Remote Viewing

Joseph W. McMoneagle

The End of the Line / Sightings on the Radio
with Jeff Rense

Sunday, March 2nd, 1997 8:00pm - 11:00pm Pacific Time

Featured Guests
Dr. Edwin C. May and Joseph W. McMoneagle

Transcript File 4 of Total 7

Transcribed by PJ Gaenir,

Transcribed from audio cassette which was courtesy of Jeff Rense.

This is a "general" transcript. It does not include every syllable.

File 4 of 7 in this series.

Continued from previous file.

RENSE: Welcome back everyone, we're talking to Dr. Edwin May and Joe McMoneagle. Dr. May has been involved with the remote viewing program that this government has been funding off and on for many years, he's probably in a position unique on the planet. Joe McMoneagle, arguably the most studied, accomplished remote viewer we have ever had, I'm very proud to have both these people on the program. We're here tonight to try to clear the air about remote viewing, what it is, how it works, what it can do, to try to cut through some of the hype, and there has been an awful lot of that on the internet, literally going out to millions of people at the speed of light without a countermanding force or a filter to put it through to get any kind of a real handle on it. It's a tough situation gentlemen. Let me ask you some direct questions. And before I do that, let me suggest to you that I have invited both Ed Dames and Courtney Brown on to this program recently, and have not heard a word from either of them, we did have Courtney on about a year ago when his book first came out, so they are both welcome to come on the program, in the future, if anyone's listening who knows them by all means extend the invitation yet again. Let me ask you a direct question Joe McMoneagle. The concept of remote viewing an object accompanying a comet, as Courtney Brown claims, that I believe his nine best remote viewers were asked to do, the concept of doing that and coming back with all nine saying the same thing, that it was a sentient object and had essentially evil intentions toward the planet earth and so forth, what does that concept do to you as a professional?

MCMONEAGLE: Well, uh... {laughs} my experience from 19 years of remote viewing is simply this: if you take ten remote viewers and use exactly the same targeting material under the most ideal research conditions or applications conditions, and get ten remote viewings of a target, and nine say one thing in agreement essentially and one differs from the previous nine, it is just as likely that the tenth, or differing individual, will be correct and the nine won't be. That is in fact the way it usually happens. There is no proof whatsoever that consensus of remote viewers adds any weight whatsoever to the correctness of the viewing.

MAY: In fact I would go one step further, there's a lot of evidence suggested in the laboratory that if three people walk into the room, we all notice similar things. It's the person who notices the odd thing that tends to be more often correct, and so it seems to be true in remote viewing in the laboratory as well.

RENSE: Have either of you read Courtney Brown's book?


MAY: I have also.

RENSE: An opinion on it?

MCMONEAGLE: I can proffer an opinion purely on what he says about his own remote viewing. He talks in there about five or six methods that he uses for remote viewing, and none of those methods except I believe method 5 is even closely related to actual remote viewing protocol. Method 5 would be a valid protocol, if there's a guarantee that the person who is working with the remote viewer also has no knowledge of the target. But I'm not sure that's not the case.

MAY: My comment's similar, that many of these people, to be fair to them, are probably well meaning. While I'm not in a position of accusing them to be fraudulent in any sort of way, the problem is, most of these individuals, at least the ones we've spoken about, are not -- even if they're scientists as Courtney Brown claims to be, and I think he's an "engineer," are not familiar with the specific idiosyncrasies of doing science in a remote viewing domain. It's quite a bit different than doing science in even normal psychological domain. So, you know, it's not, it's completely understandable that they would write books with massive flaws in them, and Joe just pointed out a handful.

RENSE: Joe, David Morehouse, another one of the military's remote viewers has written a book called Psychic Viewers, I believe --

MCMONEAGLE: Psychic Warrior.

RENSE: Psychic Warrior, it's a rather sensational book I'm told, I have not read it. Let me get your read on that, for those listening in who have read his book and are interested in his position.

MCMONEAGLE: Well, I -- you know, the book is predominantly his perception of things, and when you start dealing with someone's perceptions you certainly can't argue with those. With regard to the remote viewing, what he says about remote viewing, I -- my sense of it is that a lot of it's oversimplified, and a lot of what he says about remote viewing are comments that would be made by someone who has just finished training or is in the processes of being trained as a remote viewer. So, they sort of -- they're oversimplistic in their description and that sort of thing.


MAY: Yes?

RENSE: We're gonna take a break and when we come back, let's discuss Jim Schnabel, who has written another rather sensational book about remote viewing, and kinda take care of the tabloid aspect of this issue. Alright, we'll be right back gentlemen, in just a couple of minutes.


RENSE: Alright welcome back. Gentlemen, the other book out there that is commonly talked about in addition to David Morehouse's book Psychic Warrior, and Courtney Brown's book Cosmic Voyage, is one by Jim Schnabel called Remote Viewers. Dr. May, you first.

MAY: Well, I read Mr. Schnabel's book, and I've read some of the work that he's written on the topic in overseas papers and the like. My take is this: if you're going to be an investigative reporter, there are really two requirements, one of which Schnable actually needs. That is, you need to get second sources, in other words, two separate sources for any piece of information you have, because somebody could be lying, or you know, misrepresenting the truth in some way. But having found two sources, you must also investigate whether or not those two sources are independent of each other. Because they both might tell the exact same lie for whatever reason.

RENSE: Kind of sounds like Journalism 101 to me.

MAY: Definitely Journalism 101. In my opinion, having been as close to this program as I've been since 1976, Mr. Schnabel failed miserably at the second part of that job, and thus there are gross inaccuracies, ranging from the trivial, such as he says Mr. Swann's remote viewing falls in three classes, A, B and C, and he misrepresents what those classes actually are, from the trivial example, to some of the really important examples, which I can't go into because of their current level of classification.


MCMONEAGLE: I agree with what Ed's saying. I have an additional problem. It is apparent to me from what I know about the program that there were probably a handful of individuals that essentially gave him the material that he used for his book, and in fact, some of those individuals do have an axe to grind with regard to some of the other members in the program.

RENSE: You're talking about disinformation?

MCMONEAGLE: Right {sighs}, it's not so much telling lies as it is leaving things out, or lying by omission.

RENSE: That's just as bad of a lie as a lie, when you leave something out intentionally.

MCMONEAGLE: Well it is when it, in my opinion, when it does a gross disservice to some of the other individuals that have contributed to the program. Some of his comments regarding some of the women participants in the program, and some of the participants at SRI or later at SAIC were unconsciounable.

MAY: There's another very serious problem. Without risking revealing, or verifying or not, any piece of information in Schnabel's book, if what some of the former Army personnel were saying, and interviewed in Jim Schnabel's book, is true, then it is -- now a big "IF" -- then they are in direct violation of their security agreements and should be thrown in jail. On the other hand, if it isn't true, then this book shouldn't have been called a non-fiction book, it should be a greater work of fiction. In either of those cases, there are serious problems with the book.

RENSE: Hmmmn. OK, let me go back to brass tacks, Joe, in your career as a remote viewer, over 4000 remote viewings under controls, you did a lot of work for the government from October '78 to November 1995. Can you tell us about some of the more famous or infamous events of this past 20 years that you may have played a role in, you and the other remote viewers?

MCMONEAGLE: Well, like Ed had said before, and I have to reiterate, about 99% of this program is still within the realms of classification. However, there have been some that were exposed as a result of the American Institutes for Research study that was done and published unclassified. One of the examples I can give had to do with a submarine that was being constructed in the extreme North of [the] Soviet Union in 1979. Essentially, we were given a photograph of a building, at least, a section of a roof of a building, and asked to describe what was going on inside the building. There were two or three of us Viewers, not just myself, but two or three of us who independently drew segments of what appeared to be a submarine. At the time, the consensus of opinion throughout the intelligence world was that they were actually building some kind of an assault ship, for loading and unloading helicopters and troops. As it turned out, we were able to predict a launch date, and they in fact photographed this submarine that we had drawn, with the appropriate number of missile tubes and what was not, and then it was launched within a few days of that date.

RENSE: Pretty spectacular. You were decorated with the Legion of Merit award, that's the highest honor given in the intelligence community to anyone, for your work -- any other things you can share with us? I understand the National Security constraints, but this is very fascinating, and it's very much important I think that we get the truth out here as much as we can.

MCMONEAGLE: Well, we did track a number of people that were kidnapped by terrorists. And while I can't mention a lot of names, we were able to describe accurately where they were being held, the buildings that they were being held in, and through later verification with some hostages that were held with those people, it verified what our information had been months earlier, it had been correct. Of course, no one could act on that information, other than use it as a method for perhaps targeting perhaps other collection systems. I was able to produce the name of the town, [?unclear] in Italy, and describe with some detail the actual location that an American General was being held in when he was taken as a hostage by the Red Brigade.

RENSE: Interesting. Very, very interesting. When you say you can locate hostages, are you given targets of the actual hostages to go for, are you given profiles of the terrorists, are you given the geographical location or picture of a building, how does it work?

MCMONEAGLE: In the case of General Dozier as an example, they knew the length of time between when he was actually kidnapped and the discovery of the fact that he had been kidnapped, and that was something in excess of six hours, and since he was taken from his home in Northern Italy, that gave them access essentially to almost all Western Europe, in terms of moving him somewhere. So, the only information that I was given was a photograph of the General, his name, and I was asked to describe the location in which he was being held. No one had any idea which country he was even being held in at the time.

RENSE: And you were correct?

MCMONEAGLE: Yes, I was the only one who produced the actual name of the city that he was being held in.

RENSE: The General was essentially, then, lost but you were able to pinpoint him. He ultimately was murdered as I recall?

MCMONEAGLE: No, no, he was actually, he was released, or he was rescued actually, by the Italian paramilitary police. What had happened is, while my information was enroute from America by courier, they had received a tip from a relative of one of the kidnappers, and had taken action on it. So as he was being released, my information actually arrived.

MAY: Jeff I have an amusing story about this situation, if you can imagine such a thing. I'm not sure Joe knows about this. But we at SRI were given a remote viewing task by the intelligence community, and it was an odd one. And it was two weeks before President Reagan was to light the Christmas tree ceremony, to do that function sometime December 17, we were asked, is there anything special about that date? Because it was thought that there was some terrorist activity that was going to occur at that date. And our remote viewer, fellow by the name of Gary, who likes to work these problems without knowing anything at all about the problem, so we just said well, Gary, what can you tell us about the problem of the date? And he said well, a senior military official is gonna be snatched off the street in Italy. And we said well, hmmmn, when we got that information we went back to the client, said there's nothing in here about a terrorist activity in the US at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony. Well that was the exact date General Dozier was snatched off the street.

RENSE: How interesting, wow. Well Dr. May you presided over 85% of the data that has been produced to date in this program, that's a long way to look back. I would think moments of a sense of humor would have to be with you, or you wouldn't have been able to make it. Pretty serious business.

MAY: That's a prime requisite to surviving this field, I think Joe would agree. {laughs}

MCMONEAGLE: Well actually, there is something I'd like to add about humor. One of the interesting things about remote viewing of course is that we rely on all of our perceptions, in terms of what we're trying to understand about the information we're trying to translate. And part of the paranormal delivery of that information is with humor. And so, there are a lot of humorous things that occur where information just seems to be delivered within the context of humor.

RENSE: Oh, that's very interesting. Alright we're gonna pause here for our next short commercial time out and come right back with Dr. Ed May and Joe McMoneagle.


Next transcript section

This is file 4 of 7 in a series

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


Jeff Rense Sightings on the Radio web site:

Dr. Edwin C. May is the Director of, and Joseph W. McMoneagle an associated of, the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory:

The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection features Joseph McMoneagle here.
You can get Joe's book at major booksellers or: 1-800-766-8009

Back to the Firedocs Feature Page
Joseph W. McMoneagle