yet that doesn't mean that they're not very REAL differences -- in the same way, for example, that differences between two people's personalities are qualitative, but nonetheless very real.

Besides, is not time itself largely a psychological phenomenon to begin with? Or perhaps more accurately: Is not our PERCEPTION of time (the "good day" vs. the "bad day") primarily psychological in nature?

Time, as I understand Paul to be speaking of it, is not simply the "t" factor that you plug into your equations. That "equation" view of time implies that every moment in time is identical to every other moment in every way. For some purposes, those points in time may well be identical to one another. But in other ways, they are obviously not identical.

What Paul is saying, as I understand him, is that these QUALITATIVE differences among various moments in time are 1) significant and 2) measurable. I believe the way he expressed it is as the "terrain of time."

Think of time as having a "terrain." As you move through time, you are not moving through an uninterrupted, unbroken, straight-line "sameness"; but instead you're experiencing a "texture," just as you do as you move through space. You go up over hills, down through valleys, sometimes through solid material (on land), sometimes through liquid material (in a lake or the ocean), sometimes through gaseous material (in the air). That, I believe, is the core concept behind MERLIN.

Like I said, to me, this concept seems extremely common-sensical. Although I have a rather minimal knowledge of modern physics, the concept also seems to fit into some very scientific (or "scientifically accepted") theories of what time is and how it works. If you can grasp that basic concept -- the qualitative differences among various moments in time -- then you'll at least be able to understand what Paul's trying to tell you, and thereby be able to examine MERLIN on its own terms.

By contrast, if you can't grasp that concept, then all this hot air is for naught, because you'll be asking the wrong questions and using the wrong criteria for judgment.

The questions you should be asking are: 1) are these qualitative differences among moments of time actually quantifiable in some way? And 2) if they are indeed quantifiable (or at least "graphable"), then does MERLIN quantify/graph them in a useful, realistic manner?

Seven years of on-the-record research, strongly suggests that it does!

Copyright 1996 by Paul Guercio and Dr. George Hart All rights reserved


TO: A certain Network president, correspondents, producers, journalists, editors and political operatives i.e. you.

FROM: The MERLIN Project(r) Research Group
SUJB: The Joint Chiefs of Staff "White Paper" released: 7-18-95

Date: Monday, July 29, 1996

You received the attached pages (you're mentioned in the report by name -- Chechnya section) right after the Joint Chiefs did. A year ago! A formal report they specifically requested on terrorism and trouble spots and which was subsequently forwarded to JCS/J-5 at the Pentagon in December 1995.

Remember? And in that same 20 page report we highlighted:
Take a look! Or ask us for another copy. You undoubtedly recall the afternoon of the OJ verdict. Who doesn't. We spoke that afternoon. You were amused that we had also (correctly) forecast the outcome of that trial (on CNN/TBL December 29, 1994.) We called to see if you had received your copy of this very same JCS report. Remember? Did you save it?

Don't mind us but what exactly is it going to take, in a world where pundits are (nearly) always more wrong than right, for some of you to notice, without being reminded, that this "witchcraft" is regularly beating the pants off them?

Copyright 1996 by Paul Guercio and Dr. George Hart All rights reserved

WHO KNOWS ABOUT MERLIN? (A partial listing)

John Hockenberry (NBC/NPR) knows. He knew before almost anyone except Jack Anderson and Alan Colmes. Hal Bruno (ABC) knows. So does Mark Nelson (NIGHTLINE) and Michael Guillen (GMA) and Tami Haddad (SNYDER) and Tom Brokaw and the late Fred Briggs (NIGHTLY NEWS) and Shad Northshield (CBS.)

Larry King and Mary Tillotson know, as does their boss, Tom Johnson (CNN) and Susan Rook. Upclose and personal. So does Richard Perle (Reagan's point- man for SDI) and some very high level folks at the CIA and the Pentagon (JCS) that even we don't know. Hi fellas!

Tina Brown (THE NEW YORKER) knows. Even before she knew she had a "job change" (1992) she knew about MERLIN. (MERLIN spotted it two months before it was announced.) So does the fellow who has her old job, Graydon Carter (VANITY FAIR) and his boss S. I. Newhouse and Sidney Sheldon and Stephen King and Keith Ferrell (OMNI) and literary agents Scott Meredith and Bill Adler and the late great superagent Bob Woolf.

George Harrison (yes, that George Harrison) knows and (former) White House counsel David Gergen and Doug Bailey (THE HOTLINE) and Jeffrey Rubin (TIME) and Debra Rosenberg (NEWSWEEK) and Sue Brown (PEOPLE) and Mike Miller and Paul Carroll (WSJ) and Rich Dubroff (WSW) and Peter Lynch (WORTH.)

Physicist Jack Sarfatti knows; ditto Phillip Morrison. Senators Dole and Cohen should know but won't say. Roger Ailes (FOX) knows. So does John Stossel (20/20) and Stone Phillips (DATELINE) and David Wyss (DRI/McGraw- Hill) and Tom Squitieri and Michael Zuckerman (USA TODAY.)

Verdine White (EW+F) knows and his buddy Arsenio Hall. So does movie producer David Blocker and Mark Frost (TWIN PEAKS) and John McWethy (ABC NEWS.) Even Bill Moyers (PBS) knows..

And now YOU know, too!

Isn't it nice to know you're in such good company!

Copyright 1996 by Paul Guercio and Dr. George Hart All rights reserved

The RetroPsychoKinesis Project does not support or associate itself in any way with the Merlin Project. We simply find it amusing.