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 4 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 4 of 8 in this series.

continued from previous file.

ART Have any of you while remote viewing any target, ever sensed or felt or understood there was another remote viewer in the area, so to speak?

LYN Yes, I did on several occasions meet a -- now, let me preface this by saying that there was never any proof -- but in several sessions I did generally at random, I met a Chinese remote viewer, and actually over a period of time, with several meetings, sort of struck up a very good relationship there. However there's no proof of that, I never got feedback on it, because of course we never knew anything about the project, or if there was a project, or who the remote viewers were for china, and so forth.

ART Would it be your view they are probably still, still have a project of that sort? Either in China or Russia?

JOE This is Joe, I can respond to that. I can say that most emphatically that there are a number of countries, Russia, China, Hungary, a number of other countries that are very heavily involved in pursuing remote viewing and researching it. It would be silly to suspect that they weren't using it for the obvious reasons that it can be used for.

ART And for that reason, above all the others I've heard so far, again, it's so hard to imagine that our own government would not do it, knowing that there are others out there doing it. So, if I had to make a guess, I'd say we're still doing it. But you guys say no...

PAUL This is Paul. Of course anything is possible. There's quite an extensive security, secrecy infrastructure in the government, and it is of course feasible that maybe there is still, somewhere buried deep inside Langley or someplace, a program. {ART: Yes.} I also, like Joe, I've also made inquiries of some contacts I have fairly deep in the system, and as far as they've been able to determine, there's nothing going on. And I can actually believe that, just knowing the attitude of many of the very influential people out there in the government who disapproved heartily of the program, I can believe that it's been written off, not because it didn't work but because they're not comfortable with it.

ART Well then this is a very serious national security question. If China and Russia and Hungary and other countries are doing this, shouldn't we be?

LYN Absolutely. This is Lyn. Let me say that you're talking to security people here, and so you watch for words. When you asked this of Joe awhile ago, his comment was that he "doesn't know of any;" I would say the same thing. To say that no there is not, or yes there is, I don't know of any, and I've had my friends and contacts, which are also very deep, don't know of any. When people ask me about the closure of the project, I say "Yes, THIS project has been fully closed." And if they ask me about any others, I very carefully word it by saying that the United States is the only country I know of which has closed their remote viewing project.

ART OK, OK, OK, then let me carefully word a question. If the three of you KNEW of an ongoing project, here we are on the air, could you say it?

LYN I wouldn't.

JOE I wouldn't either.

PAUL Nor would I.

ART Alright, that helps.

PAUL Of course, our answers might be different otherwise as well. I don't know exactly how I'd respond to it, maybe "no comment" or something, but we certainly wouldn't reveal it, particularly because we know how important it could be, we wouldn't want to jeopardize it. But the fact of the matter is, I'm pretty convinced that both Joe and Lyn are the same with me, we really don't know of anything going on, and can indeed believe that it got the legs cut out from under it. {laughs}

JOE Let me ask you something, Art. {ART: Sure.} I can understand your disbelief that somebody wouldn't be paying attention to this. But I can tell you from experience that there are actually people in the government in very high positions that still believe that psychic functioning or use of remote viewing is a violation of spiritual and theological reasoning, and are vehemently, and argumentatively against it just based on religious grounds. So how do you deal with people that are still holding...?

ART Well I guess I would ask you when Langely got religion.

JOE Well I'm not talking -- Langely's not the approval authority.

LYN Let me also ask a question here. Are you asking us whether or not our government has done something stupid?

{group laughter}

ART I guess I am, yes.

LYN I think it might not be the first time it's happened.

{more group laughter}

ART Alright, well look, we talked a little while ago about remote influencing, to the average person that's really frightening, the ability to influence another's thoughts or actions at a distance. So, an obvious follow up question to that is, would there be a defense against an attempt to remotely influence?

JOE This is Joe. I had responded to that earlier, and there's an additional comment I could make in that regard. While there's evidence that there probably is a capacity for some form of remote influencing, the problem has been that because of ethical and 'human use' reasons, whenever those experiments are done you have to inform the person, the target individual, that they're participating in a remote influencing experiment. And as long as those particular rules are in existence, it would be tantamount to impossible to know whether or not remote influencing is actually taking place as a result of unknown targeting, or whether or not by virtue of the fact the person _knows_ they're involved in that kind of experiment, they're actually willingly opening themselves to being targeted. So it's an issue that probably won't be answered until someone has come about with an approved protocol that can target individuals without them known, or unwitting targeting.

ART Well there's a lot of talk going on right now of influencing of a different sort by the Chinese with regard to our present administration. And one would have to imagine that if there is a Chinese project, and if remote influencing is possible, that would have been an obvious, a major project, would you all agree?

JOE This is Joe. I would agree except that I haven't seen any evidence that the Chinese are in fact doing that, so it's sort of a moot question. I'm not sure how anyone would evaluate the results of that.

PAUL There have been a lot of reports about the Soviets having been involved in that in the past. But it's mostly kind of rumors and such, again, no evidence -- of course, a thing of this nature would be hard to prove anyway -- but there were some interesting and quite wild stories about what the Soviets could or would be doing.

ART I'll bet there are. Alright gentlemen hold tight, we'll be right back to you. A gathering of eagles I'm calling it. Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith, all involved in project STAR GATE for the U.S. government, which ran for 20 years using your tax dollars to remote view. I'm Art Bell.


ART Good morning everybody, Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith, all in the government's project STAR GATE, are my guests. Just wait'll you hear what's coming up.


ART Back now to my guests, and gentlemen, I have a fax here from Ed Dames's secretary that says the following, and I would like you to react to it: "Art, with respect to treason, remember that General Stubblebine, the Commander of INSCOM [whatever that is], was Chairman of the Board of Psi-Tech when Ed went public in 1989." Would that affect anybody's comment with regard to the release of classified material?

LYN I would ask if this exonerates Ed Dames. I mean, does this mean that he didn't do what he did?

JOE I will add to that. This is Joe. Um, one of the normal procedures for finding something out is to claim that someone else has already told you, and then it's just a matter of validating the information by getting it from someone else. This is a pretty common ploy and it's used by the media representatives many times in newspaper articles and things of that nature. Because someone else said it doesn't make it true, and it certainly is no valid reason for violating a, the oath than an officer makes, or the security oath that someone has committed to. 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.

PAUL I'd like to weigh in a little on Ed's defense here. I think treason is too strong a term here. Treason implies that you're providing damaging information to a known enemy. Ed didn't do that. He was, you know, in the various venues in which he released whatever information he did, um, he was perhaps, well I don't know what his motivation was, but he didn't intend for that information necessarily to be used by an enemy or someone who wished to harm the United States. You know, of course by releasing it publicly, you lose control of that information, and you don't know what use it will be put to. But that still doesn't constitute treason in the {'full use?' indecipherable} of the word.

LYN Paul, let me ask you something. Do you know of any country in the world that doesn't have an open-source literature office? I mean San Marino has a little guy that sits in the building, you know...

PAUL Right. And the point I made was, once you've said it, you don't know who's gonna hear it. But intent is part of the definition of treason. If you intend to release information to a known enemy, that's Treason. If you're just spewing it out, maybe that's stupidity, or maybe that's lack of care, or something else, but it's not treason.

ART Alright, and to be clear, none of you used the word treason, treason was the word used in the fax, perhaps reasonable interpretation or not reasonable of the allegation of release of classified materials.

ART So, we'll leave that there. On with this now: "Art, please ask Paul Smith if he's ever RV'd to find out where the 116 lost pages went" -- {Paul begins laughing} -- for your information, it's a Mormon thing -- that's from Ron in Birmingham Alabama.

PAUL And, as a matter of fact, no I haven't. Part of the problem with remote viewing is you can't task yourself. If you do, then you're already asking for trouble {ART: Ah.}, you know what the target is, and you already have preconceived ideas about the target, if you say oh I'm gonna go remote view "X," then you're very likely to find that that's what you expected to find, whether or not it's really there. Um, even if I were interested in, you know, going into these historical things and looking at all the past historical events dealing with my religion or any other religion, if I were to task myself, well, the information wouldn't be valid.

ART You would have compromised yourself.

PAUL Exactly.

ART Alright. Again, it's inevitable: Ed Dames has done something that will affect the entire remote viewing community. He has released, or is about to, video tapes that purport to be able to teach the general public how to remote view. At a price far less than the average remote viewing course apparently costs the public. Do you think A) it is possible to teach somebody with that method, and B) what effect will it have, if any, with so many people out there trying to remote view?

LYN This is Lyn. I'm hoping, actually, that it does work. Because I would love to see this talent brought out in more people, and I think overall it would raise the entire consciousness of humanity. I know that in my own philosophy of teaching, I find that every student is so individual that I'm very adamant about individualized training. And I know that Ed is too. However, I think many of the general rules of remote viewing -- the basic rules of remote viewing -- can probably be taught that way, and I'm very anxious to find out if it works, like I say, I hope it does.

PAUL Let me jump in here, this is Paul. I taught myself how to play guitar, and it took me, well, I'm still trying to master some of what would normally be elementary things to learn if you have an accomplished teacher. It is possible to learn things on your own, with books or videos or whatever, but it's amazing how much of a difference a good teacher will make. {ART: Sure.} I kind of echo Lyn's feelings, it would be great if it was successful, and I kinda wish Ed a fair amount of success in a quality video that can help people learn. But nonetheless, there's a lot to be said for having individual instruction, particularly on something as nuanced and as difficult to grasp as this remote viewing functioning is.

JOE This is Joe, I'd like to add just one comment to that. Lyn made a very good statement when he referred to talent. Essentially, within the research side of things, we've pretty much firmly established that every living human being has an inherent talent at being psychic. Remote Viewing of course, any instruction in remote viewing should be teaching the technology, or the protocol, whatever the approach should teach the appropriate protocol, and while you can teach that technology, you're gonna be pretty much stuck with the inherent talent within the individual as its displayed. There is no existent proof that I'm aware of, at least from a research standpoint, that you can expand or make someone more accurate than what their inherent talent might be.

ART Alright, this is an area where you all disagree, isn't it.

JOE No, I don't think so.

LYN No, in fact, I agree very much.

ART Really. In other words, that the natural talent aspect of it is either very important, or not very important...?

LYN As far as -- this is Lyn -- as far as learning to connect, to get a conscious connection to that part of your subconscious mind which knows the universe, or the information that's out there, that is extremely teachable. How much of the "out there" your subconscious is able to bring in, I think is a matter of talent. And you know, like teaching a person to play the piano, there are some people who have the same number of fingers as the virtuoso, and yet, will never be in a concert hall, even though they can learn to play the piano. And this is very much true. You can't expand what's already there. I think the amazing thing to most people is how much IS there. And most people who learn the remote viewing are just astounded by the amount of ability that they have in this field.

ART Alright. Um, you all have moved from the military program to the civilian program, and I have not really asked you about specifics that you have, targets that you have done as civilians, so let me ask about a couple: Has anybody remote viewed Flight 800?

PAUL Well, this is Paul, I have. In fact, I did it, did that in support of a project that Ed Dames had, I've done some freelance remote viewing for Psi-Tech. And in fact, the drawings that -- I forget what program Ed was on, but the ones he showed to the camera were sketches that I had made in the course of my sessions.

ART Oh they were -- that was of the uh, I think it was a fuel pump or something?

PAUL Some kind of piece of machinery or equipment. Of course I had not a clue what it was, you know, I just drew it.

ART So you then would agree with Major Dames's assessment that that was a mechanical malfunction?

PAUL Well, my particular set of Viewings didn't really identify the ultimate cause. I specifically honed in on that piece of equipment, that that was, whatever happened to that, was a major contributor, or perhaps _the_ major contributor, to the incident with the aircraft. What made that malfunction? I didn't get that.

ART Alright, does that mean then that that particular piece of gear could have malfunctioned and caused the "accident," or that a missile without a warhead exploding could have passed through and hit this and then caused the "accident?"

PAUL That is possible, at least based on my sessions. Now I don't know what other Viewers Ed had work that particular project, and he may have had some other more confirmatory kind of stuff as far as the actual initiator of the event. But my particular Viewing didn't really confirm or deny some third party involvement.

ART OK, you just came up with that particular piece of gear. What about OJ Simpson? Anybody on that one?

JOE I originally said, and I still stand by it, that while OJ my have had certain connections to whoever may have killed the two people, that I do not think that he physically did it himself, I believe that that was done by someone else, and I don't think the real reason for that occurrence or the death has come to the forefront. And we may never know exactly why they were killed.

ART At the top of the hour here, it's getting late, it's getting toward five o'clock, what I would like to do if I can is probably let Joe and Paul go, and hold on to Lyn to ask questions of the, answer questions of the audience, if that's agreeable, or we can hold on to everybody...

LYN Joe's coming out with a book, if we could get some information on that.

ART Let's do it right now. Joe, yes I know, you've already written one book, right?

JOE I wrote a book called MIND TREK, Hampton Road Publishing Company in 1993. It's recently been revised, and it will probably hit the stands in 10 days to two weeks, and I've added chapters on STAR GATE and some of the myths surrounding remote viewing. And it's a pretty good compendium of information on remote viewing. I've also recently forwarded the follow-on book to MIND TREK to my agent, as of today or yesterday, I can't remember, and hopefully that will be seen on the shelves at some future date.

ART How do people get your books?

JOE There's a real easy way: they can call a 1-800 number, it's 1-800-766-8009, and that's Hampton Roads Publishing, and they will be glad to service the request for the book; or they can go to any Barnes & Noble or any other major supplier of books.

ART Anybody else write a book?

PAUL Not yet, although I do plan to have a web site up fairly soon. There is some information on Lyn's web site about my company, but that's about the extent of it right now.

LYN And Paul is beginning to teach too, so he may want to give people his number where he can be contacted, or...

PAUL Well, I'll give you my email, the company I've incorporated is Remote Viewing Instructional Services, so the email is

ART Alright, and you answer your email I take it?

PAUL Yes. {laughs} I can't guarantee I keep up if I get inundated, but I do my best.

ART Well, you're going to be inundated, believe me. What projects -- in the remaining moments here -- have you all taken on after the military? I take it you're leaving the national security stuff behind now, you probably had enough of that to sink a ship {they all talk; indecipherable}, but -- so what are you doing now?

JOE This is Joe, I'm a research associate still with the Cognitive Sciences Lab, that was the original lab at SRI and then later at SAIC, and we are currently working on some very interesting contracts for some major corporations that have tasked us with doing some research on remote viewing, and we hope to continue pursuing the mechanisms behind remote viewing.

ART Can you talk about it at all? I mean, for example, our own CIA which once spent all its time with national security work, you know, Congress and Oversight committees have been talking about changing the direction of the CIA to industrial espionage.

JOE We of course at CSL Lab, the Cognitive Sciences Lab, have never endorsed espionage of any kind. We're primarily interested in trying to uncover the mechanisms that support psi functioning. We've recently done three or four very interesting pilot studies that have indicated that we may be on to something with regard to two or three of those mechanisms, and if those prove out, which we have every reason to believe they will, they'll be some very astounding findings that will open the door to a whole lot more research.

ART Do you guys ever scare yourselves?

{group laughter}

PAUL Sometimes Joe scares me. {laughs}

LYN I am no longer surprised at this science, but I'll never quit being amazed by it.

JOE I would agree with that statement.

ART Is it one of those things that once you have begun, I mean I have yet to talk to a remote viewer who was involved in the government program or otherwise, who has said, "This is lousy, I'm bored, or I'm uninterested, and I'm not doing it anymore," is it one of those things that once you've done, you will always do?

JOE This is Joe. I always tell people that if you wanted me to sell my experience in this for ten million dollars, I probably wouldn't do it. However, if you offered me ten million at the beginning to do it and then I knew what I knew now, I probably wouldn't participate. {laughs}

ART I guess -- that's a good answer, that's really a good answer. Alright well, we're about out of time. Anybody wanna issue any final words here? I of course would love to have you all back at some future point, but any final words for the American audiences that is intensely interested in this whole thing you've been doing?

PAUL This is Paul, I think it's a very exciting process, it's a very exciting time to be involved in this, and I'm glad that people are interested, that kind of vindicates what we were doing in secret for so many years. So I encourage people to develop an interest in it and explore it and find out about it.

ART So in other words go ahead folks, if you're interested, follow it.

PAUL That's right.

ART Joe?

JOE I just wanna add one thing before I get off here -- I would encourage people to retain their skepticism and to ask questions, it's okay to challenge whoever's doing this, and have them explain, or open to review and criticism, what exactly it is that they're doing. That's where knowledge is developed and it's how we decide if something is truly valid or not. So I would encourage continued interest, but to be skeptical and ask questions.

ART Well, somebody might likely say, and we've only got a few seconds, "Alright, I want an instant demonstration, you know, Art's holding up something, tell us what it is," that is not the kind of thing that remote viewing lends itself toward, is it?

JOE That's correct, this is Joe. I've actually done six live remote viewings on camera for national television in England and America, and one of the requirements that they establish and follow very closely the protocols, and those performances have been open to review and criticism.

ART Alright Joe, we're out of time, Joe, and Paul, thank you both, we'll continue with Lyn Buchanan. Good night gentlemen!

JOE Good night.

PAUL Good night, thanks for letting us talk.

ART Right! Stay right there Lyn. This is CBC.

Next transcript section

This is file 4 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