blog.McEagle.com

Recently both Joe and Nancy had ‘chat interviews’ live online with the TKR Remote Viewing project, as part of TKR’s “Remote Viewing Expo Summer 2009.”

Really interesting, and great to talk with them!

For those of you who missed the occasion to attend and to suggest questions for the interviewer, transcripts for both interviews are now available online for review.

Both of these are in PDF format.

Joe’s is linked from his RV Expo page:
http://www.dojopsi.com/rvexpo/Joe/

Nancy’s from hers:
http://www.dojopsi.com/rvexpo/Nancy/

Ten more questions are still to be answered by Joe via email per his kind offer in the chat, and that will be posted as an interview or part of one at TKR and/or the Dojo Psi in the next few months.

Palyne (webmaster)

I’m doing a one day workshop at the J.B. Rhine during their Summer PSI Camp. Thought I’d post the Rhine notice here. — Joe

Remote Viewing with Psychic Spy Joe McMoneagle

Saturday, June 28th
9:30 am to 4:30 pm

Course Description:

Joseph McMoneagle is known for his involvement in the development of Remote Viewing by U.S. Army Intelligence and the Stanford Research Institute. In 1977, he was was one of the original Officers recruited for a top secret army project that became known as Star Gate-psychic spying on behalf of the United States. The army showed McMoneagle secret documents, based on information compiled by the Stanford Research Institute, that revealed enemy psychic spying on the United States. Willing to learn more, McMoneagle soon became immersed in the program, which was set up in some old buildings on the periphery of Fort Meade, Md., near Washington, D.C. During the 10 years that McMoneagle spent with this program, he developed an uncanny ability at “remote viewing,” a process by which he was able to psychically see a targeted object, at one point seeing into a secret Soviet submarine construction facility and at another pinpointing where an American general was being held by members of Italy’s Red Brigades. After the Star Gate program was revealed to the public on Nightline, McMoneagle appeared on television in America and Japan. Along with Ingo Swann he has become one of the most important figures connected to the development of Remote Viewing (RV) and the use of claimed paranormal abilities for military intelligence gathering. At his retirement McMoneagle earned his Legion of Merit for his last 10 years of service, including 5 years of work in SIGINT, Signals Intelligence, and 5 years in the RV pr.

This program offers a unique opportunity to learn from one of the best remote viewers in the world. Practical exercises will be offered during this course.

To Register:

Visit the Education Page to register for this workshop.

Program Fee:

Rhine Members $247.50
Non-Members: $275.00
Lunch provided with this event.

In order to offer personalized attention to each participant, each workshop is limited to a small number of people. We suggest you register early to avoid disappointment.

For more information, visit Rhine.org or call 919-309-4600.

Following the filming in Tokyo, Joe and I traveled by Shinkansen [high-speed 'Bullet' Train] to Kyoto, where we met up with a group of our Japanese explorer friends, who are in the following photos, taken by Joe.

Joe has been remote viewing many double-blind targets for them over the previous year with the only feedback being; “You are doing very well, Joe-san.” It was now time for Joe to actually walk on the ground of the actual target sites to receive some of his feedback for that viewing. The nature for most of these targets is archeological and very difficult to explain, so actually walking on them was deemed to be the best form of feedback by the group.

Our Good Japanese Friends:

After spending a wonderful day touring Kyoto and doing quite a bit of shopping, early the following morning we and four members of the group traveled to the city of Nara, where we then spent the entire day touring a section of the southeastern Nara valley visiting many remote site locations.

The following day we traveled again by Shinkansen to the southern tip of Honshu Island where we then traveled by large van to a number of other sites prior to our arrival at Hagi City on the west coast of Yamaguchi Prefecture.

While there, we were invited to stay in the Tomoe Inn www.tomoehagi.jp and were graced with actually occupying and sleeping in the same room used by a previous Emperor [Emperor Hirohito of Japan.] A singular treat for Joe, who occasionally has dreams he shares with previous boarders of hotel rooms. As you can see, he’s enjoying our multi-course breakfast!

The following day we again spent time touring many sites (to include an ancient neighborhood where Samurai lived) in the general area of Yamaguchi Prefecture before returning by plane to the Tokyo area.

The following morning we reluctantly departed from Japan and returned to the USA. This is our view of Mt. Fuji from the airplane.

With warm wishes to all,

Scooter

The second target which Joe worked on was a cold case involving the son of a wealthy real estate baron from Beverly Hills, California who murdered his father approximately twenty-years ago. He tied his father to a chair and stabbed him multiple times with a bowie knife, then stuffed his body in the trunk of his car and left it parked at LAX.

Joe has been working this case with Jimmy Sakoda, a retired Los Angeles Police Detective who was the lead detective on the case for many years and it is now a cold case still open in the LA Police files. Jimmy Sakoda is also famous for having been the Supervising Detective responsible for the Asian Crime Task Force for the LA County District, under the office of the District Attorney. As you might imagine, together Jimmy and Joe constitute a formidable team!

They worked the case a year before tracking the murderer to Portland, Oregon where the trail eventually went cold. Their theory was that he picked up on the fact that people were inquiring about him and possibly fled the area before he could be apprehended.

During this current year’s effort, Jimmy found that Joe’s descriptions most closely matched the Vancouver British Columbia area of Canada, so that is where he centered his search. It turned out that many of Joe’s sketches and drawings strongly matched the Richmond neighborhood of that island area. Many of Joe’s drawings matched in nearly perfect detail to the downtown and harbor areas, and even some of the more specific general-use public buildings that the man they were hunting might have used or occupied — such as the interior of the main or downtown public library building. The neighborhood area in which the search finally settled turned out to be so unerringly accurate when compared to Joe’s drawings, Jimmy was able to stake-out a particular duplex building in a specific parking area. But, alas, there was no evidence that the man they were looking for was there. Once again it appears he had eluded them. Joe and Jimmy have sworn to continue their search until they bring their man in.

The most recent showing of the 2-hr TV Special, “FBI Psychic Investigator,” aired in Japan September 25th at 9 PM on Nippon Television, Channel 4, and as usual, did very well. Joe’s portion of the show was exciting because he was asked to assist in finding the father of a famous young Japanese comedian, Tamura-san.

Tamura-san lost his mother to cancer when he was a small boy, and his father was forced to quit his job, so the family had to live on their father’s savings in order to care for their sick mother until she finally had fallen victim to her disease. By then the family money had run out and one day when he and his siblings returned home from school, they found they had been evicted from their home onto the street. The family was forced to split up, initially living on the streets, each going their own way. So, as a small boy, Tamura-san lived on a school playground for over a month, until rescued by family services.

Eventually favored by fortune, Tamura-san became a famous Japanese comedian, and searched for his father for years, but to no avail. He finally asked the studio if Joe could help. The production staff sent his father’s name and birth date to me, which I then made into a target by writing this information on a piece of paper and placing inside a sealed envelope, which I then gave a target number for Joe to remote view. The film crew then came to Virginia and filmed Joe as he described the target and his location (to which he was blind, of course).

Many interesting things happened on this target. Joe obviously described the Osaka, Japan area, but some of his descriptions were also obviously drawn 180 degrees in reverse. This is something that is unusual, but not completely unexpected sometimes with Joe’s sketching — when his drawings are subsequently reversed they will usually be more accurate. Another interesting problem was that Joe kept moving Tamura-san’s father between what appeared to be a treatment facility and his home and couldn’t seem to keep them separated, one from the other. This sometimes happens when that person is spending as much time at one place as they are at the other, especially in their old age. One location will soon appear to be as much a ‘home’ as the other is actually ‘home.’

In any event, Joe was able to assist in locating Tamura-san’s father and they were able to contact him for a possible future reunion. Their reunion proved to be a very moving and emotional event. It was the first time Tamura-san had seen his father in over 13 years.

Sorry for the long space in between blog entries, folks — it’s been busier than ever around here, which hasn’t left much time or focus for updating the blog. Joe and I have been traveling quite a bit in addition to our usual workload, so the good news is we’ve been out and about in the real world instead of too much virtual computer life. The other news is, we’ve not been very good about keeping up with e-mail or our Blog (clearly)!

In fact, we’re taking off again, which is what I wanted to share with you all, especially our Japanese friends. Joe will be appearing on another “FBI: Psychic Investigators” show for Nippon TV in the next couple of weeks. I think this will be show number 13. The Japanese film crew was here about a month ago, filming Joe in our dining room as he remote viewed the locations of a couple of missing people. As ever with all such targets, I wrote down the names of the missing people and put that in closed, opaque envelopes, giving each envelope a target number.

Joe accurately described the targets, then drew maps and gave specific suggestions about where they should look for these people. The Japanese film crew and producer then took this information and will use Joe’s maps, drawings and descriptions, along with the help of a detective, to see if they can find the people. Joe was pleased to once again work a cold case file with retired LAPD detective, Jimmy Sakoda, who came to Virginia with the film crew. We’ll share more details on that case once it’s solved!

The show will be aired IN JAPAN ONLY on Nippon TV, Channel 4, the end of September — I think they said the 25th, around 9:00 p.m. Check your listings to make sure. After we return from the other side of the world – which besides Tokyo, includes a side trip to Kyoto (my favorite city), Nara, where the huge Buddha is, and Yamaguchi prefecture south of Tokyo, we’ll let you know if they were able to locate Joe’s targets. They don’t tell us any of the results ahead of time, presumably so Joe’s reaction in the studio portion of the filming will be spontaneous. So…stay tuned!

Meanwhile, anyone interested in looking at the astrological forecasts for 2008 may want to pick up a copy of Sydney Omarr’s ASTROLOGICAL GUIDE FOR YOU IN 2008, which my writer/astrologer friend, Trish MacGregor, does each year. I’ve got an article in it, “Signs to Make a Difference,” about how each sign can make a positive difference in the world by honoring their Sun Sign traits.

I hope everyone enjoys what’s left of the sultry days of summer, as the brisk breezes of autumn will be here forthwith. We’ll let you know how Joe’s remote viewing turns out for the Japanese TV show, and update you more frequently than once everyone five months — promise!

Warm regards to all,
Scooter

A video of the Dr. May & Joe (only) segments of a recent A&E show that had some remote viewing:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/videoclips/Precog/precog.html

A number of people have asked where to find it. It was a double blind precognitive RV with matching. The target received a first place match with the session.

On the following dates and times, a show on premonition called; “REAL PREMONITIONS” will be shown on the A&E Channel:

March 8th, at 10:00 PM EST

March 9th, at 02:00 AM EST

March 15th, at 11:00 PM EST

March 16th, at 03:00 AM EST

There are a number of people who were interviewed for this show, to include myself and my friend Ed May. There is an excellent live demonstration of a totally blind “precognitive remote viewing,” which I did for this show, that was captured on film, wherein a description of a photograph was provided prior to its being randomly selected from hundreds of possible targets — in fact it was also judged a first place match prior to anyone knowing which photo was the actual target photograph.

For those who might think a lot of targets were filmed so that we could cherry pick a good one for broadcast — not true! We only filmed two attempts and both resulted in almost equally excellent results. I can’t speak for the rest of the show, but Ed and my part of the shoot was a lot of fun. See the show and decide for yourself.

– Joe

[Real Premonitions, Artifact Studios, in association with TriStar Pictures, Airing on A&E. Produced, written, and Directed by; David Grabias]

Hi, this is Palyne. Recently, some folks and I were talking on an RV forum about the issue of doing double-blind RV work “in public” — and how much courage it takes when failure in front of everybody is on the line.

Many public demonstrations of Remote Viewing are a bit inaccessible to the viewers who’d most like to see them. Sure it’s mass media, but most people I know either hear about it after the fact, or catch it by chance. Except ironically, those which have the most questionable protocol, which as black humor would have it, may even get re-runs.

I’m really impressed with Joe’s Nippon TV work… now if only I was in Japan so I could see it for myself, that would be great! I bet lots of other RV fans feel the same way. We want to SEE it!

As a result of talking about this with other viewers, I’ve come to realize that many folks have no idea how much work Joe has done on-camera, in-protocol, over the years. They didn’t see it, and you can’t look up a TV show like you do a book (especially if it was in another country), so it’s just “out of sight”.

This doesn’t start on all the viewing he’s done publicly in protocol at in-person presentations, which is a whole other category. And not counting the viewing he does for science, and has since what, 1984 I think. And not counting the the viewing he does constantly as applications work, and has since when… 1977-9 I think. (30 YEARS now! Holy cats!)

But for sure when it comes to “public demonstrations,” he’s been busy “Walking the Talk” for years and for real. In my view, he’s close to being a genuine “Army of One” in that category.

Particularly in terms of ongoing, repeat work — and especially in terms of forcing media (most of which resist fiercely) to hold a proper double-blind protocol. I suppose some of media’s resistance or avoidance is understandable, as a lot of the public-media regarding alleged RV, as well as a lot of the psychic methodology training, does not enforce or even mention the need for the doubleblind. If even people in the RV field itself carefully avoid it, I suppose it’s unfair to expect media to take it seriously, especially when they have good reason for feeling “a need for control” in the on-camera situation.

Joe’s adamant insistence on proper protocol in his media over the years is unique in my observation; the occasional media people I sometimes talk to, about shows they are doing or have done, confirm this. And still, despite his offering education, often a scientist to consult with, etc., a good number of his successes over the years have ended up happening despite some unbelievably stupid issues related to problems in tasking and feedback. Nothing that invalidates the doubleblind, but definitely things that most other viewers would be offering as fairly legit reasons for session problems . . . not succeeding in spite of them.

So I asked Joe if he’d outline numbers for the “on-camera public” demonstrations he’s done. I just wanted something to reference in conversation. But it was a bunch of info he returned, so I thought since he hadn’t posted on his blog in awhile, folks who read his blog might appreciate seeing this too.

By the way: he and Nancy (Scooter) are doing fine. They recently had their first non-working ‘vacation’ in many years. They’re still ridiculously busy, as always, and wish they could blog-by-telepathy so it’d get done more. ;-) — P

---

(from Joe:)

I’ve done 138 double-blind demos on National level television in nine countries. I’ve been successful in 109 of those cases. Twenty-three of those cases have been abject failures, and six were turned over to police departments because they resulted in criminal actions and their results to date are unknown.

Thirty-two of those cases have been searches for missing people where they’ve put the persons name and birth date only in a sealed envelope. Of those missing person cases [which are known to be the most difficult cases
in remote viewing], I’ve located the missing person, either living or dead, missing from seven to sixty-one years fifteen times for a success rate of 46.9%.

Understand these are subjective cases as evaluated by audiences and studios, but when comparisons are made of actual locations post hoc to my detailed drawings, it’s pretty conclusive. Most of my viewings usually involve a minimum of at least eight hours of viewing and at least “16 to 25 sheets” of detailed drawings of the target locations, of which less than 20% of the data provided is obviously erroneous. The data is easily recognizable to the average person on the street and does not require extensive analysis by experts (in other words, it’s picture-graphic). In almost all cases I do the RV’s on my dining room table no matter where in the world the target might happen to be, when it might have occurred (year, month, time or date.)

I’m always double-blind to the target. I never have a monitor. No one ever asks me questions when I do the remote viewing. I’m only asked questions about my viewing when it’s terminated, and then I only allow questions to be asked in reference to what I’ve provided. If anyone ever gives me any information, I terminate the RV and walk away, even while being filmed.

Hope that answers whatever question about filmed RV’s might be asked.

I’ve worked live in: Germany, Holland, Japan, Hungary, Russia, America, United Kingdom, Austria, and Sweden. I’ve done most of my work in Japan, America, and the United Kingdom.

– Joe

---

Public ‘walking the talk’ is a big deal for RV. And since I’ve come to distrust media’s RV protocol the more I know about it, public RV that I feel sure IS done in protocol, since Joe is famous (or infamous, haha) for insisting, is invaluable.

Of course, not all viewers have 30 years of experience, a military background, scientists who respect them, and TV cameras following them around. I remember in the old days on the www — dating back a dozen years now — viewers used to complain that they had no way to prove themselves, since they didn’t have an intell unit, a science lab, or a TV camera nearby. How will “the next generation” demonstrate itself, they asked? How can a viewer demonstrate skill in a way to be allowed to address applications? Most viewers don’t have a resume like STAR GATE. Some way of showing their stuff could function as a resume. How could it be done?

In part to serve that need, now there are resources there didn’t used to be. Online. Anonymous if you choose. Free, even. Like the Ten Thousand Roads Remote Viewing and Dowsing Project, in particular the TKR at the Dojo Psi area. The dojo allows an easy way for viewers to practice (automated practice pool), to view together (weekly tasker-created targets that are done by many), interact with other viewers (talk to the viewers on any session), manage your own target pool (software help so you can do your own taskings or ‘mix’ task sources), and there’s even tools for viewing and tasking outside the project as well. But given it forces a doubleblind, one of its most useful purposes is to allow viewers to “show their stuff” for others in protocol.

I think those of you into RV will like the dojo’s tools. Check it out: register or log in, click on the purple ‘RV Galleries’, and then the link ‘Locals Faves’, to see some pretty good viewing. (Usually. Sometimes, why a session gets voted there is beyond me! But many of the sessions there are really good. Consistency is a serious issue — are you surprised? — but everybody’s learning, and you can watch people appear to improve over time, which is very encouraging.)

The dojo tools do get used, and some viewers can really knock yer socks off now and again. Yet oddly, despite that probably 80+% of the online RV field as I encounter it is ‘methods trained’, almost none of them will view in the only online place that enforces the doubleblind and shows your stuff to the public. A few others donate sessions to the Window Gallery (where you can post sessions done elsewhere), but getting practice and missions done in a formal methodological format is like pulling teeth.

This was the ‘big chance to prove it’. Instead of pouring in to show their stuff, everybody “talkin’ the talk” just scattered. There’s maybe half a dozen viewers who happen to use one of the popular methodologies (CRV, TRV, SRV, etc.) methods ‘openly’, hanging out with the other viewers. Probably a dozen who do but only post summaries, so it isn’t evident how they go about it. But there are count-them-zero “experts” (the ones selling RV expertise or claiming it loudly in media, on the radio, or on the internet) to be seen. Not only that, but despite allegedly growing on a quarter million people trained in some ‘variant’ of the methods mentioned, there’s also zero publicly-acknowledged graduate-viewers of-experts to be seen.

Now it’s not like people need to use that website — who cares. It’s not about “that” option, it’s about what needs to be done somewhere that is an option. I think it’d be nice, given the number of people claiming skill at viewing, if we saw a few more of those people in a provable public protocol somewhere. Anywhere. That’s free, anonymous to start, allows privacy on practice, and is accessible to everyone, so it just sounds like a good alternative if someone either can’t, or won’t, “view on TV.” Why should Joe have to carry nearly the entire evidential weight of this field on his shoulders?

Joe has showed more of this double-blind, in-protocol, live-demo courage, and in really BIG venues such as national television in many countries, than everybody else publicly ‘in the RV field’ combined and then doubled.

Many of the folks who read this blog probably already know that. But I thought it was worth saying out loud. I think his viewing is worth waxing on about a bit, and this is (after all) his blog, so what better place? He won’t wax on about himself, so I’m going to do it, since once in awhile I think somebody should. ;-)

– Palyne

P.S.: I closed comments on this post, since this is not my blog. To prevent my embarrassing him by waxing on about him any further, maybe this will inspire him to use his own blog a little more often, so I don’t have to. ;-)

The question is, if you get information “psychically or through remote viewing” that might be useful to someone in power, do you tell them?

Of course not! My recommendation would be not to do it, unless you want an FBI case number after your name and a permanent file in their regional data bank where someone will go to it every time something really screwy happens and ask to look at his “nut-balls” listing, to see if anything cross references to you — because that’s exactly where you will end up and that’s exactly what will happen.

You could volunteer your information in some secretive way? Actually, that could prove to be much worse. What if you turn out to be right? If you are correct, then you are automatically suspected as involved and every effort will be made to hunt you down since you did deliver the information secretively. And since they have had to hunt you down, you are now automatically considered a righteous suspect, or at least until you are totally cleared (preferably by alibi.) Take my word for it. Out of any given 100 investigators, and I’m talking hard-core investigators, maybe two would believe you got it in your dreams or psychically in the first place, so you still get the case number and go in the nut-bag file drawer until you’ve solved at least five or six cases.

This is probably something not worth doing unless they come and ask you for it first. This means you must first develop a track record of some significance.

(Ding!) I heard that from the back of the room. “Gee, how do I do that if no one will ever listen to me or use me in the first place?” Great question!

Basically, it’s called sink or swim. You jump in. Ignore everything I just said. If you think you are that good and the information is that good, you pick up a phone and call someone at your local FBI Regional Headquarters and give them your name. You tell them you are a psychic [don't try and explain remote viewing, they don't care about it] and you have information you feel is important. Then you give them the information. They take it and put it all in the “Nut-bag File.” If it comes true, they will show up at your door and you will be seriously interviewed and asked where you were and what you were doing when it occurred. I hope you have a great alibi for where you were when it happened.

Now, you keep doing that, until you’ve established a track record that contains more accurate information than inaccurate information, at which point they will then take you out of the “Nut-bag File” and give you a confidential informant number, and may actually accept your phone calls. However, and this is critically important you hear this because I will only say this one time. If you tell anyone you are working for the Government or the FBI, and they find out you said that, you will go permanently into the “Nut-bag File” and they will never speak to you again. The rule is; if you talk about their business, they will have no business to do with you. And that is the same with every law enforcement agency I’ve ever had any knowledge of.

And, there is one louder and more significant word of warning that is even more important when it comes to important people in power and that regards the President of the United States. Never mess with the President unless you are absolutely, 100%, solid-gold positive about your information and can back it up with a track record that is Platinum-clad. The Secret Service is an organization that does not muck about or play games with anyone about anything at all. You do not want to go into their “Nut-bag File.” Once you go in, you do not come out.

There is one other comment I would add here. If this is a game you want to play in, then you can’t be just good at it, you must be very, very good at it. Because there are people in power who play on more than one side of the street and they do so simultaneously. Sometimes they even play on more than one street at a time. If you cannot see that psychically along with the information you are choosing to deliver, you may be playing in a very awkward game and be in for some very uncomfortable surprises.

As many of you know, I can be somewhat humorous when speaking. In the past, I have sometimes referred to remote viewing within the halls of government, the law, or bureaucracies as more like a ‘knife fight in a phone booth’ (then of course everyone titters and laughs.) But, no matter how many laugh whenever I make that statement, I’ve never made it to be funny. It’s absolutely true.

Don Williams’s comments are quite accurate regarding visuals. So are Skye T’s comments. That’s the whole point. They’re different for everyone. Its how you learn to deal with them and integrate your visuals into your mental processes and how you integrate them within your internalized processing (or not) that matters; also, understanding that these processes will change subtly over time and may even change abruptly as well.

As for Greywolf’s question about how to do a detailed sketch if you can’t trust a vision to begin with — no doubt you’ve seen some of my own sketches — they are very detailed to a certain degree, but they are far from perfect. If you look carefully you will see they are missing a lot of information. They contain only the data that I’ve been able to process — information I’ve come to trust — I leave out the parts I don’t trust.

I process huge amounts of data before I pick up the pencil and begin to first sketch on paper during any given RV. So, my detailed drawings which may appear to some as being easy done as I draw them aren’t. They belie the huge amount of concentration and effort I’ve taken to process a lot of information in order to try and put some structure to the target in a drawing. What you see when I appear to be simply drawing is actually a reflection of 30-years of remote viewing experience and mental discipline, and my putting down only the information I accepted or trust to be true. I’m leaving out a ton of information from the drawing as well, I’m leaving out everything I don’t trust about what I’m processing, you just can’t see that’s what’s happening from your vantage point. You also might not see that some of what I put down might still be wrong in the details.

{This is in response to one of the comments on the Remote Viewing Visuals thread.}

A team of people assembled for viewing inclusive of Project manager, tasker, viewer, monitor, analyst(s), reporter(s), and client(s) – would be an exceptional rarity, even in the intelligence or scientific world. Of course that would be the ideal.

I’m taking the time to respond to this, because I know why you’ve asked the question. It’s an appropriate and important one, although most out there should have figured it out for themselves already. By the way, your DSL won’t last very long once the pathogens have take over, because the weak link is in the first main-line generator mechanic at a critical power switching station along the American-Canadian border.

Guess what – once I get my blind tasking, I work alone as well, 95 to 99% of the time. I might do a few weeks of lab work every now and then, but when it’s stacked up against everything else I do, it appears a weak glow worm against the room full of candles, so I don’t want to hear any bitching from the gallery about going it alone.

I said what I said originally because I was asked specifically about the viewing and what one might “visualize,” so my intention was to respond to that – not critique the multitude of reasons why someone’s remote viewing might lack in some qualitative or quantitative way, of which this just happens to be a major one.

You are absolutely right – there is no one you can hand it to that might figure it all out for you. And if there was – guess what – they would have had to spend years with you and have more than a passing understanding for psychology and physics, and then have spent hundreds of hours in a closed room with you for days on end aside from the remote viewing in order to give you the kind of help you are expecting from a professional support team. Or, in a preferable case, be two or three additional people, spending more than a few years with you doing the same thing. I guess I am lucky in this accord, since when I do work in a lab, the psychologist has known me for just over 25 years and the physicist has known me for closer to 30. So, they do know when I make a certain kind of scribble and call it a dog can, it’s more than likely noodles casserole with tuna fish and peas.

But, when I’m on my own, which is usually 95-99% of the time, I have to figure that out for myself, and that usually means when I’m being televised in front of millions of people, demonstrating for magazine or newspaper writers (always free), working for law enforcement or looking for missing people which is 60% of my pro-bono work, or just winging it for my meager income. Of course there is no pressure there (please laugh along with me here, as this is supposed to be humorous.)

Seriously, this unfortunately is the dog-assed difficult part of remote viewing which is the part that is totally un-teachable, but which everyone says they can teach and is a piece of cake. Heck, you should be able to just pick this up in a couple of days, a week at most – from almost any course out there, or at least that what most say. It’s all over the Internet. Here are some facts (straight from the laboratory – I don’t make this up):

1. Most remote viewers cannot analyze their own remote viewing. Not because they can’t, because they spent no time learning how, and never plan to.

2. “Almost without exception,” no remote viewer has been able to demonstrate an ability to state when they are right or wrong under controls within the lab. There are two exceptions to this statement who have been able to demonstrate this ability within our lab, but only under great difficulty.

3. Since every human mind is different, there are probably few commonalities between the meanings of images shared among remote viewers when viewing the same target beyond the very rudimentary state. In other words, the more complex the reporting the less likely viewers reporting images will agree.

4. If you really want to understand what you remote view, you have to learn to understand how your own mind works. That takes years of hard work. Notice I said years – not months, or weeks, or days.

5. Once you come to consciously understand what a subconscious mental image actually means or represents in reality, your conscious mind will steal it and use it for just about anything, rendering it useless. This means the language of your subconscious that you struggle so desperately to learn is a “dynamic” language that constantly changes. It is a language that is vibrant, vigorous and active. It doesn’t wait for you to catch up. So, to be an effective and expert remote viewer, you must pursue it constantly and relentlessly, as hard today as the day you started.

I’m repeating myself here – since my books have always said it. It’s about using feedback to try and understand one’s own mind and how it works. How and why the personal mind uses the symbols it uses. Why does it speak to itself the way it does? Why does it go around the block the way it does to deliver itself the messages? Why does it refuse to address certain issues? Why does it have no problem with certain things and so much difficulty with others? When one digs out the reasons for these problems and issues, and then solves them; when one figures out how their own mind works, and understands how their mind operates and why, they will be closer to mastering RV.

Mastering RV isn’t about seeing some distant place and being right. It’s about cleaning out one’s own head, opening to what one needs to hear or see and providing a clear place for visual and input images or input to reside long enough to understand. It’s a form of personal self discipline. It’s a martial art of the mind. It starts and ends inside one’s head, it’s really not about RV at all.

If one can’t discipline what’s inside themselves, then how can they control, manipulate, and understand what they are trying to perceive about something half an Earth away, or from the back side of the Moon?

I would add one last comment. I’ve never encouraged zillions of people to become remote viewers. What I have always said is that everyone who has ever walked into our lab and been tested has shown the capacity for being psychic; albeit most were not very good. All human beings are psychic – it is part of our nature to be so. It’s the very reason I do not teach RV. Why should I teach what everyone already knows? I would be taking money under false pretenses.

I have also stated that approximately one in two hundred have shown a propensity for being world class viewers under protocol. This we know from formal testing. The only way of knowing if you’re one of the one in two hundred is to try and remote view. If one tries and does extremely well in a natural way, then one has gotten a hit off of home plate and has started a journey that now requires learning mental self-discipline. I’ve strongly recommended against paying money to anyone for training, since all remote viewing is, is a formal protocol that can be learned in fifteen minutes from a book. Since every human being appears to be psychic anyway, all one needs is the protocol in order to be a remote viewer.

Learning mental self-discipline is like losing weight, it is usually a long and lonely journey. It’s fun to do with a group, but it usually comes down to what one does themselves that matters, not what the group does for the person. The group is good for moral support, but little else. One will learn to discipline their self and come to understand how their own mind ticks, or they will fail. No one can take a stick and beat that into them. There simply is no “wax on, wax off” method for doing this.

I’ve also said more than frequently, if remote viewing isn’t fun, then one shouldn’t be doing it. Mastering oneself should be both a challenge as well as healthy and fun. The added benefit, even if one becomes a reasonably average remote viewer, are the side benefits of mental discipline one will have learned, such as; being able to control pain, controlling the flow of blood to different parts of your body, controlling your body weight, controlling anger, angst, and emotions, improving the strength of the mind, bringing calm to one’s inner and outer world, and best of all, being able to provide a better example to others.

Like watching Bumblebees fly, there’s more to RV than just describing the other side of the moon.

One of you writes:

is there a difference between the visuals you receive in your remote viewing input and those you receive when dreaming, daydreaming, hallucinating, or imagining? Is there a different flavor or character to them that might differentiate these visuals enough to tell them one from the other? Is there a buried clue, hint, or nugget within these RV visuals that might give them away as being significantly more important than the more run of the mill visuals that come with other subconscious entertainment? Perhaps some way that I can learn to tell them from all the rest that might enlighten me as to what is important as input and what is not?

Right from the start, this implies that “remote viewing” is about seeing the target. Now please pay attention to what I’m about to say next — it isn’t about “seeing” the target — it’s about sensing the target! At best, the most anyone will ever do is distinguish a difference between a deep shadow and a light area in a targeted area from a visual viewpoint. But, because someone way back in the history of the project decided to call what this form of perception is — remote viewing — everyone jumps right in thinking it’s all about seeing the target, which it isn’t.

Obviously, everyone is looking for a way or method of differentiating the RV input from the rest of the mental conglomeration of visual input that floods the mind while you are attempting to capture input. Well . . . unfortunately it all appears to come bubbling up from the same place, which is the subconscious – the common place of origin for all of our visual cues to what is going on deep inside our psyche.

Sorry — there isn’t any way of telling . . . except of course once in awhile when you get an input which is so absolutely real as to be beyond belief. It is usually a surprise out of left field and something you least expect which doesn’t appear to fit anything you ever could have expected to happen. It will usually be more vivid than reality itself and comes in with all the details, as though you were witnessing it just as if it were happening in reality in some special place/time. It won’t be long and drawn out, like an act in a play. It’s usually a fragment of a second, or a second and a half at most, very short and sweet, and quite stunning in its clarity and perception. So stunning in fact, the details will overwhelm you with information you can’t possibly remember. We’ve come to call this the, “Ah-ha” form of input. Is it perfectly correct all the time? No! Can you tell when it is? No!

Now, I’ve been doing RV for over thirty years and I’ve done tens of thousands of remote viewings of somewhat demanding importance, under incredible stress. In all of those RVs, I’ve experienced perhaps twelve or fifteen Ah-has, so that’s how rare they are. If you have a great deal of expectation for them they usually won’t occur; they usually happen when you least expect them.

The hardest part is reporting them. I usually do not, because the detail is so great. Most believe I have something to do with the planning or execution of the action associated with the target or the knowledge it imparts. This is especially true if you can’t provide a substantial alibi for your whereabouts at the time of the occurrence. In the case of some police problems, this can be a serious difficulty.

I regret to say that most visual input during RV is mental junk, providing only similarities to what is actually going on at the target, and one must try and interpret what the meaning of the vision actually is. The vision of a boat sailing on a placid lake usually has nothing whatsoever to do with a boat, sailing, or a smooth lake at all, but everything to do with a calm relationship between two people who are currently getting along with regards to something very emotional between them. Interpretation of what your mind is telling you is everything in RV, and it is usually not the job of the remote viewer to do the interpreting, in any event. It is someone else’s job altogether.

The remote viewer is simply there to report what they perceive and let someone else figure out what it means. Report what you perceive. Report, report, report, and when you think you’ve reported everything you can, look again and report some more. Pick it apart until there is nothing left to report. It is the remote viewer’s job to pick their perceptions apart and report what they see about the target. It is not the remote viewer’s job to try and figure out what it means. That’s someone else’s job. If you view your job as an unbiased observer in the purest sense, you will be surprised at what you will perceive and what you will observe. Bring all of your senses to bear in order to do this, and use all your talent to sense whatever you can about the target. Report whatever you have sensed about it in its purest form — the pure essence is what is critical about the target – nothing more and nothing less. The better you get at reporting this, the better you will get at being a remote viewer. Let others figure out what it might or might not be.

Remote viewing is not about viewing or seeing — it’s about sensing in the purest sense of the word.

JM

Onto another topic… There used to be a day when you could trust a name like National Geographic. These were the folks who ferreted out the truth with cameras. I remember as a child sitting for hours in front of the television simply because National Geographic was going to show films of Africa, the undersea world, or something special about the world I otherwise wouldn’t have been able to see. They were the guys who went out there and found the truth and shot it for us folks who would never have the opportunity to otherwise see it. There was never any question as to their honesty. They’d never engineer a lie!

So let’s review exactly how my remote viewing segment, totally controlled by National Geographic, was filmed for National level television. We gave them the scientific rules for a hard core, replicable, double-blind remote viewing experiment. We told them it had been replicated in our lab and a number of other labs across the world thousands of times with significant results under the same conditions, and proffered the research for review. We also offered to put them in contact with other scientists who had also run exactly the same protocols in those labs. They accepted both the materials and the contact information. This is how the experiment was run:

1) They brought in their own person to select a large number of possible target sites within the San Francisco Bay area. This person was never introduced to me and was put up in a hotel in a completely different town. The name of the person and the town were not shared with either me or Dr. Ed May. This was to insure that we would never meet with nor contact this person throughout the experiment or the shoot.

2) All of the locations that had been selected as possible target sites were photographed and were kept under lock and key, secured by a law firm which was hired by National Geographic, also unknown to either Ed or me.

3) On the day of the shoot, the target was randomly chosen at the law firm and was carried to the location of the filming by a police officer who was hired by National Geographic. He carried a sealed envelope containing the target site to which an Outbounder was to travel. He also carried a sealed envelope containing five photographs, one of the actual target site and four additional sites which were bogus sites for judging. All of these had been prepared so that no one had touched them, so there were no fingerprints on them to tip anyone as to which site was the actual target site. He also carried a sealed envelope with a photograph of the Outbounder contained inside who no one up until that point had seen.

4) The Outbounder went directly from the law firm to the randomly selected site (at least I believe so, as they never told me exactly how the Outbounder got there.)

5) Once the cameras were rolling, Ed was handed the sealed target and the sealed envelope with the Outbounder’s photograph. He opened the Outbounder photo envelope and showed me the Outbounder photo. He asked me if I had ever seen the woman before. I said no. He then asked me to describe where she was standing.

6) I described and drew the actual target in less than 30 seconds. “Circle of dirt or gravel, with an art form in the middle. Flat.”

7) It was done so fast in fact, the National Geographic observer was extremely disappointed. So, I then said; “Gee, I guess that’s not much for a National level television show, is it.” I thought for a moment about the target. Then said; “So, why don’t I describe exactly how the Outbounder got to the targeted site,” which I then proceeded to do.

8) That is when I produced the drawings of the arches and entry into the area. When I was finished, I was asked to leave the area and they then handed the packet of five photographs to Ed. To reiterate, care had been taken to insure that no one had ever handled any of the five photographs inside the packet, so there would be no hints as to which photograph was actually the real target. Ed, who usually takes quite a bit of time and care to do his judging, took less than a minute to give me a first place match to the actual target site based on my drawings. He said on film that it was quite clear from my drawings which place was the target.

9) The Producer then called the Outbounder to ask where she was actually located. On finding out where she actually was, he asked that I sit in the front seat of the van so the man filming could film my reactions to our arrival at the site. He later told me he knew that what I had drawn was nearly a perfect rendition of the actual target.

10) Arriving at the site, we found two police officers who were not part of the production. One was California Highway Patrol who had been assigned to Home Security for Anti-Terrorism. He had seen them photographing down along the edge of the bridge and drove down to make sure they weren’t doing something wrong. The other man was State Security and he had arrived for the same reason. Both stayed when they heard that I was doing the RV, and had called in to their superiors for permission to stay so they could meet me. Both reviewed all of the materials. Both officers said based on what they saw, they would have gone directly to the bridge based on my drawings alone. They were both impressed, and I was asked to sign and autograph their day logs for both them and their Watch Commanders.

All through dinner that evening, all the producer and other personnel from National Geographic did was talk about how amazing the experience was and how they simply could not believe what they had witnessed. It was very clear that they were convinced that it was successful, replicable, and real. That was my 86th live demonstration of double-blind remote viewing on national level television, and at the time I was running an approximate 88% success rate.

By National Geographic standards, it’s a failure, non-scientific, non-replicable, and a waste of time. In the future, I might travel to Hell with their film crew to see snow balls form, but only if they bring their check book.