firedocs media/politics article
Section: Online Censorship: Recreating the Past?
I forwarded some public Psi-Tech BBS posts to a few intel remote viewers who had been referenced or quoted in them. This response is from Joseph. W. McMoneagle.
Quoted portions are from Jonina Dourif, Psi-Tech Vice President, from the Psi-Tech Public BBS. Responses are by Joseph McMoneagle. This is from a public statement he asked to be posted, in response to a public statement she had posted.
>For your information, Ed Dames was sent by the DIA
>Intelligence Agency) to be personally trained by Ingo Swann (the
>developer of the skill). [Joni Dourif, Psi-Tech VP, Psi-Tech BBS]
Not true. We all know who sent Dames to be trained by Ingo. Dames was trained through stage III and part of Stage IV. The only person who was trained through Stage V, was "Tom." At that point (late 1984) the training by Ingo was terminated. This was done for two reasons; 1) It took too long. 2) They weren't getting the results they felt they wanted to be getting. The method was then modified in house, and the training was then completed in-house. This training in-house was done primarily by Atwater and Smith.
>Lyn Buchanan was trained by Ed, while he
>won't admitt it, he cannot come up with a straight answer. [Joni]
Lyn was certainly not trained by Dames. He began his training and completed it under Atwater, with the direct assistance of "Tom" and Smith. Dames may have had a hand in running some of Lyn's practice sessions (as did a number of others), but that's it.
>heard him say when asked who trained him, "oh, everybody did."
>Lyn was only partially trained, as Ed states "he kept taking
>shortcuts and falling out of structure." [Joni]
I've never known Lyn to take a short cut for anyone. He certainly doesn't fall out of structure. This reads like the BS it is.
>However, when confronted with the fact (as Art Bell
did) that the commander of
>INSCOM (the same General who Buchanan claims hand picked him) was the
>chairman of the board of PSI TECH, Buchanan replies "well, does that
>exonerate Ed?" (sound like jealousy ?) [Joni]
Joni should mention that Lyn's remarks were a direct response to whether or not Dames had violated his oaths as an officer in the United States Army, by disclosing information he was not permitted to disclose. Art Bell asked this question based on a FAX he received from PSI Tech, wherein Dames had claimed that since the ex-Commander of INSCOM was the president of the board at PSI Tech (at one time), then why shouldn't Dames be talking about the things he was talking about. Thus implying that he had permission to make disclosures simply because the General worked in the company or might have been making disclosures himself.
Lyn was pointing out the fact that no matter what the ex-Commander of INSCOM does, it doesn't alieviate Dames from his own responsibilities as regards following his sworn oaths as an officer. I would also add that I said; "Because someone else said it doesn't make it true, and it certainly is no valid reason for violating a, the oath that an officer makes, or the security oath that someone has committed to." I further stated that, "...in Ed Dames's case, I would rather not comment directly on him, but I don't see it as a valid reason for what he may or may not have done." I would add, this holds true for any agreement one makes, whether business, military, or otherwise.
>I suggest that you relisten to that tape with an
>You'll also hear Paul Smith state that Joe MacMoneagle does not
>practise the same protocols nor, was he in the same unit. [Joni]
Again, as a matter of record:
There is no such thing as numerous "protocols." There were numerous "methods" used to RV over the 19 year period. I too have been well trained and versed in the "Ingo Swann Method," as well as many others. So what? No one method has ever proven more effective than another, some are just prefered over others, dependent upon which person is doing the RV. For RV to exist, one must simply follow the RV Protocol which is not method dependent (it hasn't changed since 1972). The term ERV did not exist while I was assigned to the portion of the project that existed at Meade. This was a later title applied to help differentiate one "method" from another.
As regards my being in the same unit: There were two significant elements or units within the project. One was the unit at Meade, the other was CSL in Menlo Park. The RV'ers in Menlo Park historically provided RV to both R&D as well as applications from beginning to end of the project. The RV'ers at Meade historically provided RV to both applications as well as CSL for R&D (the latter until 1988--the non-use of the military viewers for research purposes after 1988 was a managerial decision and had nothing to do with implying accuracy of those viewers). I was assigned from the beginning of the project 1978 at Meade, until my retirement in late 1984. I was then hired as a consultant at CSL in Menlo Park from my retirement until the project closed in 1995. For that entire period, the project was the same project, although it went through four name changes. I am currently a research associate with the same lab, CSL of Palo Alto. You can verify this by simply visiting the web site at:
Joseph W. McMoneagle
Return to Online Censorship: Recreating the Past?
firedocs main menu