firedocs transcript

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

Transcribed by PJ Gaenir,
This is also available from the Art Bell Web Page

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 to the public without charge, 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.


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. 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.


ART Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith. Gentlemen, we left off at an interesting point. I had asked whether anybody had remote viewed Jesus. Was he on this earth? Was he the son of God? What do you know, if anything?

LYN This is Lyn. {ART: Yes Lyn.} I had started an old war story here... I had been doing the bad guys for weeks and weeks and I went into the director and I said look, just once, give me Mother Theresa or Bozo the Clown or something, these targets are killing me. And the answer was, you're a soldier, suck it up, do your job. However, a couple of days later I went in and the monitor took the sealed envelope and said 'the target is a person'. I started the session and my first comment was, "Whatever you think this guy did, he didn't do it." {Paul laughs.} And as the session went on, I just got this glow from being in contact with this person. And at the end of the session, the monitor opened up the envelope and there was one word in the middle of the page and it said "Jesus." Well, I didn't establish in that session whether or not Jesus was the son of God, or whatever. But in that way, I feel honored to have met the most holy person I have ever met in my entire life, and one the meeting of whom I think, I think changed parts of my life. That one session I think was a turning point for certain parts of my life.

ART Wow. That's very significant. So you established that there was such a person. Would you say that much?

LYN Oh yes, uh huh.

JOE This is Joe. I would support what Lyn just said. I have had the experience of, if you could call Jesus a target, I have had the experience of doing some information in that regard, and likewise, I have also had the experience with the other great prophets as well -- Muhammed, Buddha, some of the other great religious leaders, and there's a great deal of similarity in most of them, and a great deal of similarity in the original constructs that they've delivered. I do find that over history however, my information has shown that mankind has altered considerably some of those messages.

ART Do you see all of the ones that you mentioned as being from the same creative source?

JOE Absolutely. This is Joe, I would say absolutely. They're, if you could refer to this Being as an energy, you would have to say it all comes from the same source, the same as man comes from the same source.

LYN This is Lyn. People quite often ask me if in doing the remote viewing I have changed my, you know, become disenchanted with religion and my answer is always, No, if anything I have become more religious and more dedicated to the spiritual side. My views have changed against the church, about the church {ART: I understand.}, but, you know, the organized church --

ART But if anything you would all say you have become more spiritual?

JOE Absolutely. This is Joe. I would have to underscore what Lyn said and agree with a hundred percent.

ART Paul?

PAUL Yeah, I'm actually a Mormon, and some people ask, well has this affected your beliefs, you know, negatively, and in fact it's done just the opposite, it strengthened my beliefs in a lot of the principles that I learned growing up, and it's amazing how it all dovetails with things that you've learned or always knew somehow, you know.

ART It's eery listening to the three of you agree like this. {PAUL: It happens so seldom! {Group laughter} LYN: Remote Viewers do agree now and then.}

ART Does anybody know why it was called operation STAR GATE in the first place? I've always wondered.

LYN Yes, they went around the office taking names. They said that on that one, they said that we would have the opportunity to pick our own names, and the pool we got together, I think the best name that came up from it was STAR GATE. That was the only time we had the chance to pick our own name.

ART When was that?

LYN That was in, ah, I'm horrible with dates, that was in '90 -- um,'86 --

ART '86?

PAUL Hold on, hold a second --

LYN No, it wasn't --

PAUL He IS horrible with dates...

LYN I really am, yeah.

PAUL STAR GATE actually -- the program actually started out in '78 as a, its name then was Gondola Wish. The military has a way of picking code names where they just kind of randomly select two names and put them together, and that's the way the program was named for the first while. GONDOLA WISH and then it turned to CENTER LANE in the early 80's --

JOE No, it was GRILL FLAME next, Paul.

PAUL I'm sorry -- well, GRILL FLAME actually was kind of the umbrella name, DIA -- yeah, well, but Joe is right, it did have a name of GRILL FLAME for awhile, and then CENTER LANE, and then SUN STREAK was its name in '86, when it went from Army INSCOM to DIA --

LYN I'm sorry, let me apologize here, SUN STREAK is the one where we chose our own name.

PAUL We don't know how STAR GATE came about. That happened probably '93 after all of us were gone.

ART Alright, well in the interest of stopping this, {group laughter} the reason I asked is because there was a movie as you all well know called StarGate, and I was wondering if your name might have been the genesis for that.

LYN I seriously doubt it.

PAUL Actually there was a -- this is Paul again -- a science fiction novel written by Andre Norton oh, probably 30 years ago maybe, called StarGate, that had to do with a device that you could walk through and it put you on another planet {ART: That's right.} and I suspect they may have got the name from there.

ART That's what I thought... Alright --

JOE This is Joe. Can I just throw in a comment -- I don't want, you know, people read detail out of this and a lot of misconceptions grow from it. I was a member of the project until its termination in November, albeit I was working on the science and research side of it.

ART Were you surprised at its termination?

JOE This is Joe again. Yes, I was. In fact, the AIR report supports the realization that there probably is something to remote viewing and that probably, that psychic functioning does exist and that it is probably of some value. Their actual comment with regard to the unit was that they found that there was not sufficient evidence that it was supporting intelligence. However, historically, that's not a reality. The actual project was literally approved on a year-to-year basis, based upon what it _was_ doing in terms of support to intelligence, the intelligence community at large, and based on those findings by oversight committees during that entire 19 year period or 18 year period, it was approved based on the effectiveness.

ART Well you say year to year on the effectiveness, so, um, then after 20 years of approvals, how did they suddenly decide it was a failure?

JOE Well, they, essentially they reviewed the last year only. They were directed to review the entire 20 years, which was an impossibility in the three month period that they were given to do the review. {ART: Ah...} Secondary to that, the people actually doing the review did not have the appropriate clearances for accessing the grand numbers of files, probably 90-95% of the project was never reviewed, they were never allowed access to it. Also, there was some very specific marching orders given to the scientists initially on what they would review. So, it was a stacked deck. It was a bogus report. {undecipherable word}

ART Alright, I must ask this, and so I will. From Arkansas, "Art: Ask your guests outright: Are their aliens? Are there ET's here on Earth, or in our vicinity, or at all, if so where, and who knows about it? I believe you'll be surprised at the answer if they are honest." {laughs} {someone laughs, 'What a setup...'} What a setup. Alright, what about it guys?

PAUL Let's start with Lyn, go ahead Lyn.

LYN Oh. OK, I am firmly convinced that there are.


LYN Do I need to elucidate Art?

ART Well I -- wouldn't dare stop you --

LYN I'll pass it on to someone else first.

ART OK Lyn, you say there are, anybody else?

PAUL This is Paul. I'm convinced there are myself, based on remote viewing. To the degree and extent -- what their involvement is with the human race, I'm not even gonna venture opinions on that, I think there are too many opinions already {laughs} as far as that's concerned, but I am convinced that there are what we would call aliens and what we would call extraterrestrial conveyances, you know, UFOs so to speak.

JOE This is Joe. In my response, I'm gonna be probably a little more specific. One of the problems I have is the definition for 'alien', and there's a lot of constructs that immediately jump to mind when someone brings that subject up. I believe, based on my remote viewing and my experiences, that UFOs are real. Let me say that up front. I have _not_ seen any evidence that there are aliens associated with UFO phenomena, I have not seen direct proof of that. However, within the context of aliens, I would have to say that also based on my experiences, I believe that there are entities that people would perhaps call aliens, but that doesn't guarantee that they're extraterrestrial, they could be essentially time travelers; extradimensional projections; they could be almost anything {ART: Sure.}, and I don't think we possess sufficient proof to say one way or the other yet what they might be.

PAUL Good answer Joe.

LYN Yes very.

ART However, all of you agree there's certainly something out there other than us.

JOE This is Joe again. This isn't a new issue Art. This has been around for 2000 years that we know of, and it will continue to be around, because those are simply experiences that people are having. And while we may not be able to say very much specifically about it other than 'they are experiences' doesn't mean that it should not be properly investigated or looked at. What happens unfortunately, is that a lot of the data is mixed with disinformation or it's collected improperly or poorly, and we wind up with some very interesting concepts about it, but we don't get any closer to the truth.

ART Alright. Are there aspects of STAR GATE that the three of you are still unable to discuss publicly?

LYN Yes. Of course.

JOE I would have to say about 95% of it.

ART Oh my god -- really!

JOE Absolutely.

ART So when they said STAR GATE is declassified, they only generally meant the fact that it existed?

LYN That's generally so, yes.

PAUL Well -- here's Paul -- the biggest body of material that's still classified deals with the actual projects themselves. And the reason for that is not the connection with remote viewing, but the connection with other intelligence sources and means. There is material in some of that, some of those projects, that could potentially harm our intelligence collection capability, it might disclose the existence of some human source that we have {ART: Human asset...} and put them at risk, or you know, there's a lot of stuff in there that isn't even involved with remote viewing that is sensitive and important to American security.

JOE I would agree with that.

ART You made a rather startling statement, one of you, that Ed Dames you felt disclosed some classified material before its time.

LYN This is Lyn. {ART: Yes Lyn.} Not only on a few TV shows, I think there's one called "The Other Side" or something like that, and radio shows, but also, I was down in Atlanta one time, working with a student, and I had the chance to meet a person named Courtney Brown {ART: Mhmn.}, who was going to put out a book. This book was about the STAR GATE project, and he asked me to take a copy of the manuscript that he had and read it. And in the first chapter of the manuscript -- now remember, everything was still classified, highly classified -- in the first chapter of the manuscript was the list of names of all of the Viewers. I went back and I said Courtney, you can't publish this, and you know, if you do they'll confiscate your book or something, and anyway, I got him to take that first chapter out. I asked him, 'Where did you get this information?' and he said 'Well I got it from Ed.' Um... when I was a kid watching the old WWII movies and all, I knew that the absolute worst treason that any agent could ever do was give the names of the other agents {ART: Of course}, I mean, you bite the cyanide pill and die before you do that, and yet, here was the entire list. For the purpose of being _published_, while this was still a classified thing. Now the reason that upset me so much was because of another incident where Ed at a meeting had gotten up and told what I had done against Hussein, and I called him on the phone and I said, 'Ed, these are crazy people with guns! And I've got a family here.' And he just blew it off. Well the only purpose I could find for giving those names to Courtney to publish in that book while it was still classified, deals with the idea of targeting for remote viewing. If you have a name, basically you have an 'address.' The history of Russian parapsychology has been more aimed at remote influencing than remote viewing or data collection. And I -- I could still find no other reason for giving that information to Courtney than to have something happen to us. And that upset me very much, and I stayed around while Courtney not only took the first chapter out, but also deleted it from his computer, I wanted to make absolutely certain it was completely gone.

ART Hmmn. I take it you gentlemen are somewhat familiar with the Courtney Brown episode that unfolded on this program with respect to Comet Hale Bopp? {They all say yes, while clearly smiling.} Anybody have comments on it?

LYN I think he was set up for a trap and fell into it.

JOE This is Joe. You know I -- I really enjoyed his book Cosmic Voyage, I think it was a wonderful book. I guess one of my problems is, whenever someone needs to use remote viewing to validate their perceptions in a way that creates possible irresponsible panic or problems for the listening viewers, then they're possibly playing with some ethical boundaries that need to be underscored, or looked at.

ART Alright, Ed Dames has complained -- bitterly -- that Courtney Brown modified the original protocols that you all suggest that you have maintained fairly closely, the military protocols. And I would like to ask if there's any basis to that, but look guys, we're at the top of the hour, anybody here have to bail out, or can you stick around a little bit?

PAUL I can stay on awhile.

LYN I'm in for it.

JOE I'll stay awhile.

ART Alright, done. Then there they are. This is kind of a gathering of the eagles, something you will not frequently hear, perhaps never has been done before, I don't know. My guests are Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all three in the military project known as STAR GATE. I'm Art Bell, and this is CBC.


ART A gathering of eagles. From project STAR GATE, the military's remote viewing project, my guests are Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith, all within several hundred miles respectively of what used to be home base in our nation's capital. And we'll get back to them in a moment.


ART Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all once again back. Gentlemen, before we get started, I'd like to ask you, my webmaster is listening. We've got a link right now to the home page for Controlled Remote Viewing. If you would like any other links up, say so now and we'll get them up right away.

ART Can any of you remote view the day when these damn WorldWideWeb addresses will get shorter and easier? {group laughter} We will get those up.

ART Now, before we leave the subject of aliens or dimensional beings or whatever it is you all sense and agree would be out there, one obvious target in this area would have been the Roswell episode, and I've got a person faxing me from Los Angeles saying, "Somebody must have tackled that one. Has anybody looked at Roswell and if so, what have you determined?"

JOE I can respond to that first I guess, this is Joe. {ART: OK Joe.} I had a private client who actually targeted me against Roswell, and at the time of course I was totally blind to the actual target, and what I produced was essentially a very accurate description of the location that was being targeted in Roswell which was the believed crash site. There were some indications that there probably was an incident there but it did not involve an alien craft, it involved a possible midair collision between some earth-bound traffic. And probably involved some materials that were sensitive.

ART And hence, then of course the story about the weather balloon.

JOE Yes. The data I had did not specifically match a weather balloon, but it did indicate that there was probably an event, but it was probably not alien associated.

ART Joe, a fax for you from Orange County, "Art, in reading Joseph's book MIND TREK, which by the way I thought was a great book, he talks about a stage in which he sees creatures, or ghosts, or spirits..." and the person wants to know, "Does everybody who remote views eventually get there?"

JOE In regard to what they're referencing are some chapters in there where I was discussing my interaction with what you might call entities... that, this took place essentially as an experience outside of remote viewing, I want to make that very clear. While these may have been a personal experience that I think is valid, they were not, this information was not obtained vis-a-vis remote viewing. I believe, it's my personal belief based on 19 years of participation in the project and the remote viewing that I've done, it's my personal belief that we are by nature essentially existing in two worlds, one foot in the physical and one foot in the spiritual, and to ignore the experiences from the spiritual side would be tantamount to cutting off the left leg, so to speak.

ART Alright. Well then here's another good question. Other than the remote viewing of Christ, can any of you or do any of you, aside from your personal religious beliefs, in the context of remote viewing, is it possible to confirm that there is life beyond the physical?

JOE I will answer that, this is Joe again, in my opinion yes. But it's not life as we know it in the physical, it's obviously something else. And I believe that we do have frequent interactions with what might be termed as entities or spiritul beings, and that they have profound impact on us as spiritual Beings ourselves, in that those types of experiences, because of the profound impact of them, have exactly the same effect as if you were run over by a Mack truck in the physical world, so they should be paid attention to, and that's up to each individual, what they do with that.

ART Alright, this is for all three of you, in the process of learning, or in the process of remote viewing, is there any danger to the remote viewer?

PAUL This is Paul. Um, I don't think so. In my entire time with the program, I never experienced myself or heard of anyone else experiencing anything else we consider dangerous. I know there are claims out there to the contrary, but you know, I just don't know where that's coming from.

ART Well, dangerous to the psyche of the remote viewer, in other words, that you might see things for example that would drive a person over the edge.

LYN This is Lyn, could I jump in here for a second? {ART: Yes.} For each person, when you establish a sort of contact between your conscious and subconscious mind, sometimes there are things that your subconscious and conscious have been waiting for 20 years to say to each other, and there's a period of time generally when a person gets very sensitive, very reactive to things, fly off the handle easily and so forth, but that gets over with. Any real danger that comes to a person I think is basically caused by the fact that the subconscious is harboring a danger that is then let loose. I have never had any, or even actually known any, person who has had a remote viewing session where the session itself or the target itself had a danger to the viewer. I think what you carry into the learning process for remote viewing may be a danger to you, but that danger's been there all along anyway.

JOE I'd like to add something to that Lyn. I agree with what Lyn and Paul have both said. I've never had a bad experience from remote viewing. But I'd like to underscore the fact that this is a very interesting experience, remote viewing, or being psychic, and there are a lot of people that are on the edge to start with, and when they're exposed to the rather radical changes in their beliefs or their constructs, it can be very undermining or damaging to the psyche, and there is evidence that a lot of people do sort of step off the edge and lose touch with reality, in other words, they become pretty much involved or caught up in the irrationality of it, or they lose their stability or ability to deal skeptically with the material and what's going on.

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.


ART Good morning, my guest is Lyn Buchanan. And now, we are going to open the phone lines. If you have questions, come now. {Gives phone #s} Lyn Buchanan and you, coming up.


ART Good morning, my guest is Lyn Buchanan. We have had Lyn, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith with us for the previous three hours. And Lyn caught a little bit of a nap, I hope enough of a nap to make it through the next hour, how you doing out there Lyn?

LYN Oh, I have enough coffee in me to go for a week now. Before we start, could I mention two things?

ART Yes.

LYN One, I did remember another web address, and that is If you look under "Morning Show topics," there is a subdirectory called "remote viewing," and I have a page on there where I've been answer questions on remote viewing for about a month now.

ART So you've been on my web site have you?

LYN Oh yes. Infiltrate. {laughs}

ART It's -- it's get -- boy, my site is getting to be such a gigantic site!

LYN It's amazing, I was noticing today you have over one million, three hundred thousand hits already.

ART Yeah, that's main page hits since the first of the year, yeah I know, it's really awesome. Alright, that's one, you said two things.

LYN The other thing was, I noticed that you said, in the break, "that was sponsored by your tax dollars." 20 million dollars over 20 years time is pretty much of a bargain. As I understand it, the space toilet, which I understand a vacuum cleaner and a plastic bag, cost almost $20 million to develop. And for this {remote viewing's} $20 million, there was a research side, and an operational side. The finance people loved the operational side, simply because in every unit you have two financial factors, you have personnel and equipment, and in the remote viewing unit, the personnel WERE the equipment, so the finance people got two for the price of one.

ART Good enough. And under my scheduled guests section, on my web site, as I thought he would, Keith immediately got all of the links mentioned up. All kinds of remote viewing related links were brought up. Alright, off to the races we go. On the first time caller line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Hello.

CALL Hello, hi Mr. Buchanan, hi Art, thanks for taking my call {Art: Where are you?}, I really love your show, I'm calling from Seattle. {Art: Yes ma'am.} Mr. Buchanan, awhile back, not too long ago, Major Ed Dames was on the Art Bell show, and some of the things he said really caused me great concern, because according to him, some of the things that are coming up with the Earth, is like eighty percent of us is gonna pretty much be, uh, well, saying goodnight -- {ART: 85% actually.} -- 85%, thank you Art. I wanna -- he was talking about a plant pathogen, and that it's something intelligent attached, a cylindrical shape to Hale-Bopp, do you have any comments on that?

LYN I have one comment. The nature of remote viewing is that you tend to see what you want to see. Now I have, through some other remote viewing that I've done, I have also found indicators of a plant pathogen.

ART Oh really?!

LYN But from a more mundane source, that being simple sabotage against the U.S. And what I've found is a _possible_, _attempted_ attack of simple biological warfare.

ART Holy smokes.

LYN Now if I were to get that impression in a session, and it were my tendency to make everything into ETs and so forth, then I would naturally assume that it came from there. And this is one of the things that is a natural factor of the remote viewing process, is that your imagination is just, I mean, always in there working.

ART I'm not sure that's the answer she wanted to hear, or I wanted to hear. But I appreciate it.

LYN {laughs} Yeah... I just, I hope it doesn't happen --

ART But you have seen something similar, if not from the same source, something similar.

LYN That's right, yes. I don't see it as doing much damage to anything. I think it would be a very localized thing, you know, what I saw was a very localized thing, and not really a very drastic measure, except that here were terrorists who actually made it onto American soil and actually did some damage.

ART Oh my. Alright. Thank you ma'am for the question, and Lyn, I've gotta ask you about something you just said, an exact quote, you said, "you tend to see what you want to see."

LYN That's right.

ART Now I thought the whole point of controlled remote viewing, or technical remote viewing, or the original military protocol remote viewing, was to eliminate, to a great degree, your own imagination, or your own wishes or wants or imagination from what you were receiving.

LYN That's absolutely true, and the protocols are designed to help you do that. You still remain a human being, and you still have these tendencies, even in your best sessions, you still have the tendency to jump to conclusions. The term "STRAY CAT" stands for the Subliminal Transfer of Remembering, you know, Recollections, Anxieties and Yearnings to Consciously Accessible Thought. That is, when you get a perception in a session, by the time it gets to your conscious mind, memories have become attached, anxieties, yearnings, you know what you want it to be, what you're afraid it is, and so forth. {BELL: Sure.} And it gets polluted. The process and the protocols are there to help you as much as possible to keep it unpolluted. And in very good sessions, you can do that extremely well. It happens though.

ART That's a good answer. Wild Card line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, good morning.

CALL Good morning Mr. Bell this is Robert in the San Joaquin Valley of California. {BELL: Yes sir.} I have a very important question, but before I ask that question, I'd like to say that Mr. Bell, with your high degree of integrity, your approach, honest approach to finding the truth, on behalf of myself and the millions of loyal listeners, we thank you sir. {BELL: Thank you.} Mr. Buchanan, it's an honor to speak to you sir.

LYN Well thank you very much, I'm glad to talk to you.

CALL I just have one question sir. I look at what you're doing as probably a blessing from God. There's always the negative, but the positive side, for all the thousands of young people that are in medical schools, research institutes, can you give them some hope and advice on how they could use this type of technology to giving us a better, healthier world?

ART Oh what a good question. In other words, the medical applications, Lyn.

LYN Right. There is a factor in the remote viewing training that I give, and I think also the other people giving the training, which deals with the sensing, becoming sensitive to 'ambience.' If you can't sense the ambience in the world around you, how are you going to sense the ambience once you get to a target. Once you sensitive yourself through these exercises to the ambience around you, one of the things that we've found is that a medical doctor, when a patient walks into an office for the first time, the ambience in the room will change, and often it changes according to that patient's problems. If a doctor can become sensitive to this, then they're that much further ahead. Hopefully, the point can be reached where needless testing is somewhat eliminated. Now that's not remote viewing, that's just sensitivity, and yet it's a part of the training.

ART Yes OK, but -- let's say a medical doctor with knowledge of the human anatomy and so forth and so on -- were fully trained as a remote viewer, would that physician be able to use remote viewing as a specific diagnostic tool.

LYN Absolutely. Yes. {ART: Wow.} This is, I mean this is one of the more obvious applications, and in fact, we're looking into a project, one of the students that I have, had, he has now graduated the advanced course, is sort of picking up the ball on this, and is contacting doctors, doing remote viewing on blind cases of patients' envelopes without the names and so forth that are sealed, and seeing if actual diagnostics can be developed through remote viewing, which match those things found by regular tesing. The results are coming out very positive.

ART That's astounding. You teach a school, correct? In other words, you take on students?

LYN That's right.

ART If I were to come to you Lyn, and I was going to be blatantly honest with you, and I said, "Look, I wanna learn to remote view, I wanna use my skill when I acquire it to play the stock market, to make myself a whole bunch of money, to use my remote viewing skills in any way I can to enrich myself financially." And I laid out, plunked my money down on the table, would I be one of your students?

LYN Yes. I see nothing wrong with that. You're not hurting someone. Now I draw the line where people get hurt. In fact, if you were successful at really doing well in the stock market, I might you know, become one of _your_ students! {they both laugh}

ART Well everybody's obvious question is, if remote viewing is possible and you can target the stock market, then why aren't you guys really rich? Is that a fair question?

LYN That's a fair question, and let me answer it with a question: If you yourself could target the stock market and you were making all kinds of money, how many people would you tell about it?

ART Ummmmm.... that's true. That's absolutely true, and then, if that knowledge became public, another question is, what would it do to the entire market structure, period?

LYN I think it would do all kinds of damage.

ART So, even if you are making a bunch of money and you've got a bunch of numbered accounts in Switzerland, you wouldn't talk about it.

LYN No, I wouldn't.

ART {laughs} Alright. East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Hello.

CALL Hello. {ART: Hi, where are you?} I'm in St. Louis Missouri. {ART: St. Louis, alright.} I was with the CIA program in 1978 and doing some remote viewing. I didn't continue with the program. I did prepare a learning program for them, which I don't know whether they ever used or not, maybe Mr. Buchanan does. Most of my work has been in remote viewing the future, you may be familiar with my --

ART Well give -- ma'am, enough specifics of your program so he might be able to recognize it.

CALL I trained in small increments in learning remote viewing one step at a time, there are many ways to begin this, but the program I developed in the 1960's is one step at a time, very small jumps to larger jumps, handling colors, sealed envelopes with numbers in them, to time jumps, you may be familiar with my prediction of the O-ring failure that led to Challenger, that was on, matter of fact that was on A&E last month. And we have used this in the stock market. Very successfully.

ART You -- wait, wait a minute -- please, stop for a second. You're saying that you remote viewed the O-ring problem in the Challenger explosion, and that --

CALL Before, in 1981.

ART -- and that was on A&E?

CALL Yeah. 1981 that was. I can send you the documentation on it if you'd like.

ART What is your name?

CALL {pause} My name is Beverly Jaegers. {sp?}

ART Do you know this lady?

LYN No, I haven't heard the name. Now, that was in '78 and I didn't get there until '84. Now, when I got there I took over an existing database, I didn't see any information about the use of it --

CALL Did you do any work with colors?

LYN We've always done work with colors, yes.

CALL And numbers?

LYN Numbers have always been a problem, but we've tried.

CALL How 'bout rocks?

LYN {pause} Rocks?

CALL Inductors. Targets.

LYN Uh... well no, huh uh.

ART Alright, well maybe then some of what she did was a genesis from some of what you did, that's very interesting.

LYN Very likely so. I know that when I got there, basically Joe was holding down the fort. Now this is probably something that Joe could have answered much better than I, since he was there from the earliest years, and was a part of the beginning of the project.

ART Alright, West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Hi.

CALL Hello this is Patrick in Boise Idaho. {ART: Hi Patrick.} And my question pertains to the use of remote viewing in his personal life. Whether he, since developing and focusing this skill, finds himself wittingly or unwittingly say, reading family members, friends, used car salesmen, things like that? {Art and Lyn laugh}

ART Actually that's a very good question. Would it be irresistable Lyn, to do that sort of thing, apply it to important things in your personal life?

LYN It's extremely, extremely tempting, I am very careful about one thing, and that is, I still have my TOP SECRET clearance. There is an executive order which forbids the unauthorized collection of information against American citizens, and so I don't do that. You know, and won't until my security clearance runs out late next year, and then I'm seriously hoping it's not renewed. However, the sensitivity to things around you and the picking up of let's say, even beyond ambience factors, is impossible to get away from once that communication is opened up between your conscious and subconscious, it's impossible to get away from that.

ART Alright. Hold it right there Lyn, we're at the bottom of the hour, we'll be right back, good morning everybody, what a night this has become. Remote Viewing, operation STAR GATE, I'm Art Bell, and from the high desert, this is the independent CBC radio network, as they say, don't touch that dial.


ART It is, and I'm not sure you're ever going to hear a program like this again. Exactly quite like this, to be sure. Lyn Buchanan has agreed to stay the entire time. So. We're dealing with a five hour program, a full five hour program. If you would like a copy of it, and I do this for two reasons: to sell tapes, and because if I don't give out the number, I'm driven crazy, the fax machine goes nuts, I get email I can't possibly answer it all, to get a copy of this or any other program that we do with a guest, and with reference to this program, you can now begin calling. 1-800-917-4278.


ART Alright. One question before we go back to the phones, for Lyn: Lyn, in project -- was it called "Project" STAR GATE?

LYN Yes, uh huh.

ART Were there all manner of ranks, in other words, Officers, enlisted, was it a mixed bag, or only officers, or what?

LYN The slots were all basically -- when I came in -- were all for officers. Mel Riley had been there before; right after I came in, another person whose name is still not publicly known, her first name is Dawn, came in and she was a sergeant as well. She left I guess about nine or ten months after that, and then later, I think around '86, Mel came to the unit, for his last hitch before retirement. All of the other slots were either civilian or officer. When I went in, I took the slot of database manager, which was a warrant office position that Joe had left; I also was property book officer, and you know, we all wore many hats.

ART Sure, yeah, in a small unit I would imagine that would have to be true.

LYN Oh sure, yeah. But most of the -- well when I went there all of the slots were for officers, and it was later, after we moved to DIA, that they made a slot for Mel and me as enlisted.

ART Alright --

LYN I have one other thing to say to the last caller {ART: Alright}: I have a stack of sealed envelopes here. The way I task myself with my own targets and shuffle 'em every now and then, so that I don't know which target is coming up. Beside that stack is another stack of envelopes for missing children, murders, and so forth, and somehow when I do get time to sit down and do a session, my own targets just seem to never get done. The stack keeps growing, and the answer to that caller is, I would love to do my own targets, I just never get a chance.

ART First Time Caller line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Hello.

CALL Thank you very much Art Bell. {ART: Where are you?} I am in Pompano Beach Florida. {ART: OK.} And I would like to first tell you how much I appreciate the affordability of my ongoing education through your program. {ART: Thank you.} And I have about three questions to ask of your guest. {ART: Fire away.} Number one, is the connection that, the business that he's in, might have to the occult sciences, and by occult sciences I'm not only talking about the fortune tellers and channelers, I'm also including the Catholic religion, with the Saints and their ability to perform miracles. {ART: Alright.}

LYN What any one person includes under the heading of the "occult" is generally their own set of definitions. However, let me say that when I talk about 'occult,' I talk about people hurting people, mentally, physically, emotionally or however.

ART In other words, the negative side.

LYN Right. And --

CALL Can you tell me why you put it in that category?

LYN Because I don't want people hurting people --

CALL Why do you claim they are hurting people, there are so many people that believe in that and go to these people looking for positive answers.

LYN Well I didn't say that they hurt people, what I said was that when I define 'occult,' that's how I define it. Minus 10 points for using hackney phrases here, but when it comes to the occult, I avoid it like the plague.

CALL When you talk about the occult though in your sense of being, would you include the Theosophy society?

LYN Ah --

ART We're just -- you know we're dealing with words here, um, only, he defines the 'occult' in a negative way. There are other spiritual realms that are not negative, he simply wouldn't call them occult, I think that's about right isn't it Lyn?

LYN That's right.

CALL OK, question number two, in the future, or can you see in the future, maybe far distant maybe nearer, a religion of science that may be taught in the high schools or colleges?

LYN A religion of science?

CALL A religion of science, meaning, to include the type of work that you're doing as being portrayed maybe in the religious sense.

ART Well let's not tag the religion thing to it, let's just ask, can you envision remote viewing ever being taught in colleges and universities?

LYN Oh yes, I can see it taught as a part of the psychology, social psychology, psychiatry programs and so forth. I can't see it being taught as anything except maybe a footnote for history, mathematics is out, but the human sciences, I think it has a place in them, and I can't see it taught in grade school, but I think colleges, yeah sure.

CALL The only reason I mention the religion of science I have recently read that phrase in some of the readings I've been doing lately so I just wanted your opinion on it.

LYN Yeah well, I'm sort of confused about the meaning of the phrase itself.

CALL Well I think it was put in the sense of passively getting away from institutionalized type of religion and putting it in this category.

ART Alright. Well I -- you said you had three questions, anything else?

CALL Well that should sum it up, I guess I included {indecipherable}...

LYN Thank you.

ART Thank you ma'am. Wild Card line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, hello.

CALL Oh hello! Mr. Buchanan. {ART: Where are you?} Oh yeah, I'm Kate and I'm in suburban Chicago. {ART: Hi Kate.} Hi, um, I'd like to ask Mr. Buchanan if remote viewing has any application to solving problems such as a cure for cancer or an alternative to say, fossil fuel, or does it have to always revolve around an event or person?

LYN No, in fact, Ed has done quite a bit of work in future technologies, and that is, going to a future time, doing a remote viewing session on the solution to some present day problem, and bringing back some information. I have also done some freelance for Psi-Tech -- years ago -- in fact, we did several of these future technology type sessions, extremely interesting.

CALL Yeah, they have to go deal with things that people did though, right? I mean you can't just like go right into the problem, the mathematical problem, or have you tried that?

LYN Ah, no, I haven't. I think --

CALL Or the mechanical, the mechanics of it rather than going and watching say, if you go the future say, 300 years from now, and just watch a guy do something, that would be one thing.

LYN Well, I said no, but in actual fact I think the answer is yes, because there was one project that I worked for a Canadian company that was dealing with alternative fuels -- there were several Viewers who worked this by the way -- and we actually went to the molecular level, on the sessions that the company kept sending me, went into the molecular level to actually see what was going on, and to solve the problem.

CALL So you can do that for cancer research too, probably.

LYN I don't see why not.

CALL Hmmn. OK. Well thanks a lot Art, great show as usual.

ART Thank you -- ooh, that's absolutely remarkable. You could in other words remote view some point in the future where some scientist found the cure for cancer. But you know, when you're doing that, aren't you then getting into this whole "time" problem?

LYN {laughs} Yes, and this is sort of a thing that as far as I've been able to tell, Viewers almost instinctively avoid, is a thing called time loops {ART: Yeah.}, and it's almost, like I say, an instinctive thing to avoid, however, handled properly it's very useful.

ART Yeah but it's also, in a strange sort of way, a theft of intellectual property.

LYN Oh sure.

ART God, the problems that you guys must deal with, with some of this, particularly looking into the future, is just absolutely incredible. East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, hello.

CALL Yeah, this is JJ from Austin. {ART: Texas. Yes sir.} {LYN: God's country.} Yeah. I first of all wanted to say something to one of our favorite listeners. Yesterday our Perfect 10 called in and she said that she wasn't sure that we want to travel back in time because she was a woman. And I think if she went back to ancient native America, or ancient Celtics, or ancient Africa, ancient tribal types of any sort throughout the world, she's be surprised.

ART Well... since you haven't been there and done that, I don't know you can say that JJ. What is your question?

CALL My question is about time travel itself. Has any remote viewing been done on the existence of time travel?

ART That's a good question. Alright -- remote viewing, in its own way, IS time travel, sort of --

LYN Yes it is. One of the things that's been pretty well shown is that beginning remote viewing students view their feedback instead of the actual target. In fact, part of the training along the way is to wean them of the convenience of feedback, and make them start going to the target site. If you're Viewing your feedback, then basically what you're doing is Viewing 30 minutes into the future.

ART Is it possible through remote viewing, or has anybody Viewed whether physical time travel itself is possible, I think that's what his question probably was.

LYN I think that some people have Viewed it, I know I've heard talk about it from some of the other Viewers, I don't know exactly what the findings were. It was things I heard in passing, you know, just conversations around the office and so forth. But I have never Viewed that particular aspect. As far as I'm concerned, if you can go into the future mentally, and experience everything that's there, do you really need to go in physically? {ART: That's a good question.} {indecipherable} advantages to it.

ART Alright. West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, good morning.

CALL Yes, good morning Art, this is Pat from Burbank California. {ART: Yes Pat.} I'm not as well spoken as that caller was last half hour, that give you and Lyn a compliment, but I feel the same and I'd like to say that to you. {ART: Thank you.} Lyn I have two short but important questions. I foresee in the future a jury system of remote viewers telling us the truth. {ART: Oh boy.} And, what's your response to how soon that might come about?

LYN Well I, knowing the real accuracy rate and so forth of remote viewers at this point, I would say that sort of scares me, Viewers are human, and the whole idea of the "100% accuracy" is a total fallacy.

CALL Even if we had safeguards of a higher echelon to oversee?

LYN No. Now under safeguards and such as that, I wouldn't feel so shaky about it, but if you were sending somebody to prison or to an electric chair, based on the decision of remote viewers, I don't think I would keep my citizenship that much longer.

CALL How about that block, that in the year 2012, could that have something to do with some sort of time loop, or time problem that we cause by letting out this technology? {ART: Hmmn!}

LYN I don't think so... now, to be fair about this, I have not viewed beyond this, simply because I haven't been tasked with it. That's one of the things that is in my growing stack of fun targets to do for myself.

CALL Have you ever found out what the whole business of -- this is the important last question -- what the important reason for the cosmos becoming conscious of itself and spreading out and fertilizing the whole universe and galaxies and planets -- is there any kind of like final thing where once we get to a certain point we can all just get along and be happy and have a wonderful existence, I mean what is the final thing?

LYN I would certainly hope so. I know that when done properly, when done sanely, the remote viewing does change people in very positive ways. And I believe very much in the collective consciousness. As a result, I believe that that part of us which does the remote viewing tends not to want to hurt itself.

CALL That brings me to a question, has anybody remote viewed the Big Bang?

ART {laughs} Now there's a good question alright, the big bang.

LYN I {'would'?} be surprised if someone hasn't. I haven't personally.

ART My question would be, has anybody remote viewed a second or two prior to it. {laughs}

LYN {laughs} Hey, I've got something else to add to my stack here.

ART I think that would be a biggie. Wild Card line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, good morning.

CALL Yes, hello Lyn. {LYN: Hi.} {ART: Where are you sir?} I'm {indecipherable} I'm a woman and I'm in Las Vegas. {ART: Oh I'm sorry. Las Vegas. Alright.} Have you ever while remote viewing "appeared" where you were viewing? I've had this happen to me three times.

LYN You mean so that others can see you there? {CALL: Yeah.} Not that I know of, but then, there is a thing which my students call "Perfect Site Immersion," or PSI, which Ingo had as terminology, "Bi-Location." And that is where you buy so completely into the senses, the impressions coming from your subconscious, that it's exactly as though you were there. You feel the wind on your face, you feel the sun, you touch things and you get the senses. Now whether someone else can see you or not, I don't know. Now I know that the times that is happened to me, no one at the site has reacted to my being there, and so I would suspect that --

ART Have you ever attempted to manifest?

LYN No I haven't. No, it's not the nature of someone who is sent to a site to collect information to want to be seen.

ART I understand. Do you think that remote viewing has anywhere near reached its -- that we know, let me rephrase that, that we know as much as we can ultimately know about what can be done with remote viewing?

LYN Absolutely not. We are in kindergarten here. {ART: Kindergarten.} You bet. The future of remote viewing, if it's carried on sanely, so that it doesn't become a voodoo type thing to be shunned by everyone, and if it's carried on scientifically, will, I mean will open up so many more possibilities. And as we grow mentally, the potential for growth will expand.

ART You know, I would like to believe that when Ed Dames' video tapes get into the hands of so many people out there, that great good will come of it.

LYN I do too.

ART I really would like to believe that will occur. But when I look at today's society and what's going on...

LYN It's scary.

ART I don't know Lyn. Hold on Lyn we'll be right back to you. My guest is Lyn Buchanan, and this is probably the definitive program on remote viewing that I suspect has been done. He'll be back next hour.


ART Once again here I am, good morning everybody, my guest is Lyn Buchanan. In the last hours, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith were here. All three involved in project STAR GATE, the military's remote viewing project.


ART Now to Lyn Buchanan, it is your hour with him, whatever questions you might have, come now. Lyn let me ask you one, I've got a whole pile of faxes here, "Please ask Lyn if remote viewing could help a person find their soul mate, or perfect mate in life, and if so, how would that be done?"

LYN The answer is yes, however, let me say that that type of work is sometimes achieved much more easily by some other disciplines. {Art laughs} I've heard it said that remote viewing --

ART You're not talking about bar-hopping right?

LYN {laughs} Oh no. As far as the disciplines for parapsychology. If you're trying to learn remote viewing in order to get in touch with the universe or your higher self, it's sort of like joining the Marines to learn how to fold your clothes. It's extremely disciplined, and there are easier and sometimes even quicker ways to do it.

ART Alright, and I want to tell everybody that once again on my web site,, there are now a multitude in the guest area, a multitude of links to the various remote viewing sites that have been mentioned tonight. So back now to the phone and the First Time Caller line:

ART OK, Aaron, that's the only sin we have on the show generally, not to give your last name. So let's begin all over again, your name is Aaron? {CALL: Yup.} And you're calling from where? {Vancouver B.C.} Alright. Go ahead.

CALL OK, I was wondering, during your research in the STAR GATE program, did you follow the work being done by Charles Honorton in the Ganzfeld experiments?

LYN The Ganzfeld experiments, we had read about them, they didn't directly apply to us since we weren't a research side. I think the people out at SRI would probably know a whole lot more about it, and more of the inside work. We were mainly tasked with the use of whatever worked to collect information. Now we tried some Ganzfeld work, and it worked about the same as the ERV, extended remote viewing that we were doing, it required a lot more equipment, and so basically we just went back to the ERV.

CALL OK, um, Ray Hyman, he was on the panel, the evaluation panel? {LYN: Right, uh huh?} What are your thoughts on his conclusion?

LYN {laughs} Well his conclusion, the end conclusion, was that yes, this shows that there is something to remote viewing, seemingly, however, we don't have all of the potentials for shooting it down, and so even though we can't shoot it down right now, we're just gonna wait until the time comes when we _can_ shoot it down before we make a decision. And this to me is not a valid conclusion. The conclusion he came to was basically that he admitted that the statistics show that there is value to the remote viewing, that there is an actual phenomenon going on, but --

ART Interesting reaction.

LYN Yeah, but let's not decide right now until we can find a way to shoot it down.

ART {laughs} From the James Randi school.

LYN Right. {laughs}

ART Alright, here's another fax, "Art, I've heard cases where remote viewers located military targets during the gulf war. Can Lyn enlighten us on this subject, or is it simply too sensitive?"

LYN There are many aspects of it that are very sensitive. There are many aspects of it that generally get talked about, with, you know, because the feeling is that it's not too sensitive at all... I think what the question is, is could I give an example. {ART: Alright. Can you?} Yes. I have no feedback on this one, because you know, I was the Viewer, and this is one we wouldn't get feedback on. I did one session where right in the middle of the session, what's called a Stage 7 came in, and basically my subconscious turned and addressed me and said, "You're not gonna believe what's coming next." {ART: Really! Like a preview!} Yeah. {ART: A teaser.} And so I went ahead and did the session, and what came next was something I didn't believe; that is that Saddam Hussein had some way gotten ahold of an American missile, was waiting for the high holy days of Ramadan at which time he was going to fire it into the holy of holies, in order to start a jihad, and since the other rulers would be dead, he could naturally take over. {ART: Wow.} I still find it hard to believe. Of course I turned it in. What was done with it, I don't know.

ART I imagine that must have been a little frustrating. Did the remote viewing team ever get feedback about the information, the intel they gave, did anybody ever come back to you guys and say "Hey, congratulations," you know, "we found those gas canisters and you guys really hit right on the head," did you ever get any of that?

LYN Oh yeah. We got quite a bit of that from different customers; other customers of course, there were times when we would be tasked with targets and the way we would know that we had success was, the group that tasked us would come in and confiscate our records and say we didn't have the clearance to see 'em. {they both laugh} So, you know, that was our feedback.

ART I'll bet those guys worried about you. In other words, they could come in, they could confiscate your records, but if you really wanted to know, I mean, they of all people knew that you had a certain level of effectiveness, you probably scared the hell out of 'em!

LYN This is what Paul was saying earlier, one of the reactions we met with other units was sort of fear, simply because we could... see into some of the inner workings and such.

ART Alright. Back to the many waiting phones. Wild Card line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, hi.

CALL Howdy. I'm {indecipherable} from California. Just as a footnote, I recall our government doing considerable research on the use of mind-altering substances in the 50's which they also abandoned at some point {ART: Oh yes.}, now considered somewhat threatening, or for some reason, pretty penalizable, and but -- aside from that, would you not think, say that some people are more adept at becoming quality Viewers, and that at certain times it seems to function better than perhaps at others?

ART Well alright, let's narrow that down to the first part of your question: Our government _indeed_ experimented with mind altering substances; were there ever -- or if you can't answer this, and I'd rather have the answer that you can answer it -- but were there ever attempts that you were aware to enhance the ability of a remote viewer with some sort of psychedelic chemical?

LYN I think that some experiments were tried with a medical project that was attempted on, you know, to see what happens physiologically with remote viewers. As far as I know, the SRI project and I'm absolutely certain the Fort Meade operational group, never did that. The feeling was, and I'm very firm about this, that anything you do to dull your mind is going to dull your results. And {they both talk; indecipherable}

ART Yes sir, but some would contend Lyn that not all drugs dull the mind. Some of them alter its state to a degree. Certainly there are many drugs that dull the mind or fuzz the mind, but there are some drugs that some would argue "alter" your state, and don't so much fuzz it up but alter it, and so I can see that that would certainly be one area they would want to know about.

LYN Yes and I think the, like I say I think the medical experiments did some of this, but I know that we didn't, I know that my own preference is, I want to remote view with it being me that does it {ART: I hear you.}, I am very opposed to drugs, and especially to anyone, you know, doing drugs while remote viewing, I just wouldn't trust the results.

ART Alright. East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, where are you please?

CALL This is Nancy from northwest Indiana. {ART: Northwest Indiana, alright.} OK, fundamentalist religions view mental telepathy and parapsychology as work of the devil {ART: That's right.} and you earlier mentioned positive feelings of Christ and the great prophets. So on the opposite side of the coin, have you experienced evil forces, and how might that be influencing people's lives today?

ART Oh! Good one. Sure, if -- we had talked about the presence of Jesus, and that was fascinating -- what about the opposite, do you know of anybody, have you or -- has anybody ever run into what we would think of or know of as 'the devil'?

LYN Absolutely. {ART: Oh?} There have been times, I know in my viewing, when there has been just a presence of evil, but generally, the evil that I've found has been in the people we were tasked with. The rogues gallery of our targets was pretty severe.

ART Did that get really tiresome?

LYN Extremely. One of the problems here is that as you access someone's mind, the way to enhance that access is to start agreeing with them and sort of lose your own personality in it. At the end of the session, you really have to detoxify, or else you wind up taking Idi Amin home with you. {ART: Yeah.} And -- now there's one evil dude.

ART How do you learn to let it go? I was a 911 dispatcher for Monterey County for a year, and it damn near killed me. {LYN: Oh yeah.} I actually had to leave because I kept taking my job home with me. {LYN: Yeah.} How do you not take Idi Amin home with you?

LYN There is a process of sitting there and going over everything you found in the session and saying, you know, is that me or him? Is it real or is it memorex? And just one by one, sitting there and taking every impression and working it out to get yourself back. This is one of the reasons why even things like what could be called deep or even shallow 'mind probes' is one thing that I do not encourage my students to do, simply because you can get sucked in to someone else's personality. And if you're not a good, advanced Viewer, who's very experienced, don't do it.

ART So again, there are things you will not teach people.

LYN Oh absolutely.

ART Alright. West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Hello.

CALL Ah, how you doin' Art, again, this is Dell, thanks a lot for taking the phone call. {ART: Sure. Where are you?} I'm in Paso Robles California, KPRL. Question there Mr. Buchanan. {LYN: Yes.} First of all, are we evolving and learning to use our grey matter in our upper part of our brains now, are we actually learning how to learn to use the part that they don't understand, that's being utilized -- from what I gather, the grey matter in the front of your mind is the part that they have no knowledge of what it does -- are we starting to evolve to use this now?

ART Or, I will add, are we devolving? I've wondered about that.

LYN I don't think we're devolving. Up until the beginning of this year, I would have answered the question with, "I don't know but I hope so." An event happened at the beginning of this year... I had always been adamantly against group teaching, because this is such an individualized thing, but I started, I taught one group class, mainly to get people to shut up, you know, trying to get me to teach it, I just wanted to prove that it wouldn't work. And the response of the students, they picked up on this so quickly, one of my previous students was there in the class, you know, just to come and talk about his experiences, and at the end of the two days of group training, he came up to me and he said, 'What's happening here? It took me seven months to get to this point.' I think, I believe -- well, I believe in the Sheldrake effect, that the more people who learn to do this, the easier it gets to do it. {ART: Hmmn.} And --

ART That implies some sort of mass consciousness, doesn't it?

LYN That's right. And the CRV process, I mean, ties right straight into that.

ART Alright Lyn hold tight we're at the bottom of the hour, we'll be right back and pick up on that point, I'm Art Bell and this is CBC.


ART It is. Top of the morning everybody, it's great to be here, Lyn Buchanan is my guest, remote viewing is the topic, and it is fascinating. So many targets, so little time.


ART When I said a moment ago, so many targets, so little time, I bet Lyn would agree, huh?

LYN That's true, absolutely. {both laugh}

ART Alright, well here's a question from Russ in California, and it's a neat one: "Please ask Lyn if he has ever targeted the period of time in which the dinosaurs roamed Earth."

LYN Not personally. That is a fairly good training target, and in fact I think maybe I have, in my early training... just as another session to see if you're on target, because we have feedback on that.

ART Well there was a, there's a second part to the question. {LYN: OK.} If so, was man walking side by side with the dinosaurs?

LYN I don't remember specifically getting that. I have always felt that a form of man was, yes, but that -- I didn't get that from remote viewing, I got that from other studies that I've done {ART: OK.}, simple archeological findings.

ART And then -- a good P.S. here -- "P.S.: Why can't remote viewers win lotteries?" And before you answer that, I would have answered Russ in California by saying, "Russ, how do you know that a lot of the winners of lotteries aren't remote viewers?" {both laugh} But you answer it the way you want, Lyn.

LYN Alright, we have people working on numbers, which is a very hard thing to do in remote viewing. There is another type of remote viewing called alternate -- um, ARV, an alternate remote viewing, which substitutes remote viewing targets for the numbers.

ART: Ah.

{Transcriber's note: A very sleepy Buchanan is clearly trying to remember the term, 'Associative' Remote Viewing.}

LYN ...and allows you to remote view, for instance, the Pick 3. Now the way that's normally done is, if you were doing the Pick 3, you have four people working, three viewers, each of which will remote view one of the numbers, and one person who collects the data, looks on the chart to see what the results mean, and goes and places the bets. It's been done, it's been done successfully.

ART Well if remote influencing is possible, how about sending Ed McMahon and the gang up my driveway?

LYN {laughs} They're coming here first.

ART I see. {both laugh} I understand that. Really I do. First Time Caller line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Hello.

CALL Yes sir, am I on? {ART: You're on.} My name is John and I'm from Rochester New York. {ART: Hi John.} And thank you Mr. Bell, and Art, I appreciate your service you're providing -- uh Lyn, can you hear me? I have a number of questions. Is it possible in the future that we will all be able to talk to each other and absorb all of the information at the same time, like a Pentium II computer?

{Art and Lyn laugh}

LYN I -- here's another place where I would say, "I hope so." I hope that we can get to the point where we understand each other better, where good intentions are realized as good intentions and so forth. I think it's possible, and I know that there are many influences that hold people back, and I just hope that those influences aren't as strong as man's desire to go forward.

CALL One of the most frustrating things is that we hear all the information coming at us and that we can't interchange it as quickly as we wish to. Do you know anything about Jane Roberts?

LYN Oh... vaguely.

CALL And also, another question, Frank Herbert wrote a book called "Dune," and the threads that M'aud Dib was seeing as far as the future was concerned... {LYN: Right, Mhmmn?} Is our future in threads, as he kind of alluded to?

ART That's a good question.

LYN Let me refresh my memory on this, it's been a long time since I read Dune. The threads mean... there's another science fiction --

CALL There are many, many multi-faceted inter-connected future tracks.

LYN Oh, OK, I was getting that --

ART Many possibilities.

LYN Right. I think so. I was getting that confused with another science fiction, which has threads dropping from the sky, and, as plant pathogens, killing all the life. There is a science fiction book out to that. I think that we'll find that there are many paths we can go down, and, now I don't know about alternate universes, as far as I'm concerned, I stick with one, and so that one is the one I'm concerned about. But I think there are many threads, yes, I think there are many paths we can go down.

ART I would be utterly remiss if I didn't pop this has to be asked question, 'cause nobody else has yet: Carl in Spokane would like to know if you have remote viewed the Kennedy Assassination.

LYN No I have not. Intentionally in fact. {ART: Really?} Yes. There are some things that people always ask about, "have you remote viewed..." {ART: Yes.} Marilyn Monroe's death, the Kennedy Assassination, OJ Simpson... I generally stay away from these, simply because you know, I can get an answer through remote viewing, but what would the purpose be? I couldn't change it. And the only purpose would be to beat on my chest and say you know, I've remote viewed this and here's what I found. And I don't do that, I keep low key.

ART Personally I think there'd be a lot more joy in remote viewing Marilyn Monroe's life.

LYN Right. Let me say one thing. If I get a remote viewer -- well I ask the remote viewers to work at least five missing children cases after they graduate the course. We find one kid, and I tell ya, they're hooked. They don't care about Marilyn Monroe or OJ Simpson anymore at all.

ART I understand. Wild Card line, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, good morning.

CALL Good morning. Gerald from Calgary Alberta, greetings to you. {ART: Calgary, Alberta. Yes sir.} QR77. Lyn, and Art, have you ever heard of Jose Silva method? It was mainly under mind control, but they did lots of remote viewing.

LYN Right, uh huh. Yes, and the term 'remote viewing' was basically taken by the Silva people, and is not the classical definition of remote viewing. Now, the people who do the Silva Mind work that I've met have very good results, and I say, if it works, use it. It's -- the stuff taught by the Silva group is not the controlled, situational, laboratory-provable classic remote viewing.

CALL My second question, would you favor us with one of your sharable remote forecasts, or current affairs that you could tell us and sort of be a control of your talent?

ART Alright, in other words, something that you can tell us is going to occur that will serve as a test.

LYN Well I basically already have, the results that I've been getting from the plant pathogen thing, the attack on the U.S. {ART: {sounding very depressed} Yes.} I get the impressions that it's going to be happening sometime this Spring or Fall, of this year.

ART Damn, I hate that, I -- you know, even though you feel the results will be different or more localized, hearing that from you and from Ed Dames is very worrisome.

LYN Oh it is to me too. In fact, one of the questions that I have on that subdirectory of your page, someone asked me about it, and I said that, if it shows up on the Internet, then these, what's called "Open source" intelligence gatherers, they gather intelligence from newspapers, magazines, the Internet and so on -- they have search engines, and if I speak about this on the Internet, I know that by the next morning, if I have said the word "Hussein," "Arab country," stuff like this, then that winds up in an intelligence database in a foreign country.

ART Really.

LYN And it's my hope to say these things in order to hopefully get some things changed. In other words, I hope I'm wrong. And will actively pursue anything I can to be wrong.

ART So you're -- you're trying to influence future events, actually.

LYN Through normal means. Yes, uh huh. If you see the future and it's not what you want it to be, then I have no qualms in changing it.

ART One obvious question for a remote viewer is: Have you ever thought of, or have you, remote viewed your own time of death?

LYN Yes, I have, uh huh. I find it to be, oh, a fairly peaceful death, I don't know how much of that is wishful thinking, but that's, you know, the impression I got. Now this was in a sealed envelope so that I didn't know what I was Viewing, what the target was, and basically what I got was, an old fat man in a bed with people around him that cared.

ART Well that's good result. I wonder though, about the danger of giving somebody a target of that nature. In other words, if instead of the old fat guy in the bed with all his friends around, you saw, you know, a Mack truck bearing down on you, it could have psychologically injuring, injurious results.

LYN Oh yes. I wouldn't give that target to anyone else. I gave it to myself just basically out of curiosity.

ART It's almost like slipping a little LSD into somebody's orange juice, you know. Sheesh. {both laugh} East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan, hello.

CALL Hello, Art? {ART: Yes.} You know I have a very good reason for asking Lyn this question. The woman who called, Beverly Jaegers? {ART: Yes, uh huh?} Lyn, do you know her? {LYN: No, I don't, uh uh.} Many years ago -- I have a son missing and assumed dead -- and many years ago I read about her in, I think it was the Enquirer, and I called the Lieutenant, I think his name was Kirkwood, and he got me in touch with her, and she was trying with her group at that particular time, to try to find out what happened to my son. And that's been {breaks into tears} a long long time ago.

LYN It's still hard.

CALL {crying} and... and before I die, I have to find out what happened to him... {dissolves into sobs}

ART Well, do you help people like this Lyn?

LYN Yes. Now, one of the problems that I have is this security clearance -- and for many other reasons as well -- if there is an investigation going on, especially on an American citizen, I will only work it through authorized channels. And so, if someone comes to me and says, you know, my son is missing, or I don't know what happened to so-and-so {ART: Yes.}, I will tell them, partially because I want to cushion their -- partially also because it's a necessity -- that if they will get the investigating officer to contact me, I will be glad to work the problem for free.

CALL There - there - there is no --

ART Ma'am -- ma'am -- ma'am -- listen to me -- listen to me. He just said, have the investigating officer in your case {CALL: There is none.}, the case of your son, contact him --

CALL Art, there is none, it's been so many years, the case is closed.

ART Yes but there was an original investigating officer on the case.

CALL Well he's probably retired by now.

LYN We worked a case not too long ago, last year sometime, that had been closed for nine years. And on the results of our session -- Mel, Dave and I worked on this -- the results of our session, the case was reopened, and they've been finding, I hear, some new evidence.

ART So, do that ma'am --

CALL How can I get ahold of Lyn?

ART OK, that's a good question -- Lyn, what is the best way to get ahold of you?

LYN Ah, do you have Internet access?

ART I would presume if she doesn't, she can get it.

LYN OK, I would say the easiest address to remember is, and right there is a link to my page, and on my page is my address and phone number.

ART Alright, there you are ma'am, and I might add that if you don't have a friend with a computer who can do it, you can go to a public library, and just remember my address, which is

LYN Now let me also say that right at the present time, we are heavily backed up with Assigned Witness Program cases, and so we're really bogged down until we can get more remote viewers working on these. So I hope people won't be offended if, you know, if they call and have their police department call as well, and nothing is done that day. We have a tremendous backlog here.

ART Completely understandable. West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lyn Buchanan. Good morning.

CALL Good morning, Art? {ART: Yes.} Yes, and good morning Lyn. {LYN: Good morning.} My question for you is, could a remote viewer be tricked and fed a false remote view to cover up a secret or event?

ART Alright -- oh that is an awfully good question -- could for example another group of remote viewers somehow trick you and cause you to see something that would be utterly inaccurate?

CALL Exactly.

LYN Absolutely. In fact, on of the biggest problems in remote viewing is that you tend to do that to yourself to begin with. And there is a thing that we call, basically, the neighbor's cat -- if someone else whom you respect very much does a session on a target, and they're wrong, out of your respect for them, you will tend to find the wrong thing as well. This is one reason why I never task the same exact question to two different viewers who know each other.

ART Well, this brings me back to Ed Dames's tapes. Which generally, the group earlier, including you, seemed to agree might be, or hopefully will be, a good idea, if it works.

LYN If it works, then I'm all for it.

ART But then on the other hand, with all of those people out there remote viewing, maybe even influencing --

LYN There are going to be a lot of mistakes made.

ART A lot of mistakes will be made. And couldn't there be a sort of virtual anarchy that would develop?

LYN That's my fear; I do believe very strongly in the Sheldrake effect, and I know that the more people who learn to remote view correctly, the easier it is to learn to remote view correctly. The more who learn to remote view incorrectly, the easier it will be to learn incorrectly. And this is my big fear with many of the quickie courses that are out there, that I'm afraid that they're going to, through the Sheldrake effect, just, you know, a hundredth monkey effect, just almost destroy any progress that's been made, simply because it'll be easier to do it wrong.

ART Yeah. Well what was your initial reaction when you heard the video tapes were going to be released at a very -- or relatively, comparatively inexpensive price?

LYN Well it was just that, I really hope it works. If there's a way that we can get people doing this, and doing it well, then I'm all for it. And if there's a way that we can make it available to more people, I think that's great.

ART Well, listen, we're coming to the end of our -- actually the entire program -- you've really been a trooper sticking it out through the whole program, it's gotta be, well the sun has to be up back there huh?

LYN Yes, looking out the window it is. {laughs}

ART Well my friend, I suspect you're going to have a lot of email to answer, and this'll keep you busy for awhile. It has been a distinct pleasure Lyn, and we'll do it again one day if you're up for it.

LYN I have really enjoyed it. I don't get the Art Bell show because I live in a steep little valley and our local radio station has the wattage of a light bulb, and I've really enjoyed this. Thank you.

ART Take care. That's Lyn Buchanan everybody, and I'm sorry, but the clock dictates we must go, so go we shall. I will remind you, as a public service, this has been probably the definitive program on remote viewing. If you would like a copy of this program, 5 hours, call now, 1-800-917-4278. Goodnight!


Transcribed by PJ Gaenir, HOME