Markdown lines 352–516 · Part 3 of 5
support to the Air Force, the Navy, some of the the Pentagon, special units, we then spread to the
National Security Council. Of course, the CIA, the FBI Secret Service. At one point we were doing
targeting for the US Coast Guard, just about every agency in America that had an intelligence unit that
was briefed about us wound up giving us targeting to which we were responding. So So our response
was, across the board, all kinds of very interesting targets
Mark Certo 26:37
with a fair degree of success, I imagine because it went on for quite some time through several
administrations, right?
Joe McMoneagle 26:43
Well, what a lot of people don't know is that, you know, they say that this wasn't very a lot of people say
this wasn't effective that there was minimal information produced well, what people have to understand
is that the operations of this project was under the the auspices of two or three oversight committees.
One was the course the intelligence Oversight Committee, which evaluated the intelligence coming out
of the project. We had a human use Oversight Committee, which determine whether or not we were
staying within the the appropriate realm of using people and how we use people. And then we had a
scientific Oversight Committee, which evaluated the protocols and the methodologies we were using.
And based on the approval of all three of those committees on a year to year basis. And the results that
we were producing the approval for the project was, was either continue or shut it down. This was an
annual thing they'd go through Absolutely, sometimes on a BI in fact, while the approval was on a year
to year basis based on results. And in of course, following the rules, the all of these committee
members said full walk in privileges at any time into which many of them availed themselves. They
could walk in at any time and look over what was being done and how it's being done. And review the
results. And I would add that many of these agencies were supported over the entire 19 year period. So
it wasn't like they weren't getting anything out of the project. 20 years. 20 years nearly Yes.
Mark Certo 28:28
I would say that they got something I mean, how much money was spent on on this?
Joe McMoneagle 28:33
Well, there's a lot of estimates, they range anywhere from 16 to $20 million, I think probably
Mark Certo 28:40
over the course of the 20 year period over the course
Joe McMoneagle 28:43
of about 17 or 18 years. That's a pittance by you'd pay that for two ground air missiles. Sure. The point
when when people seem to become outraged over the expenditure. The point the single issue that they
have to remember is what we got for that.
Mark Certo 29:05
What exactly did they have you target? You mentioned the Iranian hostage situation. And once upon a
time, what other sorts of things can you talk about that you did with the military?
Joe McMoneagle 29:16
Actually, I would say I would say probably 98 99% of the program is still highly classified? No, really. So
there's very little that I can talk about operationally. Some of the things that have become public as a
result of some of the interviews and things on television and whatnot. I can talk about generally, the
Iran Hostage scenarios as an example. I also did a very interesting target in the extreme north of the
then Soviet Union. We were asked to to develop a report that talked about what was going on inside a
large bill. LNG there. At the time, it was the largest building under a single roof probably in the world.
And all they could get was an aerial photograph of the roof. And they had no idea what was going on
inside the building. They could guess based on materials that were probably being moved in and out of
the building. And the best guess throughout the intelligence, through all the intelligence departments
that were working on, the problem was that the Soviets were probably building a new assault ship of
some kind that would carry helicopters. When we targeted the building, we produced a report that
implied that they were probably going to launch a new Type submarine, which would be the largest
submarine in the world. And then it would probably have cruise missile capability, and ICBM capability,
that sort of thing. We developed a lot of detail on its drive unit, and how it was being welded and
constructed and that sort of thing. No one, of course, believed us because they had already bought into
the assault ship idea. Plus there was a problem and that the building was about a half a mile from the
water. And if they were building a sub day, no one could believe that they would be moving at that half
mile. In fact, they came out in the open human right, they came back and said that we were probably
wrong. So we gave them a projected launch date for the sub, which we said would be 112 days later.
And in fact, 110 days later, the bulldozers showed up and started cutting the new the new trench to the
sea. And they did in fact capture the sub being launched. And it was the new typhoon class submarine,
which is the largest submarine in the world. That's a phenomenal success. Well, we, you know, when it
comes to the funding, and people complain about $20 million, over 17 or 18 years, just in that single
example, we probably saved a million and a half dollars in having to chase oil, probably even more than
that, and having to chase this submarine all over the face of the earth in the hopes of getting a picture
of it. Later, had we not been on site to record the actual launch.
Mark Certo 32:22
If I was to assign you a project. You mentioned using map coordinates to locate the target, what part do
map coordinates play in that whole thing?
Joe McMoneagle 32:33
Actually, map coordinates were only used for short period. What they The reason the whole reason
they went to map coordinates had to do with the fact that it was very expensive to keep running the
outbound or targeting, having to put somebody on a plane and fly them to a place that you're interested
in the Soviet. Right, exactly. So they developed this method of using sets of geographic coordinates to
identify the specific target. There was a lot of complaints initially about it by the skeptics, because they
said, Oh, well, if you're giving the person the actual coordinate, they could, they could have memorize
the important coordinates across face the earth and would know what was at that location, which is kind
of a ridiculous idea. But I'm trying
Mark Certo 33:25
to imagine putting myself in that place. Yeah, I can remember every coordinate in the world well,
Joe McMoneagle 33:29
in actually, if you were to use the city of St. Louis, as an example, a set of geographic coordinates
accurate to the second describes an area that's about 1000 by 1000 meters on the ground. And within
that 1000s meter square area, you probably would have 14 or 15, significant targets. So it really doesn't
say much about target. It's just a method for getting the person the focus, the coordinate system, and
any of that was altered somewhat. To satisfy the skeptics, we just started putting the coordinates inside
sealed envelopes so that no one could see them.
Mark Certo 34:07
So what are you accessing then? If it's not map coordinates? It's not the eyes of the outbound or what
do you think? How do you think this information is coming to you?
Joe McMoneagle 34:20
There's the within the research side of the house, where I have now nearly 14 years of experience, all
of our our research tends to imply that in all probability, what gets the psychic or the remote viewer to
the target gets them the access to the target is the intention that that everyone has for targeting
something. For instance, if the the intent is to target the studio, then all it requires is an agreement
between the people literature performing the act of remote viewing, to, to garner information on what
the intended target is. So the clear the intent between all participants in a collection or experiment, the,
probably the better the or, the more clear, the more clarity there will be in terms of the information that's
gathered,
Mark Certo 35:22
even if only one person in the room understands what the target is, specifically, so long as there's a
joining in between the people involved. And there's an intent to target something.
Joe McMoneagle 35:34
Yeah, it whoever's controlling the actual intent of the target intent of what the target should be. For
instance, in the case of intelligence, targeting, for instance, there, since that's an applications, there
tends to be a much clearer intent. The whole reason for targeting these, the building in which the
submarine was being constructed, was everyone wanted to know what was going on in there, that's a
pretty clear intent. But simply by default, it becomes a little a little more touchy when you start dealing
with like research targets or pool type targets. Because then the intent becomes I'll tell me something
that's right about the target. That's a lot more general. So having an understanding of the that in the fact
that it does have such an impact. The idea would be that before an experiment, or you know, before a
pool type experiment is run, then you would want to get all the players say in one one room and say,
the intent today is to be correct to describe the target in as much detail as possible, that sort of thing.
Mark Certo 36:47
And what about your process and what you go through in order to be a successful remote viewer, you
have these folks who are joining with you and intent, you have either a target that you know you're
going towards or something that's open ended, what happens with you, when you move into this state
that you call that some would call a zone or well down period, as you called it in your book,
Joe McMoneagle 37:12
primarily, my job is to this is how I view my job is to become meditatively centered, in other words,
empty my mind of anything and everything else that's going on. Once I've done that, I perceive my job
as having to open to the target, to allow whatever information I'm going to receive to come into my
head. And then I pretty much just let it float around in there as I tried to what I called down, analyze the
pieces or try to construct some some reality out of the fragments of the input. The idea here is that
there's sort of a fence line that you walk that it's sort of a dividing line between doing too much analysis
and not doing enough analysis. Too much analysis has a tendency to force people to make leaps of
logic that in all probability are going to be wrong. Where too little analysis means the person is or the
remote viewer is never going to get out of the major Gestalt arena, or be able to make sense out of the
information that they're receiving.
Mark Certo 38:29
And you mentioned before that this was kind of it involves all of your senses, it could be Claire
audience, as you called it before, they had a tactile feeling is
Joe McMoneagle 38:40
good. It can be Clairsentience to deal with feelings or deal with touch, it can be clear audience, it can
deal has something to do with sound or hearing things. It can be pre sentiment. This means that you're
getting information about what you will eventually see in in the bottom line. It can be telepathic and that
anyone that's familiar with the target may be sending information. It's all of these things in and then
even more in the processing. We know that eidetic memory probably has something to do with it. That's
unconscious recall, of everything that you ever filed away in your your head. A lot of people are, are
have extremely big vocabularies from an eidetic memory standpoint. They they've traveled a lot they've
been exposed to a lot. They're voracious readers. They have near photographic minds. They collect
huge, huge amounts of data. And it just sort of floats around up there until something matches it, that