All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 1997 - Art Bell
02:54:15
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Remote Viewing Program - Stargate - Lyn Buchanan - Paul Smith - Joseph McMoneagle
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from March 25th, 1997.
From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, or good morning, as the case may be, across all these many prolific time zones, from the Tahitian and Hawaiian island chains in the West, across flyover country, all the rest of us, to the Caribbean and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, South into South America, North to the Pole, and worldwide on the Internet.
This is Coast to Coast AM, and I'm Art Bell, and what a surprise.
We were going to have Lynn Buchanan on, and we still are.
But we're also going to have Joe McGonigal and Paul Smith.
All three of these gentlemen were involved in the military's Project Stargate.
Which I'm sure you've heard so much about.
Nightline, of course, ran quite a significant story on remote viewing, and many of you in the audience are familiar with remote viewing through other guests that we've had on.
Some of you may not be.
So we will discuss remote viewing, their differences, their agreements, what they think can be done, Was done, what they can tell of that.
And a lot more.
So all of that coming up in just a moment.
Take Coast to Coast AM with you anywhere on your mobile phone.
Coast-to-CoastAM.com can be conveniently accessed on your iPhone and most Android platforms, which means that you are never without your Coast-to-Coast AM fix.
If you're a Coast-to-Coast Insider subscriber, you can listen to the show live in the middle of the night, or previous shows 24-7.
Plus, you can browse all the great photos, videos, and news stories.
Keeping up with Coast-to-Coast AM has never been easier with our Coast Insider service.
Looking for the truth?
You'll find it on Coast to Coast AM.
Not everything is cut and dry.
And I think people will look at events and say, who profits?
Who benefits?
And then they back into it with their theories, which many people would say are conspiracies.
I mean, there's no question there's a facet of government that wants to take guns out the street.
Not just assault weapons, but pure guns.
They want to get them out of Americans' hands.
In order to do that, You need tragedies and events like we had in Connecticut in order to create the stimulus to get the legislature and people behind that in order to say, you know what?
They're right.
We don't need this.
We don't need that.
So I think when you look at that whole picture, as bizarre as it sounds, because you cannot see a conspiracy at every event, but you will look at these events and say, see, this is what they've created in order to get people to think this way.
Bottom line is people don't trust other people.
And that's why they create all these things.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM, from March 25th, 1997.
Not long ago, the nation was shocked.
Nightline ran a story.
uh... did a show and said guess what folks for the last twenty years the u.s.
government has had an ongoing program of remote viewing and as best they could in that limited amount of time they tried to describe what remote viewing was the nation kind of went what?
since then we have been pursuing the topic uh... tonight may be uh... the biggest program in that regard yet Before I begin telling you a little bit about these men, let me tell you, they've got websites.
And right now, if you go to my website, and you click on the Scheduled Guests area, or go to the Scheduled Guests area, and click on Lynn Buchanan's controlled remote viewing site, it will take you to a place where you can see any of the associated websites.
And there's a lot to look at.
There's a lot to look at.
So you might want to go up to my website.
Again, go down to Scheduled Guests and click on Lynn Buchanan.
And that'll take you wherever you want to go.
My website, of course, is www.artbell.com www.artbell.com Now, Lynn Buchanan.
He was a remote viewer for Project Stargate from 1984 through early 92 while part of military intelligence for the U.S.
Army.
He functioned as a viewer, a viewing instructor for new personnel, and a viewer profile database manager as well as other miscellaneous duties.
When he retired from the Army, remote viewing was still classified.
After retirement from military service in 1992, he founded the AWP to assist civilian intelligence, police, FBI and so forth in locating missing children and founded PSI to develop solutions for intelligence-related data analysis.
Prior to the facts about Project Stargate being declassified, He trained only those people who were in a position to know about that technology.
McGonagall was born January 10, 1946 in Miami, Florida.
He voluntarily joined the U.S.
Army and was recruited by the Army Security Agency for classified assignments.
He too, eventually, eventuated to Project Stargate While there, he earned a legion of merit for providing critical intelligence, reported at the highest echelons of our military and government, including such national level agencies as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, DIA, NSA, CIA, and the Secret Service, producing crucial and vital intelligence unavailable from any other source.
When he retired in 1984, he maintained his association with Stargate in general, the program, through his own company, Intuitive Intelligence Applications.
And now Paul Smith.
Paul served in the Fort Meade Remote Viewing Program, Stargate, September of 83 to August of 1990, and was trained in CRV by Ingo Swann primary author of the government CRV training manual he also served as theory instructor for new CRV trainees besides performing a thousand plus training and operational RV sessions during his army career thousand when he retired from the army after many assignments including Arabic linguist intel officer for a special forces unit
Intel officer with 101st Airborne Division during the Gulf War and Intelligence and Security Division Chief for the Military District of Washington.
Paul has been accepted into a Ph.D.
program in Philosophy and works as a freelance RVer and consultant.
He recently opened Remote Viewing Instructional Services, Inc.
offering CRV training courses.
So, we have Well, I guess what we have here is three spooks.
Is that about right, guys?
In both senses of the word.
All right, in order that, you know, this is not TV, so in order that we might tell you apart, if when responding to something you would say this is Lynn or Joe or Paul, it would be awfully helpful, I think, for the audience.
So, what I'd like to let you guys do is sort of banter back and forth, and what we must begin with is explaining to the audience what remote viewing is.
Who's good at doing that?
This is Joe.
I'd like to answer that if I could.
In my opinion, what differentiates remote viewing from normal psychic functioning is that remote viewing is usually done within a controlled protocol.
That protocol has essentially been the same and has been unchanged since the original research into remote viewing in 1972 at SRI.
One of the things that dictates the protocol is that remote viewing is usually done blind with the subject and that there are specific requirements that go along with the protocol that are generally not violated.
Generally not violated.
All three of you have gone from the Military Stargate Program into individual endeavors in civilian life.
Have any of the three of you In any way, significant or not, modified the protocols in your civilian endeavors?
This is Len.
Let me answer that.
When I was in the service working there as database manager, the Ingo Swann technique is largely intuitive and in several spots it's not at all logical and as a result I've seen I have kept as strictly as possible to the Ingo Swann technology.
and watching the database each time I've seen the results go down.
I have kept as strictly as possible to the IngoSwann technology.
Now I've added a few things that take the information and expound upon it.
But as far as the basic technology itself, I wouldn't change it for the world.
This is Paul.
It might be useful to clarify something here.
We're actually dealing with a couple of different approaches to remote viewing.
Joe uses one approach.
Lynn and I use another.
We learned ours essentially from Ingo Swann.
It's called controlled remote viewing.
It used to be called coordinate remote viewing.
Joe uses another technique, which I don't know what he calls it.
We tended to call it back in the unit ERV or extended remote viewing.
The goal of both approaches is to essentially control the process.
In fact, I call it essentially remote viewing.
in a very kind of flip way of saying it is disciplined clairvoyance in a way.
You have a set of protocols as Joe has expressed which help exclude mental noise, help direct
or focus your attention so that you have a far better chance than you would otherwise
of getting specific information that is related to the target you are trying to address.
All right.
I take it in Stargate.
All the targets were of a military or national security nature.
This is Len.
All of the real world targets and the tasked targets were.
Now we also had practice targets that we used just to keep up proficiency and to try out new things and make sure that we didn't get rusty.
Okay, kind of like the military out following 727s or 747s over the Atlantic.
Well, you could say that.
Actually, the best thing we found to ever work with was pictures cut out of National Geographic magazines, sealed in envelopes, and you describe what's in the picture.
Describe what's at the site.
So practice.
Sure, just practice.
This is Joe.
I wanted to add something so that there's no confusion in the listener's mind.
When Paul and Lynn and I were explaining what it is we do, ERV, CRV, or whatever you want to call it, those are the methodologies that each one of us uses to process the information, which may be different.
The thing I wanted to underscore is the fact that for any of those methodologies to be considered valid for remote viewing, they have to be done within the specified protocol, which is different from the methodologies that are used.
Right.
In fact, this is Paul again.
You almost might make the analogy with different email programs.
You can use Eudora or you can use Pegasus to download your email.
There are just different ways of organizing the data, so to speak.
Well, it would be helpful for the audience to really understand what it is you can and can't do.
Can you read minds?
Well, at least in my experience, you can't do it in the way that people think of it normally, like they see from a science fiction movie or something on TV.
You can obtain impressions, emotions, you can actually obtain information, but it's not in the same sense as actually knowing what they're thinking instantaneously in the same words they might be thinking those thoughts in or whatever.
You get the information, but it's not nearly as literal as people conceive it as being.
Okay, for example, Saddam Hussein.
Could you target Saddam Hussein and come up with his mood, his intentions, his... In other words, what could you come up with regarding Saddam Hussein?
I suppose it would apply to anybody, but he'd be certainly a typical target.
Right.
This is Len.
We did, in fact, do exactly that, to come up with plans and intentions, to come up with Background psychological information such as moods, logical ability, his outlook on life, philosophy and so forth, mainly plans and intentions.
This can be done.
However, like Paul says, it's not a thing where you put the envelope to your head and say the answer is.
It's a slow procedure.
Let me interrupt.
You said plans.
That would really imply a fairly direct reading of somebody's mind rather than mood.
Plans imply we're going to attack Kuwait on a certain date.
That's right.
And it can be done, but it's an advanced level and it's not Like Paul says, it's not something you just sit down and scribble off.
Maybe I can add something here that will clarify.
This is Joe.
One of the things that you have to understand is that in the function of remote viewing, it's not the attenuated protocol that might exist for, say, studying telepathy.
What happens in remote viewing is you're actually opening to All of the possible delivery systems, everything from clairaudience to clairsentience, clairvoyance, telepathy, resentment, all those things are delivering bits of information.
So there's an entire realm or wealth of information that's available depending on how you set up the specific targeting mechanisms.
Would the three of you agree that it is the end of secrets as we have known them?
I wouldn't say it quite so precisely.
Let's go back to the mind reading thing.
One of the things you have to recall is how confusing everyone's thoughts are anyway.
We can think about one thing while we end up doing something else altogether.
If we were reading Saddam Hussein's mind, again not literally like that, but if we were doing that We might pick up in the morning when he's in a bad mood and he intends to invade Kuwait tomorrow and then later on in the afternoon he's already changed his mind and decided to do it some other time.
It's never quite that precise.
Oh boy.
That must be very difficult for the remote viewer when you're dealing with a human target which would, as you point out, change its mind.
This is Joe.
There's inherent problems in remote viewing as well.
It doesn't work all the time.
So if you're operating with a 60 or 70 percentile chance of actually making contact with a target, then you have to also look at the fact that there are times when you're going to be wrong.
Do you mean to say that this is not 100 percent correct?
That's what I was about to ask.
Never has been.
Let's be nice.
If you can find someone who can do it 100% of the time, I will believe that the aliens are on the Earth because they're not human.
Then what would the three of you say with regard to percentage of, obviously, people I suppose could approach 50-50 on certain things.
How far above that does remote viewing go?
Actually, let me jump in here and say, this is Len, say that the 50-50 thing is right or wrong.
If you have to select and tell a color of a card, for instance, you can say red or black, you have a 50-50 chance.
What if you have to predict the color of a traffic light?
Then you have a 33% chance.
If you have to predict the condition of a certain spot in the desert, how many percent do you have chance?
Good point.
Also, when people ask for accuracy, they have noted many times that different people have reported different amounts of accuracy for quote, remote viewing.
Which is a general term, actually.
Well, if you compare your accuracy, let us say we take a white or a black piece of something and put it in an envelope, and compare your accuracy doing remote viewing compared to the average Joe's guess, how do you do?
I'm glad you ask it that way because I've been doing an extended experiment on this here lately with red and black cards.
Ah.
And right now I'm at 68.3%.
As compared to the average Joe's... 50%.
50%.
All right, gentlemen, hold tight.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
Three former Stargate, Project Stargate, remote viewers.
Lynn Buchanan, Joe McGonigal, and Paul Smith.
A rare gathering.
And right here, the trip back in time continues, with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More, somewhere in time, coming up.
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, I'm coming home.
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, I'm coming home.
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, I'm coming home, I'm coming home.
Home.
Now, we take you back to the past on Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Three gentlemen all involved in the U.S.
military in Project Stargate, a remote viewing project that your tax dollars paid for.
All three now retired, the project declassified, and they're talking.
We'll get right back to the...
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1990.
Now, my guests, Lynn Buchanan, Joe McGonigal, and Paul Smith.
Lynn, where are you located?
Maryland, about 50 miles directly south of Washington, D.C.
Okay.
Joe, how about you?
I'm about 25 miles south of Charlottesville in Virginia.
Alright.
And Paul?
I'm a half hour north of D.C.
in a little town called Laurel.
So all of you sort of gathered not far from headquarters.
That's right.
We sort of had homes here because we Of course, we're in the project for so long, and as a result, we just sort of settled.
Let me say something else, if you don't mind, about that red-black.
Yes.
In the project, when I took over the database, I saw that there was some work called binary work, where they were doing exactly that.
It had been an experiment, and the continually highest score in it was a person named Joe McMonigle
who even one time scored 100 percent on 52 cards
I was very very impressed I should someday reach that did you say 100 percent? there was one instance
in the database where he got 100 percent So it can be done?
This is Joe.
I'd like to say something about the accuracy.
I've been working for over 13 years with the Cognitive Sciences Lab in California.
That's the original founders of the original research in remote viewing.
We have collected statistics on dozens of remote viewers, what I would call world-class remote viewers.
Generally speaking, on an average, a very good remote viewer can be expected to make contact with a target site about 60-65% of the time.
And out of the information they provide, the accuracy of the information will run anywhere from 35-88%.
from 35 to 88%.
Now there are times when a good remote viewer will get 100% or near 100% quality remote
viewing, but those are extremely rare.
And when someone establishes their sort of history over a long period of time, say 10
to 19 years, that's the kind of percentages you can expect.
Are those percentages increased with a team?
No.
From a research standpoint, everything that we have in the database that we've looked at at the Cognitive Sciences Lab, would indicate that
if you had ten very expert remote viewers all looking at the same part is
an example and in eight say one thing and to say another
that it's just as likely that the two will be correct in the a won't be
our government at least according to the nightline program that brand
uh... financed uh... stargate over twenty years
twenty million dollars or something like that at the end of which
uh... they more or less declared it to be a failure and stopped the program
So all three were in it.
Was it a failure?
This is Paul.
No, it was far from being a failure.
In fact, back while I was still on active duty, I wrote a review of the CIA report on that, which I discussed many of the problems with that report.
It's hard to say for sure, but it almost looked like it was consciously intended to prove the program was faulty, and yet they did not consider anywhere near all of the evidence available to make that determination.
From my own experience, and I think the other two will agree, while there were times when we fell flat on our faces there, there were times when we were unbelievably successful as well.
That kind of holds true of any of the various intelligence disciplines.
None of them are 100%.
None of them are even close to 100%.
Sometimes they're very successful, and sometimes they're not.
So I would say we were at least as successful as any of the other intelligence disciplines, and sometimes perhaps more so.
Well, if that's true, then the declaration that it was a failure was an intentional piece of disinformation or otherwise known as a lie?
Well, perhaps you could say it that way.
You have to remember there is a lot more involved than just a bottom line as to whether it works or doesn't work.
There are a lot of political agendas involved.
There are a lot of personal belief systems.
We live, of course, in a scientific paradigm that doesn't want to accept the fact that there are things that happen that they can't explain in a cause and effect relationship.
So far, no one has been able to explain what it is that makes remote viewing work, and so there are a lot of people who have real problems with that.
Yeah, most of the military people, for example.
I was in the Air Force, and I can imagine what the attitude toward what you gentlemen did was, and I'm sure it was not fully positive in the ranks.
This is Joe.
A very good example of that, since you brought up the military.
There are multi-billion dollar programs which are dependent upon, in essence, plans or constructs that may be very vulnerable to psychic functioning, that may be very targetable.
If some performance is developed that shows a vulnerability based on psychic applications, That can be very damaging to getting an approval for a multi-billion dollar plan.
So, that'll give you an idea of sort of the politics that might become involved.
Well, at least publicly.
Now, they suggested they stopped the remote viewing program altogether, and Stargate, indeed, has been disbanded.
However, do all of you agree that the government is now doing absolutely no remote viewing work whatsoever?
What do you believe?
This is Joe.
I would agree with that.
I have no knowledge whatsoever of anything that the government's now doing, either from a research or a collection standpoint, and that's okay.
I happen to think that this belongs in the private sector or belongs in the public sector, Many labs and many individuals can be participating in the research.
Only, I would have to add that I think if any of their research is being done publicly, then it needs to be open to peer review and evaluation, criticism, discussion, that sort of thing.
Can you, Joe, tell me whether the stock market is going to go up or down tomorrow?
With about the same percentage of accuracy that I discussed earlier, yes.
My!
My, my.
I've got a fax here from a listener.
Art, please ask these gentlemen to speak about the episode they experienced when they were still active within their military unit.
The episode involved eight objects entering the U.S.
airspace, followed by one more type of an open airship.
This story is both amazing and amusing.
Don in Peoria, Illinois.
This was called the The Great Christmas Attack.
At one point, someone called up to DIA and had DIA call tasking to us.
Ed Dames was the monitor on this.
One by one, we remote viewed.
Everyone was in on this except Ed.
Who is very prone to lead the viewers and we were sort of doing it just to show what can happen.
The first viewer went in, we got all this on tape by the way, the first viewer went in and started giving just simple, you know there are live beings here, there are eight objects in front of a an open aired vehicle and so forth.
By the time of the last viewer, which was me, I was describing runners instead of wheels
and drawing the sleigh runners.
I was describing bells jingling and the pilot's uniform was red with white fuzzy trim.
And when I went into the session and sat down, Ed told me that, you know, all the viewers are supposed to get his numbers.
He told me that we are experiencing an attack.
From over the North Pole with open aired helicopters which are coming down over the northern Canadian border.
What we're trying to do here is to find out their exact location and exactly what their targets are and so forth.
Finally at one point I just said something about the pilot.
He's speaking into his radio saying, Ho!
Ho!
Ho!
And that's about the time.
I think when I said that, everyone else who was in the monitor room, where the TV monitor was, laughed so loud that you could hear them through the walls.
And that's about the time that Ed caught on to the great Christmas attack.
So, all moments in Stargate.
We're not serious dire moments.
You guys had some fun.
That's right, sure.
We actually had a lot of fun.
Lynn particularly, when things got a little wild, he put out a pseudo-newsletter called The Adventures of the Cy-Force Five, some of which were very hilarious, actually.
How many of you were there in totality?
Well, Paul here.
Just like any organization that's in flux with people moving in and out, at any one time the answer would be different.
I think the most number of viewers we had in the organization at any one time was about seven.
Then, of course, with support personnel you had the operations officer, the branch chief, secretarial, and a couple of monitored analyst types.
Maybe roughly ten to a dozen would probably be the largest size it was.
Even given what you said about the politics of remote viewing and religious paradigms and all the rest of it being challenged in the nature of the military people, the fact is, if you guys really were able to do what you say you were able to do, You would be such a national asset that it's almost impossible for me to believe that the government would just say, OK, that's it.
We quit.
We're not going to do it anymore.
We don't care what what Muammar Qaddafi is doing, or at least care to find out this way what he's doing or any other bad hot spot in the world.
We give up.
Goodbye.
It's hard to believe.
I mean, it's just not like our government.
They're hard-bitten.
They're pragmatic.
But you all should know that.
This is Joe.
I'd like to respond to that directly.
That's true.
That's one perception that one might have about the government.
However, a lot of the politics involve the managerial responsibilities for this program.
As the media has blatantly shown since the November 1995 exposure of the project, The giggle factor goes up when someone starts talking about using psychics.
And nobody that has a political career wants to be caught dead standing next to any of those psychics.
In fact, we had tremendous support from the Senate on down in some very important positions in government.
And when those people were asked to respond, in particular to the Nightline program, Without exception, all of them responded positively but refused to go in the air or state that publicly.
Alright, I'm not surprised.
All three of you have now turned to civilian application for remote viewing.
Are there ethical and moral limits?
Or if I walk into one of your organizations with a whole bundle of money I have very definite moral and ethical limitations.
what Mitsubishi is going to produce in the following area, what they are doing.
Will you do that for me?
This is Len.
I have very definite moral and ethical limitations.
There are certain things I will not teach.
Basically during the span of the course, just learning the basics, there is so much to learn
that you don't really have time to learn all of those esoteric things anyway.
Excuse me, Lin.
Wait, wait.
There are certain things you won't teach.
I do not even address the subject of remote influencing and won't.
Oh.
All three of you, I take it, agree.
Remote influencing, which means, by the way, folks, The ability at a distance to influence what somebody else actually does.
In other words, not just read their mind, but influence their mind.
It is possible?
Remember, it's not remote control.
It's remote influence.
I understand.
I want to make one thing very clear, by the way.
Keeping the database, I kept all of the information on all of the projects.
At no time was there ever an official tasking to our unit or done by our unit involving
remote influencing.
Anything that was done was done by individuals on their own time.
And there was some experimentation and so forth, but at no time were we ever tasked to do that.
Well, would it be your view, Lynn, unofficially, that remote influencing is possible?
I believe so.
I have collected the data and tried the experiments and have come to the conclusion that it's extremely possible.
My God!
You know, again, this brings me back to the military's apparent dismissal of this.
Remote influencing would be of such intense interest to them that it just seems impossible to me that they would not fully explore it.
Well, if you were a politician funding something, would you want to get caught funding remote influencing?
Uh-uh, not me.
I don't think any politician does, and of course, anytime You do something in government, there's always the chance of a leak and somebody finding out.
But then again, political death.
Sure, but they don't want to get caught selling missiles to Iran either.
Well, yeah, and they did.
That's right.
Our government does lots of things that it might not otherwise want to get caught at, and the idea of being able to remotely influence Boris Yeltsin, or Saddam Hussein, or any of the other big guys, This is Joe.
I'd like to comment on that from a science standpoint.
Sure.
As I said before, I've been over 13 years with the Cognitive Sciences Lab.
There are a number of labs across America that have been involved in remote viewing research.
Many of those labs have tried some experimentation in the remote influencing arena.
There has been some very interesting and provocative results, which are still very much up in the air.
So, if you were to say, absolutely, we can prove remote influencing, you would have to say, no, we can't.
But if you said that there is a high probability that it's possible, you would have to say, yes, but all the research isn't in yet.
So, based on that, I don't know how you would actually apply it and be expectant of an ability to validate the outcome.
That's right.
In the experimentation I've done, the experimentation I know is completely full of holes and could be shot down by Junior Woodchuck's scientist, but I have done the experiments to my satisfaction.
I now believe that it can be done quite easily, but as far as proof I'm still waiting for proof myself.
Our president has done from time to time over the last several years things that seem utterly uncharacteristic.
Have any of you had anything to do with that?
Other than with my vote, no.
uh...
and uh... i think that the other than with my vote no uh...
alright uh...
without naming anybody uh... would one of you say oh yes
i definitely in my own mind i believe that i definitely remotely influence
somebody's action Thank you.
Yes.
This is what I was saying.
I have convinced myself that it does work.
However, let me again repeat that it was never official.
This is Joe.
One of the problems here is When you start talking about remote influencing of other individuals and then you bring in integrity and that sort of thing, ethics, one of the problems that you become very heavily embroiled in, especially within America and especially within research, is the fact that there are human use considerations that have to be taken into consideration.
And as soon as you have sort of formally identified someone to participate in such an experiment, you have to tell them up front what's going on.
All right, gentlemen, hold tight.
We'll be right back.
This is Premier Networks.
That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM on this Somewhere in Time.
It's a great show.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM, from March 25th, 1997.
Good morning everybody.
If you are just joining us, you're not going to believe what you missed in the first hour.
You may be able to catch up in this hour.
My guests are, from Project Stargate, the government's official remote viewing program, Lynn Buchanan.
Joe Mechonical, Mechonical, I'll get that right, and Paul Smith, all three involved in the U.S.
government's remote-viewing Stargate project.
We'll get right back to them.
Sound of jet engine.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
Music.
Once again, all three gentlemen gathered around their old home within miles of Washington, D.C., one way or the other.
Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonagle, and Paul Smith.
Gentlemen, welcome back.
Who would like to try and describe the difference, if possible, between technical remote viewing, so-called, and controlled remote viewing?
This is Lynn.
I've talked to many of Ed Dame's students.
Structure wise, I don't think there is that much of a difference.
It of course sticks pretty closely to the Ingo swan structure and retains the
terminology that Ingo used.
So in other words, there is not a lot of difference.
There is not a lot.
Now Ingo requested that people not use his terminology and so I started using basically
slang terms that the students developed.
For instance, analytic overlay, which is basically your imagination taking over.
My students called it stray cats.
So I took over that terminology simply because Ingo put out a little basic letter saying
please don't use my terminology.
So basically, I would say as far as terminology goes, Ed's is closer to the original than anything I teach.
Structure-wise, I think they're basically the same.
May I ask this of all of you?
Why do remote viewers generally not love each other?
Well, let me address that.
I've been watching this on the net.
Wait a minute, who is this?
Oh, I'm sorry, this is Lynn.
Lynn, okay.
I've been watching this on the net, and if you look very closely, The concept or the feeling that all remote viewers are squared off at each other is a form of disinformation in itself.
The people who are squared off at each other seem to be Ed squared off at Dave, Dave squared off at Ed, Ed and I, Ed and Joe, Ed and I think soon to be Ed and Paul.
Let me restructure the question.
Why do you guys not love Ed?
There are several reasons.
uh... why do you guys let me restructure the question what do you guys not love
it uh... there are several reasons one
uh...
uh... for one thing uh... when he got out of service
he started uh...
he started giving classified information to the public all home
uh... while it was still classified uh...
he uh... is making claims that he uh...
ran the project that he started the project that it was you know that he
briefed the president and
These are laughable things.
Not true.
I'd like to make a comment here as well.
This is Joe.
Uh, Ed has also made claims that I've worked for him.
And, uh, that sort of thing.
And those are emphatically not true statements.
Yeah, he said I worked for him, too, and I didn't.
All right, uh, here's a fax.
Uh, Mr. McGonigal has said that Ed Daines, uh, Ed Daines was never a remote viewer, uh, with the government, but was simply a person who was employed to interview prospective candidates For the Government Remote Viewing Program.
Could you please ask him to comment on that?
Let me jump in there.
This is Paul.
Okay, Paul.
That's actually not completely correct.
And it's notable to Joe's because they didn't overlap.
Ed came in on the scene long after Joe was gone.
Ed actually did indeed do, did participate in some operational remote viewing projects.
Okay.
However, that wasn't his primary function.
He was indeed More an analyst, a tasker, managing training and stuff.
He was kind of a jack-of-all-trades in that regard.
He wasn't hired primarily as a remote viewer and only under exceptional circumstances did he do that, but he did indeed do some operational remote viewing.
I got that he did one, didn't he?
No, he was on for a number.
I haven't gone through the list.
I saw at least six or seven that he was a viewer on.
Oh really?
I didn't remember that from my database.
This is Joe.
I'd like to comment on my comment.
That's not an exact quote for what I said.
The claim was made by Ed Dames that he was the only person who was qualified to train Or teach other people remote view and that he was the most accurate remote viewer in the project and the only one who was a responsible viewer.
And my comment was that his primary job while he was with the unit was to act as a monitor and interface with the viewer in terms of handling or setting up remote viewings.
And that he was not a primary trainer.
He may have trained in the sense that he ran practice sessions and that sort of thing.
And that's okay.
Everybody had specific jobs within the unit and everyone performed as they were required.
I suspect that he performed righteously and did the job very, very well.
Where he makes claims and then attributes them to himself when they in fact don't have anything to do with him.
They had something to do with someone who perhaps is not even with us anymore today.
In private moments, you gentlemen, have you not referred to Ed Dames as Dr. Doom?
This was a nickname that was given to him in the unit before he came to us.
He's called Doctor Doom over there.
He's been predicting doom, death and destruction for years and years and years now.
Would you say that he has seen things that the rest of you have not seen?
That would be a fair assumption.
This is Joe.
And that's fine.
Well, one of the remarkable things about remote viewing is that when you make a prediction or you make a statement about something, one would hope that there would be some validity or some method by which you could prove validity or the veracity of the information.
Sure.
I could certainly choose or pick targets that are completely unverifiable and make all the claims I want, and that's okay.
Well, that opens up another topic and maybe a little bit in defense of Ed Dames.
if you're going to be making claims about remote viewing and its capabilities that you
would be opening yourself to being tested in some way or producing information that
can be verified.
Alright, well that opens up another topic and maybe a little bit in defense of Ed Dames.
He's been on this program and said, I'm sure you're all familiar with the amazing Randy,
so called.
Ed has been on this program and said, straight out, he accepts Randy's challenge.
There's something like a million dollars, or now more, sitting there waiting for somebody to prove psychic ability.
Ed Daines has said, I accept.
I called the amazing Randy, so-called, and asked him to come on.
He settled facts and said, OK, there's numbers in my safe.
Tell Ed to come up with these numbers.
I said, that's not fair.
You're in control of the numbers and I don't like that.
So how about coming on the program and setting up a structured test with the controls set up here on the program and the Amazing Randy, so-called, did not come on the program, would not come on the program.
Do any of you feel that the Amazing Randy's challenge could be taken and met?
As it stands, he's basically a magician, a sleight of hand and sleight of mind.
If anyone does things on his terms, he wins.
I don't care if you were 100% accurate doing it on his terms, you would be subject to a magician's sleight of hand.
It's a gimmick that he uses for his own popularity and so forth.
Yes, but if the controls were set up independently from Mr. Randi...
Then he wouldn't participate.
That's correct.
And so that's why he wouldn't come on the program.
Sure.
Right.
This is Joe.
I'd like to say something about that.
He doesn't accept the current scientific controls that have been verified, proven, and used across 9 to 11 labs in the world.
And so he's not hardly going to come on your show, Art, and establish a valid or reasonable protocol and allow someone to attempt to do the remote viewing.
So I have to support Ed in this because he really hasn't been proffered the opportunity to demonstrate under an appropriate protocol.
Well, basically, the amazing Randy wrote back to me and said, I won't come on your program I can't be in the studio with you.
Well, either is Ed Vaint.
He's on the phone.
He said further, CNN has made yourself and myself an offer to do a weekly program.
It is true.
CNN has approached me and has approached Randy to do a kind of point-counterpoint program, and I feel it would water down that program, and so I don't want to come on your show.
All reasons that I considered unreasonable in terms of trying to set something up to to really meet this challenge.
I agree.
This is Joe.
Where he essentially wants to hold all the marbles and make all the rules, that's in itself an invalidation of a truly scientific test.
These things have to be open for discussion and bantering and argument, and they are so within normal science.
So he's actually violating the very rules that he says he has established.
Is it possible, gentlemen, to view into the future or the past?
Yes, as a matter of fact.
The past is easier to do.
The future is a little bit harder.
But it can be done.
It has been done a lot and continues to be done, I suspect.
Many of the training sites we had at the old unit involved retrocognition, if you will, viewing events in the past.
It worked very well.
It worked as well as real time.
Wow!
This is Joe.
One of the problems you might run into in remote viewing in the future, if you go out too many years, you may in fact have a 100% correct remote viewing.
But since it involves something that might pertain to technology or something that we don't yet know about, there's no conceptualization that you can put it in, no order that will make sense.
You run into some technical problems when you remove the past.
There's an even more interesting problem.
History is sort of mobile, and history seems to be written to support whatever the political or social requirements of the present are.
That's right.
So you open a bucket of worms where you have to be willing to then take on and defend whatever you've said against the anthropologists, theologians, and the revisionists.
Exactly.
Ed Dames has said, and I wish to ask you all about this, that there is, in the next few years, a point past which he really cannot see.
He sees some large event, which he can't quite discern, which he describes as possibly a spiritual event of some sort, a massive spiritual event.
Have any of you seen or sensed this?
This is Paul.
Of course, being as close as we are to the turn of the millennium, just like the last time the millennium came around, there's a lot of hysteria almost.
In fact, they use the word hysteria when they talk about it historically, about cataclysms and all that sort of thing.
I'm not saying Ed has fallen prey to that, but it's certainly something to be concerned about.
A lot of people are talking about end times and the book of revelations has all kinds of things in it that people seem to be seeing happening now.
I'm not going to say those things aren't going to happen, but we have to be especially cautious when we deal, first of all, in the future because there are a lot of technical problems with remote viewing in the future, and second of all, dealing with very emotional laden issues such as end times, coming cataclysms and things like that.
I'm not sure that's an answer to the question.
Is there a point past which... Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
I have not experienced that.
And nobody I've talked to has had that experience that Ed is claiming.
Doesn't mean he's wrong, but I myself am rather dubious.
This is Len.
I heard that by the year 2000 the entire British Isles will be wiped clean of life and so forth.
That sort of surprised me because I had done a series of sessions for a company and it involved looking into the year 2005.
At that time it was generally life as usual in the British Isles.
Alright, there are some real world things going on, Lynn, that I would like to ask you and the other two about.
Frogs, indicator species, are beginning to grow extra limbs.
They're becoming deformed.
They're becoming multicolored in various ways.
All kinds of things.
Deformed fish.
We are beginning to see changes in our ecology.
Do any of you that have been able to look into the future see where this ecological problem is going?
This is Joe.
I'd like to respond with a comment and then I'll answer it directly.
These are not new phenomena.
Deformed frogs, fish, that sort of thing have been occurring as well as deformed cows.
Chicken, snakes, that sort of thing across history.
The media's attitude towards reporting those things has changed drastically in the last probably 10 to 15 years as a result of the public's interest in those things.
In terms of what we may be seeing in the future, there's no doubt in my mind, just based on what you read in Scientific American or any other valid research reporting document, that There probably are effects from the ozone depletion and chemicals in the air and the plasticity that we've put into our water that we're now going to be paying dearly for for some time.
Okay, but that's you reading the headlines the way I do.
I guess I was asking more about what might have been actually remote viewed or what you might have sensed.
Let me jump in here if I might.
It was sometime last year that The prediction was made about the frogs mutating and so forth.
However, I have right here on the computer a copy of the New York Times from March of 1994 talking about frog mutations and another one from the Associated Press in 1995 talking about it.
I can remote view things that have already happened.
Anybody can do that.
That's easy.
It's easy to predict things that have already happened.
Let me pull away from this.
You guys are already having too much fun with this.
Let's talk about the past for a second.
One obvious target in the past of immense interest to people worldwide Is whether there was really a man who walked the earth who was the son of God called Christ.
It must have been for you at some time an inevitably tempting target.
This is Len.
I had done a series of sessions on Colombian drug lords, Hussein, Gaddafi and so forth.
I'll tell you what, Lynn, may I interrupt you because we're at the bottom of the hour, and I like cliffhangers, so we'll come directly back to this.
Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonigle, and Paul Smith, all members of Project Stargate, the U.S.
military's remote viewing project, are my guests.
It is a gathering of eagles, and it's kind of rare.
Stick with us.
Interesting stuff, and you just heard what's coming.
The trip back in time continues, with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
more somewhere in time coming up I don't hear anything, I don't know I don't hear anything,
I don't know I don't hear anything, I don't know I don't hear anything,
I don't know Don't say that you love me Don't tell me that you love me
Don't say that you love me Don't tell me that you love me Don't say that you love me Don't tell me that you love me
Don't say that you love me Don't tell me that you love me Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM, from March 25th, 1997.
And my guests, Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonigle, and Paul Smith.
All back within several hundred miles of Washington, D.C., one way or the other.
All involved in the Militarist Project Stargate.
and they'll be right back.
Coast to coast AM, sure sounds great in the middle of the night.
But you know, you don't have to be nocturnal to enjoy this amazing show.
The Coast Insider is your key to a normal life.
For 15 cents a day, you can wake up refreshed knowing that last night's show is waiting for you with podcasting.
Listen on your way to work and again on the way home.
Or listen to one of over a thousand archive shows from the past three years.
As a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Noory and special guests.
The Coast Insiders Club is a must-have feature for all Coast to Coast AM listeners.
Visit coasttocoastam.com to sign up today.
You'll sleep like a baby knowing you'll never miss your favorite guests and topics ever again.
Remember, a one-year subscription comes out to only 15 cents a day.
Sign up today at coasttocoastam.com.
Looking for the truth?
You'll find it on Coast to Coast AM.
Not everything is cut and dry.
And I think people will look at events and say, who profits?
Who benefits?
And then they back into it with their theories, which many people would say are conspiracies.
I mean, there's no question there's a facet of government that wants to take guns out the street.
Not just assault weapons, but pure guns.
They want to get them out of Americans' hands.
In order to do that, You need tragedies and events like we had in Connecticut in order to create the stimulus to get the legislature and people behind that in order to say, you know what, they're right, we don't need this, we don't need that.
So I think when you look at that whole picture, as bizarre as it sounds, because you cannot see a conspiracy at every event, but you will look at these events and say, see, this is what they've created in order to get people to think this way.
Bottom line is, people don't trust other people, and that's why they create all these things.
Now, we take you back to the past, on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Alright, back now to Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonigle, and Paul Smith.
Gentlemen, we left off at an interesting point.
I had asked whether anybody had remote viewed Jesus.
Was he on this earth?
Was he the son of God?
What do you know, if anything?
This is Len.
Yes, Len.
I had started an old war story here.
I had been doing The Bad Guys for weeks and weeks and I went into the director and I said, Just once, give me Mother Teresa or Bozo the Clown or something.
These targets are killing me.
The answer was, your soldier, suck it up, do your job.
However, a couple of days later I went in and the monitor took the sealed envelope and said the target is a person.
I started the session and my first comment was, Whatever you think this guy did, he didn't do it.
As the session went on, I just got this glow from being in contact with this person.
At the end of the session, the monitor opened up the envelope and there was one word in the middle of the page and it said, Jesus.
I didn't establish in that session Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or whatever, but in that way I feel honored to have met the most holy person I have ever met in my entire life and won the meeting of whom I think changed parts of my life.
That one session, I think, was a turning point for certain parts of my life.
You established that there was such a person.
Would you say that much?
Yes.
This is Joe.
I would support what Len just said.
I have had the experience of If you could call Jesus a target.
I have had the experience of doing some affirmation in that regard and likewise I have also had the experience with the other great prophets as well.
Muhammad, Buddha, some of the other great religious leaders and there's a great deal of similarity in most of them and a great deal of similarity in the original constructs that they delivered I do find that over history, however, my information has shown that mankind has altered considerably some of those messages.
Do you see all of the ones that you mentioned as being from the same creative source?
Absolutely.
This is Joe.
I would say absolutely.
If you could refer to this being as an energy you would have to say it all comes from the same source.
The same as man comes from the same source.
This is Len.
People quite often ask me if in doing the remote viewing I have become disenchanted with religion and my answer is always no.
If anything I have become more religious and more dedicated to the spiritual side, my views have changed against the church, about the church, the organized church.
But if anything you would all say you have become more spiritual?
Absolutely.
This is Joe.
I would have to underscore what Len said and agree with him 100%.
I'm actually a Mormon.
Some people ask, well, has this affected your beliefs negatively?
In fact, it's done just the opposite.
It's strengthened my beliefs and a lot of the principles that I've learned growing up.
It's amazing how it all dovetails with things that you've learned or always knew somehow.
It's eerie listening to the three of you agree like this.
All right.
It happens so seldom.
Remote viewers do agree now and then.
Does anybody know why it was called Operation Stargate in the first place?
I've always wondered.
Yes.
They went around the office taking names.
They said that on that one, they said that we would have the opportunity to pick our own names.
pool we got together I think the best name that came up from it was Stargate.
That was the only time we had a chance to pick our own name.
When was that?
That was in 1986.
Its name then was Gondola Wish.
The military has a way of picking code names where they just kind of randomly select two names and put them together.
The program actually started out in 1978.
Its name then was Gondola Wish.
The military has a way of picking code names where they just kind of randomly select two
names and put them together.
That's the way the program was named for the first while, Gondola Wish, and then it turned
to Center Lane in the early 80s.
Sunstreak was its name in 1986.
When it went from Army INSCOM to DIA...
I'm sorry, let me apologize here.
Sunstreak is the one where we chose our own name.
We don't know how Stargate came about.
That happened in probably 1993 after all of us were gone.
In the interest of stopping this, the reason I ask is because there was a movie, as you all well know, called Stargate, and I was wondering if your name might have been the genesis for that.
I seriously doubt it.
Actually, there was a science fiction novel written by Andre Norton, probably 30 years ago maybe, called Stargate that had to do with a device that you could walk through and it would put you on another planet.
I suspect they may have got the name from that.
That's what I thought.
This is Joe.
Can I just throw in a comment?
I don't want people to read detail out of this and a lot of misconceptions grow from it.
I was a member of the project until its termination in November, albeit I was working on the science and research side of it.
Were you surprised at its termination?
This is Joe again.
Yes, I was.
In fact, the AIR report supports the realization that there probably is something to remote viewing and probably that psychic functioning does exist and it is probably of some value.
Their actual comment with regard to the unit was that they found that there was not sufficient evidence that it was supporting intelligence.
However, historically, that's not a reality.
The actual project was literally approved on a year-to-year basis based on what it was doing in terms of support to the intelligence community at large, and based on those findings by oversight committees during that entire 19-year period or 18-year period.
It was approved based on the effectiveness.
Well, you say year-to-year on the effectiveness.
Then after 20 years of approvals, how did they suddenly decide it was a failure?
Well, essentially they reviewed the last year only.
They were directed to review the entire 20 years, which was an impossibility in a three-month period that they were given to do the review.
Secondary to that, the people actually doing the review did not have The appropriate clearances for accessing the grand numbers of files.
Probably 95% of the project was never reviewed.
They were never allowed access to it.
Also, there was some very specific marching orders given to the scientists initially on what they would review.
So, it was a stacked deck.
It was a bogus report to start with.
All right.
I must ask this, and so I will.
From Arkansas, Art, ask your guests outright, are there aliens?
Are there ETs here on Earth or in our vicinity or at all?
If so, where and who knows about it?
I believe you'll be surprised at the answer if they are honest.
What a setup, alright.
What about it, guys?
Let's start with Len.
Go ahead, Len.
Oh, okay.
I am firmly convinced that there are.
Oh.
I'm convinced there are, myself, based on remote viewing.
To the degree and extent of what their involvement is with the human race, I'm not even going to venture opinions on that.
I think there are too many opinions already as far as all that's concerned, but I am convinced Uh, what we would call aliens and what we call extraterrestrial conveyances, you know, UFOs, so to speak.
This is Joe, and in my response I'm going to be probably a little bit more specific.
One of the problems I have is the definition for alien, and there's a lot of constructs that immediately come to mind when someone brings that subject up.
I believe, based on my remote viewing and my experiences, that UFOs are real.
Let me say that up front.
I have not seen any evidence that there are aliens associated with UFO phenomena.
I've not seen direct proof of that.
However, within the context of aliens, I would have to say that also based on my experiences, I believe that there are entities that people would perhaps call alien.
But that doesn't guarantee that they're extraterrestrial.
They could be essentially time travelers, extra-dimensional projections.
They could be almost anything.
And I don't think we possess sufficient proof to say one way or the other yet what they might be.
Good answer, Joe.
However, all of you agree there's certainly something out there other than us.
Well, this is Joe again.
This isn't a new issue, Art.
This has been around for 2,000 years that we know of and it will continue to be around because those are simply experiences that people are having.
While we may not be able to say very much specifically about it other than they are experiences, it doesn't mean that it should not be properly investigated or looked at.
What happens, unfortunately, is that a lot of the data is mixed with disinformation, or it's collected improperly or poorly, and we wind up with some very interesting concepts about it, but we don't get any closer to the truth.
Alright.
Are there aspects of Stargate that the three of you are still unable to discuss publicly?
Yes, of course.
I would have to say about 95% of it.
Oh my God, really?
Absolutely.
So when they said Stargate is declassified, they only generally meant the fact that it existed?
That's generally so, yes.
Well, here's Paul.
The biggest body of material that's still classified and probably ought to remain classified deals with the actual projects themselves.
The reason for that is not the connection with remote viewing, but the connection with other intelligent sources and means.
There is material on some of those projects that could potentially harm our intelligence collection capability.
It might disclose the existence of some human source that we have and put them at risk.
There's a lot of stuff in there that isn't even involved with remote viewing that is sensitive and important to American security.
I would agree with that.
You made a rather startling statement, one of you, that Ed Dames, you felt, disclosed some classified material before its time.
This is Len.
Not only on a few TV shows, I think there's one called The Other Side or something like that, and radio shows, but also I was down in Atlanta one time working with a student and I had I had a chance to meet a person named Courtney Brown who was going to put out a book.
This book was about the Stargate Project.
He asked me to take a copy of the manuscript that he had and read it.
In the first chapter of the manuscript, I remember everything was still classified, highly classified.
In the first chapter of the manuscript was the list of names of all of the viewers.
I went back and I said, Courtney, you can't publish this.
If you do, they'll confiscate your book or something.
Anyway, I got him to take that first chapter out.
I asked him, where did you get this information?
He said, I got it from Ed.
When I was a kid watching the old World War II movies and all, I knew that the absolute worst treason that any agent could ever do was give the names of the other agents.
You bite the cyanide pill and die before you do that.
Yet here was the entire list for the purpose of being published while this was still a A classified thing.
Now the reason that upset me so much was because of another incident where Ed at a meeting had gotten up and told what I had done against Hussein and I called him on the phone and I said, Ed, these are crazy people with guns and I've got a family here and he just blew it off.
Well, the only purpose I could find for giving those names to Courtney to publish in that book while it was still classified deals with the idea of targeting for remote viewing.
If you have a name, basically you have an address.
The history of Russian parapsychology has been more aimed at remote influencing than remote viewing or data collection.
I could still find no other reason for giving that information to Courtney than to have
something happen to us.
That upset me very much.
I stayed around while Courtney not only took the first chapter out but also deleted it
from his computer.
I wanted to make absolutely certain it was completely gone.
Look guys, we're at the top of the hour.
Anybody here have to bail out or can you stick around a little bit?
I can stay on for a while.
I'll stay on for a while.
Alright, done.
Then there they are.
This is kind of a gathering of the Eagles, something you will not frequently hear.
Perhaps never has been done before, I don't know.
My guests are Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonagle, we'll get that eventually, and Paul Smith.
All three in the military project known as Stargate.
This is Premier Networks.
That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
On this, Somewhere in Time.
So, I'm going to go ahead and get started.
A gathering of eagles.
From Project Stargate, the military's remote viewing project, my guests are Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all within several hundred miles, respectively, of what used to be home base in our nation's capital.
and we'll get back to them in a moment.
Coast to Coast AM sure sounds great in the middle of the night.
But you know, you don't have to be nocturnal to enjoy this amazing show.
The Coast Insider is your key to a normal life.
For 15 cents a day, you can wake up refreshed knowing that last night's show is waiting for you with broadcasting.
As a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Noory and special guests.
The Coast Insiders Club is a must-have feature for all Coast to Coast AM listeners.
Visit coasttocoastam.com to sign up today.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
tonight featuring coast-to-coast a m from march twenty-fifth nineteen ninety
seven all right back now uh... to my guest animal asked for the
sake of the radio audience
once again that they all identify themselves by uh... their first name at
least as they speak of
Otherwise, it is confusing.
Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all once again back.
Gentlemen, before we get started, I would like to ask you, my webmaster is listening.
We've got a link right now.
To the homepage for controlled remote viewing.
If you would like any other links up, say so now and we'll get them up right away.
Yes, this is Joe.
The Cognitive Sciences Lab link is worldwideweb.jsasoc.com slash tilde csl slash index.html.
Okay, I got it.
So I assume my webmaster did.
It'll be up within minutes.
Any others?
There are two.
We're opening up a new portion of the web page for the controlled remote viewing.
Is the one that you have Paradigm-Sys?
Let me see.
Yes, it is.
Okay, there is another as well, and it's the older one for those who don't have graphics capabilities or don't want the graphics capabilities, you know, because they're overseas and want the faster transmission.
There is another one which is www.ameritel.net slash l-u-s-e-r-s stands for local users slash r-v-i-e-w-e-r Our viewer.
And then it ends with a slash.
Can any of you remote view the day when these damn worldwide web addresses will get shorter and easier?
Alright, we will get those up.
Now, before we leave the subject of aliens or dimensional beings or whatever it is that you all sense and agree would be out there, one obvious target in this area I can respond to that first, I guess.
This is Joe.
I had a private client who actually targeted me against Roswell.
saying somebody must have tackled that one.
Has anybody looked at Roswell and if so what have you determined?
I can respond to that first I guess.
This is Joe.
Okay Joe.
I had a private client who actually targeted me against Roswell and at the time I of course
was totally blind to the actual target.
The report that I produced was essentially a very accurate description of the location
that was being targeted in Roswell which is the believed crash site.
There were some indications that there probably was an incident there, but it did not involve an alien craft.
It involved a possible mid-air collision between some Earth-bound traffic.
And probably involved some materials that were sensitive.
And hence, then, of course, the story about the weather balloon.
Yes.
The data I had did not specifically match a weather balloon, but it did indicate that there was probably an event, but it was probably not an alien associated.
All right.
Joe, a fax for you from Orange County.
Art, in reading Joseph's book, Mind Trek, Which, by the way, I thought was a great book.
He talks about a stage in which he sees creatures or ghosts or spirits.
And the person wants to know, does everybody who remote views eventually get there?
In regard to what they're referencing are some chapters in there where I was discussing my interaction with what you might call entities.
That this took place essentially as an experience outside of remote viewing.
I want to make that very clear.
While these may have been a personal experience that I think is valid, this information was not obtained vis-a-vis remote viewing.
I believe, it's my personal belief, based on 19 years of participation in the project and the remote viewing that I've done, It's my personal belief that we are, by nature, essentially existing in two worlds, one physical and one spiritual.
To ignore the experiences from a spiritual side would be tantamount to cutting off the left leg, so to speak.
Here's another good question.
Other than the remote viewing of Christ, Can any of you, or do any of you, aside from your personal religious beliefs, in the context of remote viewing, is it possible to confirm the fact that there is life beyond the physical?
I will answer that.
This is Joe again.
In my opinion, yes.
But it's not life as we know it, the physical.
It's obviously something else.
I believe that we do have frequent interactions with what might be termed as entities or spiritual beings.
All right, this is for all three of you.
impact on us as spiritual beings ourselves.
Those types of experiences, because of the profound impact of them, have exactly the
same effect as if you were run over by a Mack truck in the physical world.
So they should be paid attention to and that is up to each individual as to what they do
with that.
All right, this is for all three of you.
In the process of learning or in the process of remote viewing, is there any danger to
the remote viewer?
This is Paul.
I'm out.
I don't think so.
In my entire time with the program, I never experienced myself or heard of anyone else experiencing anything that would be considered dangerous.
I know there are claims out there to the contrary.
I just don't know where that is coming from.
Well dangerous to the psyche of the remote viewer.
In other words you might see things, for example, that would drive a person over the edge.
This is Len.
Could I jump in here for a second?
Yes.
For each person when you establish a sort of contact between your conscious and subconscious
mind sometimes there are things that your subconscious and conscious have been waiting
for 20 years to say to each other.
There's a period of time, generally, when a person gets very sensitive, very reactive to things, fly off the handle easily and so forth.
But that gets over with.
Any real danger that comes to a person I think is basically caused by the fact that the subconscious is harboring a danger that is then let loose.
I have never had any or even actually known any person who has had a remote viewing session Where the session itself or the target itself had a danger to the viewer.
I think what you carry into the learning process for remote viewing may be a danger to you but that danger has been there all along anyway.
I'd like to add something to that, Len.
This is Joe.
I agree with what Len and Paula both said.
I've never had a bad experience in remote viewing.
But I would like to underscore the fact that this is a very interesting experience, remote doing or being psychic.
And there are a lot of people that are on the edge to start with.
And when they're exposed to the changes, the rather radical changes in their beliefs or their constructs, it can be very undermining or damaging to the psyche.
And there is evidence that a lot of people do sort of step off the edge and lose touch with reality.
In other words, they become pretty much involved or caught up in the irrationality of it or they lose their stability or their ability to deal skeptically with the material and what's going on.
Have any of you, while remote viewing, any target?
Ever sensed or felt or understood there was another remote viewer in the area, so to speak?
In other words, met another remote viewer?
Yes.
I did on several occasions meet a... Now, let me preface this by saying that there was never any proof.
But in several sessions I did, generally at random, I met a Chinese remote viewer and actually over a period of time of several meetings sort of struck up a very good relationship there.
However, there's no proof of that.
I never got feedback on it because of course we never knew.
Anything about the project or if there was a project or who the remote viewers were for China and so forth.
Would it be your view they are probably still have a project of that sort?
Either in China or Russia?
This is Joe, I can respond to that.
I can say most emphatically that there are a number of countries, Russia, China, Hungary, a number of other countries that are very heavily involved in pursuing remote viewing and researching it.
It would be silly to suspect that they weren't using it for the obvious reasons that it can be used for.
Then for that reason, above all the others I've heard so far, again, it's so hard to imagine that our own government would not do it knowing there are others out there doing it.
So, if I had to make a guess, I'd say we're still doing it, but you guys say no.
Well, this is Paul.
Of course, anything is possible.
There's quite an extensive security, secrecy infrastructure in the government, and it is, of course, feasible that maybe there is still somewhere buried deep inside Langley or someplace a program.
I also, like Joe, I've actually made inquiries of some contacts I have fairly deep in the system.
As far as they've been able to determine, there's nothing going on.
I can actually believe that.
Just knowing the attitude of many of the very influential people out there in the government who disapproved heartily of the program, I can believe that it's been written off.
Not because it didn't work, but because they were not comfortable with it.
Well, then this is a very serious national security question.
If China and Russia and Hungary and other countries are doing this, shouldn't we be?
Absolutely.
This is Len.
Let me say that you're talking to security people here, and so you watch for words.
When you asked this of Joe a while ago, his comment was that he doesn't know of any.
I would say the same thing.
To say that no, there is not or yes, there is, I don't know of any and I've had my friends and contacts, which are also very deep, don't know of any.
When people ask me about the closure of the project, I say, yes, this project has been fully closed.
And if they ask me about any others, I very carefully word it by saying that the United States is the only country I know of which has closed their remote viewing project.
Okay, then let me carefully word a question.
If the three of you knew of an ongoing project, here we are on the air, could you say it?
I wouldn't.
I wouldn't either.
Who would I?
That helps.
Yeah, and of course our answers might be different otherwise as well.
I don't know exactly how I'd respond to it, maybe no comment or something, but we certainly wouldn't reveal it particularly because we know Let me ask you something, Art.
be.
We wouldn't want to jeopardize it.
But the fact of the matter is, and I'm pretty convinced both Joe and Lynn are the same with
me, we really don't know of anything going on and can indeed believe that it got the
legs cut out from under it.
Let me ask you something, Art.
I can understand your disbelief that somebody wouldn't be paying attention to this, but
I can tell you from experience that there are actually people in the government in very
high positions that still believe that psychic functioning or use of remote viewing is a
violation of spiritual and theologic reasoning and are vehemently and argumentatively against
it just based on religious grounds.
So how do you deal with people that are still holding to that?
Well, I guess I would ask you when Langley got religion.
Well, I'm not talking.
Langley's not the approval authority.
Let me also ask a question here.
Are you asking us whether or not our government has done something stupid?
I guess I am.
I guess I am, yes.
I think it might not be the first time it's happened.
Alright, look.
We talked a little while ago about remote influencing.
To the average person, that's really frightening.
The ability to influence another's thoughts or actions at a distance.
So, an obvious follow-up question to that is, would there be a defense against an attempt to remotely influence?
This is Joe.
I had responded to that earlier and there's an additional comment I can make in that regard.
While there is evidence that there probably is a capacity for some form of remote influencing, the problem has been that because of ethical and human use reasons, whenever those experiments are done, you have to inform the person, the target individual, that they're participating in a remote influencing experiment.
As long as those particular rules are in existence, it would be tantamount to impossible to know
whether or not remote influencing is actually taking place as a result of unknown targeting
or whether or not by virtue of the fact the person knows they're involved in that kind
of experiment, they're actually willingly opening themselves to being targeted.
It's an issue that probably won't be answered until someone has come about with an approved
protocol that can target individuals without them knowing or unwitting targeting.
There's a lot of talk going on now about influencing of a different sort by the Chinese with regard to our present administration and one would have to imagine if there is a Chinese project and if remote influencing is possible That would have been an obvious major project, would you all agree?
I would agree, except that I haven't seen any evidence that the Chinese are in fact doing that, so it's sort of a moot question, and I'm not sure how anyone would evaluate the results of that.
There have been a lot of reports about the Soviets having been involved in that in the But it's mostly kind of rumors and such.
Again, no evidence.
Of course, a thing of this nature would be hard to prove anyway.
But there were some interesting and quite wild stories about what the Soviets could or might be doing.
I'll bet there are.
All right, gentlemen, hold tight.
We'll be right back to you.
A gathering of eagles, I'm calling it.
Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all involved in Project Stargate for the U.S.
government.
Which ran for 20 years using your tax dollars to remote view.
I'm Art Bell.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
tonight featuring coast to coast am from march 25th 1997 I have been only half of what I am
it's all clear to me now my heart is on fire
my soul's like a wheel that's turning my love is alive
My love is alive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah There's something inside that's making me crazy
I'll try to keep it together I finally want to love you, feel you, wrap myself around
enough And if you move, we'll go, I let it go
you I want to squeeze you, please you, no I just can't get
I'm so excited for it, I just can't hide it I'm about to lose control and I think I like it
I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it I know, I know, I know, I know, I know I want you here,
want you here Thanks for watching!
Subscribe to my channel for more!
Premier Networks presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from March 25th, 1997.
Good morning, everybody.
Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, and Paul Smith, all in the Government's Project Stargate, are my guests.
Just wait till you hear what's coming up.
Sound of a jet taking off.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM.
From March 23rd.
twenty-fifth nineteen ninety seven back now to my guests and gentlemen
uh... i have a fax here from ed dame's secretary that says the following and i
would like you to react to it art Thank you.
With respect to treason, remember that General Stubblebine, the commander of INSCOM, whatever that is, was chairman of the board of SciTech when Ed went public in 1989.
Would that affect anybody's comment with regard to the release of I would ask if this exonerates Ed Daines.
Does this mean that he didn't do what he did?
I will add to that.
This is Joe.
One of the normal procedures for finding something out is to claim that someone else has already told you.
And then it's just a matter of validating the information by getting it from someone else.
This is a pretty common ploy and it's used by the media representatives many times in newspaper articles and things of that nature because someone else said it doesn't make it true and it certainly is no valid reason for violating the oath that an officer makes or the security oath that someone is committed to.
In Ed Dame's case, I would rather not comment directly on him, but I don't see it as a valid reason for what he may or may not have done.
I'd like to kind of weigh in a little bit on Ed's defense here.
I think treason is too strong a term here.
Treason implies that you're providing damaging information to a known enemy.
Ed didn't do that.
In the various venues in which he released whatever information he did, I don't know what his motivation was, but he didn't intend for that information necessarily to be used by an enemy or someone who wished to harm the United States.
Of course, by releasing it publicly, you lose control of that information and you don't know what use it will be put to.
But that still doesn't constitute treason.
Let me ask you something.
Do you know of any country in the world that doesn't have an open source literature office?
San Marino has a little guy that sits in the building.
Right.
The point I made was, once you've said it, you don't know who is going to hear it.
But intent is part of the definition of treason.
If you intend to release information to a known enemy, That's treason.
If you're just spewing it out, maybe that's stupidity, or maybe that's lack of care, or something else, but it's not treason.
Alright, and to be clear, none of you used the word treason.
Treason was the word used in the facts.
Perhaps a reasonable interpretation, or not reasonable, of the allegation of release of classified materials.
So, we'll leave that there.
On with this now.
Art, please ask Paul Smith if he's ever RV'd to find out where the 116 lost pages went.
For your information, it's a Mormon thing.
That's from Ron in Birmingham, Alabama.
As a matter of fact, no I haven't.
Part of the problem with RVing is you can't task yourself.
If you do, then you're already asking for trouble.
You know what the target is and you already have preconceived ideas about the target.
If you say, I'm going to go remote view X, then you're very likely to find that X is what you expected to find, whether or not it's really there.
Even if I were interested in going into these historical things and looking at all the past historical events, dealing with my religion or any other religion.
If I were to test myself, the information wouldn't be valid.
You would have compromised yourself.
Exactly.
All right.
Again, it's inevitable.
Ed Dames has done something that will affect the entire remote viewing community.
He has released, or is about to, videotapes that purport to be able to teach the general public how to remote view.
At a price far less than the average remote viewing course apparently costs the public.
Do you think, A, it is possible to teach somebody with that method, and B, what effect will it have, if any, with so many people out there trying to remote view?
This is Len.
I am hoping, actually, that it does work, because I would love to see this talent brought out in more people.
And I think overall it would raise the entire consciousness of humanity.
I know that in my own philosophy of teaching, I find that every student is so individual that I'm very adamant about individualized training.
And I know that Ed is too.
General rules of remote viewing, the basic rules of remote viewing can probably be taught that way.
I'm very anxious to find out if it works.
Like I say, I hope it does.
Let me jump in here.
This is Paul.
I taught myself how to play guitar.
I'm still trying to master some of what normally would be elementary things to learn if you have an accomplished teacher.
It is possible to learn things on your own with books or videos or whatever, but it's amazing how much of a difference a good teacher will make.
I kind of echo Lynn's feelings.
It would be great if it was successful.
I kind of wish it a fair amount of success in producing a quality video that can help people learn.
But nonetheless, there's a lot to be said for having individual instruction, particularly I'd like to add just one comment to that.
Len made a very good statement when he referred to talent.
Essentially, within the research side of things, we've pretty much firmly established that every living human being has an inherent talent at being psychic.
Remote viewing, of course, any instruction on remote viewing should be teaching the technology or the protocol, whatever the approach should teach the appropriate protocol.
While you can teach that technology, you're going to be pretty much stuck with the inherent talent within the individual as it's displayed.
There is no existing proof that I'm aware of, at least from a research standpoint.
That you can expand or make someone more accurate than what their inherent talent might be.
Alright, this is an area where you all disagree, isn't it?
No, in fact I agree very much.
Really?
In other words, the natural talent aspect of it is either very important or not very important?
As far as, this is Len, as far as learning To get a conscious connection to that part of your subconscious mind which knows the universe or the information that is out there, that is extremely teachable.
How much of the out there your subconscious is able to bring in I think is a matter of
talent.
Like teaching a person to play the piano, there are some people who have the same number
of fingers as the virtuoso and yet will never be in a concert hall even though they can
learn to play the piano.
This is very much true.
You can't expand what is already there.
I think the amazing thing is to most people, how much is there?
All right.
You all have moved from the military program to the civilian program.
And I've not really asked you about specifics that you have targets that you have done as civilians.
So let me ask about a couple.
Has anybody remote viewed Flight 800?
Well, this is Paul.
I have.
In fact, I did that in support of a project that Ed Dames had.
I've done some freelance remote viewing for SciTech.
In fact, the drawings that... I forget what program Ed was on, but the ones he showed to the camera were sketches that I had made in the course of my sessions.
Oh, they were?
That was of the... I think it was a fuel pump assembly or something?
Some kind of piece of machine or equipment.
Of course, I had not a clue what it was.
I just drew it.
So you then would agree with Major James' assessment that that was a mechanical malfunction?
Well, my particular set of viewings didn't really identify the ultimate cause.
I specifically honed in on that piece of equipment that that was Uh, whatever happened to that, uh, was a, a, uh, major contributor to the, or perhaps the major contributor to the, to the, uh, uh, incident with the aircraft.
Uh, what made that malfunction?
Uh, I didn't, didn't get that.
All right.
Does that mean then that, uh, it, that that particular, um, piece of gear could have malfunctioned and caused the accident, in quotes, accident?
Or that a missile without a warhead exploding could have passed through and hit this and then caused the quote, accident.
That is possible, at least based on my sessions.
Now I don't know what other viewers have had work on that particular project, and he may have had some other, you know, more confirmatory kind of stuff as far as the actual initiator of the event.
But my particular viewing didn't really confirm or deny I originally said, and I still stand by it, that while O.J.
You just came up with that particular piece of gear.
What about O.J. Simpson?
Anybody on that one?
No.
I originally said and I still stand by it that while O.J.
may have said certain connections to whoever may have killed the two people, that I do not
think that he physically did it himself.
I believe that that was done by someone else.
I don't think the real reason for that occurrence or the death has come to the forefront.
We may never know exactly why they were killed.
At the top of the hour here, I think it's getting late, it's getting toward 5 o'clock.
What I would like to do if I can...
Let's probably let Joe and Paul go and hold on to Lynn to answer questions of the audience.
If that's agreeable, or we can hold on to everybody.
Joe is coming out with a book, if we could get some information on that.
Let's do it right now.
Joe, yes, I know you've already written one book, right?
I wrote a book called Mind Track, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 1993.
It's recently been revised and it will probably hit the stands.
10 days to 2 weeks and I've added chapters on Stargate and some of the myths surrounding
remote viewing.
It's a pretty good compendium of information on remote viewing.
I've also recently forwarded the following book to MindTrek to my agent as of today or
yesterday, I can't remember.
Hopefully that will be seen on the shelves at some future date.
How do people get your books?
There's a real easy way.
They can call a 1-800 number.
It's 1-800-766-8009 and that's Hampton Roads Publishing and they will be glad to service the request for the book or they can go to any Barnes & Noble or any other major supplier of books.
Alright, that's 1-800-766-8009?
That's correct.
I do plan to have a website up fairly soon.
There is information on Len's website about my company, but that's about the extent of it right now.
Paul is beginning to teach too, so he may want to give people his number where he can be contacted.
I'll give you my email.
The company I've incorporated is Remote Viewing Instructional Services.
Right.
So the email is RVIS at tidalwave.net.
Hey, that's RVIS at tidalwave, one word, dot net.
Right.
Alright, and you answer your email, I take it?
Yes.
You know, I can't guarantee I keep up if I get inundated, but I do my best.
Well, you're going to be inundated, believe me.
What projects, in the remaining moments here, what projects have you all taken on after the military?
I take it you're leaving the national security stuff behind now.
You probably had enough of that to sink a ship.
Yes.
Or maybe a shuttle, I don't know.
So what are you doing now?
This is Joe.
I'm a research associate still with the Cognitive Sciences Lab.
That was the original lab at SRI and then later at SAIC.
We are currently working on some very interesting contracts for some major corporations that have tasked us with doing some research on remote viewing.
We hope to continue pursuing the mechanisms behind remote viewing.
Can you talk about it at all?
I mean, for example, our own CIA, which once spent all its time with national security work, you know, Congress and oversight committees have been talking about changing the direction of the CIA to industrial espionage.
We, of course, at CSL Lab, the kind of the sciences lab, have never endorsed espionage of any kind.
We're primarily interested in trying to uncover the mechanisms that support site functioning.
We've recently done three or four very interesting pilot studies that have indicated that we may be onto something with regard to two or three of those mechanisms.
And if those prove out, which we have every reason to believe they will, there'll be some very astounding findings that will open the door to a whole lot more research.
Do you guys ever scare yourselves?
Sometimes Joe scares me.
I am no longer surprised at this science, but I'll never quit being amazed by it.
I would agree with that statement.
Is it one of those things that once you have begun, I mean I have yet to talk to a remote viewer who is involved in the government program or otherwise, who has said, this is lousy, I'm bored or I'm uninterested and I'm not doing it anymore.
Is it one of those things that once you've done you will always do?
This is Joe.
I always tell people that if you wanted me to sell my experience and ask for $10 million, I probably wouldn't do it.
However, if you offered me $10 million at the beginning to do it and I knew what I knew now, I probably wouldn't participate.
That's a good answer.
That's really a good answer.
We're about out of time.
Anybody want to issue any final words here?
I, of course, would love to have you all back at some future point, but any final words for the American audience that is intensely interested in this whole thing you've been doing?
I think this is a very exciting process.
I think it's a very exciting time to be involved in this.
And I'm glad that people are interested.
It kind of indicates what we were doing in secret for so many years.
So I encourage people to develop an interest in it and to explore it and find out about it.
So in other words, go ahead folks, if you're interested, follow it.
That's right.
Joe?
This is Joe.
I just want to add one thing before we get off here.
I would encourage people to retain their skepticism and to ask questions.
It's okay to challenge whoever is doing this and have them explain or open.
Uh, to review and criticism what exactly it is that they're doing.
Uh, that's, that's where knowledge is developed and it's how we decide, uh, whether something is truly valid or not.
So, I would encourage continued interest, but to be skeptical and ask questions.
Well, you know, somebody might likely say, and we've only got a few seconds, alright, I want an instant demonstration, you know?
Art's holding up something, tell us what it is.
That is not the kind of thing that remote viewing lends itself toward, is it?
That's correct.
This is Joe.
I've actually done six live remote viewings on camera for national television in England and America.
And one of the requirements has been that they establish and follow very closely the protocols.
And those performances have been open to review and criticism.
All right, Joe.
We're out of time.
Joe and Paul, thank you both.
We'll continue with Lynn Buchanan.
Good night, gentlemen.
Good night.
Thanks for letting us talk.
Right.
Stay right there, Lynn.
The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More Somewhere in Time coming up.
I hear the drums echoing tonight.
She hears only whispers of some quiet conversation.
She's coming in for a bloody fight.
Bullet wings reflect the stars.
Her hair is hollow gold.
Her hair was hollow gold, her lips sweet and dry Her hands were never cold, she's got better days aside
She'll turn her music on, you won't have to think twice She's pure as New York snow, she's got better days aside
It's a beauty.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time, tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
Good morning, everybody.
He knows just what it takes to make a man happy.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
Good morning everybody. My guest is Lynn Buchanan.
In the last hours, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith were here.
All three involved in Project Stargate, the military's remote viewing project.
If you would like a copy of this program, please, please, please, please make note of the number that'll get it to
you.
Sound of thunder.
Coast to Coast AM sure sounds great in the middle of the night.
But you know, you don't have to be nocturnal to enjoy this amazing show.
The Coast Insider is your key to a normal life.
For 15 cents a day, you can wake up refreshed knowing that last night's show is waiting for you with podcasting.
Listen on your way to work and again on the way home.
Or listen to one of over a thousand archived shows from the past three years.
As a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Noory and special guests.
The Coast Insiders Club is a must-have feature for all Coast to Coast AM listeners.
Visit coasttocoastam.com to sign up today.
You'll sleep like a baby knowing you'll never miss your favorite guests and topics ever again.
Remember, a one-year subscription comes out to only 15 cents a day.
Sign up today at coasttocoastam.com.
Get a new view of the world with Coast to Coast AM.
At this point, I'm not happy with the direction that government is taking us.
I'm happy with the fact that Americans are beginning to wake up and stand up and do what they have to do.
And shout, and scream, and blog.
And I think that's critical.
And I think that's what's going to save the Republic.
I think in the long run, as we go through all this stuff, it's the people who will save us.
And our country will remain strong.
Take Coast-to-Coast AM with you anywhere on your mobile phone.
Coast-to-CoastAM.com can be conveniently accessed on your iPhone and most Android platforms, which means that you are never without your Coast-to-Coast AM fix.
If you're a Coast-to-Coast Insider subscriber, you can listen to the show live in the middle of the night, or previous shows 24-7.
Plus, you can browse all the great photos, videos, and news stories.
Keeping up with Coast-to-Coast AM has never been easier with our Coast Insider service.
Looking for the truth?
You'll find it on Coast to Coast AM.
Not everything is cut and dry.
And I think people will look at events and say, who profits?
Who benefits?
And then they back into it with their theories, which many people would say are conspiracies.
I mean, there's no question there's a facet of government that wants to take guns off the street.
Not just assault weapons, but pure guns.
They want to get them out of Americans' hands.
In order to do that, You need tragedies and events like we had in Connecticut in order to create the stimulus to get the legislature and people behind that in order to say, you know what, they're right, we don't need this, we don't need that.
So I think when you look at that whole picture, as bizarre as it sounds, because you cannot see a conspiracy at every event, but you will look at these events and say, see, this is what they've created in order to get people to think this way.
Bottom line is, people don't trust other people.
And that's why they create all these things.
Back now to Lynn Buchanan.
courtesy of premier networks back now to lindy can it is your power with him whatever
questions you might have
uh... come now uh...
Lynn, let me ask you one.
I've got a whole pile of faxes here.
Please ask Lynn if remote viewing could help a person find their soul mate or perfect mate
in life and if so how would that be done?
The answer is yes.
However, let me say that that type of work is sometimes achieved much more easily by
some other disciplines.
I've heard it said that remote viewing...
You're not talking about bar hopping, right?
Oh, no.
As far as the disciplines for parapsychology, if you're trying to learn remote viewing in
order to get in touch with the universe or your higher self, it's sort of like joining
the Marines to learn how to fold your clothes.
It's extremely disciplined and there are easier and sometimes even quicker ways to do it.
All right.
I want to tell everybody once again that on my website, www.artbell.com, there are now
a multitude...
In the guest area, a multitude of links to the various remote viewing sites that have been mentioned tonight.
So, back now to the phones we go, and the first time callers call area 702-727-1222.
Okay, Aaron, that's the only spin we have on the show generally, not to give your last name, so let's begin all over again.
Your name is Aaron?
Yep.
And you're calling from where?
Vancouver, B.C.
All right.
Go ahead.
Okay.
I was wondering, during your research in the Stargate program, did you follow the work being done by Charles Connerton in the Ganzfield experiment?
The Ganzfield experiments?
Yeah.
We had read about them.
They didn't directly apply to us, since we weren't a research side.
I think that the people out at SRI would probably know a whole lot more about it and more of the inside work.
We were mainly tasked with the use of whatever worked to collect information.
We tried some guns felt work and it worked.
About the same as the ERV, Extended Remote Viewing, that we were doing.
It required a lot more equipment and so basically we just went back to the ERV.
Ray Hyman, he was on the panel, the evaluation panel?
Right.
What are your thoughts on his conclusion?
Well, his conclusion, the end conclusion was that Yes, this shows that there is something to remote viewing.
Seemingly, however, we don't have all of the potentials for shooting it down.
Even though we can't shoot it down right now, we're just going to wait until the time comes when we can shoot it down before we make a decision.
And this to me is not a valid conclusion.
The conclusion he came to is basically that he admitted that the statistics show that there is value to the remote viewing, that there is an actual phenomenon going on.
Interesting reaction.
Yeah, but let's not decide right now until we can find a way to shoot it down.
From the James Randi School.
Right.
Alright, here's another fact.
Art, I've heard cases where remote viewers located military targets during the Gulf War.
Can Lynn enlighten us on this subject, or is it simply too sensitive?
There are many aspects of it that are Very sensitive.
There are many aspects of it that generally get talked about because the feeling is that it's not too sensitive at all.
I think what the question is is could I give an example?
All right.
Can you?
Yes.
I have no feedback on this one because I was the viewer and this is one we wouldn't get feedback on.
I did one session where right in the middle of the session what's called the Stage 7 came in and basically my subconscious turned and addressed me and said, you're not going to believe what's coming next.
Really?
Like a preview?
Yeah.
A teaser.
So I went ahead and did the session and what came next was something I didn't believe.
Saddam Hussein had some way gotten a hold of an American missile, was waiting for the High Holy Days of Ramadan, at which time he was going to fire it into the Holy of Holies, in order to start a Jihad, and since the other rulers would be dead, he could naturally take over.
I still find it hard to believe.
Of course, I turned it in.
Uh, what was done with it?
I don't know.
I imagine that must have been a little frustrating.
Did the remote viewing team...
Did you ever get feedback about the information, the intel they gave?
Did anybody ever come back to you guys and say, hey, congratulations, you know, we found those gas canisters and you guys really hit it right on the head?
Did you ever get any of that?
Oh, yeah.
We got quite a bit of that from different customers.
Other customers, of course.
I mean, there were times when we would be tasked with targets.
The way we would know that we had success was the group that tasked us would come in and confiscate our records and say we didn't have the clearance to see them.
That was our feedback.
I'll bet those guys worried about you.
In other words, they could confiscate your records, but if you really wanted to know, they of all people, knew that you had a certain level of effectiveness and you probably scared the hell out of them.
This is what Paul was saying earlier.
One of the reactions we met with other units was sort of fear simply because we could see into some of the inner workings and such.
All right, back to the many waiting phones.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Hi.
Howdy.
I'm Michael in California.
Just as a footnote, I recall the government doing considerable research on the use of mind-altering substances in the 50s, which they also abandoned at some point and now consider somewhat threatening or, for some reason, pretty penalizable.
But aside from that, would you not say that some people are more adept at becoming quality viewers and that at certain times it seems to function better than perhaps with others?
Let's narrow that down to the first part of your question.
Our government indeed experimented with mind-altering substances.
Were there ever, or if you can't answer this, and I'd rather have the answer that you can't answer it, but were there ever attempts that you were aware to enhance the ability of a remote viewer with some sort of psychedelic chemical?
I think that some experiments were tried with a medical project that was attempted on, you See what happens physiologically with remote viewers.
As far as I know, the SRI project and I'm absolutely certain the Fort Meade operational group never did that.
The feeling was, and I'm very firm about this, that anything you do to dull your mind is going to dull your results.
Well, I guess some would contend, Lynn, that not all drugs dull the mind.
Some of them alter its state to a degree.
Certainly there are many drugs that dull the mind or fuzz the mind, but there are some drugs that some would argue alter your state and don't so much fuzz it up but alter it.
And so I can see that that would certainly be one area they would want to know about.
Yes and like I say I think the medical experiments did some of this but I know that we didn't.
I know that my own preference is I want a remote view with it being me that does it.
I hear you.
I am very opposed to drugs and especially to anyone He's for the Rockies!
You're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
wouldn't trust results.
All right.
These are the Rockies.
You're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Where are you, please?
This is Nancy from Northwest Indiana.
Northwest Indiana.
Okay.
Fundamentalist religions view middle telepathy and parapsychology as work of the devil.
That's right.
You earlier mentioned positive feelings of Christ and the great prophets.
So, on the opposite side of the coin, have you experienced evil forces, and how might that be influencing people's lives today?
Oh, good one.
Sure.
We talked about the presence of Jesus, and that was fascinating.
What about The opposite.
Has anybody ever run into what we would think of or know of as the devil?
Absolutely.
There have been times, I know in my viewing, when there has been just a presence of evil, but generally the evil that I've found has been in the people we were tasked with.
The rogues gallery of our targets was pretty severe.
Did that get really tiresome?
Extremely.
One of the problems here is that as you access someone's mind, the way to enhance that access is to start agreeing with them and sort of lose your own personality in it.
How do you learn to let it go?
and you really have to detoxify or else you wind up taking Idi Amin home with you.
And, now there's one evil dude.
How do you learn to let it go?
I was a 911 dispatcher for Monterey County for a year and a damn near killed me.
I actually had to leave because I kept taking my job home with me.
How do you not take Idi Amin home with you?
There is a process of sitting there and going over everything you found in the session and saying, you know, is that me or him?
Is it real or is it Memorex?
And just one by one, sitting there and and taking every impression and working it out to get yourself back.
This is one of the reasons why even things like what could be called deep or even shallow mind probes is one thing that I do not encourage my students to do simply because you can get sucked into someone else's personality.
If you're not a good advanced viewer who is very experienced Don't do it.
So again, there are things you will not teach people.
Oh, absolutely.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Hello.
Oh, how are you doing, Art, again?
Fine.
This is Dal.
Thanks a lot for taking the phone call.
Sure.
Where are you?
I'm in Paso Robles, California, KPRL.
All right.
Question there, Mr. Buchanan.
Yeah.
First of all, Are we evolving and learning to use our grey matter in our upper part of our brains now?
Are we actually learning how to use the part that they don't understand that's being utilized?
From what I've gathered, the grey matter in front of your mind is the part that they have I don't think we're devolving.
Up until the beginning of this year I would have answered the question with, I don't know but I hope so.
An event happened at the beginning of this year.
I had always been adamantly against group teaching because this is such an individualized thing.
I taught one group class mainly to get people to shut up, trying to get me to teach it.
I just wanted to prove that it wouldn't work.
The response of the students, they picked up on this so quickly.
Previous students was there in the class just to come and talk about his experiences.
At the end of the two days of group training he came up to me and he said, what's happening here?
It took me seven months to get to this point.
I believe in the Sheldrake Effect that the more people who learn to do this the easier it gets to do it.
That implies some sort of mass consciousness, doesn't it?
That's right, and the CRB process ties right straight into that.
All right, Lin, hold tight there.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
We'll be right back and pick up on that point.
The trip back in time continues, with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More, somewhere in time, coming up.
When I die and your name is confessed Gonna go to the place at the best
When I lay in the down sky Going off to the spirit in the sky
Going off to the spirit in the sky Where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and your name is confessed Gonna go to the place at the best
Where I'm gonna go when I die When I die and your name is confessed
Gonna go to the place at the best When I die and your name is confessed
Gonna go to the place at the best Somewhere in time.
Top of the morning everybody.
It's great to be here.
Lynn Buchanan is my guest.
Remote viewing is the topic.
And it is fascinating.
so many targets so little time.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM, from March 25th, 1997.
Alright, well here's a question from Russ in California, and it's a neat one.
Please ask Lin if he has ever targeted Not personally.
That is a fairly good training target.
In fact, I think maybe I have in my early training.
You know, just as another I don't remember specifically getting that.
I have always felt that a form of man was, yes.
But I didn't get that from a remote viewing.
to the question. If so, was man walking side by side with the dinosaurs?
I don't remember specifically getting that. I have always felt that a form of man was, yes.
But I didn't get that from a remote viewing. I got that from other studies that I've done.
Simple archaeological findings.
And then a good PS here.
PS, why can't remote viewers win lotteries?
And before you answer that, I would have answered Russ in California by saying, Russ, How do you know that a lot of the winners of lotteries aren't remote viewers?
You answer the way you want, Len.
We have people working on numbers, which is a very hard thing to do in remote viewing.
There is another type of ARV, alternate remote viewing, which substitutes remote viewing
targets for the numbers and allows you to remote view, for instance, the PIC-3.
The way that's normally done is if you're doing the PIC-3, you have four people working,
three viewers, each of which will remote view one of the numbers, and one person who clicks
the data, looks on the chart to see what the results mean, and goes and places the bet.
It's been done.
It's been done successfully.
Well, if remote influencing is possible, how about sending Ed McMahon and the gang up my driveway?
They're coming here first.
I see.
I understand that.
Really, I do.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Am I on?
You're on.
My name is John and I'm from Rochester, New York.
Hi, John.
And thank you, Mr. Bell and Art.
I appreciate the service you're providing.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
I have a number of questions.
Is it possible that in the future that we will all be able to talk to each other and observe all of the information at the same time like a Pentium 2 computer?
Here's another place where I would say I hope so.
I hope that we can get to the point where we understand each other better.
Where good intentions are realized as good intentions and so forth, I think it's possible.
I know that there are many influences that hold people back and I just hope that those influences aren't as strong as man's desire to go forward.
One of the most frustrating things is that we hear all the information coming at us and that we can't interchange it as quickly as we wish to.
Do you know anything about Jane Roberts?
Vaguely.
And also another question, Frank Herbert wrote a book called Dune and the threads that Maldives was seen as far as the future was concerned.
Is our future in threads as he kind of alluded to?
That's a good question.
Oh, refresh my memory on this.
It's been a long time since I read Dune.
The threads mean ... There's another science fiction.
There are many, many multifaceted, interconnected future tracks.
I was getting that ... Many possibilities.
Right.
I think so.
I was getting that confused with another science fiction which has threads dropping from the
sky and has plant pathogens killing all the life.
There is a science fiction book out to that.
I think that we'll find that there are many paths we can go down.
I don't know about alternate universes as far as I'm concerned.
I stick with one and so that one is the one I'm concerned about.
But I think there are many threats, yes.
I think there are many paths we can go down.
I would be utterly remiss if I didn't pop this has-to-be-asked question, because nobody else has yet.
Carl in Spokane would like to know if you have remote-viewed the Kennedy assassination.
No, I have not.
Intentionally, in fact.
Really?
Yes.
There are some things that people always ask about.
You know, have you remote-viewed Marilyn Monroe's death?
The Kennedy assassination, O.J.
Simpson, I generally stay away from these simply because I can get an answer through remote viewing.
But what would the purpose be?
I couldn't change it.
The only purpose would be to beat on my chest and say, I've remote viewed this and here's what I've found.
And I don't do that.
I keep low key.
Personally, I think there would be a lot more joy in remote viewing Marilyn Monroe's life.
Right.
Let me say one thing.
If I get a remote viewer, well, I ask the remote viewers to work at least five missing children cases after they graduate the course.
We find one kid and I'll tell you, they're hooked.
They don't care about Marilyn Monroe or Or O.J.
Simpson anymore at all.
I understand.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Gerald from Calgary, Alberta.
Greetings to you.
Calgary, Alberta.
Yes, sir.
QR 77.
Lynn and Art, have you ever heard of Jose Silva Method?
It was mainly under mind control but we did lots of remote viewing.
Yes, and the term remote viewing was basically taken by the Silva people and is not the classical definition of remote viewing.
Now the people who do the Silva mind work that I've met.
Have very good results and I say if it works, use it.
The stuff taught by the Silva Group is not the controlled, situational, laboratory-approvable, classic remote viewing.
My second question, would you favor us with one of your shareable remote forecasts or current affairs that you could tell us
and sort of be a control of your talent.
All right.
In other words, some sort of something that you can tell us is going to occur that will serve as a test.
Well, I basically already have.
The results that I've been getting from the plant pathogen thing, the attack on the U.S., I get the impressions that
it's going to be happening sometime this spring or fall of this year.
I hate that.
You know, even though you feel the results will be different or more localized, Hearing that from you and from Ed Dames is very worrisome.
Oh, it is to me, too.
In fact, one of the questions that I have on that sub-directory of your page, someone asked me about it, and I said that if it shows up on the Internet, then these what's called open source intelligence gatherers, they gather intelligence from newspapers, magazines, the Internet, and so on.
They have search engines, and if I speak about this on the internet, I know that by the next morning, if I have said the word Hussein, Arab country, stuff like this, then that winds up in an intelligence database in a foreign country.
Really?
to say these things in order to hopefully get some things changed.
In other words, I hope I'm wrong and will actively pursue anything I can to be wrong.
So you're trying to influence future events?
Yes.
If you see the future and it's not what you want it to be then I have no qualms in changing it.
One obvious question for a remote viewer is have you ever thought of, or in fact have you, remote viewed your own time of death?
Yes, I have.
I find it to be a fairly peaceful death.
I don't know how much of that is wishful thinking, but that's the impression I got.
This was in a sealed envelope so that I didn't know what I was viewing, what the target was.
Basically, what I got was an old fat man in a bed with people around him that cared.
Well, that's a good result.
I wonder though about the danger of giving somebody a target of that nature.
In other words, if instead of the old fat guy in the bed with all his friends around, you saw Mack Truck bearing down on you, you'd have psychologically injurious results.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't give that target to anyone else.
I gave it to myself, just basically out of curiosity.
It's almost like slipping a little LSD into somebody's orange juice, you know.
Yeah.
Geez.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Hello.
Hello.
Art?
Yes.
You know, I have a very good reason for asking Lynn this question.
The woman who called Beverly Jaggers?
Yes, uh-huh.
Lynn, do you know her?
No, I don't.
Uh-uh.
Many years ago, I have a son missing and is soon dead, and many years ago I read about her in, I think it was the Enquirer, and I called the lieutenant, I think his name was Kirkwood, and he got me in touch with her, and she was trying with her group at that particular time to try to find out what happened to my son.
Right.
It's still hard, right?
Before I die, I have to find help.
Well, do you help people like this, Lynn?
Yes, now one of the problems that I have is this security clearance and for many other reasons as well.
If there's an investigation going on Especially on an American citizen, I will only work it through authorized channels.
And so if someone comes to me and says, you know, my son is missing or I don't know what happened to so-and-so, I will tell them partially because I want the cushion there, partially also because it's a necessity that if they will get the investigating officer To contact me, I will be glad to work the problem for free.
All right, ma'am, uh, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, listen to me, listen to me.
He just said, have the investigating officer in your case, the case of your son, contact him.
There aren't, there is none.
It's been so many years, the case is closed.
Yes, but there was an original investigating officer on the case.
Well, he's probably retired by now.
We worked a case not too long ago.
Well, how can I get a hold of Lynn?
Okay, that's a good question.
for nine years.
And on the results of our session, Mel, Dave and I worked on this.
The results of our session, the case was reopened and they've been finding here some new evidence.
So do that, ma'am.
Well, how can I get a hold of Lynn?
Okay, that's a good question.
Lynn, what is the best way to get a hold of you?
Do you have internet access?
Uh, I would presume if she doesn't, she can get it.
Okay.
Uh, I would say the easiest, the easiest, uh, address to remember is artbell.com.
And, uh, right there's a link to my page.
And on my page is my address and phone number.
All right.
There you are, ma'am.
And, uh, I might add that if you don't have a friend with a computer who can do it, you can go to a public library.
And just remember my address which is www.artbell.com.
Now let me also say that right at the present time we are heavily backed up with the Signed Witness Program cases and so we're really bogged down until we can get more remote viewers working on these.
So I hope people won't be offended if they call.
And have their police department call as well.
And nothing is done that day.
We have a tremendous backlog here.
Completely understandable.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Art?
Yes.
Yes.
And good morning, Lynn.
Good morning.
My question for you is, could remote viewers be tricked and fed a false Absolutely.
view to cover up a secret or a gap?
Alright, that is an awfully good question.
In other words, could for example another group of remote viewers somehow trick you
and cause you to see something that would be utterly inaccurate?
Exactly.
Absolutely.
In fact, one of the biggest problems in remote viewing is that you tend to do that to yourself
to begin with.
There is a thing that we call basically the neighbor's cat.
If someone else whom you respect very much does a session on a target and they're wrong, out of your respect for them you will tend to find the wrong thing as well.
This is one reason why I never ask the same exact question to two different viewers who know each other.
Well, this brings me back to Ed Dames' tapes, which generally the group earlier, including you seem to agree,
might be or hopefully will be a good idea if it works.
If it works, then I'm all for it.
But then on the other hand, with all of those people out there remote viewing, Maybe even influencing.
There are going to be a lot of mistakes made.
A lot of mistakes will be made.
Couldn't there be a sort of virtual anarchy that would develop?
That's my fear.
I do believe very strongly in the Sheldrake Effect.
I know that the more people who learn to remote view correctly, the easier it is to learn to remote view correctly.
The more who learn to remote view incorrectly, the easier it will be to learn incorrectly.
Excuse me, incorrectly.
This is my big fear with many of the quickie courses that are out there.
I'm afraid that they're going to, through the Sheldrake effect, the hundredth monkey effect, Almost destroy any progress that's been made simply because it'll be easier to do it wrong.
What was your initial reaction when you heard the videotapes were going to be released at a relatively inexpensive price?
It was just that.
I really hope it works.
If there's a way that we can get people doing this, And doing it well, then I'm all for it.
And if there's a way that we can make it available to more people, I think that's great.
Well, listen, we're coming to the end of our, actually the entire program.
You've really been a trooper sticking it out through the whole program.
It's got to be, well, this button has to be up back there, huh?
Yes, looking out the window it is.
All right, my friend.
Well, I suspect you're going to have a lot of email to answer, and this will keep you busy for a while.
It has been a distinct pleasure, Lin, and we will do it again one day if you're up for it.
I have really enjoyed it.
I don't get the Art Bell Show because I live in a very steep little valley and our local radio station has the wattage of a light bulb.
And I've really enjoyed this.
Thank you, Lin.
Take care.
That's Lin Buchanan, everybody, and I'm sorry, but the clock dictates we must go.
Go we shall.
Good night!
▲
Export Selection