Remote Viewing

Joseph W. McMoneagle

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

Sunday, June 1st, 1997
8:00pm - 11:00pm Pacific Time

Featured Guest
Joseph W. McMoneagle

Transcript File 1 of Total 5

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 1 of 5 in this series.

[begin transcript]

[Real Audio Counter: 00:25.0]

JEFF: Good evening once again everybody, I'm Jeff Rense, and welcome back to another edition of "Sightings on the Radio." Without question, one of the most amazing revelations to ever emerge in the intelligence community in many many years, was the news a couple of years ago that the CIA had been actively involved in a long-term project to develop and to use a psychic technique called "remote viewing." This ultra-secret program used a very small number of gifted individuals who were naturally psychically talented, and then further trained under strict protocols to be able to mentally locate and to describe targets anywhere in the world by simply sitting in a room and using their minds. For those of you who listen to this program regularly, you may recall that I've done several programs on this mind-stretching subject, and I'm very pleased to have back once again tonight as my guest the most renowned and honored remote viewer this country has ever had. Mr. Joseph McMoneagle. Hi Joe, how are you?

JOE: How you doing Jeff?

JEFF: Fine, thank you very much. If you'll bear with me I want to do a little more setup and background on you for our listeners tonight.

JOE: Sure.

JEFF: Joe McMoneagle, for those of you who don't know, was one of the six original CIA remote viewers, and the only remote viewer who stayed in the military program for the entire period of its existence, from October of 1978 all the way through November of 1995. Joe is also one of only two remote viewers who worked on both the acquiring of remote viewing data and the research and development part of that program. He has done over 4000 remote viewings under strict protocols and controls, and his statistics in 19 years are just phenomenal. Out of any 100 targets, Joe McMoneagle can be expected to hit the target 55-60% of the time. Of the targets he actually hits on, Joe will acquire, on average, from 45 to 85 correct percentage of information. Of the targets he hits on, about 20% of the drawings he makes from remote viewing of the target will actually line up as nearly perfect overlays, over the photographs, of the actual target. Truly an incredible achievement. Joe has even done highly successful remote viewing demonstrations on a number of live television programs, including one for British TV just a couple of months ago. In fact, Joe McMoneagle is so effective at remote viewing, that he was honored by being awarded the Legion of Merit, the highest honor the intelligence community can bestow upon anyone. Remote Viewing was allegedly, officially dropped, and discontinued by the government in 1995. But there are many who scoff at that as nothing less than disinformation, for reasons that will become even more obvious during tonight's program. After the program was allegedly disbanded, Joe has continued to work with Dr. Ed May, at the Cognitive Sciences Lab in Palo Alto, California, and is the executive director of his own private consulting company, called Intuitive Intelligence Applications, located in Virginia. Joe's remarkable book called MIND TREK has just been reprinted, and we are happy to say it is available in most bookstores, and is considered by many to be an indispensible treatise on this amazing mental and psychic technology.

JEFF: We all, Joe, have intuitive flashes and feelings or hunches about things that we really shouldn't know about. Are these what we would call commonly psychic abilities?

JOE: Yeah, what we've found or discovered through the research side is that probably nearly every human being that walks the face of the planet probably has some psychic functioning. And most of the time it's usually very spontaneous.

JEFF: Most all of us can run the 100 yard dash, too, or shoot basketballs or play tennis, but many of us, you know, have different levels of competence in those, is the same thing applicable to remote viewers?

JOE: Yeah, what we find is that probably based on your experiences in life up until the point of being introduced to remote viewing, that's probably what conditions you as to the degree of talent, or you know, your natural ability that will come through when you're tested.

JEFF: There is much talk about people being "trained" to remote view, we'll discuss that at great length as the program develops, there are now home video courses and all that, is this a technique, is this an ability that the average person can develop to some degree given proper training and discipline?

JOE: Well actually, the training probably has more to do with the development of the protocol, teaching people what not to do, there's a certain structure that can be taught that assists people in dealing with the information in their mind. But all human beings, cognitively speaking, are probably treated differently, based on our own experiences, we all think things differently or analyze things differently, so, to a certain extent you can help someone polish their talent, but I wouldn't expect to see a great, any great improvement over what the talent level might be in the individual at the outset.

JEFF: Really marginal then.

JOE: Well, you think of it as a martial art of the mind if you will. Certainly a martial artist doesn't spend a few weeks developing his skill, or her skill; the same thing holds true with the mind. If you're going to really improve the psychic ability of someone, then they essentially have to be reconditioned. And reconditioning usually takes years of practice and training.

JEFF: You've been involved in martial arts yourself I guess for about 40 years now, and remote viewing, and you call it sometimes "a mental martial art," is that pretty accurate? What do people NOT want to do, you mentioned what they are not 'supposed' to do during a session, what are some of the simple things to avoid? We're talking again about the long-term training here, or martial arts idea, what "don't" people want to do in training?

JOE: Well one of the, some of the minor things that are easily learned, you want to refrain from jumping to conclusions about your input, the targets have a tendency, the information concerning the targets have a way of coming in in a very fractured way, and a lot of people when they get a little information have a tendency to jump ahead or try to conclude something from that information. In terms of reconditioning, it takes essentially just a lot of practice, and what you'll find is you can learn almost as much from failure as success, so paying attention and developing your own technique is probably more important than trying to follow some recipe that's been developed by someone.

JEFF: That's interesting, you can learn almost as much from failures as success, I guess this really requires some suspension of ego doesn't it?

JOE: Yeah, that's a constant battle, and most of the very good remote viewers that I've known in my life have consistently dealt with that as an issue. It's not something that goes away, I don't think you ever really get a leg up on that so to speak, it's something you just have to deal with --

JEFF: Unless you become a zen buddhist.

JOE: [laughs] Right, exactly, [indecipherable] wouldn't help.

JEFF: I would think. Do you have a certain code, that you follow as a remote viewer that you can discuss with us, a code of behavior, a mental conditioning exercise, or any parameters you've learned to impose upon your work?

JOE: Well, that covers a whole gamut of things. In terms of code, I guess top of the list would be one of ethics. I have a very strict ethical sense in terms of what I target or what I don't target. If I have a sense that I'm, you know, even getting something spontaneously about an individual, let's say, I would probably never even discuss that even with the individual, unless I had been previously asked by that individual to talk about it. What I target and when I target it is very critical to me, in terms of the righteousness of the target. I've had a lot of people that have asked me to do things that border, for instance, on industrial espionage, that sort of thing, and I just will not participate in those kinds of targets.

JEFF: I would assume that there are people out there who have trained in this psychic profession if you will who are hired guns who might be able to do that kind of thing, for some people, for a fee, is that right?

JOE: Well, one of the things that is true, there's a misconception that's held by many that you have to be a good person in order to develop psychically, and I'm sorry to say that that just isn't true. Anyone can develop psychic talent whether it's for good reasons or bad reasons. However, people who have a tendency to develop it for negative or what I would call destructive purposes, usually don't develop in a philosophic way, so their talent may be limited somewhat in that growth area. Seems like people who go to the positive or constructive way do a lot better in the long run.

JEFF: Interesting. You spent 14 years in Asia, during a long and illustrious military career working in the US Army security agency, a lot of dangerous work for you. Did you have any extraordinary abilities along these lines that you feel may have saved your life during those years of service?

JOE: Well, in the 14 years I was in Asia as well as Europe, from one theater to the other. Certainly in a lot of my military career, I spent a lot of time in areas where, you know, danger might have been a little more real than others --

JEFF: Yes, let me ask you to hold it right there Joe, we're going to take our first break, we'll be right back with Joseph McMoneagle, here at Sightings on the Radio.


[Real Audio Counter: 14:14:0]

JEFF: And we're back, talking with Joe McMoneagle tonight about remote viewing. Joe, during your 14 years in Asia and Europe working under very secret conditions, high stress, did you at that time realize that you had a psychic ability that may have been involved in keeping you safe and secure much of the time?

JOE: No, I wouldn't say so, although it was probably operating the entire time. I went under what I call gut feelings, I made my decisions usually by how I felt, and when they seemed to go against the grain and turned out to be correct, it was usually because I had a gut feeling, or at least that's what I would call it. One of the interesting things is, I think the Army became interested in this, as a result of studying some of those unique people in the field, such as people who would walk Point, or EOD kind of people, or Air-Sea Rescue kinds of people, who were imminently successful and never seemed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the hopes of discovering how they could do that; I think many of these people were very psychic.

JEFF: So the military was aware that there were a number of soldiers that seemed to have psychic abilities that actually ensured their survival, and that's what peaked their curiosity.

JOE: Right, exactly. That and the work that had been done in the very early 70's at SRI with the CIA.

JEFF: Right. I think what we should do now before we -- there are so many things to talk about -- but for those who haven't heard you before on this program, let's define what remote viewing is, what is the common understanding of it, and how does it work and what's it used for most Joe.

JOE: Well first you have to define 'remote viewing' as different from psychic functioning, in that remote viewing is supposed to be done under control. [JEFF: Right.] That means that a formal protocol's been developed that is always in effect. Remote Viewing itself is the ability of someone to describe a person, place, event, or object that is remote from them, for which they have no previous knowledge. And that's usually done under a very strict control, in which the remote viewer as well as anyone else in the room is blind to the target, and the way the target is targeted is blind, you know, so there's no ability to know something about the target ahead of time.

JEFF: How much of a target do they give you? You're in a room, you're under the strict procedures that are followed, what information are you given, and I understand that most of the things you worked with of course remain certainly under the secret umbrella so we can't talk about a lot of it, but give me an example of how target information is given to you and what you would come up with.

JOE: Ok, as an example, just one of the things that's been talked about was the typhoon submarine that was developed by the Russians. At the time, they knew something was being constructed in a certain building at [unclear] Russia, and they had no idea what it was, so to target remote viewers against that building what they essentially did was just take a picture of the roof, and they would show us a picture of the roof and say "tell us something about what's going on inside this building."

JEFF: That's it.

JOE: That's it. And from that we were able to draw some very detailed drawings of a submarine that had never been seen before.

JEFF: Well you're saying that "we" were able to do that, you mean the six Viewers that were in the program?

JOE: I and a number of other Viewers, yes.

JEFF: I see. So a monitor, or a procter, or a liason would come in, show you a picture, I would assume that that person did not, him or herself, know what that picture was relating to, is that correct?

JOE: That's correct. And there's a reason for that, that's very important. The person that brings the photo in and shows it to the Viewer can't know anything about it for two reasons. One is, we talk in a whole lot of ways to each other as human beings, you know, aside from using our voices, or language, we have body language, you know, the way we shift in a chair or scratch our heads says a lot about what's going on [JEFF: Sure.], so you don't want to 'dirty' the information by having someone prompting someone, even subconsciously. The second reason is, what we found, especially in the research side, is that the facilitator in the room with the remote viewer inevitably will ask the right question at precisely the right time during the remote viewing. So in effect, the person asking the questions is being as psychic as the remote viewer. While there's a lot of discussion about how many people believe that's true, the fact is true. They just inevitably seem to ask just exactly the right question when it's necessary.

JEFF: Hmmn. So, when we walk into a room full of people and often come away with feelings about some of those people, or all of them, we are actually not necessarily doing anything or experiencing anything psychic, we're tuning in on our own normal senses that are looking and feeling and processing information without our conscious awareness of it.

JOE: That's correct; the average human being is extremely sensitive to their environment, and that includes other human beings within their environment. And you'll notice when you're talking to someone and you're standing face to face with them, there's certain body language that they'll give you as you're talking to them, maybe the subject's a sensitive one [JEFF: Yes...] and the person will cross their arms or something, you know, that's a subconscious signal that they don't want to discuss it maybe [JEFF: Uh huh.]. We don't even know we're processing that, in a subconscious way, but they are.

JEFF: And they also won't look you in the eyes, or avert it, or a lot of things.

JOE: Sure. Well you know, there's the old belief that, "Well this person's lying, because they won't look me in the eye"

JEFF: Not necessarily true, right?

JOE: No, not necessarily, but it may just be that the person doesn't want to discuss that particular subject.

JEFF: Or is shy. [JOE: Exactly.] Many reasons. [JOE: Yeah.]

JEFF: As far as remote viewing and how it works and so forth, what is it like to sit there and mentally try to acquire a target? Is it emotionally draining? Is it meditative in nature? How does it actually feel to you?

JOE: Well actually, initially, when you of course are first learning to do this, when you're first exposed to it, there's a lot of trepidation about it. You're very nervous, you have a great deal of performance expectation, pressure, that sort of thing. [JEFF: Yes.] So it's very difficult to try to clear all that out of your mind and open to whatever the information might be. As you progress in your experience, in other words, practice of the remote viewing over many years period of time, or at least over many months, a person becomes more comfortable with the fact that the information is there, and they come to a point where they rely on it, and it's not quite so difficult. I think the important point here is that every human being is coming out of a different conditioning when they're first exposed to remote viewing, so many people will be more nervous than others, depending on how they feel about the remote viewing itself.

JEFF: I would imagine the first couple of successes have to be pretty exhilarating.

JOE: Well actually, the people that are first exposed to remote viewing, inherently do better than they do later. And I think one of the reasons why is the ego part of the mind says 'Geez you know, I don't understand what's going on here, so I think I'll just step back and watch.' [JEFF: I see.] And the person allows the subconscious to deliver the information, they don't analyze it, they just present it, it turns out to be very accurate, and it kind of scares them a little bit. Then the ego says 'Wait a minute, I now know what's going on, I'm in control here', will step back in and try to control things, and the remote viewing effort will then deteriorate.

JEFF: And so the protocols, as much as any, if I read you correctly, are learning how to keep the ego out.

JOE: Well that's the method. The protocol has more to do with, sort of the steps that are taken to ensure that the target is blind, that the way the target is presented to the remote viewer doesn't cue them in any way; what the Viewer actually does, during the remote viewing, would be called more of a 'method.' So there's a lot of confusion about that, particularly with people being trained, there's a lot of methodologies for doing psychic functioning under remote viewing protocol, and there's some confusion in that some people mix a lot of those methods together, and want to call those methods actual protocols, when in fact they're not.

JEFF: Yeah there are, um we gotta take a break, but there are a number of different names for a number of allegedly different 'types' of remote viewing, that people marketing it are using, and we'll talk a little bit about that, and much more, with Joseph McMoneagle here, at Sightings on the Radio, as we continue in just a couple of minutes.


[Real Audio Counter: 26:14:0]

JEFF: This is Jeff Rense, this is Sightings on the Radio, my guest tonight Joseph McMoneagle, America's greatest, most well known and renowned remote viewer, now in private practice. Remote viewing remains, as this program continues, the only topic for tonight, we are talking with Joe about many things. I want to ask you a little more about the actual process Joe, when you're sitting in a room and you're trying to acquire the target, how do you express the information that you are able to access, is it all in drawings, do you write, do you speak into a tape recorder ever, do you simply relate it to other people, or are there certain techniques which are mandatory that has to be followed there?

JOE: There's no specific technique that has to be followed, unless you're wedded to a certain methodology. In my particular case, what I generally do is, I have a tape recorder running, so there's certainly a verbal record of what I'm perceiving --

JEFF: And you're just talking.

JOE: Right, I'm just talking, I'm just trying to describe elements or parts or pieces of the target. At the same time, I will be doing some preliminary sketches perhaps, to try to organize those parts or pieces in some legitimate way. When I'm through, usually what I do is go back through and then try to generate a final drawing or a finished drawing. And of course this can vary depending on my connection to the target at the time.

JEFF: Back to the typhoon submarine, you were given a picture of a building roof I guess it was [JOE: Right.], how did you express the information in that particular exercise?

JOE: In that particular exercise, I talked a great deal about the shape of what was being constructed, the fact that it had a double hull, that I saw lots of lights of lights flashing which indicated to me that there was some form of welding or steel work going on; it was a unique form of welding too, so I went into great detail describing that; I saw canted missile tubes, that were on essentially a back deck --

JEFF: Did you know at the time this was a submarine you were viewing?

JOE: No, I had no idea at the time. It was mostly descriptive. And at the end of that particular effort, I then spent probably about an hour trying to put those details into a drawn format, and when I got through drawing it, it appeared to be more like a sub than anything else. And the conclusion was that it was a submarine.

JEFF: Do you sit down and have post-RV session meetings with your superiors, and with your monitors that are working on this project with you? Do you say 'well here's what I've come up with and what do you think,' do you discuss it or do you just turn it in and that's it?

JOE: No, I'd just turn it in and that was it. Then it would be up to an independent judge, usually someone -- well, not usually, _always_ in most cases, someone who has no knowledge of the actual target, would try to do an analysis of the information, come up with a conclusion. That in turn was then passed to whoever was directly connected with the targeting effort, who knew more about the target and they in turn would take it and deliver the information to the people interested.

JEFF: What else were you able to determine about this new, high-tech, Soviet submarine in these sessions, were you able to pick a time when the submarine may actually become seaworthy, so to speak?

JOE: Well one of the problems we had was that just about every intelligence office in America that was working on the problem disagreed with us. Most of the consensus was that they were probably constructing a ship, but it was probably more of a troop carrier, or an assault ship that might be carrying helicopters, because the size of it seemed to be, I guess they were analyzing materials that were being delivered to the building or something --

JEFF: Yes...

JOE: And our conclusion remained 'submarine,' so we got kind of angry about it and said well, they're gonna launch this thing, and we gave 'em a launch date, and someone in the NSC was smart enough to take the information as cueing data and target other methodologies. And within 3 or 4 days of that launch date, they actually captured on film this new typhoon class submarine being rolled out of the building into the water.

JEFF: You had the last laugh so to speak then, didn't you.

JOE: Well yeah, and we were really excited about it, because it showed the real validity of remote viewing as more of a cueing methodology than it is even the data that you may collect. Which is far more valuable in intelligence terms than being able to provide data you can't prove.

JEFF: In all the years you were with the program, October '78 through November 1995, how many strict protocol remote viewing sessions did you undergo?

JOE: In the operational sense, where I was tasked with providing information on intelligence type targets, I probably did something in the neighborhood of two thousand two hundred, something like that. In the science side, or the research side, or the labs that I've worked for, I've probably produced another two thousand, anyway.

JEFF: Over four thousand. Were your statistics always good from the beginning, or did they get better as your career progressed?

JOE: Well, and this really speaks to the training part of it, statistically speaking, I was the same. From beginning to end. I never really improved I don't think, other than perhaps the amount of, the degree of accuracy when I was connected to the target. In terms of accessing the target, it never really got much about sixty percent at its best.

JEFF: Well I don't think there's much wrong with sixty percent.

JOE: Well a lot of people found that to be very low. [laughs] But the way I like to look at it is sort of like the alternative medicine doctor; once, you know, the normal medical people get through working on a patient and have declared them terminal and beyond hope, and have expended all possibility of helping the person, they turn them over to the alternative healer, and if the alternative healer saves 15-20% of the people they see [JEFF: Yes.], and that's a remarkable figure.

[JEFF: Yes indeed, yes.]

Next transcript section

This is file 1 of 5 in a series

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


Jeff Rense Sightings on the Radio web site:

Joseph W. McMoneagle is an associate 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