Markdown lines 631–683 · Part 5 of 5
hugely beneficial to anyone, the fact that somebody can't remove you is no worse than
somebody saying, I want to learn how to bowl and then being asked, they learned the ball. And
then immediately Somebody says, Well, can you bowl three perfect games in a row. And you
know how many people can do that? About 1% of the population. So nobody gets angry when
they can't bowl three perfect games, but a lot of people get really angry when they're told they
can't remove you. Well, I don't understand that personally. But if I had to do it all over again, I
would rather study remote viewing the bigger remote viewer. It's from a reputational
standpoint, it's extremely invasive. Once I developed a reputation as a remote viewer, I was
dealing suddenly with senators and congressmen and generals and admirals and people who
wanted to prove that I was just simply lying through my teeth. And you if you're not, if you don't
have a strong belief in your capability, forget it'll trash you completely. The biggest the person
who has disagreed about me more than any other human being on the planet was our
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The man said I was nothing but a fantasize or every time
anybody brought me up to him. And yet, when I saw him in in cafeterias in Washington, if I
went up to shake his hand, he ran out of the room. He's terrified of me. I mean, that's not.
That's not Not, not the remote feeling. So you have to have a strong constitution to deal with
remote viewing at all. It's problematic. Yeah. I can imagine nobody's prepared for it.
Paul Citarella 1:05:30
Yep. A question that I had for you is is, you know, with the project started being shut down. Do
you imagine that it was just moved somewhere else? That is probably speculation. But do you
think there's still active programs going on with remote viewing? And in the US government?
1:05:46
It's always a possibility. But I don't think so. No, I'll tell you why I don't think so it takes money.
And they won't spend the money on it. Secondarily, to that. If you're going to start another
project, you'd want to have the benefit of 35 years, well, 4043 years of research and
experience in dealing with it, you know, the science behind it, to help you not rebuild the wheel,
or make the same stakes. And that's possessed by two people on the planet. That's me, and
Dr. May, and no one has ever come and asked us for that. Ever. So I don't think so. I don't
think it's happening or going on. I think there's a lot of people that tried it. I know that, you
know, there are different governments that have tried it. But the people that tried it went in with
the intention of dumping it anyway. Because they didn't want to be dealing with it. So you can
see the erroneous pneus of their experiments. I can tell you the invalidity of their efforts right
from the get go, the mistakes they made. And then they come out and say, well, we've tried it
and it doesn't work. Well, that's because they were stupid. You know,
Susan Smily 1:07:21
those of us at Monroe who have benefited from your courses are delighted that you've brought
that information to us because we very, very definitely believe you.
1:07:32
Thank you. Appreciate it.
Paul Citarella 1:07:35
So I think yeah, I think we're about out of time. Thank you so much, Joe, for being with us. It's
fascinating. Thank you.
1:07:43
Welcome. Thank you guys for being here. Good place. Thank you.