Journal of Nonlocality and Remote Mental Interactions February 2003 Vol II Nr 1
The New Explorers: Joseph McMoneagle* on the Stargate Program, the Science Behind Remote Viewing and the Need for Coordinated Research
Those selling RV training say most everyone who practices can become decent at RV (to varying degrees). Researchers say only a tiny % of people have the innate talent to be really good at RV. How should all this be interpreted by those practicing RV to improve their skill?
an interview by Palyne "PJ" Gaenir
(Note: the complete version of this interview is available in full at http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/pjrv_interviews.cfm and
The human instinct for adventure takes many forms - from scientific enquiry to geographical and space exploration, from deciphering the language of the subconscious to seeking out ineffable aesthetic and spiritual experiences.
But what if we realized that all these different journeys could be made to converge in one point, that a new form of exploration was available to us, which could redefine both the experience of physical adventure and the intellectual pursuit of fundamental reality - which would reshape our sense of self at the same time that it expanded our physical and cosmological models?
From 1972 to 1995 the US government funded a pioneering research program on Remote Viewing - the ability to access information which is blocked from the normal sensory ways in which we gather data about the world. The program was sponsored by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, ran by a physics research team at the Stanford Research Institute, and involved volunteer subjects, most of whom were recruited from among highly accomplished, high clearance military personnel.
A senior projects officer for Signals Intelligence and Electronic Warfare, INSCOM, Joseph McMoneagle was viewer 001 in this program, and the only one who was associated with it for the entire duration of the project. The author of several quintessential books on remote viewing, a current full time research associate with the Laboratories for Fundamental Research and a full member of the Parapsychological Association, he has participated in protocol design, statistical information collection, R&D evaluations as well as hundreds of remote viewing experimental trials and intelligence applications. For his contributions over a 34 year career (twenty of which were spent within paranormal operations) he was awarded the Legion of Merit by the US government - the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a member of the intelligence community.
In September-October 2002, Palyne Gaenir conducted several interviews with Joe McMoneagle, the full transcript of which can be found at http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/pjrv_interviews.cfm and http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/stargate/stargate-qa.shtml . With their permission we have reproduced here several excerpts from those interviews.
Q: Where did the concept of "Remote Viewing" originate?
A: After determining that the Soviets and others were using psychics for intelligence collection efforts, the CIA financed preliminary investigations into the phenomena at SRI-International. During those early investigations (1972-1975) Remote Viewers were able to successfully penetrate a secret Soviet site located at Semipalatinsk, USSR, as well as a Top Secret facility being operated within the Continental United States. While the data obtained was somewhat sketchy, it did show a capacity for gaining access to information that was unavailable through ordinary means. The work was officially documented and reported within classified intelligence channels. As a result of these studies, Dr. Hal Puthoff and the other scientists at SRI-International also published a report in Nature Magazine describing the accessing of information via psychic means, what they called "Remote Viewing." The origin of the techniques and methods were born out of that earlier testing and research.
Q: How did you wind up working as a psychic for the United States Army?
A: I was stationed at the Headquarters for the US Army Intelligence and Security Command, in Arlington, Virginia in 1978, and was the OIC or Officer in Charge of the Emitter Location and Identification Branch, and was responsible for the entire Army wide military occupational specialty (MOS) both operationally as well as administratively. Out of the blue, or so it seemed, I was called into a small room by two guys in suits who identified themselves as US Army Special Agents. They showed me some documents that said the Soviet Union was using psychics to collect intelligence information. The Special Agents asked me what I thought about the possibility. My guarded and, I hoped, neutral response was that if any of it were true, then it posed a great threat to our National Interests. A few weeks later, in a follow-up interview with other people, my personnel file was reviewed. It contained records of some very bizarre experiences I'd had, among them, a Near Death Experience (NDE), uncontrolled Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) and what I called spontaneous knowings. The result was that my next orders were to travel to SRI-International, where I was tested by scientists for two weeks and targeted against six (6) double-blind target locations. Apparently they were so blown away by the success of the experments that I was promptly asked to volunteeer for the Top Secret Army Project GRILL FLAME. I did, and became Remote Viewer #001.
Q: Does participating as a remote viewer alter your perspectives on reality?
A: Yes. Many of my perceptions of reality have altered during the twenty-four years I've been a Remote Viewer. I worked in the military RV unit the whole time it existed, eighteen and a half years. I'm also one of a few participants who moved over to the research and development side of the project where, since the project was closed down, I've continued to participate as a Research Associate with the original lab. I also started my own company, Intuitive Intelligence Applications, Inc., in 1984. When you come to know that information is directly accessible to the human mind, regardless of physical access, it completely alters your perceptions of time and space, and our relationship to it.
What things about psi and RV interest you currently (Sep ’02)?
The social implications. Why, when presented with a macro-PSI event accomplished under the strictest of controls, do scientists walk away and make no comment? Why macro events are never discussed independently? Why people within the media feel such a strong need to automatically ridicule PSI, even when it displays gross ignorance? Why everyone seems to need an understandable structure for why remote viewing occurs or works in order to validate the scientific study of it?
Why people who are interested in remote viewing feel such a strong need to be considered “expert remote viewers” rather than using the opportunity for understanding more about how their own minds work or how they process information, or how this might impact on their relationships and spiritual nature?
What questions about psi would you ultimately like to see answered?
Aside from the above - the real nature of time/space, and how we interface with it. Where does it come from and how much effect can we exercise over it through thought processes alone. I want to know how this ties into our perceptions of mental and physical health, how it affects it.
I would also like to know why we can’t seem to find a different reason for living and pursuing knowledge other than money?
Do you still hold to the idea of the Matrix, like the CRV theory? (Did you ever hold to that idea?) Has that idea evolved? If so, into what exactly? If not, what do you think is the source of psi information?
The idea of the "matrix" is a cool idea, but I do not believe it has anything to do with reality or at least the reality that drives us or how we access information. If there was anything that related to something like the Matrix, then it's something we've created within our own minds, not that which someone or something else creates for us, or that we might be beguiled into believing is true. Whatever our beliefs, they are ours and ours alone. We can blame no one for what we believe to be true. It is our responsibility to determine what is true or not true for us in our own universe of experience.
The whole idea of a matrix or akashic record stems from the idea that there is some sort of signal line that we tap into or strip information from. This idea of signal line is a metaphor for the line of information or thoughts we deal with in our heads that may or may not be relevant to a remote viewing target.
That's one of the reasons you can't take the CRV theory seriously. If you do, it sucks, it won't work. It's the reason I've detested it from the outset as a method of producing valid information. It just lays one more line of fences between your conscious mind and the unconscious information.
If you consider that everything that you might ever remote view is something you will eventually know about anyway, then the information always exists/originates within your own mind at some point
in time. The only difference between knowing something right now and knowing something at some future date is time. We create time, so why not the information or the format within which it occurs.
It would take about a week to outline what I’m talking about here, so this will have to suffice for now.
If time doesn’t exist as is often said in RV, is it possible that “facts about” the past are as variable as those about the future? If there really is no time, why shouldn’t RV on things past be as difficult as RV on things future?
Neither is more difficult than the next. Your logic is faulty.
What I think you meant to say is that since we have errors in RV in the present, they should be expected to be about the same in the past or future if time is not real. Which would be correct.
All that happens in RV is a prediction (assumed truth made from whole cloth) is made about the past, present, or future. If the assumption turns out to be judged correct based on information at hand for that specific time, then it is assumed to be correct. If it is wrong, it is nothing more than that, it is simply wrong.
What is interesting about RV, is that sometimes what is judged to be incorrect at the time turns out later to be correct, or vice versa. With RV, one is stuck with trying to describe a truth about a specific time within the vernacular of when it occurs - sort of like lining up the sights of understanding over a word to capture its meaning at the precise point in time that it stops moving.
We assume that is the only time the word is going to stop. But, in reality the word moves and stops many times. Again, it would take a few days to make clear here what I am saying.
How do you see the time connection between present, past, and future and causality and free will? Are multiple realities coexisting? Is “probability” an issue? If so, how can the future be predicted? Do you think free will is an illusion, a reality, or a partial reality?
All things exist simultaneously. Past, present, and future all just “are.” We pick where we focus and understand through intent or expectation and that creates reality. The only problem is that we are usually not awake while we are deciding.
It’s the most perfect example of free will that I think could ever exist. In this way, all things are possible, but the only reality at the time is the one we chose to experience.
The future can be predicted very simply - with a good guess made in as alert and understanding a state as possible.
First, the researchers are correct, because they have tested for many years to determine that to be true. But, what does that have to do with one’s personal belief? Because they say it, so what?
The point is that no one ever knows how good or how bad they are ever going to be at this thing called RV, until they put energy into it and find out. If I believed what half the people on the planet say about things, I probably would have skipped this lifetime altogether. The only person who knows is the person doing it.
Unfortunately, most do not invest the energy necessary to find out. They believe erroneously that they can pay a lot of money to someone who will teach them the “secret” to how it’s done and that’s all that’s required. Wrong! There are no secrets. There’s no one specific method that works better than any other.
I’ve talked about RV needing to be within a specific protocol to be called RV - that’s true. Many will say this has no bearing on how good or how bad someone will be at RV. That too is wrong. In fact, the hardest person to convince that RV is real and works is called “self.” If you leave one iota of doubt in your own mind that it is possible, you will never be good at it. You have to set up the circumstances that are the most difficult to beat and then when you succeed, you will understand more about RV than all the lessons in the world can teach you.
It doesn’t work all the time for anyone, it isn’t perfect all the time for anyone, it isn’t nearly as accurate as many would tell you it is. The fact is, that it will work reasonably well for anyone who is able to convince themselves that it will - there are no other secrets.
Some scientists suggest as far as lab results go, even practicing over years doesn’t make anybody better. Yet the best viewers have spent a lot of time practicing and it seems like one gets better. It is hard to make sense of research results when they seem to contradict hands-on experience. What do you say to this?
I practice in order to maintain my capacity to translate what I sense into usable information. The only way I’ve improved over time is in my reliability. I’ve not improved very much in accuracy.
One has to remember that there is always an expected improvement that takes place simply from understanding the rules. The research shows (that’s testing under controls over long periods of time in a lab) that there is very little improvement over time in the quality of remote viewing (accuracy.)
Over time, many who do RV within applications scenarios begin to feel that the scientific controls get in the way of getting to the target. They are able to convince themselves that such draconian controls are no longer necessary - that they are able to differentiate between the right and wrong way to approach a target. This is called deluding oneself. Even scientists who study something in a lab over long periods of time sometimes fall prey to this self-delusion.
As one slowly moves away from the strict controls the remote viewing will improve, but only because other things come into play - neuro-linguistics, inappropriate leading, etc. People will make up excuses as to why this okay - we get information that seems to be correct anyway - right? Well in not too delicate terms, this is called cheating. All it does for someone trying to learn that remote viewing is possible is that it produces doubt in their mind. This makes what they are actually trying to do more difficult, to the point of significant failure at a latter date, when they try to accomplish the same accuracy and reliability under severe controls.
It’s the reason a lot of self-proclaimed experts in RV won’t do RV under those severe controls in public.
When you were practicing RV (as you described in your book Mind Trek), what were the most frustrating issues you dealt with in your viewing or development as a viewer?
Failure. I had to learn how to deal with failure. This means I also had to learn to deal with ego investment in the outcome.
How much of ‘psi talent’ do you think is really a matter of psychology allowing/accepting psi?
All of it. That comes from “knowing” it’s real, not believing it to be so.
Do you still “practice” RV, outside of formally doing it? How much RV (overall) do you do a week - how much practice, how much tasked? What is your method of practice, what kind of targets/tasking?
Yes, I practice all the time. I probably do five or six targets a week. Between practiced and tasked it’s probably about 1/3 practice and 2/3 tasked.
My practice targets are all photographic targets taken from a pool of targets developed for use within the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. Mixed in with those are other targets of greater interest that pop up once in awhile. I put enough of those in there to not know what or when they might occur.
All practice targets are always done under the strictest of controls and are always a total surprise to me. More so than the tasked, since I sometimes know who the Tasker is (this does not imply that I know what the target will be ahead of time. I never know this. I’m sometimes just not surprised at what it turns out to be based on who the Tasker is that is asking for it).
Q: What are the kinds of targets you've proven to be most accurate with?
A: Over nearly a quarter of a century there is one kind of target I've seldom missed -- those are nuclear materials type targets. Whether it involves locating weapons grade material or figuring out which building someone might have stored nuclear materials in, I seem to nail those targets the best. It probably has something to do with their inherent nature - stability/instability. There may be a basis for this, which can be found in physics or in the nature of nuclear matter itself. It is also fairly easy to determine weapons grade material from non-weapons grade material as I get a change in the sense of color within the target.
What were your best and worst RV experiences?
The best, was demonstrating remote viewing live and within scientific, double blind controls, before the Senate and House Committees on Intelligence.
The worst, was fighting for ten hours to get an ignorant county sheriff to accept my location info for a missing child, only to find my information was correct and we were two hours too late.
How much have you had to ‘work’ on RV skill, if psi was ‘natural’ for you? How long (and often) did you do RV before you yourself felt competent at it?
I’ve been working on my remote viewing ability now for 26 years. I will continue to work on my “competency” with it. No one ever gets to a point where they are satisfied. It’s just like any other skill, you always find things you want to modify or change, or improve on.
I was doing remote viewing targets three or four times a day for six days a week for about three years before I felt I had any control over it at all.
What I find humorous is that so many think that there is a trick to it, that such a trick can be taught, and from that point on you will be graced with accuracy and dependability. Accuracy and dependability is an illusion one must fight for on a day-to-day basis and has more to do with your faith in self, the depth of your understanding for how reality might really work, and how you deal with ego. You can win a lot of the battles, but I’m not sure it’s a war you can ever win. It takes a lot of heart.
There’s been talk about subconscious “fear of psi” relating to the common decline-effect, and contributing to why so few end up ‘world-class’ remote viewers like yourself. What do you think? Is there really such culture-wide fear of psi? Do you think people realize they’ve got it? (Many viewers discussing it online say it’s not a problem for them.) If you think this is an issue, how would you suggest viewers address dealing with this?
If someone says that this is not a problem for them - then I would say they have never communicated with their unconscious mind.
It’s a major issue, and one that never goes away. It’s a fear that’s not just culture wide, it’s pervasive in all cultures. Even those that are practitioners of PSI have fear of it. It speaks to the dark side for most. It’s an uncomfortable window to things we “shouldn’t have access to.”
There are no suggestions for dealing with it - since there is no way of truly conquering it. It’s one more battle that’s constantly waged in doing RV - a battle you sometimes win and sometimes don’t.
Was RV Analysis - various approaches and details - studied during the STAR GATE research? If so, can you tell us anything about it? (Is it declassified?)
Yes. I won’t talk about them.
It’s said you did Ops viewing even while you were on the research side of the STAR GATE project (after you had retired from the Army). Was there a difference in how the viewing was done in one area than another? Was there a difference in how the analysis for Ops sessions were done?
Yes I did. Yes there was. I am unable to talk about those differences.
Besides just practicing RV, and the list of suggestions you gave to RV Oasis (thanks!), are there specific exercises in meditation, perception, etc. that are helpful to RV?
Anything that opens up perception, defuses ego or the necessity to be right, anything that eliminates fear (of rejection, failure, topic matter, etc.) and anything that teaches mental discipline is important.
Look - you have to understand that this is the important part of RV, not the RV itself. It’s what you learn about yourself, how you process or manipulate information, how you put the slant on it that you desire or don’t desire, how you apply it to your reality, what constitutes good or bad focus and self-discipline.
The RV part is totally secondary and a by-product to all the other things you bring to the table. That’s not where the actual focus should be. Focus instead on where your place in reality lies and why. What is your responsibility to reality and why?
One thing that seems critically needed in the public field of RV is some "standard of measure." There’s not a qualified RV science lab on every corner, and most the media is untrustworthy (and not everyone can come by higher-level stuff). Talk is cheap - and plentiful - but other than you, nobody is demonstrating this under an approved RV protocol on an ongoing basis. What could such a measure be, and how could it be created for the public and viewers that want to ‘prove’ themselves, any ideas?
Sure. This is a no-brainer. Set up a large selection of random target sites and locations across the planet. Put representative pictures of them in a computer file. Set up a web site and open it to remote viewers to set up their own record files. Design it so they can log on and file the materials for a target that will be selected after they hit the selection - Remote Viewing completed and filed. A reference to the target is then filed with the material (but not its identity).
Someone will then have to volunteer to judge the result. This can be accomplished by having someone log on to the site and identifying themselves as a judge, and then requesting a session to work on. They are then presented with a group of five photographs, one of which is the actual target, and the session data that goes with it. They match the session results to the first best selection, then the second best, third best, etc. Once they have done that and the results are filed, an automatic email is forwarded to the person who did the original remote viewing, showing them the result (picture and location), along with an update of their statistics.
I would set the system up so that in order to do a remote viewing, you would be required to do a judging first after which you would be authorized access to the viewing portion of the system. Do a judging, you get a to do a viewing. I would also insure that the system statistical file and results would only be accessible to one or two people for management purposes.
Deciding who you’d want to do that job would be both difficult as well as burdensome, as obviously that would include at least the webmaster and a scientist. So, you could charge some small dues to cover their expenses.
These are basically the conditions under which many of us were forced to learn and work.
You predicted sometime in the next 20 years an area of the brain will be found that will permit RV to be 99% accurate. Do you have any more to say on that? Are there current exercises to develop it? Was this about making all the psi accurate from the viewer, or making an analysis process accurate after the session?
What I actually said was that an area of the brain would be identified that specifically deals with PSI functioning. It will enable us to understand when the information is actually being processed. I’m not sure I ever said there would be that kind of accuracy.
Describe the one session done by someone else that most impressed the hell out of you.
Captain Thomas McNear produced a clay model of an Aztec temple in a double-blind remote viewing exercise that was a nearly perfect example of the structure. Hartleigh Trent produced a near perfect drawing of a specific military device in double blind targeting at Fort Meade, Maryland. There are dozens of these examples that are very impressive, at least to me.
Outside of lack of proper practice (we know it should be consistent, double-blind, with feedback, for a long period of time, as you’ve said many times elsewhere), what would you say is the primary issue that most hinders the skill-development of the attempting-to-view aspirants you’ve encountered?
How do you relate RV, OBE's, and NDE's? Do you think there is some subtle energy body involved in RV that is not perceptible to the viewers?
They try to do too much to quickly. They do the RV too quickly. They want the results too quickly. They go to the next target too quickly. They don’t think about what they are going to do, what they are actually doing, or what happened after the fact. No real focus on what’s going on.
They are doing it just “to get to being an expert ” faster. When they should be doing it to understand why they process a certain way. Where the information comes from in their own mind, why they deal with it the way they do, what’s wrong with how they deal with it, etc.
That’s always a possibility. At the moment, I’m not buying that, however.
I think in RV we are dealing solely with information. That is also the possibility with OBE’s as well as NDE’s. Since there is no demonstrated physical interaction with a remote location vis-à-vis OBE’s or NDE’s, at least one that’s provable, that will also have to remain an open question.
I believe we have a tendency to jump to conclusions about energy states because they present the easiest answer to the conundrum, but there could be a multitude of other possibilities we have not yet conjectured. I’d rather keep my mind open to those not yet extant possibilities.
Do you believe in Telekinesis? Have you tried it, and to what extent? If so, what kind of experiences have you had with it? Has it ever happened spontaneously (and if so in what way)? Any comments in general?
Do you believe that animals have ‘sentience’ - thoughts, something that lives on after biological death? What about trees and plants? What about supposedly inanimate things like gems and stones, or the earth itself?
There are lots of rumors running rampant about telekinesis, but to my knowledge, I have never seen it demonstrated within a lab anywhere on the planet.
The Chinese make claims of being able to do it with young children, and I’ve see the tapes, but they are heavily cut and edited so highly questionable.
I’ve met people over the years that have experienced losing something by having it disappear right in front of them - that’s happened to me as well. Where does an object like a pencil, pen, paperclip, quarter, that sort of thing go when it disappears is beyond my ken.
In terms of seeing something appear - well, again there are lots of stories about that. Some of the incidents, which were filmed were quite convincing to those doing the observing but on analyzing the films later frame by frame, you can clearly see slight of hand. Usually the things that appear and disappear are small enough to hide within the hand or palm which again raises some difficult questions around the entire subject.
I personally think that there are items that sort of morph in and out of real-time space, but so far it hasn’t been accomplished on demand while under controls. Until that time, well…it’s still going to be questionable.
Yes to all the above. They exist at the very least as mental or thought form creations as real as when they are experienced. When we cease to be, our intellects appear to carry on, so then must the intellect thought forms. Do they have thought forms of their own? That is an interesting question and one that I believe to be true, although that is instinctive and difficult to prove otherwise.
It looks like your predictions about war with Iraq - made years before UTM** even, in public media - are likely to come true, alas. Does it drive you crazy that you can provide useful and accurate info about the future, and despite your Legion of Merit award for psi work for tons of government agencies, apparently still nobody listens??
On the contrary, I believe there are a lot of people listening. Whether any of them are in an appropriate position to make a difference is of course, another thought.
There is a common belief that because the project lasted for nearly 19 years and did support so many agencies in so many ways that this automatically means they accept Remote Viewing without reservation. In fact, that is not true. There are still lots of reasons not to trust it, and using it if at all should be done with great care -- and only then for very limited or specific reasons.
It’s when people disregard these caveats that things go to hell in a hand basket.
Q: What impact could remote viewing have on terrorism?
A: There's no doubt in my mind that remote viewing could contribute in a major way. During the Cold War, it was used many times by many agencies to identify and thwart threats to America at home and abroad: Everything from tracking kidnap victims to identifying arms and munitions storage depots. It proved its capacity for differentiating between friendly and hostile forces; previously unknown methods of ingress and egress; when and where to point other forms of intelligence collection methods; and in providing accurate descriptions of the emotional and military readiness of the enemy. It was almost exclusively used on cold targets, those with virtually no leads that, while critical, had been dormant for long periods of time without solution. The degree of difficulty in these kinds of targets is essentially the same as those we now find associated with terrorism. Some critics speak to the low percentage of accuracy as a reason not to use remote viewing. In my opinion, any information that might open up a new lead should be utilized when American lives are at stake.
Q: What about those who automatically ridicule remote viewing? How do you feel about them?
A: There are so many examples of bad remote viewing in the public domain that an appropriate degree of ridicule is to be expected. However, there are critics who do not differentiate between the ludicrous claims made by amateurs, and efforts by those who follow the established, strict, scientific protocols. They lump it all together and ridicule everything. Those kinds of critics are both ignorant as well as destructive. Done right, Remote Viewing is difficult enough without having to deal with stupid people. History supports the innovative thinker who allows for the possibility of things like remote viewing -- so history in the long run favors us and not the ignorant cynic. If that weren't true, the Wright Brothers would have never gotten off the ground and no human being would have ever walked the surface of the Moon. More simply said, I need magic in my life and feel badly for those who have none.
What do you most hope readers will get out of the book? [The Stargate Chronicles - LS]***
An idea of what it’s actually like doing what I do.
Do you have a hero(s)? Who, and why?
In remote viewing it would be Rene’ Warcollier, who was doing the work for 30+ years in a culture that didn’t support it. My close friend, Edwin C. May, who has spent almost as much of his own personal money and energy in researching remote viewing, as he has ever made or experienced from it. The Honorable Senator Claiborne Pell, who was a standup guy and had the courage to state his beliefs about remote viewing when the project was exposed on National Television.
And I really wish I had access to some of the people who went back up the staircases in the WTC on 9/11 - just so I could thank them personally for showing us what real human beings are like. Aside from remote viewing of course I have others I respect and admire as a hero - Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Gene Cernan, George Patton, and of course my Father.
What I see in the field is, it’s demoralizing for developing viewers when they don’t see opportunities for using RV, for doing something meaningful with it. It seems like a waste of something invaluable to RV pictures for eternity. Granted, the world doesn’t much support legitimate psi functioning. But there must be something. Do you think it’s hopeless to focus on providing an “opportunity” for viewers to DO something with RV?
A: Nothing’s hopeless. Not all things have easy answers either.
Where's the curiosity for what goes on in RV, how it might work, why information gets transferred? I hear a lot about doing things with it that are meaningful. But I've not heard much about, “What makes it tick?” That's the part that keeps me going. I want to know “why?” “How?” “Because…?”
In my quest for those things, I've gotten better and people hunt me down to do things for them. Those things sometimes work. I attempt to display it within appropriate rules to the public.
Much of the public doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that there are rules-they just want to be psychic like me, and figure there must be some trick, some magic that I'm not sharing.
I think if people can't find the reason for pursuing it within themselves (their need to develop in that way), as opposed to the reason being outside them (what they’ll “do” with it), they should find something else to pursue.
**UTM: The Ultimate Time Machine, by Joseph McMoneagle. Hampton Roads Publishing Co. 1998
*** The Stargate Chronicles, by Joseph McMoneagle. Hampton Roads Publishing Co. 2002
Interview by PJ Gaenir, September 2002 Copyright (c) 2002 by Palyne 'PJ' Gaenir. All rights reserved. Published electronically as part of the Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/ Emergent Mind has reprinted selections from this interview(s) with permission.
*Joseph W. McMoneagle is author of THE STARGATE CHRONICLES and other books http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/. Joe is a professional associate of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Palo Alto CA USA http://www.lfr.org/csl/. He is also a full member of the Parapsychological Association (an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) http://www.parapsych.org