new military-occult technologies for psychological warfare


Joe McMoneagle (remote viewer US Army) - Ralph Rugoff

SCRIPT (edited from an actual interview)

Q. You were involved with the government's remote viewing program first as an Army officer, and then, after your retirement from the military, as a civilian employee, for a total of 18 years. How many operational taskings--we probably should refer to them as psychic spying missions--did you engage in during these years?

Joe: Over the course of nearly 18 years, I was probably involved in a few thousand operational taskings. More difficult, however, were the more than 1000 "viewings" I did for research purposes during this period. And I probably did another 2500 for practice,operational demonstrations, private and public demonstrations, and that sort of thing.

Q. We know that you're under National Security constraints, and sworn to secrecy oaths, but are there any taskings or missions that perhaps have been declassified that you can tell us about?

Joe: Well, in 1979, most U.S. Intelligence agencies had become aware that the Russians had built what was the largest building under a single roof in the world. No one in these agencies, however, knew what was going on inside. I was asked to remote viewing this facility, and I said I thought they were building a submarine. I was also able to provide specific details about this submarine, including its size, armament, hull configuration, and even the projected date of launch. As a result of this information I provided, the intelligence community was later able to confirm the existence of the new Soviet "Typhoon"-class submarine--the largest in the world.

Q. Joe, how much of the government's remote viewing program--which formally existed from 1978 to 1995 would you estimate is still classified?

Joe: The Army remote viewing program began in 1978 and ended in November of1995. Probably less than two percent of the information pertinent to the program has been released; certainly almost none of the operational data. A great deal of the research data is still classified as well.

Q. Can you tell us which government agencies utilized you for psychic spying work?

Joe: My Legion of Merit award, which I received for my work in the remote viewing program, mentions a number of agencies, including the CIA, DIA, FBI, Secret Service, Department of Defense, U.S. Customs, and even the U.S. Coast Guard. There are numerous others which will remain anonymous. I might add that, as is normally the case, information of extreme value is always separated from the source, in order to protect the source. So, it would not be surprising if some of the agencies that used our services didn't even know they were doing so.

Q. Apart from yourself who do you think should be acknowledged for their contributions to remote viewing?

Joe: If you want to refer to the "father of remote viewing," you would have to go back half a century to the French parapsychologist, Rene Warcollier. At a lecture he delivered at the Sorbonne in June 1946, he presented the results of hundreds of experiments that he had conducted in the decades prior. The examples Warcollier presented were clearly, and without a doubt, remote viewing. Warcollier's work was certainly limelighted by Ingo Swann's work with the ASPR, as well as by the work done by Dr. Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ at SRI International. Pat Price, one of the first remote viewers to be tested by Puthoff and Targ, certainly was instrumental in establishing the intelligence value of remote viewing. And, over the past 10 years, a significant amount of research has been published by Dr. Edwin C. May of the Cognitive Sciences Lab. We could not have gotten to where we are without any of these individuals, as well as the dozens of others who made significant contributions.

Q. You have spent twenty-one years on the cutting edge of paranormal research. The Romans, the Egyptians, the Bible tribes all appear to have used extrasensory perception in their armed conflicts. Are we any better at it now than they were?

Joe: Yes and no. If you are asking specifically about remote viewing as originally applied by the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory and the US Army, yes. If you are asking about paranormal methodologies applied in any other context, no.

Q. You are of the opinion hat natural talent, not training, is the key requisite in a remote viewer. Are there any specific areas of training – artistic, psychological, verbal – that might be incorporated in the methodology that would enhance psychic functioning?

Joe: In my observation every human being who ever walked into a lab and was subjected to a properly orchestrated remote viewing experience under the appropriate controls, demonstrated some degree of psychic or remote viewing ability. I believe the reason why is that, under a controlled circumstance, we are seeing another sense being demonstrated, much like sight or hearing. Which means that every human posesses some degree of talent.

Q. Did our Russian or Chinese friends have a different methodology and protocol than the US remote viewers?

Joe: To my knowledge yes and no. In my talks with both Russian and Chinese experimeters who were and still are pursuing investigations into remote viewing, many of their methods are different. Some of them are clearly operating within the boundaries of good science and some of them are not.

Q. During RV sessions, were there polygraph-type biological measurements, i.e. blood pressure, respiration rate, galvanic skin response taken? If so were there any correlations between these biometric readings and successful remote viewing sessions?

Joe: We have gone to an excessive extent to biologically measure or model human thoughts or consciousness while doing successful remote viewing. To my knowledge, no specific parameter, effect, or measurement has yet been produced that would differentiate a bad remote viewing from a successgul remote viewing, other than post hoc analysis of the targeted material. Essentially, a successful remote viewer is neither unique biologically nor mentally from any other human being. However we have found a very strong indication of where just such a a measurable difference might lie within the human brain/mind and we are vigorously pursuing it.

Q. One of the great post-Cold War threats is bioterrorism. How can RV be effectively used to detect potential threats?

Joe: Remote viewing can be used like any other intelligence collection tool. One should remember, however, like all other forms or other methods of collection, it should never be used in a standalone mode. It is just as effective against bioterrorism as it is against chemical nuclear or any other kind of terrorism.

Q. Speaking of terrorists, do you believe RV is being used by them in their intelligence gathering activites?

Joe: Personally I would automatically assume it. Given the paltry financial resources of most terrorist organisations, it would give them significant bang for the buck. Because many of these terrorist organisations operate on limited dollars or with access to limited technology, there is no reason to assume that they are less sophisticated. Many of their leaders are very well educated and very dangerous people.

Q. We know that the Soviets experimented with drug-induced psychic research. Do you feel that the controlled use of hallucinogens might be of value in RV training and operations?

Joe: Absolutely not. Drugs, whether they are hallucinogens or otherwise, have no place in remote viewing. Experience has taught us that mental control is everything. Drugs have never been known to enhance mental control. Drugs have a direct effect on the mind. This may be a positive effect or may make someone feel like they have more control, where in reality they do not. Lack of control over one’s mental processes is very destructive to remote viewing.

Q. Have you remote viewed any future developments in non-lethal weapons technology that you might care to share?

Joe: Sorry, I can neither confirm nor deny any such work.



back to dvd stills page

back to Hexen2039 mainpage

© Institute of Militronics and Advanced Time Interventionality (IMATI)