The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy

by Joseph McMoneagle

  If we can identify the very small and specific area that always activates when actual PSI is happening, we will have developed a way of knowing when someone is being "psychic" and when he or she is not. This would be something that could prove to be extremely beneficial in our quest for understanding the phenomena, or using it to its highest capability.

  Another condition that changed in the mid to late '80s was the way our work was being monitored. As head of the lab, Ed instituted a number of oversight committees to guarantee that we stayed within reasonable bounds. One difficulty in the study of PSI is that it is not only possible to delude oneself into thinking something that isn't true, in some cases, it is highly likely. It can happen to anyone. In an attempt to reduce this possibility, he created the committees.

  There were three committees, but the most important of these was the Scientific Oversight Committee, which comprised nearly a dozen of the best minds in numerous fields of study. There were in fact two Nobel laureates on the committee. Ed ensured that none of the members of these committees had any positive or negative biases toward PSI. The members of the committees had walk-in privileges at any time. This meant they could drop by and observe anything we were doing, ask any questions, or review any of the materials any time they wanted to. All protocols were forwarded to the committees for review and comment. They were encouraged to tear us up for anything they thought inappropriate about what we were doing. Until the project was closed at the end of 1995, no committee member complained of a single infraction, inferred or otherwise, in the operations of the lab. This should not be construed as implying that they didn't make any comments. On numerous occasions they had positive comments to make regarding the design of our protocols, or recommendations to tighten up areas where we could have run into trouble. Meeting remote viewing expectations within the boundaries of this kind of laboratory climate is extremely difficult—but doing so solidified the basis in reality for the kind of remote viewing I was doing. It not only strengthened my belief in PSI, it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in many minds the facts of its existence.

  When I hear people commenting about the reality of PSI, or whether or not it's just something happening in the imagination of the people involved, I wish they'd at least have the decency to read the history or actually review the data. There is so much proof extant for the existence of PSI, it's foolish to continue spending money, time, and effort "proving it" to the satisfaction of idiots. It's time to move on. Let's work toward figuring out why it's there at all, and how it works. It could be the single greatest understanding of humankind possible. It is my thought that it has everything to do with humankind's creative ability, our capacity for spontaneously healing ourselves and possibly others, as well as providing a new insight into the nature of our creator—what and who God is—the very origin of our species. Let's move on, for God's sake.

  In 1990 the lab severed its long association with SRI-International and moved. Physically we only moved about four blocks down the street in Menlo Park to a new office, but non-physically, we shifted our operations to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

  (Those who believe there was no real interest in remote viewing by the major intelligence agencies in Washington, D.C., need only look at the boards of directors, past and present, for SAIC, to understand that couldn't be further from the truth. Many of the past directors of those intelligence agencies work or have worked on

  SAIC's governing board. It is a multibillion-dollar company that provides support to a multifaceted array of interests in areas that range from geographic to defense.)

  Prior to moving to SAIC, we were approached by an agency with an interesting question and task. Could we actually track an agent in the field using remote viewing, and was it possible to target what that agent might be doing? What makes these questions interesting is that the results of the simulations we did on behalf of this agency are some of the few declassified materials ever released that show the effectiveness of RV to do precisely what they were asking.

  Furthermore, the targeting was controlled completely by the agency involved and no one in our lab was privy to the real information until the tasking had been completed. To my knowledge, this is the only real test of applications-level remote viewing available to the public today.

  The way the operation worked was as follows:

  The agency we were dealing with wanted to maintain complete control over the effort. While they didn't specifically say why they wanted to control all aspects of the simulation, one can assume either it was their intention to prove to themselves above and beyond extant proof that remote viewing could be a valuable collection asset capable of contributing to their efforts, or that this was their way of guaranteeing it was being accomplished without some form of cheating. In either event, our only concern was that they understood and ran the remote viewing targeting within the boundaries of protocol—in other words, that they kept the target protected and blind to all who were participating in the collection side of the house.

  (We had long since acquiesced to operating with an assumption that anyone connected with remote viewing could be cheating, and to prevent such a possibility, subsequently designed all of our protocols to address these concerns. What is interesting is, even after doing so, people still demand to see for themselves and attempt to control the targets themselves, which only expands the numbers of people involved and hence the possibility for subterfuge or inappropriate manipulation of the results. Simply stated, it complicates an already complicated protocol.)

  In order to simulate a real-world situation, they assured us that we would be targeted against a real agent (one of their own) and the targeting would take place on a date/time that would be fully dependent on the agent's actions, rather than a prearranged date/time, as used for normal experiments.

  To facilitate this, I moved in with my friend Dr. Nevin Lantz, my normal remote viewing monitor, at his home in Berkeley, California. We spent time reading and otherwise doing things that kept us relaxed.

  We received our first alert for targeting around midnight one evening in the middle of the week. We had all just gone to bed. He woke me up and we proceeded to the kitchen, where we set up on the kitchen table and I spent about thirty minutes speaking into a recording device and attempting to sketch the target location, at the same time taping Nevin's snoring, since he fell asleep at the table.

  The targeting materials that I was given consisted of an unlined three-by-five--inch index card. Written on the card was a nine-digit Social Security number. Whoever called had given Nevin the number over the phone and he had written it onto the card. The only information I was given was "This is the number for an agent who is located somewhere in America. Describe the agent, describe where the agent is standing, and tell us what the agent is doing."

  My results were very difficult to understand, as they had a very Star Wars quality. The information I was getting was so complicated as to be almost undeterminable. All the material seemed to have something to do with small particles of energy—packets of material, which were being moved around. Eventually, I gave up trying to draw the device I was sensing and simply stated that it was a machine for accelerating electrons. We were given no feedback until we completed the entire simulation of three separate sites.

  The second targeting took place a few days later, sometime around midmorning. Again, I was handed the index card and asked to describe where the agent was standing. I stated that he was standing in the middle of a field of rolling hills. I described the field as containing large wind generators and some form of underground power grid.

  The third time, I put the agent in the corner of a very complex area, which appeared to be industrial in nature. I said there were multiple buildings, some of which included underground areas and interconnecting underground corridors. I pointed out that the significant building of interest was a very large T-shaped building, seven stories in height, with a smaller building located on the roof. I stated that I felt
the building was probably called or labeled "A building"—or at least that is what I would call it. I reported that the agent was standing on the upper floor, in the center of the front of the building in a main office area.

  We were not provided feedback until after the entire mission was completed, but later found out that the first target location in which the agent was standing was inside the Stanford Linear Accelerator—a place where they accelerate electrons. The second target location was a large field of wind generators on hills in southern California and drawn with what the customer called near perfect accuracy. The last location was the main office building that is actually called "A Building" at the headquarters for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. This drawing and description was accurate enough to provide a clear representation and identification of the location, making it possible to identify the Laboratory West Gate entry area and main building—all three of these being places I'd never seen before.

  The results of all three remote viewing cases were forwarded to the agency that requested the information and an assessment of accuracy was independently performed by that agency.

  This involved more than whether or not I said the right thing. In an operational mission scenario a lot could be said about a target that might not be pertinent to what is actually going on—and would therefore have no value. Or little could be said, which might change the very nature of the ongoing mission. To determine whether or not the information would have been of value as an intelligence collection tool requires a complex structure of analysis based on: a. How much information could be said about the location that could have merit or value to the overall mission—what is actually important to know about the target location. (This list of questions is usually determined by the agency involved before any remote viewing. So that which is ultimately considered important to the mission is not what was specifically said by the remote viewer, but is determined solely by what is necessary to fulfill the mission.) b. How much of what I said actually provided answers to these previously determined questions. c. How much of what I might have said was of no value or was not pertinent to the mission at hand, or might have even provided false leads or information that could be damaging to the overall mission.

  All of this ensures a better measurement of the functional accuracy and reliability when trying to understand or measure relationships between what the agent was actually doing at the time, why he or she might have been doing it, and where or when he or she might have been doing it.

  In this case, the agent's primary mission was to observe and collect data about the Linear Accelerator at Stanford, then proceed with a single stop (to rest) at the wind generation field, ending eventually at the headquarters building, Building "A" West Gate, of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

  The agency's independent study was given with parenthetical numbers representing the value of each interest area of the target and how they valued it, or how important each of those elements was to their mission. A 1.0 was the highest value, or meant that it was critical information to have, while at the opposite end of the scale, a 0.25, was considered the least important to know. Therefore, of the gross elements they needed to know were (A) functions at the sites (1.0), (B) relationships between the separate elements at the site compared to the interests of the agent (0.75), and (C) the specific objectives of the agent in being at these sites (0.5). My results, by their calculation were:

  A further breakdown was made of the actual information provided relative to the accelerator and compared against the actual weight of need (1.0-0.25)—values predetermined about the possible site that could be important about the site to the agency involved. The accelerator was already labeled as being the most important end of the mission—the place where the agent started from. Instead of tracking him to a target, we had tracked backward from his supposed headquarters to the target. Based on what's called a fuzzy-set analysis, I received the following feedback:

  As can be observed in the statistics above, the ability to track an agent and report on where he or she is and what is going on nearby is possible to a remarkable degree of accuracy and detail.

  The agency returned the following year and asked if we could do the same type of simulation, this time not only tracking the agent but telling them what was actually going on in his or her vicinity, in as much detail as possible.

  This actually created difficulties for me, because I had not yet gotten specific feedback on my previous remote viewings that were relative to this agent, and I was still carrying around the images of what I had obtained in the previous three remote viewings. This created some degree of overlay, which I needed to clear from my system. I spent a considerable time doing that before providing the information they were requesting.

  When I was able to put the information together, we had a description of an area in a desert location, isolated and hot. I described a machine that was being operated within a van (deliberately hidden), but that produced a wave front emission (I said it was operating at 6x4 centimeters—later determined to be inches), which meant it was operating in the microwave range. I said it was being targeted against other forms of electronic equipment. I described the wave front spread, distance to targets, and effective range of emission. I also talked about the general effects of this wave front and the overall evaluation of the equipment being assessed. The following represents an independent fuzzy-set analysis of my results based on reality at the target site—which turned out to be located in the middle of the hot and isolated desert testing facility at Sandia National Laboratory.

  This analysis resulted in an overall accuracy and reliability score of:

  Again, surprising accuracy and reliability, given that the agent could have been anywhere in the continental United States and engaged in a multitude of activities unknown.

  Even more interesting—during the time that I was targeting the agent, I detected another target site, which I stated was not part of the site of interest, but was a site the agent visited as well. I described with some considerable detail a solar array field, where sunlight was being captured by large mirrors and reflected at targets on a tower location. I said they were using a computer system to control or manipulate the array. What is interesting about this information is that I was able to determine that while it too might be interesting to the agent and others, it was not part of the primary target and was therefore able to deduct this information from the overall information collected.

  It turned out that in traveling to and from the actual target site located in the desert area, the agent was forced to drive past a Department of Energy solar array testing site where a field of computer manipulated mirrors were being used to target collectors on the tip of a tall tower. In fact, almost a year later, when I was allowed to actually go out and visit the site for feedback, we were stopped by a guard while they initiated and completed a solar test series at the Department of Energy test site.

  The success of these two simulated missions resulted in producing a significant effect on the agency that had tasked us. It convinced them of the reliability and utility of remote viewing as a method for long-range intelligence collection against enemy agents in the field. This ultimately resulted in additional tasking and financial support to the lab.

  Chapter Fifteen

  Mind Trek and Searches

  At the end of 1992, I began compiling materials for a book on my experiences with remote viewing. There was almost no information at all available to the general public, because most do not refer to or read the scientific journals where much of the information was being published. I felt that it was important that the public be made aware of how far remote viewing had been developed, as well as the fact that remote viewing could be used perhaps for solving crimes and attacking creative problems in industry. Mind Trek was published in 1993 by Hampton Roads Publishing Company.

  After the exposure of the Star Gate program on Nightline in November of 1995, I was heavily criticized by a number of people who said that I should have wr
itten about the military use of remote viewing. Of course, these people would not have been facing severe disciplinary action and significant time in jail. I did make a point of sharing all that I was allowed to share—whatever was learned in the open or unclassified area of our lab efforts and studies. I also shared a great deal of information about remote viewing as well as some of my own theories about how it might or might not work. Some of these theories have proven to be more accurate than not, and some have been dead end issues.

  With the publication of the book, I started getting a much larger influx of requests from companies and individuals in business regarding the use and applications of remote viewing. Since I promise total anonymity to my private customers, there is not much that I can share about the successes or failures there. I can say that it is statistically the same as the rest of my work over the past 23 years—right around a 70 percent rate of accuracy and reliability. This is not as high as some claims being made by others out there in the paranormal world, but then they haven't been tested under laboratory conditions or within the severe constraints of blind and double-blind protocols either. Anyone who believes that my statistical averages are not significant should talk to a scientist who has tested me—of which there are many. I've been forced to demonstrate these percentages from year to year and they have remained relatively unchanged over the entire time.

  I can talk generally about some of the work I've done within my company, and some of it has been very good. I've provided years of support to specific stock interests of individuals, and have given years of guidance to investment firms dealing in the exchange of world currencies. I've done projections on real estate investments for specific areas in cities, countries, and regions, and have provided advice on the types of real estate being considered. I've produced dozens of accurate locations for new and productive water wells in America, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, and several African countries—by dowsing maps of these remote locations. And my company has been involved in the search for specific minerals, metals, and different types of stone used in building, finishing, or even for cosmetic purposes.