TKR TRANSCRIPT: JOSEPH W. MCMONEAGLE IN CONFERENCE 11 July 2009 at http://www.dojopsi.com/chat/
This is taken from http://www.dojopsi.com/rvexpo/Joe/
. You can download the format in pdf if you'd like to read it in a more stylish form. I did my best to format it right for this forum. If there are any errors don't hesitate to show them and I'll correct them.
It is to be noted the similarities in thinking of Tom Campbell and Joe McMoneagle.
Joseph McMoneagle in Conference at TKR
[moderated session July 11, 2009 at http://www.dojopsi.com/chat/
We are Ten Thousand Roads Remote Viewing and Dowsing Project aka "TKR." The rules are simple: Relax, have fun, be cordial, no politics or religion. Remote Viewing rocks!
Palyne_Gaenir: We are talking with Joseph W. McMoneagle, Viewer #001 (in so many more ways than one!). Joe, sorry about the technical difficulties, but thanks for joining us!
Joseph_McMoneagle: I'm sorry, my computer is giving me fits because of storms in the area. Thanks for having me.
Palyne_Gaenir: OK first question! In The Ultimate Time Machine you only briefly address future matters concerning psychic functioning indirectly, such as the mystery cults/religion of the 30 century. What are your feelings concerning the future progression of remote viewing/ psychic functioning in this century?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I suspect, based on what we understand through research in the lab that as we move into the future, there'll be fewer psychically functioning people than we have now. The reason being, the early suggestion of psi within most humans (survival function) and the use of psi is precluded to some extent by the ever-increasing need for quick processing of extreme amounts of data.
Palyne_Gaenir: What can you do when you know that someone is Remote Viewing you or trying to?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I'm presuming this has something to do with defending or defense. There is no defense that I'm aware of against psi functioning/ remote viewing. So there's basically nothing you can do. However having said that, it's my belief that most remote viewing and most psi is in itself dysfunctional to a point that little can be gained in targeting an individual, other than generalities.
Palyne_Gaenir: Rumor is you do your remote viewing sessions "in your head" instead of on paper. How often do you write something down; do you not write until you are done?
Joseph_McMoneagle: The function of remote viewing and psychic functioning really requires seconds or less. It's almost an instantaneous collection or sensing of enormous amounts of data all at the same time. So the RV function is extremely brief. Deciding how to represent what has been sensed, in a way that could be understood by another individual, requires probably 95% of the effort in remote viewing. So, as you become more proficient in remote viewing or psi functioning, more of the translation ability occurs in the mind vs. having a need to record it on paper.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you still use any of the old CDs that Bob Monroe made for you?
Joseph_McMoneagle: The old technology that Bob Monroe developed specifically for my use consisted of tapes. Thank God not 8-track tapes. He was not proficient in any other technology. So continued use of those tapes has basically worn them out. So now what I do is close my eyes and remember what they sounded like.
Palyne_Gaenir: How long does it take you to 'get in the groove' for acquiring RV data?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Currently, it takes on an average approximately 3 to 5 minutes. Unless I have other natural problems interfering with the RV capability. Such as: being hungry, tired, not wanting to actually work on a specific target, these kinds of issues. In that case, it will take me sometimes 15-20 minutes.
Palyne_Gaenir: Have you ever tried Remote Viewing from the lucid dream state since you had those scary 'false awakenings'? Also did you think the LD state helped your RV accuracy at all?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I've done considerable RV from the lucid dream state, both in a study condition as well as at home. The accuracy does not seem to be affected by the lucid dream state. However, it appears from my point of view to have a direct effect on consistency in viewing (a good effect).
Palyne_Gaenir: How frequently do you go out of body or Astral Project to get information, or is it more in a spontaneous bi-location style?
Joseph_McMoneagle: My OBE data collection occurs rarely. Mostly because it's far more limited than straight remote viewing. But there are times when collection of information in the OB state can be more decisive or accurate.
Palyne_Gaenir: Can you give an example of those times?
Joseph_McMoneagle: An example would be if I'm asked to produce a drawing of a specific machine or object to scale. This would be obviously a good situation for the OB state.
Joseph_McMoneagle: Because you're actually standing there seeing it. However, other information about the object, such as where it's been made, who made it, how it was made, these kinds of things, are not available in the OB state.
Palyne_Gaenir: Ed May says we don't know 'when' psi comes in. So how do you know that psi reception is so brief?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I believe it's so brief because all of the other time is spent on processing the input. There are many who believe that input is better if it's not processed. The false understanding this creates is because many believe that they can actually report information without processing. This is an impossibility. Secondly, Ed May says this because, even under lab conditions, we have no ability to determine exactly when psychic functioning is taking place on any given specific target. It could be happening as the individual is driving to the lab... during the actual attempt... or post-hoc after the effort has been terminated.
Palyne_Gaenir: You said, concerning 'remote influence', that psi was 'dysfunctional' to a certain degree. But psi doesn't seem dysfunctional for you at all... at least to me.
Joseph_McMoneagle: Not true. I'm many times not 100% or correct about the targets I'm asked to report on. This too is part of the system of remote viewing: learning to deal with the failures is just as important as learning to deal with the successes. Taking full responsibility for both is part of the mastering of RV.
Palyne_Gaenir: Has there been any real-time MRI done to a Remote Viewer while in protocol?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Yes. There were three years of studies, approximately, done at Los Alamos using MRI as well as SQUID (sub quantum interface technologies) to determine if specific events could be recorded relating directly to remote viewing. What we determined was no. There are not. And the problem seems to be that it's too difficult to know specifically WHEN the actual reception of data takes place vs. normal human processing. (Of that data.) I can say also that there seems to be a possibility that fMRI might be a profitable area of inquiry. But to my knowledge no one has done this yet. (ha - yes - the S in SQUID stands for superconducting not sub quantum, sorry. Thanks for that correction.)
Palyne_Gaenir: Any thoughts on brain wave tapes to help get into the groove? Is any better than the others: beta, theta, alpha etc?
Joseph_McMoneagle: To my knowledge, there has been no demonstration of any specific brainwave criteria in association with accurate remote viewing vs. inaccurate remote viewing. However, it would be obvious to anyone that if you are using a psychedelic drug, or you're drunk on your feet, which obviously would affect brainwaves, this is not conducive to any form of RV.
Palyne_Gaenir: In your lucid dream RV, how do you tell target data in the dream from just dream "noise"?
Joseph_McMoneagle: There's very little dream 'noise' in a lucid dream. In fact, most people who have had Lucid Dreams and who have not experienced an OB condition, will assume they ARE experiencing an OB condition. Likewise, people who experience an OB condition have little to differentiate that from a lucid dream. It's only someone who has experienced both that can understand the difference. Which then becomes readily apparent. Lucid dreaming is just that. It's being fully and totally awake -- in a dream state. Almost impossible to differentiate between that and fully-awake functioning.
Palyne_Gaenir: Would you advise folks to learn LD to improve RV?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I would advise people to learn lucid dreaming as a stepping stone or doorway to the out of body experience. I would not advise the use of learning lucid dreaming for remote viewing.
Palyne_Gaenir: Lyn Buchanan has mentioned 'the story stone' can be used as a defense against Remote Viewing. Where every time the viewer tries to target you, he gets 'another' completely different story. Does this sound plausible?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Speaking from my experience within a lab, that will have absolutely no effect on a professional remote viewer. It may work with an amateur, or someone who does not understand the difference between fictional stories and reality.
Palyne_Gaenir: When you say most of remote viewing time is the processing, do you mean conscious processing? What about drawings?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Absolutely I'm speaking of conscious processing of what is happening between one's ears. The act of drawing itself is a form of dis-associative thinking and will have a definite effect on how one processes the information they're trying to put into pictures. The best way to explain what I'm trying to say is that accuracy in RV is all about processing. Not the psi reception of the data. That's the easy part. The hard part is trying to relate the psi received data in a way to other humans that is understandable, but without the overlay of one's personal beliefs and understandings.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you ever get symbolic/analogical data? (Ed May refers to the possibility of "allegorical" or "functional" data in a session in the CSL paper on FSA.)
Joseph_McMoneagle: Absolutely. Almost all data you receive is allegorical or related in some indirect way to the target. The probable reason for this might be that whatever the source of the data is, it does not permit a direct language interface, but must communicate symbolically with the conscious mind.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you sort through verbal and graphic impressions in your mind and decide on those which pertain to the target? Put another way: do you record everything that goes through your mind while doing a session?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I never record everything that goes through my mind in a session. I attempt to resolve the differences in information in two forms: one being accurate information, the other being mental noise. If I had to guess at the difficulty of that, I would have to say that 75% of what I think during the remote viewing session, is probably inaccurate and never reported to anyone.
Palyne_Gaenir: Some have noticed that on some of the American TV documentaries you've been a part of, your results or work tend to be basic, somewhat general. The Japanese ones, you do very thorough work. Is there a reason for this? Or does it depend on the individual production?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Basically it depends on the production. The normal remote viewing I'm asked to do for live TV is done over the course of 8 minutes or less. So I'm forced to provide a summary, an accurate summary I might add, of everything anyone wants to know about the target. In the Japanese RV, I'm given a processing and remote viewing period to determine what's accurate and what isn't with regard to the target. I'm actually filmed on average for a period of 9 to 11 straight hours on any given target for the Japanese. This is edited for the studio production.
Palyne_Gaenir: You say you don't teach. Will you take apprentices or tutor?
Joseph_McMoneagle: No I won't. And the reason I won't is because in my 30 years of experience I've come to understand that the art of teaching remote viewing in reality requires one on one expensive direction and experience for many many years. In order to do this with an individual I would be forced to reduce the amount of time I have available for doing remote viewing targets in support of those in need. So it's not possible to properly teach someone because of the excessive time required, cost, and the invasiveness on that individual's life as well as my own.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you think that RV could be precognition? That we are somehow accessing the future knowledge that we will have access to?
Joseph_McMoneagle: This is a good question because of the way it was asked and the fact that it fits very neatly into how I personally believe information is accessed. It's my belief that from the moment we become cognitive in the reality-world, the physical world, we posses all of the information that we will ever require to function in our lifetime. The only variable is when we have access to those specifics of information. We have access when information directly relates to what is going on in our moment to moment cognition. Understanding this and understanding that time and space are an illusion, opens the door for accessing any information to which we will be directly related.
Palyne_Gaenir: So you "open the door" to psychic information; then you "analyze it?"
Joseph_McMoneagle: Not exactly. Psi functioning is opening to whatever information is necessary to meet any given requirement. Once that information has been received, one must then purify it in a sense, by deleting our own personal needs, desires, whatever we might personally do to influence the information in any direction or any other way.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you question or interrogate the people and/or things in an RV target?
Joseph_McMoneagle: (thinking about this...) One could say that there might be a perception of doing this, but in reality, all one is doing is talking to themselves about the target. There's nothing wrong with this concept, provided you understand that the answers you may be getting are directly influenced by your own perception.
Palyne_Gaenir: How do you know what is noise and what is data?
Joseph_McMoneagle: If I had a clear answer for that I could make tens of millions of dollars on that alone. That is the holy grail of remote viewing. To my knowledge there is no way of doing this other than through the exercise of personal experience, and learning to rely on one's ability.
Palyne_Gaenir: There are methods that some say the use of them reduces or eliminates inaccuracy or noise. What about those?
Joseph_McMoneagle: To my knowledge, I know of absolutely no methodology that "reduces noise". In fact there's a perception that some of these methodologies apparently in use produce information with little or no noise because of how the methodology is applied. These methods have been tested to extremes within the lab condition and none have proven effective in reducing the noise any more than one of the others. So my suggestion would be that remote viewing is more about UN-learning bad habits that have been formed since birth, and not about learning new methods that will only get in the way of remote viewing functioning. It seems to me that trying to clarify what your mind is doing, attempting to help your mind operate with fewer hindrances, is thwarted by having to apply a whole new form of fencing within your mind on what you can or can't do. It actually gets in the way of reducing the natural noise that's always present.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you think that having an NDE or something like that is necessary to 'open the door' to great skill? Has anyone tried to deliberately create near-death experiences (NDEs) in order to kick-start or improve their psi/ Remote Viewing training? Isn't this worth looking into?
Joseph_McMoneagle: An OBE or other paranormal event is not required to kick start remote viewing. In fact some events can steer one down a pre-set path or course that's detrimental to RV in that it establishes requirements or beliefs that get in the way. The only thing I know that will improve RV or open one to better performance in RV is experience over time. Which means practice practice practice. Having said this, it's obvious that if someone is dead-set against the concept of remote viewing, having an NDE will change their perceptions of the value of it. This in itself alters someone's belief structure and may enable them to more fully participate from an understanding point of view in the art of RV. But it's not a requirement. OBE's were deliberately forced on the Oracles of Delphi in ancient Greece. The way it was done was through the use of very specific poison which took the novitiate to the doorway of death. At which point they were then revived. However this methodology was used within a very rigid spiritual format and intended to alter the belief and concept structure of the novitiate so that they could function more effectively as a seer. To my knowledge, aside from hitting someone in the side of the head with a hammer, there is little that can be done to initiate an OBE today.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you 'feel' you 'know' when you are on target in a session?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I seldom know specifically when I'm on target or off target in most cases. However there can be times when I will be working on a target and have a sudden and complete understanding of the target itself, and 'know' that I am absolutely on the target, and any information I'm producing is of high accuracy. These are extremely rare. We call them the 'aha' sessions.
Palyne_Gaenir: In the context of ARV could you explain, do you think you manifest the future outcome you want, or do you think the future is fixed?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Yes and no. I think that manifesting a future can be the perception when you're correct about the target and everything works in ARV. In no case do I ever believe the future is fixed or predetermined. The reason I say this is because when doing an ARV target or any other kind of precognitive target, just because you're right doesn't mean that this was the only possible outcome. What it means is that you were just lucky enough to have chosen the one probable future that turns out to be correct. In other words, when you're right you've made a wild, hairy-assed guess that turned out to be correct. When you're wrong, you simply picked a probability that was not correct. Beyond that there is no magic.
Palyne_Gaenir: What can one do in normal daily life to enhance one's RV abilities? Meditation? Other?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I've always strongly recommended forms of meditation for enhancing RV for a number of reasons, the most important being it directly affects your mental discipline, it relaxes the mind, and enables someone to reduce the noise, and there are lots of other personal benefits which have no relation to remote viewing at all.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you still use a pendulum for dowsing or has the process become "internalized" over time. What are some important things to remember when dowsing?
Joseph_McMoneagle: One of the most important things to remember about dowsing is that one must trust the system. Whether you use a pendulum or rods or pencil and ruler or an eye-blink or any other method (like visualization) is not as critical as understanding that it's a full 100% trust in the system (psi) that allows the dowsing to be accurate. Psi functioning is the reason dowsing works and one must learn to rely on the outcome, the sort of unconsciously produced outcome.
Palyne_Gaenir: What frequencies worked best for you as an individual? That Bob used on his tapes?
Joseph_McMoneagle: All of the tapes produced by Robert Monroe and the Monroe Institute are dependent upon the frequency following response (to Binaural beats), where the left ear and right ear hear different frequencies and in turn this produce a third. When Bob and TMI developed their tapes there were always multiple frequencies involved, that because of their complexities produced interactive third-frequencies, etc.
Palyne_Gaenir: Generally speaking, how much if any "a-prior information" should be given a viewer in operations / applications?
Joseph_McMoneagle: None. Zero. What you can do if the target requires a response or a description of an individual, you can say, 'Describe the individual at (whatever location)' and the location needs to be hidden (would be a number, for instance). If you were targeting let's say a church, and there was an individual in that church, the church would be coded as say, 'location A1'. It would then say, 'describe individual at location A1'. Under no condition can you give any information that is directly pertinent to the target. There is never any front-loading. the reason for this is because the entire concept of remote viewing is that an individual is forced, has no choice, but to use their psi ability to answer the requirement. Any info that is given in any way or form modifies that response in a way, that removes/reduces the probability of accuracy.
Palyne_Gaenir: Surely you watch from afar at least sometimes, the RV field as a whole, I mean all the aspiring viewers. Do you have any advice for them?
Joseph_McMoneagle: Sure, yes. My feeling based on what I've seen occurring in general, with people who are aspiring to do the right thing, who want to become efficient, wellexercised viewers, what everyone needs to understand here is that remote viewing, the only difference between psi functioning and remote viewing is that the individual who's attempting to be a viewer is operating within a requirement that they're totally blind to the target BECAUSE that is a way of FORCING someone to rely totally 100% on their psychic ability. The difficulty from my view is that in the vacuum or dearth of information relating to appropriate remote viewing, a multitude of people have come forward to say that you really need to do certain things to do that function, to be psychic. You have requirements for XRV and just - a multitude of different things that claim, if you don't do it this way, you can't hope to be a remote viewer, a good one. In fact, what everyone should be striving to do is they should be striving to be as psychic as possible under blind condition. Which means whatever it takes to understand how their mind works when it's being psychic. Not how someone else believes their mind should work to be psychic. As soon as you start buying into other peoples' perception about what you should or shouldn't do, from a methodological standpoint, you're only confusing the functioning with more rules, more fences, more requirements, none of which support psi functioning. Psi functioning is the ability of the person to digest what they've gotten by force (meaning blind) -- forcing the person to digest that information and report it back in a format or way that's understandable to other people, that is also accurate to the target. How they do that, methodology they may choose to do that, is entirely up to the individual. One individual's methodology, no matter what it is, is totally up to them. One is as good as the other. As long as it's performing the function that's required, which is reporting information accurately about the target. So stop thinking about where you can 'go' to 'get the magic formula or pill or the magic method' that will allow you to become a more effective viewer. Discard that concept. Get rid of that idea. Spend time looking at how your mind functions and deals with spontaneous psychic information. Find a way to purify your own thoughts. Find a way to recognize when and how you do things accurately, or inaccurately, what best works for you in those regards, and use whatever that may be. If that means doing your RV underwater off the Yucatan, then do it! It doesn't matter. The method has absolutely no bearing on RV other than how it affects your ability to remote view, your accuracy.
Palyne_Gaenir: So do you suggest people experiment?
Joseph_McMoneagle: I think experimentation is how one determines accuracy and is absolutely necessary, that's the crux of the problem. If you don't experiment you're taking someone else's opinion about how your mind works when they have no way of knowing how your individual mind works. It's up to the individual to study and learn what enables them to produce accurate information and do so consistently. Probably the only way of doing this effectively is by personal experimentation. The only unchangeable rule is that you cannot know what the target is. You must force yourself to operate psychically. Beyond that, anything you do is fine, if it moves you toward accuracy and consistency in your viewing.
Palyne_Gaenir: The method you proposed to SAIC/ED May - do you know why this wasn't adopted as 'the RV method' - did they give a reason?
Joseph_McMoneagle: The only proposal for training that I made was made to SRI-I and to Hal Puthoff at the time of my retirement in 1984. I made no other recommendation to anyone at SRI-I or SAIC other than they abandon the use of CRV, which I found was not only a hindrance but destructive to the remote viewing process.
Palyne_Gaenir: Some people use CRV and do well. How does that jibe with your opinion?
Joseph_McMoneagle: It jibes perfectly with my opinion, in that I believe there will be some people who use CRV and for which it works. But that doesn't mean that this will be of value to anyone else. The problem here has to do with a misunderstanding of what methodologies are all about. There is a huge effort to try and mix methodology with protocol. There are some who have even said that I myself have deliberately tried to destroy any methodology that might be of value to people attempting to learn to remote view. I have never done this in my lifetime. What I HAVE said is that FORCING someone into a methodology that is not fit for them IS destructive to someone's ability to remote view. My understanding from 30 years of research and application viewing is that all human beings think and process differently, one from the other. To say one methodology fits everyone would be a totally inaccurate statement and in fact a lie. There are many different methodologies for remote viewing and in my opinion one is as valuable as the next. Having said that, it's my belief that any individual will improve their viewing when they have found a specific methodology that fits them. And none of the extent methodologies may. Which means that everyone must continue to look or search for a way of producing accurate and consistent information that they understand, and that functions well with their form of processing, or their attempt to understand, psychic functioning.
Palyne_Gaenir: So you're saying the issue isn't any one method being better or worse, but the paradigm that thinks that one needs a prepackaged method to begin with?
Joseph_McMoneagle: That would be correct. It would also be a partial understanding of my response. Because there may not be a methodology available to someone that fits how they think or process, doesn't mean they can't learn remote viewing. They can still learn RV and function very well in it, by experimenting and trying to find a way of better understanding how they personally process psi information. However they choose to do that is entirely up to them. But they should not be denigrated for choosing not to use a methodology that someone else uses. One of the things that bothers me a great deal is when someone says, "What does Joe know? He's a natural". It implies that I don't have to work at my remote viewing. And that's entirely untrue. I work my ass off at my remote viewing. But I happen to process psi material totally differently than someone else does. I have learned and built a method that I use in my head which works well for me, that is almost impossible to explain, but it's my way. But I worked very hard at developing that and maintaining it. That's what others should endeavor to do.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you think that how your mind receives or processes psi data might change over time?
Joseph_McMoneagle: It's my perception it's changing all of the time. The reason for this is because the conscious mind believes that once you have learned something it's unnecessary to relearn it. Unfortunately, in understanding psi information and translating it, one has to deal with the conscious mind and the ego. As a result the methodology used in that processing or translation of material, is constantly changing. Almost like a dynamic language. A language of the mind, between the conscious and subconscious. As a result, one is forced to constantly monitor the changes that are taking place in their own way of receiving things, and alter their method as required.
Palyne_Gaenir: You say don't front-load but you say 'describe individual at location A1' - that is a form of FL yes?
Joseph_McMoneagle: It does not tell you the location, or who or what the individual is. It's a tasking methodology, a methodology for targeting. If -- I'm going to give a for instance... in my search for missing people in Japan, what is laid in front of me as targeting info is a sealed envelope. In that envelope is the name and approximate age of the targeted individual. These individuals have been missing from 16-60 YEARS. Nobody has seen them for that period of time. They could have changed their name, left Japan, they could be anywhere in the world. What I am asked to do as specific targeting info, is "Give us the location for the individual identified within the envelope." Now if someone can tell me how that has given me anything that will help, I'd like to have them do that.
Palyne_Gaenir: Do you think numbers, words, logos, etc. are possible to obtain in RV? On purpose?
Joseph_McMoneagle: There were numerous tests done at SRI-I in which attempts were made to task 5-letter words. All were significant failures except for one, in which I was able to produce 4 of the 7 words, some of which were spelled incorrectly or had letters scrambled. All of the targeting was done double-blind other than 'tell me the word on the board in building X.' That's the only successful passing of words that I'm aware of. There were numerous attempts to produce accurate location through the use of GPS coordinates. These were almost without exception abysmal failures. The probability of understanding the words written on a sheet of paper in remote viewing is almost zero. There is a capacity however for understanding 'conceptually' what the words written on a paper might represent. These capabilities have been displayed through remote viewing.
Palyne_Gaenir: I appreciate your staying 40 minutes overtime, since we started 30 minutes late.
Joseph_McMoneagle: Since it was so much work starting, how about you choose 10 questions that didn't get answered, I'll give you the info by email and you can post it on the TKR site.
Palyne_Gaenir: That's really nice -- thank you very much!
Joseph_McMoneagle: I found the questions to be revealing, to the extent that there are lots of indications from people out there, that in many cases, there is a belief that there are more accurate truths about remote viewing than really exist. It's probably because of the
intention of many to establish their understanding as paramount to someone else's. I myself might be found guilty of this, but I have 30 years experience in not only applications remote viewing but as a lab associate at SRI-I, SAIC, and LFR. I believe that all I can do is provide what I know to be valid in terms of the science. Beyond that, I have only given you what I believe to be true. I would strongly recommend that everyone out there pursue their interests in RV with a lighter, more enjoyable and creative outlook for understanding their own perceptions, vs. becoming totally wedded to the views of others.
Palyne_Gaenir: Thanks for coming Joe. We really appreciate it!! It was great to have you!
Joseph_McMoneagle: Goodbye folks! I hope we can do this again sooner than later.
[end chat, July 11, 2009]