of the Line / Sightings on the Radio
with Jeff Rense
Sunday, June 1st, 1997 8:00pm - 11:00pm Pacific Time
Transcript File 3 of Total 5
Transcribed by PJ Gaenir, firstname.lastname@example.org
Transcribed from audio cassette which was courtesy of Jeff Rense.
This is a "general" transcript. It does not include every syllable.
File 3 of 5 in this series.
|Continued from previous
[Real Audio Counter: 01:14:14]
JEFF: And welcome back, we are talking with Joe McMoneagle, one of the six original CIA remote viewers, and the only remote viewer who stayed in the military's ultra-secret program through its entire existence, October 1978 through November 1995. Joe's book MIND TREK, Hampton Roads Publishing, a must-read for anybody who cares about the mind and what it is capable of, it's extraordinary, available now it's priced at $12.95. And Joe also has his own private corporation, he does consulting work and we will talk about that a little bit later.
JEFF: Let's go back to the actual procedures, and hardware so to speak, of this technology. You have in the book Joe, reprinted a number of photographs which were targets, which you were assigned to try to find information on, and then we have reprinted just below them the drawings you made of these targets. And it is really something to go through and read, and understand this, it's remarkable. I think you said that in 20% of your drawings you're able to do, literally a virtually perfect overlay lineup of the actual target, photograph or object that you're after. It's amazing. Are there other people, many other people who have come close to this percentage in your knowledge?
JOE: In terms of the remote viewing project, yes, there were quite a few individuals within the project that were as good and in some cases probably better than myself. So, it's one of those things, that there are world-class people in this business, and then there are those that probably aren't world-class. But it's something everyone can do, to a certain extent. The near-overlay type of drawing is extremely rare, except, only occurs maybe 20% of the time. But that's a statistic that's fairly accurate for remote viewers that do it professionally.
JEFF: I see. You have done live television programs, and done remote viewing, you just did one recently again -- how many have you done, and tell me about some of the results.
JOE: Actually, under controls, on camera live, I've done... of course the ABC special which was 'Put to the Test,' which was a very good example of remote viewing [JEFF: Yes.], I also did a remote viewing at the J.B. Rhine Center in Durham, I believe it was last June, that was filmed by Reader's Digest home video; the entire protocol at that time was controlled by a man by the name of Dr. Richard Wiseman from England, who is a noted skeptic in the field I might add. That was also very successful. I've done four remote viewings for The Paranormal World of Paul McKenna, which is a show that's broadcast in London. And I just recently did a live remote viewing for a Discovery Channel production that's being done for British television.
JEFF: Fun to do?
JOE: No, they're really kind of a pain in the neck. One of the things that is really interesting about this particular arena is, quite literally, there have been probably 12,000 remote viewings done under control, either under lab control or within the operations, and you could stack all these in a room, they would essentially fill probably 250 boxes, literally, and yet, with all of that proof, the typical scientist or the typical individual, just average individual, would say, "I'm sorry, I can't believe this, you have to _show_ me." And I find that remarkable. The only area that, you know, it has to be _personally demonstrated_ to everyone when they're first exposed to it. I think it's probably because it's asking them to change their concepts of reality.
JEFF: Well it's like the ultimate challenge to them.
JEFF: Very threatening, and people are gonna just shut the door on it.
JOE: You know, I did one remote viewing live, with CNN, and it was kinda funny, in that, when they asked me to do it I said no, I'm tired of this, I'm not gonna do it, why don't you have your reporter do it? And we set up a controlled remote viewing and the reporter did very well. But it was very difficult doing the last hour filming, because she wouldn't calm down. [unclear; laughter] blown away by the experience.
JEFF: That's very funny. That brings us to the next issue, of "teaching" remote viewing to people. It has become a cottage industry... Courtney Brown, Major Ed Dames, um, Lyn Buchanan, who you hold in very high regard, others, what about the idea of teaching remote viewing, it's becoming popular now, is it something that can be taught to the average person? We talked about this a bit earlier. The prices for these courses are rather exhorbitant at times. Give me a survey of this whole field if you would.
JOE: In terms of teaching, I think that you could certainly teach the protocol, and you can essentially teach the basics of a methodology. Now, one of the problems with the teaching is that many of the methods that are being taught are claiming "near 100% accuracy," they're claiming full contact with the target nearly 100% of the time. And those -- that just is not statistically supportable, and so I think people are being misled, about a lot of these methodologies, or the degree of accuracy they can achieve. There's certainly nothing wrong with helping someone develop a psychic method within a control. But I think in most cases, the prices, and the amount of time they say that they can be taught in, is ridiculous. Most cases they say they can teach someone to remote view with that kind of accuracy within a few weeks, and that's just not possible.
JEFF: I remember, early on with this Hale-Bopp comet controversy, Courtney Brown, allegedly his A Team, his remote viewers, in the Farsight Institute, all independently, reportedly, looked at this comet and found intelligent life out there with it and so on and so forth. What was your reaction to all of that?
JOE: My reaction was that I didn't believe it. Primarily the reason I didn't believe it is, he talks about his protocols in his book, and my review of his protocols or the way he defines them clearly shows that these are methodologies, and they're primarily training methodologies. So I don't think that the protocol is being followed. It's difficult to actually say that he's not following the protocol, because he quite simply does not open any of his operations or his training or anything to peer review, or to discussion. One of the sure-fire tests of a protocol, what actually makes a protocol real, is the fact that it is open to peer-review, it is open to discussion, and it is open to challenge.
JEFF: We had Courtney Brown essentially bringing forth information from his team, that the world was facing a real showdown with an extraterrestrial intelligence, which was accompanying the Hale-Bopp comet, Major Ed Dames has laid out in no uncertain terms his allegedly remote viewed prognostication, or assertion, or discovery, that another object with the comet was coming here with, apparently carrying plant pathogens, these are end of the world millenial madness pronouncements. Again I don't see how it does the, the field, the professional field, the scientific field of remote viewing any good. Would you care to comment on that.
JOE: I think that anything that sort of drives people to panic is unconscienable. I also have a firm belief that any kind of predictive viewing such as that, where you're talking about a future event, is participant in the creation of that event. In other words, if you talk a great deal about a coming war, then that has a tendency to catch on as a bush fire, and pretty soon you're fighting that war. It would be a far more valuable consequence to be predicting things in a positive format, producing an idea or concept that people can fasten themselves to that would become a positive or creative event.
JEFF: Yeah. Let's pause Joe, and we'll be right back with Sightings on the Radio.
[Real Audio Counter: 01:26:13]
JEFF: We're back. Joe, anybody thinking about getting into remote viewing, studying it and so forth, would do well to listen to what kind of advice from Joe McMoneagle?
JOE: Well, I think that anyone that wants to get into it, I think it's a very interesting thing to pursue, but it should not be pursued as an end unto itself. Like I said, it's like a martial art. Involve yourself with the intention of finding out as much about it as you can, have an open mind, but do not lose sight of your normal skepticism, it should be pursued in as clear a way as possible. And it's okay to go out and pursue some of these training methodologies I suppose, as long as you're careful not to be deluded by them; walk away so to speak with the things of value that you find there, and leave the things that are not of value.
JEFF: Why don't people people come to you for training, why isn't Joe McMoneagle offering remote viewing as a training course? Seems there's potentially a lot of money there.
JOE: Well, yeah, you know, I could hang a shingle out tomorrow and probably make a hundred thousand dollars a year, but that's not the point. What I've tried to do in [my book] MIND TREK is I've tried to provide as much information as possible, so that if someone wants to pursue this in their own talented way, they can. The other point I'd like to make is that I don't teach because I believe that since it is a number of years occupation to give an individual, then it would be extremely prohibitive from a cost standpoint, or from an investment or energy standpoint. Someone really has to want to do this. I also do not want responsibility for playing with someone's mind. I think everybody should grow and evolve under their own control and under their own speed. And many of the training scenarios assume that responsibility, which I think is very dangerous.
JEFF: Can remote viewing training hurt somebody?
JOE: [pause] There certainly have been some examples in the past of people who've been exposed to remote viewing that went off the deep end. In fact, in the science side, the research side, what we found to be true is the person who just unequivocably accepts everything about remote viewing without any skepticism, you know, what we call 'the true believer' --
JEFF: The quick believer.
JOE: Yeah, the person who just falls head over heels in love with remote viewing and everything about it, is usually far more dangerous in terms of their destructiveness to the field, or the science of it, than someone that holds a healthy skepticism.
JEFF: This has almost the earmark of a potential cult allegiance, that people might have to it.
JOE: Well, one of the ways of telling whether or not it is, is whether or not the trainer is willing to give over the last piece, or you know, in effect cut the training cord. Many of the people walk away from a lot of the training feeling that they really didn't get the full measure, they didn't get that last 10%, or they find that they're extremely dependent upon their instructor. If someone has the sense that they're still very dependent upon their instructor, and haven't learned enough to sort of walk on their own two feet, then they should be very suspect of the training, or the connection with that.
JEFF: Hmmmn. You worked with Dr. Ed May, at Stanford, and you still do work with Ed May. [JOE: Right.] I've had both you gentlemen on the program before, several times, I did ask the question then, I'm going to ask it again now. Remote viewing of course gathers data from outside and pulls it inward. Can remote viewing in any way "place" data in other people's minds? Can that be done? Can we influence the thoughts of others, could this technique somehow be used in reverse? Can we do that Joe?
JOE: Actually, I've seen dozens of experiments that were done by the Russians, the Hungarians, the Czechoslovakians; many of the experiments were done in labs here in the United States, where there was an attempt to directly influence the mind of another human being. Without using mechanical devices I would say no, I have not seen that displayed. Either the person is going to voluntarily do what they do, or no amount of outside influence is going to override their own desire, their own morality so to speak.
JEFF: Do you see that possibly changing in time? You mention "devices." Could this be married to some sort of technology that would be electronic in nature?
JOE: Well there's certainly a number of people in labs in the world that have been playing with everything from pulse microwave to wave front technology, where they can demonstrate that they can make people nervous, or they can create nausea in a group of people at distance, or interfere with perhaps the speed of their cognition. That's in its infancy, from a research standpoint. But that's the same as gassing someone in a room -- I mean, you're going to see an effect when you use a piece of equipment, an externalized method. In terms of causing someone to do something however, or make a decision, I've never seen that demonstrated anywhere.
JEFF: Can you -- you mentioned after your near death, after death experience, that you were able to know other people's thoughts before they actually spoke them. First of all, was that irritating to you, at all? Or embarrassing? Or did it place a huge burden on your senses?
JOE: Well it was, it was embarrassing, because some of the thoughts weren't, you know, wholesome, and some of the thoughts were certainly surprising to me, because they belied the personality of the person that I was dealing with. But over time what I just learned to do was accept the fact that all human beings are very unique, and that what's in a person's mind is their own business, and I have no right to it.
JEFF: You stay out of it now?
JOE: Yeah, I stay out of spontaneous reactions to people, I might shake somebody's hand when I meet them, or walk into a crowded room and brush up against somebody or something, but generally speaking, I just discard the information.
JEFF: Can you summon it on demand Joe?
JOE: Well, like I said, a really good, competent remote viewer can target objects, places, events, even concepts, conceptualizations, there are many examples of targeting concepts or plans for operations, that were very accurate, when they were in the planning stage --
JEFF: Well what you're saying is that you were able to remotely read people's minds.
JOE: Right, or conceptualize what was the concept or the idea behind what they were attempting to do.
JEFF: You are able to, as you have described to me before, really talk about, about one percent of what you've experienced in your military career as a remote viewer, and I understand that. Are people talking about remote viewing and disclosing things that they shouldn't be Joe?
JOE: That potential is certainly there. One of the things, one of the misconceptions about the exposure of STAR GATE was that the total program was exposed by the A.I.R. report, which was delivered to congress in the unclassified format. In fact, probably 98% of the program is still very classified, and is sealed away. In fact the evaluators who did the evaluation of the program for the A.I.R. (The American Institutes for Research), were not allowed access to the information.
JEFF: No kidding.
JOE: Yeah, it really brings some interesting light to their evaluation. Dr. Ray Hyman in fact states in an article that was written in the skeptic bulletin in Washington, that he was given access to the entire process and all its files. In fact he was given probably three boxes of information while there was still 110 boxes or more that were sealed away.
JEFF: Hmmn. What was really revealed was the fact that the program existed, not so much what it accomplished, and what it did and how it worked, correct?
JOE: That's correct. And many of the issues, in terms of targeting, a lot of the methodologies, that certainly has never been discussed.
JEFF: Alright, we're gonna pause and come back with Joe McMoneagle, whose book MIND TREK is must-reading, Hampton Roads Publishing, it's available at all major bookstores, in the bookstores, or you can order it. I'm Jeff Rense, this is Sightings on the Radio.
[Real Audio Counter: 01:39:15]
JEFF: Joe I want to pursue this idea again that I just brought up a few minutes ago, about getting into other people's heads. If you can get in there to read their thoughts, pick up concepts, how do we know that it's not possible to implant or influence thoughts and concepts? How can we say that can't happen?
JOE: Well actually we can't say that that can't happen. What I said before is that I just had never seen it demonstrated.
JEFF: I heard that, I understand, I heard that, that's why I'm bringing it up again.
JOE: One of the things that has become very apparent to me, and this is from twelve plus years on the research side, and certainly my nearly two decades of involvement in remote viewing, is that it's very clear to me that much of what happens to us in our lives has very much to do with the decisions we make on a day to day basis. We can either make those decisions in an aware state, or we can make them while we're essentially asleep, consciously. Most people unfortunately probably don't spend a great deal of time in the aware state. So, you could conceivably manipulate what someone does, because of the fact that they're asleep, they're not paying attention to what they're doing.
JEFF: Well and people are certain manipulated virtually every waking moment by the mass media, I mean that's a given, and it's right in your face [JOE: Sure.], and they use all sorts of technologies and techniques to do that, and my point is, if there are powerful individuals, powerful in the sense that they've been able to harness this ability, and under strict protocols, use it, why not? Why not?
JOE: Well, in my own experience, wherever I've seen, you know, cross-human effect, generally speak -- well, specifically speaking, in almost every case where a protocol was set up, both participants knew they were participating in exactly that kind of experiment. So there was a clear awareness that that's what the intention was and that's what was going on. So that implies a cooperativeness between the two individuals. In the case where the person was totally naive, there was no clearly demonstrated effect, that I've ever seen under controls. So, it may be that in order for the effect to occur, one has to be cognizant of, or aware of the fact that that's the kind of thing that's happening.
JEFF: Interesting -- we talk about auditory, visual, olfactory senses which can trigger responses in people, it would seem to me that the other possibility does exist --
JOE: Yeah, and it probably does, it's just that I've not seen it displayed. You know, it's one of those things, fill in the question mark.
JEFF: Yeah. Okay. The program was officially disbanded, there is allegedly no more funding for it, I remember seeing, I think it was Gates, talk about how it had a rather low percentage, an unacceptedly low percentage of success, it was interesting but it really didn't prove to be a valuable weapon. I must tell you, as a friend and an, an professional colleague so to speak in this media game that we are all in -- it doesn't make sense. That such a valuable program with such people as yourself in it, which can hit targets 55-60% of the time, and relatively few individuals who are paid military salary essentially, that that program would be disbanded, dropped in any way. Is it not possible Joe that this money simply went elsewhere?
JOE: That's always remotely possible. I seriously doubt it. My -- I have to give you my viewpoint, which is, having been in the program during the entire time of its existence, one thing was very apparent to me. Regardless of how it might have appeared, there was never any really openness to the program. In other words, most of the reason it was probably kept very low key or secretive many times, was just to keep people from knowing what the source of the data was. There's a great deal of negativity towards the paranormal, that certainly exists within the bureaucracy, and it was always from Day 1, the last place you ever wanted to be seen alive was standing next to an Army psychic. And there's no reason to think that that's changed.
JEFF: Or a professional UFO researcher.
JOE: [laughs] Right. Exactly. That doesn't mean that, you know, that it's not real, and it doesn't mean that it's not effective. It just means that most people who have to take a paycheck home are not going to expose their careers, particularly their political careers, to that sort of --
JEFF: Well I understand that, but we really are faced with the potential that there are hundreds of billions of dollars available over a very few -- over a short period of time of just a few years, to be spent on so-called black budget programs, secret programs, and I just gotta think that a few million dollars here and there could certainly keep this program more than alive at levels that maybe even Joe McMoneagle isn't aware of.
JOE: Oh yeah. That's always possible. From a remote viewing standpoint though, I would say that that's probably not going on, not happening.
JEFF: Interesting. Well, do you think that there may be some, more advanced technology?
JOE: In comparing the degree or level of remote viewing that was achieved at SRI, and the Cognitive Sciences Lab at SAIC, as well as within the operational Army unit through that period, I would say that we were probably state of the art. That doesn't mean that there isn't someone in the world somewhere that isn't doing as well or better --
JEFF: I've been told by people, this again is not substantiated, that there are electronics now that can actually read people's minds, and I don't know that we'll ever have, in the near future, any definitive proof on that, but I'd like to get your comment on that as we continue here with Sightings on the Radio, with my guest Joseph McMoneagle, author of the remarkable book MIND TREK, published by Hampton Roads, and we shall return.
[Real Audio Counter: 01:49:13]
JEFF: And welcome back everybody, I'm Jeff Rense and this is Sightings on the Radio, and we're talking to Joe McMoneagle tonight about remote viewing and many other things related to that in one way or another. Joe, have you ever come across information which would lead you to believe -- and I know you're under National Security constraints, and I can't expect for a moment you would certainly step across that line -- but do you know of any equipment that would allow people, either in a lab or from a remote distance, to tune in on someone's mind, and read it out to any reasonable degree whatsoever?
JOE: In my own experience, no. I know a number of people who have been researching an ability to, you know, to try to influence or affect the minds of people remotely, through the use of, say, pulse microwave, or --
JEFF: I'm talking more about reading thoughts, Joe --
JOE: In terms of reading, no. I don't even see how that could be possible. One of the ongoing arguments that has been going on for hundreds of years, literally, is the possibility of where "mind" resides. And we're not absolutely sure that the mind resides just in the brain to start with. There's certainly evidence now that memory doesn't reside totally in the brain, it resides throughout the nervous system of the body. It's just so complex a system, I just can't fathom that --
JEFF: That's a very interesting statement. So when people say you're sitting on your brains, they may be half right.
JOE: Exactly. In fact, mind, if it is not, if the brain does not represent mind, then the mind could almost exist anywhere, and I suspect that the mind probably resides outside of what we know as physical time-space, so how you would target that with a machine, that's beyond my ken.
JEFF: Very interesting. You used a nice word there, 'ken,' you don't hear that very often.
JOE: [laughs] My Scottish ancestry coming out.
file 3 of 5 in a series
Sightings on the Radio web site:
McMoneagle is an associate of the Cognitive Sciences
The Firedocs Remote
Viewing Collection features Joseph McMoneagle here.
Back to the Firedocs Feature Page
Joseph W. McMoneagle