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 2 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 2 of 8 in this series.

continued from previous file.

ART All three of you have now turned to civilian application for remote viewing. Are there ethical and moral limits, or if I walk into one of your organizations with a whole bundle of money and I say "look I want to know what Mitsubishi is gonna produce in the following area, what they're doing," will you do that for me?

LYN This is Lyn. I have very definite moral and ethical limitations. There are certain things I will not teach, and basically, during the span of the course, just learning the basics, there is so much to learn that you don't really have time to learn all of those esoteric things anyway. Now --

ART Excuse me Lyn -- wait. "There are certain things you won't teach."

LYN {Pause} Well, I do not even address the subject of remote influencing and won't.

ART Oh!.. All three of you I take it agree remote influencing, which means, by the way folks, the ability at a distance to influence what somebody else actually does, in other words not just read their mind but influence their mind, that, it is possible?

LYN Remember, it's not remote control, it's remote influence.

ART I understand.

LYN The -- I want to make one thing very clear by the way: keeping the database, I kept all the information on all the projects; and at no time was there ever an official tasking to our unit or done by our unit involving remote influencing. Anything that was done was done by individuals on their own time, and there was some experimentation and so forth, but at no time were we ever tasked to do that.

ART Well would it be your view, Lyn, unofficially, that remote influencing is possible.

LYN I believe so. I have collected the data and tried the experiments and have come to the conclusion that it's extremely possible.

ART My god. Then -- you know -- I -- again, this brings me back to the military's apparent dismissal of this. Remote influencing would be of such _intense_ interest to them. That it just seems impossible to me that they would not fully explore it.

LYN Well, if you were a politician funding something, would you want to caught funding remote influencing?

ART Uh uh, not me.

LYN I don't think any politician does, and of course, any time you do something in government, there's always the chance of a leak and somebody finding out. Their political career would be dead.

ART But then -- sure, but they don't want to get caught selling missiles to Iran, either.

LYN Well, yeah -- and they did!

ART That's right, our government does lots of things that it might not otherwise want to get caught at, and the idea of being able to remotely influence Boris Yeltsin? or Saddam Hussein? Or any of the other big guys...

JOE This is Joe. I'd like to comment on that from the science standpoint. {ART: Sure.} I -- as I said before, I've spent over 13 years with the Cognitive Sciences Lab, and there are a number of labs across America that have been involved in remote viewing research, and many of those labs have tried some experimentation in the remote influencing arena. There has been some very interesting and provocative results which are still very much up in the air. So if you were to say, absolutely we can prove remote influencing, you would have to say, "No, we can't." But if you said that there probably, that there is a high probability that it's possible, you would have to say, "Yes, but all the research isn't in yet." {LYN: That's right.} So, based on that, I don't know how you would actually apply it, and be expectant of an ability to validate the outcome.

LYN That's right. In the experimentation I've done, and the experimentation, I know, is completely full of holes, and could be shot down by, you know, a junior woodchuck scientist, but I have done the experiments to my satisfaction. I now believe that it can be done and quite easily. But as far as proof, I'm still waiting for proof myself.

ART Our president has done from time to time over the last several years things that seem utterly uncharacteristic. Have any of you had anything to do with that?

{Great laughter}

LYN Not I.

JOE Other than with my vote, no.

ART Alright, without naming anybody, would one of you say, oh yes, I definitely in my own mind, I believe that I definitely remotely influenced somebody's action.

LYN Yes. This is what I was saying, I've convinced myself that it does work. However, let me again repeat that it was never official.

JOE This is Joe. One of the problems here Art, is when you start talking about remote influencing of other individuals and then you bring in integrity and that sort of thing {ART: Oh yes.}, ethics, one of the problems that you become very heavily embroiled in, especially within America, and especially within research, is the fact that there are 'human use' considerations that have to be taken into consideration, and as soon as you have sort of formally identified someone to participate in such an experiment, you have to tell them up front what's going on --

ART Alright gentlemen hold tight, we'll be right back. You're listening to the CBC radio network, I'm Art Bell.


ART Once again here I am. Good morning everybody, if you are just joining us you're not gonna believe what you missed in the first hour. You may be able to catch up in this hour. My guests are from project STAR GATE, the government's official remote viewing program, Lyn Buchanan, McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all three involved in the U.S. government's remote viewing STAR GATE project. We'll get right back to them.


ART My guests are at home, within miles of Washington D.C. one way or the other, Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith. Gentlemen, welcome back. Who would like to try and describe the difference, if possible, between technical remote viewing, so called, and controlled remote viewing.

LYN This is Lyn. I have talked to many of Ed Dames's students; structure-wise, I don't think there is that much of a difference. Ed of course sticks to the, sticks pretty closely to the Ingo Swann structure {ART: Mhmn.} and retains the terminology that Ingo used.

ART Alright. So in other words, there is not a lot of difference.

LYN There's not a lot. Now Ingo requested that people not use his terminology, and so I started using basically slang terms that the students developed, for instance, "Analytic Overlay," which is basically your imagination taking over, my students called "Stray Cats," and so I took over that terminology, simply because Ingo put out a little basic letter saying "please don't use my terminology." And so basically, I would say as far as terminology goes, Ed's is more, Ed's is closer to the original than anything I teach. Structure wise, I think they're basically the same.

ART Alright. May I ask this of all of you: Why do remote viewers generally not love each other?

{group laughter}

LYN Well, let me address that. I've been watching this on the Net {ART: Wait a minute, who is this? LYN: This is Lyn. ART: Ok.}, I've been watching this on the Net, and if you look very closely, the concept or the feeling that all remote viewers are squared off at each other is a form of disinformation in itself. {ART: OK.} The people who are squared off at each other seem to be Ed squared off at Dave, Dave squared off at Ed, Ed and I, Ed and Joe, Ed and uh -- I think soon to be, Ed and Paul, Ed and several other people, and if you made notice of a pattern there --

ART Why do you guys, let me restructure the question, why do you guys not love Ed?


LYN There are several reasons. One, for one thing, when he got out of the service, he started giving classified information to the public, while it was still classified. He is making claims that he ran the project, that he started the project, that it was, you know, that he briefed the president, and -- and I mean, these are laughable things, it just didn't happen.

ART Not true. You say not true.

LYN Not true.

JOE I'd like to make a comment here as well. This is Joe. Ed has also made claims that I've worked for him and that sort of thing, and those are emphatically not true statements.

LYN Yeah, he said I worked for him too and I didn't.

ART Alright, alright, here's a fax, "Mr. McMoneagle has said that Ed Dames was never a remote viewer with the government, but was simply a person who was employed to interview prospective candidates for the government remote viewing program, could you please ask him to comment on that."

PAUL Let me jump in on this {LYN: Yeah, let Paul work on that one.}. That's actually not completely correct. And it's no fault of Joe's, because they didn't overlap, Ed came in on the scene long after Joe was gone. Ed actually did indeed do, did participate in some operational remote viewing projects {ART: OK.}, however that wasn't his primary function, he was indeed more an analyst, a tasker, managing training and stuff, you know, he did, he was kind of a jack of all trades in that regard, he wasn't hired primarily as a remote viewer, and only under exceptional circumstances did he do that, but he did indeed, did do some operational remote viewing.

LYN I got that he did one, didn't he --

PAUL No, he was on for a number, I haven't gone through the list, but I'd say at least 6 or 7 that he was listed as a Viewer on.

LYN Oh really. I didn't have that in -- I didn't remember that from my database.

JOE This is Joe, I'd like to comment on my comment.

{group laughter}

JOE That's not an exact quote for what I said. The claim was made that, by Ed Dames, that he was the only person who was qualified to train or teach other people to remote view, and that he was the most accurate remote viewer in the project, and the only one who was a responsible Viewer, and my comment was that his primary job while he was with the unit was to act as a monitor and interface with the viewer in terms of handling or setting up remote viewings, and that he was not a primary trainer; he may have trained in the sense that he ran practice sessions and that sort of thing. And that's okay; everybody had specific jobs within the unit, and everyone performed as they were required, and I suspect that he performed, you know, righteously and did the job very very well. Where I have a problem is where he makes claims and then attributes them to himself when they in fact don't have anything to do with him, they had something to do with someone who, perhaps is not even with us anymore today.

ART In private moments, you gentlemen have, have you not, referred to Ed Dames as "Dr. Doom?"

LYN This was a nickname that was given to him in the unit before he came to us. He was called Dr. Doom over there. He's been predicting doom, death and destruction for years and years and years now.

ART Would you say that he has seen things that the rest of you have not seen.

JOE That would be a fair assumption. This is Joe. And that's fine. One of the remarkable things about remote viewing is that when you make a prediction or you make a statement about something, one would hope that there would be some validity or some method by which you could prove validity or the veracity of the information. I could certainly choose or pick targets that are completely unverifiable, and make all the claims I want, and that's OK -- they'll never be shown or proven one way or the other. But one would hope that if you're gonna be making claims about remote viewing and its capabilities that you would be opening yourself to being tested in some way, or producing information that can be verified.

ART Alright. Well that opens up another topic, and maybe a little bit in defense of Ed Dames. He's been on this program and said -- I'm sure you're all familiar with the "amazing" Randi, so called? {Group laughter.} Ed has been on this program and said straight out he accepts Randi's challenge, there's something like a million dollars or now more sitting there waiting for somebody to prove psychic ability. Ed Dames has said, "I accept." I called the amazing Randi, so-called, and asked him to come on -- he sent a fax and said OK, there's numbers in my safe, tell Ed to come up with these numbers. I said, that's not fair. You're in control of the numbers, and I don't like that. So how about coming on the program and setting up a structured test, with the controls set up here on the program, and the amazing Randi, so-called, did not come on the program, would not come on the program. Do any of you feel that the amazing Randi's challenge could be taken, and met?

LYN As it stands? He's basically a magician, a sleight of hand and sleight of mind, and you, if anyone does things on his terms, he wins. I don't care if you were 100% accurate, doing it on his terms, you would be subject to a magician's slight of hand, and -- I mean, it's a gimmick, you know, that he uses for his own popularity and so forth.

ART OK, but if -- yes, but if the controls were set up independently from Mr. Randi --

LYN Then he wouldn't participate.

JOE That's correct.

ART And so that's why he wouldn't come on the program.

LYN Sure.

JOE Right. This is Joe, I'd like to say something about that. He doesn't accept the current scientific controls that have been verified, proven and used across nine to eleven labs in the world, and so he's not hardly going to come on your show Art, and establish a valid and reasonable protocol and allow someone to attempt to do the remote viewing. So I have to support Ed in this, because he really hasn't been proffered the opportunity to demonstrate under an appropriate protocol.

ART Well basically, the amazing Randi wrote back to me and said "I won't come on your program because I can't be in the studio with you." Well, either is Ed Dames. He's on the phone. He said further, "CNN has made yourself and myself an offer to do a weekly program" -- it is true, CNN has approached me and has approached Randi to do a kind of point/counterpoint program -- "and I feel it would water down that program and so I don't wanna come on your show" -- all reasons that I considered unreasonable in terms of trying to set something up to meet this challenge.

JOE I agree. This is Joe. Where he essentially wants to hold all the marbles and make all the rules, that's in itself an invalidation of a truly scientific test. These things have to be open for discussion and bantering and argument, and they are so within normal science, so he's actually violating the very rules he says he {"says he has established?" not clear -- trans.}.

ART Is it possible gentlemen to view into the future or the past?

PAUL This is Paul. Yes, as a matter of fact. The past is easier to do. The future's a little bit harder. But it can be done, it has been done a lot, and continues to be done I suspect. Many of the training sites we had at the old unit involved {the} past, "retro-cognition" if you will, viewing events in the past, and it worked very well. It worked as well as real-time.

JOE This is Joe. One of the problems you might run into when remote viewing the future: if you go out too many years, you may in fact have a 100% correct remote viewing, but since it involves something that might pertain to technology or something that we don't yet know about, there's no conceptualization that you can put it in, no order that will make sense. So, you run into some technical problems. When you remote view the past there's an even more interesting problem. History is sort of mobile, and history seems to be written to support whatever the political or social requirements of the present are {ART: That's right.}, so you open a bucket of worms where you have to be willing to then take on and defend whatever you've said against the anthropologists, theologians {ART: And revisionists.} -- exactly.

ART Ed Dames has said, and I wish to ask you all about this, that there is in the next few years a point past which he really cannot see, he seems some large event which he can't quite discern which he describes as possibly spiritual event of some sort, a massive spiritual event, have any of you seen or sensed this?

PAUL This is Paul. Of course, being as close as we are to the turn of the millennium, just like the last time a millennium came around, there's a lot of hysteria almost, and I think they, in fact they use the word hysteria when they talk about it historically, about cataclysms and all that sort of thing. I'm not saying Ed has fallen prey to that, but it's certainly something to be concerned about. A lot of people are talking about end times, and you know, book of revelations, how you know, has all kinds of things in it that people seem to be seeing happening now. I'm not going to say those things aren't going to happen. But we have to be especially cautious when we deal first of all in Future, because there are a lot of technical problems with remote viewing the future, and second of all, dealing with very emotional-laden issues, such as end times, coming cataclysms and things like that.

ART I'm not sure that's an answer to the question. Is there a point past which --

PAUL Oh, I'm sorry -- I have not experienced that, and nobody I've talked to has had that experience that Ed is claiming. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but I myself am rather dubious.

LYN This is Lyn. I heard that by the year 2000 the entire British Isles will be wiped clean of life and so forth, and that sort of surprised me, because I had done a session for -- a series of sessions for -- a company, and it involved looking into the year 2005. And at that time, it was generally life as usual in the British Isles.

ART Alright, there are some real-world things going Lyn, that I would like to ask you and the other two about. Frogs, indicator species, are beginning to grow extra limbs, they're becoming deformed, they're becoming multi-colored in various ways, all kinds of things, deformed fish, we are beginning to see changes in our ecology. Do any of you that have been able to look into the future see where this ecological problem is going?

JOE This is Joe, I'd like to respond with a comment, and then I'll answer it directly. These are not new phenomena. Deformed frogs, fish, that sort of thing have been occurring as well as deformed cows, chickens, snakes, that sort of thing, across history. The media's attitude towards reporting those things has changed drastically in the last probably 10-15 years as a result of the public's interest in those things. In terms of what we may be seeing in the future, there's no doubt in my mind, just based on what you read in Scientific American or any other, you know, valid research reporting document, that there probably are effects from the ozone depletion and chemicals in the air and the toxicity that we've put into our water that we're now going to be paying dearly for, for some time.

ART OK, but that's -- that's you reading the headlines the way I do, I guess I was asking more about what might have been actually remote viewed or what you might have sensed.

LYN Let me jump in here if I might. It was some time last year that the prediction was made about the frogs mutating and so forth. {ART: Yes.} However, I have right here on the computer a copy of New York Times from March of 1994, talking about frog mutations, and another one from the Associated Press in 1995 talking about it. Well you know, I can remote view things that have already happened, anybody can do that {laughs}, that's easy. I can -- you know, it's easy to predict things that have already happened.

ART Alright. Let me, let me pull away from this, you guys are gonna have too much -- are already having too much fun with this {group laughter} -- let's talk about the past for a second. One obvious target in the past of immense interest to people worldwide is whether there was really a man who walked the Earth who was the son of God, called Christ. It must have been, for you at some time, an inevitably tempting target.

LYN This is Lyn. I had done a series of sessions on Columbian drug lords, Hussein, Khadafi and so forth, and was really --

ART I tell you what, Lyn, may I interrupt you, because we're at the bottom of the hour and I like cliffhangers, so we'll come directly back to this. Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith, all members of project STAR GATE, the U.S. military's remote viewing project, are my guests. It is a gathering of eagles and it's kind of rare, so stick with us, interesting stuff, and you just heard what's coming.


ART Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith. All back within several hundred miles of Washington DC one way or the other, all involved in the military's project STAR GATE and they'll be right back.


Next transcript section

This is file 2 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