Art Bell

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

Participants

Main voices

44:16

lyn buchanan

48:58

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
unidentified		Tonight featuring Coast to Coast A.M. from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 Liova 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 Sam, and I'm Mark 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 McGonagall 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.
unidentified		So all of that coming up in just a moment.
		Take Coast to Coast AM with you anywhere on your mobile phone.
		Coast2CoastAM.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 and 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 full 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Not long ago, the nation was shocked.
		Nightline ran a story, did a show, and said, guess what, folks?
		For the last 20 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.
		Tonight may be 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, 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 and 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.artbellnospace.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 10th, 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 evaduated 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.
unidentified		And now Paul Smith.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul served in the Fort Meade Remote Viewing Program, Stargate, September of 83 to August of 1990 and was trained in CRV by Ingo Swan.
		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, a thousand.
		When he retired from the Army after many assignments, including Arabic linguist, Intel Officer for a Special Forces unit, Intel Officer with the 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I guess you can.
unidentified		In both senses of the word.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
unidentified		This is Joe, right?
		Okay.
		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.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Len.
		Let me answer that.
		When I was in the service working there as database manager, the IngoSwan technique is largely intuitive and in several spots it's not at all logical.
		And as a result I've seen many, many times when people will improve on it.
		And watching the database, each time I've seen the results go down.
		I have kept as strictly as possible to the IngoSWAN 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.
unidentified		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 Swan.
		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 the 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 flipped way saying 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're trying to address.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, I take it in Stargate, all the targets were of a military or national security nature.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		All of the real-world targets and the tasked targets were.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, kind of like the military out flying out following 727s or 747s over the Atlantic.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, you could say that.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, practice.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Sure, just practice.
unidentified		One of the things, this is Joe.
		I wanted to add something so that there's no confusion in the listener's mind.
		When we were discussing, or 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.
		They're just different ways of organizing the data, so to speak.
		But the email is the same, no matter.
		You know, the content is the same, no matter which particular program you use to sort it out with.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, it would be helpful for the audience to really understand what it is you can and can't do.
		Can you read minds?
unidentified		Well, this is Paul.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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'm supposed it would apply to anybody, but he'd be certainly a typical target.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And 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 procedure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		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, presentiment.
		All those things are delivering bits of information.
		So there's an entire realm or wealth of information that's available dependent on how you set up the specific targeting mechanisms.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Would the three of you agree that it is the end of secrets as we have known them?
unidentified		Paul here, I wouldn't say it quite so precisely.
		One of the factors, 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.
		I mean, we can think about one thing while we end up doing something else altogether.
		If we were reading Saddam Hussein's mind, you know, 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 to decide to do it some other time, you know.
		And so interesting is never quite that precise.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That would be, it 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.
unidentified		Well, 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Do you mean to say that this is not 100% correct?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's what I was about to ask.
unidentified		It never has been.
unidentified		No, let's be nice.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right.
		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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Actually, let me jump in here and say, this is Lynn.
		Say that the 50-50 thing is right or wrong.
		If you have to select and tell the color of a card, for instance, you can say red or black.
		You have a 50-50 chance.
		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good point.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		And also when people ask for accuracy, they have noted many times that different people have reported different amounts of accuracy for remote viewing, quote, remote viewing, which is a general term, actually.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		And right now I'm at 68.3%.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		As compared to the average Joe's.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		50%.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		50%.
		All right, gentlemen, hold tight.
		We're at the bottom of the hour.
		Three former Stargate Project Stargate remote viewers.
		Lynn Buchanan, Joe McGonagall, and Paul Smith.
		A rare gathering.
		And right here.
unidentified		The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
		More Somewhere in Time coming up.
		Now we take you back to the past on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 them.
unidentified		We'll get right back.
		You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
		Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
		Music Now, my guests, Lynn Buchanan, Joe McGonagall, and Paul Smith.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Lynn, where are you located?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I'm in Maryland, about 50 miles directly south of Washington, D.C. Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Joe, how about you?
unidentified		I'm about 25 miles south of Charlottesville in Virginia.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, and Paul?
unidentified		I'm half hour north of D.C. in a little town called Laurel.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So all of you sort of gathered not far from headquarters?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		We sort of had homes here because we, of course, were 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And it had been an experiment.
		And the continually highest scorer in it was a person named Joe McMonagall, who even one time scored 100% on 52 cards.
unidentified		Wow.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I was very, very impressed.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I should someday reach that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you say 100%?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		There was one instance in the database where he got 100% correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So it can be done.
unidentified		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 to 65 percent of the time.
		And out of the information they provide, the accuracy of the information will run anywhere from 35 to 88 percent.
		Now, there are times when a good remote viewer will get 100 percent or near 100 percent 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are those percentages increased with a team?
unidentified		No.
unidentified		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 10 very expert remote viewers all looking at the same target as an example, and eight say one thing and two say another, that it's just as likely that the two will be correct and the eight won't be.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Our government, at least according to the Nightline program that ran, financed Stargate over 20 years with $20 million or something like that.
		At the end of which they more or less declared it to be a failure and stopped the program.
		So you all three were in it.
		Was it a failure?
unidentified		This was 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 that 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
unidentified		Well perhaps you could say it that way.
		You have to remember there's 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.
		You know, we live in, of course, in a scientific paradigm that doesn't want to accept the fact that there's things that happen that they can't explain in a cause and effect relationship.
		So far, no one's 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, most of the military people, for example.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		This is Joe.
		One of the 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.
		And if some performance is developed that shows a vulnerability based on psychic applications, then 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, at least publicly.
		Now they suggested they stopped the remote viewing program altogether, and Sargate 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?
unidentified		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 where many labs and many individuals can be participating in the research.
		Only I would have to add that I think if any of that research is being done publicly, then it needs to be open to peer review and evaluation, criticism, discussion, that sort of thing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can you, Joe, tell me whether the stock market's going to go up or down tomorrow?
unidentified		With about the same percentage of accuracy that I discussed earlier, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		My.
		My, my.
		I've got a fact 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.
		Done in Peoria, Illinois.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This was called the Great Christmas Attack.
		At one point, we got someone called up to DIA and had DIA call tasking to us.
		Ed Dames was the monitor on this, and one by one, we remote viewed.
		Everyone was in on this except Ted, 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 of 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 an open-aired vehicle and so forth.
		By the last viewer, by the time of the last viewer, which was me, I was describing runners instead of wheels and drawing thing, you know, 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.
		And what we're trying to do here is to find out their exact location and exactly what their targets are and so forth.
		And finally, at one point, I just said something about the pilot is 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So all moments in Stargate were not serious, dire moments.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You guys had some fun.
unidentified		That's right, sure.
		I actually, this is the part we actually had a lot of fun.
		Lynn particularly, when things got a little wild, he'd put out a pseudo-newsletter called The Adventures of the Psy Force 5, some of which were very hilarious, actually.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How many of you were there in totality?
unidentified		Well, Paul here, just like any unit or 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 know, you had the operations officer, the branch chief, secretarial, and a couple of monitor analyst types.
		So maybe roughly ten to a dozen would probably be at the largest size it was.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Even given what you said about the politics of remote viewing and religious paradigms and all the rest of it being challenged and the nature of the military people, 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, okay, that's it.
		We quit.
		We're not going to do it anymore.
		We don't care what Muammar Gaddafi is doing, or at least care to find out this way what he's doing, or any other bad hotspot 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.
unidentified		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 95 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, 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 and I say, look, I want to know what Mitsubishi is going to produce in the following area, what they're doing, will you do that for me?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
		I have very definite moral and ethical limitations.
		There are certain things I will not teach.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, Lynn.
		Wait, wait.
		There are certain things you won't teach.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I do not even address the subject of remote influencing and won't.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Remember, it's not remote control.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		It's remote influence.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
unidentified		Right.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Lynn.
		I want to make one thing very clear, by the way.
		Keep in the database, I kept all of the information on all of the projects.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, would it be your view, Lynn, unofficially, that remote influencing is possible?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I believe so.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I have collected the data and tried the experiments and have come to the conclusion that it's extremely possible.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		My God.
		Then, 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you were a politician funding something, would you want to get caught funding remote influencing?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Uh-oh, not me.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I don't think any politician does.
		And of course, any time you do something in government, there's always the chance of a leak and somebody finding out.
		But then again, political debt.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure, but they don't want to get caught selling missiles to Iran either.
		Well, yeah.
		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Jill.
unidentified		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, and 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		And the experimentation I've done, the experimentation I know is completely full of holes and could be shot down by junior woodchuck scientists.
		But I have done the experiments to my satisfaction.
		I now believe that it can be done and quite easily.
		But as far as proof, I'm still waiting for proof myself.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Our president has done from time to time over the last several years things that seem utterly uncharacteristic.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Have any of you had anything to do with that?
unidentified		Not I. Other than with my vote, no.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Without naming anybody, would one of you say, oh yes, I definitely, in my own mind, I believe that I definitely remotely influenced somebody's action?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		This is what I was saying.
		I've convinced myself that it does work.
		However, let me again repeat that it was never official.
unidentified		This is Joe.
		One of the problems here, Art, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, gentlemen, hold tight.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We'll be right back.
unidentified		This is Premier Networks.
		That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM on this Somewhere in Time.
		Music
		Music Music
		Music
		Premier Networks presents Art Bell somewhere in time.
		Tonight featuring Coast to Coast A.M. from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 McGonagall, 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.
unidentified		We'll get right back.
		You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
		Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Once again, all three gentlemen gathered around their old home within miles of Washington, D.C., one way or the other.
		Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonagall, 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
		I have talked to many of Ed Dame's students.
		Structure-wise, I don't think there is that much of a difference.
		Ed, of course, sticks pretty closely to the Ingo-Swan structure and retains the terminology that Ingo used.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So in other words, there is not a lot of difference.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		There's 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 stray cats.
		And so I took over that terminology simply because Ingo put out a little basic letter saying, please don't use my terminology.
		And so basically, I would say as far as terminology goes, EDS is more, EDS is closer to the original than anything I teach.
		Structure-wise, I think they're basically the same.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		May I ask this of all of you?
		Why do remote viewers generally not love each other?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me address that.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I've been watching this on the net.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wait a minute.
unidentified		Who is this?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I'm sorry.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Lynn, okay.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 sort 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, Ed and several other people.
		And if you may notice a pattern growing there.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why do you guys, let me restructure the question, why do you guys not love Ed?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		There are several reasons.
		One, for one thing, when he got out of service, he started giving classified information to the public while it was still classified.
		He is making claims that he ran the project, that he started the project, that it was, you know, that he briefed the president.
		And I mean, these are laughable things.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's not what happened.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You say not true.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Not true.
unidentified		I'd like to make a comment here as well.
		This is Joe.
		Ed has also made claims that I've worked for him and that sort of thing.
		And those are emphatically not true statements.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he said I worked for him too, and I didn't.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's the facts.
		Mr. McGonagall has said that Ed Dames was never a remote viewer 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?
unidentified		Let me jump in there.
unidentified		This is Paul.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Paul.
unidentified		That's actually not completely correct.
		And it's no Paul to Joe's because they didn't overlap.
		Ed came in on the scene long after Joe was gone.
		Ed actually did indeed did participate in some operational remote viewing projects.
		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 did do some operational remote viewing.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I got that he did one, didn't he?
unidentified		Oh.
		No, he was on for a number.
		I haven't gone through the list, but I'd say I saw at least six or seven that he was listed as a viewer on.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, really?
		I didn't have that in.
		I didn't remember that from my database.
unidentified		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 and I suspect that he performed righteously and did the job very, very well.
		where I have a problem is 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In uh private moments, uh you gentlemen have you not referred to Ed Dames as Dr. Doom?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Uh this was a nickname that was given to him in the unit before he came to us.
		Uh he was uh he was called Dr. Doom over there.
		Uh he's been predicting doom, death, and destruction for years and years and years now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Uh-huh.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Would you say that he has seen things that the rest of you have not seen?
unidentified		That would be a fair assumption.
		This is Joe.
		And that's fine.
		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.
		I could certainly choose or pick targets that are completely unverifiable and make all the claims I want, and that's okay.
		They'll never be shown or proven one way or the other.
		But one would hope that 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		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 as 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 Dames has said, I accept.
		I called the amazing Randy, so-called, and asked him to come on, he settled facts and said, okay, 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		As it stands, he's basically a magician, a sleight of hand and sleight of mind.
		And 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.
		And I mean, it's a gimmick that he uses for his own popularity and so forth.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but yes, but if the controls were set up independently from Mr. Randy.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Then he wouldn't participate.
unidentified		That's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And so that's why he wouldn't come on the program.
unidentified		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, basically, the amazing Randy wrote back to me and said, I won't come on your program because I can't be in the studio with you.
		Well, either is Ed Baines.
		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 really meet this challenge.
unidentified		I agree.
		This is Joe.
		Where he essentially wants to hold all the marbles and make all the rules, that's in itself 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is it possible, gentlemen, to view into the future or the past?
unidentified		This is Paul.
		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 past retrocognition, if you will, viewing events in the past.
		And it worked very well.
		It worked as well as real time.
		Wow.
		One of the problems, this is Joe, one of the problems you might run into in remote viewing 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.
		So you run into some technical problems.
		When you remote view 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
unidentified		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.
		And I think, 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 it 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 Revelation 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 future, because there are a lot of technical problems with remote viewing the future.
		And, second of all, dealing with very emotional-laden issues such as end times, coming cataclysms, and things like that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure that's an answer to the question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is there a point past which...
unidentified		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
		I heard that, you know, by the year 2000, the entire British Isles will be wiped clean of life and so forth, and that sort of surprised me because I had done a session for, a series of sessions for a company, and it involved looking into the year 2005.
		And at that time, it was generally life as usual in the British Isles.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, 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?
unidentified		Well, 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, chickens, 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 toxicity that we've put into our water that we're now going to be paying dearly for for some time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but that's you reading the headlines the way I do.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I guess I was asking more about what might have been actually remote viewed or what you might have sensed.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 on 95 talking about it.
		Well, you know, I can remote view things that have already happened.
		Anybody can do that.
		That's easy.
		I can, you know, it's easy to predict things that have already happened.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I had done a series of sessions on Colombian drug lords, Hussein, Qaddafi, and so forth, and was.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 McMonagall, 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, so stick with us.
		Interesting stuff, and you just heard what's coming.
unidentified		The trip back in time continues, with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
		More Somewhere in Time coming up.
		You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time, tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And my guests, Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonago, and Paul Smith, all back within several hundred miles of Washington, D.C., one way or the other.
		All involved in the military's Project Stargate.
		I'll be right back.
unidentified		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 Nouri 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 CoastToCoast 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.
		I 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, back now to Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonigal, 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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, look, just once, give me Mother Teresa or Bozo the Clown or something.
		These targets are killing me.
		And the answer was, you're a 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.
		And as the session went on, I just got this glow from being in contact with this person.
		And 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 one 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
		That's very significant.
		So you established that there was such a person.
		Would you say that much?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes.
unidentified		This is Joe.
		I would support what Lynn just said.
		I have had the experience of, if you could call Jesus a target, I have had the experience of doing some information 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you see all of the ones that you mentioned as being from the same creative source?
unidentified		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
		People quite often ask me if in doing the remote viewing I have changed my, you know, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		But, you know, the organized church.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But if anything, you would all say you have become more spiritual?
unidentified		Absolutely.
		This is Joe.
		I would have to underscore what Len said and agree with him 100%.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Paul?
unidentified		Yeah, I'm actually a Mormon.
		And some people ask, well, has this affected your beliefs negatively?
		And 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.
		And it's amazing how it all dovetails the things that you've learned or always knew somehow.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's eerie listening to the three of you agree like this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		It happens so seldom.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Remote viewers do agree now and then.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Does anybody know why it was called Operation Stargate in the first place?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I've always wondered.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And the pool we got together, I think the best name that came up from it was Stargate.
		That was the only time we had the chance to pick our own name.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		When was that?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that was in.
		I'm horrible with dates.
		That was in...
		90...
unidentified		Hold on a second.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		No, it wasn't.
unidentified		He is horrible with dates.
		I really am, yeah.
		Stargate actually, the program actually started out in 78 as 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.
		And 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.
		Grill Flame next, Paul.
		I'm sorry.
		Well, Grill Flame actually was kind of the umbrella name.
		DIA.
		Yeah, well, but Jill is right.
		It did have a name of Grill Flame for a while.
		and then Center Lane and then Sunstreak was its name in'86.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		When it went from Army INSCOM to DIA, Sunstreak is the one where we chose our own name.
unidentified		We don't know how Stargate came about.
		Right.
		That happened in probably 93 after all of us were gone.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, in the interest of stopping this, the reason I asked 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I seriously doubt it.
unidentified		Actually, there was a science, this is Paul again, a science fiction novel written by Andre Norton, oh, probably 30 years ago maybe, called Stargate, that had to do with a device that you could walk through and it put you on another planet.
unidentified		And I suspect they may have got the name from that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's what I thought.
unidentified		All right.
		This is Joe.
		Can I just throw in a comment?
		I don't want, you know, people 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Were you surprised at its termination?
unidentified		This is Joe again.
		Yes, I was.
		In fact, the AIR report supports the realization that there probably is something to remote viewing and 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 intelligence, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you say year-to-year on the effectiveness.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So then after 20 years of approvals, how did they suddenly decide it was a failure?
unidentified		Well, they essentially 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 Star Wars.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
		All right.
		What about it, guys?
unidentified		Let's start with Lynn.
unidentified		Go ahead, Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, okay.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I am firmly convinced that there are.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Do I need to elucidate?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'll pass it on to everybody else first.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Lynn, you say there are.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anybody else?
unidentified		This is Paul.
		I am convinced there are myself, based on remote viewing.
		To the degree and extent 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 that there are what we would call aliens and what we call extraterrestrial conveyances, you know, UFOs, so to speak.
		This is Joe.
		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 the UFO phenomena.
		I'm not seeing 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		However, all of you agree there's certainly something out there other than us.
unidentified		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.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are there aspects of Stargate that the three of you are still unable to discuss publicly?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, of course.
unidentified		I would have to say about 95% of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, my God, really?
unidentified		Yeah, absolutely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So when they said Stargate is declassified, they only generally meant the fact that it existed?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's generally so, yes.
unidentified		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.
		And the reason for that is not the connection with remote viewing, but the connection with other intelligence sources and means.
		There is material in 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 in remote viewing that is sensitive and important to American security.
		I would agree with that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, you made a rather startling statement, one of you, that Ed Dames, you felt disclosed some classified material before its time.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, this is Lynn.
unidentified		Yes, Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 the chance to meet a person named Courtney Brown who was going to put out a book.
		This book was about the Stargate Project and he asked me to take a copy of the manuscript that he had and read it.
		And in the first chapter of the manuscript, now 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.
		And if you do, they'll confiscate your book or something.
		And anyway, I got him to take that first chapter out.
		I asked him, where did you get this information?
		And he said, well, 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.
		I mean, you bite the cyanide pill and die before you do that and yet here was the entire list for the purpose of being published while this was still 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 and the history of Russian parapsychology has been more aimed at remote influencing than remote viewing or data collection.
		And I could still find no other reason for giving that information to Courtney than to have something happen to us.
		And that upset me very much.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Look, guys, we're at the top of the hour.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anybody here have to bail out or can you stick around a little bit?
unidentified		I can stand for a while.
unidentified		I'll stand for it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, 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 McMonacle, we'll get that eventually, and Paul Smith.
		All three in the military project known as Stargate.
unidentified		This is Premier Networks.
		That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
		on this Somewhere in Time.
		Music
		Music Music Music Music Music
		Music Music Music Music Music Music
		Music Music Music
		Music Music
		Now we take you back to the past on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A gathering of eagles.
		From Project Stargate, the military's remote viewing project, my guests are Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonagall, 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.
unidentified		The End 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.
		As a member, you'll have access to our monthly live chat sessions with George Nouri 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 AM from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, back now to my guests, and I will ask for the sake of the radio audience, once again, that they all identify themselves by their first name, at least, as they speak.
		Otherwise, it is confusing.
		Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonagall, 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.
unidentified		Yes, this is Joe.
unidentified		The Cognitive Sciences Lab link is worldwide web.jsa.com C-O-M slash tilde CSL slash index I-N-D-E-X dot HTML.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I got it.
		Uh so I assume my web webmaster data will be up within minutes.
		Any others?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let me see.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, it is.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 A-M-E-R-I-T-E-L dot net N E T slash L U S E R S stands for local users slash R V I E W E R viewer and
		and then it ends with the slash.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can any of you remote view the day when these damn World Wide Web addresses will get shorter and easier?
unidentified		All right, we will get those up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 would have been the Roswell episode.
		And I've got a person faxing me from Los Angeles saying, somebody must have tackled that one.
		Has anybody looked at Roswell?
		And if so, what have you determined?
unidentified		I can respond to that first, I guess.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Joe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Joe.
unidentified		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.
		And what I produced was essentially a very accurate description of the location that was being targeted in Roswell, which is the believe 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 earthbound traffic and probably involved some materials that were sensitive.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And hence, then, of course, the story about the weather balloon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		The data I had did not specifically match a weather balloon, but it did indicate that there was probably any that, but it was probably not an alien associated.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Joe, a fact 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?
unidentified		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-à-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 foot in the physical and one foot in the spiritual.
		And to ignore the experiences from a spiritual side would be that amount to cutting off the left leg, so to speak.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Well, then 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?
unidentified		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		And I believe that we do have frequent interactions with what might be termed as entities or spiritual beings, and that they have profound impact on us as spiritual beings.
		spiritual beings ourselves and that those types of experiences are have the because of the profound impact of them have exactly the same effect as if you were run over by a Mac truck in the physical world.
		So they should be paid attention to.
		And that's up to each individual as to what they do with that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, this is for all three of you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In the process of learning or in the process of remote viewing, is there any danger to the remote viewer?
unidentified		This is Paul.
		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, but I just don't know where that's coming from.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, a Dangerous to the psyche of the remote viewer.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, that you might see things, for example, that would drive a person over the edge.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Could I jump in here for a second?
unidentified		Yes.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And 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.
unidentified		I'd like to add something to that, Lynn.
		This is Joe.
		I agree with what Lynn and Paul have 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 viewing 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 are 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, met another remote viewer?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I did on several occasions meet a
		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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Would it be your view they are probably still have a project of that sort, either in China or Russia?
unidentified		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So if I had to make a guess, I'd say we're still doing it, but you guys say no.
unidentified		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.
		And as far as they've been able to determine, there's nothing going on.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then this is a very serious national security question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If China and Russia and Hungary and other countries are doing this, shouldn't we be?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		This is Lynn.
		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 projects.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, okay, 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't.
unidentified		I wouldn't either.
		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 how important it could be.
		We wouldn't want to jeopardize it.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
unidentified		But the fact of the matter is, 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.
		You know, 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 eminently and argumentatively against it just based on religious grounds.
		So how do you deal with people that are still holding to you?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I guess I would ask you when Langley got religion.
unidentified		Well, I'm not talking.
unidentified		Langley's not the approval authority.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Let me also ask a question here.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Are you asking us whether or not our government has done something stupid?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I guess I am.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I guess I am.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I think it might not be the first time it's happened.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		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?
unidentified		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.
		And 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.
		So 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
unidentified		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 new question.
		And I'm not sure how anyone would evaluate the results of that.
		There have been, this is Paul, there have been a lot of reports about the Soviets having been involved in that in the past.
		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 McMonagall, 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.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere Inside, tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
		I had to know that hell over my ears only to meet her.
		Her heart is on fire.
		My soul's like a wheel that's turned.
		My love is alive.
		My love is alive.
		Yeah, yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah There's something inside that's making me crazy.
		I'll try to keep it together.
		Oh boy, I want to love you, feel you, wrap myself around you.
		I want to squeeze you, please you.
		No, I just can't get enough and if you move, we'll go.
		I let it go.
		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 to be honest.
		I'm so excited.
		Premier Network Presents, Art Bell, somewhere in Time.
		Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast A.M. from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		Lynn Buchanan, Joe McMonagall, and Paul Smith, all in the government's project Stargate, are my guests.
		Just wait till you hear what's coming up.
unidentified		You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
unidentified		Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Back now to my guests and gentlemen.
		I have a fax here from Ed Dame's secretary that says the following, and I would like you to react to it.
		Art, with respect to treason, remember that General Stubblebein, 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 classified material?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I would ask if this exonerates Ed Daines.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I mean, does this mean that he didn't do what he did?
unidentified		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.
		Yeah, 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.
		He was, you know, in the various venues in which he released whatever information he did, he was, perhaps, you know, 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.
		You know, 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 in the conversation.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, let me ask you something.
		Do you know of any country in the world that doesn't have an open source literature office?
		I mean, San Marino has a little guy that sits in the building, you know.
unidentified		Right.
		And the point I made was, once you've said it, you don't know who's 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, 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.
unidentified		And as a matter of fact, no, I haven't.
		Part of the problem with remote viewing is you can't task yourself.
		If you do, then you're already asking for trouble.
		You know, you know what the target is, and you already have preconceived ideas about the target.
		If you say, well, I'm going to go remote view X, then you're very likely to find at X 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 task myself, the information wouldn't be valid.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You would have compromised yourself.
unidentified		Exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is Lynn.
		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.
		However, I think many of the general rules of remote viewing, the basic rules of remote viewing, can probably be taught that way.
		And I'm very anxious to find out if it works.
		Like I say, I hope it does.
unidentified		Let me jump in here.
		This is Paul.
		I taught myself how to play guitar.
		And it took me, well, 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 with it.
		It would be great if it was successful.
		I kind of wish Ed 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 on something as nuanced and as difficult to grasp as this remote view and functioning is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		I would like, this is Joe.
		I'd like to add just one comment to that.
		Lynn 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 in remote viewing should be teaching the technology or the protocol, whatever the approach should teach the appropriate protocol.
		And 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 existent 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, this is an area where you all disagree, isn't it?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		No, in fact, I agree very much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, the natural talent aspect of it is either very important or not very important?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		As far as this is Lynn, as far as learning to connect, to get a conscious connection to that part of your subconscious mind which knows the universe or the information that's 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.
		And, you know, 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.
		And this is very much true.
		You can't expand what's already there.
		I think the amazing thing is, to most people, how much is there?
		And most people who learn the remote viewing are just astounded by the amount of ability that they have in this field.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
unidentified		Well, this is Paul.
		I have.
		In fact, I did that in support of the project that Ed Dames had.
		I've done some prelance remote viewing for SciTech.
		And 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, they were?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That was of the I think it was a fuel pump assembly or something?
unidentified		Some kind of piece of machine or equipment.
		Of course, I had not a clue what it was.
		I just drew it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you then would agree with Major Dames' assessment that that was a mechanical malfunction?
unidentified		Well, my particular set of viewings didn't really identify the ultimate cause.
		I specifically honed in that piece of equipment that that was whatever happened to that was a major contributor to the, or perhaps the major contributor to the incident with the aircraft.
		What made that malfunction, I didn't get that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, does that mean then that that particular 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?
unidentified		That is possible, at least based on my sessions.
		Now, I don't know what other viewers had had work 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, you know, some third-party involvement.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you just came up with that particular piece of gear.
		What about O.J. Simpson?
		Anybody on that one?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		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.
		And I don't think the real reason for that occurrence or the death has come to the forefront.
		And we may never know exactly why they were killed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		At the top of the hour here, I think, you know, it's getting late.
		It's getting toward 5 o'clock.
		What I would like to do, if I can, is 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Joe is coming out with a book, if we could get some information on that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Let's do it right now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Joe, yes, I know you've already written one book, right?
unidentified		I wrote a book called Mind Trek, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 1993.
		It's recently been revised, and we'll probably hit the stands in 10 days to two weeks.
		And I've added chapters on Stargate and some of the myths surrounding remote viewing.
		And it's a pretty good compendium of information on remote viewing.
		I've also recently forwarded the follow-on book to Mind Trek 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 Roots 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, that's 1-800-766-8009.
unidentified		That's correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anybody else write a book?
unidentified		Not yet, although I do plan to have a website up fairly soon.
unidentified		There is information on Lynn's website about my company, but that's about the extent of it right now.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		And Paul is beginning to teach, too, so he may want to give people his number where he can be contacted.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		All right.
unidentified		Well, I'll give you my email.
unidentified		The company I've incorporated is Remote Viewing Instructional Services.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		So the email is RVIS.
unidentified		at TidalWave, T-I-D-A-L-W-A-V-E dot net.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hey, that's R-V-I-S at tidalwave, one word, dot net.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, and you answer your email, I take it?
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		You know, I can't guarantee I keep up if I get inundated, but I do my best.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or maybe you sucked a few, I don't know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But so what are you doing now?
unidentified		This is Joe.
		I'm a research associate still with BCON at the Sciences Lab.
		That was the original lab at SRI and then later at SAIC.
		And we are currently working on some very interesting contracts for some major corporations that have tasked us with doing some research in remote viewing.
		And we hope to continue pursuing the mechanisms behind remote viewing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Can you talk about it at all?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		We, of course, at CSL lab, or at the Kind of Sciences Lab, have never endorsed espionage of any kind.
		We're primarily interested in trying to uncover the mechanisms that support side 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you guys ever scare yourselves?
unidentified		Sometimes Jill scares me.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I am no longer surprised at this science, but I'll never quit being amazed by it.
unidentified		I would agree with that statement.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Is it one of those things that once you have begun, I mean, I have yet to talk to a remote viewer who was 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?
unidentified		This is Joe.
		I always tell people that if you wanted me to sell my experience in this for $10 million, I probably wouldn't do it.
		However, if you offered me $10 million at the beginning to do it, and then I knew what I knew now, I probably wouldn't participate.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I guess, yeah, that's a good answer.
		That's really a good answer.
		All right.
		Well, 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?
unidentified		Well, this is Paul.
		It sounds like somebody else wants to say something too, but 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 vindicates what we were doing in secret for so many years.
		So I encourage people to develop an interest in it and explore it and find out about it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So in other words, go ahead, folks.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If you're interested, follow it.
unidentified		That's right.
		Joe?
		Joke.
		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's doing this and have them explain or open to review and criticism what exactly it is that they're doing.
		That's where knowledge is developed and it's how we decide whether something is truly valid or not.
		So I would encourage continued interest, but to be skeptical and ask questions.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, somebody might likely say, and we've only got a few seconds, all right, 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?
unidentified		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Joe, we're out of time.
		Joe and Paul, thank you both.
		We'll continue with Lynn Buchanan.
		Good night, gentlemen.
unidentified		Good night.
unidentified		Thanks for leaving us to talk.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Stay right there, Lynn.
unidentified		The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast A.M. More somewhere in time coming up.
		I hear the drums echoing tonight.
		She is only whispers of some quiet conversation.
		She's coming in 12 blooded times.
		The moon that brings reflect the stars.
		The moon that brings the stars.
		Her hair is hollow gold.
		Let's sweet try.
		Her hands never cold.
		She's got better days inside.
		She turned them using guns.
		You won't have to think twice.
		You're a new yoga snow.
		She got better days to die It's easy, it's easy I'll be better down Just weep.
		You can coast up.
		And you know that's what it takes to play.
		You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere Inside, tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, everybody.
		My guest is Lynn Buchanan.
		In the last hours, Joe McMonagall and Paul Smith were here, all three involved in Project Stargate, the military's remote viewing project.
unidentified		if you would like a copy of this program please please please please make note of the number that'll get it to you 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 Nouri 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 CoastToCoast 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.
		Coast2CoastAM.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.
		Somewhere in Time with Art Bell continues, courtesy of Premier Networks.
		The End Back now to Lynn Buchanan.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is your hour with him.
		Whatever questions you might have, come now.
		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 soulmate or perfect mate in life.
		And if so, how would that be done?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 said that remote viewing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're not talking about bar hopping, Roy.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And 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 caller lot?
		First time callers call area 702-727-1222.
		Vancouver, B.C. 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.
unidentified		Yep.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you're calling from where?
unidentified		Vancouver, B.C. All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		I was wondering, during your research in the Stargate program, did you follow the work being done by Charles Honerton in the Gansa Field experiment?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		The Gotzfeld experiments, 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.
		Now we tried some Gunsfeld 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.
unidentified		Okay.
		Ray Hyman, he was on the panel, the evaluation panel.
		Right.
		What are your thoughts on his conclusions?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And so 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 was basically that he admitted that the statistics show that there is value to the remote viewing, that there is an actual phenomenon going on.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Interesting reaction.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but let's not decide right now until we can find a way to shoot it down.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From the James Randi School.
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Here's another fact.
		Arn, I've heard cases where remote viewers located military targets during the Gulf War.
		Can win enlighten us on this subject, or is it simply too sensitive?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		There are many aspects of it that are very sensitive.
		There are many aspects of it that generally get talked about with, you know, because the feeling is that it's not too sensitive at all.
		I think what the question is, is could I give an example?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, can you?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 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?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Like a premium.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A teaser.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		And so I went ahead and did the session and what came next was something I didn't believe.
		That is that 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.
		What was done with it, I don't know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I imagine that must have been a little frustrating.
		Did the remote viewing team 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 and 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.
		And so, you know, that was our feedback.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I'll bet those guys worried about you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, they could confiscate your records, but if you really wanted to know, I mean, they, of all people, knew that you had a certain level of effectiveness, and you probably scared the hell out of them.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		This is what Paul was saying earlier.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Back to the many waiting phones.
		Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Hi.
unidentified		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 at others.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, let's narrow that down to the first part of your question.
		The IR 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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I think that some experiments were tried with a medical project that was attempted to 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I guess some of the things that 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, and I think the, like I say, I think the medical experiments did some of this, but I know that we didn't.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I know that my own preference is I want to remote view with it being me that does it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I hear you.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I am very opposed to drugs and especially to anyone doing drugs while remote viewing.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I just wouldn't trust the results.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		East of the Rockies.
		You're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Where are you, please?
unidentified		This is Nancy from Northwest Indiana.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Northwest Indiana, all right?
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Fundamentalist religions view mental telepathy and parapsychology as work of the devil.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
unidentified		And you earlier mentioned positive feelings of Christ and the great prophets.
unidentified		So on the opposite side of the coin, have you experienced evil forces and how might that be influencing people's lives today?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, good one.
		Sure.
		We talked about the presence of Jesus, and that was fascinating.
		What about the opposite?
		Do you know of anybody?
		Have you or has anybody ever run into what we would think of or know of as the devil?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did that get really tiresome?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		At the end of a session, you really have to detoxify or else you wind up taking EDI mean home with you.
		And now there's one evil dude.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How do you learn to let it go?
		I was a 911 dispatcher for Monterey County for a year, and it damn near killed me.
		I actually had to leave because I kept taking my job home with me.
		How do you not take Ediamine home with you?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 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.
		And if you're not a good advanced viewer who's very experienced, don't do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So again, there are things you will not teach people.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, absolutely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Hello.
unidentified		Oh, how are you doing, Art, again?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Fine.
unidentified		Dal, thanks a lot for taking the phone call.
unidentified		Sure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Where are you?
unidentified		I'm in Pass Robles, California, KPRL.
		All right.
		Question there, Mr. Buchanan?
		First of all, are we evolving and learning to use our gray 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 gather, the gray matter in the front of your mind is the part that they have no knowledge of what it does.
		Are we starting to evolve to use this now?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Or, I will add, are we devolving?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I've wondered about that.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		But I started, I taught one group class mainly to Get people to shut up, you know, trying to get me to teach it.
		I just wanted to prove that it wouldn't work.
		And the response of the students, they picked up on this so quickly.
		One of my previous students was there in the class, you know, just to come and talk about his experiences.
		And 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 think I believe in the, well, I believe in the shoulderache effect, that the more people who learn to do this, the easier it gets to do it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That implies some sort of mass consciousness, doesn't it?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		And the CRV process, I mean, ties right straight into that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Lynn, hold tight there.
		We're at the bottom of the hour.
		We'll be right back and pick up on that point.
unidentified		The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
		More Somewhere in Time coming up.
		Thank you.
		Now, we take you back to the past on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
unidentified		you you You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
unidentified		Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from March 25th, 1997.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, here's a question from Russ in California, and it's a neat one.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Please ask Lynn if he has ever targeted the period of time in which the dinosaurs roamed Earth.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Not personally.
		That is a fairly good training target.
		And in fact, I think maybe I have in my early training.
		You know, just as another session to see if you're on target, because we have feedback on that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's a second part to the question.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If so, was man walking side by side with the dinosaurs?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And then a good P.S. here.
		P.S., 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?
		But you answer the way you want, Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		All right, we have people working on numbers, which is a very hard thing to do in remote viewing.
		There is another type of remote viewing called alternate, I mean, well, ARV alternate remote viewing, which substitutes remote viewing targets for the numbers and allows you to remote view, for instance, the PIC 3.
		Now, 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 collects the data, looks on the chart to see what the results mean, and goes and places the bet.
unidentified		Ah.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		But it's been done, and it's been done successfully.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, if remote influencing is possible, how about sending Ed McMahon and the gang up my driveway?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		They're coming here first.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I see.
		I understand that.
		Really, I do.
		First time caller line, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Hello.
unidentified		Yes, sir, am I on?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're on.
unidentified		My name is John, and I'm from Rochester, New York.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, John.
unidentified		And thank you, Mr. Bell.
		And Art.
		I appreciate your service you were providing.
		Lynn, can you hear me?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, uh-huh.
unidentified		I have a number of questions.
unidentified		Is it possible that in the future that we will all be able to talk to each other and absorb all of the information at the same time like a Pentium 2 computer?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me.
		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.
		And 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.
unidentified		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?
		Oh, vaguely.
		And also another question.
		Frank Herbert wrote a book called Dune and the threads that Maude was seeing as far as the future was concerned.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		Is our future in threads as he kind of alluded to?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's a good question.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Let me refresh my memory on this.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		It's been a long time since I read Dune.
unidentified		The threads mean many, many multifaceted, interconnected future tracks.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I was getting that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Many possibilities.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
		And now 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I would be utterly remiss if I didn't pop this has-to-be-asked question because nobody else has yet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Carl and Spokane would like to know if you have remote-viewed the Kennedy assassination.
unidentified		No, I have not.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Intentionally, in fact.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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, you know, I can get an answer through remote viewing.
		But what would the purpose be?
		I couldn't change it.
		And the only purpose would be to beat on my chest and say, you know, I've remote viewed this and here's what I found.
		And I don't do that.
		I keep low-key.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Personally, I think there'd be a lot more joy in remote viewing Marilyn Monroe's life.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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 tell you, they're hooked.
		They don't care about Marilyn Monroe or O.J. Simpson anymore at all.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I understand.
		Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
unidentified		Harold from Calgary, Alberta.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Greetings to you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Calgary, Alberta, yes, sir.
unidentified		QR77.
		Lynn and Art, have you ever heard of Jose Silva method?
		It was mainly under mind control, but we did lots of remote viewing.
		Right.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Uh-huh.
		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-provable, classic remote viewing.
unidentified		My second question, would you favor us with one of your shareable remote forecasts or our current affairs that you could tell us and sort of be a control of your talent?
unidentified		All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In other words, some sort of something that you can tell us is going to occur that will serve as a test?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I hate that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, it is to me, too.
		In fact, one of the questions that I have on that subdirectory 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.
		And it's my hope 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're trying to influence future events.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, uh-huh.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		If you see the future and it's not what you want it to be, then I have no qualms in changing it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I have.
		Uh-huh.
		I find it to be fairly peaceful death.
		I don't know how much of that is wishful thinking, but that's, you know, the impression I got.
		Now, this was in a sealed envelope so that I didn't know what I was viewing, what the target was.
		And basically, what I got was an old fat man with, you know, in a bed with people around him that cared.
unidentified		Well, that's a good result.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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 a Mac truck bearing down on you.
		Psychologically injurious results.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah, I wouldn't give that target to anyone else.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		I gave it to myself just basically out of curiosity.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's almost like slipping a little LSD into somebody's orange juice, you know.
		East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Hello.
unidentified		Hello, Art?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Yeah, you know, I have a very good reason for asking Lynn this question.
unidentified		The woman who called Beverly Jaggers.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, uh-huh.
unidentified		Lynn, do you know her?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't.
unidentified		Uh-uh.
		Many years ago, I have a son missing and assumed dead.
		And many years ago, I read about her, and 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.
		And that's been a long, long time ago.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		It's still hard.
unidentified		And before I die, I have to find out what happened to him.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, do you help people like this, Lynn?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, now.
		One of the problems that I have is this security clearance and for many other reasons as well.
		If there is 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, 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.
unidentified		Art, there is none.
		It's been so many years.
		The case is closed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but there was an original investigating officer on the case.
unidentified		He's probably retired by now.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		We worked a case not too long ago, last year sometime, that had been closed 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, I hear, some new evidence.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So do that, ma'am.
unidentified		Well, how can I get a hold of Lynn?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's a good question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Lynn, what is the best way to get a hold of you?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Do you have internet access?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I would presume if she doesn't, she can get it.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I would say the easiest address to remember is artbell.com.
		And right there is a link to my page.
		And on my page is my address and phone number.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, there you are, ma'am.
		And 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.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Completely understandable.
		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Lynn Buchanan.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		And good morning, Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		My question for you is, could remote viewers be tricked and fed a false remote view to cover up a secret or event?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Oh, 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?
unidentified		Exactly.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		In fact, one of the biggest problems in remote viewing is that you tend to do that to yourself to begin with.
		And 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 asked the same exact question to two different viewers who know each other.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, this brings me back to Ed Dame's tapes, which generally the group earlier, including you, seem to agree might be or hopefully will be a good idea if it works.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		if it works then uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		i'm all for it but then on the other hand with all of those people out there remote viewing maybe even influencing A lot of mistakes will be made.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And couldn't there be a sort of virtual anarchy that would develop?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		That's my fear.
		I do believe very strongly in the shoulderache effect, and 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.
		And this is my big fear with many of the quickie courses that are out there, that I'm afraid that they're going to, through the Sheldrake effect, just the Hundredth Monkey effect, just almost destroy any progress that's been made simply because it'll be easier to do it wrong.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What was your initial reaction when you heard the videotapes were going to be released at a very relatively comparatively inexpensive price?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Well, 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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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, the sun has to be up back there, huh?
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Yes, looking at the wonder it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		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, Lynn, and we will do it again one day if you're up for it.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		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.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Lynn.
lyn buchanan ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
unidentified		Take care.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's Lynn Buchanan, everybody.
		And I'm sorry, but the clock dictates we must go.
		So go, we shall.

▲