The Truth About Remote Viewing
Remote Viewing continues to blossom on the internet and in the alternative media. It is on the verge of turning into the hot, new conversation piece at trendy parties and confabs and is fast becoming a stylish item to be into.
During the past year, "Remote Viewers" and Experts have been popping up like so many mushrooms on the internet offering everything from $3,000 10-day courses to books and videos to free internet do-it-yourself instructions. (There is no doubt a customized license plate: RMTEVWR on the loose somewhere...)
Along with the semi-mass merchandising of Remote Viewing, come the claims from remote viewing "experts" that range from the measured and intelligent to dire "end of the world" scenarios. These claims and counterclaims about what remote viewing does and does not do have become so complex and confusing, and the players so numerous, that it practically takes a PC database to keep them straight.
In an effort to clear the air of some of the hyperbole and adsurdity that has been running rampant lately, I asked Joe McMoneagle to put pen to paper (fingers to keyboard) and answer some questions about this perplexing and officially disavowed technology.
For the record, Joe McMoneagle was the only person who stayed in the government's top secret Stargate Remote Viewing project the entire period of its existence: October 1978 through November 1995. He has done more than 4,000 remote viewings under the strictest clinical controls. Although Joe says that he can only discuss approximately one percent of what he knows because of national security restraints, what he does say is more than compelling and gives us a hint of the vast potential of this misunderstood technology.
How good a Remote Viewer is Joe? His statistics in nearly 19 years of dedicated service to his country are: out of any 100 targets, he can be expected to hit the target 55-60% of the time. Of the targets he actually hits on, Joe will get anywhere from 45-85% correct information on the average. Further, of the targets he hits on, his drawings of the target will perfect overlays for photographs of the actual target.
For his superior contribution to the security of his country, Joe McMoneagle was awarded the Legion of Merit, the highest honor given in by Intelligence Community.
JR There is so much confusion out there about Remote Viewing that it seems that it will take repeated doses of consistent data to begin to influence large numbers of people as to the realities of this technology.
JM I agree. One of the ways people can help is by not believing outlandish claims. If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
JR The skeptical responses continue to center around the idea that the government has willingly given up a clearly valuable intelligence tool; people have a very hard time accepting that.
JM What people have to understand is the government is made up from political animals. People who learn very quickly to understand:
a.) What they can or cannot get away with (that is, what the American public will let them get away with).
b.) They understand what will or won't cost them their jobs.
c.) They do what Congress tells them to do.
Using psychics, at least in the eyes of the majority of the public, one has to look at the "giggle factor." It is an angle constantly played up by the media. Quite frankly, no one wants to hear what science might have to say about it, or what in reality actually happened. Certainly the people at the top of most of these agencies don't want to be viewed as "crazy." While they may support this stuff from the shadows, they wouldn't be caught dead standing next to the psychic that supported them. Regardless of authenticity, percentages of accuracy (however small or large), sticking by the program just isn't "politically savvy." Too much risk.
As regards some of these agencies (especially dependent on what else might be going on that's important to Congress), the may play one requirement off on another, just to display their power with Congress, and keep what they want or are in fear of loosing. Politics as its usual.
STARGATE was an easy target. Everybody makes out, but the STARGATE Program. Of course, there is one other possibility. Presume for a second that this psychic collection of information works even poorly to moderately well. This creates a real problem for us. In the past twenty-five years, no one has developed a real defense against it.
This is kind of scary, especially to people like me, Intelligence Officers. It means all our secrets are vulnerable. There are essentially none that can't be looked at. So what do you do if you can't really defend against this stuff, and if you are politically vulnerable using it. I would ridicule it, deface it, produce huge amounts of disinformation about it, in the hopes that people would just forget about it over time.
I think this position is unconscionable. If a vulnerability to our defense has been uncovered, then we need to address it. I believe there are defenses to RV but we just haven't learned enough to use them. Not pursuing a defense is like burying one's head in the sand and hoping for the best. It defrauds the American people.
JR There is also the assertion that people do not and can not "read" or pick-up other's thoughts and emotions from distance.
JM That's simply not true. Certainly emotions come through from targets quite clearly. In fact, "concepts, thoughts, plans," that sort of thing, are maybe not easily targetable, but they can be targeted. Albeit, your percentages might drop drastically. You will seldom get exact words, sentences, or phrases. Numbers or letters aren't generally clear enough to read, except in the rarest of occasions. But you will be able to clearly outline the "gist" of what a group of people are thinking about, planning, or researching. It may be that we just haven't done enough research into this area.
JR There are also reports that this "technology" apparently has been demonstrated as not being able to influence the thoughts and behaviors of others (when simple hypnosis can).
JM First, I need to say that many people misunderstand hypnosis. Most subjects can't be hypnotized unless they volunteer or want to be, and not all people who want to be can be.
We don't know that remote influencing can't be done at present. There were only a few experiments that took place within the project and these were successful to a limited degree. One of the issues we had to deal with was the fact that we operated under a very strict "human use" committee. We could only do experiments they approved. This is a direct result of some of the experiments that the CIA was doing back in the sixties and early seventies. All participants in our "remote influencing" experiments had to be told that was the kind of experiment they were taking place in. It may be that by telling someone they are about to be remotely influenced, that is the reason it may work.
We did a few experiments which showed an effect in the early 90s. Dr. Dean Radin and his colleague at the Cognitive Research Laboratory, University of Nevada, gave an interesting presentation of an experiment at the last Parapsychological Association Meeting in San Diego this past year, where it was evident that something like remote influencing could have been going on. An interesting experiment was done a number of years ago at the University of Budapest. We also know the Russians and Chinese have done extensive work in this area. Unfortunately, there isn't much in print, as people tend to be very sensitive about this area of research. I believe there are a number of remote healing experiments currently underway at a few medical facilities across America.
The problem as I see it. Will be doing experiments wherein the subject or target individual "doesn't know" they are being targeted. That would be a real test of remote influencing. I'm not sure how one could ethically do that test. Again, there is enough there to warrant looking at. Since there is, I believe it is criminal for our government not to be funding research into this area.
JR The idea that the government doesn't have the money to fund this Remote Viewing program any further, especially in light of the billions being spent on mind control and energy weapons, sounds absurd. Especially so, because something that can also "forward view" (into the future) with ANY reasonable amount of accuracy would have to be coveted by certain factions within the intelligence community.
JM Funding structures, as they exist within the government, are being changed and restructured, while we speak. The American people are getting angry with waste. Hell, I'm getting angry about waste. The real culprits however, aren't the small research efforts like RV, where a consumption of even $1 million a year might provide 38-40 jobs, and a possibility for extreme output for very little input. The culprits are the 20-40 billion dollars of development being spent on a new bomber, or the 3-5 billion being spent on one satellite system.
You have to understand, using psychics for anything is a highly visual and very volatile subject. We make a great sacrificial lamp in comparison to other programs you want to defend. There is a lot of "see what the left hand is doing, while the right hand carts off the store" during budget negotiations. Everybody wants something within the government. Senators and Congressmen alike want $300 million here, $150 million there, for roads, or sometimes to build empty buildings, all within their districts. It buys votes. Psychics don't rate real high on those lists.
In terms of "Mind Control." I really don't think there is that much going on. Lots of comments have been made about the HAARP issue having something to do with mind control, but I don't think it has anything at all to do with the subject. It would be clear to anyone with a background in High Frequency (HF) radio systems, antenna systems, and the like, that what they are doing has something to do with the F1 and F2 layers of the ionosphere.
They could be mapping them, attempting to develop a means for smoothing them out, or even super-heating them as a weapon for defense. Maybe what we are seeing at HAARP is the early stages in the development of an "energy wall." Something akin to a containment field on Star Trek. It would be nice to have something like that when it comes to ICBM defense. The point being that it isn't mind control.
The problem here, at least regarding HAARP, like many other interesting projects, is that people don't begin by looking at real fact, or seeking out expert advice in order to determine what is actually going on. If someone is trying to keep what is going on a secret, there will be a ton of disinformation being passed out as well, which only confounds the issues. I've always thought most of the people within the government really are working for the American people, whether for defense or not. I've always felt I could trust the majority to take care of business and not let things get too far out of hand.
I certainly spent two decades of my life looking into psychic functioning. I did that because it was important to defense, I think it still is. I have also consistently thought throughout that period, that understanding it, being able to use it, would be a huge gift to the American people.
I want to add, that there probably is no way to "mind control" someone. There is a great deal of evidence that certain areas of the electromagnetic spectrum can be used in specific ways to affect human beings; make someone or a group of people nauseous, increase anxiety, or even black people out. But, mind control implies being able to manipulate people, or make people do things they don't want to do. I've never seen anything like that in my lifetime and from what I know now, don't expect to.
JR The prevailing sentiment among the uninitiated is that Remote Viewing technology is alive and well...hidden away in some secret research labs. Any thoughts on this?
JM Without sounding flip, I don't think so. Being a good remote viewer, I think I wouldn't have any trouble finding that out, were it true. If it were true, they are also shutting the door to what is probably the most relevant and accessible bank of knowledge in existence or within the field today--namely the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. Ed (Edwin May, PhD) and the rest of us who work there combined, have probably forgotten more about remote viewing than almost anyone else in the field have learned. I'm not really bragging here, but the Cognitive Sciences Lab still has the most valuable and respected connections regarding remote viewing in Russia, China, Hungary, etc. More so than any other facility I know. CSL has been on the cutting edge of the research field since the very beginning, 1975. Historically, we have always been the ones who catch the heat for saying what remote viewing "can't do." I cannot imagine another project exists somewhere that would not have availed itself of our information or expertise.
Also the way they chose to shut the STARGATE program down just doesn't jive with such a plan. Had that been the plan, I or any of my colleagues could probably have done a much better job of bringing the old program to an end, leaving no questions in the minds of the public. Either the termination of STARGATE was done in a very sloppy way, or it worked exactly as planned. Very confused, so that no one knows what is right, what is wrong, what is accurate, or inaccurate about the history.
JR Thanks for taking time to respond to these issues. I'm looking forward to the re-release of your book.
JM I will send you a copy of the revised MIND TREK as soon as I've received it. Also, I am just finishing my follow-on book which I've tentatively titled "EXPECTATIONS: A journey into the Future." Hardly as doom and gloom as Ed Dames' predictions however. I guess I have a lot more faith in mankind. Don't seem to be able to find many lizards will to take over the world either.
JR Can remote viewing be used to also look back in time to validate and explain various events?
JM Yes. It is probably just as accurate as looking at a real time target. There are some difficulties however which should be pointed out. What everyone has to understand is that a.) Remote viewing isn't usually 100 percent accurate. So there will be inaccuracies mixed in with accuracies. b.) Most of what we consider to be historical fact is filled with accuracies and inaccuracies as well.
The logical assumption is that what we read in history books is the truth. This isn't generally so. Some things we know a great deal about, and will contain more truths than not, but they are still written in the context of both the social as well as political context requirement of the "current time", now. In other words, most places in the world are constantly rewriting history to agree or support whatever their immediate requirements might be.
Compound this with every theologian, archeologist, anthropologist, and specialist within any type of history, and their specific or narrow beliefs about the topic or subject, and you have a lot of opinion about what is real or not real at any given instant in time. These opinions are constantly changing.
If a remote viewer targets something backward in time and is able to retrieve information pertinent to it, say an event, place, or something significant within history. As soon as that information is published, regardless of accuracy, it opens an entire world of controversy. Since, most of the information is likely not to be verifiable, the remote viewer is the last on the totem pole with regard to validity. All the guys with Ph.D., behind their name will be given first credence, even though their information may not be as accurate.
What can be revealing however, is when the remote viewer produces a significant bit of information that is then checked and found to be true. That really blows the lid of things. The point here is yes, it can be done, but someone has to be willing to expend the effort at verifying the information one way or the other and take a lot of heat while they are doing so.
JR Professionally, how do you feel when you see the material and behavior of people like Ed Dames and Courtney Brown?
JM Probably more sad than not. Ed Dames was not a remote viewer. Both claim complete knowledge of remote viewing, but neither has any experience whatsoever with the science, or research and development side of remote viewing. Applications using remote viewing has always been a developing and ongoing effort, based on what science has been able to determine about it. Dames left the unit in late 1988. The science lab closed down in November of 1995.
The heavily structured and simplistic approach to training did not hold up within the lab environment. Aside from the fact that it is one of many training systems experimented with, no one type of training ever proven better than another. Experiments within the lab have shown the single greatest impact to remote viewing capability is probably natural talent. We know through observation that everyone has some degree of natural talent, but it is as varied as any talent you would find anywhere else, in athletics, art, or music.
Courtney Brown of course received his training from Dames, supposedly in a week or so. This is something which Dames now hotly denies. In my experience, I never knew anyone within or outside of the unit that was trained in less than 12-18 months. So, I don't think Brown's claims are very realistic.
I think they were both very excited by their exposure to remote viewing, as well as by some of the possibilities they think it could be used for. But the whole issue is a lot more complicated than that. Especially more complicated than the way they are presenting it. This can be very misleading to the public.
JR There are a number of people who call themselves remote viewers and/or who have written books about the subject. The names of Jim Schnabel, David Morehouse, and Lyn Buchanan come to mind? What is your opinion of the credentials and credibility of these people?
JM I have no idea about the credentials and credibility of any of these people. I can only speak from what I know to be true.
Jim Schnabel wrote the book based on information that was garnered from four or five of the participants. There were probably thirty or more over the years. It is evident that some of this information was slanted heavily by these few personal views. I would add that a large percentage of this information is still not available to the public, in part may even be classified. I'm distressed that these people didn't feel compelled to honor their security agreements. I'm also distressed that Jim gave the impression that he got direct interviews from me as well as some others he mentioned within his book, when most of us refused to speak with him about the book or any of its contents.
As a result of using a limited number of sources, there are some issues within his book that took some pretty hard swipes at some of the members of the unit, both personally and reputationally. I think it was at the very least, unkind, to paint some of the people the way they were painted. It certainly didn't reveal the truth.
David Morehouse was only a member of the unit for a very short period. Some estimates range from 11 months to as much as two years. This is barely enough time to be trained as a remote viewer, never mind reflecting the level of expertise or knowledge he has put in his book. I believe he honestly tried to write how he saw things, at least as regards his own experiences. You can't argue with that, even though some of what he says seems to be a bit paranoid. I have no idea how good a remote viewer he might be.
Lyn Buchanan was a member of the unit for just over seven years. He was a remote viewer, and my memory says that he was fairly good, at least with regard to the experiments he participated in with the research side of the house. I may dissagree with some of his beliefs regarding the technology, but he has always listened to what I've had to say and I respect him for that. I think we learn through disagreement, so I consider him a conscientious and ethical person. He has always seemed serious about his search for the truth. I do know he recognizes that it requires months of effort to become a remote viewer.
JR What does it feel like to remote view...in a physical and psychological sense?
JM Physically, it isn't any more difficult than sitting at a desk. If you are tired, then it will make you feel more tired. There is very little if any psychological effect from the act of remote viewing. Initially, emotion or other interaction with the target can occur, but as your experience extends, it becomes more easily managed.
The real psychological effect has more to do with personal stability. Participating in and experiencing a good remote viewing, is actually seeing and experiencing psychic functioning that works. It impacts heavily on "knowing" versus "believing". This will change or alter someone's view of the world, their place within reality, and how it might function. If someone isn't psychologically strong to begin with, it can be very destructive across the board. When you are operating on the edge, it doesn't take too much to fall off.
JR Is there hard evidence that remote viewers have been able to influence the minds of other people?
JM No. Not to my knowledge. Aside from what I've already said about mind control, or remote influencing (which I view as different). I personally have never seen anyone having their "mind controlled." I've had access to a lot of documentation where labs have claimed to have been successful, but their experiments were either severely flawed, or it was something other than mind control. I'm not sure I believe that it is possible.
JR There is a continuing debate over the reality of psychokinesis. Do you have any personal experience with it?
JM Only anecdotal to other experiments. I went through a period of experiments at SRI-International, where every time I began a remote viewing the computer program that was running would crash, or a memory unit would fail. It doesn't mean anything however, as this was only an observation.
I was able to wind a nickel alloy control spoon up into a small knot once, but again, this was not done within controls. So, they can only be viewed as interesting observations. I personally have never seen a controlled psychokinesis event in my 19 years of experience with the paranormal. I'd like to. I believe psychokinesis is possible, but only on the micro-level, where molecular stasis might be questionable in the first place--say within micro-chip technology, that sort of thing.
JR It is hard, VERY hard to believe that the government can't or won't kick out a paltry 10-20 million from some black budget stash and funnel it through a front organization to continue to fund this technology.
JM I know this is hard to believe, but it is true. One only has to look at the general media reaction to the use of remote viewers, since the exposure of STARGATE in November of 1995, to understand why. Why would an agency, any agency, take such a risk for exposure, when they are already fighting to preserve what they feel are more important high dollar research projects.
In addition, you have only to spend a single night reading the stuff on internet to see that the remote viewing field is filling up rapidly with some pretty radical elements. Many obviously feel there is a lot of money to be made in this area, and this has brought out the wheelers and dealers. If I were in charge of a black budget and was interested, I'm not sure I'd want to play in such a sandbox.
Nevertheless, there are some serious research questions which need to be answered. Pilot studies we've done in the Cognitive Sciences Lab have more than opened some pretty large cracks to possible mechanisms operating behind remote viewing, or what we call Anomalistic Cognition. But, I strongly believe the funding should come from the private sector, where the findings can then be properly put to use for more than the benefit of a few or solely defense purposes. I think it was a good decision to release this to the public domain. Maybe when all of this initial frenzy burns itself out, some of the more rational companies and individuals will become interested.
"Appamatta na miyanti-Ye pamatta yatha mata." (They who are aware do not die--They who are unaware are as dead.) The Dhammapada.
Joseph W. McMoneagle P.O. Box 100, Nellysford, Virginia 22958 Ofc: (804) 361-9215 FAX: (804) 361-9056 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org