Jump to content

Talk:Joseph McMoneagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category change

[edit]

Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]

Predicting that temporary tattoos will be in vogue in 2005 is not a particularly noteworthy prediction unless the tattoos were more in vogue in 2005 than in 2004 or 2006. Is there evidence that this was the case? Or is there possibly a prediction that's more easily verified as having occurred? Antelan talk 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless his predictions were notable, it may be worth just noting one or two of the "best" and one or two of the "worst". This has been done elsewhere, such as the Ed Dames article, I believe. Antelan talk 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fropilog (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) McMoneagle's book 'The Ultimate Machine Machine', published in 1998, on page 158 states: 'By 2005 C.E. tattoos will be fully back in vogue, but they won't be permanent.' 'The only way to remove these tattoos will be with oils ...' see: http://www.wikihow.com/Remove-Temporary-Tattoos[reply]

... also on page 158: 'The single greatest use of the temporary tattoo will be to emulate clothing not actually being worn.'

from: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-bodypainting.htm is this: 'In the late 1990s and early 2000s, popular culture experienced a return to more traditional bodypainting. This was noted by a rise in demand for henna, the substance used to design traditional Indian mendhi art. Another surge occurred regarding "tribal" style tattoos. The trend of bodypainting also has found its way into various media and advertising outlets. Most notable, for example, is a section in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition, where models wear nothing but painted bikinis. Playboy also has featured several layouts and advertisements with models in various types of body paint.'

and from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_painting there is: 'Body painting festivals happen annually across the world, bringing together professional body painters as well as keen amateurs. Body paintings can also typically be seen at football matches, at rave parties, and at certain festivals. The World Bodypainting Festival in Seeboden in Austria is the biggest art event in the bodypainting theme and thousands of visitors admire the wonderful work of the participants.'

and from: http://www.2camels.com/world-body-painting-festival.php 'Alex Barendregt, who in 1998, organized the first bodypainting festival to bring tourism back to his small village.' 'The World Body Painting festival draws a crowd of 15,000 spectators, 250 models and more than 150 artisans each expressing their individual creativity. Award-winning artists from around the globe gather to compete for the title of World Champion Bodypainter.' http://www.bodypainting-festival.com/

McMoneagle's book 'The Ultimate Machine Machine', published in 1998, was certainly written before 1998. Fropilog (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

[edit]

"He has predicted future events" is misleading as written. In my first several reads of this article, it struck me that this meant that he has predicted future events successfully. This is why I placed the fact tag. I still think this needs to be rewritten, backed up by evidence, or removed. Antelan talk 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world you think that means McMoneagle predictions of future events would be sucessfull? Nostradamus, the Bible, Jean Dixon, Halley, Einstein, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Black Elk, and even you and I can predict future events. We do not have to be correct. To conclude whether predictions are true or false is left up to the reader (or hopefully the investigator) to discover for themself. The evidence that McMoneagle predicted events is shown at future, the statements themselves and even the page numbers in the primary source, from McMoneagle. Kazuba 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in those articles (specifically Ed Dames and Nostradamus) it is made clear when these predictions have turned out not to be true. In fact, if he hasn't made a correct prediction, I bet we'd have a hard time finding secondary sources interested enough to care about his predictions - i.e., they may not be notable. Antelan talk 03:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. "He has predicted future events" is misleading, nevertheless, as it implies that these "future events" that he "predicted" actually exist. A "future event" that never comes to pass is not a "future event" at all, it is an imagined event.71.55.106.189 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In McMoneagle's published book titled "The Ultimate Time Machine" (Hampton Roads Publishing company, 1998,) Chapter 14, page 232 he wrote, "Within five years, 1998 to 2003, there will be a second war in northern Iraq. It will probably be much bigger than the one in which Iraq was soundly defeated in 1991 by a coalition effort in what is now known as the Persian Gulf War." As we all know now, Iraq was invaded and the war began in 2003. Thus, he correctly and publicly predicted a major future event. Balef (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find a reliable source that describes his prediction as correct. You can't insert your own conclusions on the subject, that is original research. Preferably though, the reliable source would be one that rates his overall success across all his predictions, compared to chance. Just cherry-picking predictions that seem to have some resemblence to what has happened is meaningless. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legion of Merit

[edit]

Searching the net for info about McMoneagle shows up references to him supposedly claiming to have been awarded a Legion of Merit for his work on the Stargate-project. Does anyone know if its possible to verify if this is true or not? Doing a search for it on his own website gives several hits as an example: http://www.google.se/search?q=legion+of+merit+%2Bsite%3Awww.mceagle.com /195.54.97.238 11:36, 5 November 2007

Kazuba 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Joseph Mcmoneagle's claim of being awarded the legion of merit looks like it might be legit. See first link, second if you would like to know how it is done in clip[reply]

  • Compare the narrative data from McMoneagles's RV experiment. [1] and

the last three paragraphs of [2] Notice the selectivity.

OK, from the movie it atleast seems like he has been awarded a Legion of Merit (Shows a document and the actual medal rather late in the movie). If the reason for the award is paranormal powers or not could not be determined, since they didnt zoom in on anything stating why he had been given the medal (If such a statement exists its quite strange that the didnt show it in my opinion). However, if he is a Legion of Merit holder, perhaps a small note about it should be included and his name added to the list of people that has recived it? /Lordak 09:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In Joe's book; 'Memoirs of a Psychic Spy' 2006, Appendix C shows a good reproduction of the, 'Legion of Merit and Certificate'. Fropilog (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CRITERIA (according to: http://www.foxfall.com/fmd-common-lom.htm);

'The Legion of Merit is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States without degree for exceptionally outstanding conduct in the performance of meritorious service to the United States. The performance must merit recognition by individuals in a key position which was performed in a clearly exceptional manner. The performance of duties normal to the grade branch, specialty or assignment and experience of an individual is not an adequate basis for this award.

For service rendered in peacetime, the term "key individual" applies to a narrower range of positions than would be the case in time of war and requires evidence of significant achievement. In peacetime, service should be in the nature of a special requirement or of an extremely difficult duty performed in an unprecedented and clearly exceptional manner. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of important positions.'

Points of which are echoed in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Merit#Criteria Fropilog (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, McMoneagle's Legion of Merit doesn't specify whether he got the award for psychic remote viewing or for ordinary SIGINT work. Of course this stuff is OR, but it does help make a point; all we can really verify is that he got the award. Anything McMoneagle says beyond that should be treated as his own claims, not reliably sourced 3rd party fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Stubbelbine signed it. He recruited McMoneagle to Sun Streak, Grill Flame, etc.. The award was made for his contributions as RV 001. Many of his reviewing "accomplishments" remain classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.173.130 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FEAR?

[edit]

What is all-caps FEAR? Does it differ from lower-case "fear"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.106.189 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. However this article really needs to be more focused on the person named in the title rather then on the Stargate program itself. --dashiellx (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

By what criteria is this person considered notable? I can't see evidence that he meets the general notability guideline, or evidence that his works have reviewed to an extent that he would be notable via WP:CREATIVE. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIO,
"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to... [irrelevant stuff snipped]
Any biography
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."
Having a widely referenced Legion of merit covers this, regardless of why. I'll zap the notability tag. K2709 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the case that every person who has ever received a Legion of Merit is notable, that would obviously be silly. That section is about honours like winning an Oscar. This article is chiefly about the subject's work as a parapsychologist, and his notability in that regard should be demonstrated. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding much basis for these objections in WP:BIO. Are you arguing that Legion of merit is non-notable? K2709 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that being a recipient of the Legion of Merit is not sufficient evidence of the notability the recipient, by itself. It's common sense, because it would be absurd for every recipient of the Legion of Merit to have an article written about them. It's not even the highest US military honour. That would be the Medal of Honor, which 3,465 people have received, and even if he had received that I'd be arguing against it demonstrating his notability for an article that is mostly about work as a parapsychologist. If the subject is a notable parapsychologist, then where are the reliable, third-party sources demonstrating that notability? If he is a notable author, then where are the sources showing the impact of his books? This military medal stuff is fairly irrelevant. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems

[edit]

I would hope that I wouldn't even have to point out to people that this article is written like a pro-psychic powers advertisement/trat. There's a section titled "McMoneagle's remote viewing time travel revelations" that just lists off his predictions uncritically, for crying out loud. The whole thing is a mess from beginning to end, other than some small attempts at making the lead NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Some more sources I dug up:[3] (in Romanian!); [4];[5]; [6];[7];[8]. This is an interesting account of a physicist's interaction with McMoneagle, which ends with the physicist believing in his powers:[9]. I'd say it's a good example of credulity and how physicists are prone to mystical thinking, but that's just me. Fences and windows (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that last source begins with the physicist believing in his powers. I wonder about the envelopes with the questions - did the subject get to take them away to "study" them? Isn't it curious that the question he got totally wrong was the one about identifying the particle in the envelope, which he would have required serious scientific tools to identify, whereas he was quite good at answering the other questions which you'd only need a knowledge of physics to answer? Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aliens

[edit]

McMoneagle's information about the space alien creators of the "sea otters" has no value?Kazuba (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly introduces an element of humor. I mean, sea otters? Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may relate to the Aquatic ape hypothesis.143.85.18.26 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joseph McMoneagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McMoneagle&oldid=1205071098"