firedocs transcript

END OF THE LINE on the Premiere Radio Network
End of the Line Radio Web Site:
Live/archived shows:

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


Host Email:
Transcribed from audio cassette which was courtesy of Jeff Rense
Transcribed by PJ Gaenir,

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

[begin transcript]

Hi once again everybody. If 1996 was known for anything much, it certainly will be remembered as the year remote viewing entered the UFO/Paranormal mix in a big way. So big in fact that the phrase 'remote viewing' pretty much made the full circle, beginning as the new buzz-word on the block, then evolving into almost a cliche and then finally turning into what many would describe as merely a farce. Remote viewing made it's general public debut early in 1996 with Courtney Brown's fast-selling book "Cosmic Voyage," which also just happened to underpin his own private institute in Georgia, which offers courses in remote viewing to the public. Late in the year of course came Brown's involvement in the now-infamous hoaxed photograph of the alleged "second object" traveling with the Hale-Bopp comet. And most recenty, remote viewing has been in the news compliments of Ed Dames, and his doomsday statements about the Hale-Bopp comet traveling with some huge cylinder containing deadly plant pathogens. All in all, remote viewing has been in the news for much of the past year, from the tabloids to TV and it continues to intrigue and to confuse people in 1997. Well, tonight we are going to finally get the truth about remote viewing from two of the world's most experienced, honored, and legitimate experts in the field.

RENSE: First, we will speak to Dr. Edwin C. May, PhD, the Director of Cognitive Sciences Laboratory in Palo Alto California, who has been intimately involved in the study, and in the application of, remote viewing from the very beginning at Stanford Research Institute and the CIA's original involvement in that program. And then joining us a bit later will be the legendary Joseph McMoneagle, one of the six original CIA remote viewers, and the only remote viewer to have worked in that top secret government program during its entire operational existence. In fact Joe McMoneagle was so effective at remote viewing that he was given the Legion of Merit, the highest honor the intelligence community can bestow upon anyone.

RENSE: But before that, a little more background now on Dr. Edwin C. May. Dr. May has managed complex interdisciplinary research projects for the US federal government since back in 1985. He presided over 70% of the funding and 85% -- and this is important -- 85% of all the data collected for the government's 24 year involvement in parapsychological and remote viewing research. After obtaining his PhD, Dr. May accumulated over 12 years experience in experimental nuclear physics research, which included the study of nuclear reaction mechanism, and nuclear structure. Dr. May is the author or co-author of over 130 reports, including 16 papers in experimental nuclear physics and 20 papers presented at technical conferences on anomalous cognition. He won the outstanding achievement award in parapsychology in 1994, granted by the Parapsychological Association, and he is also the current President of the Parapsychological Association, which is an affiliate member of the American Associate for the Advancement of Science.

RENSE: Alright Dr. May, that's about enough, now let's get busy. How are you?

MAY: Good evening Jeff, fine, how are you this evening?

RENSE: I'm fine thank you. Let's start at the top here, and let me ask you: Very simply, for those who don't really know, what is remote viewing, and how does it work?

MAY: Well the first half of that question is fairly simply to answer. The second one, sadly, is at this point impossible to answer. Let me get to the first part. Remote Viewing is an apparent human ability to have access to information that is blocked from the normal sensory ways in which we gather information about the world. For example, I'm sitting here in the office, and I don't know at all what your studio is like, and I could probably give a reasonable guess. That's not remote viewing. But I can sit here in this office, and let's say if I try to remote view your office, I might be able to get some information about your office, and I have no idea what's there, and with careful analysis, after the fact determine that at least partially what I received by some unknown way, turned out to be accurate.

RENSE: Let me ask a quick question, let me interject here, why are we blocked from having this ability as a species as much as we might well be able to under certain circumstances?

MAY: Well, this is just a good scientific guess -- I think that remote viewing as a human ability is on the way out from an evolutionary point of view. Let me give an example Jeff. We don't see as well as hawks do, and we don't hear as well as deer. And the reason for that is, we have other ways of optimizing our survival. A deer obviously needs to hear very well to survive, and so a hawk to see a mice he's going to attack for eating, he's got to be able to see well. We have a brain, a well-developed brain, which is optimized for survival. We don't need ESP as much as some other creatures might need to survive. So I would bet it's on the way out from an evolutionary standpoint.

RENSE: And of course with that statement you're putting yourself at variance with much of the new age folks, who think we're coming into that.

MAY: Well, I'd be happy to sit and be convinced otherwise, if they can show me what data they have that suggests we're evolving toward this evolutionary stance.

RENSE: OK, now the other question, the unanswerable part of my question, the second part, how does it work? Well how in the heck does it work? I mean, we don't really know but we can see I guess cause and effect, action and reaction, we do have results to measure, and from there you've got to extrapolate and try to construct the mechanism involved, correct?

MAY: Sure. Starting from, like in any science, you have to say 'what can you measure, what can you observe,' and although it's at times a little complex, when you look at remote viewing in the laboratory, you can absolutely confirm that there's some sort of statistical anomaly, there's some sort of very clear evidence that we have an ability to gain information about our environment that's blocked from other senses. OK, that's the data. What does that tell us about how this might work? A good guess however Jeff is that well, we see with our eyes, smell with our nose, hear with our ears and so on, perhaps there's another sensory kind of system, not unlike our ears and nose and so on, that allows us to 'see' with remote viewing.

RENSE: What we call a sixth sense?

MAY: Yeah, that term was coined by a fellow by the name of J.B. Rhine back in the 30's at Duke University. And probably, he didn't realize perhaps how accurate that statement will turn out to be.

RENSE: And yet you do feel, according to your work, that this is a sixth sense that is certainly in decline, in an evolutionary sense.

MAY: Well, that's a guess on my part. What I can say is that we can measure in the lab that there are very strong indicators that the way it works when you study it carefully is very much like the other senses. You know, just to give you an idea, we can see things that are changing much better than we can see things that are standing still. You can easily see why evolution might have made us that way, because we're standing at the edge of the grassland, we're more interested in the leopard that moved than the grass that didn't.

RENSE: Yeah, good point, I understand.

MAY: And so when we study something like that by analogy in the laboratory, we found very strong evidence that ESP works very much the same way. It's much more sensitive of things that change, as compared to things that don't change.

RENSE: Hmmn. What can remote viewing do for us, what is it good for? And that's an open ended question, but you've been involved with the intelligence community for long enough -- is it really a viable tool anymore, I guess, we have a long story to tell about that, but what can remote viewing do for us?

MAY: Well, that's an interesting question. Any kind of a tool depends upon how you want to use it. For example if you tried to play baseball with a can opener that wouldn't be a very effective use of that particular tool, or better yet, try to open a can with a baseball wouldn't be a lot of fun either. So, if you say, can remote viewing be a tool? The answer is, well it depends on how you apply that tool. If you try to use remote viewing to, let's say, see what Hale-Bopp comet is doing, that's a very inappropriate use of that tool, that's kind of like the playing baseball with a can opener. The reason is, you have no idea whether you're right, wrong or indifferent, you're just guessing, and nobody can confirm the answer.

RENSE: No validation at all.

MAY: No validation whatsoever. On the other hand, if you say, there's a kidnap victim, somebody who was kidnapped off the streets of Chicago, could we use remote viewing to find that individual? With 100% reliability? Absolutely not. But, if you say, could we use the remote viewing as a tool to assist law enforcement, to help them find this kidnap victim a little faster than they would otherwise do, I would say, absolutely yes.

RENSE: And as we both know, the use of so-called psychics by law enforcement agencies is certainly, well it's not prolific, but it's out there.

MAY: That's true. There are mixed results there, but often enough this happens to where, you know, without a lot of publicity in front of the media, some law enforcement officials will, on their very tough cases, come to so-called psychics or even us to try to help on certain occasions.

RENSE: You're right, this isn't talked about much at all [MAY: No.], it's very quiet. How did you, Dr. May, become first involved with this whole idea of parapsychological research and remote viewing?

MAY: I was what's called a "postdoctoral fellow" in nuclear physics at the University of California in Davis, up here in the North land. And I'd never heard of psychic or parapsychology, I was a fairly straight physicist, doing what physics people do, in terms of studying the inner workings of the atomic nucleus, and I attended a conference at Davis, organized by a well known psychologist by the name of Charles Tart. And the conference was entitled, "Psychic Abilities." And I'd never heard of this, so I went and listened, I thought, "Gee, if this stuff is really real, then it's exquisitely important in terms of its implications for physics and physiology and a lot of other things." And over time I became more and more interested and began looking into some of the research and began conducting some of my own research, and just evolved into it as a full time occupation since 1976.

RENSE: How did -- I'm going to jump ahead just a bit -- how did the CIA first become involved with this? And that really talks about Stanford Research Institute I guess.

MAY: Yes. My colleagues, Dr. Harold Puthoff and Mr. Russell Targ had a small contract from the CIA in 1972 at Stanford Research Institute. And the CIA had asked them to investigate the abilities of a well known psychic in New York City by the name of Mr. Ingo Swann. The bottom line, to speed things along, is they invited Mr. Swann out to SRI and lo and behold, from a statistical point of view, he could do what the claims were, mainly, remote viewing. And so the CIA at that time became very interested. My goodness, if Mr. Swann could sit in a laboratory office in SRI in Northern California near San Francisco and in his mind travel to anyplace in the world, including to underground facilities in the Soviet Union, then perhaps this could be used to help our nation in terms of gaining intelligence about the then-perceived enemy of the Soviet Union.

RENSE: Yes, yes. And when did you come into the picture then?

MAY: I joined that onworking group early in 1976, as a Senior Research Physicist. There's a joke about we physicists, that we're jacks of all trades and masters of none {laughs}, and because of my background in experimental work, it was a nice adjunct to the team. And so we worked closely together as a team. By attrition, Puthoff left in 1985, and Mr. Targ left in 1982 a little earlier, so I became the project director in 1985, and have been so to this day.

RENSE: Alright, very good groundlaying, we'll be back with Dr. Ed May and pursue this fascinating story about remote viewing tonight, here at The End of the Line.


RENSE: We're back talking to Dr. Ed May. Dr. May, by 1976 when you joined the program, the CIA had been involved for about four years, beginning with Ingo Swann in 1972 and moving on. At what point was the program, in its evolutionary sense, at that point?

MAY: Well, if I could correct something a little earlier: the CIA has been given lots of credit for this program, or detraction from it, depending upon your viewpoint. [RENSE: Right.] Actually the CIA for the most part were really small players in this whole game. They started the program and spent about $275,000 which for you and me is a lot of money, but for government programs it's hardly a stamp budget. [RENSE: That's right.] And they actually quit funding the program in 1975.

RENSE: Well they just sort of pulled back and dropped out?

MAY: Yeah, they pulled back and dropped out for a number of reasons. Probably if you recall your history at that time, the Watergate scandal had hit, and the CIA was in trouble on all fronts for doing stuff they shouldn't do, so they tried to unload as much 'borderline' things as they could possibly do to save from being embarrassed in Congress and the press. Fortunately for the program and for us, other members of the so-called intelligence community picked up the program, one of those being the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is the military version of gathering intelligence.

RENSE: Interesting, that's 1976 they stepped in?

MAY: Yeah, 1976. And other people were involved throughout time, but right at the moment, only the CIA and DIA have sort of 'fessed up in saying that they helped fund the program. {laughs}

RENSE: Interesting. So what was the climate like, this was the height of the Cold War I guess, were we concerned at that time the Soviets were making significant advances in this field and we were not?

MAY: Yeah, that's a common thing to hear in the press these days, that gee, the U.S. was scared silly of what the Russians might be up to. Part of our role actually was not only to work with psychics to find out to what degree was ESP actually real and how it worked, but another role was to actually help with the intelligence community in an experimental way, applying remote viewing to gather intelligence, and then finally the third and very important aspect of what we did was what's called foreign assessment. You know, by normal collection methods in the intelligence community, somebody at DIA might hear for example that such and such a researcher in Russia had made the claim that you could levitate a light bulb, or whatever the claim was. And they would ask us to try to do as best we could a scientific evaluation of that claim, and at times, even to try to replicate that claim, to find out whether or not, if it were true, did this constitute a threat to the US in any sort of way.

RENSE: The DIA then, went around I guess normal channels and through the government, trying to put together a program. And they sent candidates out to you for evaluation I understand. How did that work?

MAY: That's right. In about 1978 they thought well, maybe we should set up an internal program, in terms of the government, rather than hiring SRI scientists [RENSE: Right.], to try to use remote viewing on a more day-in and day-out basis. And so they asked the group at SRI to help them in the screening process. They did some pre-screening, and found about 30 people that they thought might be interesting remote viewing trainee candidates. And we went and interviewed all of those, and from that, picked six. And later on in your program is Mr. Joe McMoneagle, who is one of those original six. The intelligence community folks then sent these six people, one at a time, out to SRI for "training." Though basically we called it 'technology transfer,' all we did is say "Well here's how remote viewing works, here's how we conduct a trial in the laboratory, let's try it and see how it did." And these six people did excellently.

RENSE: How excellently did they do?

MAY: Well, I don't want to bore everybody with a little bit of statistics, but it turns out that they did 36 different trials, six people did six of the six trials apiece, so there were 36 chances of doing remote viewing. And if remote viewing didn't work, on the average you would get six right answers out of that 36. [RENSE: I see.] We had 18. Three times as much as what we expected by chance.

RENSE: So random chance would give you six [MAY: Correct.], and you had 18. [MAY: Yeah.] So that had to get your attention.

MAY: It, uh, to use a highly technical scientific term, "knocked our socks off." {laughs}

RENSE: I should say. Dr. May, national security certainly prevents you from talking about certain sensitive areas [MAY: Yes.], but, you've had a lot of experience with this, a long time. These people in your opinion, were gifted? Were freaks? Were unusual? What made them so unique in this talented areas?

MAY: Well Jeff, let me answer that in two ways. First of all, they're definitely not freaks. Gifted, perhaps. In the same sense, the way to think about this is like any other form of, or any other kind of human talent. You can pick a basketball star, Michael Jordan, is he gifted? Sure. Is he a freak? Absolutely not.

RENSE: Let me ask you to pause right there, and we'll be right back after the news to continue.


RENSE: Alright we are back, talking to Dr. Edwin C. May, PhD about remote viewing, and we're talking about the six remote viewers who were involved in the government program from 1976 to '84 was it then? [MAY: Say that again sir?] The period of the program ran from '76 to '84, wasn't it?

MAY: Well, no, the period of the whole government program started in 1972, and closed officially in November of 1995.

RENSE: Oh. So what was the '76 to '85 period? Was that just the DIA involvement?

MAY: Yeah, '76 is when I first joined the program, and became its director in 1985. But the program continued.

RENSE: I see, ok. So the six people we're talking about, what kind of people were they? Just nice common folks? And I guess the obvious subsequent question would be, does everyone has this ability to one degree or another?

MAY: Well, yeah, they are nice common folk. Back when the CIA was still funding the program in the '73 time frame, they spent close to something like $50,000 investigating the best remote viewers that the program had at that time. The bottom line was, they were boringly normal. There was nothing medically or neurologically or psychologically special about these people. These six government remote viewers, they were all professional military people, five were men and one woman; they would not, if you met them on the street, you wouldn't think 'gee this is some weird psychic,' they just looked like average folks like you and me.

RENSE: What can remote viewing not do, what is it really limited by?

MAY: Well, it appears like now, remote viewing is not very good at getting specific detailed information, like let's say you had a safe in your office. I couldn't use remote viewing to get the combination. I might get a description, say, 'well, gee I think Jeff's got a safe in his office,' but that's about it. Now sometimes that kind of information is extremely valuable, again, it depends upon how you want to use the tool. Are you trying to use a can opener to play baseball? No.

RENSE: If you use it as a tool in an intelligence capacity, how accurate is it, what kind of consistent results did you get?

MAY: Well there's two answers to that question Jeff. One in the laboratory. How accurate? Well, without going into details, chance -- if you were just guessing, and remote viewing didn't exist -- you would get the right answer just by luck alone 20% of the time.

RENSE: That high?

MAY: That high, just because that's just one in five guesses. If I told you to pick a number between 1 and 5, you would get the right answer just because you were lucky 20% of the time. [RENSE: I see.] Because there are five choices. Well, turns out, that in remote viewing experiences, we routinely get, 45-50% of the time, we get the right answer. So we get almost twice what you'd expect by chance, more than twice what you'd expect by chance. Now, in the intelligence community it's a little bit harder. Let me illustrate what I mean. Let's suppose you're the CIA, and you're wondering, what in blazes are the Soviets doing at this, what looks like a nuclear testing facility? You can fly over with high-altitude airplanes and take pictures of it, but you don't know what's going on underground. So, you ask a remote viewer to tell you what's happening. And the remote viewer uses his or her ability and sure enough, gives you a very accurate, by remote viewing, description. Unfortunately, of just about everything that's above ground. So there's a case where you have a very accurate remote viewing, but no intelligence value whatever. The reason is, they knew it anyway, our government. [RENSE: Sure.] The inverse to that is true. Suppose you do a remote viewing that wouldn't pass muster in the laboratory as being evidence of anything -- it might just provide a tip-off for an intelligence analyst to solve the problem. So, to answer how effective this was in the intelligence community is not easy. The best way to do it is to say, well, did customers come back over and over again, the same customers, like did the secret service come to us more than once? Yes. Did NSA come to us more than once? Yes. If they kept coming back, they must have been happy with the product.

RENSE: Where were the six viewers working out of most of the time?

MAY: Most of the time, the six viewers were working out of a barracks-like building in Fort Meade Maryland. Fort Meade is an Army post, adjacent to a very famous place called the National Security Agency. But at Fort Meade themselves, that's where they worked out of offices there.

RENSE: Did you have direct contact with them during the height of their career, so to speak?

MAY: Yes.

RENSE: And how did that contact take place?

MAY: My role, and our laboratory's role, after the Army remote viewers were established, was in support. We were there to answer any questions, from a research point of view. For example, somebody'd say well, 'gee, what color should you paint the office to get the best remote viewing?' to take a trivial point. Or 'how long should someone attempt to do remote viewing in a given day before they burn out?' Those kinds of day-to-day work-a-day questions, they would ask us to investigate in the laboratory. As a support role to their overall intelligence mission.

RENSE: You were not involved in analysis of what they were actually trying to view, then.

MAY: In the intelligence gathering, no, there are officials within the government whose sole job it is to do just that. In fact, it's very interesting Jeff, let's suppose you were one of those government remote viewers, and you said, 'Well, I think this underground facility, they're making chemical warfare bombs under there.' That data will get written up in what's called an 'intelligence report,' an IR, and the fact that that data was gathered from remote viewing is taken away from, it is not included in the information, it just says 'we know about this information.' And that goes off to analysts. So often people who were charged with responsibility to do the analysis don't know that it was remote viewing data.

RENSE: Interesting. What does an actual session look like? What does a person do? Does a person sit quietly in a room alone, does a person sit with someone else and talk, how does it actually play out?

MAY: Well in the lab the way we work it, it's very businesslike, and frankly a little bit boring. You're sitting across from each other at a table, like a desk with a well-lit room, and the remote viewer has a pen and a big pad of paper, and the person sitting with that remote viewer is called a 'monitor,' somebody who's gonna watch over what's happening. And it's very important in the laboratory that that monitor has no idea what the target material is, in a given remote viewing session. And so if you and I were doing this across the table from each other, I would say, 'OK Jeff, a target's been chosen, neither one of us know what it is, I'd like you to describe and draw in pictures on your paper there, what's in your mind with regard to what that picture might be. And that's all there is to it.

RENSE: And the picture could be locked away in another room somewhere.

MAY: Or across the country. Yes.

RENSE: Well what's the problem if the monitor knows the answer?

MAY: Well that's a very important question, because some of the people who are making claims and charging you $3,000 for remote viewing training -- if the monitor knows the target material, as in some of these cases that are being advertised these days, then there are other ways that the monitor can let you know (you the psychic, or you the remote viewer) what the target material is. So you don't have to use your psychic ability. And I'm not talking now about cheating and slipping you pieces of paper under the table. It's well known that, especially if people know each other, that we communicate with each other many many ways which are non-verbal. And this sounds a little bit far-fetched, but remote viewing is even more far-fetched {laughs}, so it doesn't take many ways of signalling to you, even if you're not trying. For example let's suppose I know the target, and I know the target's a photograph of a waterfall, alright? And I'm trying to be really careful not to give you any subtle cues. And you say, 'Well I see water there.' And I'm thinking to myself, 'Oh boy, Jeff's got it right!' and I lean forward ever so slightly in my chair. [RENSE: Body language.] Got it? [RENSE: Yeah.]

RENSE: That's very interesting -- so it has to be double blind, locked.

MAY: Absolutely. It must be, both in a training environment, and in a research environment, and in an operational, where you're doing this for remote viewing espionage, it absolutely has to always be double-blind, or it's not valid science.

RENSE: Alright, we're gonna take another break and remember, hour number two coming up, Joe McMoneagle will join us, one of the original six who was with the program with the military for all of its years of existence, and he'll have some amazing insight into what it's like to be a remote viewer. And we'll be back with Dr. Ed May in just a couple of minutes.


RENSE: Alright welcome back everyone, talking to Dr. Ed May, PhD, who has been involved in parapsychological research and remote viewing programs for a long, long time, one of the founding fathers of the whole movement, and let me ask you another question, not to digress but, do we have any evidence from your work that we can, as individuals, control or influence the thoughts and minds of others around us?

MAY: Well first of all, that's an easy question to answer in a trivial sense. And that is, if I'm sitting in front of you and you're a friend of mine, I can easily "influence" you to come with me to the ball game, or go out for a glass of beer after work or something like that. And that seems to be fine, because I can mount my arguments very persuasively, or I'm a fun guy to go out and have a beer with. That's not what you're talking about. That is 'can I hang up this phone and somehow influence you to call me at another time?' [RENSE: That's right.] Doesn't seem there is that ability.

RENSE: Would you tell me if there were?

MAY: Yes I definitely would. I spent the major part of my earlier career in parapsychology looking at what is called "psychokinesis." To translate that from the greek it means "movement by the mind," or of the mind.

RENSE: Right. Did you find any influence to substantiate that?

MAY: {sighs} I frankly have not. Now there are other people in our field that might disagree with me. But my assessment of the data that I've seen in other laboratories, and experiments I've conducted myself, and those experiments which I've analyzed both in China, and in Russia, and in Hungary, and in Poland -- I don't think it's real.

RENSE: So, you see ads occasionally, "how to influence others around you with your thoughts," this is an old shtick that's been around for a long time [MAY: Right.]. But from a scientific standpoint you have found, you're gonna stand on this, you found no evidence that we can, even though we can obviously remote view successfully, maybe up to 40, 50% of the time, we cannot control, implant or influence the thoughts of others in our lives, or even unbeknownst to us?

MAY: At this point, that's what the evidence forces me to say. Now I have to say, as a curious scientist, I wish that weren't the case. Wouldn't it be interesting if somehow thinking about things could influence the real world? But our data doesn't support that just yet. Another point though, that is very serious: if we're speaking about evolutionary things, if you passively can gather information about your surroundings to optimize your survival, if I do that, that doesn't threaten you. But suppose I could influence you with my mind, and then it becomes a battle, that maybe I'm stronger than you are, or you're stronger than me, we get into a psychic mind-fight if it's real -- and that isn't optimized for anybody's survival. So even if it did exist, I think it would just by natural selection go away.

RENSE: Such a big field, parapsychology. People who bend things, psychokinetic powers and so forth, are... charlatans? Frauds?

MAY: Well, I think there are people who believe they can bend stuff. I mean there are some, what are so-called "PK Parties" where everybody gets together, following the model of Mr. Uri Geller the Israeli magician who claimed to be able to bend stuff, and gosh, get whipped up into a frenzy and everybody's saying 'bend and bend and bend,' and the experience is that you don't know how much actual force that you're putting on this metal. So I have to say that those things are all done under such uncontrolled conditions, even if it were happening, you couldn't verify that it was true. And frankly I don't think it is happening.

RENSE: Have you ever had any remote viewing experiences yourself? Or have you been strictly the scientist overseeing this? Do you consider yourself psychic in any fashion?

MAY: I wish it were true, I think you could be a better scientist. What we try to do is to maintain at least some air of objectivity. Now having said that, I always ask my staff and myself to act as a remote viewer to test out any given protocol that we're going to ask real remote viewers to do. And sometimes I think I have some small ability, but I think lots of people -- for example, we were speaking about this remote viewing being an ability, well there aren't very many Yasha Heifitz's in the world that can play a violin, but almost all of us can make a violin squeak. So it's in that sense... [indecipherable]

RENSE: So the squeakers are the ones who line up to pay the $3000 for the 10 day RV courses, to teach the public and the average individual how to remote view, because we can all do it to a small degree, but how well developed that potential can actually become is such a highly individualized idea that it doesn't make sense.

MAY: That's exactly right, and in fact I have a great problem with those charging so much money for something that -- the government paid me a lot of money, actually, to find out whether you could train remote viewing, and we found -- because obviously they'd have a need, they'd like to go train psychic spies {laughs} [RENSE: Sure.] -- and so we looked at hundreds of different training routines and schemes and what have you, and I must say, I'm sad to report that we found no evidence to date that you could actually train remote viewing.

RENSE: Wow. None.

MAY: None.

RENSE: OK. You heard it from Dr. Edwin May, and we'll be right back with more, in just a couple of moments.


RENSE: Ok we're back, talking with Dr. Ed May, PhD about remote viewing. You can't teach it Ed, that's what you said.

MAY: Well, that's true, but let me add a slight hesitation on that. Let's suppose I can't teach you to become Yasha Heifitz if you don't have that natural gift --

RENSE: But you can sure help develop my potential.

MAY: That's right, and I can certainly teach you from going to squeaks to at least a recognizeable tune. In that sense, I could give you pointers; I think I would be wholly unethical if I asked you to pay me $3000 to do that, 'cause I could give you enough pointers in about a paragraph to go ahead and try it on your own.

RENSE: Yeah, the average person I understand can go through the simple protocols pretty quickly and easily, correct?

MAY: Yes, that's correct.

RENSE: OK. So, some people are born with an ability which is extraordinary, which allows them to actually acquire a target, up to 40 and 50% of the time. Now, let's take the best case scenario which I just described, someone who has a tremendous ability, a prodigious talent in this remote viewing field, they can acquire a target 40 to 50% of the time, what is the percentage of accuracy in that 40 or 50%? How much of the target are they getting?

MAY: Well, as you can well imagine, we've developed measures that are quite precise to answer that exact question. About 15% of the time, of those really correct answers, [they] are so accurate you would think that the person traced the target photograph. Now in the field, for intelligence purposes, where we can actually test those techniques on similar kinds of targets in the United States, like often our government might want to know if a facility had a high energy laser weapon in there, or chemical weapons system, we can test this by targeting remote viewers against similar facilities here in the US. There we can get exact measures. And what we found out, like Mr. McMoneagle who you'll talk to soon, he was running consistently, 80% of what he said was correct on the target, and he described correctly about 80% of what was in the target.

RENSE: Phenomenal.

MAY: That IS phenomenal.

RENSE: How is Joe -- he's on this program tonight -- why is Joe on the loose? Why isn't Mr. McMoneagle under contract, long term for life, by the intelligence agencies?

MAY: Well he is with me. I wish we were both under contract with the government.

RENSE: Oh. Well we're gonna talk to him just after the newsbreak in a couple of minutes, and ask him about some of the extraordinary things, those that he can talk about tonight -- again, both of my guests tonight are under national security restrictions to talk about a whole lot, but we've gotten an awful lot Dr. May from you this first hour, Joe McMoneagle will join us now in hour #2, you're going to stay with us in hour number two, we'll try and get some calls. Is the government today as interested in remote viewing as it was five or ten years ago?

MAY: Sadly, I don't think so. You know one can always say well Ed gee, they really are they're just not telling you about it, and of course that's always possible

RENSE: How possible is that?

MAY: Unlikely, because, at least, I know quite well most of the US's best psychics or remote viewers, and none of them have been contacted that I know.

RENSE: So it would be difficult to put one past you, then.

MAY: It would be difficult.

RENSE: OK. So why isn't the government as interested now as it used to be?

MAY: Well the world's changed. We don't have a strategic adversary like the Soviet Union. Now the questions we're asking are things like gee, where is that terrorist bomber, and who did the Oklahoma bombing case and so on. And those questions are a little harder to answer by Remote Viewing, that's one problem, and another one is, we're all concerned about shrinking budgets, correctly, we don't want the government to spend as much of our money as they used to in days gone by. So there's less funds and there's more competition.

MAY: Amazing answer. So if Joe McMoneagle can hit 80% and have an 80% accuracy rate, I find it hard to believe the government wouldn't extend for that.

RENSE: Me too.

MAY: OK. Good answer. Hour number 1 with Dr. Edwin May is now complete, we'll be back right after news with Joe McMoneagle and Dr. Ed May here at the End of the Line.


RENSE: Welcome back everybody, hour number two. Joining Dr. Edwin May, a U.S. physicist, for the second hour and the third hour as well, is Joe McMoneagle, one of the six original government top secret military remote viewers. Joe McMoneagle was the only subject who stayed in the program its entire period of existence, from October 1978 right on through November 1995. He was also one of [only] two subjects [who] participated in both the applications side and the R&D side of remote viewing. Joe McMoneagle has now done over 4000 remote viewings, for the record, meaning under strict controls. He has done seven "put to the test" type RV's where he has done remote viewings on camera live while under very strict controls. Those include an ABC news special, Reader's Digest home video, and several other programs including a live remote view for CNN. Generally speaking, Joe McMoneagle's statistics for 19 years are like this: out of any 100 targets, he can be expected to hit the target about 55-60% of the time. Of the targets he hits on, he will get anywhere from 45-85% correct information on the average, on those target. On the targets he hits on, about 15-50% of the drawings of those targets will be near perfect overlays for the photographs of the actual target -- almost as if, as you heard Dr. Ed May say -- they were traced right over the photograph. So, remarkable talent, very happy to have him with us for this hour, hello to Joe McMoneagle. Hi Joe.

MCMONEAGLE: Hello Jeff, how are you?

RENSE: Fine thank you. This is a very sophisticated field that we're talking about tonight, very interesting, full of lots of strange energies, even if Ed May says you can't influence other people's minds {Ed laughs} -- my mind is alive and alert. I don't know folks, I've walked into rooms full of people all my life, and I've found people put out vibrations, if you want to call it that, and I don't know how you'd feel about that Joe, but do you think people can sense other people's thoughts and feelings pretty easily sometimes?

MCMONEAGLE: Well, it may occur spontaneously. I've seen a couple of experiments where we've captured the essence of something like that in a lab scenario. But for the most part I think when people walk into a room, what they're doing is they're processing the room in its entirety, I mean someone crossing their arms the wrong way can deliver a message, so it may be subtle, but it may not necessarily be psychic.

RENSE: Interesting. So, we see in our daily lives, through our five senses, all sorts of things that can predispose reactions and trigger reactions.

MCMONEAGLE: Oh absolutely. Just the way you present yourself to someone will have an effect.

RENSE: How is that you stayed in this program as long as you did?

MCMONEAGLE: Well mostly, I was lucky in that I was able to spend a great deal of it in the research side, where my curiosity probably kept me going. I'm not sure I could have lasted that length of time had I just stayed in the military, or the applications side of the program.

RENSE: When you first became interested in this field, how did the government actually latch onto you? What was the mechanism involved?

MCMONEAGLE: Well originally what they did is they actually designed a criteria, or a list of criteria, that they felt would probably identify individuals that had some talent. They didn't know if this would work or not, but in the development of those criteria, they then went around and interviewed hundreds of individuals within the Army intelligence command, and I fell out as a result of some of those interviews.

RENSE: Hmmn. And you first met Ed May when?

MCMONEAGLE: I actually met Ed May when I first went out to SRI in October of 1978 to be exposed to remote viewing. He participated in some of my original six experiments, was either the outbounder or participated in some way.

RENSE: With respect to working as a remote viewer for all these years, there were six of you. Were you a tight knit group, did you know each other well, did you spend time together, in this program?

MCMONEAGLE: The original six people, we were very much a tight knit group. In the original group, there were two women, but they did not stay in the program very long, as the structure of the command was not supportive to women at the time. So they felt that they weren't being given as much respect perhaps as the male participants.

RENSE: Was there a lot of pressure on you because of the Cold War, were you aware of the fact that you were in a very top secret position, and did you feel some sort of incumbent responsibility to exercise your talents any more creatively than you otherwise might?

MCMONEAGLE: Well, actually, I was in an extremely important position when I was recruited for the project, and it was with curiosity that I actually started my participation. Originally I was working part time in the project, and the project was designed to just address the issue of whether or not it could be done. What unfortunately happened is we were overtaken by a serious situation, which was the Iran hostage scenario, and as a result of the difficulties in collecting intelligence on that, we were given the task of trying to target it. And it worked so well in fact that it sort of opened the barn doors.

RENSE: Can you share any of that with us tonight?

MCMONEAGLE: Well I can talk a little bit about the Iran hostage problem. One of the difficulties of course was the inaccessibility to the embassy compound in Tehran. Using remote viewers we were able to produce some interesting insights with regard to who was holding the hostages, where they were being held, their conditions, their mental and physical state. We were addressing problems such as which would be a possible ingress/egress route to the compound, booby traps that might have been set, a whole raft of different things.

RENSE: Now you're mentioning a lot of things here, you're not talking too specifically about them, but I get the impression that these were the areas that you had some success with.

MCMONEAGLE: We had a number of significant successes. We also had a number of just outright failures. It was a new process and we were trying to adapt it to an emergency situation.

RENSE: Joe were you involved in any way in planning that attempted -- you must have been -- hostage rescue mission that went so terribly awry in the desert?

MCMONEAGLE: Well there's a lot of reasons why that happened. Let's just say that I think the President made the right decision when he decided to call that particular raid off.

RENSE: Hmmn. OK. What are some of the misbeliefs about what you did with the government? What do people think that happened that really didn't happen?

MCMONEAGLE: There's a lot of misconceptions about remote viewing that have sort of been birthed out of the media frenzy that followed the disclosure about the project. Some of those beliefs are that remote viewing can be used very well for locating missing people or lost objects, that sort of thing, and in fact that's probably one of the most difficult things that it can be used for; there's a lot of complications that come about when you're trying to use it for location purposes. There's also a misconception that it's used to specifically target individuals in some way that's nefarious, when in fact the only reason for even having a person as a target would be to obtain a description of the location in which they might be standing, that it would be important for another reason.

RENSE: Let's talk about the Gulf War. There was a lot of talk that there was a big priority on killing Saddam Hussein, were the remote viewers used to your knowledge at that time to try and locate Saddam Hussein, can you talk about that?

MCMONEAGLE: What I can say about it is that in my perception, no one was targeted against this Saddam Hussein for, you know, an attempt on his life or anything directly. In reality what we do know is that in the beginning of a conflict or a war that we're going to be involved in, the head commander or the leader of the nation that you're fighting is more than likely going to be locating himself within proximity to his centralized command and control center, or his center of communications. If you don't know specifically where that is, and you have a possible say four locations, then remote viewing can provide you with a sufficient description of perhaps a building or a location that will then help identify which of those locations they may be located in.

RENSE: You had a long career in the military. You're a remote viewer now and you're given a target -- are you given all the parameters for that target, are you told in a total sense what the mission is about, or are you pretty much pigeonholed and kept focused on one item?

MCMONEAGLE: No actually, the way the targeting is done, the actual target material is selected by someone who does not participate in the collection of the information. It may be a black and white photograph showing the roof of a building, or it may be a picture of a doorway leading into a specific building, and that's given of course to the remote viewer by someone who also has no knowledge of what that means. And that may come with a question like, "Can you draw a diagram of the floor plan for the building to which this is the doorway?"

RENSE: And that's it?

MCMONEAGLE: That's it. And then based on what you might draw, they may come back and say, we have an interest in this room you labeled "the D room" or "room 13" or whatever.

RENSE: Now Dr. May, you're still there?

MAY: Yes I am.

RENSE: Good. Anything to contribute at this point?

MAY: Well I would like to back up, in the introduction, the statistics you gave for Joe's lifelong career statistics, and I can say having been part of most of that in the laboratory, it's not at all an exaggeration, which is what one hears often, too much in this field.

RENSE: Joe how do you feel about these people, and I'll name names here, they're out there in public, Courtney Brown, who allegedly studied remote viewing under Ed Dames, Ed Dames in particular has lately been talking about some large cylindrical object traveling with the Hale-Bopp comet which is supposedly full of deadly pathogens of one kind or another -- ah, how do you feel about that, after having been in the program for much of your professional life?

MCMONEAGLE: Well, my experience -- you know, I can't comment on where they're getting their ideas, but what I can say is based on my own experience and what I've observed, I don't know a single person that participated in the program that was a good remote viewer that didn't spend somewhat in excess of two years in training, and that by training I mean exposure to remote viewing and hammering away at it, practicing on a day to day basis for that two year period. So I don't know anyone's being taught, in the amount of time they say they're being taught in.

RENSE: So $3000 in 10 days makes no sense to you.

MCMONEAGLE: No, in fact, most of the technology can be delivered in probably about eight or nine hours.

MAY: Jeff may I butt in here for a second?

RENSE: Sure.

MAY: What's very clear from Mr. Dames's own personal records is that he was never, never underlined, a remote viewer for the Army project. His role in that was an interviewer to interview other remote viewers. He was not a remote viewer.

MCMONEAGLE: That's correct.

RENSE: Interesting. And he, he taught Courtney Brown as I understand it.

MAY: Right.

MCMONEAGLE: That's what I understand.

RENSE: He has been quoted as saying he is not happy with Courtney Brown because Mr. Brown didn't finish the program, and then went off and launched his own school to teach it. There is some interesting backbiting going on there.

MAY: I had the experience of listening to Ed Dames while, I think he was interviewed on another talk show overnight. Where he made that claim about there's some serious pathogen that he remote viewed accompanying the comet -- and quite frankly, I feel in my own view that that's -- exceptionally irresponsible, in the following way. Let's give Ed Dames the benefit of the doubt, and say he has a hit rate as good as Joe McMoneagle's, and he's accurate say, gets the right answer in a lab setting, 50% of the time. That means he's got a 50/50 chance of this being wrong. And to scare an awful lot of innocent people with this seeming authority is just irresponsible to all concerned, in my view.

RENSE: Yeah. Alright, we're gonna pause here for a couple of moments and come right back with Joe McMoneagle and Dr. Ed May, here at The End of the Line.


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

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

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

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


MAY: I have also.

RENSE: An opinion on it?

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

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

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

MCMONEAGLE: Psychic Warrior.

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

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


MAY: Yes?

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


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

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

RENSE: Kind of sounds like Journalism 101 to me.

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


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

RENSE: You're talking about disinformation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RENSE: And you were correct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RENSE: Alright we're back, with Joe McMoneagle -- when you talked about General Dozier Joe, I was thinking of the CIA station chief in Beruit who got kidnapped -- what was that case about, and did you have anything to do with that one?

MCMONEAGLE: Actually, it was a Colonel Higgens, I believe that was his name. He was moved around quite frequently from area to area, over an extended period of time. And over that extended period of time he was murdered by his captors.

RENSE: Were you folks involved in trying to track him, can you talk about that at all?

MCMONEAGLE: He was actually tracked by us, and fairly accurately, of course there was no way to know at the time that the descriptions we were giving matched fairly closely with many of the locations that he was actually being held in. That was later confirmed by other hostages that had been held with him.

RENSE: Alright, what we're gonna do is give the phone number out now,1-800-298-8255. If you have any questions about remote viewing, you won't get a better opportunity than this one, to ask two of the best on the planet. Damien has called in early from Florida, and go ahead Damien, you're on the air.

CALLER: {dryly} Man, I feel so safe when I hear these fine, fine intelligence officers. I'd like to ask them something. In what as known as your... in other words, you guys are so sharp, why don't you report that in 1953 Eisenhower, with John Foster Dulles, gave the order for the assassination of a great leader by the name of Laboomba {sp?} that eventually, let's see, who was the station chief down there at that time, a gentleman named Frank Carlucci, and you know who Carlucci was --

RENSE: Damien are you talking about Patrice Lamoomba, the African leader?


RENSE: Well that wasn't 1953, that was subsequent to that, and we're getting a little off the subject here, do you have a direct question you want to ask? That's fine if you do.

CALLER: Well I - ah - OK. I would like to know in what year the CIA got involved in the biological warfare, because we started it, you know that.

RENSE: OK, alright, that's a little bit askew here, but we'll ask if either one of the gentlemen want to comment about the nefarious world of biological chemical warfare weaponry that we're so deeply involved with -- didn't have much to do with remote viewing but -- were you called upon at any time Joe to try to do any remote viewing regarding anyone else's chemical and biological warfare weapons?

MCMONEAGLE: There were numerous occasions when we did target biologic warfare facilities. I can't say when or where, but we did do that. I of course was an Army intelligence officer, so I don't know a great deal about most of what the CIA does, although I did remote viewing for the CIA.

MAY: Let me reiterate as I said earlier that the CIA had very little direct involvement in the day to day activity; they certainly tracked it and did some tasking, but most of the work was handled by DIA and other intelligence agencies.

RENSE: Alright, we're gonna take our next break and come back. ...Give us a call and your questions will be answered by two of the best, right here at The End of the Line.


RENSE: OK, we should tell you that Joe McMoneagle has a book called "Mind Trek," coming out in about a month from Hampton Roads Publishing, it was first published in 1993, obviously a book to get and to read, maybe the best one yet in the field. There is a web site for Dr. Ed May, I'll give you that for those of you online, And we will go to the phones now, Jim is listening in by satellite in Vermont. Hi Jim, you're on the air.

CALLER: You got a great show. [RENSE: Thank you Sir.] Jeff, one thing, you're not afraid to be the devil's advocate, and the two gentlemen you have with you have been really honest.

RENSE: I think you're right.

CALLER: You know, it's not like the Courtney Brown and Ms. Calabrese?

RENSE: Prudence Calabrese.

CALLER: They seem to have disappeared off the map here for awhile. I don't know what his guests think of that --

RENSE: Well the heat in the kitchen got a little hot I think.

CALLER: I would say so. And you haven't been afraid to say, you know, penny-wise, pound-foolish, and let the wallet beware.

RENSE: Do you have a direct question Jim?

CALLER: Yes Sir. You gentleman have not been out really advocating books and everything else out here tonight, you've been just telling the story the way you feel remote viewing works, correct?

MAY: Correct.

MCMONEAGLE: That's essentially correct.

CALLER: And you haven't broken any security oaths?

MCMONEAGLE: Try not to.

MAY: Really. I don't wanna go to jail.

CALLER: Yes Sir. And you have a lot of believers, and you gotta realize that some of the former programming that was on other networks has broken a lot of people's faith in some of the talk shows, outside of Mr. Rense's show.

RENSE: Thank you Jim. That's what we're here to do, and people like you out there care, and that's what makes it all very much worthwhile.

CALLER: It's the only one worth listening to. [RENSE: Thank you.] So what can you tell us to help reassure the folks that there is a real scientific basis in remote viewing, and that we are not being just scammed for dollar signs, like the fellow down in Atlanta?

RENSE: OK Jim, good question, okay guys, what he wants to know is, if this is a real science, and we've been spending on our money, although not that much of it compared to what goodness knows the government spends on other programs, have we been spending it validly and wisely?

MAY: Well let me start off, and then Joe you might want to chime in here. First off, as Jeff indicated when the show began, that I'm currently the President of the Parapsychological Association, and I think most of your audience has probably heard of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is the supremo scientific organization which all the member organizations belong to, like the American Chemist's Society, American Physics Society, and we could not be a member of this august organization if our membership did not conduct experiments that conformed to the strictest rules of experimental protocols. And there are journals that are peer-reviewed, and we beat up on each other mercilessly to make sure we get the best possible science. So I can assure your listening audience that there is no question whatsoever, based not just on our laboratory results but based on the results of our lab in conjunction with laboratories all over the world for the last 25 years, that there is a phenomenon that we call ESP or Remote Viewing.

RENSE: Very good, well stated Ed. We're gonna break now for news and come back, and continue here at the End of the Line with Joe McMoneagle and Dr. Ed May.


RENSE: Welcome back everybody, our guests tonight Edwin May PhD, Dr. May who has been for some time now the Director of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research in Palo Alto, and who has presided over 70% of the $20 million spent to date by the government on remote viewing and parapsychological research, 85% of the data to date has been produced under Dr. May's watch. We also have with us Joe McMoneagle, whose new reissued book MIND TREK is due out in about a month, and we'll talk more about that. Joe of course, one of the original six government military remote viewers, who was with the program in its entirety from October 1978 through November 1995, who has done over 4000 remote viewings under strict controls, who has a remarkable success rate; 55-60% of the time he will get hits; of the targets he actually hits on, he usually scores between 45 and 85% correct information on each one of those hits. And 15-20% of the times he acquires his target, it will be as clear as if a tracing was done of a photograph, it is that accurate. We are very happy to have these gentlemen here tonight, we are trying to clear the air and bring focus to the phrase remote viewing, which has been dragged through the dirty wash in the last year, to be honest folks. So let's go back to the phones now and talk to Kyle, listening in on WICC in Bridgeport Connecticut. Hi Kyle you're on the air.

CALLER: Hi Jeff Rense. Southern Connecticut loves the End of the Line, which we hear on the Talk America radio network. We only get to hear you for two out of three hours on Sunday night, this happens from midnight till 2am. But my question, I'll get right to it -- it's like being fed meager, tiny portions of a delicious meal, and we look forward to every Sunday night here in Connecticut. [RENSE: Thank you Kyle, thanks very much.] My question for your guest remote viewer: I have only partial knowledge of, but I hope that my description will help you answer it -- apparently, a member of the rock group Iron Butterfly became involved in the field of physics. And was working on something very obscure and very secretive. This member of Iron Butterfly has disappeared. The great Congressman from the state of Ohio, James Traficant, has become involved in finding this member of Iron Butterfly. And from what I understand, he has employed the use of a remote viewer from the United States government, and I -- because I only have partial knowledge, I wish I could describe to you more of what I'm asking -- I'm wondering if your remote viewer knows anything of what I'm talking about, or if there's anything he'd add to quench my curiosity.

RENSE: Ok Kyle, well stated -- Joe, it sounds like an interesting case, have you heard anything about it?

MCMONEAGLE: Absolutely nothing. I'm obviously not the remote viewer working on it. That doesn't mean there isn't one working on it. There's a number of ex-members of the project who probably might be. I wouldn't know where to begin to guess which one, but like I said earlier, trying to locate missing individuals is extremely difficult using remote viewing.

CALLER: Yes I remember you saying that, which made me think right back to this. This was on the show "Strange Universe" which is a television show, which talks about controversial subjects like this. I have a great respect for remote viewing, and that our government invested money in it; James Traficant, a Democrat from Ohio, is a Congressman who does not stick to the party line, he does what's right for the right thing, I'm not sure you're familiar with him, he's a good man, and it's unfortunate, I feel bad that you don't know the story I'm talking about. The Iron Butterfly fellow had something to do with physics, tachyons, breaking the speed of light. He disappeared, and apparently before his disappearance he said to his wife, "If I ever claim to commit suicide, don't believe it." And lo and behold months later, he said he was going to commit suicide. But I guess we've hit a dead end here.

RENSE: Well it's an interesting scenario, I didn't catch the program on TV, but do keep us posted Kyle, I'll put my feelers out and see what we can pull in on this end, thanks for bringing it to our attention.

CALLER: Thank you very much, and thank you for End of the Line.

[Transcriber note: The caller is referring to ex-DIA remote viewers Paul Smith and Leonard Buchanan. The television show Strange Universe featured a segment on "The Assigned Witness Program," an organization founded by Buchanan which for free uses Remote Viewers to assist law enforcement officials in solving crimes and locating missing children. In this case, Smith and Buchanan were featured working as Viewer and Monitor, respectively, on the missing person case of Philip Taylor Kramer, the musician/physicist mentioned.]

RENSE: You're welcome very much, and thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it very much. Let's go on to Ed at Naugatuck Connecticut, listening to WATR, Ed you're on the air.

CALLER: Yes, I have some questions for you guys. At what point did the DIA say, knew that the Soviets were for real, when it came to breaking down the wall in Berlin, and they were serious about giving up their military power and not be a threat to the United States -- at what point did the U.S. feel secure enough with that knowledge, and did the Vatican, through the Pope, was he an intermediary, in other words, did the parapsychologists on both sides communicate with each other, and have the Vatican as the demarcation line, in other words a safe place for that?

RENSE: OK, I think we have the question, let's see what the gentlemen have to say Ed, thank you.

MAY: Well, um, to my knowledge, prior to the fall of communism and the fall of the wall in Berlin, there was very little communication between the sides, except scientist to scientist at professional meetings. It was known however the Soviets were involved in this, there was a well known information theoretical scientist name I.N. Kogan [sp?] in Russian, who wrote a paper in the early 1970's in Russia titled "Is Telepathy Possible?" And it wasn't until 1992 that we were able to meet with professor Kogan and discuss issues, you know, points of common interest.

RENSE: Did you meet with him Dr. May?

MAY: Yes, I did.

RENSE: Did you feel that you were getting the whole story from him when you talked to him, do scientists usually 'fess up?

MAY: No question about it. In 1992 when I first met Kogan I said "Professor, I've got good news and bad news." I said, "One of your theories that you wrote about in 1971 I think is wrong. The good news, here's another part of it that I think is right." And he said, well I'm glad you feel that way Ed, because I think that is the exact case today. We had a marvelous exchange, and we are in constant contact with each other now.

RENSE: How interesting. Joe, what about that? Were you guys used to remote view the pending collapse of the Soviet Union? Any aspects of the Berlin Wall coming down and so forth?

MCMONEAGLE: No, in fact, we were never targeted against anything that -- that national I guess -- most of what we were targeted against were the nuts and bolts types of intelligence requirements, where you're looking for say a listening device in a room, or that sort of thing.

RENSE: Were you able to find those pretty well, to debug rooms at distance?

MCMONEAGLE: It's not difficult. In fact, not only can you use remote viewing for doing that, you can also give a pretty good description of where the people are sitting that are listening to those devices.

RENSE: {laughs} Oh! How very interesting -- yeah. Gloria in West Palm Beach has been patiently waiting, it's your turn Gloria, hi, how are you?

CALLER: I wanted to ask, and I want to thank you for such valuable information tonight as every Sunday night... a friend of mine has already ordered the remote viewing course, that some of us were going to share the expense, however, it's been about a month and it wasn't going to be shipped until March or something, so you know, it was way in advance that she ordered it, and I don't recall if it was Aames or Brown, I think it was Aames for some reason, of course I was familiar with Courtney Brown much more so, so I forgot the other name --

RENSE: Dames with a "D."

CALLER: Oh Dames, okay. And I'm assuming after tonight, listening to y'all tonight, it rang a bell all of the sudden that that's who it was, but anyway, it's only $250 which used to be $3000 we were told, and he's moving to some other part of this world, you know, out of this country, so he's going to sell all of his technology. If it's only $250 for the course that used to be $3000, do you think it is worth the $250, rather than the $3000 that y'all are already saying is just outrageous. Would there be enough that we could -- because all of us have psychic abilities anyway, who are wanting to do this, well most of us, somewhat psychic abilities, and a few of us --

MAY: Well my advice would be, save yourself $250, go spend -- I don't know how much your book costs Joe, but I'd go buy McMoneagle's book, and tune into our web site, and for essentially free you can get the same information.

CALLER: Oh really? About the techniques to use?

MAY: Yes.

MCMONEAGLE: I would like to add something to this. One of the things that you have to understand is that what I've essentially observed over the 19 years I've been doing this, is that the vast proportion of human life on the face of the planet probably possesses some psychic ability, and it certainly occurs spontaneously. But the psychic ability is generally, it comes across very much as a talent that we're born with. It would be very much like innate music ability or athletic ability. You wouldn't expect to take someone just because they like to run, and expect them to compete within say an Olympics within five years. Likewise, there are a lot of people who enjoy music very very much, but are incapable of playing an instrument. Remote viewing's very much like that; the technology is easily transferred. The ability is extremely difficult to polish. And most of the training mechanisms address only the rudimentary or the gestaltic portion of remote viewing, they don't address the higher order analysis functioning that goes on, that's generally talent- dependent.

CALLER: Yes, thanks a lot, I think we will just get your book, and it's terrific that you've written one that's so knowledgeable, you know, for the rest of us.

RENSE: I'll give you the web address again as well. The book is called MIND TREK, published in 1993 originally, by Hampton Roads Publishing, it's going to be reissued in about a month, and it'll be in what Joe, most bookstores by then?

[Transcriber note: You can find information about Mr. McMoneagle's book MIND TREK here.]

MCMONEAGLE: Yes, it should be in distribution within 3 1/2 - 4 weeks.

CALLER: Now, as far as astral projection and bilocation and stuff like that, this is much more of a technological method, rather than a spiritual flight type of thing?

MCMONEAGLE: What actually differentiates remote viewing from astral projection or any other psychic method is the fact that remote viewing is always done within a very specifically outlined and unusual protocol, that's not usual to other types of psychic functioning. That's what differentiates it.

RENSE: And the web address --

MAY: Can I interrupt here for a minute, make it a little easier for those searching for the web site? Rather than -- we can certainly give you the long complicated address -- but one way to do this is to log on to the world wide web, and use any one of the search engines there that will help you find / locate things, and search for my name, Edwin C. May, and our home page for the laboratory will come up, and it will tell you all the details of how to conduct an experiment.

[Transcriber note: Again, the web address for the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory is]

RENSE: Wow, okay, so I guess, maybe the lesson here is, don't spend $250 for a Ouija board, or something.

CALLER: {laughs} Great, great, well they'll be glad to hear that then.

MAY: {laughs... indecipherable}

CALLER: Thanks so much, and good luck to all of you.

RENSE: That's interesting, fire sale prices guys, $3000 marked down to $250?

MAY: Yeah really. Ed Dames must be falling on hard times here.

RENSE: I don't know... alright, we're gonna take a break here and come back, the phone number again 1-800-298-8255. I'm Jeff Rense, this is the End of the Line and we'll be right back.


RENSE: Alright gentlemen, let's move on to the phones. Bob, as I see by my notes, Idaho Falls Idaho. Hello Bob, you're on the air.

CALLER: Thanks for taking my call. I was wondering, have these guys done much forward viewing I guess you would call it, with some of the earth changes we might be experiencing, political changes, stuff like that, in the future for the United States, have they done much of that?

MCMONEAGLE: One of the things that I've been working on as a follow-on book to Mind Trek is, I've been trying to collect remote viewings dealing with the future. One of the things that's apparent about the future is that we will all be here in 1000 years. One of the other things apparent about the future is that there will be changes certainly in the climate. I don't foresee any megalithic changes, you know like instantaneous type changes, but I do see some rather varying degrees of the average temperatures and perhaps water levels.

CALLER: What about the more immediate future, like the next 5-10 years? Can you narrow that down a little bit better? Thanks for taking my call.

MCMONEAGLE: The next five to ten years, I don't foresee anything other than perhaps a marked increase, and by marked increase I mean probably a 5-8% increase in the severity of storms, but this is probably going to be a direct result of half degree or quarter degree change in temperature across the earth.

RENSE: Ed let me ask you a question. With regard to seeing in the future, is this a taboo area?

MAY: Well, one thing nice about being in science is, as long as you can collect data under good protocols there isn't such a thing as a taboo area.

RENSE: How about with respect to national security, that was my point, this is a very interesting area that Joe was opening up here, I mean are you guys, let's call it like it is, is this a real hot ticket item, looking into the future? I gotta think it is.

MAY: Well, what the data show in the laboratory is that doing, looking into the future, there's a name for it these days called "Precognition", it's no more or no less accurate or reliable as regular remote viewing is. And so, it suffers both from the successes and the failures that you would expect from just normal remote viewing. Clearly, forecasting the future could be very helpful, even if you're only right statistically, if you could, suppose you're searching for a kidnap victim and they're moving them around as Joe described in the Iran hostage situation, wouldn't it be nice to sort of know where they're gonna put the hostage next? Even if you're only right 10% of the time, getting there in advance could save that hostage's life.

RENSE: Joe did much of your remote viewing involve trying to clear ahead, at various targeted objects and subjects?

MCMONEAGLE: Well, of course the most valuable use for that would be when you're trying to use other collection methods and you need a date/time, and perhaps a direction in which to point an overhead collection platform or something. Quite a bit of that was done, and it worked about as well as it normally works in normal remote viewing. There is a unique twist that occurs with future viewing however, it's sort of a technical problem. If you can imagine, if we were living in the year say, 1895, and we were to target the lab where the first pump laser was built and tested, we may get a 100% perfect description of that pump laser, but we will have absolutely no understanding of the concept on how or why it works. So even having the 100% correct information won't be of any benefit to us.

RENSE: Well I would suggest that being able, as you are Joe, to acquire a target 55-60% of the time, looking into the future would be pretty damned interesting.

MAY: {laughs}

MCMONEAGLE: Well in fact I did spend, just to underscore how difficult missing people is --

RENSE: If I could ask you kindly to wait, we have to break, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we will continue with this in just about three minutes with Joe and Ed, what a subject, what an interesting program. We'll be right back.


RENSE: Alright we're back with Joe McMoneagle, who was about to give an answer here, Joe please continue.

MCMONEAGLE: In the case of missing individuals, one of the more interesting ones that I did work on for a period of almost three and a half years was a missing child. I did it for a prosecuting attorney in one of my neighboring states here. We were successful in a three and a half year period of locating where that child had been moved to twice, but we were always a few weeks behind; that person that took the child would always pack and move. And in an attempt to get ahead of that person, we decided to do a precognitive targeting of who he might contact next. In that case, I gave a description, and of course the police had access to descriptions of his friends and whatnot, and he did in fact call the person that I described a number of days later, and we were able to locate the child in a South American country.

RENSE: Wow. So much to talk about. Tom is on the phone, been waiting patiently from Panama City Florida, go ahead Tom, it's your turn.

CALLER: Yes, good evening gentlemen. I would like some more information, and would like to know if it's in your book, on this body transportation, or the simulation of flight? I believe I experienced that a number of times, not regularly, but probably once a month.

RENSE: What are you talking about exactly Tom, I'm not following you?

CALLER: It seems like you come out of your body --

RENSE: Oh out of body experience or astral projection, yeah, go ahead Joe, comment on that, we touched on that earlier.

MCMONEAGLE: I do touch on that somewhat in my book. I had a near death experience in 1970 while overseas, and as a result I started experiencing that myself in a spontaneous way, and to date I still have those spontaneously. I guess the comment that I would make is that as long as it's not creating some undue fear or apprehension, that I would pursue it, I'd see where I could go with it.

CALLER: Sometimes it's not real pleasant, when it occurs in the home it's not real pleasant, but if I get outside it's very pleasant, it's very unusual and I was just wondering if your book touches on that in any detail.

MCMONEAGLE: I don't touch on it in the sense that I instruct people on how to do that or anything. But I do talk about it and compare it to other forms of paranormal occurrences.

CALLER: Could you recommend any other, I know, I am gonna get your book, but could you recommend another?

MCMONEAGLE: Yes, there's a really good book that was written some time ago by a man named Robert Monroe, and it's called "Journeys Out of the Body," a classic in the field, yes.

CALLER: Thank you sir. [Joe: Uh huh.]

RENSE: Thank you Tom for the call. Joe how much of your work -- and again you indicated earlier that we can only discuss really about 1% of your remote viewing as being outside the bounds of national security -- how much of that work if any was involved with you looking into the question of extraterrestrial intelligence?

MCMONEAGLE: Absolutely none. {laughs} I actually did no targeting of extraterrestrials or craft or anything of the sort while I was involved with the project. I did do, on one occasion I did do a series of remote viewings which are listed in my book, I did them for someone from NASA, where I was asked to target specific coordinates, and I was not told that the coordinates were on the face of Mars. And the descriptions I gave were fairly accurate with regard to matching the actual location that the coordinates were designating on the face of Mars.

RENSE: Did you happen to draw a face by any chance?

MCMONEAGLE: No, that was not one of the targets. The targets were actually specifically selected so that I would not know that I was on the face of Mars. Part of the fallout from that, and I talk about this in the book, is a perception of another race of people, but I caution the reader that just because that occurred in conjunction with remote viewing doesn't guarantee that it's true. Of course, the only way to prove that would be to go to Mars and you know, collect the information.

MAY: I have a suggestion of a few people I'd like to go on that one way mission actually, but maybe they should be nameless. {group laughter}

RENSE: Alright let's go back to the phones, Dee is on the line from Grand Rapids Michigan, welcome aboard Dee.

CALLER: Yes thanks fellas for your broadcast. I just tuned in to hear what was going on and I heard the guest mention that he planned to be, or that there would be people here 1000 years from now. But I wanted to recommend to you the one book in all the world which is the most wonderful book and that's the King James version of the bible -- now you remember Noah preached for 120 years that the flood was going to come and only 7 members of his family believed it, but we all know that the flood did come, but it says in there that in such an hour you think not the son of man is going to come and the Lord did not tell the time, but he said to be watching and to be ready and it says in there he's gonna come back in the twinkling of an eye and the computers say that that is 11/100ths of a second and then any indecision is a "no" decision and you'd be --

RENSE: Let me ask -- Dee hang on a sec -- let me ask a question, a larger question before we get too far afield -- you brought up a very good point -- how does Christianity and the bible and religion and spirituality play into all this Joe and Ed, this is a very big issue.

MAY: An important issue. Go ahead Joe.

MCMONEAGLE: Actually, what happens in particular with a remote viewer as they get more and more involved in this is, if they weren't spiritual when they started, they become spiritual in the process. One of the reasons why that occurs is there is a huge leap of, shall we say, philosophic understanding, and there's a lot more importance recognized with regard to how we relate to each other as individuals, and how we respect one another's religions. I don't actually claim a very specific religion, but I do find that I can be a lot more open and a lot more supportive of probably most of the religions that I've come in contact with now as a result.

MAY: Jeff, looking at this in sort of a complimentary fashion to what Joe just said but from a scientific point of view, what's particularly critical about research in parapsychology and psychic phenomena is that for the very very first time in the course of human history, we're able to address questions of spirituality and religion in scientifically meaningful ways. We've never had an opportunity to do that. But keep in mind that's kind of a double edged sword. If you're starting to ask questions about the existence of God, and be able to test those questions in the laboratory using remote viewing or other kinds of techniques, you had better be prepared for the answer, you might not like it. And let me give you just a one sentence quote from the Dalai Lama, the 14th Dalai Lama who's the spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhists, you may know of him of course. The 14th Dalai Lama has stated many times that if science can disprove a Buddhist doctrine, such as rebirth for instance, than the doctrine should be put aside. Modern science, says the Dalai Lama, and Buddhism cannot contradict, because Buddhism is based on reality. That's a quote from the Dalai Lama. So if this spiritual leader can feel comfortable with his religious beliefs and the flow of science, I think there's hope for all of us.

RENSE: Another interesting comment Ed, thank you. We're about ready to take a break. Let's leave you at the break here with this message: "Sooner or later everyone stumbles across the truth. Unfortunately, most pick themselves up and continue on as if nothing happened." We'll be right back.


RENSE: OK we're back. What is the government's current disposition, officially, toward you Joe McMoneagle? Are you out?

MCMONEAGLE: Yes, I'm not a member of the government so to speak, I'm a retired Army officer.

RENSE: Well you still have to keep 99% of what you did quiet for the time being.

MCMONEAGLE: Oh absolutely. It's part of my agreement with the government by participating in certain programs, I agree not to talk about them in detail.

RENSE: Are you for hire?

MCMONEAGLE: I have a company, called Intuitive Intelligence Applications, and I do jobs where I think the remote viewing can be of value or be of service.

RENSE: Alright, Intuitive Intelligence Applications Inc., the snailmail address is PO Box 100 Nellysford Virginia 22958 USA. Can we give the number out?

MCMONEAGLE: No, I would prefer they write, because I evaluate each problem --

RENSE: I caught myself on that. OK, if you want to talk to this most, most interesting man, Joe McMoneagle, or Ed May for that matter, we'll give you his address as well. Joe has his own company called Intuitive Intelligence Applications, well named. And I would assume that there is a sliding scale, right Joe?

MCMONEAGLE: Yes there is, it's a very large one. I generally don't do treasure hunting. I take serious inquiries. I do a lot of things for mining companies, and people who are interested in trying to apply it to say, produce an edge in terms of technology, that sort of thing. Ed, you have a comment, I can tell.

MAY: No... I think one of the roles we've had throughout the years is, rather than do dry boring academic research, we've been successful at being funded and actually learned about research primarily because we've developed uses and ways of applying remote viewing. And Joe's company is just one example of that.

RENSE: You know I still have to get back to that most intriguing idea of future viewing. And I just really think that that's an area that merits further discussion on this program at some point in time. Ed did you do much work with that concept in the lab over these last 20 years, future viewing?

MAY: Yes, we've certainly done a lot of that sort of work, other laboratories in the US such as Princeton and other universities have done also a great deal of work. One of the approaches we've had is to use -- because remote viewing is not all that accurate compared to reading a book let's say -- we've used techniques from a science called Information Science, you know, if you have a hard disk on your computer, it isn't 100% accurate, and they use very clever techniques to decrease the error rate, called using information theory. We've done that same sort of thing with remote viewing, and successfully, although not often, won money on the stock market and the horse races, using information theory to enhance the normal probability of future remote viewing.

RENSE: Interesting. All done in the name of science of course.

MAY: Yeah, I haven't won much money out of it, I gotta tell you. We haven't funded our project that way. {laughs}

RENSE: Very interesting. Ed, do you have a written address you want to give out too? If people want to write to you?

MAY: Sure, that would be just fine. The laboratory address is 330 Cowper Street Suite 200 Palo Alto California 94301 USA.

RENSE: And how 'bout your email address if you'd like to give that out?

MAY: That is a very good way to communicate with us. We try our best to answer all emails, although you can imagine we get many. And that is

RENSE: Alright that's simple enough. We are just about out of time, we have one more break here and we'll come back and wrap this thing up. The future of the government's involvement in remote viewing at this point Joe, how would you sum it up in a sentence or two?

MCMONEAGLE: In a sentence or two? They aren't involved. And I don't foresee their involvement in the very near future.

RENSE: Is that said after remote viewing the subject? {group laughter}

MCMONEAGLE: No, that's said having been 20 years in that business and knowing how they think and operate.

RENSE: How interesting. Ed?

MAY: Well I have to agree, I'm sorry to say that's probably the case.

RENSE: Really interesting, and again, people might be listening who didn't hear early on, we did touch on this, but WHY would the government not pursue this?

MAY: Well I don't know, you'll have to ask them. I think you should.

RENSE: There you go. Alright, see the answer is not real crystal clear here. Alright we're gonna take our last break and return in just a couple of minutes with Joe McMoneagle and Ed May.


RENSE: And let's assume that the government really is sort of out of the remote viewing business, and Joe you concur that that appears to the be the issue. Are we to maybe surmise that the government might have come up with something better?

MAY: Oh dear. I think that's a tad of wishful thinking Jeff {sighs}. The government's under a lot of pressure from a number of fronts. The positive side of this is, the world in one sense has become a safer place, in the fall of the Soviet Union, and so we don't have a major adversary, and there aren't a lot of nuclear weapons pointed at us. On the other side of the coin however, it's become a more dangerous place, because [of] the threat of terrorism and the lack of control over weapons of mass destruction and so on. Given that that world situation has changed, given that there's this huge pressure on Congress by our population, voting-public, to slice as much out of the government funding as we possibly can, worthy programs are being set aside from government sponsorship to so-called private sponsorship, even though there may not be any. So there just frankly isn't a lot of research money available for a variety of programs, not the least of which would be remote viewing.

RENSE: A lot of people listening would maybe say, 'What about the black budget money', which is almost limitless in some people's minds, but I guess that's another issue. Joe how 'bout it?

MCMONEAGLE: I think when it comes to the large digits and the black budget, those are going to very high-tech, very costly technology types of developments. In terms of remote viewing, I'd like to add something to what Ed said. One of the greatest potential targets for remote viewing that seem to be in fact more effective targets to operate with remote viewing are nuclear material type targets, and remote viewing could provide a 30% or 35% edge at minimum on locating materials that were stolen or are being moved or have the potential of being used for terrorism. And I think not to address that is almost unconsciounable.

MAY: And those numbers that Joe just told you really come about from lengthy series of experiments, not looking for nuclear weapons, but being blind targeted against research reactors at various universities, which have radioactive material in them, as opposed to piles of bricks, as a control.

RENSE: That's very interesting, so nuclear installations are easier to target and pick up.

MAY: It's not so much the installation per se, because a pile of bricks and a reactor look somewhat similar to each other; it has to do with one of our scientific findings, things that change rapidly are easier to "see" by remote viewing.

RENSE: I understand, as in nuclear reactions, and plutonium and all those other very active elements, how interesting.


RENSE: Alright gentlemen, it has been a remarkable program, Dr. Edwin C. May, I want to thank you for coming back again to try to clear the air, it's been extraordinary. And Joe McMoneagle, we're gonna look for that book coming out very shortly, MIND TREK, and we'll all be wanting to get hold of that, why don't you come back and talk to us maybe in about a month when the book is out, will you do that?

MCMONEAGLE: I certainly will.

RENSE: OK. Thanks Ed!

MAY: You're welcome Jeff, it's been a pleasure as always.

RENSE: Thank you sir. And thank you Joe, very much for your time, we all appreciate it.

MCMONEAGLE: Thank you Jeff.

RENSE: OK, and thanks to all of you... thanks for being with us tonight. Until next time, this is Jeff Rense wishing you all a good night, and good luck.


[end transcript]



Ed May's web site, the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory:

Joe McMoneagle's business, Intuitive Intelligence Applications
PO Box 100 Nellysford VA 22958
Joe McMoneagle's website:

Transcribed from audio cassette which was courtesy of Jeff Rense
Transcribed by PJ Gaenir,

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