Remote Viewing

Joseph W. McMoneagle

Art Bell Coast to Coast AM Radio Show
Tuesday/Wednesday, March 25-26, 11pm-4am PT

Featured Guests:
Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith

Transcript File 1 of Total 8

Transcribed by PJ Gaenir,

For an audio tape of this show, contact:
Chancellor Broadcasting Company Tel: 541-664-88292
744 East Pine Street Central Point OR 97502 USA

This interview is also available via audio in the Real Audio archives
on the Art Bell web page. See: for more information.

Transcriber notes: 1) Items in {brackets} are transcriber notes, and/or guesses about a word that is not fully decipherable. 2) This is not verbatim. The 'ums and ahs' were too extensive, so I simply typed out what everybody 'ended up' saying. Otherwise I believe this document is complete.


ART = Art Bell.
LYN = Lyn Buchanan.
JOE = Joe McMoneagle.
PAUL = Paul Smith.
CALL = A caller.

File 1 of 8 in this series.


ART ... what a surprise. We were going to have Lyn Buchanan on. And we still are. But we're also going to have Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith. All three of these gentlemen were involved in the military's project STAR GATE, which I'm sure you've heard so much about. Nightline of course ran quite a significant story on remote viewing, and many of you in the audience are familiar with remote viewing through other guests that we've had on. Some of you may not be. So we will discuss remote viewing, their differences, their agreements, what they think can be done, was done -- what they can tell of that -- and a lot more. So all of that coming up in just a moment. Can you believe it. Three at once from Project STAR GATE. Absolutely amazing.

Alright. Not long ago, the nation was shocked. Nightline ran a story, did a show, and said, guess what folks, for the last 20 years the U.S. government has had an ongoing program of remote viewing. And, as best they could in that limited amount of time, they tried to describe what remote viewing was. The nation kind of went, "What?!" {laughs} Since then, we have been pursuing the topic. Tonight may be the biggest program in that regard yet. Before I begin telling you a little bit about these men, let me tell you, they've got websites. And right now, if you go to my website and you click on the scheduled guests area, or go to the scheduled guests area, click on Lyn Buchanan's Controlled Remote Viewing site, it will take you to a place where you can see any of the associated web sites. And there's a lot to look at, there's a lot to look at, so you might want to go up to my web site, again go down to scheduled guests, and click on Lyn Buchanan, and it'll take you wherever you want to go. My website of course is

Now Lyn Buchanan, he was a remote viewer for project STAR GATE from 1984 through early 1992 while part of military intelligence for the U.S. Army. He functioned as a Viewer, a Viewing instructor for new personnel, and a Viewer Profile Database Manager, as well as other misc. duties. When he retired from the Army, remote viewing was still classified. After retirement from military service in 1992, he founded the AWP to assist civilian intelligence, police, FBI and so forth, in locating missing children, and founded PSI to develop solutions for intelligence related data analysis. Prior to the facts about project STAR GATE being declassified, he trained only those people who were in a position to know about that technology.

Joseph McMoneagle was born January 10, 1946 in Miami Florida. He voluntarily joined the U.S. Army, and was recruited by the Army security agency for classified assignments. He too eventuated to project STAR GATE. While there, he earned a Legion of Merit for providing "critical intelligence, reported at the highest echelons of our military and government, including such national level agencies as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, NSA, CIA, and the secret service, producing crucial and vital intelligence unavailable from any other source." When he retired in 1984, he maintained his association with STAR GATE in general, the program, through his own company, Intuitive Intelligence Applications.

And now Paul Smith. Paul served in the Fort Meade remote viewing program, STAR GATE, September of 1983 to August of 1990, and was trained in CRV by Ingo Swann. Primary author of the government CRV training manual, he also served as theory instructor for new CRV trainees, besides performing a thousand plus training and operational RV sessions during his Army career. A thousand. When _he_ retired from the Army, after many assignments, including Arabic linguist, intel officer for a special forces, intel officer with 101st Airborne Division during the gulf war, and Intelligence and Security Division Chief for the military district of Washington, Paul has been accepted into a Ph.D. program in philosophy, and works as a freelance RVr and consultant. He recently opened Remote Viewing Instructional Services, Inc. offering CRV training courses.

So, we have -- well I guess what we have here is three spooks. That about right guys? {Laughter from guests... "I guess you could say that.." "In both senses of the word."}

Alright, in order -- you know, this is not TV -- so in order that we might tell you apart, if when responding to something you would say, this is Lyn, or Joe, or Paul, it would be awfully helpful I think for the audience. Um, so what I would like to let you guys do is sort of banter back and forth, and what we must begin with is explaining to the audience what remote viewing is. Who's good at doing that?

JOE This is Joe, I'd like to answer that if I could. In my opinion, what differentiates remote viewing from normal psychic functioning is that remote viewing is usually done within a controlled protocol. And that protocol has essentially been the same and has been unchanged since the original research into remote viewing in 1972 at SRI. One of the things that dictates the protocol is that remote viewing is usually done blind, with the subject, and that there are specific requirements that go along with the protocol that are generally not violated.

ART Uh, generally not violated. All three of you have gone from the military program STAR GATE into individual endeavors in civilian life. Have any of the three of you, in any way, significant or not, modified the protocols in your civilian endeavors?

LYN This is Lyn, let me answer that. When I was in the service working there as database manager, the Ingo Swann technique is largely intuitive, and in several spots it's not at all logical, and as a result I've seen many many times when people will improve on it. And watching the database, each time I've seen the results go down. I have kept as strictly as possible to the Ingo Swann technology. Now I've added a few things that take the information and expound upon it. But as far as the basic technology itself, I wouldn't change it for the world.

PAUL This is Paul. It might be useful to clarify something here. We're actually dealing with a couple of different approaches to remote viewing. Joe uses one approach, Lyn and I use another, we learned ours essentially from Ingo Swann, it's called Controlled Remote Viewing, it used to be called Coordinate Remote Viewing, Joe uses another techniques which, I don't know what he calls it, we tended to call it back in the unit ERV, or Extended Remote Viewing. The goal of both approaches is to essentially control the process. In fact I call it essentially remote viewing in a quick way of saying it is "disciplined clairvoyance" in a way. You have a set of protocols, as Joe has expressed, which help exclude mental noise, help direct or focus your attention, so that you have a far better chance than you would otherwise of getting specific information that is related to the target you're trying to address.

ART Alright, I take it in STAR GATE, all the targets were of a military or national security nature.

LYN This is Lyn. All of the real world targets and the tasked targets were. Now we also had practice targets that we used just to keep up proficiency and to try out new things and make sure that we didn't get rusty.

ART OK, kind of like the military out following 727's or 747's over the Atlantic.

LYN Well, you could say that, actually the best thing we found to ever work with was pictures cut out of National Geographic magazines, sealed in envelopes and you describe what's in the picture, describe what's at the site.

ART So, practice.

LYN Sure, just practice.

JOE This is Joe, one of the things -- I wanted to add something, so that there's no confusion in the listener's mind. When we were discussing, or when Paul and Lyn and I were explaining what it is we do, ERV, CRV, or whatever you want to call it, those are the methodologies that each one of us uses to process the information, which may be different. The thing I wanted to underscore was that for any of those methodologies to be considered valid for remote viewing, they have to be done within the specified protocol {LYN: Absolutely.} which is different from the methodologies that are used.

PAUL Right, in fact, this is Paul again, you almost might make the analogy with different email programs, you can use Eudora or you can use Pegasus to download your email, they're just different ways of organizing the data so to speak. But the email is the same, no matter, the content is the same, no matter which particular program you use to sort it out with.

ART Alright, well it would be helpful for the audience to understand what it is you can and can't do. Can you read minds? {Lyn and Paul laugh}

PAUL This is Paul. At least in my experience, you can't do it in the way that people think of it normally, like they see from a science fiction movie or something on TV, you can obtain impressions, emotions, you can actually obtain information, but it's not the same sense as actually knowing what they're thinking instantaneously in the same words they might be thinking those thoughts in or whatever. You get the information, but it's not nearly as literal as people conceive it as being.

ART OK, for example. Saddam Hussein. Could you target Saddam Hussein and come up with his mood, his intentions, his, in other words, what could you come up with regarding Saddam Hussein, I suppose it would apply to anybody but he'd be a, certainly a typical target.

LYN This is Lyn. We did in fact do exactly that, to come up with plans and intentions, to come up with background psychological information such as moods, logical ability, his outlook on life, philosophy and so forth. Mainly plans and intentions. And this can be done. However, like Paul says, it's not a thing where you put the envelope to your head and say 'the answer is...', it's a slow procedure --

ART Let me interrupt. You said 'plans.' That would really imply a fairly direct reading of somebody's mind rather than mood. Plans imply, 'we're going to attack Kuwait,' you know, on a certain date.

LYN That's right. It can be done, but it's a very, it's an advanced level, and it's not, like Paul says, it's not something you just sit down and scribble off.

JOE Maybe I can add something here that will clarify it -- this is Joe. One of the things that you have to understand is that in the function of remote viewing, it's not the attenuated protocol that might exist for say, studying telepathy. What happens in remote viewing is that you're actually opening to all of the possible delivery systems, everything from clairaudience to clairsentience, clairvoyance, telepathy, presentiment, all those things are delivering bits of information. So there's an entire realm, or wealth of information that's available, depending on how you set up the specific targeting mechanisms.

ART Would the three of you agree that it is 'the end of secrets' as we have known them?

PAUL Paul here. I wouldn't say it quite so precisely. One of the factors, let's go back to the mind reading thing, one of the things you have to recall is how confusing everyone's thoughts are anyway. I mean, we can think about one thing while we end up doing something else altogether. If we were reading Saddam Hussein's mind, again not literally like that, but if we were doing that, we might pick up in the morning when he's in a bad mood that he intends to invade Kuwait tomorrow, and then later on in the afternoon he's already changed his mind and decided to do it some other time, you know, so it's never quite that precise.

LYN Absolutely. We did run into things like that.

ART Oh boy. That would be, must be very difficult for the remote viewer, when you're dealing with a human target which would, as you point out, change its mind.

JOE Well it's -- this is Joe -- there's inherent problems in remote viewing, as well. It doesn't work all the time, so, if you're operating with a 60 or 70 percentile change of actually making contact with the target, then you have to also look at the fact that there are times when you're gonna be wrong.

LYN {joking astonishment} Now, do you mean to say that this is not one hundred percent correct?!

ART That's what I was about to ask. {Guests laugh.}

PAUL Now Lyn, let's be nice.

LYN If you can find someone who can do it one hundred percent of the time, I will believe that the aliens are on the earth, because they're not human. {laughter}

ART Well alright, then what would the three of you say with regard to percentage of -- obviously -- people could approach 50/50 on certain things -- how far above that does remote viewing go?

LYN Actually, let me jump in here and say -- this is Lyn -- say that the 50/50 thing is right or wrong. If you have to select and tell the color of a card for instance, you can say red or black, you have a 50/50 chance. {ART: Right.} What if you have to predict the color of a traffic light, then you have a 33% chance. {ART: Right.} If you have to predict the condition of a certain spot in the desert, how many percent do you have chance?

ART Good point.

LYN And also, when you, when people ask for accuracy, they have noted many times that different people have reported different amounts of accuracy for remote viewing, quote, remote viewing, which is a general term actually.

ART Well if you compare your accuracy, if let us say we take a white or a black piece of something and put it in an envelope, and compare your accuracy doing remote viewing compared to the average joe's guess, how do you do?

LYN Well I'm glad you asked it that way, because I've been doing an extended experiment on this here lately, with red and black cards, and right now I'm at 68.3%.

ART As compared to the average joe's...

LYN 50%.

ART 50.% Alright, gentlemen, hold tight, we're at the bottom of the hour. Three former STAR GATE, project STAR GATE remote viewers. Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith. A rare gathering. And right here. You're listening to the CBC radio network.


ART Three gentlemen, all involved in the U.S. military in project STAR GATE, a remote viewing project that your tax dollars paid for. All three now retired, the project declassified, and they're talking. We'll get right back to them.


ART Now. My guests, Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith. Lyn, where are you located?

LYN I'm in Maryland, about 50 miles directly South of Washington D.C.

ART OK, Joe, how 'bout you?

JOE I'm about 25 miles South of Charlottesville in Virginia.

ART Alright, and Paul?

PAUL I'm, oh, half hour North of D.C., in a little town called Laurel.

ART So all of you, sort of, gathered not far from headquarters.

LYN That's right, we sort of had homes here because of course we were in the project for so long, and as a result, we just sort of settled. Let me say something else if you don't mind about that red/black.

ART Yes.

LYN In the project, when I took over the database, I saw that there was some work called binary work, where they were doing exactly that, and it had been an experiment, and the continually highest score in it was a person named Joe McMoneagle {laughs} who even one time scored 100% on 52 cards. And I was very, very impressed. I should someday reach that...

ART Did you say "one hundred percent?" {laughs}

LYN There was one instance in the database where he got one hundred percent correct.

ART So it can be done.

JOE This is Joe, I'd like to say something about the accuracy. I've been working for over 13 years with the Cognitive Sciences Lab in California, that's the original founders of the original research in remote viewing, and we have collected statistics on dozens of remote viewers, what I would call world class remote viewers. Generally speaking, on an average, a very good remote viewer can be expected to make contact with a target site about 60 to 65 percent of the time, and out of the information they provide, the accuracy of the information will run anywhere from 35 to 88 percent. Now, there are times when a good remote viewer will get 100% or a near 100% quality remote viewing. But those are extremely rare. And when someone establishes their sort of history over a long period of time, say 10 to 19 years, that's the kind of percentages you can expect.

ART Are those percentages increased with a team?

JOE No. From a research standpoint, everything that we have in the database that we've looked at, at the Cognitive Sciences Lab, would indicate that if you had ten very expert remote viewers all looking at the same target as an example, and eight say one thing and two say another, that it's just as likely that the two will be correct and the eight won't be.

ART Alright. Our government, at least according to the Nightline program that ran, financed STAR GATE over 20 years with 20 million dollars or something like that, at the end of which they more or less declared it to be a failure, and stopped the program. So, you all three were in it. Was it a failure?

PAUL This is Paul. No, it was far from being a failure. In fact, I -- back while I was still on active duty, I wrote a review of the CIA report on that in which I discuss many of the problems with that report. It -- you know I -- it's hard to say for sure, but it almost looked like it was consciously intended to prove the program was faulty, and yet, they did not consider anywhere near all of the evidence available to make that determination. From my own experience, and I think the other two will agree, while there were times when we fell flat on our faces there, there were times when we were unbelievably successful as well. That kind of holds true of any of the various intelligence disciplines. None of them are 100%, none of them are even close to 100%, sometimes they're very successful and sometimes they're not. So I would say, we were at _least_ as successful as any of the other intelligence disciplines, and sometimes perhaps more so.

ART Well if that's true, then the declaration that it was a failure was an intentional piece of disinformation or, otherwise known as, a lie?

PAUL Well... perhaps you could say it that way. You have to remember there's a lot more involved than just a bottom line as to whether it works or doesn't work. There are a lot of political agendas involved {ART: Sure.}, there are a lot of personal belief systems, you know, we live in, of course in the, in a scientific paradigm that doesn't want to accept the fact that there's things that happen that they can't explain in a cause-effect relationship. So far, no one's been able to explain what it is that makes remote viewing work. So there are a lot of people who have real problems with that.

ART Yeah, most of the military people for example. I was in the Air Force and I can imagine what the attitude toward what you gentlemen did was, and I'm sure it was not fully positive, in the ranks.

JOE This is Joe. One of the -- a very good example of that, since you brought up the military. There are multi billion dollar programs which are dependent upon, in essence, plans or constructs that may be very vulnerable to psychic functioning, they may be very targetable. And if some performances develop that shows a vulnerability based on psychic applications, then that can be very damaging to getting approval for a multi billion dollar plan. So that'll give you an idea of the sort of politics that might become involved.

ART Well, at least publicly. Now they suggested they stopped the remote viewing program altogether and STAR GATE indeed has been disbanded, however, do all of you agree that the government is now doing absolutely no remote viewing work whatsoever? What do you believe?

JOE This is Joe. I would agree with that, I have no knowledge whatsoever of anything that the government's now doing, either from a research or collection standpoint. And that's okay, I happen to think this belongs in the private sector, belongs in the public sector where many labs and many individuals can be participating in the research, only I would have to add that I think if any of that research is being done publicly that it needs to be open to peer review and evaluation, criticism, discussion, that sort of thing.

ART Can you, Joe, tell me whether the stock market's gonna go up or down tomorrow?

JOE With about the same percentage of accuracy as I discussed earlier, yes.

ART My. My my. I've got a fax here from a listener: "Art, please ask these gentlemen to speak about the episode they experienced when they were still active within their military unit. The episode involved eight objects entering the U.S. airspace, followed by one more type of an open-air-ship. This story is both amazing and amusing." Don, in Peoria, IL. {much laughter from Paul and Lyn}

LYN This was called "The Great Christmas Attack." At one point we got, someone called up to DIA and had DIA call tasking to us. Ed Dames was the monitor on this, and one by one, we remote viewed. Everyone was in on this except Ed, who is very prone to lead the Viewers, and we were sort of doing it just to, you know, show what can happen. The first Viewer went in -- we got all of this on tape by the way -- the first viewer went in and started giving just simple, you know, 'there are live beings here, there are eight objects in front of an open aired vehicle' and so forth. By the last Viewer, by the time the last Viewer, which was me, I was describing runners instead of wheels, and drawing things, drawing the sleigh runners, I was describing bells jingling {Paul and Art laugh}, how his uniform was red with white fuzzy trim. And when I went into the session, Ed told me that -- you know, all the Viewer's supposed to get is numbers -- he told me that 'we are experiencing an attack from over the North Pole with open-aired helicopters which are coming down over the Northern Canadian border, and what we're trying to do here is find out their exact location, and exactly what their targets are,' and so forth. And finally at one point I just said something about 'the pilot is speaking into his radio saying "ho ho ho!"' {Art laughs} and that's about the time, I think when I said that, everyone else who was in the monitor room, where the TV monitor was, laughed so loud that you could hear them through the walls, and that's about the time that Ed caught on to The Great Christmas Attack. {Everyone laughs again.}

ART So, all moments in STAR GATE were not serious, dire moments, you guys had some fun.

LYN That's right, sure.

PAUL This is Paul, we actually had a lot of fun. Lyn particularly, when things got a little wild he'd put out a pseudo-newsletter called 'The Adventures of the Psi-Force 5', some of which were very hilarious actually.

ART How many of you were there in totality?

PAUL Well, Paul here, just like any unit, any organization that's in flux with people moving in and out, at any one time the answer would be different. I think the most number of Viewers we had in the organization at any one time was about seven, but then of course with support personnel, you know, you had the operations officer, the branch chief, secretarial and you know, a couple of monitor analyst types, you know so maybe roughly ten to a dozen would probably be the largest size.

ART Even given what you said about the politics of remote viewing, and you know, religious paradigms and all the rest of it being challenged and the nature of the military people, fact is, if you guys really were able to do what you say were able to do, you would be such a national asset that it's almost impossible for me to believe that the government would just say "Okay, that's it, we quit, we're not gonna do it anymore, we don't care what Mohommar Qadafi's doing, or at least care to find out this way what he's doing, or any other bad hot spot in the world, we give up, goodbye." It's hard to believe, I mean it's just not like our government, they're hard bitten, they're pragmatic, but you all should know that.

JOE This is Joe, I'd like to respond to that directly. That's true, that's one perception that one might have about the government. However, a lot of the politics involve the managerial responsibilities for this program, and as the media has blatantly shown since the November 1995 exposure of the project, the giggle factor goes up when someone starts talking about using psychics. And nobody has a political career once they've been caught dead standing next to any of those psychics. In fact we had tremendous support from the Senate on down in some very important positions in government, and when those people were asked to respond, in particular to the Nightline program, without exception all of them responded positively but refused to go on the air or state that publicly.

ART Alright, I'm not surprised.

Next transcript section

This is file 1 of 8 in a series

Transcribed by PJ Gaenir,
PJ Gaenir's Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection:


Art Bell web site:

Lyn Buchanan's web site, Controlled Remote Viewing Home Page:

Paul Smith's web site, Remote Viewing Instructional Services:

Joe McMoneagle-related site (he is an associate of), Cognitive Sciences Laboratory:

The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection features Joseph McMoneagle here.

Audio Tapes of this 5 hour show can be purchased, call: 1-800-917-4278

You can get Joe's book at major booksellers or: 1-800-766-8009

Back to the Firedocs Feature Page
Joseph W. McMoneagle