The catalogue of these pursuits is indeed a long one and can by no means be completed here, but we will attempt to cover historically those researches which warrant our attentions, based on the value of the attained results. The means to detect communications and energies which exist outside of the electromagnetic spectrum has been an enduring quest of qualitative researchers for many years.
Much evidence indicates that specific communications and energies DO exist outside the conventional electromagnetic spectrum. While conventional modes of discovering these “biodynamic” signals has in the past relied on the human subject as an integral component of detection, we are concerned here with what has been referred to as the “automatic detecting instrument” – sans human subject. Our investigations into the detection of biodynamic signals begins with the outstanding work of L. George Lawrence.
L. George Lawrence, a Silesian-born electronics specialist, began his studies into plant biodynamics in 1962 while employed as a instrumentation engineer for a Los Angeles space-science corporation. He was actually engaged in a project to develop jam-proof missile components, and believed that using plant tissue as a type of transducer would produce the desired results. He summarized that living plant tissues or leaves were capable of simultaneously sensing temperature change, gravitational variation, electromagnetic fields, and a host of other environmental effects â€” an ability no known mechanical sensor possessed. These initial investigations led him to the works of Alexander Gurwitsch, a Russian histologist, whose experiments in the 1920s proved that all living cells produce invisible radiations of a biodynamic character. While observing the cells of onion roots, Gurwitsch noticed that they began dividing with a distinct rhythm causing him to trust that some type of vital force from nearby cells was the cause. To verify this hypothesis Gurwitsch devised a type of ray gun which entailed mounting an onion root tip inside of a thin glass cylinder which was then aimed at a matching arrangement with a small area of onion root exposed to act as a target. Gurwitsch allowed the onion “ray gun” to bombard the sample for three hours, at which time he examined the target specimen under his microscope. The number of cell divisions in the irradiated area had increased by 25 percent! Gurwitsch tried to block the emanations with a thin slice of quartz crystal, but this proved ineffective. Only glass or a gelatin substance guaranteed blocking the transmissions. Owing to the fact that these rays from the onion “ray gun” demonstrated increased cell division or mitosis in the target, Gurwitsch called them “mitogenetic rays.” Many other laboratories would confirm his findings. Researchers in Paris, Moscow, Berlin, and Frankfort all corroborated Gurwitsch’s results. Only the U.S. Academy of Sciences reported that Gurwitsch’s discovery was not replicable, and suggested it was merely his fertile imagination.
This system of being able to manage and direct the vital force in living plant tissue sparked Lawrence into action. Equipped with the knowledge of Cleve Backster’s recent experiments with plants and a polygraph instrument, Lawrence began building several psycho-galvanic analyzers to detect responses in plants. He quickly corroborated the results that Backster had obtained from his plant experiments â€” these results indicating that plants displayed a unique cellular consciousness. Over the course of his experiments, Lawrence would begin to modify the basic recording apparatus from the simple galvanic skin response indicators, to ultra-high-gain piezo-electrometers. He also did away with the pen recorder, opting for a built-in audio oscillator which produces a steady tone, changing to distinct pulsations when the plant sensor is activated by external stimulation. Aural monitoring has many advantages over the pen recorder, chief of which is the relative ease with which one can oversee (hear) the plant’s response. Another feature Lawrence would bring to the field was the replacement of the test plant with biologically active sensors, or “biodynamic transducers”. These could range from simple tubes containing vegetal material in a temperature controlled bath, to thin AT-cut quartz crystal wafers bonded with specific organic materials housed in a Faraday chamber. In the latter device, the highly reactive organic material induces changes in the crystal, which when used in an oscillator circuit, will alter the oscillator’s frequency.
Lawrence preferred to perform his experiments in what he called “electromagnetic â€˜deep fringe’ areas”, where there were no man-made interferences. The remote locations of the high desert in southern California were his favored haunts for these investigations. In October of 1971, Lawrence was working on an experiment near Temecula, California. He had developed an instrument which would receive a directional biodynamic signal from a distance of up to one mile away. This instrument consisted of a lensless tube which housed a cylindrical Faraday chamber. The base of this tube contained a biodynamic transducer which was connected to the recording instrumentation. The complete “biosensor” tube was mounted on top of a low power telescope for directional sighting. To induce a stimulus into the directional biosensor, Lawrence would train the sights of his instrument on a plant or tree some distance away that had been previously wired with electrodes. These electrodes were connected to a switch which when closed would introduce a pre-measured current into the tree or plant. Back at the test site, Lawrence would then gently electrocute the tree or plant by radio control, causing his biosensor apparatus to respond wildly. This was an exciting new breakthrough in the field of detecting biodynamic signals for the instruments were now directional and worked at a considerable distance. But, this is certainly not the end of the story. On the day of these experiments, Lawrence and his assistant decided to take a late afternoon break. The biosensing instrument had been left on and was pointing in a random direction at the sky. As they began to eat their lunch, the steady sounds from the equipment abruptly changed to the familiar series of pulsations instantly signaling that it was picking up some sort of disturbance. After checking the apparatus and finding no malfunctions, Lawrence determined that the signals had to be coming from outer space! These seemingly intelligent gestures from an advanced civilisation would most probably be transmissions of a biological nature, and not from the electromagnetic spectrum which had so consumed the academicians of previous SETI projects. This discovery would remain the primary focus of all of Lawrence’s later experiments with biosensing instruments.
Lawrence had initially determined, based on the direction the instrument was pointing, that these signals originated from the constellation Ursa Major, commonly known as the Big Dipper. Later, after repeating the experiment several times with more elaborate equipment, he speculated that galactic drift may have been involved and that the signals may have been “spilling over” from the galactic equator which hosts a very dense star population. He believed the signals were not directed at earthlings, but were probably transmissions between companion civilizations, which he felt would communicate via “eidetic imagery”. This led him to begin analyzing these signals with video recording equipment. The images produced by these signals were called “biograms” and were basically digital spectrograms with a gray-scale resolution of 640 x 482 x 8 bits. Interpretation of these biograms needs considerable study. Unfortunately, there has been little information on this aspect of Lawrence’s work, and it seems as though this was to be the last installment of his labors.
The information we have retrieved on L. George Lawrence’s achievements is scant at best. Much of it comes from the few articles he wrote, and the brief generalizations from the writers of more popularized books. The whereabouts of his equipment and/or notebooks is not known at this time. An important document for the re-creation of Lawrence’s experiments is the movie version of “The Secret Life of Plants”. In this video Lawrence is shown at work with his biosensing equipment, and one can hear recordings of the reception of biodynamic signals. One credible resource states that Lawrence was an expert oceanographer, historian, cartographer, and originator of the world’s first laser engine. He is credited with the authorship of some 46 books, but we have recently discovered that the name “L. George Lawrence” was a pseudonym he used for his popular works, and only two books bearing that name are to be found. As the managing director of the Ecola Institute in the 1970s, he was engaged in nuclear radiation research, medical and agricultural biomagnetic research, and conceptive space research for NASA among other agencies. It is quite probable that much of the work that Ecola was pursuing was of a confidential or classified nature.
Over the last year, it has been a project of mine at BSRF to recreate and elaborate on the many innovations brought to our attention by L. George Lawrence. I began with the basics using simple psycho-galvanic instruments to analyze plant responses, and in the process, was able to recreate several of the results obtained by pioneers in plant research. Many of these recreations and new discoveries have been chronicled in the column, “The Borderland Experimenter” and elsewhere in the Journal of Borderland Research. The impetus which directed my experiments toward those of Lawrence was the fact that he was able to obtain directional and “wireless” biodynamic signals over great distances.
The primary setup consists of a Faraday tube with an organic “biosensor” housed at its base. A rotating beam splitter at the end of the tube further cancels out interference from stray electromagnetic radiations. The most significant problem concerning this portion of the equipment is determining what will be the most suitable material for the biosensor itself. Originally, sections of plant leaves were used which had the electrodes clamped to them in the traditional manner. This proves to be a cumbersome procedure, and the plant material clamped as such quickly becomes stressed and ceases to respond at all. Hundreds of different “non-plant” substances have been tested in biosensor designs, most of which have failed in their capacity to produce the dynamic response of living materials. Unfortunately, Lawrence left few clues as to what would be the optimum arrangement here. We know that in his early work, Lawrence used a variety of mustard seeds floating in a nutrient bath for the reception of biodynamic signals. In later years, he would speak of using thin sections of plant stems or roots as a biodynamic transducer. The finest results were obtained using this arrangement.
Next, the output of the biodynamic transducer is connected to the electronics package which can consist of a simple psycho-galvanic response indicator, to a more sophisticated adaptation which is shown in the schematic here. One can see this system described in many of Lawrence’s articles and in use on the aforementioned video documentation. The advantage of this system over the simple biomonitor is that it affords greater selectivity with regard to sensitivity when monitoring signals. The drawback is that since these more sensitive units are not a production item, one must be somewhat skilled at building electronic instrumentation. Unfortunately, there is not enough room here to give step by step instructions on the construction of such a project from a schematic diagram for those with little knowledge in electronics manufacture. The basic details of the circuit’s operation will be covered here, but some understanding of schematics and components is assumed.
The instrument designed by Lawrence has both a visual meter and an acoustical output indicator through a speaker. The audio tone output can also be directly connected to a tape recorder. A simple modification will allow one to connect the d.c. output to a pen recorder to make a permananet record of the retrieved signals. The connections to the biosensor or plant material may be done any number of ways already discussed.
Biodynamic Response Detector – Circuit Theory
Referring to the schematic, we will begin with the Wheatstone bridge section. The biosensor connected to input J1 forms part of a Wheatstone bridge with the other legs formed by R1 and R3. Power to the bridge is furnished by B1, which is controlled by R2. Switch S1 is an input/output polarizer which permits reversal of the current or excitation applied to the biosensor. This is most important, as the setting of S1 will determine whether the plant’s own generated currents will be superimposed upon the excitation currents.
The signal from the bridge is then amplified in IC1, which is protected from large signals by diodes D1 and D2 when switch S3 is closed. After the circuit is completely operational, S3 may be opened for maximum sensitivity. Power to the amp is given by B2 and B3 operated by switch S4. The output of the amplifier is indicated on meter M1, which is null adjusted by R3.
The amplified output also drives an audio oscillator (Q1 & Q2) whose fluctuation of frequency is a function of the signal from the biosensor/bridge arrangement. Indicator lamp I1 lights up when activated by the momentary pushbutton switch S6, and allows testing of battery function as well as the cueing of a mark on the tape being recorded due to the pitch increase as S6 is depressed. Transformer T1 supplies an audio output for the tape recorder, S7 turns the speaker on and off, and R18 adjusts the volume of the speaker.
After the successful construction of the instrument, one is ready to perform experiments. S3 should begin in the closed position to prevent excessive input signal going to IC1. Next, S1 should be turned on to apply current to the biosensor/bridge, which is adjusted by R2. S4 should be turned on next, followed by the adjustment of R3 for a meter null (zero setting). This will have to be readjusted occasionally as the biosensor or plant settles into its baseline (relaxed) condition. Indications of biosensor response will be observed on the meter, and in the fluctuations of the audio tone coming from the speaker. The actual amount of excitation controlled by R2, and the state of the superimposition of plant currents must be determined by actual usage. Performing these experiments in an area of low electromagnetic interference is ideal, but is not necessary unless one needs to control any outside influences. Armed with this instrument, one should be able to conduct a wide variety of unique experiments.
Remote Biodynamic Sensing and
Methods of Biodynamic Signal Translation
The plant response detector or signal processing translator detailed in “Detecting Biodynamic Signals” represents only a fraction of the equipment used in the disclosure of biodynamic signals. Dr. Lawrence utilized a system which included a telescope for sighting, a biodetector assembly containing biological transducers, electronic signal conversion equipment, EM artifact detection equipment, and a video attachment for the production of biograms. In the eighty page patent document entitled “Methods and Receiver for Biological Data Transport”, Dr. Lawrence sites five different methods of signal processing translators as follows:
1) Bridge Method – Biological semiconductors exhibiting electrical resistance changes due to external signal impingement may be arranged in a classic Wheatstone bridge arrangement (see schematic in previous issue).
2) Capacitance Method – Biological semiconductors expressing variations of capacitance during stimulus events may be embodied to function as a frequency-control element in an oscillator of the FM type. Read-out may then be secured by means of a frequency counter or equally suited device. High impedance or optical devices are used to sense given piezoelectric phenomena accompanying capacitive reactions.
3) Electrostatic Method – Biological semiconductors which are electrostatically active (active charge acquisition and depletion) as a result of local excitation and the presence of external biodynamic signal events may be read out by means of a charge-coupled device (CCD) or on photographic film.
4) Optical Method – Biological semiconductors evidencing optical properties of a primary (luminescence) or secondary (transparency alterations) type during signal incidence may be read out by means of photoelectric devices and Bragg cells.
5) Self-Potential Method – Biological semiconductors expressing changes in electrical self-potentials due to signal incidence, may be amplified by non-loading high impedance devices such as electrometers.
As we can see, there are a variety of means by which we may obtain and translate signals of a biodynamic character in biological semiconductors. It must be remembered, however, that biological materials exhibit characteristic actions of their own due to normal living cell function. It is the sensitization or excitation duty either as a service of the processing method or induced separately which will suspend these functions to secure diagnostic control over natural and inter-communicatively induced responses of living cells. In our experiments, methods 1, 2, and 5, offer the most continuously successful procedure of biodynamic signal procurement, and are also the most cost effective. The repeated success of this instrumentation may be primarily due to the combinative sensitizing/receiving nature of the acquiring method.
Image Acquisition and Biograms
Early on in the RBS experiments, Dr. Lawrence developed a means by which biodynamic signals could be translated into video images. Although he spoke of using CCD technology as an ideal, he favored the most basic biological data display technique of using facsimile recording. This system simply injects the electrical signals produced by the biological semiconductors into a type of AM modulator. This modulates a given frequency band in such a manner so that varying amplitudes are a precise reflection of the modulating direct current product which can then be rendered into facsimile images. In our experiments, we have utilized the same protocols with greater flexibility regarding image resolution and acquisition.
In the first system we used to produce biogram, the signal processing translator’s modulated biodynamic signal output was fed directly into a PC via a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) interface (first tests were conducted on an old 80386 but for portability and speed, a Pentium 100 laptop was used). Special software was used to provide the images on the screen which could then be saved and later printed out. The Biograms we generated begin with a complex of individual frequency components and harmonics of the modulated biodynamic audio output, which covers a wide frequency range and varies in intensity over time. The software simply plots the frequency content of the biodynamic signal as a function of time with harmonic intensity represented by a variable color scale. The software uses a mathematical Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) in performing the frequency analysis. FFTs are usually specified by the number of input data points used in each calculation. For a sampling rate of F (cps), an N input point FFT will produce a frequency analysis over a frequency range of F/2. Signal amplitude will be calculated at N/2 frequency increments in this range. The software provides both narrowband and broadband processing options. Narrowband processing produces a display of high frequency resolution which resolves the individual harmonics of the audio sample. Broadband processing broadens the frequency response of the FFT and produces a display which smoothes over the individual harmonics to show broad areas of intensity. To simplify, the software package samples the input, performs an FFT, and graphs the output in the form of a 3D time-frequency plot or spectrogram, where one axis is time, the second is frequency, and the vertical axis is the signal level at the specific time and frequency. These Biograms were finally extracted from the complex modulated portions of the emergent spectrographic image. Then very small sections of the image — little more than a few microseconds in duration — were enlarged to an appropriate viewing magnification. These completed Biograms could later be rendered into video presentations in a frame-by-frame sequence. While this system is not the ultimate in Biogram acquisition (mainly due to its dependence on the linear time constraints of the received signals), it presents specific imaging of the perceived biodynamic modulations. One of the major advantages of this system is that the AM modulated biodynamic signals can be recorded and stored on analog or digital media to be later played back for image processing.
Our newer system involves a more direct approach to image aquisition, although it is still impaired by the linearity of time. In this system, real-time Biograms are produced utilising software and some hardware designed for radio-facsimile reception. This method is closer to what Dr. Lawrence used with the exception that it is easier to control specific parameters through the computer software applications.
It was Dr. Lawrence’s goal to secure biodynamic signal images without the need for a time dependent scanning process — to procure complete frames instantly — much like the older Radionic systems of Drown and De laWarr. Since Dr. Lawrence assumed the character of biodynamic information was strictly of an eidetic nature (meaning that its reception is in the form of whole images), and it appeared to propagate in a longitudinal (time independent) fashion, the prior systems of instant frame acquisition would be ideal. Charge-coupled device (CCD) technology while promising, is expensive and provides a somewhat distorted biodynamic image resolution. Photographic film techniques, while procuring the highest resolution images, are time consuming and relatively unmanageable in most field situations. Work is currently in progress to modify and develop similar systems in conjunction with present technology.
Field Tests and Biodynamic Signal Acquisition
L. George Lawrence spent much of his time in isolated desert locations performing remote biological sensing operations. Many parts of the desert are free from electromagnetic interference which can complicate biodynamic signal interpretation, so it is an ideal place to perform experiments in remote biological sensing. As we have already discussed, Dr. Lawrence’s system incorporated many instruments in his field operation system. This system is best observed in the patent figures and instrumentation diagrams.
A typical field operational setup for remote biological sensing includes the following: An astronomical telescope, a Faraday chamber that contains the biological transducer complex, a rotating shutter for “chopping” incident electromagnetic interference for easier detection, a temperature controller, a regulated power supply, a local oscillator to permit an AC-rendition (for AC recording) of the data envelope modulated by a DC amplifier, and final recording of data by a field recorder. A processing amplifier and meter provide primary, unmodulated monitoring of the incoming signals.
Initially, Dr. Lawrence conducted his field experiments with the goal of obtaining signals from living systems such as Joshua trees. He would simply inject a premeasured amount of DC electricity into the tree by remote control while training the sights of his field equipment containing the biological transducers directly on the subject tree. As the tree began to respond to the current, the biological transducers would simultaneously react to the irritation experienced by the tree. Increasing the distance from the subject (up to several miles) proved no obstacle to the reception of signals with no decrease in signal intensity. With these many inaugural tests, Dr. Lawrence was able to perfect his system of the reception of biodynamic signals.
The RBS field equipment in current use at BSRF (see photos) is nearly identical to Dr. Lawrence’s with a few minor adaptations and modifications. In comparing the photo with the diagram, one can see that our system has been condensed into a smaller package, and this is mainly due to technological advances in the miniaturization of specific components since Dr. Lawence’s day. The telescope, a 4.5 inch reflector with equatorial mount and motor drive, is standard and is identical to the one used by Dr. Lawrence. The Faraday chamber has been reduced in size, and incorporates specific geometric proportions (the Golden Section) for optimum Biodynamic signal procurement. The system is “shutterless” as incident electromagnetic interference is easily detected within the biomass cavity by a highly sensitive EM probe (newer designs in biodynamic sensor technology are completely insensitive to any EMR and need no shielding). Temperature control and monitoring is also done from within the biomass cavity. All electronics for monitoring incoming signals are housed in a single unit, and the field recorder is of the microcassette type. A countdown timer is used to indicate time elapsed, and to signal the end of the tape. In addition to the standard equipment, a laptop portable computer is used to continually render images of the modulated biodynamic signals for visual monitoring while in the field. Ancillary equipment may include star chart software, magnetometers for monitoring geomagnetic disturbances, and various other electronic devices used for detecting EM artifact.
HISTORICALLY, the alleged reception of signals of an extraterrestrial origin dates back to the very beginnings of radio. In fact, we find that the recent history of the investigation into interstellar communications is almost completely restricted to the science of radio astronomy — a technology which is quite limited due to the necessity of obeying the confines of the electromagnetic spectrum. Early in his career, Dr. L. George Lawrence recognized this limitation, and sought to overcome it by introducing a means of communication which was not bound by conventional electromagnetic laws. “Biological” or “Biodynamic” communication, as Lawrence called it, found its medium completely outside of the electromagnetic spectrum, and therefore solved many of the problems facing the prevailing radio-astronomical methodology of interstellar communication. To comprehend the complexity of these problems, we must briefly detail the historical background of conventional interstellar communications (hereinafter referred to as ICOMM).
Radio Astronomy and the Birth of ICOMM
Both Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi would be remembered for their early pronouncements of receiving “alien” signals (see “How to Signal to Mars : Wireless the only way now, says Nicola Tesla – Mirror plan not practicable (May 23, 1909)” LINK), but it wasn’t until 1930 that the birth of radio astronomy and the consequent reception of radio signals of galactic origin heralded the beginnings of ICOMM. Karl Jansky, an American radio engineer, was the first to pinpoint signals originating from the center of the galaxy in the 30s. Shortly after World War II and the development of RADAR, the military began frequently intercepting radio signals originating from outer space. With this development, the first large radio telescopes would be employed for purely scientific purposes.
The first plan to monitor the stars for signs of intelligent life was conducted by Frank Drake, the then Director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) at Green Bank, West Virginia in 1960. The project was called “Ozma”, after the imaginary land of Oz, from L. Frank Baum’s Wizard of Oz. The intended targets were Tau Ceti (11.9 light years from earth) and Epsilon Eridani (10.8 light years from earth). After observing for a total time of about 4 weeks in the region of the 21-centemeter hydrogen band, no signals were found. Thus, ended Project Ozma — and to this day — no signals have been found by any standard radio-astronomical methods. Many so-called SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) projects, and several millions of dollars in funding later, have turned up nothing. Even NASA showed interest for awhile, spending $60-70 million since 1971, but in the early 1990s, they dumped SETI and other projects from their budget.
The SETI institute’s latest endeavor, called Project Phoenix, began in February 1995 at the Parkes radio astronomy observatory in New South Wales, Australia. So far, they have managed to bring in more than $7.3 million in private donations for their efforts. State-of-the-art equipment was used to listen to about 200 southern hemisphere stars, scanning 28 million channels simultaneously at single-Hertz resolution using the 64 meter radio telescope. A follow-up telescope located 120 miles away allowed them to distinguish between terrestrial and galactic signals by utilising Doppler shift. But, still no ET. Promising signals have all turned out to be things such as satellites, military radar, and even TV stations. They haven’t given up though, and plan to focus on 900 northern hemisphere stars next.
The Problem with Radio-astronomical ICOMM
The major difficulty with radio-astronomical ICOMM is that at its foundation can lie some very uncreative quantitative assumptions. The basis for the entirety of this research assumes that an extraterrestrial civilisation’s technology is comparable to, and has evolved to a state equal to our own. Without thought, academia casually presupposes that there are many, “…civilisations intelligent enough to build radio transmitters,” and “…several million civilisations matching the Earth’s standard of development.” Quite an egotistical assumption for a culture that admits no solution to the mysteries of their own ancient civilisations!
Because technology on this planet has evolved in a specific direction (in this case toward the quantitative and mechanistic) does not foreordain that any other civilisation’s technological evolution must parallel ours. It is quite possible, and certainly probable that many civilisations of galactic origin may have technologically evolved toward the perceptive and qualitative. These may be the standards by which they seek to communicate, and may offer greater success considering the great distances with which ICOMM necessitates.
Language of the Stars
The most difficult obstacle to overcome concerning ICOMM lies with the exchange of information. Since conventional presumption is so anthropomorphically restrained, the academics insist on using our own cultural and societal development as a guide to choosing the proper cosmic linguistic form. Simple messages, binary call signals, pictograms, and even an artificial schematic language called Lincos have been suggested and even transmitted to the stars. But, even simple language can pose incredible difficulty for scholars wishing to make an interpretation. Earlier advanced cultures on our own planet have left us with innumerable writings which still evade academia’s decryption. Even the late skeptic and mechanist Carl Sagan foresaw this conundrum: “European scholars spent more than a century in entirely erroneous attempts to decode Egyptian hieroglyphics before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone  and the brilliant attack on its translation by Young and Champollion. Some ancient languages, such as the glyphs of Easter Island, the writings of the Mayas, and some varieties of Cretan script, remain completely undecoded at the present time …how can we expect that a civilization vastly more advanced than we, and based on entirely different biological principles, could ever send a message we could understand?”
Dr. L. George Lawrence was clearly aware of these facts before he began his pioneering efforts in biodynamic ICOMM. Dr. Lawrence proposed that certain advanced civilisations would have developed a means of communication utilising purely biological principles. This biological exchange of information has been previously outlined, which also detail Dr. Lawrence’s experiments in biodynamic transfer of information. Dr. Lawrence stated that these galactic cultures may have communicated by a method now lost to our civilisation — biological communication — where the biodynamic energy transfer acts as the carrier, and the patternate content is the modulation. This patternate content is an actual eidoform, or complete eidetic picture. As an alternative to conventional radio reception, biodynamic information appears to be transmitted in a longitudinal point-to-point fashion. One wouldn’t have to wait light years for the reception of a message — it could be nearly instantaneous.
Determining the Method of Transmission
Dr. Lawrence was not without his own assumptions concerning the possible methods of galactic transmission. Of course, we have to begin somewhere, and Dr. Lawrence, being a radio engineer, followed the simple progression entailed in sending and receiving conventional radio communications. This follows the Russian theorist Y.I. Kuznetzov’s outline of the communication process via the concepts of communication, coding, signal, and modulation. Lawrence’s version would be detailed thusly: The communication (Eidetic picture) would be converted into a form suitable for transmission (biodynamic signal), the coding being the method of conversion, and the modulation (patternate content) would be the change in the parameters of the emission serving as the carrier of the (biodynamic) signal. For reception, one would simply reverse this process.
Dr. Lawrence arrived at these conclusions based on his qualitative analysis of the sound emitted from his experimental setup. The modulations he heard displayed a character not unlike other conventional transmissions, which led him to work on their immediate conversion to visual images. At the very heart of Dr. Lawrence’s system was a unique form of biodynamic transducer which enabled him to receive and transmit signals of a biological origin.
Qualitative to Quantitative Analysis: Biosensor Technology and the Biodynamic Transducer
Early in Dr. Lawrence’s career, he began work on a series of transducers of biodynamic energy. In order to utilise quantitative measuring instruments, biodynamic energy would need to be converted or transduced into electrical energy. Initial experiments commenced with simple Wheatstone bridge circuits and plant material as the biosensor. Although the plant material reacted to biodynamic stimuli such as touch, and even directed thought, this was found to be unwieldy as the plant material was possessive of its own consciousness. It could easily become fatigued and stressed, or would simply seem unconcerned when experimental matters were conducted. Dr. Lawrence then began a systematic search of the organic semiconductor library for an answer. He found that a simple mixture of protein complexes, a sort of primeval soup as it were, produced remarkable results. But, the problem of tuning to specific biodynamic energies still existed. One needed to capture individual responses to particular stimuli in order to rule out any possibility of unwanted artifact. This necessitated the addition of special substances to the soup, to be used as what Lawrence termed the “excitation” mixture. These ranged from organo-methylglyoxol compounds to a variety of mineral compositions — each with their individual response characteristics. Now, the qualitative reactions of this biological “soup” could be directly transduced into a quantitative electrical signal via the use of high impedance amplifiers, and when mixed with a local oscillator, produced the desired output signal for analysis.
Project LUCAS, named after Dr. L. George Lawrence, was designed with the intention of re-creating these biodynamic interstellar communications experiments. Myself and researcher Michael Elsey journeyed to the High Desert area of the Joshua Tree National Monument for the re-creation. Many months of preparation preceded the actual experiments — the fabrication of biosensors and electronic equipment, laboratory testing, and experiment rehearsal. The project has been largely unfunded, and the total cost of the experimental setup was under $1000.
We began the experiment with a horizon-to-horizon scan of the sky to see if there was any indication of biodynamic signals present. It was immediately discovered that one of the newly constructed pieces of equipment, the actual electronic sensing apparatus, suffered from electromagnetic interference, and had to be removed from the experiment. An older unit was inserted in its place and performed to our expectations with no interference problems. Our initial targets would be two galaxies in the Ursa Major constellation: M81 and M82. These were chosen because of all the searches conducted, Dr. Lawrence had the greatest success there. Our horizon-to-horizon scanning continued slowly to ensure proper functioning of the equipment, and eventually would focus in on the target area. Our first pass at M81 revealed nothing. I was concerned that the older equipment wasn’t sensitive enough and I began turning knobs. Nothing happened. As we settled into the campsite, we decided to leave the telescope and biosensor focussed in on the target area for awhile. I remembered Dr. Lawrence’s notes regarding how several weeks would go by without the detection of any signal, but I was still becoming somewhat discouraged and impatient by the lack of reception of signals, and continued to believe the equipment may be to blame. Suddenly, bursts of modulation poured out of the speakers. I immediately checked the equipment to make sure there wasn’t a malfunction. Everything was in order. The bursts lasted only about ten seconds, and then as if nothing had happened, the equipment returned to the idle state. This would happen one more time the entire evening. Both instances were captured to cassette tape for further analysis.
We feel confident that this project was at least confirmation of Dr. Lawrence’s findings. There is no doubt that some kind of biodynamic signal was received from the direction of the constellation Ursa Major. Ideally, a remote biodynamic station would be set up to monitor this area on a continuing basis so more information could be obtained and analysed. We may return to the problem of interpretation of these signals at a later time, but for now, the reception of biodynamic information from space has once again been verified.
Hopefully, there will be enough interest and time to continue in this experimental direction. The need for better equipment, and constant monitoring are essential to such a project, but without proper funding, may be delayed for several years. Still, we continue experimentation on the transfer of biological information, and are now working toward development of simple practical applications of this technology. Working outside of the electromagnetic spectrum into the domain of biological energies opens up a vast new area of research far exceeding the singular employment of interstellar communications. Technologies which could arise from this pursuit are manifold, and applications such as point-to-point terrestrial or extraterrestrial communications, and portable biodynamic detectors may be a part of the near future.
1. Galactic Life Unveiled – The Phenomenon of Biological Communication Between Advanced Life in Space and Its Subliminal Effects on Terrestrial Man, by L. George Lawrence. Borderlands, 1997.
2. “Methods and Receiver for Biological Data Transport,” L. George Lawrence. Abandoned patent, 1981.
3. “Interstellar Communication,” L. George Lawrence, Electronics World, N.Y., 86:4, October, 1971, pp.34-45, ff.
4. “New Worlds Revealed by Living Transducers,” L. George Lawrence, Electrical Review, London, June 2, 1972.
5. “Biological Signals from Outer Space,” L. George Lawrence, Human Dimensions, HD Institute, Buffalo, 2.2, Summer, 1973, pp.16-18.
6. “Cinema 2000: The Quest for Extraterrestrial Video,” L. George Lawrence, Electronics and Technology Today, March/April 1992.
7. “Interstellar Communications Signals,” L. George Lawrence, Ecola Institute Bulletin #72/6A, Reprinted in Borderlands, 1st Qtr., 1996.
8. “Are We Receiving Biological Signals from Outer Space?,” L. George Lawrence, Popular Electronics, April 1991.
9. “The Starland Galactic Transmission Theatre,” L. George Lawrence. Unpublished.
10. “Biological Image Transmission,” L. George Lawrence, 1989. Unpublished.
11. Contact with the Stars, Reinhard Breuer, Oxford, S.F., 1982.
12. “The Galactic Gamble – SETI Researchers Boldly Comb the Cosmos for Stellar Radio Stations,” Michael Mechanic, Popular Communications, March, 1997.
13. Messages From the Stars, Ian Ridpath, Harper & Row, 1978.
14. The Search for Life on Other Worlds, Captain David C. Holmes, USN, Bantam, 1967.
15. Is Anyone Out There?, Jack Stoneley with A.T. Walton, Warner, 1974.
16. Intelligent Life in the Universe, I.S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Delta, 1968.
17. We are Not Alone, Walter Sullivan, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
18. Charge and Field Eftects in Bio-systems, by W.J. Aston, Abacus Press, Turnbridge, UK 1984, pp.491-498.
19. Electrophysiological Methods in Biological Research, by J. Bures, Academic Press, N.Y., 1967.
20. Organic Semiconductors, by F. Gutmann and L.E. Lyons, Wiley, N.Y., 1967.
21. “Biosensors,” by C.R. Lowe, Trends in Biotechnology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2:3, 1984, pp. 59-65.
22. Biosensors: Fundamentals and Applications, by A.F.P. Turner, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 1987.
1. Galactic Life Unveiled – The Phenomenon of Biological Communication Between Advanced Life in Space and Its Subliminal Effects on Terrestrial Man, by L. George Lawrence, Borderland Sciences, 1997.
2. “Methods and Receiver for Biological Data Transport,” L. George Lawrence. Abandoned patent, 1981.
3. “Cinema 2000: The Quest for Extraterrestrial Video,” L. George Lawrence, Electronics and Technology Today, March/April 1992.
4. “Interstellar Communications Signals,” L. George Lawrence, Ecola Institute Bulletin #72/6A, Reprinted in Borderlands, 1st Qtr., 1996.
5. “Are We Receiving Biological Signals from Outer Space?,” L. George Lawrence, Popular Electronics, April 1991.
6. “The Starland Galactic Transmission Theatre,” L. George Lawrence. Unpublished.
7. “Biological Image Transmission,” L. George Lawrence, 1989. Unpublished.
Literature and Patents
1. Charge and Field Eftects in Bio-systems, by W.J. Aston, Abacus Press, Turnbridge, UK 1984, pp.491-498.
2. Electrophysiological Methods in Biological Research, by J. Bures, Academic Press, N.Y., 1967.
3. Organic Semiconductors, by F. Gutmann and L.E. Lyons, Wiley, N.Y., 1967.
4. “Biosensors,” by C.R. Lowe, Trends in Biotechnology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2:3, 1984, pp. 59-65.
5. Biosensors: Fundamentals and Applications, by A.F.P. Turner, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 1987.
6. “Sensor Having Piezoelectric Crystal for Microgravimetric Immunoassays,” U.S. Patent 4,735,906, G.J. Bastiaans, April 5, 1988.
7. “Immunoassays For Antigens,” U. S. Patent 4,242,096, Oliveira, R.J. and S.F. Silver, December 30, 1980.
8. “Sandwich Immunoassay Using Piezoelectric Oscillator,” U.S. Patent, 4,314,821, T.K. Rice, February 9,1982.
9. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, Vol 12, No. 4, 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF L. GEORGE LAWRENCE
(Scientific, Engineering, and General Publications 1962-1992)
I. Engineering and Scientific Textbooks
1. Electronics In Oceanography, H. W. Sams, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis-New York, 1967.
2. Grundlagen der Lasertechnik (Fundamentals of Laser Technology), F. Viehweg & Solin, Braunschweig, 1964.
3. DC Instrumentation Amplifiers, H.W. Sams, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis-New York, 1965.
II. General Technical Books
4. Inventor’s Idea Book, H. W. Sams, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis-New York, 1965.
5. Inventor’s Project Book, op. cit., 1971.
III. Engineering Papers and Feature Articles
6. “Remote Control for Motion-Picture Cameras,” J. Soc. Motion Picture and Televsion Engineers, N. Y., 71:13-14, January, 1962.
7. “Schnellabgfeich von Fernsehempfängern,” (IF Alignment of TV Receivers), Funkschau, Munich, 16:449.452, August, 1963.
8. “Fernsehsysterne für Tiefraum-Astronomie,” (TV Systems for DeepSpace Astronomy), Elektronik, Munich, 13:11, pp.321, 356-368, November, 1964.
9. “Magnetostriktive Verzögerungstechnik,” (Magnetostrictive Delay Technology), op. cit., 13:4, pp. 99-100, April, 1964.
10. “Microwave Educational Television: System Planning and Installation,” Electronics World, N.Y., May, 1967, pp.34-36.
11. “Biophysical AV Data Transfer,” AV Communications Review, Washington, Summer 1967, 15:12, pp.145-52.
12. “Electronics for Speech and Hearing Therapy,” Electronics World, N.Y., 78:3, September, 1967, pg. 44,ff.
13. “Communications via Touch,” Electronics World, N. Y., 79:5, May, 1968, pg. 32, if.
14. “Early Warning Systems for Earthquakes,” Electronics World, N.Y., 79:6, June, 1968, pg. 37, ff.
15. “Automatic Diplexers for Voice Communications,” Radio-Electronics, N.Y., 39:9, September, 1968, pp.48-SO.
16. “Resource Television in Teacher Education,” National Education Association (NEA): J. Audiovisual Instruction, 13:9, November, 1968, pp.997-998.
17. “TV Systems for Teacher Education,” Electronics World, N.Y., 81:1, January, 1969, pp.42-44.
18. “Geomagnetic Observatories,” Electronics World, N.Y., 81:2, February, 1969, pp.41-44.
19. “Electrohydraulic Effect,” Electronics World, N.Y., 81:5, May, 1969, pg. 44, if.
20. “Experimental Laser Engines,” Electronics World, N.Y., 81:6, June, 1969, pp.30-32.
21. “Electronics and the Living Plant,” Electronics World, 82:4, October, 1969, pp.25-28.
22. “Starting an Audiovisual Department from Scratch,” National Education Association (NEA): J. Audiovisual Instruction, 14:7, September, 1969, pp.29-31.
23. “Taxonomy TV Cue Injector,” Ibid.: AV Technical Notes, 14:7, pp.74-75.
24. “Lasers for Educational Video Traffic,” Ibid: AV Technical Notes, January, 1970, pp 90-91.
25. “Electronics and Parapsychology,” Electronics World, N.Y., 83:4, April, 1970, pp.27-29.
26. “Electronics and Meteorites,” Electronics World, N.Y., 84:1, July, 1970, pp.23-26, ff.
27. “Confirming the Backster Effect: Electronics Proves Plants Can Feel,” FATE, 23:11, November, 1970, pp 38-44.
28. “Experimental Electro-Culture,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., 34:2, February, 1971, pp.66-70.
29. “Plants Have Feelings, Too,” Organic Farming & Gardening, Emmaus, Pa., April, 1971, pp.64-67.
30. “More Experiments in Electro-Culture,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., 34:6, June, 1971, pp.63-68, ff.
31. “Interstellar Communication,” Electronics World, N.Y., 86:4, October, 1971, pp.34-45, ff.
32. “Instrumentation Balloons,” Electronics World, N.Y., 86:6, December, 1971, pp.13-15.
33. “Animal Guidance Systems,” Electronics World, N.Y., 86:6, December, 1971, pp.27-29, ff
34. “New Worlds Revealed by Living Transducers,” Electrical Review, London, June 2, 1972, pp.780-81.
35. “Treasure Detectors for Land Use,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., 2:3, September, 1972, pp.52-55.
36. “Underwater Treasure Detectors,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., 2:4, October, 1972,pp.60-61
37. “Electric Power from the Earth,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., April, 1973, pp.32-34.
38. “Electronics and Water Quality Control,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., May, 1973, pp.45-49.
39. “How to Select an Electronic Organ,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., June, 1973, pp.45-49.
40. “Electronics and Brain Control,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., July, 1973, pp.65-69.
41. “Electronics and Insect Control,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., August, 1973, pp.30-32.
42. “Biological Signals from Outer Space,” Human Dimensions, HD Institute, Buffalo, 2.2, Summer, 1973, pp.16-18.
43. “Build a Hall-Effect Magnetometer,” Popular Electronics, N. Y., 5:5, May, 1974, pp 48-52.
44. “An Electronic Saltmeter for Family Health,” Popular Electronics, N.Y., October, 1974, pp.33-36.
45. “Electric Power from the Sun,” Wireless World, October, 1976, pp 50-54.
46. “Investigating UFO’s and other Magnetic Phenomena”, Popular Electronics, N.Y., May, 1978, pp.41-46.
47. “Occult Electronics, Part 1,” Electronics and Technology Today, Feb/March 1991, pp 24-27.
48. “Occult Electronics, Part 2,” Electronics and Technology Today, April 1991, pp 26-29.
49. “Interstellar Communications Signals,” Ecola Institute Bulletin #72/6A, Reprinted in Borderlands, 1st Qtr., 1996.
50. “Are We Receiving Biological Signals from Outer Space?,” Popular Electronics, April 1991, pp 58-63.
- R1 – 75k
- R2 – 10k Linear Potentiometer
- R3 – 100k Linear Potentiometer
- R4, R5, R14 – 1k
- R6 – 240k
- R7 – 1M Linear Potentiometer
- R8 – 82 ohm
- R9, R10 – 470k
- R11 – 3.3k
- R12 – 10k
- R13 – 4.7k
- R15 – 100 ohm
- R16 3.5 ohm 1 watt
- R17 – 10 ohm
- R18 – 8 ohm potentiometer (L-pad)
- (all resistors ?watt unless specified)
- C1 – .05?F
- C2, C3 – 50?F 10 volt electrolytic
- C4 – 220 pF
- C5 – .01?F
- C6 – .005?F
- Q1 – SK3011 transistor
- Q2 – SK3003 transistor
- IC1 – ?A741C op amp (Radio Shack 276-007)
- D1, D2 – IN4004 Silicon Diode
- B1, B2, B3 – 9v battery (with holders & clips)
- B4 – 1.5v D-cell (with holder)
- M1 – 0-1mA meter
- P1 – RCA (male) plug
- J1, J2 – gold fem. RCA jack
- T1 – Audio transformer 250/8 ohm, 200mW
- Spkr – 3.2 ohm
- I1 – 2.2v lamp #222
- S1, S4, S7 – dpdt switch
- S2, S3, S5 – spst switch
- S6 – Normally open pushbutton switch
- 3 feet of shielded two-conductor wire
- project case
- 8-pin IC socket
- perf board or eched circuit boards
- knobs for potentiometers
- “Electronics and the Living Plant”, L. George Lawrence, Popular Electronics, October 1969.
- “Electronics and the Living Plant”, L. George Lawrence, Electronics World, October 1969.
- “Experimental Electro-culture”, L. George Lawrence, Popular Electronics, February 1971.
- “More Experiments in Electro-culture”, L. George Lawrence, Popular Electronics, June 1971.
- “Are We Receiving Biological Signals from Outer Space?”, L. George Lawrence, Popular Electronics, April 1991.
- The Secret Life of Plants, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, Harper & Row, 1973.
- “Contact with Extraterrestrial Life”, Joseph F. Goodavage, Saga Magazine, January 1973.
- When Stars Look Down, George W. Van Tassel, Kruckeberg Press, 1976.