Cheryl Welsh is or was director of Mindjustice.org (mindjustice.org) and Citizens Against Human Rights Abuses (CAHRA; Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse)
Articles by Cheryl Welsh in this post:
I. Nonconsensual Brainwave and Personality Studies by the U.S. Government
II. Making Sense of Mind Control and No-Touch Torture; In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom
III. Massive new brain projects, secret science and emerging Cold War weapons:
IV. Nonlethal Weapons: A Global Issue
V. Mind control targeting: Science fiction or a new form of hi-tech torture?
VI. [Brain Zapping] [Microwave Auditory Effect] Misled and betrayed: How US cover stories are keeping a Cold War weapon and illegal human testing secret
VII. In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom CIA “no touch” torture makes sense out of mind control allegations
VIII. List of Mind Control Symptoms
IX. Outlaw nonconsensual human experiments now
X. [Geo-stalking: Radar] ‘Current feasibility of antipersonnel electromagnetic weapons on the battlefield’ and ‘Current feasibility of remote surreptitious tracking and targeting of humans via satellite’ by Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh, director, Mind Justice (2005)
XI. [Geo-Stalking: Radar] [Neural Monitoring] Part 2: Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh on detecting brain signals remotely
XII. [Remote Neural Monitoring] ‘Part 4: New research on targeting the brain indicates electromagnetic brain communication is a scientifically valid theory’ by Cheryl Welsh (Includes patents and government’s goals.)
XIII. [Legal] Lawsuit by San Quentin prisoner regarding microwave auditory effect in 1965
I. Nonconsensual Brainwave and Personality Studies by the U.S. Government
I am a survivor of ongoing mind control experimentation by the U.S. government since 1989. I would like to prevent victims from experiencing much of the pain that I went through by telling my testimony within the framework of background information and history on government weapon testing programs, especially radiation experimentation. I would state the same testimony under oath in a Congressional hearing or in a court case. I first learned of microwave harassment and mind control experimentation from Julianne McKinney, director of the now inactive Electronic Surveillance Project. This is an overview and does not include the unsavory details as the point is to recognize the general pattern of experimentation. It will greatly help your understanding of this paper if the preceding Research Possibilities list of reputable newspaper and magazine articles on behavior control weapons is read first.
I would challenge the reader to recognize the “plutonium vitamin pill” of mind control technology before the U.S. government admits to it’s use. This paper is attempting to describe something that the reader is not familiar with. This is critical to keep in mind so that this paper will communicate on the basis of accepted reality.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT EXPERIMENTATION
The Congressional Record states that the U.S. government had been involved in mind control experimentation from the 1950s up to the early 1970s.1 These illegal behavior control experiments are similar to the documented illegal radiation experiments. The U.S. government currently denies that there is ongoing classified behavior control experimentation. This is debatable and in my opinion will some day be as undeniable as the radiation experiments are today.
There were at least 23,000 radiation victims of institutionalized unethical experimentation.2 There are similarities between radiation and mind control experimentation because the government bureaucracy is the same, the groups of victims are the same and it involves weapon testing. But unlike the atomic bomb, the U.S. public is not aware of the highly classified behavior control weapons. This fact contributes to the difficulty that victims have in exposing the experimentation.
The purpose of U.S. government research with electromagnetic frequencies and computer-brain interface technology is to develop mind control weapons that meet or surpass the enemy’s mind control weapon program, in particular Russia. The U.S. military’s interest in controlling behavior and in using this on it’s enemies in future warfare is well documented.3 The lethal doses and parameters of radiation were explored and now the limits of computer-brain interface and emf technology are explored in the same unethical way. And by using unwitting victims, experiments are conducted without limits of human subject experimentation committees.
There are strong indications that electromagnetic frequency (emf) behavior control weapons and electronic warfare has been a classified area of research since at least the 1960s4, that there are highly classified international agreements to control it’s use, that it is being tested on unwitting human subjects and that there is an active government program to cover up the whole situation. Recently, there have been several articles published on nonlethal weapons, emf weapons, and mind control in the U.S.5
And in the last five years there have been several articles in mainstream publications about the Russian mind control technology and emf.6 And several reliable sources confirm that the cover up involves government policy such as the CIA refusing to release this information to the Radiation Advisory Committee. Glenn Krawczyk wrote in Nexus, Vo1. 2, No. 22, Oct-Nov 1994, that the CIA used a trick of terminology to disguise the development of microwave weapons in the 1977 Congressional hearings on CIA behavior control programs and has done the same thing with the Radiation Advisory Committee in 1994.
Another example: two top scientists in emf research have discussed government harassment. Dr. Puharich, well-known for emf and previous government work, described that his house was burned down and he was shot at for discussing emf technology and it’s development.7 Dr. Becker, the author of Body Electric on emf, also lost government funding and discussed other examples of harassment by the U.S. government.8
“The Soft-Kill Fallacy” by Steve Aftergood and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, Sept/Oct 1994 p. 45 stated that discussions under the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention on electromagnetic weapons, including weapons that interfere with mental processes and modify behavior and emotional response, may lead to protocols to control their use. The fact that behavior control weapons are in the public eye officially could mean that the government wants to use these weapons and may not be able to control their use enough to keep the emf weapons a secret.
WHAT MIND CONTROL EXPERIMENTATION IS
It is probable that classified computer-brain interface research has had a highly advanced technological leap similar to the pattern of the development of the atomic bomb weapon program. Many documented articles support this claim.9 It has been fifty years since the development of the atomic bomb and there have been major advancements in science, satellite technology, computers and information. In my case, mind control experimentation is the use of military electromagnetic frequency technology on human subjects in order to develop baseline studies of the brain, including brainwave studies and the study of personalities. As in radiation experiments, the lethal doses and the limits of the technology are explored and the experiments are inhumane. Mind control experiments are conducted as a result of development of behavior control weapons and are, like the radiation experiments, examples of science at it worst. Weapon testing programs are designed to disable and kill the enemy and therefore the experiments are also designed to destroy.
There are over 500 documented cases of victims in the U.S., 1 million alleged victims in Russia and cases in Germany, England, Canada, Finland, and South America.10 A few of the main similarities between victims are as follows. Women, prisoners and mental patients are a few of the powerless groups targeted in U.S. government experimentation. Most of the victims describe long term experimentation, some over 30 years. All ages, socioeconomic and political groups are represented in mind control experiments.
This is a wide area of research and there are probably many umbrella projects to test many different parameters of behavior control weapons. Government experimentation with behavior control technology is based on psychological principles of war. For example, multiple personalities are thought to be caused by traumatic experiences. To determine how to control and destroy people, the experiments are designed to reliably create multiple personalities, (as in Project Monarch)11. Victim’s testimony matches this fact.
The U.S. government is using mental illness as a cover-up of mind control experimentation. Many of the experiments are designed to mimic mental illness. For example, the mental illness diagnosis manual for psychiatrists states that the mentally ill patient put unusual meaning or interpretations into normal objects. The experimenters can engineer visual and audio patterns and change the amount and timing of any environment in a specific way to make the victim see what a mentally ill person would see. In my case, I have videotaped evidence of this effect. A report by a university statistics professor confirmed an extremely high amount of red and white cars on two separate occasions when compared with normal car color populations.
With no meaningful evaluation, mental illness is the given explanation for the million plus victims. The concurrent development of technology, the U.S. government’s history of involvement in mind control experiments and their motive to research this area can also strongly support the fact that these are victims of government experimentation. Further investigation of this situation is necessary rather than dismissing it as mental illness.
RADIATION AND MIND CONTROL VICTIMS: THE SAME DILEMMA
I and most survivors have not able to obtain help. This is typical in government cover up situations. And because of the nature of the technology itself, any efforts to stop the experimentation can be sabotaged with the mind control technology itself. I have gone to the police, lawyers, private investigators, newspapers, magazines, organizations such as the ACLU, government agencies such as the U.S. Attorney General, Congressman Glenn, Kennedy, Feinstein, Sharp and more. The answers vary from “you are crazy”; “you have to know the source of the experiment and have monitoring equipment evidence”; “we don’t handle cases such as this, it is out of our area of expertise”; to no reply, or “we are aware of the situation but it will take years and over $100,000 to pursue in court,” and many other ways of saying no.
Victims also cannot get around the unavailability of necessary government documents classified under the National Security Act. There is documented evidence that the superpowers have developed mind control weapons and that the use of these weapons are classified and controlled by the National Security Act. In the meantime, the government system is failing the mind control victim in the same way that it failed the radiation victim. I use what tools that I have, such as research of open literature and networking, a painfully slow process.
At this point, none of the victims, singly or as a group have the funds to stop the experimentation. I do not have the funds to rent or buy signal analyzers to document signals that the government would surely cover up or jam. Some victims have documented some unusual signals, but it is such a small piece of evidence and is not directly tied to the government source. The evidence has been ignored or discounted. I am currently organizing a group of victims to be monitored by experts. Another group is also organizing.
Victims work with their meager resources against a formidable foe. There is only one successful court case of mind control experimentation against the government and it was settled of court. There was small compensation to a few of the victims.13 Until I can document in other more scientific ways, I am documenting with videotapes and comparing them with normal tapes or accepted statistics. Then it is evident that certain patterns in the environment are unusual in timing and amount and statistically relevant and this is another small piece of the mind control picture.
Experts are necessary to verify information for court cases and Congressional hearings. Videotape evidence and other mind control experimentation evidence does not directly tie the U.S. government to my allegation and therefore is not accepted by courts, congressional hearings, or UN complaints. There are many other basic and also complicated reasons for the government system and its failure to help victims in any significant way. The system obviously needs to be changed.
By combining relevant facts with the testimony of victims, the conclusion about mind control experimentation is becoming clearer. I am networking with close to 75 victims. Based on my experience, several victim’s testimony, and literature on mind control topics, it is logical to deduce that I am one of many hundreds of victims. Fortunately, documentation of behavior control weapons is increasing and the documentation matches previous and current testimonies of victims. But, so far it is too little, too late. This is the harsh reality of the situation.
This is a lengthy description, but certain issues must be emphasized in order to survive normal skepticism that occurs when documented facts are missing. Why for example, did radiation experiments occur after the Nuremburg trials and why is mind control experimentation occurring in 1995? Reasons include; that evil such as the Auschwitz experiments did not end with the Nuremburg trials; that the National Security Act increased the odds that radiation experiments could occur; and in 1995, there is no meaningful deterrent for the actions of radiation and mind control “scientists”.
REMEDIES AND SOLUTIONS
Government experimentation is illegal and is an abuse of U.S. constitutional rights. One solution would be funding that would match the U.S. government’s resources. Or it will take someone such as Hazel O’Leary of the Department of Energy who called for an investigation of radiation experimentation14, to start an investigation of the mind control experiments.
Another possibility may be an accident in which the technology is exposed. Or time will pass, such as ten to twenty years, after which the technology will become public knowledge. Then there will be enough victims who come forward and protest. It would be an indication of man’s humanity if the mind control scenario could be changed.
For further information and networking, I can be reached at welsh@calweb.com. Comments are appreciated.
ENDNOTES
More Information Upon Request from welsh@calweb.com.
1. Alexander M. Capron, Human Experimentation, (University Publications of America, 1986), 247.
Excerpt: “Apparently, it was not unusual for such research to begin with volunteers and then move on to naive subjects. For example, in 1953 the CIA began a series of highly sensitive experiments into the use of biological and chemical agents to alter human behavior, under the general code name, MK-ULTRA. The areas explored included radiation, electroshock, paramilitary devices and materials, anthropology, graphology, psychiatry, psychology, and sociology.”
Also: Andrew Weil, Acid Dreams: the C.I.A., L.S.D. and the Sixties Rebellion, by M. Lee and B. Shlain Book reviews, Nation, 8 Nov. 1986. p 492.
Excerpt: “Lee and Shlain sifted through mountains of heavily censored reports to piece together the early history of L.S.D…. Meanwhile the U.S. Army toyed with the idea of driving whole populations insane with hallucinogenic drugs. By the mid-1960s nearly 1,500 military personnel had taken L.S.D. in tests run by the Army Chemical Corps.”
2. “Radiation Test Involved At Least 23,000,” Seattle Times, Oct.22, 1994, p.A1.
3. Lt.Col David J. Dean USAF, Low-Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology with a forward by Congressman Newt Gingrich, (Air University Press, Center for Aerospace Doctrine Research and Education, Maxwell AFB June, 1986)
Excerpt: THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM IN LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT
By Capt Paul E. Tyler, MC, USAF
POTENTIAL MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF EMR
The exploitation of this technology for military uses is still in its infancy and only recently has been recognized by the United States as a feasible option. A 1982 Air Force review of biotechnology had this to say: Currently available data allow the projection that specially generated radio frequency radiation (RFR) fields may pose powerful and revolutionary antipersonnel military threats. Electroshock therapy indicates the ability of induced electric current to completely interrupt mental functioning for short periods of time, to obtain cognition for longer periods and to restructure emotional response over prolonged intervals. Experience with electroshock therapy, RFR experiments and the increasing understanding of the brain as an electrically mediated organ suggested the serious probability that impressed electromagnetic fields can be disruptive to purposeful behavior and may be capable of directing and or interrogating such behavior. Further, the passage of approximately 100 milliamperes through the myocardium can lead to cardiac standstill and death, again pointing to a speed-of-light weapons effect. A rapidly scanning RFR system could provide an effective stun or kill capability over a large area. System effectiveness will be a function of wave form, field intensity, pulse widths, repetition frequency, and carrier frequency. The system can be developed using tissue and whole animal experimental studies, coupled with mechanisms and waveform effects research. Using relatively low-level RFR, it may be possible to sensitize large military groups to extremely dispersed amounts of biological or chemical agents to which the unirradiated population would be immune.(1)
4. Joint Hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, Project MK-ULTRA, The CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 75 (1977)
Also, Paul Brodeur, The Zapping of America, Toronto edition George J. MacLeod, 1977. Explains the Russian Microwaves on the Moscow U.S. Embassy.
Also, Declassified CIA document, Pulsed Microwave Used for Mind Control…1974.
5. Newsweek, Science of War nonlethal weapons. 7 Feb, 1994.
Also, Daily News, Nonlethal Weapon, 3 Aug, 1994.
Also, SPIE REPORTS New Technologies Provide Tools For Law Enforcement Challenges Conference, chair William H. Webster, 9-94.
6. Refer to eight articles under Research Possibilities, this paper, #1,3,5,6,8,9,10,11.
7. Dr. A. Puharich, Electromagnetic Conference, Sept. 1987, New York, audiocassette.
Excerpt: “About ten years ago in 1976, no I’m sorry early 1977 I made the basic measurements which showed the elf nature of elf coming from Russia and that it was psychoactive, that was my finding and I deduced the chemicals that were released by the frequencies that were being used and I passed that information onto every intelligence agency we have in this country from the president on down and England and Canada and all I got was four years of harassment. My house was burned down, I was shot at, they tried to kill me, they tried to eliminate me, etc., etc., and finally they agreed I was right and in 1981, the U.S. government went into full scale elf warfare and set up all their big transmitters down under in Australia and Africa so on and so on and now their in business and everything’s classified and you can’t say a god damned thing about it, a tough situation. And you can’t get any real information out of any government agency. And I know all of them that do the work. I know the people who head the projects etc. When they’re in trouble, they usually come ask me. And they classify what I tell them. Insanity.”
8. Robert O. Becker,MD and Gary Selden, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Wm Morrow & Company, NY 1985.
9. Dr. Karl H. Pribram,(Stanford Professor, famous for holograghic theory of the brain),editor, Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1993. p.156-7.
Excerpt: ” B. Multiple Personality….Now suppose that the diabolical training is ‘extensive’, both figuratively and literally. that is, suppose that it succeeds in placing other avoidance patterns into a geometry that surrounds and isolates a large cognitive domain from the rest of the neural network. Subsequently, wavepackets that form in that domain will be trapped there, and that domain will then develop a personality that is distinct from the personality of the exterior domain(s). But the entrapment is not permanent: Quantum tunneling provides a mechanism for penetration of the barrier, after which another distinct personality emerge.”
Also, Fox Butterfield, The New York Times, $2.15 million for hidden-weapon research, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, March 10, 1995, A3.
Excerpt: “…for the development of new high-technology gun detectors that would permit the police to spot people carrying concealed guns on the street or inside stores. “The camera works because the body naturally emits strong electromagnetic signals in the millimeter wavelength, said Dr.Richard Huguenin, the inventor of the device at Millitech Corp.”
Also, C.C.Morton, Brain trust, New Recruits, UC Davis Magazine, Spring 1994, p.21.
Excerpt: ” In the lab of psychology professor Ron Mangun, UC Davis students serve as research subjects for a technique known as electrophysiology, in which 64 electrodes dotted on a cloth cap record electrical impulses from the surface of the head. The impulses are thought to correspond to cognitive processes inside the brain. The subjects sit in a sound booth. While one computer system flashes images, another computer system records the brain’s responses 400 times a second.11
Also, The Guardian, The Future Art of War, 25, May 1995, p. 9.
Excerpt: “Nick Lewer, peace researcher at the University of Bradford, looks in the latest issue of Medicine and War,…” “There are plans for ‘mind control’ with the use of ‘psycho-correction messages’ transmitted by subliminal audio and visual stimuli. There is also a plan for ‘psychotronic weapons’ – apparently the projection of consciousness to other locations – and another to use holographic projection to disseminate propaganda and misinformation.”
Also, The Houston Chronicle, Brainpower, 16, Feb. 1995.
Excerpt: “‘Brain-actuated control’ is under development at the Dayton, Ohio, base to help pilots deal with the increasing amount of information needed to fly modern jets, said Grant McMillan, director of Patterson’s biocybernetics lab. Eventually, pilots may be able to control flight using only their minds, he added. With biofeedback, in which changes in the brain are portrayed on screens, volunteers learn how to control the electrical activity created by their thought processes. Scalp monitors pick up the electrical signals, and a computer translates them into mechanical commands.”
10. Association of National Security Alumni, Electronic Surveillance Project Julianne McKinney, Director. Not in existence at present. Over 100 victims in 1993.
International Committee For the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons P.O. Box 58700 Philadelphia, PA 19102-8700. Tel: (215) 893-9505. Harlan Girard, Director. Over 500 victims in 1995.
Freedom of Thought Foundation, P.O. Box 35072 Tucson, AZ 85740 Walter Bowart, Founder. Over 150 survivors in 1995.
Mediacco, Director, Robert Naeslund P.O. Box 136, 11479 Stockholm, Sweden. Implant victims and mind control.
Canadian Stone Angels, Director, Lynne Moss sharman 369 Pearl St. Apt 2, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 1A9, Masonic/military/medical/mind control victims.
Ecology And Living Environment, A Russian environmental and civil liberties group, Moscow, 500 members. Set up an association of “Victims of Psychotronic Experimentation, President, Emilia Cherkova,” No address. From: Owen Matthews,” Report: Soviets Used Top Secret ‘Psychotronic’ Weapons,” The Moscow Times, 11, Jul., 1995, Section No 750.
11. Walter Bowart, Operation Mind Control. Flatland Editions 1978, 1994.
12. Letter from Jessica Utts, Professor of Statistics University of California, Davis October 18, 1995 to Cheryl Welsh.
Excerpt: “…For whatever reason the color distributions at the two locations do not appear to be statistically equivalent. In other words, if the cars at both locations were considered to be randomly sampled from the same population of cars, discrepancies in color as extreme as those you have observed, or more so, would only occur with probability 0.0004. Most statisticians would conclude, based on this number, that the populations from which the two sets of cars were sampled were different in terms of color distribution. …”
13. Refer to Research Possibilities,this paper, #5.
14. Stephen Budiansky, Erica E. Good & Ted Gest,” U.S. News Investigative Report” U.S. News & World Report, 24, Jan. 1994, p. 34. ” Orlikow v. U.S., filed in 1979, was settled in 1988 for $750,000.” It was settled out of court and split among the several defendents.
15. Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times,” Energy chief says U.S. owes radiation victims,” The Sacramento Bee final 29 Dec. 1993. p A1.
Excerpt: “Under O’Leary, the department has vowed to ‘come clean’ on the secrets of nuclear testing. Her department and a special panel of doctors, lawyers and department aides she has named are investigating dozens and possibly hundreds of government-sponsored experiments in which humans were subjected to radiation.”
II. Making Sense of Mind Control and No-Touch Torture
Saturday, July 14, 2012
In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom
by Cheryl Welsh
After the horrific pictures of prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib were displayed in front pages of newspapers around the world, the United States maintained that the U.S. government does not torture; Abu Ghraib was about a few bad officers. Evidence now proves that CIA ‘no touch’ torture and worse were ordered by the executive branch and approved by top military officers. Surprisingly this scandal has much in common with another national security issue, neuroweapons, commonly referred to as mind control.
The field of neuroethics should begin now, according to bioethicist Dr. Jonathan Moreno in his 2006 book Mind Wars, Brain Research and National Defense. The influential book was reviewed in Nature and JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association). Most neuroscientists agree that advanced neuroweapons are over a half century away but the ethics of the new weapons need more planning than occurred for the atomic bomb. Moreno began the first chapter of his book describing the growing numbers of allegations of illegal government mind control targeting. He immediately dismissed them as conspiracy theory nut cases. A 2007 Washington Post Magazine article, “Thought Wars” followed suit. So why should anyone read further, given these credible and highly respected expert opinions?
Much of what the public should know about the issue has gone unreported or uninvestigated. For example, after over a half century of classified research, not one publicly known neurological weapon has been deployed. This raises more questions than it answers. Putting aside the major and undebated points of the consensus position, the mind control allegations do sound crazy and on this singular point most people, including experts and news reporters, refuse any closer examination. Clearly, understanding why the mind control allegations sound so crazy would have significant consequences.
Two analogies help clarify the major problems for the mind control issue, secrecy and the lack of a thorough, impartial investigation:
(1) Excerpt of a 1970s congressional hearing uncovering illegal CIA activities:
“[Senator Frank] Church, … persisted in blaming the plots [assassinations] on the CIA. The agency, he said, was a “rogue elephant on a rampage.” For proof, he pointed to the lack of documentary evidence that any president had ever approved an assassination. Former CIA director Richard Helms countered that it was absurd to expect to find such evidence. “I can’t imagine anybody wanting something in writing saying I have just charged Mr. Jones to go out and shoot Mr. Smith,” he testified. The Agency, he insisted, had simply carried out the wishes of the executive.”
Even today, experts don’t understand how the U.S. secrecy system works. Similar to the torture scandal, until there is a national security scandal about neuroscience weapons, the public will remain uninformed about a serious public issue.
(2) “During a dairyman’s strike in 19th century New England, when there was suspicion of milk being watered down, Henry David Thoreau wrote: “Sometimes circumstantial evidence can be quite convincing; like when you find a trout in the milk.” Mind Wars and the Washington Post Magazine article examined the growing numbers of crazy sounding mind control allegations. But unlike Thoreau’s account, the publications only reported the convincing circumstantial evidence of “finding a trout in the milk” and dismissed the suspicions without a fair or impartial investigation. As a result, the mind control allegations made no sense.
I. A university professor uncovers CIA ‘no touch’ torture
University of Wisconsin professor Alfred McCoy wrote the 2006 book, A Question of Torture, CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. It’s a compelling account of McCoy’s search for understanding the CIA’s ‘no touch’ torture techniques used in the war on terror and the Iraq War. McCoy shows how “information extracted by coercion is worthless” and makes the case for a legal approach, “long and successfully used by the U.S. Marines and the F.B.I.” McCoy documents why CIA ‘no touch’ torture is a “revolutionary psychological approach” and is the first new scientific innovation after centuries of torture. “Interrogators had found that mere physical pain, no matter how extreme, often produced heightened resistance.” Of course, the old brutal forms of physical torture are still around, for example torture in Argentina in the 1970s described in the classic, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell without a Number by Jacobo Timerman.
McCoy pieced together what ‘no touch’ torture is and how it was spread globally. The CIA’s new ‘no touch’ torture works by attacking and destroying the basis of personal identity. McCoy found that the techniques were bizarre, simple, even banal and yet devastatingly effective. McCoy discovered that the techniques had been scientifically proven in decades of CIA Cold War research. Evidence of several government manuals helped prove that the techniques were disseminated “from Vietnam through Iran to Central America.”
‘No touch’ torture techniques sound strangely similar to mind control allegations. A comparison of ‘no touch’ torture to mind control allegations raised the possibility that mind control allegations could be based on the well researched psychological theory for ‘no touch’ torture. Torture victims exhibit symptoms similar to psychotic processes and organic disorders and experts say this is not mental illness but an outcome of the psychological component of torture. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers, who has treated Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet stated: “The psychological component of torture becomes a kind of total theater, a constructed unreality of lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably with the victim’s self-betrayal and destruction….” This is similar to the technique of “street theater” that mind control victims described in Mind Wars and the Washington Post Magazine article. As torture victims are not mentally ill, mind control victims would not be mentally ill, but rather have undergone and are undergoing a traumatic situation comparable to torture, such as the alleged illegal targeting with government mind control weapons.
II. The beginnings of CIA ‘no touch’ torture and how it spread
The science of psychological torture began because of fears of Russian brainwashing of defendants in the 1940s Moscow show trials and the Korean War POW ( prisoners of war) brainwashing scare in the 1950s. The 2005 book, World as Laboratory, Experiments with Mice, Mazes, and Men by Rebecca Lemov described government psychological research for determining whether the Communists had developed new techniques of brainwashing. “Almost all [scientists] who were assigned to study the phenomenon of POW collaboration ended up in short order working for the CIA via one of its various “cut-outs,” conduits, and false fronts, such as the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, the Geschickter Fund for Medical Research, and the Scientific Engineering Institute, or in one of its own laboratories.” (Lemov, 219) McCoy described the research behind ‘no touch’ torture and how it spread globally:
“From 1950 to 1962, the CIA became involved in torture through a massive mind-control effort, with psychological warfare and secret research into human consciousness that reached a cost of a billion dollars annually, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind. … If we trace a narrative thread through a maze of hundreds of experiments, the CIA research moved through two distinct phases, first an in-house exploration of exotic techniques such as hypnosis and hallucinogenic drugs, and, a later focus on behavioral experimentation by contract researchers, several of the most brilliant behavioral scientists of their generation …
“While this Agency drug testing led nowhere, CIA-funded behavioral experiments, outsourced to the country’s leading universities, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc., produced three key findings that contributed to the discovery of a new form of torture that was psychological, not physical, … perhaps best described as “no-touch torture.” (McCoy outline, 2)
“Across the span of three continents and four decades, there is a striking similarity in U.S. torture techniques, both their conceptual design and specific techniques, from the CIA’s 1963 Kubark interrogation manual, to the Agency’s 1983 Honduras training handbook, all the way to General Ricardo Sanchez’s 2003 orders for interrogation in Iraq. … Guantanamo perfected the three-phase psychological paradigm by attacking cultural identity and individual psyche. (McCoy outline, 14)”
III. What is ’no touch’ torture?
McCoy explained what ‘no touch’ torture is:
“The CIA’s psychological paradigm for ‘no touch’ torture fused two new methods, “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” whose combination, in theory, would cause victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers. Refined through years of practice, sensory disorientation relies on a mix of sensory overload and sensory deprivation via banal procedures, isolation then intense interrogation, heat and cold, light and dark, noise and silence, for a systematic attack on all human stimuli. The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity. (McCoy outline, 4-5)
“In 2004, the Red Cross reported: “The construction of such a system. … cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture. “(McCoy outline, 9)”
IV. An example of ‘no touch’ torture
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviewed journalist Jane Mayer about her August 8, 2007 New Yorker article, “The Black Sites: A Rare Look Inside the C.I.A.’s Secret Interrogation Program.” Mayer described detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his experience with ‘no touch’ torture:
“There, he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] was subjected to a kind of a weird routine that someone described to me as kind of Clockwork Orange sort of thing, where he was put in goggles that blacked out the light and earmuffs of some sort that blocked out sound and deprived of any normal routine, such as meals or anything that would allow him to know what time of day it was or really have any kind of marker in his existence. And it’s a program that’s developed of sort of psychological terror, in a way, to kind of make people feel that they are completely dependent on other people, have no control over their lives, and it’s something that, the technique, that really comes out of the KGB days, way back in the Cold War. And apparently it’s something the CIA has put a lot of research into over time.”
V. The long history of U.S. torture
The history of CIA torture runs parallel to CIA neuroscience-based mind control research and also CIA nonlethal weapons research. This is important because mind control allegations include descriptions of techniques that sound like all three CIA programs. It is possible that the related cold war CIA ‘no touch’ torture, nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control programs have co-mingled for intelligence uses. Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter and author Tim Weiner wrote the 2007 book Legacy of Ashes, History of the CIA. Weiner described the CIA torture programs and the U.S. secret detention centers around the world. This is a brief excerpt of the extensive programs:
“The project dated back to 1948, when Richard Helms and his [American intelligence] officers in Germany realized they were being defrauded … The agency had set up clandestine prisons to wring confessions out of suspected double agents. One was in Germany, another in Japan. The third, and the biggest, was in the Panama Canal Zone.
“Like Guantanamo, … It was anything goes.” … (Weiner, 64-5)
“Senior CIA officers, including Helms, destroyed almost all the records of these programs in fear they might become public. (Weiner, 66)
“The agency, as Cheney said that morning, went over to “the dark side.” On Monday, September 17, President Bush issued a fourteen-page top secret directive to Tenet and the CIA, ordering the agency to hunt, capture, imprison, and interrogate suspects around the world. It set new limits on what the agency could do. It was the foundation for a system of secret prisons where CIA officers and contractors used techniques that included torture. One CIA contractor was convicted of beating an Afghan prison to death. This was not the role of a civilian intelligence service in a democratic society. But it is clearly what the White House wanted the CIA to do. …
“[The CIA] had participated in the torture of captured enemy combatants before, beginning in 1967, under the Phoenix program in Vietnam. …
“Under Bush’s order, the CIA began to function as a global military police, throwing hundreds of suspects into secret jails in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, and inside the American military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. It handed hundreds more prisoners off to the intelligence services in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Syria for interrogations. (Weiner, 482)”
VI. CIA cold war neuroscience-based mind control research
Some CIA neuroscience-based mind control research is known to have continued into the 1970s and is still classified today. A January 29, 1979 Washington Post article entitled “Book Disputes CIA Chief on Mind-Control Efforts: Work Went on Into 1970s, Author Says,” reported:
“Despite assurances last year from Central Intelligence Director Stansfield Turner that the CIA’s mind-control program was phased out over a decade ago, the intelligence agency has come up with new documents indicating that the work went on into the 1970s, according to a new book. John Marks, the author of the book, said the CIA mind-control researchers did apparently drop their much publicized MK-ULTRA drug-testing program. But they replaced it, according to Marks, with another super secret behavioral-control project under the agency’s Office of Research and Development.
“The ORD program used a cover organization set up in the 1960s outside Boston headed by Dr. Edwin Land, the founder of Polaroid, who acted as a “figurehead,” said Marks in his book. The project investigated such research as genetic engineering, development of new strains of bacteria, and mind control. The book identifies the Massachusetts proprietary organization headed by Land as the Scientific Engineering Institute. The CIA-funded institute was originally set up as a radar and technical research company in the 1950s and shifted over to mind-control experiments in the 1960s with the exception of a few scattered programs. According to Marks, however, the ORD program was a full-scale one and just as secret as the earlier MK-ULTRA project.”
VII. CIA cold war nonlethal weapons research
Nonlethal weapons are another outcome of CIA behavior control research. Steven Aftergood wrote about the initial stages of nonlethal weapons in the September/October 1994 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Details about programs to develop so called “non-lethal ” weapons are slowly emerging from the U.S. government’s secret “black budget.” … The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new; the term appears in heavily censored CIA documents dating from the 1960s.” Dr. Barbara Hatch-Rosenberg described nonlethal weapons on page 45, “Non-lethal” weapons may violate treaties:
“Development of many of the proposed weapons described on these pages has been undertaken by NATO, the United States, and probably other nations as well. Most of the weapons could be considered “pre-lethal” rather than non-lethal. They would actually provide a continuum of effects ranging from mild to lethal, with varying degrees of controllability. Serious questions arise about the legality of these expensive and highly classified development programs. Four international treaties are particularly relevant … The Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (also known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention).
“Many of the non-lethal weapons under consideration utilize infrasound or electromagnetic energy (including lasers, microwave or radio-frequency radiation, or visible light pulsed at brain-wave frequency) for their effects. These weapons are said to cause temporary or permanent blinding, interference with mental processes, modification of behavior and emotional response, seizures, severe pain, dizziness, nausea and diarrhea, or disruption of internal organ functions in various other ways. In addition, the use of high-power microwaves to melt down electronic systems would incidentally cook every person in the vicinity.
“Typically, the biological effects of these weapons depend on a number of variables that, theoretically, could be tuned to control the severity of the effects. However, the precision of control is questionable. The use of such weapons for law enforcement might constitute severe bodily punishment without due process.
“In warfare, the use of these weapons in a non-lethal mode would be analogous to the use of riot control agents in the Vietnam War, a practice now outlawed by the CWC. Regardless of the level of injury inflicted, the use of many non-lethal weapons is likely to violate international humanitarian law on the basis of superfluous suffering and/or indiscriminate effects.
“In addition, under the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention, international discussions are now under way that may lead to the development of specific new protocols covering electromagnetic weapons; a report is expected sometime next year. The current surge of interest in electromagnetic and similar technologies makes the adoption of a protocol explicitly outlawing the use of these dehumanizing weapons an urgent matter.”
VIII. Why CIA ‘no touch’ torture has been so successful
McCoy explained:
“CIA Paradigm: In its clandestine journey across continents and decades, this distinctly American form of psychological torture would prove elusive, resilient, adaptable and devastatingly destructive, attributes that have allowed it to persist up to the present and into the future. …
“1) Elusive: Unlike its physical variant, psychological torture lacks clear signs of abuse and easily eludes detection, greatly complicating any investigation, prosecution, or attempt at prohibition.
“2) Resilient: Psychological torture is shrouded in a scientific patina that appeals to policy makers and avoids the obvious physical brutality unpalatable to the modern public.
“3) Adaptable: In forty years since its discovery, the Agency’s psychological paradigm has proved surprisingly adaptable, with each sustained application producing innovations. …
“4) Destructive: Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, the CIA’s ‘no touch’ torture actually leaves searing psychological scars. Victims often need long treatment to recover from a trauma many experts consider more crippling than physical pain. (A Question of Torture, 12)”
These characteristics also apply to nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control. All three are emerging state tools of the future and can neutralize the enemy by controlling the behavior of the enemy. A 2005 book entitled, Torture, Does it Make Us Safer? Is It Ever OK? was co-published with Human Rights Watch. Some general reasons for why governments use torture as a state tool include the following. Governments torture because it is a way to obtain coerced confessions. The confessions can be used for propaganda purposes. Torture serves a variety of state purposes: “to terrorize certain elements of the population, to instill a climate of fear in the public more generally, and to break key leaders and members of these groups, uncovering their networks.” Another purpose of torture is to “obtain intelligence by any means,” “annihilate subversives” and “eliminate the enemy.”
Counterinsurgency warfare is taking place in Iraq and major newspapers have reported on the many detainees that have consistently alleged being subjected to ‘no touch’ torture techniques. As reported in the September 16th, 2007 Sacramento Bee, General David Petraeus co-wrote the Counterinsurgency Field Manuel – U.S. Army Field Manual on Tactics, Intelligence, Host Nation Forces, Airpower,” which Newsweek said, is “highly touted as the basis upon which the surge of U.S. forces this year would be organized.”
The book Torture, also included a description of “counterinsurgency warfare, in which torture was a principal weapon” and was developed “during the French experience in Indochina and Algeria.”
“[The] “genesis of this new kind of warfare is the idea that the enemy takes the form of an invisible political organization hidden among the civilian population. One can know its leaders and its structure only by waging a war of information: by arresting masses of civilian suspects, interrogating them, and, if necessary, torturing them. … In the modern era, … the science of torture and similar abusive treatment has developed to break the physical and mental resistance of subjects before they expire or go mad and thus become useless as sources of information. … Torture is still about domination.”
IX. All three programs are state tools for neutralizing the enemy without killing; for intelligence operations and counterinsurgency warfare
By comparing mind control allegations to ‘no touch’ torture techniques and the very classified nonlethal weapons program, the purpose of the bizarre sounding mind control allegations begins to make sense. Neuroweapons include the CIA’s still classified neuroscience-based mind control research, ‘no touch’ torture and nonlethal weapons. All three are emerging state tools of the future that can reliably neutralize the enemy psychologically or without killing. The old, politically unacceptable methods of brutal physical torture and killing won’t be eliminated but surreptitious, scientifically proven, alternative methods are available to achieve an even greater national security advantage. All are ideal for counterinsurgency warfare, psychological operations and intelligence operations. The characteristics of ‘no touch’ torture, nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control make them more inhumane than the atomic bomb.
X. Mind control allegations by a Korean POW, (prisoner of war), a Soviet political prisoner and Abu Ghraib detainees
Three relevant examples out of the numerous available provide a general overview of the decades of mind control allegations and weapons. The details are compelling and rarely reported by mainstream press and illustrate why a comparison of ‘no touch’ torture to mind control allegations is so applicable. The examples share the same cold war history with CIA ‘no touch’ torture, neuroscience-based mind control and nonlethal weapons programs.
(1) The 1984 BBC TV documentary Opening Pandora’s Box described EMR [electromagnetic radiation] remote mind control developments and a claim of mind control by a Korean POW:
“In the 1950s, intelligence agencies were interested in changing mental states. The theory is that brain waves can be tuned to a different EMR frequency and can change moods and character. … A CIA memo stated that they were looking for behavior control to enhance consciousness.
“The Soviets had realized the same thing. Dr. Ross Adey, famous EMR researcher at Loma Linda Veterans Hospital, examined the Lida machine, from the Soviet Union. It was described as a machine to “rearrange consciousness.” The Russians claimed to use it for treatment of emotional disorders in the 1950s. Dr. Adey stated that the Lida machine is now obsolete. It used coiled wire inside ear muffs which acted like an antenna and emitted 1/10 sec pulses of EMR. Dr. Adey demonstrated that excited animals rapidly quiet down when exposed to the Lida EMR frequencies. There was one account that the Lida machine was used during the Korean war for brainwashing American Prisoners.”
(2) An interview of an alleged Russian victim, Andre Slepucha, was reported in a 1998 ZDF German TV documentary. He described what seems to be the first reported victim of
some type of “microwave hearing.” Slepucha stated:
“In November 1954 I came into contact with what today is referred to as “Psychotronic Treatment” for the first time. Back then they took me out of the concentration camp where, under Stalin, I had been imprisoned as a political prisoner, and brought me into an isolation cell in the KGB prison which was located in the Lubyanka. After an approximately two week long continuous occupation of the cell I suddenly experienced in the morning strong sounds in the head, very strong acoustic and visual hallucinations.”
On the CNN news broadcast, Special Assignment by Chuck DeCaro, “Weapons of War, Is there an RF Gap?” November 1985, Dr. Bill van Bise, electrical engineer, conducted a demonstration of Soviet scientific data and schematics for beaming a magnetic field into the brain to cause visual hallucinations. The demonstration on reporter Chuck
DeCaro was successful. Dr. van Bise stated, “In three weeks, I could put together a device that would take care of a whole town.” A December 13, 1976, Federal Times article, “Microwave Weapons Study by Soviets Cited” described the alleged Russian capability of microwave hearing:
“The Defense Intelligence Agency has released a report on heavy Communist research on microwaves, including their use as weapons. Microwaves are used in radar, television and microwave ovens. They can cause disorientation and possibly heart attacks in humans. Another biological effect with possible anti-personnel uses is “microwave hearing.” “Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially (within the head) can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities,” the report said. According to the study, Communist work in this area “has great potential for development into a system for disorienting or disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic personnel.”
(3) Jon Ronson, author of the New York Times reviewed book, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” wrote about alleged mind control experiments on Iraqi detainees. In an interview on April 14, 2005 at the Politics and Prose book store in Washington DC., Ronson discussed his book (Tape available from Cspan, Book TV at www.booktv.org. Videotape # 186334):
“And from the former detainees from Guantanamo Bay that I’ve interviewed it seems exactly the same things are going on there. I said to a man called Jamal al-Harith how do you feel, you know how did you feel at Guantanamo Bay and he said “” felt like a laboratory rat.” And he said, “I felt they were trying stuff out on me.” …
“And one example is with Barney the purple dinosaur. When it was announced a year ago that they were rounding up prisoners of war in Iraq and blasting them with Barney the purple dinosaur, it was treated as a funny story, because, by all the major news networks in America, you know… the torture wasn’t that bad. … It was disseminated as funny because who wants to replace a funny story with, as Eric [Olson] once said to me, with one that’s not fun. …
“I was given seven photographs of a detainee who had just been given the Barney treatment as they called it. It was 48 hours of Barney with flashing strobe lights inside a shipping container in the desert heat. … The current chief of staff of the Army is a man called General Pete Shoemaker. … He’s well known to have an interest in these paranormal esoteric military pursuits. … So now is the time when I know that these ideas go to the very top [levels of the military].
“One of the things you spoke of, the one that I have knowledge of is the frequencies. You can follow a trail of patents like footprints in the snow and the patents sometimes vanish into the world of military classification. And there’s many patents bought up by a man called Dr. Oliver Lowry. …
“So we know that these patents have been bought up by the military. … And the detainees of Guantanamo I’ve spoken to speak of being blasted with frequencies, put inside music, high and low frequencies, masked with music. … I think there’s no doubt they’re experimenting with this stuff. To add to that controversial suggestion, I think there’s a good chance that even though they’re trying this stuff out, it’s not necessarily true that it works. A lot of this stuff doesn’t work. This may or may not work. I don’t know.”
XI. The banal and bizarre techniques of ‘no touch torture’
Psychological techniques used at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons have included extremes of the following; manipulation of time, loud music, strobe lights, odd sounds, hooding, ear muffs, heat and cold, light and dark, isolation and intensive interrogation “and most importantly, creative combinations of all these methods which otherwise might seem, individually, banal if not benign.” McCoy explains:
“After a visit from the Guantanamo chief General Miller in September 2003, the U.S. commander for Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, issued orders for sophisticated psychological torture. As I read from those orders, please listen for the combined sensory disorientation, self-inflicted pain, and attacking Arab cultural sensitivities.
“Environmental Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g. adjusting temperatures or introducing an unpleasant smell) …
“Sleep Adjustment: Adjusting the sleeping times of the detainee (e.g. reversing the sleeping cycles from night to day).
“Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees. … 30 days.
“Presence of Military Working Dogs: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations …
“Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury…
“Stress Positions: Use of physical posturing (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, etc.) (McCoy outline, 9)
XII. The three key behavioral components of ‘no touch’ torture
McCoy described the principles underlying ‘no touch’ torture:
“Through covert trial and error, the CIA, in collaboration with university researchers, slowly identified three key behavioral components integral to its emerging techniques for psychological torture.
“Discovery #1 Sensory deprivation In the early 1950s …Dr. Donald Hebb found that he could induce a state akin to psychosis in just 48 hours. …after just two to three days of such isolation [sitting in a cubicle ..with goggles, gloves and ear muffs on.] “the subject’s very identity had begun to disintegrate.”
“Discovery #2 Self-inflicted pain …Albert Biderman, Irving L. Janis, Harold Wolff, and Lawrence Hinkle, advised the agency about the role of self-inflicted pain in Communist interrogation. …During the 1950s as well, two eminent neurologists at Cornell Medical Center working for the CIA found that the KGB’s most devastating torture technique involved, not crude physical beatings, but simply forcing the victim to stand for days at a time, while the legs swelled, the skin erupted in suppurating lesions, the kidneys shut down, hallucinations began.
“Discovery #3 Anyone can torture …Finally, a young Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, …conducted his famed obedience (to authority) experiments, asking ordinary New Haven citizens to torture on command and discovering that, in contravention of conventional wisdom, anyone could be trained to torture. …[Milgram] did controversial research under a government grant showing that almost any individual is capable of torture, a critical finding for the agency as it prepared to disseminate its method worldwide. (McCoy outline, 4, Question of Torture, 32-33)
“By the project’s end in the late 1960s, this torture research had involved three of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century-Hebb, Milgram, and Janis, as well as several presidents of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. (A Question of Torture, 33)
“That notorious photo of a hooded Iraqi on a box, arms extended and wires to his hands, exposes this covert method. The hood is for sensory deprivation, and the arms are extended for self-inflicted pain. … Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, no-touch torture leaves deep psychological scars on both victims and interrogators. One British journalist who observed this method’s use in Northern Ireland called sensory deprivation “the worst form of torture” because it “provokes more anxiety among the interrogatees than more traditional tortures, leaves no visible scars and, therefore, is harder to prove, and produces longer lasting effects. (Question of Torture, 8-9)”
McCoy explained how CIA ‘no touch’ torture changes its victims:
“Insights from the treatment of Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet’s regime offer a point of entry into this complex question. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers found that victims suffer “a mistrust bordering on paranoia, and a loss of interest that greatly surpasses anything observed in anxiety disorders.” The subject “does not only react to torture with a tiredness of days, weeks, or months, but remains a tired human being, relatively uninterested and unable to concentrate.”
“These findings led him to a revealing question: “What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin? (Question of Torture, 10-11)”
XIII. Torture as “a kind of total theater”
Doerr-Zegers explained that techniques of torture work by creating deception, distrust, fear, disorientation, a “kind of total theater” that leaves the victim disoriented and “emotionally and psychological damaged.” The similarity of the explanation below to “street theater” found in mind control allegations is remarkable:
“As Doerr-Zegers describes it, the psychological component of torture becomes a kind of total theater, a constructed unreality of lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably with the victim’s self-betrayal and destruction.
“To make their artifice of false charges, fabricated news, and mock executions convincing, interrogators often become inspired thespians. The torture chamber itself thus has the theatricality of a set with special lighting, sound effects, props, and backdrop, all designed with a perverse stagecraft to evoke an aura of fear. Both stage and cell construct their own kind of temporality. While the play both expands and collapses time to carry the audience forward toward denouement, the prison distorts time to disorientate and then entrap the victim. As the torturer manipulates circumstances to “maximize confusion,” the victim feels “prior schemas of the self and the world … shattered” and becomes receptive to the “torturer’s construction of reality.”
“Under the peculiar conditions of psychological torture, victims, isolated from others, form “emotional ties to their tormentors” that make them responsive to a perverse play in which they are both audience and actor, subject and object—in a script that often leaves them not just disoriented but emotionally and psychologically damaged, in some cases for the rest of their lives. (A Question of Torture, 10)”
XIV. A comparison of ‘no touch’ torture to mind control allegations
The Washington Post Magazine article included interviews of several TIs, or targeted individuals of mind control, as some call themselves. Highly acclaimed author Gloria Naylor is most recognized for her novel Women of Brewster Place, starring Oprah in a 1980s TV mini-series. Naylor wrote the novel 1996, about her personal experience of mind control targeting and “street theater.” The article also included an example of drug-induced paranoia for comparison:
“Like Girard, Naylor describes what she calls “street theater,” incidents that might be dismissed by others as coincidental, but which Naylor believes were set up. She noticed suspicious cars driving by her isolated vacation home. On an airplane, fellow passengers mimicked her every movement, like mimes on a street.
“Voices similar to those in Girard’s case followed, taunting voices cursing her, telling her she was stupid, that she couldn’t write. Expletive-laced language filled her head. …
“Naylor is not the first writer to describe such a personal descent. Evelyn Waugh, one of the great novelists of the 20th century, details similar experiences in The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold. Waugh’s book, published in 1957, has eerie similarities to Naylor’s. Embarking on a recuperative cruise, Pinfold begins to hear voices on the ship that he believes are part of a wireless system capable of broadcasting into his head; he believes the instigator recruited fellow passengers to act as operatives; and he describes “performances” put on by passengers directed at him yet meant to look innocuous to others.
“Waugh wrote his book several years after recovering from a similar episode and realizing that the voices and paranoia were the result of drug-induced hallucinations.”
The psychological terror and mistrust bordering on paranoia of torture victims is remarkably similar to the mind control alleged by Naylor and the drug-induced paranoia of Waugh. The “street theater” described by most TIs also appears similar to the paranoia of mental illness and most people think “street theater” sounds crazy.
The addendum of Naylor’s novel 1996 included this description of some of the most commonly reported mind control symptoms:
“Victims are subjected to various kinds of harassment and torture, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for years on end. Most believe that some type of technology can remotely track, target, and control every nerve in their bodies. Heart and respiration rate can speed up and slow down, and stomach and bowel functions are regulated. Illnesses and all types of pain can turn on and off in an instant. Microwave burns are reported.
“Sleep deprivation is common and dreams are manipulated. Victims say, “They [whoever is targeting them] can see through my eyes, what I see.” Sometimes victims describe seeing the images of projected holograms. Thoughts can be read. Most victims describe a phenomenon they call “street theater.” For example, people around the victim have repeated verbatim, the victim’s immediate thoughts, or harrassive and personalized statements are repeated by strangers wherever the victim may go.
“Emotions can be manipulated. Microwave hearing, known to be an unclassified military capability of creating voices in the head, is regularly reported. Implanted thoughts and visions are common, with repetitive themes that can include pedophilia, homophobia and degradation. Victims say it is like having a radio or TV in your head. Less frequently, remote and abusive sexual manipulation is reported. Almost all victims say repetitive behavior control techniques are used and include negative, stimulus-response or feedback loops.”
The counterintuitive and bizarre torture techniques are discernible within the mind control allegations. The mind control techniques seem to be psychological techniques to disorient the victim and cause him to feel completely controlled, dependent and at the mercy of his torturers. Similar to the “kind of total theater” for torture, “street theater” is almost certainly a part of the process of breaking one’s personality and to gain behavior control over that person.
XV. The phenomenology of the torture situation
“What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin?” Doerr-Zegers found the answer lies in the psychological, not physical, “phenomenology of the torture situation”:
“(1) an asymmetry of power;
(2) the anonymity of the torturer to the victim;
(3) the “double bind” of either enduring or betraying others;
(4) the systematic “falsehood” of trumped-up charges, artificial lighting, cunning deceptions, and “mock executions”;
(5) confinement in distinctive spaces signifying “displacement, trapping, narrowness and destruction”; and
(6) a temporality “characterized by some unpredictability and much circularity, having no end.” …
Thus, much of the pain from all forms of torture is psychological, not physical, based upon denying victims any power over their lives. In sum, the torturer strives “through insult and disqualification, by means of threats … to break all the victim’s possible existential platforms.” Through this asymmetry, the torturer eventually achieves “complete power” and reduces the victims to “a condition of total or near total defenselessness.” (Question of Torture, 10-11)”
In torture, a torture situation is created according to Doerr-Zegers. In mind control allegations there is a similar phenomenology of a mind control situation. TIs describe this as “an electronic prison.” Doerr-Zegers described the torture technique, 1) an asymmetry of power. In torture, the torturer has complete power and the victim is completely powerless. Similarly, TIs are targeted remotely and are completely powerless to stop the targeting. Doerr-Zegers described the torture technique, 2) the anonymity of the torturer to the victim. Torture victims do not know their torturer and similarly, there is the anonymity of the remote targeting in the mind control situation.
Most TIs described “street theater” or seemingly staged events which matches 3), 4) and 6). Doerr-Zegers described torture technique, 5) confinement in distinctive spaces signifying “displacement, trapping, narrowness and destruction.” Although TIs are not physically imprisoned, most victims describe the experience as very debilitating and compare it to “mental rape, an electronic prison, or total destruction of the quality of their lives.” Mind control poses a severe restriction on their former lives. 6) is also similar to sensory deprivation in mind control allegations, the banal, repetitive behavior control techniques, including negative, stimulus-response or feedback loops.
XVI. Comparing ‘no touch’ torture techniques of sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain to mind control allegations
The psychological effects achieved by torture and alleged mind control are similar. Mind control targeting tactics described by most TIs seem to contain the underlying ‘no touch’ torture techniques of sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain. For comparison, here is McCoy’s description:
“To summarize, the CIA’s psychological paradigm fused two new methods, “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” whose combination, in theory, would cause victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers … The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity. (McCoy outline, 5)”
The intended effect of sensory disorientation for torture would be similar for mind control; to create an environment of radical uncertainty and to enhance the break down of the person’s will and personality. Most alleged cases of mind control describe the considerable repetition of seemingly innocuous and banal stimuli in the TIs environment, as if engineered by computer. The addendum of Naylor’s book included this description; “Almost all victims say repetitive behavior control techniques are used and include negative, stimulus-response or feedback loops.” For comparison, here is McCoy’s description:
“The CIA’s “sensory disorientation” became a total assault on all senses and sensibilities, auditory, visual, tactile, temporal, temperature, and survival. Refined through years of practice, sensory disorientation relies on a mix of sensory overload and sensory deprivation via banal procedures, isolation then intense interrogation, heat and cold, light and dark, noise and silence, for a systematic attack on all human stimuli. (McCoy outline, 4-5)”
McCoy described the photos of the hooded detainee with “the arms extended for self-inflicted pain.” The torturer forces the prisoner to stand with arms extended and the prisoner has no control over his situation. The prisoner still has a sense of guilt at causing his own pain by his extended arms. This intended effect of self inflicted pain for torture seems to be similar to mind control. TIs who are remotely targeted with physical pain cannot escape. Although TIs go to extremes in trying to escape the physical targeting, they are unsuccessful. The psychological trauma is inflicted by the sense of causing one’s own pain. Many TIs report that the targeting causes TIs to become isolated from friends, families and in many cases TIs are unable to work. This common reaction to targeting seems to be a type of self-inflicted psychological pain.
Carole Sterling’s description of targeting is also found in the addendum of Naylor’s book and seems to illustrate the techniques of sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain. It is a typical TI description:
“In 1997, Carole Sterling wrote a letter to the editor of the Star Beacon. She described her alleged targeting with EMR weapons technologies that within months, led to her suicide.
“Dear Star Beacon, I am writing about something that happened to me which goes back to December 1995. I went to a conference in Nevada. The day following the last night at the conference, I noticed that I had an injection mark on the base of my spine which was sore. Then the nightmare started three days after my return to Washington, D.C. … It totally scrambled my brain, leaving me unable to think properly, simply functioning on sheer shock and horror, with total incomprehension of what was going on. It actually was debilitating. The room felt like a torture chamber. This forced me out of my home. I believe that the technology used, be it some type of a frequency assault, some sort of directed energy, in addition to whatever was injected in me, has caused damage to my brain. [I have] been living with this debilitating and excruciating pain for the last eight months so far.”
TIs describe both psychological and physical targeting similar to physical torture. It seems logical to surmise that the successful psychological theories of ‘no touch’ torture would cross over to more technically based remote, advanced mind control programs. This becomes a significant step forward in understanding the mind control issue. The mind control allegations are “the secret in plain sight.”
XVII. Conclusions: what everyone can agree on
Hard questions need to be asked of the experts. Who now controls the neuroscience weapons research and how advanced is it? As a result of U.S. secrecy, an educated guess is all that is possible. The public deployment of advanced remote neuroscience weapons will be a world changing event, affecting the lives of this generation and the next. The weapons involve national security, science, history, U.S. politics and geopolitics. Most importantly the weapons encompass human nature, good and evil and suffering. Most people are in agreement about one fact: unlike the atomic bomb, there has been a total lack of public input for neuroscience weapons and policy even though the research began in the 1950s and is still classified. Again, this raises more questions than it answers.
Dedicated to the courageous and kind-hearted Peggy Fagan of Houston, Texas, who is enduring the new scientific version of torture.
©2008 Cheryl Welsh is the found of mindjustice.org. She had a very ordinary life until she was targeted with government mind control in 1987. Since then she changed her life to stop the targeting that continues to this day. In 1996, Cheryl started a nonprofit research and education organization, Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse (CAHRA), now Mind Justice. In 2007, Cheryl graduated from Lincoln Law School in Sacramento, California. She was cited for her mind control research in Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense by Jonathan Moreno, Ph.D. on the acknowledgements page.
References
Human Rights Watch, Torture: Does it Make Us Safer? Is It Ever OK?, 2005.
Mayer, Jane, August 8, 2007 New Yorker, “The Black Sites: A Rare Look Inside the C.I.A.’s Secret Interrogation Program.”
McCoy, Alfred, A Question of Torture, CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror, 2006.
“Mind Games,” Washington Post Magazine, Sharon Weinberger, January 14, 2007.
Moreno, Jonathan Moreno, Mind Wars, Brain Research and National Defense, 2006.
Lemov, Rebecca, World as Laboratory, Experiments with Mice, Mazes, and Men, 2005.
Ronson, Jon, The Men Who Stare at Goats. Also, interview dated April 14, 2005 (Videotape #186334 at www.booktv.org.)
Timerman, Jacobo, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell without a Number, DATE?
Weiner, Tim, Legacy of Ashes, History of the CIA. 2007.
Posted by Joan d’Arc at 1:04 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
III. Massive new brain projects, secret science and emerging Cold War weapons:
The threats are real
by Cheryl Welsh
As published in February-April 2013, Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives Volume 2 Issue 1, p.112-116. The editor, Nilantha Ilangamuwa, apologized for the missing footnotes in the published article and will make a note to that effect in the next edition. The footnotes are included below.
Mind Justice Home Page
In January 2013, the EU officially announced a decade long multi-billion dollar project to build a silicon brain—now the world’s largest program on brain research. The project utilizes computers to process existing brain research in order to reconstruct and simulate the brain. In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed the Brain Activity Map project to understand how the brain works. Dr. Francis Collins is director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), a coordinating agency of the Brain Activity Map project. He was the former head of the Human Genome Project which sequenced the human genome. Collins compared the Genome Project to the new project:
[T]his could build a foundation for the future of our understanding of neuroscience that would be going forward for decades to come. . . . This is the natural place for the government to invest, just like the Genome Project, where all of that effort was basically funded by the taxpayer, but then resulted in this enormous proliferation of private sector activity that’s transforming medicine.[1]
Not without controversy, the US scientists proposing the project warned of potential ethical concerns including mind control. Ethicist Dr. Paul Wolpe agreed that the massive projects signal a turning point in neuroscience. Mind control is no longer science fiction and the threat of new technologies and weapons is real. [2] The public has long held a general fear that the government will someday read a person’s thoughts remotely and take over his or her brain. In the US, the science of mental and physical torture began with the Russian brainwashing scare in the 1950s and the CIA reacted by launching its mind control programs. Since then, brain research for national security purposes, as well as public fears have continued. In 1976, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) reported to Congress that mind-reading machines are beginning to decipher a person’s brain waves or EEG. When asked if the machines could surreptitiously scan the brains of prisoners of war and unwitting victims, the Agency scientists stated that current technologies require electrodes placed on the scalp. However, they described magnetic brain waves that could be detected a few feet away and greater distances could be achieved in the 1980s. [3] Today, it is not known if the scientists were successful.
Public fears of government scientists conducting secret mind control research are continuing. Since the 1960s, victim petitions for help to stop government mind control targeting worldwide have been unrelenting. In the 1960s and 70s, US Congress called them “wavies” while today the news media mockingly refer to them as “the tin foil hat crowd.” Wolpe explained that he gets hundreds of letters but the claims are not real. The conventional wisdom is that unclassified science research develops at a slower but similar rate as in classified research. Neuroscience is rudimentary largely due to the lack of technologies to access the brain. Brain implants are invasive and can only interface with small groups of brain cells while magnetic resonance imaging machines (MRIs) and other technologies can only imprecisely scan the whole brain.
Both mind control allegations and solving how the brain works require new technologies that can access the brain remotely and a general theory of how the brain works. The brain projects represent a major shift in neuroscience progress and a second look at the allegations is warranted. It sounds absolutely impossible but emerging evidence presented below supports the following. Similar to the US Manhattan Project that led to the successful engineering of the atomic bomb, a secret 1950s “Manhattan mind control Project” may have taken place. In the 1950s, the basis of a generally accepted theory for how the brain works was available. The US government kept the science of remote mind control weapons secret from most experts for decades. The evidence is new and compelling and supports that the mind control allegations are true.
Atomic physics and a 1950s brain theory
Although considered more complex than atomic physics, today neuroscience is at a similar stage as atomic physics of the 1940s. In the early 1930s, physics experiments supported “the generally accepted idea that slow neutrons would be taken up by the atomic nucleus and increase its mass, the new nucleus might be unstable, and lose beta particles with the formation of a new element.” [4] But some physicists discovered that this hypothesis was wrong and in 1939, the process of fission was established. Notably, fission was considered impossible by some leading physicists at the time. Nevertheless, the concept of the atomic bomb could be discerned from unclassified physics literature and a group of physicists warned President Roosevelt to build the weapon before Germany did. Likewise, the concept of advanced mind control weapons is evident in today’s neuroscience literature; there is a consensus by the EU and US that the government brain projects are scientifically feasible and significant progress is likely.
Furthermore, a prominent neuroscientist recently wrote that a general theory of how the human brain works could be based on the neuroscience breakthroughs that occurred in the 1950s. Neuroscience breakthroughs after the 1950s paled in comparison.[5] A theory for how the brain works was possible, based on the 1950s breakthroughs coupled with research after the 1950s establishing that the “microstructure of cognition” is the synapse of the neuron which is the basic computational unit of the nervous system. The book received favorable reviews; it has not been contested by neuroscientists; and it is the basis of two Yale University courses on neuroscience. The book won a 2010 International Society for the History of Neurosciences award. Thus, a strong case can be made that in the 1950s, the fundamental research required to develop a brain theory was available in the unclassified neuroscience literature.
Twentieth century physics and twenty-first century molecular biology
A fascinating history supports that the US government kept the science of some mind control weapons secret from most experts for decades. It turns out that classified and unclassified neuroscience research utilized different approaches to the study of the brain, as shown below in a brief history of the development of technologies to access the brain.
Physics dominated the first half of the twentieth century and much has been written about physicists who left atomic research for biophysics research of life, including brain research. This contributed to a biophysics boom of the 1950s which included multidisciplinary research by physicists and biologist on the study of nerve and brain function. A.V. Hill, D.W. Bronk and F.O. Schmitt were all prominent neurophysiologists, scientific administrators and military advisors who believed in and promoted the importance of biophysics. But for several reasons beyond the scope of this paper, the great interest in biophysics did not last through the 1960s.[6] Instead it was absorbed by molecular biology which culminated in the Human Genome Project, as well as by biochemistry and modern neuroscience. Molecular biology is one major area of science that has dominated neuroscience research.[7]
So it is not surprising that the US brain project was conceived at a meeting arranged by Miyoung Chun, a molecular biologist and included George Church, a molecular geneticist among others. They agreed on a plan to study the brain that embraced a focus on molecular biology–by developing technologies to access the brain such as nanoprobes and wireless microcircuits to float freely in the brain. The proposed technologies to access the brain involved physical contact, invasive procedures or bulky machines and cannot be done remotely. By contrast, classified government research developed different technologies to access the brain remotely.
Secret US government mind control research utilized a physics and electrical engineering approach for remote access to the brain. In the 1940s and 50s, physics, computer science and electrical engineering were dominant areas of research in the classified realm. This led to the development of U.S. radar and satellite surveillance and signals intelligence which proliferated in nearly complete secrecy. To some extent, the different approaches found in classified and unclassified neuroscience research can be traced to basic science facts about the brain.
For progress in neuroscience and mind control weapons to take place, technologies for direct access to the brain are required and the preference is for noninvasive remote methods. For example, invasive surgeries performed on healthy human subjects in experiments is unethical. There is no dispute that the electrochemical brain communicates with electrical, electromagnetic and magnetic signals as well as chemical signals; both are essential to understanding brain function. However, the brain can only be accessed remotely by electrical, electromagnetic and magnetic signals which can mimic, interfere with or directly communicate with brain cells. The brain cannot be accessed remotely by chemical signaling. While unclassified neuroscience research has focused on developing an electronic technology such as nanoprobes or implants to interface with the brain, classified research such as the DARPA EEG research is based on the concept that the brain itself is an electrical system. As shown below, this difference would have far reaching results.
Bioelectronics, the application of electronics science to biology
More than a brief introduction to the concept of the brain itself as an electrical system is beyond the scope of this paper. During the Cold War, unclassified research demonstrated that the brain is like a radio receiver that can transmit and receive electromagnetic signals,[8] and the brain has similarities to a hybrid analog and digital computer.[9] The brain also resembles a computer’s integrated circuits[10] with direct current (dc)[11] and semi-conduction[12]. This research is considered promising although nearly all of it remains unproven.[13] In the 1950s, government scientists would have realized the tremendous national security implications of this research—it is a likely scientific basis for some remote mind control weapons. Nevertheless, since the 1950s, the concept of the brain as an electrical system received little or no government funding for unclassified research and today, scientists conducting unclassified mainstream neuroscience research reject this concept as scientifically impossible, science fiction or worse.[14]
One example illustrates the point. John von Neuman, the mathematician and computer pioneer who conducted secret research on the atomic bomb wrote the 1957 book The Computer and the Brain. He predicted on logical and mathematical grounds that a hybridization of data transmission and control functions must exist in the biological world. Von Neuman and several prominent scientists hypothesized or conducted unclassified research that extended von Neuman’s prediction: There were two major brain signaling systems in the brain and the brain worked by a combination of analog and digital coding by means of the interaction of two types of brain cells, neurons and glia.[15] This research has never been proven; for decades, it has faced lack of interest or scientific dogma and some of research is known to be classified.
There are many reasons that the mainstream science establishment opposes conflicting concepts and ideas, including entrenched scientific turf and theories, perceived limitations in tools and methodology, and differential institutional power. [16] For over 60 years, the US government has had the tremendous advantage of a secret physics and electrical engineering approach to neuroscience research–called bioelectronics–while for the most part researchers conducting unclassified research were limited to a molecular biology and biochemistry approach. For example, without exposure to bioelectronics, researchers in the unclassified realm could not fathom how electromagnetic radiation could interact with the brain. Consequently, mind control allegations are considered science fiction.
In reality, two different approaches–both essential to solving how the brain works–have been available to researchers conducting classified neuroscience research while at the same time only one approach has been available to researchers conducting unclassified mainstream neuroscience research. Accordingly, the US government almost certainly has made great advances in neuroscience research while at the same time unclassified neuroscience research has remained rudimentary. In this way, a vital national security has been maintained for decades.
Conclusions
Contrary to the consensus, the emerging evidence supports that remote mind control weapons have been scientifically feasible for decades. The risk of already developed secret mind control weapons is significant and a thorough impartial investigation is called for.
(Cheryl Welsh is director of a small non-profit human rights group located in Davis, California, USA.)
[1] Gwen Ifill, Will US forge public-private partnership to draw brain activity map?, PBS NewsHour, (February 20, 2013). Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june13/medical_02-20.html.
[2] Paul Root Wolpe, Ethics Matter, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, (March 4, 2013). Available at http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/calendar/data/0411.html
[3] Norman Kempster, Mind reading machine tells secrets of the brain, Sci-Fi comes true, Los Angeles Times, (March 29, 1976).
[4] Benjamin Kaminer, Search and discovery, A tribute to Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, (Academic Press, 1977) 13
[5] Gordon Shepherd, Creating modern neuroscience, The revolutionary 1950s, (Oxford University Press, 2010) 232.
[6] Nicholas Rasmussen, The midcentury biophysics bubble: Hiroshima and the biological revolution in America, revisited”, History of Science 35: 245 (1997).
[7] Larry Squire, ed. Fundamental Neuroscience (Academic Press, 2008) p. 9, 10
[8] William Ross Adey, 1989 Recipient of the d’Arsonval Medal, Bioelectromagnetics 11:1-11 (1990). See also Ivan Oransky, Obituary William Ross Adey, Lancet 364:232 (July 17, 2004).
[9] Theodore Bullock, Neural integration at the mesoscopic level: the advent of some ideas in the last half century, J. Hist. Neurosci. 4 No.3-4: 231.
[10] Obituary: Dr. Ichiji Tasaki, Neuroscience Research, 64 (2009) 1, 2. For brain with transistor characteristics, see John Lear, A primitive human guidance system?, 273 New Scientist 316 (February 8, 1962).
[11] A.A.P. Leao, Further observations on the spreading depression of activity in the cerebral cortex, J. Neurophysiol. 10:409 (November 1947). See also B. Libet, & R.W. Gerard, Steady potential fields and neurone activity, J.Neurophysiol. 4:438 (September 1941).
[12] Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, [Nobel laureate, 1937], The study of energy-levels in biochemistry, Nature, 3745:157 (August 9, 1941). See also, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Introduction to submolecular biology (Academic Press, 1960).
[13] For brain/electromagnetic radiation (EMR) interactions, see R.H.W. Funk et al., Electromagnetic effects, from cell biology to medicine, Progress in Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 43:185,189 (2009).
For dc brain currents, see Robert Becker, Electromagnetic forces and life processes, Technology Review 38 (December, 1972). For advances in dc brain research, see Michael Nitsche et al., Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art, (Elsevier, 2008) 206.
For semi-conduction, see Janos Ladik, Solid state physics of biological macromolecules: The legacy of Albert Szent-Györgyi, Theochem, 666-667:1 (December 2003).
For analog digital brain communication, see George Gilder, The silicon eye, (W.W. Norton, 2005) 141. See also George Dyson, Turing’s Cathedral, the origins of the digital universe, (Pantheon, 2012) 280, 81.
[14] For one example of scientific dogma, see Douglas Martin, Robert Galambos, neuroscientist who showed how bats navigate, dies at 96, New York Times, (July 15, 2010). Available at: nytimes.com/2010/07/16/science/16galambos.html.
For criticism on classified directed energy research for antipersonnel purposes, see Editorial, Secret Weapons, Nature, 489:177,178 (September 13, 2012).
[15] Robert Becker, Body Electric, (Harper, 1985) 88,89. See also Fn.9 Bullock at 219,223, 228,231. See also Yousheng Shu, Andrea Hasenstaub et al., Brain communicates in analog and digital modes simultaneously, Science Daily, (April 13, 2006). See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412223937.htm.
[16] Stanley Finger, Minds behind the brain, a history of the pioneers and their discoveries, (Oxford University Press, 2000) 306
IV. Nonlethal Weapons: A Global Issue
by Cheryl Welsh,
Mind Justice Home Page
This article, Nonlethal Weapons, A Global Issue, has been cited and Cheryl Welsh, director of Cahra [now Mind Justice], has been listed as one of six Non-Lethal Weapons Experts in the world in UNIDIR, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research 2002 Media Guide to Disarmament in Geneva.
http://www.unidir.org/bdd/fiche-ouvrage.php?ref_ouvrage=92-9045-002-2-en
Cahra [now Mind Justice] is listed on page 25, or see excerpt here. Media Guide cites Welsh article “Non-lethal weapons-A global issue” at
http://www.raven1.net/welshnlw.htm
Contents
Possible Remedies From the International Community Concerning the Illegal Use and Experimentation with Electromagnetic and Mind Control Technology
What Can Be Done on an International Level?
Introduction: Nonlethal Weapons
Background Information. A Serious International Issue According to the Experts.
Denial That the Weapons Exist and Little Public Accountability
International Use of Nonlethal Weapons
The Dangers of Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons
International Human Rights Organizations:
No Match for the International Military Arms Trade
Major Conclusions: Comparisons to the Atomic Bomb
References
What Major Newspaper, Magazine and Journals Are Writing about Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons
What Can Be Done on an International Level?
(This is a summary of the Nonlethal Weapons article and extensive footnotes which follow.)
The U.S. seems to be the world leader in the global arena. Military budgets are the driving force and speak louder than public input. International organizations such as the UN, the European Union and the International Committee of the Red Cross are politically controlled by these factors. (See example 1 below.) Therefore, public protest will be an area to work on. Working with professionals who care about this issue and are willing to speak out is critical. Finding the decision-making organizations such as the UN Committee on Disarmament and making public statements is important. The odds are formidable but less so when examined and analyzed.
For example, Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP which discussed the U.S. HAARP defense project and mind control, spoke at the European Parliament about HAARP and environmental and health concerns in February 1998.(Tigner, 1998,p.3). This was reported in Defense News and contributed to public awareness.
It is important to work as a group. Projects are better than just one letter to the UN C.A.H.R.A. is planning on compiling reports and to work with other human rights groups. Your support and contact with C.A.H.R.A. can make a difference. As C.A.H.R.A. is a nonprofit organization, there can be no political activities but C.A.H.R.A can research and disseminate information.
Example 1. “Progress toward a ban {on landminds] has been painfully slow. After endless debate, 38 countries, including Britain, agreed to add a protocol to the 1980 Convention on “certain conventional weapons”, which seeks to make a distinction between legitimate military weapons and those that cause “superfluous injury..in excess of what is needed for military purposes”. But it was a feeble affair. It regulates rather than prohibits landmines by stipulating that only weapons which self-destruct after 30 days may be manufactured and sold. The trouble is that these new “improved” landmines cost $5, and since most customers are from poor countries, they are likely to opt for the cheaper version. What is more the protocol could take at least ten years to come into effect.”
Linklater, Magnus.(1997,Jan.16).Diana’s Smart Weapon. Times. Lexis-Nexis
Contents
Introduction: Nonlethal Weapons
Electromagnetic technology is a new emerging weapon with significant importance to international politics. Electromagnetic technology has been developed internationally as a weapon of war for at least forty years, but it has been highly classified.(Pasternak,1997). The weapons are designed to target any and every nerve of the body including the human brain. There are many independent sources that verify this little-publicized fact. “Research work in this field [directed energy weapons] has been carried out in almost all industrialized countries, and especially by the great powers, with a view to using these phenomena for anti-materiel or anti-personnel purposes.” (Doswald-Beck,1990,18). …”[U.S.] scientists, aided by government research on the ‘bioeffects’ of beamed energy, are searching the electromagnetic and sonic spectrums for wavelengths that can affect human behavior.” (Pasternak,1997,38). A 1993 Defense News article entitled “U.S. Explores Russian Mind-Control Technology” described “acoustic psycho-correction, the capability to control minds and alter behavior of civilians and soldiers…” It uses ” transmission of specific commands via static or white noise bands into the human subconscious…” The article further stated that U.S. and Russian sources were planning “…discussions aimed at creating a framework for bringing the issue under bilateral or multilateral controls”.(Opall,1993,4). These are just a few examples of the dozens of articles available on this topic.
Background Information. A Serious International Issue According to the Experts.
Electromagnetic weapons are as important as the atomic bomb, according to many experts. Here are examples of just a few. Gorbachev stated in 1986 “new non-nuclear weapons [such as] …radio wave, infrasonic… which, in terms of their destructive potential, could be no less dangerous than already existing weapons of mass destruction.” (BBC,1986,A1.) Dr. Stefan Possony was a Hoover Institute fellow and was called “the intellectual father of ‘Star Wars’ and “one of the most influential civilian strategic planners in the Pentagon”(Guardian,1995,17). Dr. Possony wrote about ” messaging directly into a target mind” with low frequency waves. (Possony,1983,34). The article was entitled “Scientific Advances Hold Dramatic Prospects for Psy-Strat”. A “Harvard molecular geneticist and biological/chemical warfare specialist, Matthew S. Meselson warned: ‘We’re going to learn how to manipulate every life process, genetic ones, mental ones, the emotional ones, …If our inevitably increasing knowledge of life process is also harnessed to hostile purposes, that will completely change the nature of the expression of human hostility.’ (Mann,1996, 58). It is logical to conclude that some of the top strategists and academic experts may know of the classified technology and cannot openly discuss it.
There are several unclassified sources to document a forty year history of the international arms race to develop electromagnetic weapons. From 1975 to 1998, the UN Committee on Disarmament has discussed the Russian proposals to ban “new types of weapons of mass destruction.” One of these weapons was described by the Soviet government in 1979 as “Infrasonic ‘acoustic radiation’ weapons. They would utilize harmful effects of infrasonic oscillations on biocurrents of the brain and nervous system;” (United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs,1985,115). But neither side has admitted to having electromagnetic weapons. “Russia’s Federal Counterintelligence Service emphasized that there is no psychotronic weapons on the territory of Russia, and never has been.”(Tass,1994). Psychotronic is the Russian name for electromagnetic mind control weapons. And the Pentagon has stated that “Radiofrequency weapons are too sensitive to discuss.” (“CNN Reports”, 1985).
Denial That the Weapons Exist and Little Public Accountability
While the superpowers have denied the existence of the weapons on one level, there are many articles to the contrary. And it seems that the United States has the lead in this international arms race. For example, U.S. non-proliferation experts have categorized acoustic and directed energy weapons as “highly dangerous technologies”, in order to control the arms sales. (Opall,1997,16.) And since the 1990s, there are numerous articles have been written about the so called new nonlethal technologies, which include electromagnetic weapons. It can be concluded that the classified technology is now going online and consequently there has been some declassification at an international level.
Public awareness has been slow. Here is just one example. France is involved in NATO research on this topic. They have begun to implement nonlethal strategy into their military doctrine. A classified study in 1995 listed 50 types of weapons including acoustic and electromagnetic, psychological and persuasive weapons (“France’s Non-Lethal”,1996,286). The president of France, Jacques Chirac described the weapons as “science fiction”. The public has had a difficult time figuring out the facts on electromagnetic weapons when conflicting statements are made by government officials who may not be aware of the classified technology.
China experts have discussed electromagnetic weapons. “…weapons systems produced by the third military revolution mainly used sound, electromagnetism, …they possess enormous military potential.(Pillsbury,1997). Russia, China, Ukraine, the U.K., Australia, and France reportedly have advanced RF programs and Germany , Sweden, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel are said to have emerging programs…” (“Emerging Threat”,1998). Several articles support the fact that electromagnetic weapons are here to stay.
International Use of Nonlethal Weapons
The public is now beginning to hear the debates on the strategic development of electromagnetic weapons. While much of the technology is still classified, the nonlethal weapon debate is reflective of international concerns about electromagnetic weapons. Many countries plan to use nonlethal weapons for low intensity conflict, international terrorism and peace-keeping missions. The many articles on this topic describe the great interest in and funding of nonlethal weapons and the possibilities for it’s misuse. For example in Harvard International Review, Ethan Mollick described a nonlethal weapon catastrophe in the Gulf War, the use of carbon-fiber bombs which caused widespread civilian deaths as a result of the electrical and water pump failures. Military proponents have stated that one of the main goals is to limit deaths.
Proponents claim nonlethal weapons will provide more options in conflict situations but opponents argue that more military interventions may occur based on misperceptions about nonlethal weapons. Mollick effectively argues for an international consensus and exploration of nonlethal strategies.
Mollnick does repeatedly discuss the problem of unrealistic expectations by the military and the public and stated that this is a very important issue for the future successful use of nonlethal weapons. For example, in OOTW or operations other than war, the apolitical nature of the armed services may be compromised and in a similar way there are concerns that nonlethal weapons will require new strategies and will fulfill new roles in war and will substantially change the nature of fighting. These are important issues that the strategic experts are beginning to work out.
A 1996 report by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis was extremely thorough and detailed about the role of nonlethal weapons on an international level. This study pointed out the important factors in developing the United States policy framework on nonlethal weapons. Nonlethal weapons were considered an asset to military operations. This report recommended further development of a clearly worded nonlethal weapons policy so that the opponent would take the U.S. stance seriously and know that the U.S. could stand behind it’s stated capability. Nonlethal weapons were discussed as part of the U.S. arsenal and there were questions about issues of proliferation and problems of countermeasures. The consensus was that the U.S. should continue staying one step ahead of other countries in nonlethal weapons technology and not worry about using the classified technology. Public discussions on this issue were encouraged and nonlethal weapons cooperation with NATO members was encouraged. Multinational cooperation is an area of concern. Discussions concerning deterrence policy and the role of nonlethal weapons are currently being discussed. The U.S. seems to be leading the way for international policy formulations, based on the quantity and quality of the U.S. information on nonlethal weapons.
The Dangers of Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons
In an article commissioned by the European Parliament, concerns about “less-lethal’ weapons were discussed. The European Union is concerned about nonlethal weapons and protecting civil rights. The article concluded that further research on such topics as proliferation and control are needed. “Formal liaison arrangements between the EU and the USA” on nonlethal weapons was investigated. This further demonstrates the international importance of nonlethal weapons. Many countries are seriously incorporating the use of nonlethal weapons into their arsenals. Accordingly, concerns about maintaining a lead other countries and of the abuse of the new technologies are being discussed by most countries today.
The European Parliament complained of the dangers of HAARP, a U.S. electromagnetic defense project and of being uninformed about the dangers after NATO and U.S. officials had declined invitations to the discussions on HAARP (Tigner,1998,3). This is a good example of the possible global implications of electromagnetic weapons and the problems involved with classified weapons programs such as miscommunication. Several articles point out similar concerns.
The discussions on nonlethal weapons has increased dramatically since the 1990s. Most articles present a pro and con picture and that the nonlethal arsenals are increasing in many countries. Nonlethal weapons will play a significant role in international strategies, according to the cited articles above. And they have already been deployed in Somalia during the United Nations peacekeeping missions in 1995.(Schmitt,1995) This is indicative of nonlethal international strategies on the use of the still very classified nonlethal weapons that is now in effect.
Another example of the importance of electromagnetic weapons was clearly stated as follows. “In a much quoted speech made in 1974, Fleet Admiral Groshkov of the USSR, considered the “father” of modern Soviet navy, stated that “the country that best exploits the electromagnetic spectrum will win the next war.” (Herron,1984,64) Proliferation and the development of countermeasures have led to an escalating arms race. To a certain extent, the country with the money can buy this technology, but the superpowers have the leading edge technology. It is available on the international market and is proliferating at a very fast pace. (Dunigan,1996,15). This is another factor that will affect nonlethal strategic policy development.
International Human Rights Organizations: No Match for the International Military Arms Trade
International regulation of electromagnetic weapons has been discussed by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Stockhom International Peace Research Institute, as well as other human rights groups. Concerns about the humane use of these weapons are being discussed. But overall, the consensus on arms control is small in comparison to the interest in gaining military power. Most would agree that the process of international arms control has and does make a significant difference. For example, some of the above cited articles discussed the international treaties and laws under which nonlethal weapons must comply and concerns about whether other countries will obey. This is just one factor which may affect developing strategic plans.
Rupert Pengelley of the International Defense Review as well as others have argued against the possible misuse of nonlethal weapons (Pengelly,1994,1). Pengelly described the atomic bomb as “the ultimate nonlethal weapon.” The atomic bomb was a great deterrent after Hiroshima and Pengelly wonders who will be first to use nonlethal weapons so that they too will never be used.
Additionally, comparisons of nonlethal weapons to the atomic bomb and the powerful deterrent effects of it’s terrifying destructive power have been made by Dunnigan in the book, Digital Soldiers. The atomic bomb and it’s effect on international politics is still being sorted out. The atomic bomb will be a point of comparison for mind control technology discussions as the electromagnetic technology is declassified.
Most of this technology has been classified until recently and little public protest or input on this topic can be found in the literature. Here is one of the few international politics position today on electromagnetic mind control. “World opinion is not ready for dealing appropriately with the problems coming from the possibility of direct access to the human mind.” (Opall,1993,4.)
The alarming problem with electromagnetic mind control has been articulated by Russian officials as follows. “As far as it has become possible to probe and correct psychic contents of human beings despite their will and consciousness by instrumental means… results having been achieved can get out of [our] control and be used with inhumane purposes of manipulating psyches, the [Russian] paper stated.” (Opall,1993,4)
Major Conclusions: Comparisons to the Atomic Bomb
As with many international issues, the use of electromagnetic weapons on an international level is complex. Many experts agree that it should be a topic of concern in international politics.
Experts and officials have called electromagnetic mind control ‘science fiction’, ‘too sensitive to discuss’ or nonexistent and electromagnetic technology is confusing and not understood or known by the public. Public discussions and declassification of the technology is being recommended.
Electromagnetic technology has become a part of the arsenals of most countries. As a result of the world-wide declassification and use of electromagnetic nonlethal weapons in the 1990s, the problems and strategies are being discussed openly by experts. There is no international global strategy for nonlethal weapons but trends and strategies are developing. New technologies and counter technologies are proliferating. International discussions on the legal, moral and ethical use of electromagnetic weapons are beginning to take place.
The United States, the leader in nonlethal weapons at this time, is formulating strategy and tactical uses for nonlethal weapons. International politics is changing in very complicated ways and strategic experts are beginning to discuss the possible future effects that nonlethal weapons will have. Nonlethal weapons will not replace lethal power but most international countries believe that it will be a significant addition to their arsenals. Most strategic experts are using words of warning.
The atomic bomb had a major impact on international politics and the consensus is that this new emerging technology will have a similar effect. Many complex factors are developing in discussions on electromagnetic warfare. The history of the atomic bomb will be a useful tool of analysis.
References
Aftergood, Steven. (1994, September/October). The Soft-Kill Fallacy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 40-45.
Coupland, Robin M. (1997, Jul 12). Non-lethal weapons: precipitating a new arms race. Medicine must guard against its knowledge being used for weapon development. British Medical Journal, 315, 72.
Doswald-Beck, Louse and Cauderay, Gerald C. (1990, 1 Nov.). The Development of New Antipersonnel Weapons. International Review of the Red Cross, 279.
Goldblat, Jozef. (1983). Arms Control Agreements. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Herron, Maj. Robert. (1984, May. Electronic Warfare–New Priority for next generation fighters. Aerospace America.[ONLINE],pg. 64.Available:Lexis-Nexis/MILTRY.
Kelly, Jack A. & Conway Joseph. (1996, May). Nonlethal Weapons, Emerging Requirements for Security Strategy, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.
Lopez,Ramon.(1993, March 1).Special Operations Survive Pentagon Budget Constraints. International Defense Review,26(3). [ONLINE],p.247.Available:Lexis-Nexis/MILTRY[December 12, 1994].
Matthews,Owen.(1995, July 11).Report: Soviets Used Top-Secret ‘Psychotronic’ Weapons. Moscow Times. [ONLINE].Available: LexisNexis/AllNews.
Mann,Paul.(1996,June17).Mass Weapons Threat Deepens Worldwide. Aviation Week and Space Technology.144(25). [ONLINE], p.58 Available:LexisNexis/MILTRY.
Mollick,Ethan.(1996,Fall).A Gentler War The Debate over Non-Lethal Weapons. Harvard International Review. 18(4). {ONLINE],P.46.Available:EBSCOhost.
Morrison, David C. (1995, July 22). More-Than-Lethal Weapons. National Journal, 1919.
Opall, Barbara. (1993, Jan 11-17). U.S., Russsia Hope to Safeguard Mind-Control Techniques. Defense News, 4.
Opall, Barbara. (1997, Nov. 24-30). U.S. Experts:Focus Arms Control Goals. Defense News, 6.
Thomas, Timothy L. (Spring 1998). The Mind Has No Firewall. Parameters US Army War College Quarterly. 28(1), 84.
Pasternak, Douglas. (1997, July 7). Wonder Weapons The Pentagon’s quest for nonlethal arms is amazing. But is it smart? U.S. News and World Report, 38-45.
Pengelley, Rupert. (1994, April 1). Wanted: A Watch On Non-lethal Weapons. International Defense Review. 27(4), 1.
Pillsbury, Michael. (1997, September 18). Prepared Testimony by Dr. Michael Pillsbury Associate Fellow National Defense University Before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Federal News Service.[Online]. Available:Lexis-Nexis/MILTRY[Sept.20,1997]
Possony, Stefan. (1983, July). Scientific Advances Hold Dramatic Prospects for Psy-Strat. Defense and Foreign Affairs, 34. [ONLINE]. Available:Lexis-Nexis/MILTRY.
Pravda. 27, Jan. 1986).Pravda Editorial on Gorbachev’s Programme of Nuclear Disarmament. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts [Online] Pg.A1,Available:Lexis-Nexis/MILTRY.
Schmitt, Eric. (1995, Feb. 16). Zany New Weapons for U.S. team in Somalia. International Herald Tribune.
Tigner, Brooks. (1997, Sept. 29). NATO Panel To Consider Nonlethal Weapon Guidelines. Defense News, 14.
Tigner, Brooks. (1998, Feb. 16-22). Europeans Protest U.S. Ionospheric Research. Defense News, 3.
United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs. (1985). The United Nations and Disarmament: 1945-1985. New York: United Nations.
Unknown author. (1985, Nov. 15). CNN Reports on Radio-Frequency Weapons. PR Newswire [Online],Available:Lexis-Nexis/MILTRY.
Unknown author. (1998, March 2). Emerging Threat: Radio Frequency Weapons. Defense Week,19 [ONLINE]. Available:LexisNexis/MILTRY[Mar. 4, 1998].
Unknown author. (1998, Feb. 7,1998).EU/United States:Euro-Mps Concerned About New Version of “Star Wars”. European Report [Online},no. 2289,Available:Lexis-Nexis?News/MILTRY[Feb.9, 1998].
Walker, Martin. (1995, May 5). Dark Dreamer of Star Wars: Obituary:StefanPossony. Guardian(London).[Online],Pg.17,Available:Lexis-Nexis/AllNEWS[1995, May 31].
Wright, Steve. (1998, Jan 6). An Appraisal of Technologies for Political Control. European Parliament Scientific and Technological Options Assessment, STOA. Luxembourg, European Parliament.
What Major Newspaper, Magazine and Journals Are Writing about Nonlethal Electromagnetic Weapons
(Important information is highlighted so that it can be skimmed.)
“Certainly one of these things is to recognize that export control documents, particularly the Military Critical Technologies List, need to be reviewed to determine if radio frequency technologies should be considered in the same careful way we do nuclear technologies,” he [Army Lt. Gen. Robert Schweitzer speaking to Congress] said.
no author.(1993, Mar. 2). Emerging Threat: Radio Frequency Weapons. Defense Week, vol. 19.
“The Pentagon’s exotic weapons programme, led by the Air Force, is cloaked in ultra-secrecy which forbids any public comment by scientists. …Electromagnetic radiation-basically waves below radio frequencies -was found to prompt human or animal brains to release chemicals that affect behaviour. “We could put animals in a stupor,” he explained, adding it would be probably possible to create flu-like symptoms and nausea in humans. Such work continues. In 1995 Air Force generals reviewed more than 1,000 proposed exotic weapons projects. One was called “Put the enemy to sleep/Keep the enemy from sleeping.” Another project approved for more research involved brain-wave manipulation. …According to Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, the effort is practical. He says such exotic weapons are merely the next logical step to the variety of radio beams used to knock out the electronic systems of aircraft or missiles. “Once you are into these anti-material weapons, it is just a short jump to anti-personnel ones.” In effect, humans are also just electro-chemical systems that can be disrupted.”
Dettmer, Jamie.(1997, Aug 3). It’s war, Jim, but not as we know it. Scotsman Publications Ltd. Scotland on Sunday.p 5. Lexis-Nexis.
“As former science-fiction writers, [Janet and Chris Morris, leading proponents of nonlethal weapons] the couple speak with zeal about a coming age in which the enemy will be disorientated by very low frequency sound waves, dazzled by isotropic radiators, imprisoned by invisible magnetic fields,… …After his retirement, [Ray] Cline, the leading biographer of the CIA, had taken charge of a privately funded Washington think-tank called the US Global Strategy Council. A world authority, he soon became the Morrises’ mentor and their introduction to the murkier reaches of the Pentagon. … The Morrises even talk admiringly about a technology that would enable two different acoustic beams to plant a voice in a dictator’s head, convincing his subordinates that he had suddenly gone mad.”
Bone, James. (1996, Sept.21). Stick’em up. The Times.
“The microwave bomb, which works by emitting a massive pulse of radio energy, would render humans unconscious by scrambling neural paths in the brain but would not cause lasting injury.”
Campbell, Christy. (1992,Sept 27). Microwave bomb that does not kill. Sunday Telegraph.p6.
“Terrifying noise weapons that can rupture organs, inflict burns, and create bubbles and cavities in human tissue may be just around the corner, an expert has warned. Acoustic weapons are now so highly developed that they could make an appearance at any moment, according to writer William M. Arkin[Human Rights Watch]. …About 20 US government laboratories and military commands were involved in acoustic weapons development, contracting with half-a-dozen private companies. …one of two leading contractors, Scientific Applications and Research Associates Inc. (Sara), Huntington Beach, CA. A high-power weapons would radiate a directed energy beam to “induce severe incapacitation (and if necessary, lethality), within a specified/designated area.” The intensity could vary from a 90 to 120 decibel low-frequency soundwave “to provide extreme levels of annoyance and distraction”, through 150 to 150 decibels for “strong physical bodily trauma and damage to tissues’, to “shockwave” levels at more than 170 decibels. At this intensity, an acoustic weapon could produce “instantaneous blastwave-type trauma” and lethal effects. Very low frequencies could produce internal hemorrhaging and spasms while higher frequencies were capable of raising body temperature and burning tissue. At the top end of the frequency scale, cavitation effects and bubbles could result as the structure of human flesh broke down.” Arkin[writing in the quarterly journal Medicine Conflict and Survival]said: “Acoustic weapons could be the next new major weapons to be deployed based upon ‘novel’ and heretofore unapplied physical principles in warfare.” Arkin recommended “the humanitarian community to involve itself in the assessment and debate…” [on high-power acoustic beam weapons.] …He suggested that Protocol IV[of the Inhumane Weapons Convention] might be the starting point for curbing acoustic weapons.” Medicine, Conflict and Survival is a journal of the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.”
von Radowitz.(1997, Dec.7). Acoustic Weapons ‘Close to Becoming Reality’.Press Association Newsfile.Lexis-Nexis.
” The International Red Cross is looking at other weapons which may cause “gratuitous” damage to human beings, including some that may not have progressed beyond the drawing-board. Recently, it mounted a successful campaign to ban laser weapons that cause blindness. Now it is looking at cluster-bombs, which cause appalling injuries and which can have the same effect as landmines if they lie unexploded on the ground. There are electromagnetic and acoustic weapons which destroy human organs, and fuel-air explosives worse than Napalm. No one can say for certain what the next generation of “unacceptable” weapons will consist of -only that they will be worse.”
Linklater, Magnus.(1997, Jan.16). Diana’s Smart Weapon. Times Newspapers Limited.
“Chinese Views of Future Warfare: Prepared Testimony by Dr. Michael Pillsbury, Associate Fellow National Defense University Before the Senate Intelligence Committee. …Radiation Combat–“In the wars of the past, the power to inflict casualties mainly depended on the effects of kinetic energy and thermal energy; but the weapon systems produced by the third military revolution mainly use sound, electromagnetism, radiation, and other destructive mechanisms. The main radiation weapons are laser weapons, microwave weapons, particle beam weapons and subsonic wave weapons;they possess enormous military potential. …Vice President of the Russian Academy of Military Science Vladimir Slipchenko [stated that] …By directing energy emission at a target it is possible to turn an enemy division into a herd of frightened idiots…electromagnetic weapons…ionizing (plasma ) weapons…our ‘likely friends’ in the West and the East are developing new weapons and means of employing them.”
Pillsbury, Michael.(1997, Sept.18)Senate Intelligence Committee. Federal News Service. Lexis-Nexis.
“…a new U.S. government publication, “Chinese View of Future Warfare, sponsored by Andy Marshall, the Pentagon’s director of net assessment. …editor Michael Pillsbury. …Richard Macke, former commander-in-chief of U.S. Pacific Command. …He noted, however, that China does not intend to put its gradually modernized force to use. “I don’t think they want to go to war with anybody. I think they want to amass the capabilities that we have in order to earn respect…showing force without using it.”
Opall, Barbara.(1997,May19). Chinese Covet High-Technology Arsenal; DoD Report Reveals PLA Quest For Robotics, Cyber Warriors.Defense News.pg.1.
“The latter stages of the Cold War saw a new twist to the development of Non-lethal weapons, involving the use of directed-energy devices exploiting different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum(such as laser light, isotropic radiators, high-power microwaves, and electromagnetic pulses) to disrupt,or impede the functioning of, military equipment.
… The ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] is right to call attention to the emergence of this new generation of weapon. Some form of international regulation is indeed needed-an agreement between the then Soviet Union and the United States not to utilize lasers…has been in effect since January 1990, and could provide the basis for a wider agreement. Similarly, at a national level there need to be strict legal controls over the acquisition and use of non-lethal weapons, not least by security agencies.”
Pengelly, Rupert.(1994, Apr.1). Wanted:a Watch on Non-lethal Weapons.International Defense Review Vol27 No.4 pg.1.
“Richardson said one far-future[2011 and beyond] communications system being investigated is ” synthetic telepathy.” One day, SOF commandos may be capable of communicating through thought processes. A less revolutionary communications system available today is the New Eagle Communications Model DB headset. It incorporates a bone vibrating speaker placed directly in front of the ear that transfers incoming radio signals through bones.”
Lopez, Ramon.(1993, Mar.1). Special Operations Survives Pentagon Budget Constraints. International Defense Review. Vol.26; No. 3.pg. 247
“This fall, a joint committee staffed by the Department of Justice and the Pentagon will decide which “less than lethal” technologies to develop. Here is a sample of systems the committee may consider: … High-power electromagnetic generators that interfere with brain waves and alter behavior.”
Walker, Sam.(1994,Sept.6).An Array of ‘Less Than Lethal’ Weapons. Christian Science Monitor. pg.12.
A classified nonlethal weapons study by France included a “list of around 50 types of such weapons placed into three categories: those that neutralize personnel… …Other sub-systems are acoustic weapons; computer viruses and disruptive agents; psychological and persuasive weapons.”
No author.(1996,Apr.18).France’s Non-Lethal Options.Intelligence Newsletter. Indigo Publications.;N.286.
“Examples include weapons that… infrasound waves that disorient civilians for crowd control and psychological operations,… Co-chaired by conservative luminaries like former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and an array of former generals, admirals, and defense secretaries, the council formed a nonlethality policy review group in 1990 that bent the ears of Vice President Dan Quayle, Chief of Staff John Sununu, and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, persuading the Bush administration to establish a Nonlethality Task Force under the secretary of defense. …Research has been actively pursued for the past several years at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National laboratories… Like the Strategic Defense Initiative a decade ago, nonlethality exercises a seductive promise to render the enemy ‘impotent and obsolete’…
Sommer, Mark.(1994, Feb.17).Nonlethal Weapons Offer a Faustian Bargain.Christian Science Monitor.p19.
” The two doctors [Dr. Nick Lewer and Dr. Steven Schofield, Bradford University Peace Studies Dept.]- whose survey of the strategic, technological, ethical and environmental issues arising from the use of non-lethal weapons was published yesterday-say there is an urgent need for awareness and political debate to determine the proper ground rules for their use. …Research and development of new weapons is proceeding apace, in what amount to an almost unseen arms race.”
Simister, David.(1997,Apr.15).UK:Lethal Warning on New Breed of Weapons. Yorkshire Post
“Security classification makes it difficult to be very specific about the technologies. We know that all of the U.S. armed services..are working on weapons projects that could be described under the heading non-lethal technologies and that at least some of these projects have parallels in other nations,” said Professor Harvey Sapolsky, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a recent report.[Dr. Sapolsky also with SIPRI,Stockholm International Peace Research Institute].”
Winton, Neil.(1995,May22). Hi-tech Weapons offer War Without Death.Reuters North American Wire. Lexis-Nexis.
“True, a CIA report published this summer asserted that former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both claimed to have seen UFOs. But that just tells us what we already know: that Americans are credulous. But who can blame them? The very government they accuse of withholding information on the paranormal from them is directly responsible for feeding their wildest fantasies. … The Federation[of Atomic Scientists, FAS] was set up in 1945 by researchers into the atomic bomb, anxious to campaign against government secrecy over scientific research. If anyone reliable might be capable of exposing a cover-up, you feel it must be them. …John Pike…director of Space Policy[FAS]. …Pike, ultimately, has no doubt there is intelligent extraterrestrial life, and that it has visited our end of the galaxy.”
White, Jim & Fowler, Rebecca.(1997, Sept21). Adventures in Alien Territory. Mail On Sunday(London).Pg13. Lexis-Nexis.
“For example, [U.S. Air Force Maj. Norman] Routanen has proposed using “very powerful microwave devices to confuse, disable, or even kill the enemy.” The report by the Georgetown University panel on combating terrorism similarly proposes “techniques to impair brain functions.” Navy physician Capt. Paul E. Tyler sees an opposite use for electromagnetic radiation: he suggests that exposing U.S. military personnel or their allies to electromagnetic radiation might allow them to act ‘with minimal rest and still maintain peak performance.”Efforts to create a super soldier are not as far-fetched as they sound, nor are they new. Members of the navy’s SEALS–its elite special-forces unit–took dexedrine to stay awake for several days on missions during the Vietnam War. Since at least 1954, various Defense Department agencies have conducted hundreds of experiments on ways of enabling troops to endure extremely taxing conditions.”
Miller, Marc S.(1987,Aug.). Ambiguous War The United States and Low-Intensity Conflict.MIT Alumni Association Technology Review Vol.90 pg.60.
“The U.S. Government has been researching beam weapons –microwave, light (laser), electron and other particle beams, and most recently x-rays– since the 1940s. …Dr. Robert Cooper, director of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon’s own R & D arm, has been involved with beam weapons since the 1960s. …All four technologies have made huge strides in 25 years, Dr. Cooper says. Radars are 10 to 100 times as powerful, and have been supplemented by optical surveillance systems that did not exist in 1959. The power of the biggest computers, needed for battle management, has tripled every three years since 1959. …At Sandia National Laboratory, managed by Bell Laboratories for the U.S. Government, they are probably as knowledgeable as any centre in the world of the damage beams can do.”
Fishlock, David.(1983,Sept.19).Thunderbolt of the future;Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ Mission.Financial Times(London)p.18.
The [NATO Nonlethal Weapon Technologies for Peace Support Operations, 1996 Study. The April 16th study was approved during a semiannual meeting in Brussels of NATO national armaments directors] study lists 10 categories of technology that offer potential for industrial collaboration among NATO countries. These are: containment devices and entanglers; dazzle lasers, including strobe lights and holograms; markers; …and odors.”
Tigner, Brooks.(1996,Apr.29).NATO Group Pushes, Pentagon Pulls Nonlethal Efforts;Alliance Study Urges Nations To Collaborate on Weapons.Defense News.pg12.
” This raises the question of the extent to which hypersonic systems have been explored in the “black” world of unacknowledged programs. The SAB’s[Scientific Advisory Board, USAF] recommendations appear bold in the extreme in light of “white-world” experience. As far as the unclassified world is concerned, the highest speed attained by any US air-breather is just over Mach 5… A body of black-world experience would make the goal a little more reasonable.”
Sweetman Bill. (1996,June,1). US Air Force Probes Technological Frontiers.International Defense Review. Vol. 1. No. 6. Pg. 1.
This new “non-lethal’ arsenal includes devices that stop engines from afar, capture hostage-takers, push cars off roads, knock down attackers, control crowds and prisoners and incapacitate field troops and small populations. …In the US, the FBI has ordered Myotron “Widow Makers” -a powerful new type of stun gun that knocks down men, tigers and even elephants for several crucial minutes(time to get away or call for help) without harm. … Humans on whom it has been tested, say it feels like millions of tiny needles racing through their body. Brain signals are scrambled and all voluntary muscles are incapacitated.”…Mr. William Gunby, “They are legal to the public by US federal law and we are re selling them around the world.” But what if the US$200 (S$335) Myotron falls into the hands of robbers or rapists? …the Vortex Cannon was designed to fire a smoke ring-like charge of air spinning faster than the speed of sound.Inside the barrel of air is a shock wave which cannot be stopped by anything built by man. .. America had already begun a highly secret vortex programme called Project Squid in 1940. The US Army and Navy have top-secret vortex projects underway at Camp Pendleton, California but will not discuss them. Now Swedish researchers have miniaturized and refined the Vortex so it can blow cars off a road, engulf, knock down and sicken rioters or deliver gas at the speed of sound.
Laytner, Ron.(1998,Jan.4). You can hide but you can’t run: Radar will top your car. Straits Times(Singapore) Sunday Plus.Pg6. Lexis-Nexus
“The advent into the world’s arsenals of directed energy weapons may be as revolutionary as was the introduction of the other great weapon developments of the 20th century–the machine-gun and the atomic bomb,”according to the former head of the Defense intelligence Agency(DIA, Leonard Perroots. …According to U.S. experts, the Soviet Union has the edge over the United States in developing what is known as “directed energy weapons” and “Radiofrequency weapons.”
Debusmann, Bernard.(1990,Mar.28).Beam Weapons Predicted to Revolutionize War, Spur Arms Trade.Reuter Library Report BC cycle. Lexis-Nexis.
“The Marine Corps, which fought long and hard for the honour of being chosen to expand “non-lethal warfare”, believes that the weapons will be of great value, particularly in peace-keeping operations such as those in Bosnia and Somalia where minimum force has to be used to try to avoid alienating the local population.”
Bellamy, Chris.(1996,Mar.30).Weapons that don’t Kill? Tell it to the marines.Independent(London).p1.
“Today there is a new class of radically new and important radio frequency weapons(RFW) which merits your attention as it emerges. …This is particularly true of the newly emerging threat of radiofrequency weapons. And even more importantly, we must develop countermeasures before such weapons are used against us.”
Prepared Testimony by Lieutenant General Robert L Schweitzer U.S. Army (Retired) Before the Joint Economic Committee.(1997,June17). Federal News Service.Lexis-Nexis
“Brain Bombs. According to Dr. John Nuckolls, head of physics at the Livermore laboratory, human suffer confusion and disorientation when subjected to long wavelength radiation of great strength. So too, he said, it is entirely possible that physicists might one day find a way to direct and concentrate the fower from nuclear weapons into this part of the electromagnetic spectrum, producing a bomb that would leave an enemy stunned and unable to wage war.
Broad, William.(1985, July16). 40 Years Ago, The Bomb: the Questions Came Later. New York Times. Section c pg
“Susan Blackmore states: “Suddenly, prospect of magnetic mind control seem an awful lot worse than the idea of being abducted by imaginary aliens”. …[ Scientist, Michael] Persinger was employed by the US national security establishment to develop behaviour-modifying electromagnetic weapons under project “Sleeping Beauty”. He came to the attention of the defense industry after he published a paper entitled “Possible cardiac driving by an external rotating magnetic filed” in 1973. Captain Paul Tyler, the Director of the US Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, wrote in 1986 of a technique employed by national security establishment to disrupt “the electrical signal in cardiac muscle”, to produce “complete asystole with a resultant fatal outcome”.
Krawczyk, Glenn.(1994,Dec.17).Mind Control. New Scientist. p.50.
“There are indications that (electro-magnetic weapons) may have adverse affects on the brain,” she[Doswald-Beck] said. …Louise Doswald-Beck, deputy head of the legal division of the Geneva-based ICRC, said the international community had scored a major breakthrough last year when it banned blinding laser weapons before they came on the market. …that new directed-energy weapons threatened the status quo. … all new weapons should be scrutinized to see if they contravened the humanitarian principles of causing unnecessary suffering or being indiscriminate in nature, she said. …humanitarian law exerted only moral pressure on weapons-makers and governments by stigmatizing new and inhumane tools of war.”
Della-Giacoma, Jim.(1996,May30). Microwave and acoustic weapons pose new threats. Reuters World Service.
V. Mind control targeting: Science fiction or a new form of hi-tech torture?
by Cheryl Welsh
Mind Justice Home Page
Cheryl Welsh is director of a small non-profit human rights group located in Davis, California, U.S. She authored Cold War Experiments: The Threat of Neuroweapons and the Danger it will happen again, Essex Human Rights Review, June 2012. Available at: http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V9N1/WELSH.pdf
Introduction
Beginning in the 1950s, thousands of victims, mainly from the U.S. and Russia have claimed targeting with some type of secret remote mind control weapons. Most victims state that they are observed and attacked 24 hours a day for years on end via remote communication technologies interacting with their brains. They state that the physical and psychological methods used are destructive and debilitating. The desperate pleas sound like science fiction torture and they are dismissed as conspiracy theory or mental illness. The allegations are growing in numbers, including more recent claims from the Middle East, India, Japan, China and Taiwan.
Now two prominent figures have alleged political oppression via mind control weapons, raising serious new concerns about the persistent allegations. Tek Nath Rizal, an internationally recognized activist, exposed corruption in Bhutan and the King sent him to prison in 1988. Rizal claimed that he was tortured in prison with electromagnetic radiation (EMR) mind control technologies in a very brutal medieval fashion. The U.S. Department of State and Amnesty International pressed for his release and after ten years in prison, Rizal received a government pardon. In 2011, Rizal wrote the book Torture, Killing Me Softly and eloquently described his horrific experience. Another case was recently reported in Asian newspapers. Ruey Lin, the running mate of Taiwan opposition presidential candidate James Soong, claimed he had come under attack from “electromagnetic waves” launched by a local intelligence unit.[1]
The allegations sound like descriptions of future weapons. For nearly sixty years, major countries have funded secret programs for developing advanced mind control weapons. The U.S. conducted mind control research to counter the threat of communist brainwashing and the classified research has continued to the present day.[2] Not one weapon has ever been revealed. Government documents describe weapons that will neutralize the enemy without killing, for counterinsurgency warfare and for psychological and intelligence operations. Weapons based on EMR, also called directed energy, would be deployed surreptitiously and leave no trace evidence, thus allowing governments to deny their existence. For example, the U.S. Air Force is funding the development of “directed energy and other revolutionary technologies, with the ability to instantaneously project very precise amounts of various types of energy anywhere in the world.”[3]
Mind control weapons target the brain and nervous system and are now known as neuroweapons. Experts agree that advanced weapons with mind reading and remote targeting capabilities are scientifically feasible but are decades into the future. This paper challenges the consensus that neuroweapons and allegations are science fiction. The first section presents the basic science of advanced neuroweapons. The next two sections present evidence suggesting that U.S. government secrecy methods are designed to keep the science of neuroweapons off limits to all but the government. A brief conclusion and recommendation are given.
The consensus on advanced neuroweapons science and technology
Developing advanced neuroweapons and solving how the brain works require the same basic science and technology. It is notable that for the last sixty years, the basic science and technology requirements have remained the same. Since the mid-twentieth century, neuroscientists have known that brain cells, called neurons, communicate with electrochemical signals and this communication process translates into human activities such as dreams, thoughts, emotions, actions, hearing, seeing and more. Neuroscientists agree that the key to solving how the brain works is to decipher the language of the electrochemical signals.[4]
The brain is an electrochemical system with chemical, electrical and electromagnetic properties. Brain activity is based on biochemistry and principles of physics. For example, electric currents, including brain currents produce electromagnetic and magnetic fields and the brain can therefore be influenced by external electricity and electromagnetic and magnetic fields. Additionally, science research has firmly established that external electromagnetic, magnetic and electrical signals can disrupt, mimic or interact with the signals of the brain to affect behavior, brain and body functions.[5] Therefore, a review of research progress in the three essential areas of research–the chemical, electrical and electromagnetic properties of the brain–would help determine if neuroweapons are science fiction.
First, the science of biochemistry has dominated medical research and most neuroscientists have focused on the biochemical aspect of the study of the brain.[6] However, experts now agree that the biochemical approach alone is not enough to solve how the brain works. Neuroscientists have conducted research on the electrical and electromagnetic aspects of the electrochemical brain although to a much lesser extent than on the brain’s biochemical properties. A major obstacle is that the brain is difficult to access and new technological tools are needed. Neuroscientists agree that to solve how the brain works requires observing and communicating with the 100 billion neurons in the living brain all at the same time.[7] Today’s brain scanning technologies such as the MRIs, (magnetic resonance imaging) only observe groups of neurons and are too imprecise for mind reading or mind control. Likewise, brain implants are only capable of simple electrical communication with individual neurons or groups of neurons. Progress on research involving the electrical nature of the brain has remained slow.[8]
The electromagnetic properties of the brain are difficult to measure and weapons research in this area has been classified since the 1950s. As a result, progress in this area continues to languish. Most people know how a microwave oven works; the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) called microwaves produce a thermal effect and heat or cook food. By contrast, few people are aware of the science research showing that EMR has significant nonthermal bioeffects on the human body, including the brain–effects other than just heating. Beginning in the 1960s, some research on the electromagnetic aspect of brain function produced solid scientific results. A handful of pioneer researchers established the field of bioelectromagnetic medicine, “the study of the electromagnetic forces generated by living organisms, and the effects of external electromagnetic forces and fields upon living organisms.”[9] By the 1980s, scientific experiments supported that externally applied electromagnetic fields had a scientifically measurable effect on electromagnetic processes of transformation, transfer, coding, and storage of information in living systems, including in the brain.[10] Subsequent research has extended this promising line of brain communication research, however, it remains unproven, at least in the unclassified research. A 1991 London Guardian article explains:
To accept that our biology and brain function is affected by electromagnetic radiation requires us to change our notion of how the body functions. Even though the body is basically an electrochemical system, modern science has almost exclusively been concerned with the chemical aspect.[11]
Experts say that information age science will be required to fill the gaps in neuroscience research. Today’s information age had its beginnings in the 1940s with the discovery of semiconductors and the invention of transistors and integrated circuits. Information age science of quantum physics, electrical engineering and solid state physics led to the atomic bomb, microwave radar, the computer, brain implants and brain scanning technologies, the moon landing and more. The following two examples illustrate how information age technologies would likely be applied to the development of advanced neuroweapons. In his 2008 New York Times-reviewed book, physicist Michio Kaku explained: “Radio waves can be beamed directly into the human brain to excite areas of the brain known to control certain functions. This line of research began in the 1950s . . . But research in this direction is only at the earliest stages.”[12] In 2010, the prominent physicist Freeman Dyson predicted that to observe and control the brain, the “neurological equivalent of integrated-circuit technology” must be developed. According to Dyson, this required “microwave signals and two tools; first microscopic radio transmitters and receivers; and second, a tool to convert neural signals into radio signals and vice versa.”[13]
Generally speaking, since the 1950s, the consensus on the essential requirements for solving how the brain works and for developing advanced neuroweapons are; first, deciphering the language of electrochemical brain signals with a research focus on the electrical and electromagnetic aspects of the electrochemical brain; and second, new technologies based on information age science for observation of and communication with the 100 billion neurons in the brain all at the same time.
A U.S. government deception exposed
The consensus is that advanced neuroweapons are not scientifically possible because of the current rudimentary level of neuroscience development. An underlying assumption of the consensus is that the past sixty years of classified research advanced at a similar pace as the unclassified neuroscience. So it becomes relevant that for nearly sixty years, the U.S. government has maintained a monopoly over EMR bioeffects research. For example, the official U.S. Air Force science policy on EMR bioeffects research has remained the same for decades:
The official U.S. Air Force position is that there are no non-thermal effects of microwaves. Yet Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, tagged microwave attacks against the human brain as part of future warfare in a 2001 presentation to the National Defense Industrial Association about “Future Strategic Issues.[14]
Recently the science journal Nature admonished the U.S. Air Force about classifying EMR bioeffects research and stated that only weapons not science should be classified.[15] Distorting science for national security purposes is not new. For decades, government officials controlled atomic bomb science and routinely suppressed any information about the serious health effects of radiation because it might hinder research.[16] Likewise, it can be argued that U.S. officials have manipulated the science of EMR bioeffects for national security purposes. Several bioelectromagnetic researchers have written about deceptive U.S. government practices including loss of government funding, threatening and discrediting researchers, classifying promising research, spreading propaganda, and promoting a government policy that distorts valid EMR bioeffects research. Robert Becker, a two time Nobel Prize nominee for his work in bioelectromagnetism, felt that the U.S. government leaked disinformation “to make the whole question of mind control seem absolutely unbelievable.”[17]
The U.S. government monopoly over EMR bioeffects research has been highly effective. For example, in 2001, a group of experts wrote that new rat implant technologies capable of transmitting signals remotely had “nothing to do with the fantasies of mind control by electromagnetic fields, long a staple of science fiction and lately of conspiracy theory Web sites.”[18] It can be argued that the consensus is missing key information; first, in neuroscience, the focus remains on a biochemical approach; second, the lack of technologies to access the brain overshadowed research progress on the electrical properties of the brain; and third, the U.S. government monopoly over EMR bioeffects research severely stunted its development. It can be argued that the monopoly allowed the U.S. government to suppress research demonstrating the significant importance of EMR bioeffects research for solving how the brain works. As mentioned above, this research remains promising but unproven.
It would seem that the monopoly allowed the U.S. government an advantage of at least sixty years of classified weapons research while at the same time, unclassified neuroscience was missing essential research for solving how the brain works. It can be argued that the U.S. government was able maintain the deception that unclassified and classified research are too rudimentary for advanced neuroweapons. At the same time, the government advantage could have led to major progress or the successful development of advanced neuroweapons. A strong case can be made that the underlying assumption of the consensus was wrong; the past sixty years of classified research almost surely would not have advanced at a similar pace as the unclassified neuroscience.
A Manhattan Project for Neuroweapons?
Solving how the brain works has been described as a scientific endeavor more difficult than landing on the moon. The Manhattan Project was successful in building the atomic bomb, likewise, could a Manhattan Project for neuroweapons have already taken place? General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project testified at a 1945 congressional hearing;
The big secret was really something that we could not keep quiet, and that was the fact that the thing [atomic bomb] went off. . . . It was something that we did not know until we had spend almost $2,000,000,000 and had worked about three years. We did not know whether it would go off or not. [19]
Atomic physicist H. C. Urey also testified at the congressional hearing;
When the [atomic] bomb exploded, the most important fact was known. From that point on, any foreign country could move with confidence, and this is a great advantage; whereas we had to feel our way along on this problem, set up many alternative methods for doing this work, follow many lines of research, many of which were discarded.[20]
Similarly, a case can be made that the consensus can only make educated guesses about whether a Manhattan Project for neuroweapons could succeed. It seems fair to conclude that there is much less certainty than the consensus has admitted too and much more certainty than the allegations have been given credit for. A closer examination of U.S. science and secrecy methods suggests that the probability has tipped: advanced neuroweapons are likely to have been secretly developed and the decades of allegations of government neuroweapons targeting are likely to be true. An investigation is long overdue. The hope is that human rights experts may now have enough evidence to recognize a critical new human rights issue.
[1] Jens Kastner, Taiwanese Election Looms, Asia Sentinel, December 15, 2011. Available at http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4048&Itemid=386.
[2] Bill Richards, Book Disputes CIA Chief on Mind-Control Efforts: Work went on into 1970s, author says, Washington Post, January 29 1979, A2.
[3] William Baker, et. al., Controlled Effects: Scientists explore the future of controlled Effects, in Air Force Air Power Theory and Doctrine, (Wright Patterson Air Force Base, 2001)
[4] John Horgan, The Myth of Mind Control: Will anyone ever decode the human brain?, Discover Magazine, October 29 2004. Available at http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/cover.
[5] Douglas Pasternak, Wonder Weapons: The Pentagon’s Quest for Nonlethal Arms is Amazing. But is it Smart? US News and World Report July 7, 1997, p.38.
[6] Alan McComas, Galvani’s Spark: The story of the nerve impulse, (Oxford University Press, 2011), p.327.
[7] Larry Squire, ed., Fundamental Neuroscience, (Elsevier, 2008), p.1234.
[8] Committee on Military and Intelligence Methodology for Emergent Neurophysiological and Cognitive/Neural Science Research in the Next Two Decades, Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies, National Research Council, (National Academies Press, 2008), 2-3. Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12177&page=12.
[9] Robert Becker, Electromagnetism and Life, in Modern Bioelectricity, Andrew Marino, ed (M. Dekker, 1988), p.1.
[10] Samuel Koslov, Bridging the Gap, in Ross Adey, Albert Lawrence ed., International Conference on Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems, (Plenum Press, 1984), p.586.
[11] Simon North, War in the Desert, Electronic weapons, London Guardian, February 2 1991.
[12] Michio Kaku, Physics of the Impossible, A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel, (Doubleday, 2008), p.85.
[13] Freeman Dyson, Radiotelepathy: Direct Communication from Brain to Brain, in This Will Change Everything: Ideas that will shape the future, John Brockman, ed., (Harper Perennial, 2010), p.146.
[14] Sharon Weinberger, Thought Wars, Washington Post Magazine, January 14, 2007, p.W22
[15] Editorial, Secret Weapons, Nature, Vol. 489, September 13, 2012, p.177-178. Available at www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489177b.html.
[16] Eileen Welsome, The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War, (Dial Press, 1999), p.484-485.
[17] V. N. Binhi, Electromagnetic Mind Control Fact or Fiction? A Scientific View, (Nova Science, 2010), p.xi. See also Welsh, Cold War Experiments, Essex Human Rights Review, p.22-32. Available at: http://projects.essex.ac.uk/ehrr/V9N1/WELSH.pdf
[18] Kenneth Foster, et. al., Bioethics and the Brain, IEEE Spectrum, June 2003, p.34.
[19] U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Military Affairs, Atomic Energy, Hearings on H.R. 4280, An Act for the Development and Control of Atomic Energy, October 9 and 18, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Sess., 1945, p.12.
[20] Ibid.
VI. [Brain Zapping] [Microwave Auditory Effect] Misled and betrayed: How US cover stories are keeping a Cold War weapon and illegal human testing secret
By Cheryl Welsh
(http://mindjustice.org/misled.htm#sdfootnote31sym
Published as the cover story in Torture, Asian and Global Perspectives, Volume 2, Issue 2, June-August 2013.
A thank you to Jo Easton for her time and advice with respect to the final draft of this paper.
Terms and definitions: For this paper, the term electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is used interchangeably with frequencies, radio-frequency (RF), radio signals, radio waves, microwaves, microwave signals, low- frequency, extremely low frequency (ELF), ELF frequencies, EM fields, beam weapons, directed energy weapons. 1.Introduction
The US atomic bomb exploded and the world discovered the existence of a formidable secret weapon. By contrast, this paper will illustrate that there is proof that neuroweapons (mind control weapons developed during the Cold War) are another formidable weapon. However, their power lies partly in keeping them secret so they can be used surreptitiously. In principle, the science is possible to target and influence a person remotely and governments have been conducting secret research to develop neuroweapons. Based largely on the science of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), such weapons could be used to stop a person or many people by influencing their behaviors by manipulating various physical and psychological parameters related to brain functions; this could change how wars are fought. Shrouded in secrecy, few people have even heard of neuroweapons. Nevertheless, their importance has often been compared to the atomic bomb1 and a brief summary of the significant amount of obscure information is presented below.
The consensus is that neuroweapons are still science fiction and any allegations of unlawful human subject experiments involving neuroweapons are just elaborate conspiracy theories. This paper will argue that the consensus is wrong; showing that secret CIA mind control research began as far back as the 1950s with the science of physical and psychological torture being investigated in the US in response to fears that Russia and China had developed new, similar techniques. Professor Alfred McCoy, an expert on US no touch torture, described the CIA research as “a massive mind-control effort, with psychological warfare and secret research into human consciousness that reached a cost of a billion dollars annually, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind.”2 In the mid-1970s, some CIA mind control programs, including nonconsensual human subject experiments with LSD and other drugs, were exposed in congressional hearings while other programs remain classified.3
This paper will present emerging evidence supporting the argument that the consensus is based on misleading US government cover stories which have been presented as official explanations while actually concealing secret programs and activities.4 Steven Aftergood, a highly regarded secrecy expert described the US Cold War secrecy system as a “poisonous legacy”: the excessive use of government cover stories was routine and secrecy manuals authorized active deception in order to promote believable cover stories.5 This paper will present converging facts that strongly suggest two major cover stories concealed the existence of neuroweapons and illegal human testing, fooling nearly everyone for sixty years and counting. These cover stories should now be seen as obsolete with the evidence beginning to reveal that neuroweapons are likely to have already been developed. As mentioned above, the first cover story is that secret neuroweapons are still science fiction. The second cover story concerns the official US policy on EMR bioeffects; it being that there are no proven effects of EMR other than heating.6 For example, most people know how a microwave oven works; the microwaves produce a thermal effect and heat or cook food as in a microwave oven.
1.1 Neuroweapons
Neuroweapons, no touch torture, and nonlethal weapons are three major US state tools that have emerged from the CIA’s Cold War programs; all three are ideal for intelligence and psychological operations and counterinsurgency warfare. They are tools designed to neutralize the enemy without killing anyone but by influencing their behavior. All three programs represent a new form of weaponry which can be used on a large scale. The first of three US state tools, the CIA’s no touch torture, has been described as a “revolutionary psychological approach” and the first new scientific innovation after centuries of [physical] torture.7 The second tool is the nonlethal weapon, which is a weapon designed to stop the enemy without killing. Nonlethal weapons include several types of weapons but this paper will only discuss nonlethal weapons based on EMR. In 1994, Aftergood reported that “programs to develop so called ‘non-lethal’ weapons are slowly emerging from the U.S. government’s secret ‘black budget.’. . . The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new; the term appears in heavily censored CIA documents dating from the 1960s.”8 Few people are aware of the science research showing that EMR has significant bioeffects on humans other than just heating; this will be shown below.
For over half a century, the US and other governments have kept nonlethal weapons out of the public eye. A few examples illustrate the point. A 1991 London Guardian newspaper article described EMR crowd control weapons that do exist and were listed in the British Defense Equipment Catalogue until 1983 when the Ministry of Defense ordered any advertisements or mention of frequency weapons be removed.9 A 1990 International Committee of the Red Cross Review article described directed energy weapons, weapons based on EMR that could target a person at battlefield distances. Some science seems to have confirmed modulated EMR can adversely affect brain function, although the research was heavily classified.10
In 1976, a US Federal Times article described alleged Soviet microwave weapons which caused disorientation, to disrupt behavior and cause heart attacks.11 (To be clear, the US government official EMR bioeffects policy is that there are no proven bioeffects other than heating and the US government considers the Soviet weapons research scientifically unproven.) Another device targeted a person with microwave hearing to cause voices in head of the person that only the targeted person can hear.12 The microwaves were modulated like a radio signal to carry the sound of words or music that a person can hear.13 Microwave hearing has been demonstrated on a subject with successfully encoded speech (the spoken digits from one to ten) in a pulsed microwave signal.14 Perhaps it is not surprising that the one nonlethal weapon based on EMR that has been revealed is the microwave heat weapon which beams EMR to create a burning sensation on whomever the weapon is directed towards.15
The third US state tool is the neuroweapons program; neuroweapons are considered a weapon of mass destruction. For example, in 2012, Russian president Vladimir Putin described a new military program to develop EMR weapons that target the nervous system: “Such high tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons, but will be more acceptable in terms of political and military ideology.”16 In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, described EMR weapons that could be used as antipersonnel weapons, calling them “no less dangerous than mass strike weapons.” 17 Gorbachev stated that the Soviet Union had not and would not test or deploy such weapons. Since the 1940s, the Soviet Union has been studying how EMR interacts with the human body and brain—called EMR bioeffects— and the US has monitored the research to find out if there was any possible advantage gained by the Soviets for espionage or weapons.18
Additionally, negotiations by the US and the former USSR at the UN Disarmament Agency regarding EMR weapons from 1975 through 1985 were described in a UN Department for Disarmament Affairs book.19 For example, the former Soviet Union submitted a 1979 UN Committee on Disarmament document. It consisted of a draft agreement for the prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of weapons. The document specifically listed weapons that use EMR to affect biological targets, with the likelihood of remote targeting within half a dozen years.20 The document stated that weapons could target the brain and were scientifically possible, relying on international scientific literature.21
US military research includes EMR neuroweapons similar to the Russian weapons. The US Air Force (USAF) is funding “Controlled Effects” research and USAF chief scientists stated: “With the advent of directed energy and other revolutionary technologies, the ability to instantaneously project very precise amounts of various types of energy anywhere in the world can become a reality.”22 Despite the decades of US government secrecy and interest in neuroweapons, the US, like Russia, denies any secret development of such weapons, the argument being that the US government interest in EMR neuroweapons could be a ploy to throw off the Russians into spending more money on science fiction weapons.23 However, as shown below, further evidence seems to indicate much more is going on: an ongoing secret arms race over neuroweapons between US and Russia that began in the 1950s.
The goal of the US neuroweapons program is to develop the capability of remotely targeting, communicating with and influencing a person’s brain. It is a weapon of surveillance, influence and control. US government publications on future weapons indicate that some neuroweapons are based on the science of EMR which allows for two main weapons capabilities, first; in principle, EMR can be utilized as the most likely method for remote human surveillance, similar to radar that utilizes EMR to track objects such as airplanes or cells phones. As shown below, in principle, this capability is possible24 but it is not known in unclassified research.
Secondly, EMR bioeffects can cause symptoms such as nausea, disorientation or confusion.25 In principle, this capability can also be developed to include precise mind control, including forcing someone to carry out certain specific tasks, however it is unreported in unclassified science.26 For all of the above reasons, EMR technologies for surveillance and EMR bioeffects for influence and control would seem to be major areas of the science required for neuroweapons development. However, the consensus has completely dismissed the science of EMR and EMR bioeffects for neuroweapons as rudimentary in their level of development and thus science fiction. However, as shown below, the consensus left out critical information, and therefore its conclusion is highly questionable.
The deployment of the three major US state tools would not necessarily eliminate the old, politically unacceptable methods of brutal physical torture and battlefield maiming and killing, but alternative methods (especially if they remain secret and therefore covert) could be used against enemies. No touch torture has already proven to be highly successful as a tool of domination and control: several government manuals show that since the 1960s, the techniques have been disseminated “from Vietnam through Iran to Central America.”27 Likewise, nonlethal weapons continue to be secretly developed in several US programs.28 It will be shown below that the neuroweapons program, the least known and arguably the most consequential of the three CIA Cold War programs has also been secretly expanding
1.2 Alleged mind control victims
At the same time the CIA programs have been taking place, a large and growing number of victims from around the world have alleged they have been remotely targeted, tracked and suffered illegal human experimentation. Whether this is a coincidence or a cause and effect has remained an unanswered question. The claims of targeting seem to include physical and psychological torture with some features of advanced neuroweapons that the military claims have not yet been developed but that are included in future weapons plans. The claims include farfetched accounts of futuristic weapons that sound so bizarre, they have been dismissed as conspiracy theory or mental illness without further investigation. Most human rights groups and newspapers have received innumerable letters, calls or emails from victims with desperate pleas for help coupled with rambling accounts of crazy sounding mind control zapping and torture.29 Some people may well be suffering from mental illness but without investigating the numerous claims, no one can be sure.
The 2006 Nature reviewed book Mind Wars, Brain research and national defense, and a 2007 Washington Post Magazine article, Thought Wars, covered the desperate victim accounts and raised issues of conspiracy theory and mental illness.30 Although the publications included statements by scientists and military experts on secret government weapons programs, the interview statements supported that the symptoms and technologies described by victims were not scientifically possible based on unclassified research and therefore the victims must be conspiracy nuts or delusional. The statements were accepted at face value with only very general questioning, however as Aftergood noted above, secret military weapons programs can be cloaked in deceitful cover stories. Neither publication included independent investigation or recommended further evaluation.
By contrast, this paper examines experts, weapons and technologies and looks beyond the commonly accepted information to reach the opposite opinion, that the victim allegations may be true. Despite the complete rejection of the claims by nearly everyone and finding no relief from the targeting, victims continue to publicly plead their case. For example, one activist group recently placed a Washington Post ad addressed to President Obama seeking an investigation of advanced technologies that illegally target the brain. 31
Part 2
1.3 The consensus position and alleged mind control victim position
The core of the disagreement between the alleged victims and the consensus is the question; how advanced is the science of secret neuroweapons today? The alleged victims say the science is already developed, extremely advanced and highly classified. The consensus position disagrees: stating that although such weapons might be possible, they have not been researched or developed. It is agreed that neuroweapons with the capability of remotely targeting, communicating with and controlling the enemy’s brain is the ultimate weapon that major nations would want to develop. Experts also agree that in principle, neuroweapons and the capability of direct access to the brain and advanced precise mind reading and influencing human behavior—even mind control–are scientifically possible.32 However, the consensus is that such weapons are only science fiction. A number of reasons are given in support of this consensus. Firstly, it is true that there is no theory for how the brain works and technologies to remotely access the brain remain undeveloped. Also, ethicists have only just begun to alert the public to the current explosion of neuroscience progress and the likelihood of the development of controversial new technologies. It is argued that neuroscience is still at a rudimentary level of development and therefore the development of advanced neuroweapons is not possible today. So it is argued that although advanced neuroweapons are scientifically feasible, their development is only possible in the far future. Secondly, it is argued governments would not be able to keep such weapons secret for decades.
However, this paper will argue that the consensus is wrong for the following reasons. For decades, the US government prevented the science required for neuroweapons from developing in the unclassified realm; thereby allowing the US government to claim neuroweapons are science fiction, based on the best US science literature available. At the same time, secret neuroweapons research flourished and the US government employed extensive secrecy methods to disguise the fact that neuroweapons were scientifically possible not only in principle but were also proven with science experiments. Consequently, secret neuroweapons that are already developed are a serious threat but experts are not warning the public and they should be.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a summary of the neuroscience required for neuroweapons. Section 3 presents the first of two cover stories; that neuroweapons are still science fiction. This cover story relies on the assumption that secret neuroweapons research would advance at a faster but similar development rate as unclassified neuroscience, therefore a brief chronology of the history of classified and unclassified neuroscience related to advanced neuroweapons is presented. The cover story and alternative position are compared before a brief analysis and conclusion are presented. Section 4 considers the second of the two cover stories for neuroweapons; that there are no proven EMR bioeffects except heating. The evidence that this cover story is obsolete is set out by presenting the science of EMR bioeffects related to neuroweapons and US military research based on EMR bioeffects, followed by a summarized history of their development. The cover story and alternative positions are again compared with a brief analysis and conclusion to follow. Section 5 briefly discusses one lesser known and extreme US secrecy method that was implemented to maintain the secrecy of a CIA domestic surveillance program uncovered with the CIA mind control programs in the 1970s, mentioned above. Section 6 presents conclusions and a recommendation for further investigation.
1. The Science of Neuroweapons
The public needs to know very basic neuroscience required for neuroweapons development. This does not require rocket science or a neuroscientist to understand it but it does require information that has been missing in the public forum. Generally speaking, the science requirements necessary to develop neuroweapons are as follows. It is thought that the science of neuroweapons would require a general theory for how the brain works and so far there is no unclassified theory and neuroscience is too rudimentary to form the basis of a classified theory. However, this ignores the fact that to a great extent, neuroscientists do not theorize in comparison to other fields of science, for example physicists build theories to be tested.33 It is well known that neuroscience literature includes voluminous research but few theories to make sense of the data, as science writer John Horgan explained: “Unfortunately, no one has any idea how the brain integrates the output of all its disparate components to create what we think of as a mind, or self. . . . Neuroscientists have done a great job of breaking the brain into pieces, but they have no idea how to put it back together again.”34 Therefore, the lack of a brain theory could be because neuroscientists don’t theorize, not because a general theory for how the brain works is not possible.
Furthermore, in his 2010 book, Creating modern neuroscience: The revolutionary 1950s, Gordon Shepherd, a prominent neuroscientist, wrote that the 1950s can be considered the greatest decade in biology and neuroscience because there were so many discoveries, breakthroughs and milestones. For example, in biology, the structure of DNA was discovered and this led to rise of molecular biology and the Human Genome Project, a US project that sequenced human DNA.35 In neuroscience of the 1950s, the ionic hypothesis explained how brain cells utilize electricity to communicate36 and the hypothesis was the basis for a 1963 Nobel Prize. A great number of similar breakthroughs in the 1950s laid the foundation for modern neuroscience.37 Shepherd suggested that this exceptional scientific activity was unparalleled in neuroscience before or since and for the most part, a general theory of how the brain works could be based on 1950s revolutionary research.38
Shepherd’s book received favorable reviews; it has not been contested by neuroscientists; and it is the basis of two Yale University courses on neuroscience. The book won a 2010 International Society for the History of Neurosciences award. A reasonable speculation is that scientists conducting unclassified research would not have recognized a general theory for how the brain works as a result of being discouraged and prevented from researching critical areas of neuroscience required to develop neuroweapons, as shown below. At the same time, the utilitarian CIA mind control researchers would have recognized the potential for applying this knowledge to neuroweapons development. The US government would have classified any further critical neuroscience required to develop neuroweapons and would have utilized deceitful government cover stories, thus discouraging unclassified research in neuroscience that might reveal the scientific possibility of neuroweapons.
In addition to the requirement of a theory for how the brain works, developing neuroweapons requires knowledge of neuroscience. Neuroscience consists of “the collected multidisciplinary sciences that analyze the nervous system to understand the biological basis for behavior.”39 Consciousness is a branch of neuroscience research that is also defined as the study of the brain biology relationship.40 Likewise, neuroweapons are weapons designed to influence and control the behavior of the enemy by controlling brain biology. Therefore, research on the brain biology and behavior relationship is essential for progress in both neuroscience and neuroweapons. However, as shown below, it is hard to believe but true; mainstream neuroscience did not include the study of the relationship between brain biology and behavior—the very basis of neuroscience and neuroweapons–until very recently.
Part 3
2.1 The electrochemical brain
Solving how the electrochemical brain works and developing neuroweapons are both a physics problem and a biology problem. The study of electricity in biology, including the electrical properties of the human brain is called bioelectricity. Bioelectromagnetics, the study of electromagnetism in biology, is a branch of bioelectricity. Bioelectromagnetics includes the study of EMR bioeffects which is a critical area of science for neuroweapons, as shown below. Neuroscientists have established that the electricity of the brain communicates information between brain cells with electrical signals but much remains to be discovered and understood. Significantly, for the last sixty years, the basic science and technology requirements for solving how the brain works and likewise for developing neuroweapons have remained the same. Since the mid-twentieth century, neuroscientists have known that brain cells–including the most studied brain cells called neurons–communicate with electrochemical signals. This communication process translates into human activities such as dreams, thoughts, emotions, actions, hearing, seeing and more. Neuroscientists agree that the key to solving how the brain works is to decipher the language of the electrochemical signals, called the neural code.41
John Chapin, a Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) program manager explained that deciphering the neural code is a high research priority for neuroscience because it is one of three great scientific unknowns, along with the origin of the universe and of life on Earth.42 Solving the neural code could lead to finally understanding the mind-brain problem, which is how the biology of the brain results in consciousness and human behavior.43 It could lead to major advances in treating brain disorders and improving the capabilities of healthy people.44 While neuroscientists agree that the brain is the most complex scientific problem today,45 there is no agreement among neuroscientists on how to go about solving the neural code. Nevertheless, the brain can be divided into two fundamental components that the public can understand.
Neuroscientists often describe the brain as “the electrochemical brain” because the brain consists of two essential and equally important properties—bioelectrical and biochemical.46 Significantly, two critical facts to know about neuroweapons are that first, they are based on the bioelectrical properties of the brain, not the biochemical properties of the brain; and second, they require the development of technologies for remote communication and surveillance of the brain and only a bioelectrical approach–not a biochemistry approach–can lead to remote access to the electrochemical brain. Victor Chase authored a book on the importance of research on the electrical activity of the brain. Chase explained that “electrical signals provide the most efficient method of transmitting information within the body. No living creature could survive without electricity, because the body is, in essence, an electrical machine.”47 Neuroscientists still don’t understand how the brain’s electrical signals are transformed into human thought, actions, hearing, seeing and more.48
There is no dispute that the electrochemical brain communicates with electrical, electromagnetic and magnetic signals as well as chemical signals. Additionally it is well established that electrical, electromagnetic and magnetic signals from outside sources can mimic, interfere with or directly communicate with brain cells. For example, neuroscientists have communicated with the brain by way of its electrical properties. Brain implants utilize electrical signals to affect or cause movements and actions, and to alter, influence, even control behavior. Jose Delgado, a Yale University neuroscientist, conducted research in the 1960s and 1970s which helped to establish that brain implants could be remotely controlled to electrically stimulate an animal’s brain to control various complex behaviours, instincts and emotions.49 Delgado stated: “A new technology . . . has proved that movements, sensations, emotions, desires, ideas, and a variety of psychological phenomena may be induced, inhibited, or modified by electrical stimulation of specific areas of the brain.”
It becomes highly relevant that research on the electrical properties of the electrochemical brain has lagged far behind research on the brain’s biochemical properties. Progress on the electricity of the brain is still considered rudimentary.50 Furthermore, since the 1960s, biochemistry is the area of research that mainstream neuroscience has completely focused on, at the expense of the equally important research on the bioelectrical properties of the brain. Consequently, it can be argued that bioelectricity, as one of two fundamental properties of the electrochemical brain, should be a major focus of neuroscience but for some reason it is not.
The second critical fact about neuroweapons is the requirement of the development of technologies for remote access to the brain. Notably, only a bioelectrical approach–not a biochemistry approach–can lead to remote access to the electrochemical brain. An example helps to clarify the difference between bioelectrical and biochemical brain technologies to access the brain. A cell phone caller makes a call and the cell phone transmits the voice message in the form of microwaves traveling through the air–in physics this is known as “action at a distance”–to the microwave cell phone tower. The cell phone tower then transmits the call in the form of microwaves to the cell phone of the person receiving the call which detects the microwaves and converts them back to a voice message. By contrast, action at a distance is not possible with biochemistry. For a chemical reaction to occur, such as two chemicals reacting in a solution to make a third chemical, physical contact is required. Likewise, biochemical brain technologies cannot communicate remotely with the brain, physical contact is required.
Because experiments with invasive technologies on healthy human subjects are unethical, technologies for remote or direct access to the brain are the preferred way to access to the brain rather than invasive technologies such as brain implants and surgeries. While neuroscientists have conducted some brain implant research, the concentration of research has been on indirect methods to access the brain, such as brain scanning technologies, for example, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). One possible reason for the lack of remote technologies to access the brain is that much of this area of research has been classified since the 1950s and has been off-limits to unclassified researchers. Since then, only the US government has been developing technologies for remote access of the brain to any significant extent.
To summarize, the following will be shown below. The four major areas of neuroscience that are essential for neuroweapons development have been largely missing from mainstream neuroscience research; first, the brain biology and behavior relationship; second, the still undeveloped and rudimentary bioelectricity research; third, bioelectromagnetics research on the brain which seems to provide a method to remotely communicate with, influence and perhaps even control the brain; and fourth, the bioelectrical technologies–not biochemical technologies—which allow for remote or direct access to the brain. The next sections are a chronology of the development of the basic science required to develop neuroweapons in classified and unclassified neuroscience research since World War II. 1.The development of bioelectricity in neuroscience
Bioelectricity in neuroscience has roots in the study of electricity in medicine and both have faced extreme controversy. Since the eighteen century, when Benjamin Franklin investigated electricity in medicine and concluded it was a charlatan’s game; it has remained highly controversial.51 In 1910, the Carnegie Foundation conducted a review of U.S. medical education and it dismissed the “unscientific” use of electric devices–some but not all were of questionable medical value–and also any medical practice not based on the prevailing biochemical theory.52 So all mentions of medical devices based on bioelectricity were driven from the classroom.53 However, some medical electricity has been established as valid, as shown below. Although there was little intermingling between traditional biology and the study of electricity, Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi conducted research on solid state physics in biology and another type of electricity besides the ionic current in neurons described above, known as semi-conduction. For example, semi-conduction is found in most computers today; its importance in biology is that the current is small but it can carry information rather than energy and travel long distances.54
In the early 1940s, Szent-Gyorgyi proposed an idea that was published in Science and Nature; that proteins may be semiconductors and this might prove to be the basis of the phenomenon of life.55 The paper created much excitement but the theory was rejected on theoretical grounds; the scientific community lost interest and the research lacked funding. Nevertheless, Szent-Gyorgyi’s theory later proved to be valid, although there was no interest in pursuing the research.56 In the late 1970s, Szent-Gyorgyi provided a possible explanation for why his research was never followed up in mainstream neuroscience: “To sum up, there are four dimensions with which the biologist must be concerned: macroscopic, microscopic, molecular, and submolecular or electronic. Biology readily followed physics into the first three, but took practically no cognizance of the fourth.”57
Part 4
Szent-Gyorgyi understood that biology included a variety of electrical properties, however, most biologists have focused only on basic bioelectricity while concentrating most of their research on the many other areas of biology to be studied. Significantly, one of the founding fathers of neuroscience understood the importance of the many electrical properties of the brain. In the early 1960s, Francis Schmitt was instrumental in establishing the field of modern neuroscience.58 In a journal article, Schmitt described promising future research that included bioelectricity with an emphasis on the electrical properties of the brain such as semi-conductivity, EMR bioeffects and electrostatic fields.59 Significantly, Schmitt cited and recommended Szent-Gyorgyi’s research as a promising area to pursue. However, Schmitt’s recommendations on bioelectricity in neuroscience research have not been followed up to any significant extent.
Another example of the overall rejection of bioelectricity is the 1950s “biophysics bubble” which burst in the 1960s.60 For a short time, biophysics—which included bioelectricity—experienced a short biophysics boom in the 1950s which included multidisciplinary research by physicists and biologists on the study of nerve and brain function. Archibald Hill, Detlev Bronk and Schmitt, cited above, were all prominent neurophysiologists, scientific administrators and military advisors who promoted the importance of biophysics during and after World War II.61 In the mid-1950s, Schmitt, a director in the US National Institute of Health, (NIH) unsuccessfully attempted to implement biophysics research as a major area of government research on the same footing as biochemistry or molecular biology.62 However, government documents indicate that NIH biochemists rejected this approach in various ways.63 In the late 1950s, biochemists included physical chemistry in their research and this seems to have contributed to the disappearance of biophysics research in the 1960s.64
Significantly, since World War II, although most neuroscientists only study the brain through biochemical research, US government scientists conducting classified neuroscience research are known to have utilized EMR technologies and bioelectricity as well as biochemistry to study the brain. To explain, the 1940s led to the discovery of semiconductors, the invention of transistors and integrated circuits, and the invention of the computer. In the 1950s, quantum physics, electrical engineering and solid state physics led to classified research on radar, National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance capabilities and satellite reconnaissance. Radar, NSA surveillance and satellite reconnaissance required EMR technologies to develop the capability of remote sensing, detection of foreign communications signals and more. As Hill, the military advisor cited above explained, radar work would be “useful preparation for a career in biophysics.”65 In fact, the physiologist Alan Hodgkin, one of three men to become a 1963 Nobel laureate for the ionic hypothesis of neurons in the brain, discussed above, applied his secret World War II research on radar to constructing electronic equipment for detecting the tiny electrical signals of squid brains.66 Hodgkin was one of the few scientists known to have applied his wartime physics research to unclassified neuroscience research, with great success.
A major portion of physics papers after World War II remain classified67 and major areas of physics that could contribute to the development of research on the bioelectricity of the brain remain unavailable to unclassified researchers. Paul Forman, author of a journal paper on quantum electronics for national security stated: “During the 1950s the cumulative number of announced and available number of papers [that were] properly published in US physics journals [was]–about 50,000–but it was probably only some small percentage of the (unknown) number of security classified reports in physics and its technical applications prepared in that decade.”68 Furthermore, classified scientific war research, which concentrates on national security objectives, is different in style from unclassified peacetime research; “in war, research goals were set, deadlines were tight but resources were no problem; the only thing that mattered were the research goals.”69
As mentioned above, since the 1950s, only the US government has been developing technologies for remote access of the brain to any significant extent. In the 1980s, Richard Cesaro, deputy director for advanced sensors at DARPA stated that animal experiments in the 1960s and 1970s confirmed microwaves can penetrate the brain and with modulation may be able to carry information to influence the brain.70 Classified research such as the DARPA EEG research is based on the bioelectrical properties of the brain which seem to allow for remote surveillance; in 1976, DARPA reported to Congress that mind-reading machines are beginning to decipher a person’s brain waves or EEG.71 Agency scientists stated that current technologies require electrodes placed on the scalp, however, they described magnetic brain waves that could be detected a few feet away and greater distances could be achieved in the 1980s.72 It is not known whether the DARPA research on remote access to the brain was ever developed.
As Dr. Ichiji Tasaki wrote in his 1982 book, Physiology and electrochemistry of nerve fibers: “One of the difficulties encountered in writing this book has been that many students of biology and medicine are not sufficiently familiar with the basic concepts in thermodynamics and electrochemistry.” It seems likely that neuroscientists do not study beyond the basic physics of their educational requirements. It becomes obvious that biophysics and bioelectricity could have but did not become a significant part of mainstream neuroscience research.
3.1 Bioelectricity and the neuron doctrine
Bioelectricity in neuroscience has been met with further opposition from an unlikely source, the neuroscientists themselves who do not want to look beyond established doctrines even though they have been shown to be lacking. The neuron doctrine is a fundamental tenant of modern neuroscience; it states that the neuron is the primary functional signaling unit of the brain and connects with other neurons.73 This is also the principle behind the so-called connectionist model; connectionism is an influential school of neuroscience thought, as will be shown below. The neuron doctrine is taught in every neuroscience textbook today,74 however, it is considered incomplete and too simplistic to explain how brain biology is related to human behavior, without extending its principles.75 This is not happening and some neuroscientists say that it should be.76 The action potential which is made up of the ionic current of the neuron described in the Nobel Prize winning ionic hypothesis cited above, remains the most studied area of bioelectricity in neuroscience. However, bioelectricity is based on the laws of physics which state there is no electricity without electromagnetic and magnetic fields, including in the brain. Therefore, besides the action potential, bioelectricity of the brain also requires the study of interactions of electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism in the brain and measuring and studying how the brain communicates with electrical currents, electric signals, semi-conduction, direct and alternating currents, EMR, magnetic signals and more.
For decades, neuroscientists have known that brain electricity is much more than just ionic currents in the neuron. Nevertheless, the neuron doctrine prevailed throughout the twentieth century77 and it had the effect of preventing any significant research on discoveries of additional methods of bioelectrical brain communication systems. In 1961, Robert Galambos, a neurophysiologist, wrote that the decades of research on the neuron and its action potential has not and will not provide an explanation for human behavior such as remembering a name.78 The neuron doctrine and the neuron’s action potential will never be able to explain how the brain works.79 Theodore Bullock, another pioneering neuroscientist, echoed Galambos in a 1996 journal article, describing the neuron doctrine’s grip over neuroscience as nearly absolute.80 Regarding the electricity of the brain; little else but the neuron doctrine and the neuron’s action potential are accepted as valid in mainstream neuroscience today. In a 2005 science magazine article, The Myth of Mind Control, Walter Freeman, a neuroscientist at the University of California at Berkeley, also explained that the focus on the neuron doctrine is misplaced and other bioelectricity approaches should be considered such as further study of EMR bioeffects.81
Part 5
Without a doubt, bioelectricity research remained rudimentary and narrowly focused on the neuron doctrine, ionic currents and action potentials. It is true that some neuroscientists have made significant progress on lesser known bioelectricity research other than the neuron doctrine, however, the research remains either a small part of neuroscience research as a whole, or it is side-lined and marginalized, with some of the research considered fringe science.82
Now the limits that the neuron doctrine has placed on bioelectricity research seems to be extending to major areas of future neuroscience research funded by the US government. In his 2013 state of the union address, President Obama proposed a Brain Mapping Project which is based on the neuron doctrine and the connectionist model.83 An interview of Columbia University’s Raphael Yuste, included this description of the project: “By mapping circuit activity, Yuste thinks researchers can “discover patterns that are the physical representation and origin of mental states–of thoughts, for example, or memories.”84 Yuste explained that researchers want to chart a functional model of the brain by mapping each of the billions of neurons in the human brain and observing their actions. Neuroscientists acknowledge that Obama’s brain project will take decades to complete.
It is also significant that Obama’s Brain Mapping Project, which is now a part of the BRAIN Initiative85 has focused on developing invasive electronic technologies such as nanoprobes and wireless microcircuits that will float freely in the brain. The proposed technologies to access the brain involve physical contact, invasive procedures or bulky machines and cannot be done remotely. DARPA will have some influence on the BRAIN Initiative; the agency is funding 40 million of approximately 132 million of the start-up funding. It seems likely that the limits on bioelectricity research by the neuron doctrine will continue.
3.2 Three Revolutions in Science
As Shepard explained above, the revolutionary 1950s set the course for modern neuroscience. In the 1950s, three revolutions in science—the biology revolution, psychology’s behaviorist revolution and the cognitive revolution—resulted in tumultuous changes for neuroscience. Unclassified neuroscience developed with a focus on molecular biology and biochemistry and a significant lack of both bioelectricity and also the study of the brain biology behavior relationship.86 As described in the previous section, neuroscience since the 1960s has focused on biology and biochemistry over biophysics. This section will look at how neuroscience is defined as the relationship of brain biology to human behavior, however, neuroscientists in the 1960s and beyond have focused on behavioral approaches to the study of the brain with no study of its relationship to the biology or biochemistry of the brain. The 1950s was the beginning of the biology revolution.87 The biology revolution in science and the cognitive revolution in psychology took off in the 1960s and since then, molecular biology, cognitive psychology and biochemistry have remained the dominant areas of research in neuroscience.88 As explained above, the great interest in biophysics in the 1950s did not last through the 1960s.89
Although the study of bioelectricity is equally as important as the study of biochemisty of the electromagnetic brain, in unclassified neuroscience research, bioelectricity was absorbed by biochemistry, and molecular biology. Today, the major areas of research that have dominated neuroscience are cellular and molecular biology, cognitive psychology and systems neuroscience, which developed into brain imaging.90 For example, in 2012, there were 40,000 members of American Society for Neuroscience with “massive representation of molecular biology, cognitive psychology and brain imaging.”91 “[M]olecular biology is now expected to take the dominant role in the twenty-first century that physics played in the twentieth.”92
Additionally, since the 1950s, the behaviorist revolution has had the significant impact of preventing study of the relationship of brain biology to behavior, until the last few decades. From the early twentieth century through the 1960s, the behaviorism movement dominated psychology. Behaviorism included experiments utilizing for example, stimulus-response and observable behavior studies. Significantly, behaviorism excluded any study of biological factors and brain processes. In the 1950s, prominent scientists were also actively supporting the behaviorist approach in CIA mind control research. For example, Jolly West, a CIA scientist and the director of the University of California at Los Angeles Neuropsychiatric Institute, was instrumental in promoting behaviorism. There were several CIA scientists including Harold Wolff and Ewen Cameron, and others who wittingly and unwittingly were receiving CIA funds for the research.93 This had the overall effect of limiting research on the brain biology relationship.
In the 1960s, the inability of behaviorism to explain cognitive factors such as intelligence and personality led to its downfall. After the 1960s, its restricting effect on biological causes of behavior remained in evidence, for decades. One psychologist explained: “Advocates of biological approaches to psychological problems found little financial support, little academic encouragement, and few outlets in psychological publications.”94 The cognitive revolution replaced behaviorism; and by joining the biology revolution, cognitivists began to study mental processes in the brain, although primarily with indirect tools such as brain scanning technologies. Two major areas of cognitive psychology developed; molecular biology and systems biology, which is the study of “mapping elements of cognitive function onto specific brain areas.”95 The brain scanning technologies such as the PET scans and FMRI enabled research on systems biology to flourish. Although it is slowly starting to change, cognitive scientists have studied the mental processes but have ignored brain biology, instead taking a functionalist approach based on the belief that the functioning of a person can be studied independently of other factors.96 The functionalist approach in neuroscience remained a significant influence, for example in connectionist research;97 neuroscientists who focused their research on the biology of the brain have not embraced the connectionist approach,98 for reasons such as the connectionist modeling did not usually match how the brain functions in reality.99 Thus, both the cognitive revolution and also the connectionist approach have been slow to reduce the enormous gap between the study of brain biology and human behavior that began with behaviorism.
The study of consciousness, which is another area of study of the brain behavior relationship, has been subject to centuries old religious and philosophical debates. The scientific approach to the study of consciousness was considered heresy100 and the study of consciousness was off limits in psychology and also neuroscience throughout most of the 20th century.101 In the late 1980s, Francis Crick, a physical chemist and Nobel laureate for discovery of the structure of DNA, and Christof Koch, a neuroscientist, began to study and publish papers on consciousness, in spite of the complete rejection of such research by most of their peers.102 The science of consciousness remains a relatively small area of neuroscience research today.103 Benjamin Libet, a neuroscientist, described that the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) would not fund consciousness research.104 At the same time, Libet stated that a large number of internationally prominent figures in neuroscience supported his consciousness research.105 For decades, most neuroscientists did not believe anything could be found in the study of brain biology and behavior relationship.106 Crick asked some of his peers in neuroscience why they think this way; reasons given included that the brain is so complicated, examining the brain closely won’t result in significant progress.107 Crick stated that he found this reasoning “most peculiar.”108
Brief analysis and conclusions of the first of two cover stories
It can be argued that the new evidence of a 1950s theory for how the brain works is compelling evidence that should be considered in any evaluation of whether neuroweapons are science fiction or science fact. The consensus that neuroweapons are science fiction is based on the assumption that secret neuroweapons research would advance at a similar development rate as unclassified neuroscience. Nevertheless, this position can now be shown to be significantly flawed. Missing from the consensus is the following information. Unclassified neuroscientists had no theory for how the brain works to guide them. The major areas of unclassified neuroscience research, molecular biology, cognitive neuroscience and brain imaging research, which had their beginnings in the 1950s, remain the dominant areas of research in neuroscience today. At the same time, research on the bioelectricity of the brain–with the exception of the extensive research on the action potential of the neuron–has remained classified in the 1950s CIA mind control programs and DARPA programs to develop technologies for remote access to the brain. It can be argued that the extremely skewed development of neuroscience research described above may have come about in large part to allow only classified CIA scientists to develop neuroweapons and therefore maintain complete secrecy.
Part 6
As a result, unclassified neuroscientists could only study the biochemistry of the brain, even less so because of the restrictions imposed by the neuron doctrine and the restrictions on the study of the brain biology and behavior relationship. Without tools based on bioelectricity to remotely access the brain, few human experiments can be done ethically and neuroscientists conducting unclassified research can only study the brain indirectly, for example with brain scanning technologies. At the same time, the evidence suggests that US government scientists conducting classified neuroweapons research had tremendous, almost unbelievable advantages. All of the requirements for the development of neuroweapons cited above were available: a 1950s theory for how the brain works, the study of both biochemistry and also bioelectricity of the brain, the brain biology and behavior relationship and more advanced technologies for remote access the brain.
A reasonable conclusion would seem to be that the development trends found in classified and unclassified neuroscience research are either an alarming coincidence or a strong indication that the science of neuroweapons have been well hidden and well known for decades–but only to US government scientists conducting secret research. Furthermore, unclassified research gives glimpses of what is possible: the expectation is that classified research into bioelectricity would be far more developed, as further shown in the next section.
4. The second of two cover stories; EMR bioeffects policy
Since the 1950s, the US government has endorsed an EMR bioeffects policy which states that there are no proven EMR bioeffects, only heating effects. This section presents the following. The science of EMR bioeffects is briefly summarized, then a summary of the science of EMR bioeffects for neuroweapons is described. Next, a brief chronology of some of the history of EMR bioeffects policy, including a brief history of bioelectromagnetics, the science of EMR bioeffects is presented. Additionally, it will be shown that there are strong indications that the US EMR bioeffects policy is consequential to the Cold War history of an ongoing secret arms race between the US and Russia over neuroweapons. A short analysis and conclusions are given.
4.1 Science of EMR bioeffects
In the nineteenth century, James Clerk Maxwell discovered that all physical phenomena, from energies to chemical and solid bodies are built on oscillations. With oscillation comes EMR. Maxwell discovered all waves are mathematically identical with relationships along a continuum known as the electromagnetic spectrum, for example microwaves, light and also the kilohertz oscillations by the neurons in the brain.109 EMR bioeffects are based on the fact that electricity, magnetism and electromagnetism are interconnected phenomena, including in the human body and the brain. EMR bioeffects are based on the well-established fact that electrical currents, (including those in the brain) produce electromagnetic fields. The brain can also be influenced by external electricity and electromagnetic and magnetic fields. 110 An example of magnetic signals that can influence behavior is transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a medical therapy that directs tiny magnetic signals at certain areas of the brain to relieve depression.
Alan Frey, a physicist, neuroscientist, and one of the founders of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, wrote that EMR is ubiquitous in biology and significantly, internal EMR signals are modulated with information like a radio for brain communication: “[L]iving beings are electrochemical systems that use very low frequency electromagnetic fields in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. To model how EM fields affect living beings, one might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music. . . . This is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use.”111
The basic scientific concept behind EMR bioeffects is as follows: “Numerous independent experiments reported in the peer-reviewed journal research literature conclusively establish that nonthermal bioeffects of low-intensity EM fields do indeed exist. . . . Extremely weak EM fields may, at the proper frequency and site of application, produce large effects that are either clinically beneficial or harmful. Some specific frequencies have highly specific effects on tissues in the body, just as drugs have their specific effects on target tissues.” 112 Significantly, a 1991 International Review of the Red Cross (ICRC) report on directed energy weapons described the same finding: ”Research work has also revealed that pathological effects close to those induced by highly toxic substances could be produced by electromagnetic radiation even at very low power, especially those using a pulse shape containing a large number of different frequencies.”113
A 2010 review of EMR bioeffects literature concluded that although EMR bioeffects science remains unsettled, there is no doubt that biosystems can be affected by EMFs at several levels: “There is also little doubt that biosystems can be the source of EMFs. The main question at hand is whether biosystems use EMF for a purposeful interaction (communication) and if so at what level of the bio-organism will it happen? The amount of data that support the latter notion is rapidly mounting.”114 Most would agree that bioelectromagnetics is fundamental to human biology and yet other prevailing scientific viewpoints about EMR support the argument this research is still rudimentary: “Even though the body is basically an electrochemical system, modern science has almost exclusively been concerned with the chemical aspect.”115
4.2 EMR bioeffects for neuroweapons
Conventional neuroscience maintains that electricity is the primary communication system in the brain, based on the neuron doctrine. As noted above, the current state of EMR bioeffects research is the determination of whether the brain communicates information among the brain cells with electromagnetic waves that are given off and received by the brain cells. This is unsettled science, as much remains to be discovered and understood. This is the area of science that is also politicized, controversial, and classified. Nevertheless, in the 1980s, research had begun to establish both internal and also external sources of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) can communicate with the brain and alter behavior.116
EMR bioeffects seems to be important for both future neuroweapons and for solving the brain’s so-called neural code.117 Lewis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News explained that the science for EMR and its effect on human behavior has been established and the CIA’s mind control programs have explored whether EMR can target people at a distance.118 The results of the CIA research are not known; the research remains classified.119 As will be shown, the science of EMR seems to be extremely important to US national security because it provides the most viable method known for remote access to the brain. Therefore, a few examples of the science of EMR bioeffects research on the brain as it relates to neuroweapons is presented next. The research has held great weapons potential for decades and what little information that is available in unclassified research remains extremely rudimentary and speculative.
Robert Becker, one of the founders of the science of bioelectromagnetics in the 1960s120 and twice nominated for a Nobel Prize for his bioelectromagnetics research,121 described a major scientific principle of bioelectromagnetics:
Part 7
The microwaves alone (unmodulated) have no effect. The two types of modulation that are biologically important are pulsed and amplitude. Modulation is the secret of transmitting information by means of electromagnetic fields. It appears that [like AM radio] the body also demodulates the signal when exposed to modulated radio-frequency or microwave fields; the biological effect is that of the low-frequency modulation. In this view, all biological effects are produced by ELF frequencies. This makes sense, because the body systems that pick up electromagnetic field are “tuned” to natural frequencies between 0 and 30 Hz.122
In the 1980s, Becker described a military report that stated microwave pulses appeared to produce stimulation in the central nervous system.123 Becker stated the stimulation was comparable to Jose Delgado’s research, cited above, that found brain implants could be remotely controlled to electrically stimulate an animal’s brain to control various complex behaviours, instincts and emotions.124 In other words, the same precise behavioral effects produced by stimulation of brain cells by implants could be produced by EMR alone directed at the brain—without implants. However promising the research is, there has been no follow up in unclassified research.
The following classified CIA research plan was released under the Freedom of Information Act. This research has yet to be experimentally proven, however, if proven, precise mind control would be possible:
The experimenter, J.F. Schapitz, stated: “In this investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of the hypnotist may also be conveyed by modulated electromagnetic energy directly into the subconscious parts of the human brain-i.e., without employing any technical devices for receiving or transcoding the messages and without the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the information input consciously. As a preliminary test of the general concept, Schapitz proposed recording the brain waves induced by specific drugs, then modulating them onto a microwave beam and feeding them back into an undrugged person’s brain to see if the same state of consciousness could be produced by the beam alone. . . .
The second experiment was to be the implanting of hypnotic suggestions for simple acts, like leaving the lab to buy some particular item, which were to be triggered by a suggested time, spoken word, or sight. Subjects were to be interviewed later. “It may be expected,” Schapitz wrote, “that they rationalize their behavior and consider it to be undertaken out of their own free will.” 125
Significantly, as cited above, the ICRC and the report for the NIH also described EMR bioeffects that act like drugs. Additionally, in a 2002 US Department of Commerce, Converging Technologies For Improving Human Performance, Robert Asher of Sandia Laboratories proposed research on the effects of EMR on the brain: “This investigation may spawn a new industry in which the human is enhanced by externally applied electromagnetic pulses so shaped as to enhance specific biochemical changes within the body without drugs.” 126
Michio Kaku, a physicist, explained how EMR could be utilized to develop the capabilities that are fundamental to neuroweapons:
“In principle the brain is a transmitter over which our thoughts are broadcast in the form of tiny electrical signals and electromagnetic waves. … Radio waves can be beamed directly into the human brain to excite areas of the brain known to control certain functions.”127
Kaku explained that in the 1950s, Wilder Penfield, a neurosurgeon found that if he used electrodes to stimulate the brain, his patients would report effects as hearing voices or seeing things that originated in their mind.128 Today, Penfield’s research remains rudimentary in its development, nevertheless Kaku made the following conclusion: “In the future it may be possible to beam electromagnetic signals at precise parts of the brain that are known to control specific functions.”129
In 2010, the prominent physicist Freeman Dyson speculated: “The essential facts that will make detailed observation or control of a brain possible” are microwave signals and two tools; first microscopic radio transmitters and receivers; and second, a tool to convert neural signals into radio signals and vice versa.130 Numerous further speculative examples of the rudimentary level of the unclassified science are available.
4.3 Chronology of EMR bioeffects policy
Many argue that the study of EMR bioeffects, called bioelectromagnetism, has been discredited during the first half of the twentieth century and has no scientific validity.131 Physicians discovered that ionising EMR frequencies such as in x-rays could produce cancer and that non-ionising EMR frequencies below light did not seem to cause cancer. Therefore the general conclusion was that non-ionising EMR had no biological effects: “Classical concepts of physics simply did not allow for any meaningful interaction between any form of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation and living organisms.”132 In addition, since World War II, the Department of Defense (DoD) has heavily relied on radar and other EMR technologies. Some argue that to prevent lawsuits over possible health effects from exposure to EMR, the DOD maintain a policy that there are “no proven biological effects” from EMR; only heating effects.133 The electrical power line companies have also maintained that there are no proven EMR bioeffects.134 In both cases, an EMR bioeffects policy avoids large legal pay outs for possible health effects from exposure to unhealthy levels of radar or from living near power lines.135
For decades, the American Physical Society (APS) has maintained the policy that EMR does not interact with human biology including the brain and there are only heating effects.136 The APS has stated that the scientific basis for the policy is that there is no proven physical mechanism to explain bioeffects of EMR so there can’t be any EMR bioeffects except heating.137 This reasoning has been criticized on the grounds that mechanisms to explain EMR bioeffects may exist even though physicists haven’t discovered them yet.138 Many experimental effects are shown in science without a theoretical background. For example, gravity remains an unexplained phenomenon although it obviously exists. Another example, scientists don’t have a theory for how the brain works but all know that the brain does work.
More recently, some have argued that exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones and cell phone towers may be harmful to a person’s health. In 2012, a report reviewed 1800 new studies on EMR. The report referred to radio frequency radiation and wireless technologies and concluded: “Overall, there is reinforced scientific evidence of risk where there is chronic exposure to low-intensity electromagnetic fields and to wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation including microwave radiation).”139 Cell phone companies also seem to have an interest in maintaining the EMR bioeffect policy to avoid lawsuits from possible EMR health effects.140
These prevailing scientific viewpoints have been firmly in place for decades, some since World War II, and likely contributed to the current consensus that there is no proven scientific basis establishing EMR neuroweapons could be a serious threat comparable to the atomic bomb. Despite the decades of funding for secret EMR neuroweapons research beginning with the 1950s CIA mind control experiments, the weapons are not considered a significant threat to national security today. This is highlighted by recent civilian reports and articles on neuroscience applications to national security only examining rudimentary directed energy weapons under development.141 However, the next sections will highlight the reasons why the development of the science of EMR bioeffects has remained rudimentary
Part 8
4.4 The 1950s EMR bioeffects national security threat
In the 1950s, the US and former Soviet Union (USSR, called Russia for this paper) seemed to have discovered the weapons potential of EMR. In 1953, Russia began bombarding the US Embassy in Moscow with low level EMR and “five presidents kept it secret.”142 The CIA analyzed the bombardment of the US Embassy with microwaves and discovered it matched those microwave characteristics mentioned in published Soviet experiments involving behavioral effects in rats.143 Milton Zaret was contacted by Samuel Koslov (the advisor to the President on this issue); Zaret had previously conducted research for the CIA which suggested it might be possible for microwaves to be used to create mind control weapons. Zaret’s experiments for the CIA replicated Soviet rat experiments on the behavioural effects of microwaves which were “translated into the different scientific nomenclature used in the United States, like a microwave Rosetta Stone.”144 This is one of several indications that despite the prevailing scientific viewpoints on the lack of EMR bioeffects, some EMR bioeffects research was scientifically sound and it was also a significant national security concern. In 1965, Koslov, who also worked for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, now known as DARPA), ran the Pentagon’s Project Pandora; which secretly studied the behavioral and biological effects of low-level modulated microwaves.145
Ross Adey (a pioneer of bioelectromagnetic medicine), Zaret and other bioelectromagnetics experts were consulted by US government agencies or conducted secret work on Project Pandora.146 These experts found that EMR affected the nervous system; however Koslov later destroyed the Project Pandora documents147, reporting he did not have enough room to store them.148 Koslov concluded, without explanation, that “the Moscow microwave beam was not an effective mind-control weapon”;149 however, a recent Washington Post article stated that Project Pandora conclusions were uncertain: ‘The results were mixed, and the program was plagued by disagreements and scientific squabbles.’150 At the same time, CIA EMR mind control research was considered of primary importance to national security.151 For example, at a 1977 US congressional hearing on CIA mind control programs, CIA medical doctor Sidney Gottlieb’s testimony discussed CIA mind control programs, the possibility of mind control using radiowaves and the Embassy bombardment: “It was felt to be mandatory and of the utmost urgency for our intelligence organization to establish what was possible in this field on a high priority basis.’152
4.5 1960s and 1970s; bioelectromagnetics research flourishes
As cited above, study of the neuron doctrine and the action potential seemed to restrict nearly all other possible methods of electrical brain communication in unclassified neuroscience research. At the same time, the EMR bioeffects research on the brain seemed to thrive in classified research and in Russia. For example, a 1961 Russian paper by Z. V. Gordon theorized that EMR led to changes in rat brain cells.153 At that time, the US military controlled most of the EMR research funding and made the major policy decisions about EMR health exposure levels and other related matters.154 The US military was concerned about the Russian EMR bioeffects brain research and as a result, US neuroscience studies involving EMR bioeffects were no longer funded in unclassified research and public discussions of EMR bioeffect research were discouraged.155 As mentioned above, secret military research was increased to determine if the Russians were developing EMR based mind control for espionage or weapons purposes.156 In the 1960s and 1970s, the electromagnetic aspect of neuroscience research was well funded and classified by the US government.157 It seems clear that the US government was aware of the EMR research that suggested the weapons potential of EMR bioeffects.
Furthermore, a small number of scientists were instrumental in establishing the scientific basis for bioelectromagnetic medicine.158 The bioelectromagnetics researchers found “truly remarkable interactions between electromagnetic fields and the brain” but the “relevant experiments were hidden from view by the Cold War.”159 As a result of both secrecy and prevailing scientific thought, however, bioelectromagnetic research has remained underfunded and disregarded by the mainstream scientific community.160 EMR bioeffects research has even been called junk science, however as Henry Lai, co-editor of Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine explained, the lack of funding means that researchers can’t stay in the field for long161 and consequently the research suffers. In the 1960s, Frey, cited above, tested microwave radiation on animals and found evidence that electricity seems to affect brain activity.162 Frey stated that the Pentagon hired scientists who published research disputing Frey’s findings while at the same time refusing to reveal their methodology and data.163 Moreover, in the 1970s, his government contractors told him to cover up his research or they would terminate his contract.164 Numerous bioelectromagnetics scientists reported similar treatment by the US government.165 At that time, most researchers, including neuroscientists, still held the prevailing scientific viewpoints on the lack of proven biological effects of EMR.166 Thus, the weapons potential of the bioelectromagnetics research remained out of the public view.
4.6 The 1980s; a turning point for bioelectromagnetics researchers
In the 1980s, bioelectromagnetics researchers felt that their research could lead to EMR weapons comparable to the atomic bomb; a further indication that the study of the electromagnetic aspect of the electrochemical brain seemed to be critical to national security.167 These researchers discovered that when information was embedded onto a carrier EMR wave it “induced the widest variety of biological effects;” although how this happened was not known.168 Their experiments suggested “externally applied electromagnetic fields had a scientifically measurable effect on electromagnetic processes of transformation, transfer, coding, and storage of information in living systems; including in the brain.”169
In the 1980s, Cesaro, cited above, helped to make sense of this disregarded science. He stated that a microwave weapon based on successful human experiments would be “more powerful than the atomic bomb.”170 Several researchers felt that a letter should be written to the President about the emerging weapons potential of bioelectromagnetics research, similar to the 1939 letter written to President Roosevelt about the weapons potential of nuclear physics.171 As noted above, Becker cited a military report describing microwave pulses with the capability of precise mind control without the need for implants172 and in the mid-1980s, Becker recounted several researchers surmised such a weapon was a possibility.173 Most would agree that if developed, such a weapon could be comparable to an atomic bomb.
Becker had witnessed decades of bioelectromagnetics research, the growing US and Russian interest in EMR weapons and excessive government secrecy including government deception and disinformation techniques. In conversation with another pioneer of bioelectromagnetics research (Professor A. R. Liboff), Becker always maintained the belief that both the US and Russian governments were very much involved in EMR mind control research.174 Both Becker and Adey felt that electromagnetic mind control was inevitable.175 On a 1984 BBC documentary on Project Pandora, Becker surmised that there could be a super-secret Manhattan Project to develop EMR weapons and that the best cover story, the official explanation for secret government research, would be that EMR weapons were not scientifically possible. 176 It seems that Becker’s speculation was correct: the EMR bioeffects policy is a US government official science policy that denies EMR bioeffects and as shown below, the most prominent of experts have cited the EMR bioeffects policy to claim that EMR neuroweapons are not possible.
Part 9
4.7 1990s and beyond; EMR neuroweapons and excessive secrecy
For decades, the military has officially endorsed the EMR bioeffects policy. The US seems to have gone to great lengths to keep EMR bioeffects science and its weapons potential out of the public eye. However, with the breakup of the Soviet Union, some in the US military threw out this fifty year old official policy. In 1997, the US military began providing new funding for the development of nonlethal weapons based on the biological effects of EMR.177 Nevertheless, well established academic scientific organizations and officials, including the US Air Force, cited below, continued to endorse the EMR bioeffects policy.
Richard Garwin is a physicist and one of the founders of the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency that conducts secret satellite surveillance for national security purposes. In his 1999 Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR) report, Non-Lethal Technologies: Progress and Prospects, Garwin reported there were already established major classified programs that included psychological warfare, information warfare and nonlethal weapons.178 In a 2004 Council on Foreign Relations report, Garwin recommended that skilled engineers and scientists work on directed energy, electromagnetic coupling, modeling and physiology. He described the ongoing inter-service conflicts, the problem of redundancy, a burdensome secrecy system and the lack of accountability for weapons.179
In a 2005 “for the record” email to this author, Garwin stated that has evaluated electromagnetic weapons for the US Defense Department several times, but “there are always ‘compartments’ to which even people with high-level security clearances do not have access.”180 Garwin cited the official EMR bioffects policy to unequivocally dismiss the possibility of EMR weapons that could target and control the brain.181 The EMR bioeffects policy seems to reach to the highest levels of US government.
Perhaps the clearest example that EMR bioeffects are disregarded in mainstream neuroscience is the following. In 2001, a group of experts including Professor Kenneth Foster, wrote an article in the IEEE Spectrum, an academic electronic engineering journal: “Such technology [new rat implant technology capable of transmitting signals to a rat’s brain from a distance] had nothing to do with the fantasies of mind control by electromagnetic fields, long a staple of science fiction and lately of conspiracy theory Web sites.”182 Today, most neuroscientists are convinced that EMR bioeffects on the brain are fringe science.
In 2004, The Lancet obituary for Adey described his research showing that brain tissue is sensitive to EMR. The obituary noted that some rejected Adey’s controversial research by citing the EMR bioeffects policy, such as Foster, one of the authors of the IEEE Spectrum article above. However, others have confirmed Adey’s research and the writer of the obituary opined that Adey’s controversial research will some day prove to be true.183 Foster may argue that the US government’s EMR bioeffects policy has nothing to do with neuroscience, however, in light of the evidence presented in this paper, it can be argued that this would appear to be an example of the EMR bioeffects policy utilized as a US government cover story spread by experts. Foster’s conclusions omit two main facts; first, the decades of highly politicized EMR bioeffects research; and secondly, the decades of US government monopoly over unclassified and classified EMR bioeffects research; this combination resulted in the nearly complete restriction of EMR bioeffects research. As explained above, EMR bioeffects seem to have a role in brain functions, however the unclassified research remains rudimentary in its development.
In 2007, the official USAF science policy stated that its EMR bioeffects policy is that there are no non-thermal effects of microwaves.184 At the same time, Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, has described microwave attacks against the human brain as part of future warfare in a 2001 presentation to the National Defense Industrial Association about “Future Strategic Issues.”185 Recently the prestigious science journal Nature admonished the USAF in an opinion editorial for classifying EMR bioeffects research and stated that only weapons, not science should be classified.186
4.8 Brief analysis and conclusions
It can be argued that the EMR bioeffects cover story is obsolete even as the US government continues to endorse official EMR bioeffects policy. Since World War II, scientists have had few options for conducting research on EMR bioeffects on the brain; the scientists who do conduct EMR bioeffects research face government discrediting tactics, loss of funding, ostracizing by the scientific community and more. As a result of the US government’s dominance over EMR bioeffects research, the infrastructure that is necessary for an area of science to flourish are completely absent in the field of EMR bioeffects research including: consistent funding, the development of advanced technologies and adequate numbers of academic experts and consistent standards for EMR bioeffects academic literature. Most scientists have no way of challenging the US government policy of EMR bioffects. Nevertheless, EMR bioeffects research has a firm scientific foundation in the study of bioelectromagnetics. Rather than a fringe area of science, EMR bioeffects research remains extremely rudimentary and has been highly classified and politicized.
A reasonable speculation is that the utilitarian CIA mind control researchers would have recognized the potential of EMR as a likely method for remote surveillance of the brain and also EMR bioeffects research for influencing and controlling human behavior for use in neuroweapons development. It could be argued that the official EMR bioeffects policy was utilized to publically encourage the belief that EMR only had a thermal effect. At the same time, the US government continued secret research looking at other impacts such as the possibility of altering and influencing behavior—even mind control– and also the possibility of EMR for remote surveillance and targeting of the brain.
The US government’s reasons for implementing the EMR bioeffects may not be clearly established, however significant evidence suggests that the EMR bioeffects policy was instrumental in blocking nearly all EMR bioeffects neuroscience research for over sixty years. The science of EMR bioeffects on the brain continues to be marginalized, controversial, and mislabeled as fringe, even junk science.
5. An Extreme US Secrecy Method
The consensus is that governments can’t keep secrets for decades. However, as one expert, William Arkin explained, secrecy experts are in agreement that in the realm of national security secrets, vital or genuine national security secrets remain secret.187 Recently, headline news reported the NSA’s Prism program for clandestine mass surveillance data mining that was leaked by Edward Snowden,188 but few people have heard of the more extreme secrecy method of constant surveillance of government employees in highly sensitive positions and also the constant surveillance of their families. For example, Professor Hugh Goodall described that his father worked for the CIA conducting domestic surveillance which took place much longer than the 1970s congressional committees uncovered. Goodall’s father was scheduled to testify before the hearings but he died, his house was broken into and a moving van hauled away everything including his diary.189 This happened to others including Bill Harvey who worked for the CIA and was involved in the attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro.190
Goodall described growing up in a classified family; his mother told him that they were always being watched everywhere they went and in their home.191 Their home was fitted with listening devices and even their sex lives were not secret. In the 1960s and 1970s, some classified families lived on military posts and vehicles with listening devices would constantly record their daily conversation.192 Goodall stated:
We were told we were being watched for our own good as well as for the good of our country. We were told that it was important to be watched because my father worked in a sensitive position, and people in these positions had to be carefully observed, as well as their families and friends and associates, because you just never knew who might be spilling what to whom.193
It seems unlikely that a vital national security secret such as the existence of secretly developed neuroweapons would be leaked given such extreme secrecy methods. Contrary to the consensus, it is plausible that neuroweapons which began in the 1950s CIA mind control programs could be kept secret.
6. Conclusions and recommendation
Part 10
The new evidence in this paper suggests that two Cold War cover stories are now obsolete. It can be argued that the consensus, including nearly all of the prominent experts, overlooked significant information that has resulted in devastating consequences. Significant evidence supports that the unsettled areas of neuroscience–bioelectricity and bioelectromagnetics—are almost surely critical areas of science for neuroweapons development. US secrecy methods surrounding this research have included active deception, spreading disinformation, distorting and suppressing science research, covering up promising research and withholding funding from scientists with an interest in the area of research. By keeping the science from developing in the unclassified realm, the US government can cite mainstream science literature and claim neuroweapons are not possible, thus completely nullifying any opposing opinions. In this way, the US government breached its trust with the public by classifying and monopolizing whole areas of science as well as neuroweapons.
The two cover stories were based on the paradox between classified and unclassified neuroscience research that began in the 1950s. First, the revolutionary 1950s neuroscience research was the basis for a theory of how the brain works. Furthermore, the unparalleled decade of the revolutionary 1950s—and it can be argued, the 1950s CIA mind control programs–determined how modern neuroscience developed into the twenty-first century, a pattern of development with no foreseeable end in sight. Second, by both chance and design, unclassified neuroscience developed in an extremely skewed pattern with a focus on biochemistry, molecular biology, cognitive neuroscience and brain imaging and a significant lack of bioelectricity research. Third, although the US government actively discouraged mainstream neuroscience from investigating bioelectricity, research on the electrical properties of the brain is not only scientifically possible in principle but also experimentally possible, although it remains rudimentary. Additionally, the US government implemented its official EMR bioeffects policy, thereby actively restricting the research. Nevertheless, a handful of researchers established the basic bioeffects science in principle and experimentally, although it remains rudimentary. Both the bioelectricity and also EMR bioeffects research suggest that neuroweapons development is scientifically possible.
Last, the study of the electrochemical brain has been divided into two entirely separate research approaches; first, unclassified research with its incomplete biochemical brain approach that can never solve how the brain works; and secondly, the classified research, complete with all four of the requirements for the development of neuroweapons. Thus, it is possible—given the secrecy surrounding vital national security secrets–neuroweapons research has flourished in complete secrecy since the 1950s.
It sounds absolutely impossible. How could so many have been misguided by neuroscience and the biophysics of neuroweapons for so long? As the saying goes, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail.” Likewise, for decades, prominent experts have overlooked obscure but critical information and thus have remained absolutely convinced that the science of neuroweapons is science fiction. This unwavering consensus remains firmly in place, however, today it can be shown that neuroweapons are not science fiction. This is why further research and investigation is called for; the alleged mind control victims deserve a fair and impartial hearing, as it is highly possible that secret US neuroweapons are more likely than not already successfully developed.
1 Hugh Gusterson, The militarization of neuroscience, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Online), April 10, 2007. Available at. http://www.thebulletin.org/militarization-neuroscience.
2 Alfred McCoy, Question of torture, CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (2006), Introduction, Outline, 2.
3 Mark Mazzetti and Tim Weiner, Files on illegal spying show CIA skeletons from Cold War, New York Times, June 27, 2007. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27cia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
4 Steven Aftergood, The Soft-kill fallacy, the idea of ‘non-lethal weapons’ is politically attractive and purposely misleading, Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, September/October 1994, 45.
5 Ibid.
6 Sharon Weinberger, “Thought wars,” Washington Post Magazine, January 14, 2007, p.W22. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001399.html.
7 McCoy, 14, n. 2 above.
8 Aftergood, n. 4 above. See also Douglas Pasternak, Wonder weapons: The Pentagon’s quest for nonlethal arms is amazing. But is it smart? US News and World Report, July 7, 1997, 38. Available at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970707/archive_007360.htm.
9 Peter Kennard, Field of nightmares, Weekend Guardian, February 2-3, 1991.
10 Louise Doswald-Beck and Gerald Cauderay, The development of new antipersonnel weapons, International Review of the Red Cross, 279, November 1, 1990, 19, 20.
11 Microwave weapons study by Soviets cited, Federal Times, December 13, 1976.
12 Ibid.
13 Steven Wright, Weapons of control, New Scientist, 55. See also n. 11 above.
14 Don Justesen, Microwaves and behavior, American Psychologist, March, 1975. Available at http://www.raven1.net/v2success2.gif. Also available at http://www.raven1.net/v2success3.gif.
15 U.S. military heat ray weapon unveiled, Huffington Post Canada, March 13, 2012. Available at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/13/us-military-heat-ray-weapon_n_1343092.html.
16 Christopher Leake, Will Stewart, Putin targets foes with zombie gun, Mail on Sunday, April 1, 2012.
17 Press conference on Gorbachev’s nuclear arms elimination proposals, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, January 21, 1986: Tass for abroad: SU/8162/A1/1. Available at Lexis Nexis.
18 Nicholas Steneck, Microwave debate (1984), 84.
level 10
microwavedindividual
1 point ·
2 years ago
Part 11
19 The United Nations and Disarmament: 1945-1985 (1985) New York, UN Publication Sales No. E.85.IX.6, 114, 115, 116.
20 V. L. Issraelyan, Representative of the USSR to the Committee on Disarmament. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Negotiations on the question of the prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, U.N Committee on Disarmament document CD/35 10 July 10, 1979.
21 Ibid.
22 William Baker, et al., Controlled effects: Scientists explore the future of controlled effects, AFRL’s Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland AFB NM, (2004). More information available at http://www.afrl.af.mil/techconn/index.htm.
23 Jonathan Moreno, Mind wars, Brain science and the military in the 21st Century (2012), 86, 87.
24 Michio Kaku, Physics of the impossible, A scientific exploration into the world of phasers, force fields, teleportation, and time travel (2008), 84-85.
25 Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Sidebar: ‘Non-Lethal’ weapons may violate treaties, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September, October 1994, 45.
26 Robert Becker, The body electric: Electromagnetism and the foundation of life (1985), 321.
27 McCoy, Outline, 14, n. 2 above.
28 Pasternak, n. 8 above.
29 Kevin Poulsen, Mind control madness, Wired.com, February 5, 2007. Available at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/02/mind_control_ma/. See also Weinberger, n. 6 above.
30 Moreno, n. 23 above, new edition of 2006 book. See also Weinberger, n. 6 above.
31 The Board of Freedom from Covert Harassment and Surveillance, To the President of the United States of America Washington Post Express, July 16, 2013. Available at www.freedomfchs.com/washpostexprad.pdf.
32 Kaku, n. 24 above.
33 James Livingston Driving force: The magic power of magnets (1997), 249.
34 John Horgan Brain teaser: We think, therefore we are. But we don’t know how we think, Washington Post, October 17, 1999.
35 Gordon Shepherd, Creating modern neuroscience: The revolutionary 1950s (2010), 11, 12.
36 Eric Kandel, Larry Squire, Neuroscience: Breaking down scientific barriers to the study of brain and mind, Science, November 10, 2000.
37 Shepherd, 12, n. 35 above.
38 Shepherd, 232, n. 35 above.
39 Larry Squire et al., Fundamental neuroscience, Fourth edition (2013), 3.
40 Ibid. at 1091.
41 John Horgan, The myth of mind control: Will anyone ever decode the human brain? Discover Magazine, October 29, 2004. Available at http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/cover.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Gwen Ifill, Will US forge public-private partnership to draw brain activity map? PBS NewsHour, February 20, 2013. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june13/medical_02-20.html.
46 Horgan, n. 41 above.
47 Victor Chase, Shattered nerves: How science is solving modern medicine’s most perplexing problem (2006), 1, 2.
48 Ibid.
49 Jose Delgado, Physical control of the mind: Toward a psychocivilized society, Volume 41, World Perspectives (1969)
50 Chase, 1, n. 47 above.
51 Becker, 70, 82, n. 26 above.
52 Andrew Marino, Going somewhere: Truth about a life in science, (2010). 73. Available at http:
//www.goingsomewherebook.com/. See also Abraham Flexner, The Flexner Report, Bulletin Number Four, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, (2010). Available at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/medical-education-united-states-and-canada-bulletin-nu
mber-four-flexner-report-0.
53 Becker, 82, n. 26 above.
54 Ibid. at 92, n. 26 above.
55 Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Study of energy-levels in biochemistry, Nature, 3745:157, August 9, 1941. See also, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Introduction to submolecular biology (1960).
56 Ralph Moss, Free radical, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and the battle over vitamin C (1988), 244.
57 Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, The living state and cancer (1978 ), 4.
58 Shepherd, 4, n. 35 above.
59 Francis Schmitt, ‘Psychophysics considered at the molecular and submolecular levels,’ in Michael Kasha, Bernard Pullman, eds., Horizons in biochemistry: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi dedicatory volume (1962), 453.
60 Nicholas Rasmussen, The midcentury biophysics bubble: Hiroshima and the biological revolution in America, revisited”, History of Science (1997), 35: 245.
61 Soroya de Chadarevian, Designs for life: Molecular biology after World War II (2002), 1.
62 Gordon Rasmussen, Picture control: The electron microscope and the transformation of biology in America, 1940 -1960 (1997), 195.
63 Ibid.
64 Rasmussen, 195, n. 62 above.
65 Chadarevain, 74, n. 61 above.
66 Ibid. at 87, 88.
67 Paul Forman, Behind quantum electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940-1960, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 18:1 (1987), 170.
68 Ibid.
69 Chaderevian, 88, 74, n. 61 above.
70 Barton Reppert, Looking at the Moscow Signal, the zapping of an Embassy 35 years later, The mystery lingers, Washington Associated Press, May 22, 1988.
71 Norman Kempster, Mind reading machine tells secrets of the brain: Sci-Fi comes true, Los Angeles Times, March 29, 1976.
72 Ibid.
73 Kandel, n. 36 above.
74 Horgan, n. 41 above.
75 Shepherd, 112, n. 35 above.
76 Horgan, n. 41 above.
77 Robert Galambos, A Glia-neural theory of brain function, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences Volume 47. No.1, January 15, 1961, 136.
78 Ibid.
79 Shepherd, 112, 113, n. 35 above.
80 Theodore Bullock, ‘Neural integration at the mesoscopic level: The advent of some ideas in the last half century, Journal of the History of Neuroscience, Volume 4 No.3-4, 1995, 231.
81 Horgan, n. 12 above.
82 A.A.P. Leao, Further observations on the spreading depression of activity in the cerebral cortex, Journal of Neurophysiology, 10:409, November 1947. See also B. Libet, & R.W. Gerard, Steady potential fields and neurone activity, Journal of Neurophysiology 4:438, September 1941.
For brain/EMR interactions, see R.H.W. Funk et al., Electromagnetic effects, from cell biology to medicine, Progress in Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 43:185,189 (2009).
For dc brain currents, see Robert Becker, Electromagnetic forces and life processes, Technology Review 38 December, 1972. For advances in dc brain research, see Michael Nitsche et al., Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art, ( 2008) 206.
For semi-conduction, see Janos Ladik, Solid state physics of biological macromolecules: The legacy of Albert Szent-Györgyi, Theochem, 666-667:1, December 2003.
For analog digital brain communication, see George Gilder, The silicon eye (2005), 141. See also George Dyson, Turing’s Cathedral, the origins of the digital universe (2012), 280, 281.
83Ifill, n. 45 above.
84 Robert Gonzales, Here’s how Obama’s brain mapping project will actually work,’ IO9 blog, February 22, 2013. Available at http://io9.com/heres-how-obamas-brain-mapping-project-will-actually-5986161.
85 Joshua Sanes, Mapping the way to a brain survey, Harvard Magazine. July/August 2013. Available at http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/07/mapping-the-way-to-a-brain-survey. See also http://www.bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/news/Charge%20from%20President%20Obama.pdf
86 Larry Squire, Eric Kandel, Memory: From mind to molecules, (1999), 5, 6, 7.
87 Ibid.
88Jean-Pierre Changeux, The good, the true and the beautiful (2012), 317.
89 Rasmussen, 245, n. 60 above.
90 Squire, preface, n. 39 above.
91 Changeux, 317, n. 88 above.
92 Chadarevian, 1, n. 61 above.
93 Rebecca Lemov, World as laboratory, Experiments with mice, mazes, and men (2005), 189, 190.
94 Hans Eysenck, The future of psychology, in Robert Solso, ed., Mind and brain sciences in the 21st Century (1999), 283.
95 Squire, 6, 7, n. 86 above.
96 Francis Crick, What mad pursuit: A personal view of scientific discovery (1988), 149, 150.
97 Douwe Draaisma, Metaphors of memory: A history of ideas about the mind (2000), 190.
98 Ibid. at 201.
99 Ibid.
100 David Chalmers, The Puzzle of conscious experience, Scientific American, December 1995.
101 Ibid. See also Solso, 306, n. 94 above.
102 Christof Koch, Consciousness: confessions of a romantic reductionist (2012), 5, 6.
103 Greg Miller, What is the biological basis of consciousness? Science, Volume 309, July 1, 2005, 79.
104 Larry Squire, ed., History of neuroscience in autobiography, Volume 1 (1996), 446.
105 Ibid.
106 Draaisma, 190, n. 97 above.
107 Crick, 150, n. 96 above.
108 Ibid.
109 George Gilder, Telecosm: How infinite bandwidth will revolutionize our world (2000), 16.
110 Robert Becker, Cross currents: The perils of electropollution, the promise of electromedicine (1990), 69.
111 Allan Frey, ed., On the nature of electromagnetic field interactions with biological systems (1994), 4.
112 Beverly Rubik, et. al, Bioelectromagnetics applications in medicine: Report to the NIH, (1992).
113 Doswald-Beck, n. 10 above.
114Michael Cirfra, et al., Electromagnetic cellular interactions, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (2010).
115 Simon North, War in the desert, Electronic weapons, London Guardian, February 2, 1991.
VII. In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom CIA “no touch” torture makes sense out of mind control allegations
By Cheryl Welsh
January 2008
Also available as a pdf
Cheryl Welsh was invited to speak about mind control allegations at a recent workshop on ethics and interrogations by the workshop director, Jean Maria Arrigo PhD. Dr. Arrigo commented on this article:
In “CIA ‘No Touch’ Torture Makes Sense Out of Mind Control Allegations,” Cheryl Welsh provides a valuable overview of methods common to neuroweapons research and torture interrogation. Her essay is informed by the multitude of self-identified, experimental targets of neuroweapons researchers whom she represents. Scholars and journalists who are only able to track neuroweapons research and interrogation methods through government documents have biased the consensus reality in favor of government authorities who deceive the public. We owe thanks to Cheryl Welsh and her colleagues for their pioneering efforts to penetrate government deception through the phenomenology of self-identified victims of neuroweapons.
Jean Maria Arrigo, PhD, is an independent social psychologist and oral historian whose work gives moral voice to military and intelligence professionals. See, for example, Arrigo, J.M & Wagner, R. (2007). “Torture Is for Amateurs”: A Meeting of Psychologists and Military Interrogators. [Special issue]. Peace and Conflict, 11 (4).
Dedicated to the courageous and kind-hearted Peggy Fagan of Houston, Texas, who is enduring the new scientific version of torture.
Mind Justice HomePage
Table of contents
Introduction
I. A university professor uncovers CIA “no touch” torture
II. The beginnings of CIA “no touch” torture and how it spread
III. What is “no touch” torture?
IV. An example of “no touch” torture
V. The long history of U.S. torture
VI. CIA Cold War neuroscience-based mind control research
VII. CIA Cold War nonlethal weapons research
VIII. Why CIA “no touch” torture has been so successful
IX. All three programs are state tools for neutralizing the enemy without killing; for intelligence operations and counterinsurgency warfare
X. Mind control allegations by a Korean War POW, (prisoner of war), a Soviet political prisoner and Abu Ghraib detainees
XI. The banal and bizarre techniques of “no touch” torture
XII. The three key behavioral components of “no touch” torture
XIII. Torture as “a kind of total theater”
XIV. A comparison of “no touch” torture to mind control allegations
XV. The phenomenology of the torture situation
XVI. Comparing “no touch” torture techniques of sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain to mind control allegations
XVII. Conclusions: what everyone can agree on
Introduction
After the horrific pictures of prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib were displayed in front pages of newspapers around the world, the United States maintained that the U.S. government does not torture; Abu Ghraib was about a few bad officers. Evidence now proves that CIA “no touch” torture and worse were ordered by the executive branch and approved by top military officers. Surprisingly this scandal has much in common with another national security issue, neuroweapons, commonly referred to as mind control.
The field of neuroethics should begin now, according to bioethicist Dr. Jonathan Moreno in his 2006 book Mind Wars, Brain Research and National Defense. The influential book was reviewed in Nature and JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association). Most neuroscientists agree that advanced neuroweapons are over a half century away but the ethics of the new weapons need more planning than occurred for the atomic bomb. Moreno began the first chapter of his book describing the growing numbers of allegations of illegal government mind control targeting. He immediately dismissed them as conspiracy theory nut cases. A 2007 Washington Post Magazine article, “Thought Wars” followed suit. So why should anyone read further given these credible and highly respected expert opinions?
Much of what the public should know about the issue has gone unreported or uninvestigated. For example, after over a half century of classified research, not one publicly known neurological weapon has been deployed. This raises more questions than it answers. Putting aside the major and undebated points of the consensus position, the mind control allegations do sound crazy and on this singular point, most people, including experts and news reporters refuse any closer examination. Clearly, understanding why the mind control allegations sound so crazy would have significant consequences.
Two analogies help clarify the major problems for the mind control issue, secrecy and the lack of a thorough, impartial investigation;
Excerpt of a 1970s congressional hearing uncovering illegal CIA activities; [Senator Frank] Church, … persisted in blaming the plots [assassinations] on the CIA. The agency, he said, was a “rogue elephant on a rampage.” For proof, he pointed to the lack of documentary evidence that any president had ever approved an assassination. Former CIA director Richard Helms countered that it was absurd to expect to find such evidence. “I can’t imagine anybody wanting something in writing saying I have just charged Mr. Jones to go out and shoot Mr. Smith,” he testified. The Agency, he insisted, had simply carried out the wishes of the executive.
Even today, experts don’t understand how the U.S. secrecy system works. Similar to the torture scandal, until there is a national security scandal about neuroscience weapons, the public will remain uninformed about a serious public issue.
During a dairyman’s strike in 19th century New England, when there was suspicion of milk being watered down, Henry David Thoreau wrote; “Sometimes circumstantial evidence can be quite convincing; like when you find a trout in the milk.” Mind Wars and the Washington Post Magazine article examined the growing numbers of crazy sounding mind control allegations. But unlike Thoreau’s account, the publications only reported the convincing circumstantial evidence of “finding a trout in the milk” and dismissed the suspicions without a fair or impartial investigation. As a result, the mind control allegations made no sense.
Update: In the 2008 book “The Commission, the Uncensored History of the 9-11 Investigation,” Philip Shenon explained that explicit, very classified “kill orders” are now put in writing. On page 254 Shenon wrote: “MONs [memorandum of notification] were top-secret orders prepared by the White House to authorize covert operations abroad by the CIA. … there was an explicit, if highly secret, order given by Clinton to the CIA in late 1998 to kill bin Laden.”
Contents | Top
I. A university professor uncovers CIA “no touch” torture
University of Wisconsin professor Alfred McCoy wrote the 2006 book, A Question of Torture, CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. It’s a compelling account of McCoy’s search for understanding the CIA’s “no touch” torture techniques used in the war on terror and the Iraq War. McCoy shows how “information extracted by coercion is worthless” and makes the case for a legal approach, “long and successfully used by the U.S. Marines and the F.B.I.” McCoy documents why CIA “no touch” torture is a “revolutionary psychological approach” and is the first new scientific innovation after centuries of torture. “Interrogators had found that mere physical pain, no matter how extreme, often produced heightened resistance.” Of course, the old brutal forms of physical torture are still around, for example torture in Argentina in the 1970s described in the classic, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell without a Number by Jacobo Timerman.
McCoy pieced together what “no touch” torture is and how it was spread globally. The CIA’s new “no touch” torture works by attacking and destroying the basis of personal identity. McCoy found that the techniques were bizarre, simple, even banal and yet devastatingly effective. McCoy discovered that the techniques had been scientifically proven in decades of CIA cold war research. Evidence of several government manuals helped prove that the techniques were disseminated “from Vietnam through Iran to Central America.”
“No touch” torture techniques sound strangely similar to mind control allegations. A comparison of “no touch” torture to mind control allegations raised the possibility that mind control allegations could be based on the well researched psychological theory for “no touch” torture. Torture victims exhibit symptoms similar to psychotic processes and organic disorders and experts say this is not mental illness but an outcome of the psychological component of torture. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers, who has treated Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet stated; “The psychological component of torture becomes a kind of total theater, a constructed unreality of lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably with the victim’s self-betrayal and destruction. …” This is similar to the technique of “street theater” that mind control victims described in the Washington Post Magazine article. As torture victims are not mentally ill, mind control victims would not be mentally ill but rather have undergone and are undergoing a traumatic situation comparable to torture, such as the alleged illegal targeting with government mind control weapons.
The UCDavis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA) and the UCDavis Center for Mind and Brain (CMB) further explain what psychological torture is and its effects on torture victims.
[CSHRA and CMB] have initiated a collaboration to investigate theneurobiology of psychological torture. …Psychological torture (henceforthPT) is a set of practices that are used worldwide to inflict pain or suffering without resorting to direct physical violence. PT includes the use of sleep deprivation, sensory disorientation, forced self-induced pain, solitary confinement, mock execution, severe humiliation, mind-altering drugs and threats of violence—as well as the exploitation of personal or cultural phobias.
The psychiatric sequelae of PT are severe. They include delirium, psychosis, regression, self-mutilation, cognitive impairment, and anxiety disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Neuroscience research on these and related mental disorders continues to establish their neurobiological underpinnings, thus challenging the popular view that PT is not physical, not serious, and perhaps not even torture at all.
The CSHRA and the CMB launched their collaborative efforts by holding The First UCDavis Workshop on the Neurobiology of Psychological Torture. The goal of this workshop was to bring together researchers and practitioners from different specialties and research groups in order to set off a unified, long-term, research program on the ways in which PT affects the human central nervous system in an effort to understand it in relation to the more traditional forms of physical torture, and to establish clearly articulated ethical, legal, and medical descriptions of this set of practices. It is expected that these descriptions will help treat, document, and deter PT.
Supplemented by studies on the social, historical, and ethical ramifications of PT, the presentations made at The First UCDavis Workshop on the Neurobiology of Psychological Torture have been bound into The Trauma of Psychological Torture, a volume to be published by Praeger on June 30, 2008.
Please note that numerous torture experts, including CSHRA and CMB have completely shunned suggestions to investigate mind control allegations or to consider the issue. But this information may be helpful to the therapists of TIs (targeted individuals of mind control) who are coping with mind control targeting.
II. The beginnings of CIA “no touch” torture and how it spread
The science of psychological torture began because of fears of Russian brainwashing of defendants in the 1940s Moscow show trials and the Korean War POW (prisoners of war) brainwashing scare in the 1950s. The 2005 book, World as Laboratory, Experiments with Mice, Mazes, and Men by Rebecca Lemov described government psychological research for determining whether the Communists had developed new techniques of brainwashing. “Almost all [scientists] who were assigned to study the phenomenon of POW collaboration ended up in short order working for the CIA via one of its various ‘cut-outs,’ conduits, and false fronts, such as the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, the Geschickter Fund for Medical Research, and the Scientific Engineering Institute, or in one of its own laboratories.” (Lemov, 219) McCoy described the research behind “no touch” torture and how it spread globally;
From 1950 to 1962, the CIA became involved in torture through a massive mind-control effort, with psychological warfare and secret research into human consciousness that reached a cost of a billion dollars annually, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind. … If we trace a narrative thread through a maze of hundreds of experiments, the CIA research moved through two distinct phases, first an in-house exploration of exotic techniques such as hypnosis and hallucinogenic drugs, and, a later focus on behavioral experimentation by contract researchers, several of the most brilliant behavioral scientists of their generation …
While this Agency drug testing led nowhere, CIA-funded behavioral experiments, outsourced to the country’s leading universities, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc., produced three key findings that contributed to the discovery of a new form of torture that was psychological, not physical, … perhaps best described as “no-touch torture.” (McCoy outline, 2)
Across the span of three continents and four decades, there is a striking similarity in U.S. torture techniques, both their conceptual design and specific techniques, from the CIA’s 1963 Kubark interrogation manual, to the Agency’s 1983 Honduras training handbook, all the way to General Ricardo Sanchez’s 2003 orders for interrogation in Iraq. … Guantanamo perfected the three-phase psychological paradigm by attacking cultural identity and individual psyche. (McCoy outline, 14)
III. What Is “No Touch” Torture?
McCoy explained what “no touch” torture is;
The CIA’s psychological paradigm for “no touch” torture fused two new methods, “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” whose combination, in theory, would cause victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers. Refined through years of practice, sensory disorientation relies on a mix of sensory overload and sensory deprivation via banal procedures, isolation then intense interrogation, heat and cold, light and dark, noise and silence, for a systematic attack on all human stimuli. The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity. (McCoy outline, 4-5) In 2004, the Red Cross reported: “The construction of such a system. … cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual and degrading treatment and a form of torture.” (McCoy outline, 9)
IV. An Example of “No Touch” Torture
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman interviewed journalist Jane Mayer about her August 8, 2007 New Yorker article, “The Black Sites: A Rare Look Inside the C.I.A.’s Secret Interrogation Program.” Mayer described detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his experience with “no touch” torture;
There, he [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] was subjected to a kind of a weird routine that someone described to me as kind of Clockwork Orange sort of thing, where he was put in goggles that blacked out the light and earmuffs of some sort that blocked out sound and deprived of any normal routine, such as meals or anything that would allow him to know what time of day it was or really have any kind of marker in his existence. And it’s a program that’s developed of sort of psychological terror, in a way, to kind of make people feel that they are completely dependent on other people, have no control over their lives, and it’s something that, the technique, that really comes out of the KGB days, way back in the Cold War. And apparently it’s something the CIA has put a lot of research into over time.
V. The long history of U.S. torture
The history of CIA torture runs parallel to CIA neuroscience-based mind control research and also CIA nonlethal weapons research. This is important because mind control allegations include descriptions of techniques that sound like all three CIA programs. It is possible that the related cold war CIA “no touch” torture, nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control programs have co-mingled for intelligence purposes. Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter and author Tim Weiner wrote the 2007 book Legacy of Ashes, History of the CIA. Weiner described the CIA torture programs and the U.S. secret detention centers around the world. This is a brief excerpt of the extensive programs;
The project dated back to 1948, when Richard Helms and his [American intelligence] officers in Germany realized they were being defrauded … The agency had set up clandestine prisons to wring confessions out of suspected double agents. One was in Germany, another in Japan. The third, and the biggest, was in the Panama Canal Zone. “Like Guantanamo, … It was anything goes.” … (Weiner, 64-5)
Senior CIA officers, including Helms, destroyed almost all the records of these programs in fear they might become public. (Weiner, 66)
The agency, as Cheney said that morning, went over to “the dark side.” On Monday, September 17, President Bush issued a fourteen-page top secret directive to Tenet and the CIA, ordering the agency to hunt, capture, imprison, and interrogate suspects around the world. It set new limits on what the agency could do. It was the foundation for a system of secret prisons where CIA officers and contractors used techniques that included torture. One CIA contractor was convicted of beating an Afghan prison to death. This was not the role of a civilian intelligence service in a democratic society. But it is clearly what the White House wanted the CIA to do. …
[The CIA] had participated in the torture of captured enemy combatants before, beginning in 1967, under the Phoenix program in Vietnam. …
Under Bush’s order, the CIA began to function as a global military police, throwing hundreds of suspects into secret jails in Afghanistan, Thailand, Poland, and inside the American military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. It handed hundreds more prisoners off to the intelligence services in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and Syria for interrogations. (Weiner, 482)
VI. CIA Cold War neuroscience-based mind control research
Some CIA neuroscience-based mind control research is known to have continued into the 1970s and is still classified today. A January 29, 1979 Washington Post article entitled “Book Disputes CIA Chief on Mind-Control Efforts: Work Went on Into 1970s, Author Says,” reported;
Despite assurances last year from Central Intelligence Director Stansfield Turner that the CIA’s mind-control program was phased out over a decade ago, the intelligence agency has come up with new documents indicating that the work went on into the 1970s, according to a new book. John Marks, the author of the book, said the CIA mind-control researchers did apparently drop their much publicized MK-ULTRA drug-testing program. But they replaced it, according to Marks, with another super secret behavioral-control project under the agency’s Office of Research and Development.
The ORD program used a cover organization set up in the 1960s outside Boston headed by Dr. Edwin Land, the founder of Polaroid, who acted as a “figurehead,” said Marks in his book. The project investigated such research as genetic engineering, development of new strains of bacteria, and mind control. The book identifies the Massachusetts proprietary organization headed by Land as the Scientific Engineering Institute. The CIA-funded institute was originally set up as a radar and technical research company in the 1950s and shifted over to mind-control experiments in the 1960s with the exception of a few scattered programs. According to Marks, however, the ORD program was a full-scale one and just as secret as the earlier MK-ULTRA project.
In a March 14, 1987, Nation magazine editorial, Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication, Microwave News, wrote; “Experts agree that nonionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) can affect behavior, but the question is whether the radiation can be harnessed and used on people at a distance. With its MKULTRA program the CIA began looking for the answer in the early 1950s.” Slesin described that in the 1979 book, “Search for the Manchurian Candidate, The CIA and Mind Control” by John Marks, Marks filed a freedom of information act (foia) request. The CIA replied that “it had a roomful of files on electromagnetic and related techniques to alter behavior and stimulate the brain.” But, “[the agency] refused to release the papers, and they remain classified.”
VII. CIA Cold War nonlethal weapons research
Nonlethal weapons are another outcome of CIA behavior control research. Steven Aftergood wrote about the initial stages of nonlethal weapons in the September/October 1994 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; “Details about programs to develop so called ‘non-lethal’ weapons are slowly emerging from the U.S. government’s secret ‘black budget.’ … The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new; the term appears in heavily censored CIA documents dating from the 1960s.” Dr. Barbara Hatch-Rosenberg described nonlethal weapons on page 45,
“Non-lethal” weapons may violate treaties
Development of many of the proposed weapons described on these pages has been undertaken by NATO, the United States, and probably other nations as well. Most of the weapons could be considered “pre-lethal” rather than non-lethal. They would actually provide a continuum of effects ranging from mild to lethal, with varying degrees of controllability. Serious questions arise about the legality of these expensive and highly classified development programs. Four international treaties are particularly relevant … The Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (also known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention).
Many of the non-lethal weapons under consideration utilize infrasound or electromagnetic energy (including lasers, microwave or radio-frequency radiation, or visible light pulsed at brain-wave frequency) for their effects. These weapons are said to cause temporary or permanent blinding, interference with mental processes, modification of behavior and emotional response, seizures, severe pain, dizziness, nausea and diarrhea, or disruption of internal organ functions in various other ways. In addition, the use of high-power microwaves to melt down electronic systems would incidentally cook every person in the vicinity.
Typically, the biological effects of these weapons depend on a number of variables that, theoretically, could be tuned to control the severity of the effects. However, the precision of control is questionable. The use of such weapons for law enforcement might constitute severe bodily punishment without due process. In warfare, the use of these weapons in a non-lethal mode would be analogous to the use of riot control agents in the Vietnam War, a practice now outlawed by the CWC. Regardless of the level of injury inflicted, the use of many non-lethal weapons is likely to violate international humanitarian law on the basis of superfluous suffering and/or indiscriminate effects.
In addition, under the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention, international discussions are now under way that may lead to the development of specific new protocols covering electromagnetic weapons; a report is expected sometime next year. The current surge of interest in electromagnetic and similar technologies makes the adoption of a protocol explicitly outlawing the use of these dehumanizing weapons an urgent matter.
VIII. Why CIA “no touch” torture has been so successful
Dr. Alfred McCoy explained;
CIA Paradigm: In its clandestine journey across continents and decades, this distinctly American form of psychological torture would prove elusive, resilient, adaptable and devastatingly destructive, attributes that have allowed it to persist up to the present and into the future. …
Elusive: Unlike its physical variant, psychological torture lacks clear signs of abuse and easily eludes detection, greatly complicating any investigation, prosecution, or attempt at prohibition.
Resilient: Psychological torture is shrouded in a scientific patina that appeals to policy makers and avoids the obvious physical brutality unpalatable to the modern public.
Adaptable: In forty years since its discovery, the Agency’s psychological paradigm has proved surprisingly adaptable, with each sustained application producing innovations.
Destructive: Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, the CIA’s “no touch” torture actually leaves searing psychological scars. Victims often need long treatment to recover from a trauma many experts consider more crippling than physical pain. (A Question of Torture, 12)
These characteristics also apply to nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control. All three are emerging state tools of the future and can neutralize the enemy by controlling the behavior of the enemy. A 2005 book entitled, Torture, Does it Make Us Safer? Is It Ever OK? was co-published with Human Rights Watch. Some general reasons for why governments use torture as a state tool include the following. Governments torture because it is a way to obtain coerced confessions. The confessions can be used for propaganda purposes. Torture serves a variety of state purposes: “to terrorize certain elements of the population, to instill a climate of fear in the public more generally, and to break key leaders and members of these groups, uncovering their networks.” Other purposes of torture are to “obtain intelligence by any means,” “annihilate subversives” and “eliminate the enemy.”
Counterinsurgency warfare is taking place in Iraq and major newspapers have reported on the many detainees that have consistently alleged being subjected to “no touch” torture techniques. As reported in the September 16th, 2007 Sacramento Bee, General David Petraeus co-wrote the Counterinsurgency Field Manuel-U.S. Army Field Manual on Tactics, Intelligence, Host Nation Forces, Airpower, which Newsweek said, is “highly touted as the basis upon which the surge of U.S. forces this year would be organized.”
The book Torture, also included a description of “counterinsurgency warfare, in which torture was a principal weapon” and was developed “during the French experience in Indochina and Algeria.”
[The] “genesis of this new kind of warfare is the idea that the enemy takes the form of an invisible political organization hidden among the civilian population. One can know its leaders and its structure only by waging a war of information: by arresting masses of civilian suspects, interrogating them, and, if necessary, torturing them. … In the modern era, … the science of torture and similar abusive treatment has developed to break the physical and mental resistance of subjects before they expire or go mad and thus become useless as sources of information. … Torture is still about domination.”
IX. All three programs are state tools for neutralizing the enemy without killing; for intelligence operations and counterinsurgency warfare
By comparing mind control allegations to “no touch” torture techniques and the very classified nonlethal weapons program, the purpose of the bizarre sounding mind control allegations begins to make sense. Neuroweapons include the CIA’s still classified neuroscience-based mind control research, “no touch” torture and nonlethal weapons. All three are emerging state tools of the future that can reliably neutralize the enemy psychologically or without killing. The old, politically unacceptable methods of brutal physical torture and killing won’t be eliminated but surreptitious, scientifically proven, alternative methods are available to achieve an even greater national security advantage. All are ideal for counterinsurgency warfare, psychological operations and intelligence operations. The characteristics of “no touch” torture, nonlethal weapons and neuroscience-based mind control make them more inhumane than the atomic bomb
X. Mind control allegations by a Korean War POW, (prisoner of war), a Soviet political prisoner and Abu Ghraib detainees
Three relevant examples out of the numerous available provide a general overview of the decades of mind control allegations and weapons. The details are compelling and rarely reported by mainstream press and illustrate why a comparison of “no touch” torture to mind control allegations is so applicable. The examples share the same Cold War history with CIA “no touch” torture, neuroscience-based mind control and nonlethal weapons programs.
The 1984 BBC TV documentary Opening Pandora’s Box described EMR [electromagnetic radiation] remote mind control developments and a claim of mind control by a Korean POW;
In the 1950s, intelligence agencies were interested in changing mental states. The theory is that brain waves can be tuned to a different EMR frequency and can change moods and character. … A CIA memo stated that they were looking for behavior control to enhance consciousness.
The Soviets had realized the same thing. Dr. Ross Adey, famous EMR researcher at Loma Linda Veterans Hospital, examined the Lida machine, from the Soviet Union. It was described as a machine to “rearrange consciousness.” The Russians claimed to use it for treatment of emotional disorders in the 1950s. Dr. Adey stated that the Lida machine is now obsolete. It used coiled wire inside ear muffs which acted like an antenna and emitted 1/10 sec pulses of EMR. Dr. Adey demonstrated that excited animals rapidly quiet down when exposed to the Lida EMR frequencies. There was one account that the Lida machine was used during the Korean war for brainwashing American Prisoners.
An interview of an alleged Russian victim, Andre Slepucha, was reported in a 1998 ZDF German TV documentary. He described what seems to be the first reported victim of some type of “microwave hearing.” Slepucha stated;
In November 1954 I came into contact with what today is referred to as “Psychotronic Treatment” for the first time. Back then they took me out of the concentration camp where, under Stalin, I had been imprisoned as a political prisoner, and brought me into an isolation cell in the KGB prison which was located in the Lubyanka. After an approximately two week long continuous occupation of the cell I suddenly experienced in the morning strong sounds in the head, very strong acoustic and visual hallucinations.
On the CNN news broadcast, Special Assignment by Chuck DeCaro, “Weapons of War, Is there an RF Gap?” November 1985, Dr. Bill van Bise, electrical engineer, conducted a demonstration of Soviet scientific data and schematics for beaming a magnetic field into the brain to cause visual hallucinations. The demonstration on reporter Chuck DeCaro was successful. Dr. van Bise stated, “In three weeks, I could put together a device that would take care of a whole town.” A December 13, 1976, Federal Times article, “Microwave Weapons Study by Soviets Cited” described the alleged Russian capability of microwave hearing;
The Defense Intelligence Agency has released a report on heavy Communist research on microwaves, including their use as weapons. Microwaves are used in radar, television and microwave ovens. They can cause disorientation and possibly heart attacks in humans. Another biological effect with possible anti-personnel uses is “microwave hearing.” “Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially (within the head) can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities,” the report said. According to the study, Communist work in this area “has great potential for development into a system for disorienting or disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic personnel.”
Jon Ronson, author of the New York Times reviewed book, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” wrote about alleged mind control experiments on Iraqi detainees. In an interview on April 14, 2005 at the Politics and Prose book store in Washington DC., Ronson discussed his book. (Tape available from Cspan, Book TV at www.booktv.org. Videotape # 186334)
And from the former detainees from Guantanamo Bay that I’ve interviewed it seems exactly the same things are going on there. I said to a man called Jamal al-Harith how do you feel, you know how did you feel at Guantanamo Bay and he said “felt like a laboratory rat.” And he said, “I felt they were trying stuff out on me.” …
And one example is with Barney the purple dinosaur. When it was announced a year ago that they were rounding up prisoners of war in Iraq and blasting them with Barney the purple dinosaur, it was treated as a funny story, because, by all the major news networks in America, you know… the torture wasn’t that bad. … It was disseminated as funny because who wants to replace a funny story with, as Eric [Olson] once said to me, with one that’s not fun.
I was given seven photographs of a detainee who had just been given the Barney treatment as they called it. It was 48 hours of Barney with flashing strobe lights inside a shipping container in the desert heat. …
… The current chief of staff of the Army is a man called General Pete Shoemaker. … He’s well known to have an interest in these paranormal esoteric military pursuits. … So now is the time when I know that these ideas go to the very top [levels of the military].
One of the things you spoke of, the one that I have knowledge of is the frequencies. You can follow a trail of patents like footprints in the snow and the patents sometimes vanish into the world of military classification. And there’s many patents bought up by a man called Dr. Oliver Lowry. …
So we know that these patents have been bought up by the military. … And the detainees of Guantanamo I’ve spoken to speak of being blasted with frequencies, put inside music, high and low frequencies, masked with music.
…I think there’s no doubt they’re experimenting with this stuff. To add to that controversial suggestion. I think there’s a good chance that even though they’re trying this stuff out, it’s not necessarily true that it works. A lot of this stuff doesn’t work. This may or may not work. I don’t know.
XI. The banal and bizarre techniques of “no touch torture”
Psychological techniques used at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons have included extremes of the following; manipulation of time, loud music, strobe lights, odd sounds, hooding, ear muffs, heat and cold, light and dark, isolation and intensive interrogation “and most importantly, creative combinations of all these methods which otherwise might seem, individually, banal if not benign.” As McCoy explains;
After a visit from the Guantanamo chief General Miller in September 2003, the U.S. commander for Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, issued orders for sophisticated psychological torture. As I read from those orders, please listen for the combined sensory disorientation, self-inflicted pain, and attacking Arab cultural sensitivities.
Environmental Manipulation: Altering the environment to create moderate discomfort (e.g. adjusting temperatures or introducing an unpleasant smell) …
Sleep Adjustment: Adjusting the sleeping times of the detainee (e.g. reversing the sleeping cycles from night to day).
Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees. … 30 days.
Presence of Military Working Dogs: Exploits Arab fear of dogs while maintaining security during interrogations …
Yelling, Loud Music, and Light Control: Used to create fear, disorient detainee and prolong capture shock. Volume controlled to prevent injury …
Stress Positions: Use of physical posturing (sitting, standing, kneeling, prone, etc.) (McCoy outline, 9)
XII. The three key behavioral components of “no touch” torture
McCoy described the principles underlying “no touch” torture;
Through covert trial and error, the CIA, in collaboration with university researchers, slowly identified three key behavioral components integral to its emerging techniques for psychological torture.
Discovery #1 Sensory deprivation In the early 1950s …Dr. Donald Hebb found that he could induce a state akin to psychosis in just 48 hours. …after just two to three days of such isolation [sitting in a cubicle ..with goggles, gloves and ear muffs on.] “the subject’s very identity had begun to disintegrate.”
Discovery #2 Self-inflicted pain …Albert Biderman, Irving L. Janis, Harold Wolff, and Lawrence Hinkle, advised the agency about the role of self-inflicted pain in Communist interrogation. …During the 1950s as well, two eminent neurologists at Cornell Medical Center working for the CIA found that the KGB’s most devastating torture technique involved, not crude physical beatings, but simply forcing the victim to stand for days at a time, while the legs swelled, the skin erupted in suppurating lesions, the kidneys shut down, hallucinations began.
Discovery #3 Anyone can torture …Finally, a young Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, …conducted his famed obedience experiments, asking ordinary New Haven citizens to torture on command and discovering that, in contravention of conventional wisdom, anyone could be trained to torture. …[Milgram] did controversial research under a government grant showing that almost any individual is capable of torture, a critical finding for the agency as it prepared to disseminate its method worldwide. (McCoy outline, 4, Question of Torture, 32-33)
By the project’s end in the late 1960s, this torture research had involved three of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century-Hebb, Milgram, and Janis, as well as several presidents of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. (A Question of Torture, 33)
That notorious photo of a hooded Iraqi on a box, arms extended and wires to his hands, exposes this covert method. The hood is for sensory deprivation, and the arms are extended for self-inflicted pain. … Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, no-touch torture leaves deep psychological scars on both victims and interrogators. One British journalist who observed this method’s use in Northern Ireland called sensory deprivation “the worst form of torture” because it “provokes more anxiety among the interrogatees than more traditional tortures, leaves no visible scars and, therefore, is harder to prove, and produces longer lasting effects.” (Question of Torture, 8-9)
McCoy explained how CIA “no touch” torture changes its victims;
Insights from the treatment of Chilean victims tortured under General Augusto Pinochet’s regime offer a point of entry into this complex question. Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers found that victims suffer “a mistrust bordering on paranoia, and a loss of interest that greatly surpasses anything observed in anxiety disorders.” The subject “does not only react to torture with a tiredness of days, weeks, or months, but remains a tired human being, relatively uninterested and unable to concentrate.”
These findings led him to a revealing question: “What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin?” (Question of Torture, 10-11)
XIII. Torture as “a kind of total theater”
Doerr-Zegers explained that techniques of torture work by creating deception, distrust, fear, disorientation, a “kind of total theater” that leaves the victim disoriented and “emotionally and psychological damaged.” The similarity of the explanation below to “street theater” found in mind control allegations is remarkable;
As Doerr-Zegers describes it, the psychological component of torture becomes a kind of total theater, a constructed unreality of lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably with the victim’s self-betrayal and destruction.
To make their artifice of false charges, fabricated news, and mock executions convincing, interrogators often become inspired thespians. The torture chamber itself thus has the theatricality of a set with special lighting, sound effects, props, and backdrop, all designed with a perverse stagecraft to evoke an aura of fear. Both stage and cell construct their own kind of temporality. While the play both expands and collapses time to carry the audience forward toward denouement, the prison distorts time to disorientate and then entrap the victim. As the torturer manipulates circumstances to “maximize confusion,” the victim feels “prior schemas of the self and the world … shattered” and becomes receptive to the “torturer’s construction of reality.”
Under the peculiar conditions of psychological torture, victims, isolated from others, form “emotional ties to their tormentors” that make them responsive to a perverse play in which they are both audience and actor, subject and object—in a script that often leaves them not just disoriented but emotionally and psychologically damaged, in some cases for the rest of their lives. (A Question of Torture, 10)
XIV. A comparison of “no touch” torture to mind control allegations
The Washington Post Magazine article included interviews of several TIs, or targeted individuals of mind control, as some call themselves. Highly acclaimed author Gloria Naylor is most recognized for her novel Women of Brewster Place, starring Oprah in a 1980s TV mini-series. Naylor wrote the novel 1996, about her personal experience of mind control targeting and “street theater.” The article also included an example of drug-induced paranoia for comparison;
Like Girard, Naylor describes what she calls “street theater,” incidents that might be dismissed by others as coincidental, but which Naylor believes were set up. She noticed suspicious cars driving by her isolated vacation home. On an airplane, fellow passengers mimicked her every movement, like mimes on a street.
Voices similar to those in Girard’s case followed, taunting voices cursing her, telling her she was stupid, that she couldn’t write. Expletive-laced language filled her head. …
Naylor is not the first writer to describe such a personal descent. Evelyn Waugh, one of the great novelists of the 20th century, details similar experiences in The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold. Waugh’s book, published in 1957, has eerie similarities to Naylor’s. Embarking on a recuperative cruise, Pinfold begins to hear voices on the ship that he believes are part of a wireless system capable of broadcasting into his head; he believes the instigator recruited fellow passengers to act as operatives; and he describes “performances” put on by passengers directed at him yet meant to look innocuous to others.
Waugh wrote his book several years after recovering from a similar episode and realizing that the voices and paranoia were the result of drug-induced hallucinations.
The psychological terror and mistrust bordering on paranoia of torture victims is remarkably similar to the mind control alleged by Naylor and the drug-induced paranoia of Waugh. The “street theater” described by most TIs also appears similar to the paranoia of mental illness and most people think “street theater” sounds crazy.
The addendum of Naylor’s novel 1996 included this description of some of the most commonly reported mind control symptoms;
“Victims are subjected to various kinds of harassment and torture, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for years on end. Most believe that some type of technology can remotely track, target, and control every nerve in their bodies. Heart and respiration rate can speed up and slow down, and stomach and bowel functions are regulated. Illnesses and all types of pain can turn on and off in an instant. Microwave burns are reported.
Sleep deprivation is common and dreams are manipulated. Victims say, “They [whoever is targeting them] can see through my eyes, what I see.” Sometimes victims describe seeing the images of projected holograms. Thoughts can be read. Most victims describe a phenomenon they call “street theater.” For example, people around the victim have repeated verbatim, the victim’s immediate thoughts, or harassive and personalized statements are repeated by strangers wherever the victim may go.
Emotions can be manipulated. Microwave hearing, known to be an unclassified military capability of creating voices in the head, is regularly reported. Implanted thoughts and visions are common, with repetitive themes that can include pedophilia, homophobia and degradation. Victims say it is like having a radio or TV in your head. Less frequently, remote and abusive sexual manipulation is reported. Almost all victims say repetitive behavior control techniques are used and include negative, stimulus-response or feedback loops.
The counterintuitive and bizarre torture techniques are discernible within the mind control allegations. The mind control techniques seem to be psychological techniques to disorient the victim and cause him to feel completely controlled, dependent and at the mercy of his torturers. Similar to the “kind of total theater” for torture, “street theater” is almost certainly a part of the process of breaking one’s personality to gain behavior control over that person.”
XV. The phenomenology of the torture situation
“What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin?” Doerr-Zegers found the answer lies in the psychological, not physical, “phenomenology of the torture situation;”
an asymmetry of power;
the anonymity of the torturer to the victim;
the “double bind” of either enduring or betraying others;
the systematic “falsehood” of trumped-up charges, artificial lighting, cunning deceptions, and “mock executions”;
confinement in distinctive spaces signifying “displacement, trapping, narrowness and destruction”; and
a temporality “characterized by some unpredictability and much circularity, having no end.” …
Thus, much of the pain from all forms of torture is psychological, not physical, based upon denying victims any power over their lives. In sum, the torturer strives “through insult and disqualification, by means of threats … to break all the victim’s possible existential platforms.” Through this asymmetry, the torturer eventually achieves “complete power” and reduces the victims to “a condition of total or near total defenselessness.” (Question of Torture, 10-11)
In torture, a torture situation is created according to Doerr-Zegers. In mind control allegations, there is a similar phenomenology of a mind control situation. TIs describe this as “an electronic prison.” Doerr-Zegers described the torture technique, 1) an asymmetry of power. In torture, the torturer has complete power and the victim is completely powerless. Similarly, TIs are targeted remotely and are completely powerless to stop the targeting. Doerr-Zegers described the torture technique, 2) the anonymity of the torturer to the victim. Torture victims do not know their torturer and similarly, there is the anonymity of the remote targeting in the mind control situation.
Most TIs described “street theater” or seemingly staged events which matches 3), 4) and 6). Doerr-Zegers described torture technique, 5) confinement in distinctive spaces signifying “displacement, trapping, narrowness and destruction.” Although TIs are not physically imprisoned, most victims describe the experience as very debilitating and compare it to “mental rape, an electronic prison, or total destruction of the quality of their lives.” Mind control poses a severe restriction on their former lives. Doerr-Zeger’s technique 6) a temporality “characterized by some unpredictability and much circularity, having no end” is also similar to sensory deprivation in mind control allegations. TIs routinely report the simple but extremely repetitive and negative, stimulus-response and feedback loops of their environment.
XVI. Comparing “no touch” torture techniques of sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain to mind control allegations
The psychological effects achieved by torture and alleged mind control are similar. Mind control targeting tactics described by most TIs seem to contain the underlying “no touch” torture techniques of sensory disorientation and self inflicted pain. For comparison, here is McCoy’s description;
To summarize, the CIA’s psychological paradigm fused two new methods, “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” whose combination, in theory, would cause victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers … The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity. (McCoy outline, 5)
The intended effect of sensory disorientation for torture would be similar for mind control; to create an environment of radical uncertainty to enhance the break down of the person’s will and personality. Most alleged cases of mind control describe the considerable repetition of seemingly innocuous and banal stimuli in the TIs environment, as if engineered by computer. The addendum of Naylor’s book included this description; “Almost all victims say repetitive behavior control techniques are used and include negative, stimulus-response or feedback loops.” For comparison, here is McCoy’s description;
The CIA’s “sensory disorientation” became a total assault on all senses and sensibilities, auditory, visual, tactile, temporal, temperature, and survival. Refined through years of practice, sensory disorientation relies on a mix of sensory overload and sensory deprivation via banal procedures, isolation then intense interrogation, heat and cold, light and dark, noise and silence, for a systematic attack on all human stimuli. (McCoy outline, 4-5)
McCoy described the photos of the hooded detainee with “the arms extended for self-inflicted pain.” The torturer forces the prisoner to stand with arms extended and the prisoner has no control over his situation. The prisoner still has a sense of guilt at causing his own pain by his extended arms. This intended effect of self inflicted pain for torture seems to be similar to mind control. TIs who are remotely targeted with physical pain cannot escape. Although TIs go to extremes in trying to escape the physical targeting, they are unsuccessful. The psychological trauma is inflicted by the sense of causing one’s own pain. Many TIs report that the targeting causes TIs to become isolated from friends, families and in many cases TIs are unable to work. This common reaction to targeting seems to be a type of self-inflicted psychological pain.
Carole Sterling’s description of targeting is also found in the addendum of Naylor’s book and seems to illustrate the techniques of sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain. It is a typical TI description;
In 1997, Carole Sterling wrote a letter to the editor of the Star Beacon. She described her alleged targeting with EMR weapons technologies that within months, led to her suicide.
Dear Star Beacon, I am writing about something that happened to me which goes back to December 1995. I went to a conference in Nevada. The day following the last night at the conference, I noticed that I had an injection mark on the base of my spine which was sore. Then the nightmare started three days after my return to Washington, D.C. … It totally scrambled my brain, leaving me unable to think properly, simply functioning on sheer shock and horror, with total incomprehension of what was going on. It actually was debilitating. The room felt like a torture chamber. This forced me out of my home. I believe that the technology used, be it some type of a frequency assault, some sort of directed energy, in addition to whatever was injected in me, has caused damage to my brain. [I have] been living with this debilitating and excruciating pain for the last eight months so far.
TIs describe both psychological and physical targeting similar to torture. It seems logical to surmise that the successful psychological theories of “no touch” torture would cross over to more technically based remote, advanced mind control programs. This becomes a significant step forward in understanding the mind control issue. The mind control allegations are “the secret in plain sight.”
XVII. Conclusions: what everyone can agree on
Hard questions need to be asked of the experts. Who now controls the neuroscience weapons research and how advanced is it? As a result of U.S. secrecy, an educated guess is all that is possible. The public deployment of advanced remote neuroscience weapons will be a world changing event, affecting the lives of this generation and the next. The weapons involve national security, science, history, U.S. politics and geopolitics. Most importantly the weapons encompass human nature, good and evil and suffering. Most people are in agreement about one fact: unlike the atomic bomb, there has been a total lack of public input for neuroscience weapons and policy even though the research began in the 1950s and is still classified. Again, this raises more questions than it answers.
This article will be published in March 2008. See www.huntergatheress.com A special thank you to editor, Joan D’Arc for her encouragement and suggestions.
VIII. List of Mind Control Symptoms (2003 Article by Cheryl Welsh)
List of mind control symptoms, whether the related technology is scientifically proven and if there is military interest or funding of the related technology
by Cheryl Welsh, March, 2003
Thank you to those who sent me much of this information:
Tessa Puglia, Harlan Girard, Margo Cherney, and John Ginter.
Mind Justice Home Page
Symptoms
Microwave hearing
Transmission of specific commands into the subconscious
Visual disturbances, visual hallucinations
Inject words, numbers into brain via electromagnetic radiation waves
Manipulation of emotions
Reading thoughts remotely
Causing pain to any nerve of the body.
Remote manipulation of human behavior from space
Harassment, stress symptoms such as helicopters flying overhead
Seeing, as in a camera, through your eyes, i.e. to see what you see exactly
Control of sleep patterns.
Computer-brain interface, control and communication
Complex control of the brain such as retrieving memories, implanting personalities
Symptom: Microwave Hearing
1. Microwave hearing. The hearing of voices in the head from an outside source, but nobody else can hear the voices except the targeted individual.
Scientifically Proven?
1. Yes. Ultrascience III, Spies are us. Featured Dr. James C. Lin, Ph.D.. biomedical and electrical engineer, educator, author of Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications, 1978. Lin demonstrated microwave hearing, a symptom of many of the victims, hearing voices. Also featured Cheryl Welsh on the issue of mind control experimentation. International Defense Review, 3-1-93, Special Operations Survives Pentagon budget Constraints, Ramon Lopez. “JASORS, Joint Advanced Special Operations Radio System is being developed by Harris Corporation. …is a very ambitious, leading-edge technology program, …Whiles JASORS is a near-term SOF, (Special Operations Forces) enhancement, SORDAC,(Special Operations Research Development and Acquisition Center), is also investigating long-range (1998-2010) and “far-future” (2011 and beyond) weaponry and support equipment. [SORDAC’s director, Army Colonel Douglas J.] Richardson said one far-future communications system being investigated is “synthetic telepathy.” One day, SOF commandos may be capable of communicating through thought processes.”
Margo Cherney FOIA request for complete NASA abstract Report Number: AD-A090426.,June 1, 1980. Brooks Air Force Base, Jan.25, 2000. The requested information is fully denied under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1)…” NASA abstract in part stated, “A decoy and deception concept presently being considered is to remotely create the perception of noise in the heads of personnel by exposing them to low power, pulsed microwave. When people are illuminated with properly modulated low power microwaves the sensation is reported as a buzzing, clicking, or hissing which seems to originate (regardless of the person’s position in the field) within or just behind the head. The phenomena occurs at average power densities as low as microwatts per square centimeter with carrier frequencies from 0.4 to 3.0 GHz. By proper choice of pulse characteristics, intelligible speech may be created. Before this technique may be extended and used for military applications, an understanding of the basic principles must be developed. Such an understanding is not only required to optimize the use of the concept for camouflage, decoy and deception operations but is required to properly assess safety factors of such microwave exposure.”
Microwave News, editor, Louis Slesin, Jan/Feb 1997 p 14. U.S. Air Force Looks to the Battlefields of the Future: Electromagnetic Fields That Might “Boggle the Mind “It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction. When a high power microwave pulse in the GHz range strikes the human body, a very small temperature perturbation occurs. This is associated with a sudden expansion of the slightly heated tissue. This expansion is fast enough to produce an acoustic wave. If a pulse stream is used, it should be possible to create an internal acoustic field in the 5-15 kHz range, which is audible. Thus it may be possible to “talk” to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them.”
Federal Times, Dec. 13, 1976 Microwave Weapons Study by Soviets Cited. The Defense Intelligence Agency has released a report on heavy Communist research on microwaves, including their use as weapons. Microwaves are used in radar, television and microwave ovens. They can cause disorientation and possibly heart attacks in humans. Another biological effect with possible anti-personnel uses is “microwave hearing.” “Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially (within the head) can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities,” the report said. According to the study, Communist work in this area “has great potential for development into a system for disorienting or disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic personnel.” No mention was made of the still-unexplained microwave bombardment of the American Embassy in Moscow. The study dealt largely with long-term exposure of days or weeks in industrial situations, which usually produce mild effects. Short exposure to intense radiation can cause heart seizure and a wide range of physical disorders.
Military interest or funding?
1. Yes. See above.
Symptom: Transmission of specific commands into the subconscious
Scientifically proven?
2. Yes. Defense News, US Explores Russian Mind Control Technologyby Barbara Opall January, 11-17-1993, p. 4. “Pioneered by the government-funded Department of Psycho-Correction at the Moscow Medical Academy, acoustic psycho-correction involves the transmission of specific commands via static or whitenoise bands into the human subconscious without upsetting other intellectual functions. Experts said laboratory demonstrations have shown encouraging results after exposure of less than one minute.
Janet Morris, reported in book Shukman, David. The sorcerer’s challenge : fears and hopes for the weapons of the next millennium, David Shukman. London : Hodder & Stoughton, page 223. Demonstration on BBC television on news program entitled Newsnight by David Shukman, (tape available on request).
U.S. News, 1-3-2000, John Norseen, Reading and changing your mind. [Lockheed Martin neuroengineer in Intelligent Systems Division] Norseen’s interest in the brain stems from a Soviet book he read in the mid-1980s, claiming that research on the mind would revolutionize the military and society at large. [He] coined the term “Biofusion” to cover his plans to map and manipulate [the brain] leading to advances in …national security… and …would be able to convert thoughts into computer commands by deciphering the brain’s electrical activity. BioFusion would reveal the fingerprints of the brain by using mathematical models, [Smirnov’s computer program uses mathematical models also]. It sound crazy,…The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, …have all awarded…research contracts to Norseen. Norseen is waiting to hear if the second stage of these contracts-portions of them classified- comes through. Norseen’s theories are grounded in current science. …By MRI, scientists can tell what the person was doing at the time of the recording…Emotions from love to hate can be recognized from the brain’s electrical activity. …Norseen predicts profiling by brain print will be in place by 2005. …Norseen would like to draw upon Russian brain-mimicking software and American brain -mapping breakthroughs to allow that communication to take place in a less invasive way. A modified helmut could record a pilot’s brainwaves. “When you say right 090 degrees…the computer would see that electrical pattern in the brain and turn the plane 090 degrees. If the pilot misheard instructions to turn 090 degrees and was thinking “080 degrees,” the helmut would detect the error, then inject the right number via electromagnetic waves.”
Military interest or funding?
2. Yes, Defense Electronics, DOD, Intel Agencies Look at Russian Mind Control…by Mark Tapscott, July, 1993 p. 17. “In a series of closed meetings…FBI officials were briefed on the decade-long research on a computerized acoustic device allegedly capable of implanting thoughts in a person’s mind without that person being aware of the thought.”
Also, US corp. buys Russian mind control equipment.
Symptom: Visual Disturbances, Visual Hallucinations
Scientifically proven?
3. Yes. A demonstration by Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher and Dr. William van Bise, directed magnetic signals into the brain of reporter Chuck DeCaro. They created visual images as in a hallucination. This program features Dr. Robert O. Becker, two time Nobel prize nominee, scientist and researcher of electromagnetic radiation effects on the body and author of Body Electric, summarized, “The government has never disproved the psychological effects of electromagnetic radiation. “Dr. Robert Becker commented “that this is a substantial step forward in the understanding how the visual system works” and would be a powerful weapon if used on fighter pilots while trying to fly. For a 55$ copy of this tape call CNN at 404 827 2712 and ask for R2501 #13, R2747 #33, R2501 #15, R2501-#17. It runs about 20 minutes.
Military interest or funding?
3. Yes. See above.
Symptom: Inject Words, Numbers into Brain via EMR Waves
Scientifically proven?
4. Yes in Russia. Defense News, US Explores Russian Mind Control Technologyby Barbara Opall January, 11-17-1993, p. 4. “Experts said laboratory demonstrations have shown encouraging results after exposure of less than one minute.”
U.S. News, 1-3-2000, John Norseen, Reading and changing your mind. [Lockheed Martin neuroengineer in Intelligent Systems Division] Norseen’s interest in the brain stems from a Soviet book he read in the mid-1980s, claiming that research on the mind would revolutionize the military and society at large. [He] coined the term “Biofusion” to cover his plans to map and manipulate [the brain] leading to advances in …national security… and …would be able to convert thoughts into computer commands by deciphering the brain’s electrical activity. BioFusion would reveal the fingerprints of the brain by using mathematical models, [Smirnov’s computer program uses mathematical models also]. It sound crazy,…The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, …have all awarded…research contracts to Norseen. Norseen is waiting to hear if the second stage of these contracts-portions of them classified- comes through. Norseen’s theories are grounded in current science. …By MRI, scientists can tell what the person was doing at the time of the recording…Emotions from love to hate can be recognized from the brain’s electrical activity. …Norseen predicts profiling by brain print will be in place by 2005. …Norseen would like to draw upon Russian brain-mimicking software and American brain -mapping breakthroughs to allow that communication to take place in a less invasive way. A modified helmut could record a pilot’s brainwaves. “When you say right 090 degrees…the computer would see that electrical pattern in the brain and turn the plane 090 degrees. If the pilot misheard instructions to turn 090 degrees and was thinking “080 degrees,” the helmet would detect the error, then inject the right number via electromagnetic waves.”
Yes in US, but classified. Lobster Magazine, Mind Control and the American Government by Martin Cannon, Number 23. J.F. Schapitz was conducting classified work on microwaving the subconscious with commands as in hypnosis. This work is classified.
Military interest or funding?
4. Yes, Defense News, US Explores Russian Mind Control Technology by Barbara Opall January, 11-17-1993, p. 4. “Moreover, decades of research and investment of untold millions of rubles in the process of psycho-correction has produced the ability to alter behavior on willing and unwilling subjects, the experts add. …Russian senior research scientist, diplomats, …are beginning to provide limited demonstrations for their U.S. counterparts. Further evaluations of key technologies in the United States are being planned, as are discussions aimed at creating a frame-work for bringing the issue under bilateral or multilateral controls, U.S. and Russian sources say.”
Symptom: Manipulation of Emotions
Scientifically proven?
5. Yes. Ultrascience, Weapons of War, Learning Channel, 1997, Featured Dr. Michael Persinger, Laurentian University, Canada. Dr. Persinger described weapons using “psycho or influence technology” and electromagnetic radiation frequencies to control what people think, for psychological warfare purposes.
Ultrascience, War 2020, Beyond Productions, Learning Channel, 1998, Dr. Michael Persinger, Laurentian University performed a demonstration of a helmut with solenoids which induce magnetic fields into the brain and cause panic, fear, God and UFO experiences. He stated that with current technology it is possible to use mind control on the mass populations.
Military interest or funding?
5. Yes. See above.
Symptom: Reading Thoughs Remotely
Scientifically proven?
6. No, but famous neuroscientist warns that remote neural monitoring equipment is “far from being science fiction” and can be used for “control of behaviour and brainwashing” and …will become commonplace and capable of being used at a distance.”
Nature/Vol 391/22Januray 1998
Advances in neuroscience ‘may threaten human rights
By Declan Butler
…at the annual public meeting of the French national bioethics committee held last week in Paris… Jean-Pierre Changeux, the chairman of the committee and a neuroscientist at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, told the meeting that understanding the working of the human brain is likely to become one of the most ambitious and rich disciplines of the future. But neuroscience also poses potential risks, he said, arguing that advances in cerebral imaging make the scope for invasion of privacy immense. Although the equipment needed is still highly specialized, it will become commonplace and capable of being used at a distance, he predicted. That will open the way for abuses such as invasion of personal liberty, control of behaviour and brainwashing. These are far from being science-fiction concerns, said Changeux, and constitute “a serious risk to society”. “Denis LeBihan, a researcher at the French Atomic Energy Commission, told the meeting that the use of imaging techniques has reached the stage where “we can almost read people’s thoughts”.
6. Yes. In the article, Decoding Minds, Signal Magazine, October, 2001, Dr. John D. Norseen, of Lockheed Martin stated , “We are at the point where this database has been developed enough that we can use a single electrode or something like an airport security system where there is a dome above our head to get enough information that we can know the number you’re thinking,” According to US News and World Report
U.S News and World Report, Jan 3-10, 2000, John Norseen, Reading your mind and injecting smart thoughts by Douglas Pasternak, p. 67 “…Norseen’s theories are grounded in current science.”
The Washington Times, August 17, 2002, the article entitled NASA plans to read terrorist’s minds at airport stated,
Airport security screeners may soon try to read the minds of travelers to identify terrorists. Officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have told Northwest Airlines security specialists that the agency is developing brain-monitoring devices in cooperation with a commercial firm, which it did not identify. Space technology would be adapted to receive and analyze brain-wave and heartbeat patterns, then feed that data into computerized programs ‘to detect passengers who potentially might pose a threat,’ according to briefing documents obtained by The Washington Times. NASA wants to use ‘noninvasive neuro-electric sensors,’ imbedded in gates, to collect tiny electric signals that all brains and hearts transmit. Computers would apply statistical algorithms to correlate physiologic patterns with computerized data on travel routines, criminal background and credit information from ‘hundreds to thousands of data sources,’ NASA documents say. …Robert Park, spokesman for the American Physical Society stated, ‘We’re close to the point where they can tell to an extent what you’re thinking about by which part of the brain is activated, which is close to reading your mind. …The idea is plausible, he says, but frightening’.
Here are a few examples of the advanced state of technology. Science Digest 7-84 page 30 stated Thomas Jensen, of Chicago’s Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke’s Medical Center, and Donald York “have discovered that just before a person says a particular word, the brain emits waves peculiar to that word alone. …These waves are the same from person to person.”
Dr. Richard Clark at the Flinders University of South Australia wrote the following in Think, Sept/Oct 92. Artificial neural network computer programs are used “to include the ability to learn and recognize simple patterns of thought from the electrical fields of the brain.”
Science Digest 10-81 entitled Machines that read Minds by Gary Selden stated that “Indeed, CIA spokespeople have admitted ‘following’ ERP[This is the waveform that the brain characteristically emits after absorbing an external event] research, perhaps the way the agency followed LSD research in the 1950s. …With remote monitors, such an instrument would be a spy’s dream.” It is naive to think that the CIA has not exploited this research.
In Nature, 1-22-98 Denis Le Bihan, a researcher at the French Atomic Energy Commission, he stated “we can almost read people’s thoughts”. The national bioethics committee is taking such threats so seriously that it is launching a study. The title of this article was Advances in neuroscience may threaten human rights.
Even in the unclassified sector, new technology includes surveillance for ‘abnormal behavior’ in order to alert security personnel of criminal behavior such as a car break in.. New Scientist, 12-11-99 Vol. 164, No. 2216 page 25 by Graham-Rowe, Ducan, described the technology as a computer programmed under the notion that most people behave in predictable ways when walking to their car. This behavior is transferred into a mathematical pattern and the computer recognizes it as such. “Anyone who deviates from this set pattern, such as someone who walks in circles or who lurks in shadows, will set off an alarm…” This is just a small example of human behavior and how it is studied scientifically. No doubt with the political will and the money of national security defense, as victims are alleging, human behavior has been studied and is controlled by government technology.
Military interest or funding?
6. Yes, government funded. U.S News and World Report, Jan 3-10, 2000, John Norseen, Reading your mind and injecting smart thoughts by Douglas Pasternak, p. 67 “…It sounds crazy, but Uncles Sam is listening. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center have all awarded small basic research contracts to Norseen, who works for Lockheed-Martin’s Intelligent Systems Division. Norseen is waiting to hear if the second stage of these contracts -portions of them classified-come through.
Symptom: Causing Pain to any Nerve of the Body
Scientifically proven?
7. Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, Sept 1994, Softkill Fallacyby Steve Aftergood, Page 45. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg writes: “Many of the non-lethal weapons under consideration utilize infrasound or electromagnetic energy (including lasers, microwave or radio-frequency radiation, or visible light pulsed at brain-wave frequency) for their effects. These weapons are said to cause temporary or permanent blinding, interference with mental processes, modification of behavior and emotional response, seizures, severe pain, dizziness, nausea and diarrhea, or disruption of internal organ functions in various other ways.
Numerous other articles on nonlethal weapons, see CAHRA [now Mind Justice] website: mindjustice.org [updated 2-04]
The People Zapper, heating weapon, demonstrated by military. Other technology very heavily discussed since the 1990s. See Marine Corps Times, The People Zapper, C. Mark Brinkley, March 5, 2001, p. 10. “…focuses energy into a beam of micromillimeter waves designed to stop an individual in his tracks. …The energy, which falls near microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum, causes moisture in a person’s skin to heat up rapidly, creating a burning sensation…”
Military Interest or funding?
7. Yes, government funding and very heavily discussed.
Symptom: Remote Manipulation of Human Behavior From Space
Scientifically proven?
8. Yes. Dodge, Glaser, Radiation Bioeffects Research, Journal of Microwave Power, 12(4) 1977, p. 320. “The information explosion in this field has been quite dramatic since 1969, when the international data base was estimated to consist of less than 1,000 citations. In addition to maintaining inventories of the literature, we have undertaken from time to time to provide assessments of international trends in research, development, and occupational health and safety. In the present paper, we will concentrate on events which have transpired since our last review effort in 1975. Major events which have taken place during that period include: …(5) Unpublished analyses of microwave bioeffects literature which were disseminated to Congress and to other officials arguing the case for remote control of human behavior by radar;
Psychotronic Arms Potential Must be Monitored, Member of the Russian Federation of Space Exploration Scientific and Technical Council, Anatoliy Pushenko in Moscow Rabochaya Tribuna, Nov. 26, 1994, FBIS, Ref # MM3011130594 ” A prominent specialist speaks for the first time in our press in Rabochaya Tribuna about psychotropic weapons, which started to be developed in the sixties–space-based energy systems capable of killing every living thing on the planet and driving millions of people crazy. … There are frequencies that are beneficial to people. But naturally there are also those which are hazardous. …That is, it has a direct physical effect on the human brain. … The terrible danger of psychotropic weapons is the possibility of their simultaneously and unequivocally affecting large masses of people over huge areas.
Moscow Armeyskiy Sbornik, Russia: National Information Security by Russian Major General, Valeriy Menshikov, doctor of technical sciences, and Colonel Boris Rodionov., Oct. 96, No. 10. P. 88-98, FBIS, Russian article, Mori DocID: 587170 “…Thus, the new space systems are potentially dangerous from the aspect of unfolding a wide-scale ‘information war’ and even creating global systems for controlling people’s behavior in any region, …”Also, scientists, weapons experts, EU members on U.S HAARP Project, FBIS article by Alain Gossens: Apocalypse Now? HAARP… report from Brussels Telemoustique, 1997, FBIS MoriDocID 587140, “Are the Americans currently developing a vast weapons system capable of scanning the entrails of the earth to seek out secret bases, jamming any form of radio communications, influencing human behavior… Nevertheless, if one is aware of the fact that the real sponsors are the Navy, the Air force, and the Department of Defense, then it is hard to believe that it is not a project for military purposes.”
Military interest or funding?
8. Probably. But scientifically sound. See tracking of airplanes, tracking by GPS. Satellites capable of taking pictures of license plates, etc.
Symptom: Harassment, Stress Symptoms such as Helicopters Flying Overhead
Scientifically proven?
9. Yes. Shukman, David. The sorcerer’s challenge : fears and hopes for the weapons of the next millennium, London : Hodder & Stoughton, 1995, P. 225 “The best they [FBI] they could do was to maintain a barrage of noise with helicopters and loudspeakers to keep the followers awake and to try to undermine their [Koresh and follower’s} morale.”
This quote is from Aviation Week & Space Technology 1-19-98 p.55 on information warfare and US capabilities. “…techniques as esoteric as ‘mapping the psychological and cognitive makeup’ of foreign leaders or key groups in order to predict reactions to manipulated information, …” . And the follow up story, on 3-9-98, page 21 stated that [USAF Gen. John] “Jumper talked about tools that could…make potential enemies see, hear and believe things that don’t exist” The military is discussing the deployment of weapons to do just that, create symptoms of mental illness. And yet this information is not taken seriously by professionals and has not been accepted as relevant to victim’s allegations.
Excerpts from CAHRA [now Mind Justice] website military journals and government document quotes: “…to control the will and perception of adversaries …by applying a regime of shock and awe…It is about effecting behavior.” “A decoy and deception concept [using microwaves] to “create intelligible speech ‘ in the head, ‘raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction.” “tools that could…make potential enemies see, hear and believe things that don’t exist.” “…crowd control and urban warfare devices that temporarily could paralyze an entire village.”
Military interest and funding?
9. Yes. See above.
Symptom: Seeing, as in a Camera, Through Your Eyes, i.e. to See What You See Exactly
Scientifically proven?
10. Proven in animals. BBC News Online Oct 11, 1999, Looking Through Cats’ Eyes Fuzzy But Recognizable, Dr. David Whitehouse, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid 471000/471786.stm A BBC News article reported on the first pictures from an experiment to see through the eyes of a cat.
Military interest and feasibility?
10. No.
Symptom: Control of Sleep Patterns
Scientifically proven?
11. Proven on animals. # CNN news broadcast, Special Assignment, Nov.-1985, by Chuck DeCaro, Weapons of War, Is there an RF Gap? Dr. Ross Adey discussed a demonstration of the 1950s Russian Lida machine, which used electromagnetic energy to put Russian psychiatric patients to sleep, as a substitute for tranquilizers and to treat neurotic disturbances. Dr. Adey stated that it worked on cats and dogs and put them to sleep. The Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily, Jun 7, 1983, Vol. XII, Number 104, Psy-War: Soviet Device Experiment by Dr. Stefan T. Possony reported: “…Dr. Ross Adey, chief of research at Loma Linda…started testing the machine [the Lida]…the device is on loan to Dr. Ross Adey. ‘The machine is technically described as ‘a distant pulse treatment apparatus. It generates 40 megahertz radiowaves which stimulate the brain’s electromagnetic activity at substantially lower frequencies”
Military interest or funding?
11. Yes. . The Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily, Jun 7, 1983, Vol. XII, Number 104, Psy-War: Soviet Device Experiment by Dr. Stefan T. Possony. “…On April 29, 1983 this author, as a participant in a panel at the Defense ’83 conference sponsored by Defense and Foreign Affairs, reported on Dr. Adey’s work…These remarks were delivered to a panel studying psychological warfare.”
Symptom: Computer-Brain Interface, Control and Communication
Scientifically feasible?
12. Yes. APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY RDT&E, Defense-wide BA2 Applied Research R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE Computing Systems and Communications Technology PE 0602301E, Project ST-19 The Augmented Cognition (AugCog) program will develop the means to measure a subject’s cognitive state in real time and manipulate it to accomplish the functions. The goal of the Augmented Cognition program is to develop methods that integrate digital devices that support memory, perception, and thinking, and link that support with the user’s context state information to directly improve the overall cognitive performance of the warfighter. The Perceptual Processing Display program focuses on exploiting neuroscience and perceptual processing technologies to redesign devices that deliver information to the human perceptual system. These new devices will be able to extract relevant signal from extraneous background noise, through perceptual modeling. This program will develop technologies that simplify relevant, and eliminate irrelevant, information to improve perception, comprehension, memory, inference, and decision-making. Specifically, this program will demonstrate the manipulation of perceptual data along hundreds of dimensions of the human perceptual system, and will result in the doubling of human information processing performance. http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/FY03BudEst.pdf
Military interest?
12. Yes. See above.
Symptom: Complex Control of the Brain such as Retrieving Memories, Implanting Personalities
Scientifically feasible?
13. Yes. 2002 Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, A National Science Foundation /U.S. Department of Commerce-sponsored report. Here are relevant excerpts. Full text at http://itri.loyola.edu/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_pre_publication.pdfList of Participants and Contributors included NASA, Office of Navel Research, DARPA, Sandia National Labs, USAF Research Labs, Ratheon, Lucent Technologies, MIT and Stanford.2. Expanding Human Cognition and Communication. Page 85. “…Truly, the mind is the final frontier, and unraveling its mysteries will have tremendous practical benefits. …Failure to invest in the necessary multidisciplinary research would delay or even prevent these benefits to the economy, to national security, and to individual well-being. Rapid recent progress in cognitive science and related fields has brought us to the point where we could achieve several breakthroughs that would be of great value to mankind. …For example, progress in the cognitive neuroscience of the human brain has been achieved through new research methodologies, based in both biology and information science, such as functional magnetic resonance imagining (fMRI) and infrared sensors. However, we are reaching the resolution limits of current instrumentation, for example because of concerns about the safety of human research subjects (Food and Drug Administration 1998), so progress will stall quickly unless breakthroughs in NBIC can give us research tools with much greater resolution, sensitivity, and capacity to analyze data.”
3. Page 86. The Human Cognome Project. “It is time to launch a Human Cognome Project, comparable to the successful Human Genome Project, to chart the structure and functions of the human mind. No project would be more fundamental to progress throughout science and engineering, or would require a more complete unification of NBIC sciences. …While the research would include a complete mapping of the connections in the human brain, it would be far more extensive than neuroscience. …Some participants in the human cognition and communication working group were impressed by the long-term potential for uploading aspects of individual personality to computers and robots, thereby expanding the scope of human experience, action, and longevity.”
4. Page 88. “Statements and Visions. Participants in the human cognition and communication panel contributed a number of statements, describing the current situation and suggesting strategies for building upon it, as well as transformative visions of what could be accomplished in ten or twenty years through a concentrated effort.”
5. National Security, Theme Summary. Page 287. “…Investment in convergent nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science [NBIC] is expected to result in innovative technologies that revolutionize many domains of conflict and peacekeeping. …As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry has noted, these are the technological breakthroughs that are “Changing the face of war and how we prepare for war.” There are numerous special programs, reports and presentations that address these goals. The Department of Defense has designated nanoscience as a strategic research area in order to accelerate the expected benefits (Murday 1999). …Applications of brain-machine interface. The convergence of all four NBIC fields will give warfighters the ability to control complex entities by sending control actions prior to thoughts (cognition) being fully formed. The intent is to take brain signals (nanotechnology for augmented sensitivity and nonintrusive signal detection) and use them in a control strategy (information technology), and then impart back into the brain the sensations of feedback signals (biotechnology).”
In Approaching the 21st Century: Opportunities for NIMH Neuroscience Research The National Advisory Mental Health Council Report to Congress on the Decade of the Brain, Jan. 1988 by USHHS. Page 49 stated “Several investigators had noted that when neurons were given brief but intense high-frequency stimulation their electrical properties were changed in ways that would fit those proposed for memory: The changes were triggered by an electrical event, they were strengthened by repetition, and they persisted indefinitely. …the scientists found that intense high-frequency pulses trigger an unusually large release of calcium in the post synaptic cell…”
Military interest or funding?
14. Yes. See above.
IX. Outlaw nonconsensual human experiments now
By Cheryl Welsh, June 16, 2009
About 15 years ago, a reporter at the Albuquerque Tribune discovered evidence that during the Cold War, the U.S. government carried out radiation experiments on U.S. citizens without their knowledge or consent, all under the shadow of classified research. When the story hit the newswires, the U.S. public was outraged.
About 15 years ago, a reporter at the Albuquerque Tribune discovered evidence that during the Cold War, the U.S. government carried out radiation experiments on U.S. citizens without their knowledge or consent, all under the shadow of classified research. When the story hit the newswires, the U.S. public was outraged. President Bill Clinton responded by establishing the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), calling on it to review Washington’s past actions and recommend steps that would prevent such heinous human experiments from ever taking place again.
The committee made their recommendations in a 1995 report; and although Clinton issued a memorandum two years later that included several ACHRE prescriptions, bureaucratic delays kept it from being properly approved before he left office. The Department of Health and Human Services finally published it as an interim proposal in the Federal Register in 2002, but it remains unapproved by the appropriate agencies and departments.
So while it seems crazy, it’s true: Today, in a country that for the last eight years has been defined by questionable intelligence-gathering techniques and interrogation methods, the U.S. government is no more restricted in carrying out nonconsensual, classified research on human subjects than it was after World War II. Thus, it’s time for the Obama administration to reexamine the guidelines for classified experimentation on human subjects and close any loopholes that would allow a person to be unknowingly subject to experimentation. In fact, a prohibition on waiving informed consent in classified human-subject experiments should be the centerpiece of any new legislation–the waiver of this right being perhaps the most offensive aspect of the Cold War research programs.
Currently, the 1991 Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects is the binding regulation on human-subject research for 17 federal agencies including the military and the intelligence agencies. Although it outlines the guidelines for informed consent, it also states, “Unless otherwise required by law, department or agency heads may waive the applicability of some or all of the provisions of this policy.” In other words, a person participating in an experiment must be informed and give his consent unless a high-level government official doesn’t think it is necessary. Not surprisingly, this authority doesn’t stop with the heads of agencies and departments. The president also has the power to waive or modify these provisions through a presidential directive, which he can issue at any time, refuse to make public, and do without any person’s or body’s approval.
Therefore, until a federal statute that secures the right of informed consent for anyone subjected to classified human experimentation is passed by the legislature and signed into law by the president, the U.S. government has the power to carry out research projects without his consent and without informing the participants of the dangers or future complications.
Is the United States carrying out human-subject research without consent right now? We don’t know. But speculation about the future of research and experimentation doesn’t inspire confidence. Jonathan Moreno, a biomedical expert and author of Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans, writes, “Among the next generation of weapons is one that may involve a different sort of radiation than that emitted by atomic fission: microwaves. Electromagnetic waves may be used to disrupt an enemy soldier’s central nervous system, to cause epileptic seizures.” Anyone who doubts that the U.S. military may be considering such research need only consult a 2006 navy directive that includes guidelines for waiving consent and suggests the potential for research involving “severe or unusual intrusion, either physical or psychological, on human subjects (such as consciousness-altering drugs or mind-control techniques).”
In order to overcome more than 50 years of failed reforms, new approaches to human subject protections for classified experiments need to be developed, and troubling questions need to be an answered. How could this have happened and happened for so long? As we reflect on potential research and consider the ongoing debate regarding torture, the power of the executive branch, and the future of U.S. security, the need for strong, legally binding regulations governing human-subject research is undeniable. It’s time, with a new administration that condemns torture of any kind, to establish regulations governing all human-subject protections in classified experiments and to ensure that no person, regardless of position, can take away a person’s right to consent.
X. [Geo-stalking: Radar] ‘Current feasibility of antipersonnel electromagnetic weapons on the battlefield’ and ‘Current feasibility of remote surreptitious tracking and targeting of humans via satellite’ by Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh, director, Mind Justice (2005)
http://mindjustice.org/ucdavis2005.htm
Table of Contents
Introduction.
Zhijun Wei evaluates 1988 German think tank article on battlefield use of antipersonnel electromagnetic weapons. Wei concludes; “In order to have enough energy to reach the target, high power sources and highly directional antenna are key technologies. The weapons described below are possible (and provide a glimpse of what future warfare may be like).”
Zhijun Wei on detecting brain signals remotely. Detecting brain signals is possible at lesser distances and very challenging from satellite.
Zhijun Wei on feasibility of remote targeting of humans via satellite. Remote targeting is possible at battlefield distances but is questionable from a satellite.
Satellite surveillance technology; extremely advanced, classified and well-funded since 1940s.
Remote sensing of humans is a 2003 goal of U.S. Special Operations Command. One of the rare times this goal has been cited. Surreptitious human surveillance is classified and controversial.
Sophisticated remote mind control capabilities are classified and controversial. How advanced the capabilities are is not known but powerful battlefield and mind control weapons are scientifically feasible today.
New research on targeting the brain indicates electromagnetic brain communication is a scientifically valid theory.
Government goals of developing electromagnetic brain cognition and non-invasive brain to brain communication devices.
Nonlethal and information weapons programs in 2005; reports of excessive secrecy and little accountability. Ethical abuses are being reported with recommendations of further study, discussion and regulation.
Remote surveillance and NLWs (Nonlethal weapons); ethical concerns need to be studied and debated by experts and the public, ethicists conclude.
How real and/or imminent is the possibility of sophisticated and surreptitious remote mind control? A summary.
Experts warn of a lack of study and legislation for surveillance technologies and nonlethal weapons; a call for public and professional discussions, legislation and regulation. What can be done now.
Introduction
Jose Delgado “was among the world’s most acclaimed and controversial neuroscientists in the early 1970s, according to an article on brain chips in the October, 2005 Scientific American. The article explained that in the mid-1980s an article in the magazine Omni and documentaries by the BBC and CNN cite Delgado’s work as circumstantial evidence that the U.S. and Soviet Union might have secretly developed methods for remotely modifying people’s thoughts. Noting that “the power and precision of electromagnetic pulses decline rapidly with distance” and “how complex information is encoded in the brain [is] a goal that neuroscientists are far from achieving.”, Delgado dismisses these mind-control claims as “science fiction”.
It turns out the answer to the question of whether remote government mind control is scientifically feasible today is not that simple. Sophisticated mind control, i.e. thought reading, implanting thoughts, manipulating emotions, etc. is considered science fiction but this conclusion completely ignores the large classified mind control government research known to exist. In addition, mind control is much more advanced than generally believed. For example, in the Scientific American article, Delgado delineated the mind control issue into therapeutic ‘mind control’ which Delgado found to be unreliable in humans and nontherapeutic ‘mind control’ in which Delgado’s research was successful and ‘could control subjects’ minds and bodies with the push of a button.”
The question of whether remote human surveillance is scientifically feasible is also generally considered to be science fiction. This conclusion also ignores the large classified government research known to exist in this area. Again, remote human surveillance is also much more advanced than generally believed. A closer look reveals that this field is rapidly changing. A Spring 2003, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine article entitled ‘Geoslavery’ by Jerome E. Dobson and Peter F. Fisher illustrated possible human rights abuse from the misuse of satellite targeting and surveillance technologies.
The IEEE article continued; “Geographic information systems (GIS) technologies, including Location Based Services (LBS) continuously fed by earth coordinate data streams derived from the Global Positioning System (GPS), recently have given rise to new consumer products advertised for tracking humans as well as animals. It is well established scientifically that humans can be tracked via satellite with a transponder, “a wristband to be locked to the individual enabling tracking of all movements, for prisoners, children and senior citizens.”
The IEEE article then characterized recent news of rats trained to be remotely controlled by direct electronic stimulation of the brain from up to 500m and concluded that “linking this to a GIS with a digital map and GPS location information is almost trivial technically.”
Geoslavery as defined in this article is “a practice in which one entity, the master coercively or surreptitiously monitors and exerts control over the physical location of another individual, the slave.” The article described a scenario of monitoring and also remote control by sending a command transmitted instantaneously to the transponder, which would administer punishment or an electronic form of geoslavery. No products that deliver punishment are known to currently exist, according to the article. The main issue was described as a lack of restrictions on commercial monitoring products and a lack of legal remedies for abuses involving this technology.
Zhijun Wei is a UC Davis electrical engineering student hired by Mind Justice to answer the question of whether humans could be remotely targeted without a transponder, directly via a satellite. Without an implant or transponder, the possibility of surreptitious surveillance would be a serious concern. Zhijun Wei analyzed the scientific literature to determine whether the science is feasible for a human to be tracked via satellite without a transponder. Zhijun Wei also evaluated one battlefield description of electromagnetic weapons. Wei concluded the article descriptions “provide a glimpse of what future warfare may be like” and that the descriptions were scientifically valid.
Due to limited time and resources, Zhijun Wei conducted only preliminary research on this topic. But Wei was able to conclude that the science is feasible for remote human surveillance but is extremely challenging directly from a satellite. Wei’s analysis involved such broad fields including electrical and biomedical engineering, therefore this report only provides a general overview.
Wei concluded, “it is evident that targeting a human being from a far distance is realizable with current technology. But it is questionable that this can be done from a satellite.” Based on Wei’s findings, further technical study for the feasibility of remotely tracking human via brain waves and controlling human behavior via magnetic and electromagnetic signals by satellite is strongly recommended.
About Zhijun Wei
Zhijun Wei is currently an international graduate student in Electrical Engineering Department at University of California, Davis. He earned his B.A. in communication engineering in June, 1999 and M.E. in electromagnetic and microwave theory in June, 2002, from Northwestern Polytechnic University, China. He is now working toward his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering and expecting to graduate in 2007. His current research is in the field of radio frequency and microwave circuit design, specifically device modeling and power amplifier design for wireless communication systems. He has one published article.
Z. Wei and A. Pham, “Liquid crystal polymer (LCP) for microwave/millimeter wave multi-layer packaging,” IEEE International Microwave Symposium (IMS) Digest, pp. 2273-2276, Philadelphia, PA, June 2003.
Part 2:
The major conclusions.
This report challenges the experts’ scientific criticisms of the possibility of the existence of classified remote mind control weapons and technologies today. Still, without the development of new or classified technologies, sophisticated mind control is not scientifically feasible at this time. But facts in this report significantly increase the possibility of advanced weapons. This report will document background information that is rarely reported, for example, that mind control and surreptitious surveillance are national security priorities. The implications for the public are enormous.
Mind control and surreptitious human surveillance are weapons capabilities and research is very classified and well-funded. Known but classified brain implant and mind control research dates back to the 1950s and known but classified remote surreptitious human tracking and targeting at battlefield distances dates back to the 1990s. Recent government documents include goals to develop mind control and satellite surreptitious human surveillance.
Technology has been available since 1990s for less sophisticated but very important battlefield electromagnetic and mind control weapons. Reported military discussions on deployment to Iraq of directed energy weapons including weapons that cause excruciating pain, blindness, and hearing loss, have started.
2005 articles report abuses of new surveillance technologies and electromagnetic weapons; scientists, reporters and ethicists call for studies, discussion and regulation now. This report includes recommendations on what can be done now.
The serious consequences of classified research.
In Zhijun Wei’s report below, he stated that; “Due to availability of literature and classified material on this topic, the report only covers the development of related technologies which may be used to fulfill this purpose.” Wei’s findings take on new meaning given the national security surrounding the science and technology. A quote which illustrates the effects of national security on physics research in the 1950s can be analogized to the classified science of mind control and surreptitious human surveillance. Forman, Paul.(1987) Behind Quantum Electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940-1960. HSPS 18:1.
Pg. 170; During the 1950s the cumulative number of announced and available number of papers [that were] properly published in U.S. physics journals [was]-about 50,000-but it was probably only some small percentage of the (unknown) number of security classified reports in physics and its technical applications prepared in that decade.
The Forman quote helps to explain the profound effect classified neuroscience research has on public information. An article entitled Mind Control in the November, 2004 Discover magazine quoted many neuroscientists who did not think mind control was possible in the near future. For example, Bruce McNaughton of the University of Arizona predicted; “Don’t count on it, [sophisticated mind reading] in the 21st century, or even in the 22nd,” McNaughton has monitored neurons in the hippocampus of rats as they run through a maze. Once the rat learns to navigate a maze, it’s neurons discharge the same patterns whenever it runs the maze. And the rat will sleep and the same firing pattern often unfolds.
This pattern could be said to represent at least partially -the rat’s memory of the maze. McNaughton emphasizes that the same maze generated a different firing pattern in different rats; even in the same rat, the pattern changes if the maze is moved to a different room. He thus doubts whether science can compile a dictionary for decoding the neural signals corresponding to human memories.
But a Los Angeles Times article reported that at least some human mind reading experiments have worked, as far back as 1976; “It may be only a matter of time before the machines will be able to read a person’s brain waves to determine just what he is thinking.” …”George H. Heilmeier, director of the research agency, [DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Agency] dropped tantalizing hints about the EEG program in his annual report to Congress. Although he has provided few details, enough has been said about the program to raise some questions.”
The article continues; “For example, could these systems be used to read the minds of prisoners of war or to pick the brains of unsuspecting American citizens. Highly unlikely, agency scientists say. “For one thing, the EEG must be individually calibrated. Brain-wave graphs mean different things for different persons. So it is necessary to obtain a baseline graph by having each individual think a specific series of thoughts. “It is quick and easy to make the calibration but it must be done for each individual.” one scientist explained.”
As illustrated by the Los Angeles Times article above and by the Forman quote on classified physics papers, neuroscience research concerning mind reading would be classified and not published in neuroscience journals. Mind control and human surveillance are weapons capabilities and national security priorities and to say that mind control and human surveillance are science fiction or a far future capability becomes inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. The general public is completely unaware of this very negative effect classified research can have on public information. This report challenges the one sided argument against the possibility of advanced remote mind control and surreptitious human surveillance.
2. Battlefield use of nonlethal electromagnetic weapons.
Because the following article included a relatively detailed scientific summary of the technologies involved in targeting and tracking a human with electromagnetic signals, this section is analyzed first. The 1988 publication, Executive Intelligence Review based in Germany, contains a section on soviet work on electromagnetic pulse weapons based on a survey of discussions with scientists, military officers and strategic analysts, many of whom remained anonymous. This article is one of the few detailed descriptions of electromagnetic weapons to be found in the military literature and Zhijun Wei was asked to determine if the technology described is based on basic principles of science and is reliable information.
Zhijun Wei comments in italics, “In order to have enough energy to reach the target, high power sources and highly directional antenna are key technologies. The weapons described below are possible (and provide a glimpse of what future warfare may be like).”
Therefore, the section below is a notable overview of the physics and science involved in electromagnetic weapons.
Part 3:
1988, Executive Intelligence Review Special Report, “Electromagnetic-Effect Weapons: The Technology and the Strategic Implications”, editor, Michael Liebig, EIR News Service Inc. This publication can be found at the UC Berkeley library or can be ordered from EIR News Service Inc., 317 Pennsylvania Ave. S.E., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20003 Page 14- 17.
Some ABCs of Electromagnetic Anti-Personnel Weapons by Jonathan Tennenbaum
Electromagnetic Pulse
Much more could be said about non-linear biological effects exploitable by EP weapons(see also other articles in this publication). In this short introduction, however, we want to move on to another key problem of these weapons: how to generate and deliver the destructive action to the target.
This Special Report presents some details on high-power RF and microwave generators, an area of highest priority in Soviet research and development. There are two essential types of devices which can be used in EP weapons: oscillators using beams of electrons or plasmas, and solid state devices.
In electron beam devices, like the magnetron common in older radar technology, or the more advanced relativistic devices like the gyrotron and free electron laser, an electron beam interacts with an electromagnetic field in a resonant cavity, oscillating and “pumping” energy into the field. Other advanced devices use non-linear interactions between an electron beam and plasma, or plasma oscillations directly, to generate high output. The advantage of these types of radiation sources is that their output energy, power, and power density (ratio of power to size) are theoretically unlimited.
Solid state radar, whose development is driven by the needs of military aircraft and missiles, is one of the fastest advancing areas of electronic technology today. Although solid state devices do not (yet!) reach the very high powers attained by electron beam devices, miniaturization makes it possible to build today complete, highly sophisticated phased-array radars of suitcase-size, with several kilowatts of average output. The principal advantage of this technology is that it permits extremely sophisticated ‘tailoring’ of pulse shape in space and time, in a compact system with direct coupling to high-speed computers. This is exactly what is needed in order to optimally exploit non-linear biological effects. What is lost in brute power is thus gained in efficiency.
Recent breakthroughs in what is called “high-temperature superconductivity” open up the perspective that both types of EP generation technology-electron beam as well as solid state-are going to undergo revolutionary improvements in the years immediately ahead. The impact of this revolution cannot even be estimated at this time, but it will certainly mean radical reductions in the size of devices having a given electromagnetic “firepower.”
Holography and Electromagnetic Warfare
As our discussion of biological effects already indicated, electromagnetic anti-personnel weapons depend essentially on “tuning” the output signal to the target. This goes not only for the frequency and amplitude of the signal, but for its entire space-time “shape.” Figure 6, for example, is drawn from thermographs of models of the human body irradiated by RF radiation of the same frequency, but with field geometries. These and other experiments demonstrate that the areas of maximum absorption of electromagnetic energy inside the body depend on the geometry of the incident wave. By choosing the right geometry, the energy can be focused into any desired area, such as the brain. A sophisticated EP Weapon must thus be able to project a specific geometry of electromagnetic field onto a distant object, [not readable text]… technical details of waveguides and various antenna types, we shall briefly present one of the relevant techniques: the principle of the phased array.
A phased-array antenna consists of an assemblage of many individually controlled emitting (or receiving) elements, placed in a fixed geometrical arrangement. The output field of the array is the sum of the waves emitted by the individual elements. By electronically controlling the relative phases of these individual signals, the output field can be given any desired “shape” and direction, limited only by the wavelength used, the number of elements and the size of the array. The huge Soviet ABM radar at Krasnoyarsk, for example, contains an 83 meter diameter phased array of thousands of elements. The output can consist of a single, very narrow beam, or hundreds of independently directed beams, all depending on the “phasing” of the elements. This radar can track large numbers of missiles simultaneously, without any mechanical motion of the antenna.
The functioning of phased-array antennae is thus closely related to holography, or three-dimensional photography. In a hologram, photographic plate records interference patterns, corresponding to the phase relationships of laser light reflected from the object. When the holographic plate is illuminated by a laser, the phase relationships are “reconstituted” and the viewer has the impression of seeing a three dimensional object. The ensemble of elements of a phased-array antenna takes the place of the holographic plate, but at a much longer wavelength than visible light (centimeters and millimeters instead of fractions of a micrometer). “When operated in a receiving mode, the phased array obtains much more information than an ordinary antenna; like the hologram, it measures entire electromagnetic field geometries, not merely a one dimensional “signal.”
The holographic principle underlying phased-array systems points to a potentiality for treating any desired three-dimensional, electromagnetic field distribution around a target object, from a distance, correcting for reflections, obstacles and other interference. Moreover, the field can be transformed and shifted from one location to another in space within a fraction of a second. Thus, an ideal EP-weapon could attack many individual targets, simultaneously or in rapid succession. One or more phased arrays would be used in receiving and transmitting modes to “lock-on” to selected targets, and determine the necessary geometry of the attack pulses.
To fully exploit such potentialities, the weapon would require for its target-acquisition and beam-control systems, sophisticated high-speed computers, able to perform complex computations of the “inverse-scattering” type. Miniaturized systems of this sort are well within the reach of “fifth generation” computer technology. “Hybrid” digital analog systems would be simpler, smaller, and faster still. There is much overlap in requirements between EP weapons and systems developed for strategic defense(SDI).
The application of holographic principles to EP weaponry has profound implications for the future shape of warfare. The deployment of such weapons and the defense against them cannot be understood in terms of “point-to-point trajectory” concepts associated with conventional firearms and artillery. Actually, even in the past, competent military doctrine has always emphasized the geometries of “fields of fire” generated by overall deployment of mobile weapons over a given area, as opposed to mere “straight-line” action of an individual weapon. The geometrical aspect becomes much more explicit in the era of EP weaponry, in which “firepower” counts as the ability to control the electromagnetic field geometry on the field of battle, through coordinated deployment and operation of mobile phased arrays and related devices.
The situation could therefore be summed up as follows: in practice, both the use of EP weapons and defense against them is a tricky sophisticated business, if the antagonists are at comparable levels of technology, knowledge, and preparation. A surprise attack against an unprepared enemy is simpler and very devastating. In this respect, EP weapons are no exception to the general rules of warfare.
For concrete weapon applications, simpler devices will often suffice and trade-offs can be made among range, output power, extent of threat [not readable text]…
An obvious aspect of defense is to detect, locate, and neutralize weapons before they can be used. Antenna structures of EP weapons are resonant structures which can be detected in various ways. Spetsnaz deployment of EP weapons can be countered by intercepting the weapons or weapons components in transport, by appropriate surveillance of the areas around potential targets, and by the whole range of countermeasures which can be taken against the spetsnaz groups themselves. …Of course, the EP weapon declares its existence as soon as it is turned on, and itself becomes vulnerable to rapid counterattack if readiness and appropriate means are at hand.
The famous “Faraday cage” and other forms of electromagnetic shielding can provide some protection against EP weapons, especially if the characteristics of the EP signal are known in advance and countermeasures are devised accordingly. Unfortunately, a sophisticated weapon can “tailor” its pulse to get through nearly any given kind of shielding utilizing non-linear, inverse-scattering techniques and a process known as “self-induced transparency.” A Faraday cage under certain conditions can be transformed into an antenna, focusing the signal on the inside and even enhancing the effect for the unfortunate persons inside.
In theory, biological effects can be offset by creating a controlled “electromagnetic environment” around the target, with the effect of “detuning” the target relative to the anticipated signal of the attacking EP weapon – a kind of “immunization.” To realize such potentialities will require a major research effort, but one having important spinoffs for biology and medicine.
Part 4:
The 1988 German think tank article cited the future development of superconductive energy sources as a revolutionary development for permitting a more compact electromagnetic antipersonnel weapon for a given fire power. Two recent articles also addressed this problem and the Air Force Research Laboratory predicted an adequate superconductive power source should be available by 2009.
June 25, 2004, Dayton Daily News (Ohio);
Power for advanced weapons. AFRL [Air Force Research Laboratory] is trying to develop superconducting generators that could crank out megawatts of power for airborne lasers, other directed-energy weapons and high-power electronic systems. In a community forum last month, Nielsen, who holds a Ph.D. in plasma physics, said, “Directed energy (today) is like Stealth 20 years ago and precision munitions 10 years ago. Directed energy could change the way we do everything in the military.”
September 26, 2004, Dayton Daily News (Ohio), “Wright-Pat nears power breakthrough; Superconducting generator would change air combat” by Timothy Gaffney;
…”We really think it [an electrical system with a superconducting generator] is a technology that is going to be a game-changer,” Erno [Lt. Col. JoAnn Erno, chief of the Power Division in AFRL’s Propulsion Directorate.] said last week.
The objective of the Multimegawatt Electric Power System program is to demonstrate a five-megawatt system by the end of 2009. …
Such a system opens the door to so-called directed energy weapons that need megawatts of electric power, from metal-piercing lasers to electromagnetic beams that can disable weapons or shock troops without killing. …
Superconductors hold the promise of far smaller, lighter and more efficient electric generators and motors. Researchers around the world have been working on the technology for decades. …
The 1988 German think tank article cited the problem of electromagnetic pulses’ decline in power and precision with distance. The article then described scientifically feasible technology to overcome this problem; “The holographic principle underlying phased-array systems points to a potentiality for treating any desired three-dimensional, electromagnetic field distribution around a target object, from a distance, correcting for reflections, obstacles and other interference.”
In addition, the following 1990 article refers to existing technology such as truck size generators available today, specially adapted antenna systems, the lower energy levels required for some weapons and the principle of magnetic field concentration. This technology is capable of battlefield distances of hundreds of meters and 15 km. November 1, 1990, International Review of the Red Cross, “The Development of New Antipersonnel Weapons” by Louise Doswald-Beck and Gerald C. Cauderay;
Research work in this field has been carried out in almost all industrialized countries, and especially by the great powers, with a view to using these phenomena for anti-materiel or anti-personnel purposes. Tests have demonstrated that powerful microwave pulses could be used as a weapon in order to put the adversary hors de combat or even kill him. It is possible today to generate a very powerful microwave pulse (e.g., between 150 and 3,000 megahertz), with an energy level of several hundreds of megawatts. Using specially adapted antenna systems, these generators could in principle transmit over hundreds of metres sufficient energy to cook a meal.
However it is important to mention that the lethal or incapacitating effects which can be expected from weapon systems using this technology can be produced with much lower energy levels. Using the principle of magnetic field concentration, which permits the control of the geometry on the target, by means of antenna systems especially designed for the purpose, the radiated energy can be concentrated on very small surfaces of the human body, for example the base of the brain where relatively low energy can produce lethal effects.
It seems that with currently available technology, serious consideration could be given to the production of such weapons systems, which could have a range of approximately 15 km and could sweep a zone with a series of fast pulses. Unprotected soldiers within this zone could be put hors de combat or killed within a few seconds.
Such a weapon could be installed on a truck and would therefore be easily transportable.
A 2005 Washington Post article also corroborates Wei’s analysis of the need for compact power source and problems with aim and controllable effects of electromagnetic weapons. In addition, the article makes recommendations for serious evaluation of new weapons by policy makers. October 6th 2005, “National and Homeland Security Microwaves, Lasers, Retired Generals For Sale” by William M. Arkin;
…The buzz on the floor was “directed energy” laser, high-powered microwaves, and acoustic weapons that are getting a boost from the prolonged fighting in Iraq. …Highly controversial directed energy weapons have been pushed for almost two decades as the next silver bullet. It’s been two decades because along the way, they have run into complications, some having to do with the technology itself; aim and controllable effects, compact power sources, military ruggedness…
Part 2 is at:
[Geo-Stalking: Radar] [Neural Monitoring] Part 2: Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh on detecting brain signals remotely from TargetedEnergyWeapons
XI. [Geo-Stalking: Radar] [Neural Monitoring] Part 2: Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh on detecting brain signals remotely
http://mindjustice.org/ucdavis2005.htm
Part 1 is at:
[Geo-stalking: Radar] ‘Current feasibility of antipersonnel electromagnetic weapons on the battlefield’ and ‘Current feasibility of remote surreptitious tracking and targeting of humans via satellite’ by Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh, director, Mind Justice (2005) from TargetedEnergyWeapons
3) Zhijun Wei on detecting brain signals remotely.
The sections in italics were written by Zhijun Wei. The non-italic print was compiled and written by Cheryl Welsh.
Background information.
Unclassified information on the biological basis of consciousness is advancing. The July 1, 2005 Science Magazine included a special section entitled “What Don’t We Know?” on 125 science questions. “What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?” is among the first of several questions listed. The article described current research; “So far, however, although theories abound, hard data are sparse.” But science writers of journals including the Science Magazine and Scientific American ignore or are unaware of past classified neuroscience and mind control weapons research. The implications of classified research are profound and similar to classified atomic bomb research. Should the biological basis of consciousness be a classified military weapon without any public input? Evidence suggests this is exactly what has happened.
As Dr. Warren McCulloch, a neuropsychiatrist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, described below, government agencies were funding and looking for the biological basis of consciousness in the 1950s and the work was controversial. The government’s concern for national security priorities of the cold war and the funding of classified programs by eminent scientists of the time is generally overlooked today. As McCulloch described, the work was considered scientifically feasible and promising for military purposes.
‘Embodiments of Mind’ by Warren S. McCulloch,(1965)MIT Press;
Page 216; Since 1952 Dr. Warren S. McCulloch has been a staff member engaged in the Research Laboratory of Electronics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ..is also well known as one of the founders of the group who have developed Cybernetics. He was Chairman of the Macy Conference on Cybernetics during its life from 1946 to 1951…
“…But Gentleman the title of my paper is not facetious. At the behest of the Mathematical Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research(ONR), I spent two months abroad, questioning “Where is fancy bred?”
…Percival Bailey, who was one of the first to implant electrodes keeps his copy of the Pope’s letter in his desk. In Boston Jim White and Bill Sweet have just been blessed, not merely for implanted electrodes, but…So much for implanted electrodes. They are here to stay. Through them we will record activities in structures heretofore inaccessible, locating the womb of Fancy.
…But the work of Antoine Remond was the crowning success of the meeting. Long years ago he had come to my laboratory in Chicago… combined with accumulators that let him use hundreds of repeated stimulations and so raise the signals way above the noise. The resulting maps of the first special derivative on the surface of the head are impressive.
To go from these to the second derivative, which locates the nervous activity as well as possible, is still done by a laborious longhand computation. …Today it can be done electronically, …It may take three years to build the gadgets. Remond’s work was so impressive that the National Institutes of Health and the European Office, Air Research and Development Command, are now backing it financially,…
…John Lilly failed to show, and I, as his fellow-American, was commanded to speak on a mathematics suited to neurology.
…Between visits to laboratories and lectures to theoretical physicists, engineers, psychiatrists, and physiologist, I found time to work with Sherwood on the third component of the Laplacian of the cerebral cortex.
…But my principal business in England was the study of artificial intelligence.
…When I reached the National Physical Laboratory for Uttley’s symposium on “The Mechanization of Thought Processes,” …But what I saw in Russian faces was that their scientists, like ours, know they are confronted by the problem of the Rabbi of Chelm with his Golem,…
The vigil must be endured, even if it entail “Q” clearance. [Q is a US national security clearance.] …On the landing here, I made my bow to ONR [Office of Naval Research] and began to contact my Human Factors friends in Astronautics. They could use these circuits.
…Let me recapitulate its discoveries. 1. For the good of patients, implanted electrodes are here to stay; and through them, whether psychiatrists like it or not, we will learn where fancy is bred.”
…McCulloch was a participant of the Macy Foundation sponsored conferences cited above, a conduit for the CIA funding and research. McCulloch was quoted in the 1991 book, Cybernetics Group by Steven Heims, MIT;
Preface; The subject of this book is the series of multidisciplinary conferences, supported by the Macy Foundation and held between 1946 and 1953, to discuss a wide array of topics that eventually came to be called cybernetics.
Pg. 11; …included several mathematicians (Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann), engineers (Julian Bigelow, Claude Shannon), a neuropsychiatrist (Warren McCulloch), and a polymatic genius (Walter Pitts). Some members of this group had proposed that their concepts useful in engineering and biology,… For lack of a better collective name we shall refer to this group as the cyberneticians, although they would never have used this term themselves.
…Fremont-Smith [of the Josiah Macy Foundation] was so cautious that I got the impression he was anxious to keep something private.
…Much later I learned of the CIA involvement, …(the Macy Foundation’s records have not been open for researchers). At the Macy meetings, as the unedited transcript shows, the political conditions were discussed explicitly from time to time. Some participants were government consultants who worked on “classified” topics kept secret from other researchers; their priorities were such that they skipped attendance at the conferences whenever the government called.
McCulloch described the situation at the beginning of the ninth meeting in 1952; “I would like to say that two things have interfered with our gathering this time. One of those is an increasing source of anxiety to me… Thing after thing that one or another person has wanted to discuss at this meeting has been locked up for “secret.” I have no idea how far that process will go in time to come. I know that von Neumann had something he wanted to talk to us about and that it is secret. I know that some stuff that Bavelas wanted to talk about to us has become secret. And so it goes.”
Continued in comments below.
[Geo-Stalking: Radar] [Neural Monitoring] Part 2: Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh on detecting brain signals remotely
http://mindjustice.org/ucdavis2005.htm
Part 1 is at:
[Geo-stalking: Radar] ‘Current feasibility of antipersonnel electromagnetic weapons on the battlefield’ and ‘Current feasibility of remote surreptitious tracking and targeting of humans via satellite’ by Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh, director, Mind Justice (2005) from TargetedEnergyWeapons
3) Zhijun Wei on detecting brain signals remotely.
The sections in italics were written by Zhijun Wei. The non-italic print was compiled and written by Cheryl Welsh.
Background information.
Unclassified information on the biological basis of consciousness is advancing. The July 1, 2005 Science Magazine included a special section entitled “What Don’t We Know?” on 125 science questions. “What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?” is among the first of several questions listed. The article described current research; “So far, however, although theories abound, hard data are sparse.” But science writers of journals including the Science Magazine and Scientific American ignore or are unaware of past classified neuroscience and mind control weapons research. The implications of classified research are profound and similar to classified atomic bomb research. Should the biological basis of consciousness be a classified military weapon without any public input? Evidence suggests this is exactly what has happened.
As Dr. Warren McCulloch, a neuropsychiatrist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, described below, government agencies were funding and looking for the biological basis of consciousness in the 1950s and the work was controversial. The government’s concern for national security priorities of the cold war and the funding of classified programs by eminent scientists of the time is generally overlooked today. As McCulloch described, the work was considered scientifically feasible and promising for military purposes.
‘Embodiments of Mind’ by Warren S. McCulloch,(1965)MIT Press;
Page 216; Since 1952 Dr. Warren S. McCulloch has been a staff member engaged in the Research Laboratory of Electronics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ..is also well known as one of the founders of the group who have developed Cybernetics. He was Chairman of the Macy Conference on Cybernetics during its life from 1946 to 1951…
“…But Gentleman the title of my paper is not facetious. At the behest of the Mathematical Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research(ONR), I spent two months abroad, questioning “Where is fancy bred?”
…Percival Bailey, who was one of the first to implant electrodes keeps his copy of the Pope’s letter in his desk. In Boston Jim White and Bill Sweet have just been blessed, not merely for implanted electrodes, but…So much for implanted electrodes. They are here to stay. Through them we will record activities in structures heretofore inaccessible, locating the womb of Fancy.
…But the work of Antoine Remond was the crowning success of the meeting. Long years ago he had come to my laboratory in Chicago… combined with accumulators that let him use hundreds of repeated stimulations and so raise the signals way above the noise. The resulting maps of the first special derivative on the surface of the head are impressive.
To go from these to the second derivative, which locates the nervous activity as well as possible, is still done by a laborious longhand computation. …Today it can be done electronically, …It may take three years to build the gadgets. Remond’s work was so impressive that the National Institutes of Health and the European Office, Air Research and Development Command, are now backing it financially,…
…John Lilly failed to show, and I, as his fellow-American, was commanded to speak on a mathematics suited to neurology.
…Between visits to laboratories and lectures to theoretical physicists, engineers, psychiatrists, and physiologist, I found time to work with Sherwood on the third component of the Laplacian of the cerebral cortex.
…But my principal business in England was the study of artificial intelligence.
…When I reached the National Physical Laboratory for Uttley’s symposium on “The Mechanization of Thought Processes,” …But what I saw in Russian faces was that their scientists, like ours, know they are confronted by the problem of the Rabbi of Chelm with his Golem,…
The vigil must be endured, even if it entail “Q” clearance. [Q is a US national security clearance.] …On the landing here, I made my bow to ONR [Office of Naval Research] and began to contact my Human Factors friends in Astronautics. They could use these circuits.
…Let me recapitulate its discoveries. 1. For the good of patients, implanted electrodes are here to stay; and through them, whether psychiatrists like it or not, we will learn where fancy is bred.”
…McCulloch was a participant of the Macy Foundation sponsored conferences cited above, a conduit for the CIA funding and research. McCulloch was quoted in the 1991 book, Cybernetics Group by Steven Heims, MIT;
Preface; The subject of this book is the series of multidisciplinary conferences, supported by the Macy Foundation and held between 1946 and 1953, to discuss a wide array of topics that eventually came to be called cybernetics.
Pg. 11; …included several mathematicians (Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann), engineers (Julian Bigelow, Claude Shannon), a neuropsychiatrist (Warren McCulloch), and a polymatic genius (Walter Pitts). Some members of this group had proposed that their concepts useful in engineering and biology,… For lack of a better collective name we shall refer to this group as the cyberneticians, although they would never have used this term themselves.
…Fremont-Smith [of the Josiah Macy Foundation] was so cautious that I got the impression he was anxious to keep something private.
…Much later I learned of the CIA involvement, …(the Macy Foundation’s records have not been open for researchers). At the Macy meetings, as the unedited transcript shows, the political conditions were discussed explicitly from time to time. Some participants were government consultants who worked on “classified” topics kept secret from other researchers; their priorities were such that they skipped attendance at the conferences whenever the government called.
McCulloch described the situation at the beginning of the ninth meeting in 1952; “I would like to say that two things have interfered with our gathering this time. One of those is an increasing source of anxiety to me… Thing after thing that one or another person has wanted to discuss at this meeting has been locked up for “secret.” I have no idea how far that process will go in time to come. I know that von Neumann had something he wanted to talk to us about and that it is secret. I know that some stuff that Bavelas wanted to talk about to us has become secret. And so it goes.”
Continued in comments below.
Part 3: ‘Satellite surveillance technology; extremely advanced, classified and well-funded since 1940s’ by Cheryl Welsh
http://mindjustice.org/ucdavis2005.htm
Part 2:
[Geo-Stalking: Radar] [Neural Monitoring] Part 2: Zhijun Wei and Cheryl Welsh on detecting brain signals remotely from TargetedEnergyWeapons
5) Satellite surveillance technology; extremely advanced, classified and well-funded since 1940s.
Since human surveillance capabilities as a national security priority are rarely reported by the press, evidence is provided here. As seen in the following 1976 and 1990 articles, the publicly known science of remote human surveillance is sparse, controlled by the military and is being developed for weapons use in extremely classified programs.
Zhijun Wei cited this article describing classified military research and remote detection (necessary for remote surveillance) of brain waves for brain reading. Los Angeles Times, March 29th 1976, Mind Reading Machine Tells Secrets of the Brain Sci-Fi Comes True, Norman Kempster.
George H. Heilmeier, director of the [DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] research agency, dropped tantalizing hints about the EEG program in his annual report to Congress. Although he has provided few details,…
At MIT, however, scientists are studying magnetic brain waves that can produce graphs much like the electrical brain waves now being measured.
Scientists for the research agency say it may be possible to pick up magnetic waves a foot or two from the subject’s head, perhaps by placing a receiver in the back of a chair. Could these waves be projected over distances greater than a few feet?
“We are now talking about a foot or several feet,” one scientist said. “But the research agency has a pretty good idea of what it could be doing in the 1980s.
The very few, subsequent articles to the 1976 Los Angeles Times article report similar classified military research on remote human surveillance and targeting. As cited several times above, November 1, 1990, International Review of the Red Cross 279, “The Development of New Antipersonnel Weapons” by Louise Doswald-Beck and Gerald C. Cauderay;
Research work in this field has been carried out in almost all industialized countries, and especially by the great powers, with a view to using these phenomena for anti-materiel or anti-personnel purposes. Tests have demonstrated that powerful microwave pulses could be used as a weapon in order to put the adversary hors de combat or even kill him. It is possible today to generate a very powerful microwave pulse (e.g., between 150 and 3,000 megahertz), with an enegry level of several hundreds of megawatts. Using specially adapted antenna systems, these generators could in principle transmit over hundreds of metres sufficient energy to cook a meal.
…In spite of the rarity of publications on this subject, and the fact that it is usually strictly classified information, research undertaken in this field seems to have demonstrated that very small amounts of electromagnetic radiation could appreciably alter the functions of living cells.
Like mind control research, human surveillance capabilities are surrounded in ethical controversy and privacy concerns. Unlike mind control, much less public research on human surveillance has been conducted. Given national security priorities, whether developed now or in the future, human surveillance would be a very classified area of research. The Los Angeles Times and the International Review of the Red Cross articles confirm that classified human surveillance capabilities have been developed. An educated guess is that sophisticated mind control and remote human surveillance may already be extremely advanced.
Background information on satellite surveillance; technological problems and breakthroughs.
Satellite surveillance technologies have a long history of development, are one of the deepest secrets of the nation and have enjoyed billion dollar budgets. A December 9th 2004, Sacramento Bee article entitled ‘Four Senators criticize mysterious spy program’, described a program “almost certainly a spy satellite system, perhaps with technology to destroy potential attackers with ‘enormous expense and alleged danger to national security.” James Bamford commented “In the intelligence community, it’s so hard to get a handle on what’s going on, particularly with the satellite programs.” Another expert agreed “It’s hard to think of most any satellite program, at least the standard ones, as dangerous to national security,” said Jeffrey Richelson, who wrote a highly regarded book about CIA technology in 2001.”
The 2001 Richelson book is quoted below to show examples of detecting extremely weak signals from space. How advanced this technology is, cannot be determined because the technology is so highly classified, funded and regulated by the government. The capability of technologies to detect and target the brain would seem to be, by analogy the same technology for detecting weak signals of moving targets and targeting weak signals towards a moving target.
The Richelson book illustrates how advanced and well funded the very related technologies were and how previously unknown capabilities were developed by eminent US scientists, including William Perry, former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Tracking and targeting human brain signals may seem like science fiction, but when the problem is reduced to categories such as extremely weak signal detection and signal to noise issues, the science becomes feasible, although extremely daunting from this vantage point. William Perry and others accomplished major scientific breakthroughs including the signal to noise problem encountered with the development of spy satellites. And as seen below in research to gather extremely weak soviet radar signals reflected from the moon, government agencies were willing to go to extreme technological lengths for national security purposes.
‘Wizards of Langley’ by Richelson, Jeffrey, 2001;
Page 107; Not long after becoming head of the DS&T, Wheelon was reading a story in the New York Herald Tribune about Syncom, A NASA-DOD-Hughes satellite program. The article discussed what was then a revolutionary means of communications, …that allowed communication from a ground station to a satellite and then back down to another ground station. …they [satellites] flew 22,300 miles above various points on the equator, in geostationary orbit.
…It occurred to Wheelon that it might be possible to employ such an approach to intercept signals from key targets and relay them to a U.S. ground station. …Wheelon assembled some key CIA officials to explore such ideas…
An initial concern was whether such a program was feasible.
Because the telemetry signals were transmitted at very-high and ultra-high frequencies (VHF and UHF), they would not bounce off the atmosphere, as high-frequency communications did, but leak out into space where the satellites would be waiting to scoop them up. But it was feared that the noise from other, and unwanted, transmissions such as television signals would drown the telemetry in an ocean of noise. …Before proceeding further, Wheelon asked William Perry, who had just left Sylvania’s Electronic Defense Laboratories to form his own company, to study the matter.
Six months later, he reported that the idea was workable.
Perry’s work in determining the feasibility of such a satellite would be a key, although unspecified, reason for his winning the CIA’s R. V. Jones Award-named after the British physicist who headed the British Secret Intelligence Service’s scientific intelligence effort in World War II.
When presented with the idea, both McCone and Carter were supportive, and Lauderdale was tapped as manager of the new program, which was named Rhyolite. …Lauderdale would become the key figure in transforming the idea into a reality-arriving at work one day with a working model of a French umbrella antenna, which would also serve as model for the Rhyolite antenna.
Page 37; Rather than relying on aircraft or eavesdropping antennae, the project employed an over-the-horizon (OTH) radar to monitor Soviet missile tests. Such radars use the ionosphere as a reflector for high-frequency radio energy and therefore are not limited to the “line-of-sight” restrictions of conventional ground-based radars. OTH radars promised to provide information on missile and aircraft activity up to 3,100 miles away-by bouncing a radio signal off the ionosphere and onto the target and receiving the reflected signal. The technology has been tested by the CIA, which, along with the Office of Naval Research, shared a U.S.-based radar facility code-named Chapel Bell.
Page 89; In 1965 and 1966, while Kirkenes, Beshahr, and Kabkan were listening to Soviet missile tests, another CIA facility was listening for signals from the moon. Out at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, the CIA was employing a 150-foot dish antenna to monitor the signals of Soviet radars after they had bounced off the earth’s only natural satellite.
The “moonbounce” phenomenon had been discovered in 1946, when scientists detected a man-made signal reflected from the moon.
Experiments that followed revealed the extraordinary weakness of such signals. A typical signal received via moonbounce was a billion times weaker than if it were intercepted by an airplane ten miles from the transmitter.
As a result, only very large antennae could effectively hear such signals and distinguish them from other signals.
Part 2:
By the early 1960s, the possibility of exploiting the moonbounce phenomenon was being investigated by a number of agencies. N.C. Gerson of the National Security Agency used the Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory in Puerto Rico to intercept moonbounce signals from a Soviet radar operating on the Artic coast.
Along with a member of the Army Security Agency, he produced a three-volume study-Moonbounce Potential from Scooped Antennas. The Air Force also had a moonbounce project, FLOWER GARDEN, which relied on several antennae, including the 250-foot antenna at Jodrell Bank. Other moonbounce collectors were the antennae at the Grand Bahama tracking station, a Navy intercept site at Sugar Grove, West Virginia, and the Naval Research Laboratory’s Chesapeake Bay Annex.”
Secrecy and satellite remote sensing.
Since the 1940s, remote sensing has been among the deepest secrets of the nation. In a fascinating account, Dr. Cloud explained how one of the highest levels of secret research was carried out with the intent of remaining secret forever. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, Vol. 29, No.3 2002, ‘American Cartographic Transformations during the Cold War’ by John Cloud;
Page 264; For Leghorn, that left two stances against the Soviet Union, based on the assumption that the Soviet Union would eventually have nuclear weapons as well. The first was mutual forbearance and negotiated peace as an alternative to mutually assured destruction, the policy in force to the present day. The second was to remove the enemy in a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Both options would require superb reconnaissance. [In 1946], Leghorn noted “for these reasons it is extraordinarily important that means of long-range aerial reconnaissance be devised that cannot be detected”. Hence even seemingly innocuous vegetation studies might remain classified in order to conceal sensor capabilities.
Both Katz and Leghorn spent their professional lives involved in the dualities of secrecy and disclosure inherent in observations systems that are vital, yet cannot be detected and should never be revealed. …In 1949, Katz and Leghorn were named to a committee to “conduct a survey of the electro-magnetic spectrum from the point of view of its applicability to reconnaissance.
Page 267; But the photogrammetry that would eventually provide the extension of this geodetic control was to be based on imagery from systems “that cannot be detected,” in Leghorn’s words (1946). And so it was that the convergence of geodesy, photogrammetry, and cartography at the heart of this story took place at the highest levels of secrecy in the history of the United States.
…Through several decades of “black” programs, the CIA devised a methodology for developing overhead imagery sensors and their allied technologies.
“Black” programs encompass many endeavors, but for this discussion the important point is that CIA imagery acquisition programs involved small numbers of sole-source contractors cleared into top-secret codeword compartmentalized security domains and paid in unaccountable funds issued directly from the Directorate of Central Intelligence (DCI).
The model began in the early 1950s with the Genetrix program, which used experimental high-altitude reconnaissance cameras mounted in stratospheric balloons. Then came project Aquatone, better known as the U-2, the first in a series of high performance, high-altitude reconnaissance planes built in the middle 1950s. The imagery associated with these sensor platforms was ordered under some of the most restricted security protocols ever devised-a set of protocols originally called Talent.
Reconnaissance then went into orbit with a series of satellite-borne imagery systems, staring in 1958 with Corona, the foundational global remote sensing system and continuing to the present. Space-borne reconnaissance was ordered under a new set of Keyhole protocols. Later these were combined into the Talent-Keyhole security protocol system covering all overhead reconnaissance, which survives to the present day.
Page 269; The combination of the new sensor systems and their applications, especially over hostile territory, induced another major structural distinction between the operational roles of the Air Force and Army in data acquisition and reduction. The data collection systems included some of the most important and closely guarded national secrets, while the data reduction and mapping systems remained largely unclassified. The combinations of secret data and unclassified data management systems created tensions, required subterfuge, and ultimately triggered important and unintended consequences that changed the course of American cartography.
Page 274; Nominally civilian federal agencies were integrated into the classified infrastructure by quietly acquiring their own classified labs, so that they could use intelligence and classified materials. The first building at the new USGS National Mapping Division complex at Reston, Virginia, was Building E-1- a Talent-Keyhole-level, secure, compartmentalized intelligence facility (SCIF). Inside Building E-1, USGS civilian personnel had access to U-2 and SR-71 aerial reconnaissance photography as well as Corona film from space.
The Geological Survey has been mapping the nation with top-secret intelligence assets for a third of a century, although none of this was ever publicly acknowledged until the declassification of Corona. Nevertheless, USGS maps have hinted at these developments. Starting in the late 1960s, the photo-revised USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles have noted, in their legends, that the photo-revisions are based on “aerial photography and other source data”. The “other source data” were and remain the deepest secrets of the nation.”
Part 3:
6) Remote sensing of humans is a 2003 goal of U.S. Special Operations Command.
One of the rare times this goal has been cited. Surreptitious human surveillance is classified and controversial. National Defense Industrial Association, May 1, 2003, National Defense No. 594, Vol. 87, ‘Special operators seeking a technological advantage, U.S. Special Operations Command’ by Harold Kennedy;
The U.S. Special Operations Command is looking for ‘leap-ahead’ technologies that can give its troops a decided advantage over their adversaries in wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
…Signature reduction. Technologies must enable significant reductions in the signatures of the special operator and his equipment, including air, land and sea-based platforms, Wattenbarger said.
Signatures are distinctive patterns or characteristics by which something can be recognized. They can involve visual, aural, olfactory, seismic, electromagnetic, laser, infrared or radio frequency signals. Projects underway include a vehicle camouflage system; a small, versatile, maritime mobility craft, and active noise cancellation.
…Remote sensing. Sensors must be capable of detecting electronic transmission, seismic, acoustical, infrared, electro-optic, electromagnetic and radio frequency signatures–the physical presence–of target individuals and groups, …
National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book, No. 35 at http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB35/
The NRO Declassified. In September 1992 the Department of Defense acknowledged the existence of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an agency established in 1961 to manage the development and operation of the nation’s reconnaissance satellite systems. The creation of the NRO was the result of a number of factors.
…Defining the Future of the NRO for the 21st Century, Final Report, Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Unclassified 30 pp.
This report was apparently the first major outside review of the NRO conducted during the Clinton administration, and the first conducted after the NRO’s transformation to an overt institution and its restructuring were firmly in place.
Among those conducting the review were former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. David E. Jeremiah, former NRO director Martin Faga, and former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McMahon. Issues studied by the panel included, inter alia, the existence of a possible alternative to the NRO, NRO’s mission in the 21st Century, support to military operations, security, internal organization, and the relationship with NRO’s customers.
After reviewing a number of alternatives, the panel concluded that no other arrangement was superior for carrying out the NRO mission. It did, however, recommend, changes with regards to NRO’s mission and internal organization. The panel concluded that where the NRO’s current mission is ‘worldwide intelligence,’ its future mission should be ‘global information superiority,’ which “demands intelligence capabilities unimaginable just a few years ago.”
The panel also recommended creation of a fourth NRO directorate, which was subsequently established, to focus solely on the development of advanced systems, in order to “increase the visibility and stature of technology innovation in the NRO.”
7) Sophisticated remote mind control capabilities are classified and controversial. How advanced the capabilities is not known but powerful battlefield and mind control weapons are scientifically feasible today.
Comparing Delgado’s 1969 research cited below to the science of the 1976 article and to a 2003 article below, mind control seems to be promising research. The obvious question is why more progress not been made since 1969. An educated guess is that a large portion of mind control research is classified.
Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society, Yale University, by Jose, M.R. Delgado MD., 1969;
A new technology … methodology has proved that movements, sensations, emotions, desires, ideas, and a variety of psychological phenomena may be induced, inhibited, or modified by electrical stimulation of specific areas of the brain.
Page 81; Also, several investigators have learned to identify patterns of electrical activity (which a computer could also recognize) localized in specific areas of the brain and related to determined phenomena such as perception of smells or visual perception of edges and movements. We are advancing rapidly in the pattern recognition of electrical correlates of behavior and in the methodology for two-way radio communication between brain and computers.
March 29th 1976, Los Angeles Times, Mind Reading Machine Tells Secrets of the Brain. Sci-Fi Comes True, by Norman Kempster;
…George H. Heilmeier, director of the research agency, dropped tantalizing hints about the EEG program in his annual report to Congress.
…For one thing, the EEG must be individually calibrated. Brain-wave graphs mean different things for different persons. So it is necessary to obtain a baseline graph by having each individual think a specific series of thoughts.
“It is quick and easy to make the calibration but it must be done for each individual.” one scientist explained.
October 11, 2003, San Francisco Chronicle, ‘Devices that read human thought now possible, study says brain implants could help severely disabled’ by Carl T. Hall;
…[Dr. Miguel A.L. Nicolelis of Duke University] and others discussed their latest findings at the annual meeting in New Orleans of the Society for Neuroscience, the world’s largest gathering of brain researchers. …In the latest studies on people, Nicolelis’ Duke group had to use a simplified version of the animal study protocol to stay within the bounds of a five-minute surgical window. But that was still enough, Nicolelis said, to show animal and human brains can be read much in the same way. “We are showing the same computational algorithms work, the same technology in general works,…”
Many more examples posted at www.mindjustice.org
Part 4:
[Remote Neural Monitoring] ‘Part 4: New research on targeting the brain indicates electromagnetic brain communication is a scientifically valid theory’ by Cheryl Welsh (Includes patents and government’s goals.) from TargetedEnergyWeapons
XII. [Remote Neural Monitoring] ‘Part 4: New research on targeting the brain indicates electromagnetic brain communication is a scientifically valid theory’ by Cheryl Welsh (Includes patents and government’s goals.)
http://mindjustice.org/ucdavis2005.htm
Part 3 is at:
Part 3: ‘Satellite surveillance technology; extremely advanced, classified and well-funded since 1940s’ by Cheryl Welsh from TargetedEnergyWeapons
8) New research on targeting the brain indicates electromagnetic brain communication is a scientifically valid theory.
The widespread cover story is that russian mind control doesn’t work or that no US mind control program exists. For example, Defense News, December 17-23 2001, Israel Fields Means to Suppress Palestinian Violence by Louise Doswald-Beck;
…In a Dec. 9 interview marking the close of his four-year term at the helm of Israel’s formidable defense research and development sector, Ben-Israel, [Major General Isaac Ben-Israel] said his directorate explored different scientific and phenomenological fields-including mind control- in attempts to contain and deter terrorist activity. “We invested in this for a few years…but we determined that it was not effective,” Ben-Israel said of mind control methods, many of which were developed by military and security agencies of the former Soviet Union.
And yet numerous articles for several decades describe government funding and interest in electromagnetic ‘mind control’ technology that does work or is scientifically feasible. See www.mindjustice.org.
The CNN news broadcast, Special Assignment by Chuck DeCaro, “Weapons of War, Is there an RF Gap?”, November 1985 demonstrated Soviet mind control technology that worked. Dr. Bill van Bise, electrical engineer, conducting a demonstration of Soviet scientific data and schematics for beaming a magnetic field into the brain to cause visual hallucinations. The demonstration on reporter Chuck DeCaro was successful. Dr. van Bise stated, “In three weeks, I could put together a device [weapon] that would take care of a whole town.” Reporter Chuck DeCaro was blindfolded and his ears were blocked for sound in an experiment using Soviet specifications for equipment capable of generating specific but very weak magnetic signals designed to cause visual ‘hallucinations’. DeCaro stated “A parabola just went by.. I could see wave forms changing shape as they went by.”
But after decades of research why is there so little progress in mind control technology? With a closer examination, a pattern of government control of the development and funding of electromagnetic mind control research emerges.
In spite of the decades of research and interest, only the most basic ‘mind control’ technologies are ever discussed in the unclassified literature. As noted in the 1976 Los Angeles Times article on reading thoughts via brainwaves, the classified research in this area included research for military purposes. Reading thoughts via brainwaves has not advanced since the 1976 Los Angeles Times article reported that an EEG or brainwave signals can determine whether someone is fatigued, puzzled or daydreaming, how someone perceives colors and shapes and tell the difference between a ‘right’ answer based on knowledge and one that was merely a lucky guess.
Here is another example. After many decades, the same rudimentary mind control technology that targets the human nervous system is repeatedly ‘in development’. The unclassified weapons stun, disorient or immobilize. After many decades, electromagnetic weapons are known to be extremely classified but how sophisticated or well developed is impossible to determine. What is known is that after decades of research, the science of electromagnetic mind control continues to remain well funded and scientifically feasible.
Here is 2005 article and example of how government control of research and funding has allowed only rudimentary mind control technologies in the public eye while government electromagnetic mind control research has remained classified for several decades. The following October 2005 article describes very elementary electromagnetic technology for video games and then describes military interest, funding and research of this technology. Sophisticated electromagnetic mind control weapons of extreme importance to national security are a likely explanation for this decades old pattern of classified electromagnetic weapons and the concurrent development and lack of progress with unclassified electromagnetic mind control technologies.
In the AP article ” Remote Control Device ‘Controls’ Humans” by Yuri Kageyama, Oct 27, 2005 9:08 PM US/Eastern, the reporter said this electromagnetic technology works in spite of your resistance to the electromagnetic field. “Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp., Japan’s top telephone company, says it is developing the technology to perhaps make video games more realistic. …The technology is called galvanic vestibular stimulation-essentially, electricity messes with the delicate nerves inside the ear that help maintain balance. …Another program had the electric current timed to music. My head was pulsating against my will, getting jerked around on my neck. I became so dizzy I could barely stand.
In addition, the article stated; “Timothy Hullar, assistant professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., believes finding the right way to deliver an electromagnetic field to the ear at a distance could turn the technology into a weapon for situations where “killing isn’t the best solution. “This would be the most logical situation for a nonlethal weapon that presumably would make your opponent dizzy,” he said via e-mail. “If you find just the right frequency, energy, duration of application, you would hope to find something that doesn’t permanently injure someone but would allow you to make someone temporarily off-balance.”
The article continues, “Indeed, a small defense contractor in Texas, Invocon Inc., is exploring whether precisely tuned electromagnetic pulses could be safely fired into people’s ears to temporarily subdue them.” The reporter concluded: “…from my experience, if the currents persist, you’d probably be persuaded to follow their orders.”
The patent described below is scientifically feasible, scientists say but the technology has not been developed. April 7, 2005, New Scientist, Sony patent takes first step towards real-life Matrix by Jenny Hogan and Barry Fox. Print Edition posted here; newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624944.600
Imagine movies and computer games in which you get to smell, taste and perhaps even feel things. That’s the tantalizing prospect raised by a patent on a device for transmitting sensory data directly into the human brain – granted to none other than the entertainment giant Sony.
The technique suggested in the patent is entirely non-invasive. It describes a device that fires pulses of ultrasound at the head to modify firing patterns in targeted parts of the brain, creating “sensory experiences” ranging from moving images to tastes and sounds. This could give blind or deaf people the chance to see or hear, the patent claims.
While brain implants are becoming increasingly sophisticated, the only non-invasive ways of manipulating the brain remain crude. A technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation can activate nerves by using rapidly changing magnetic fields to induce currents in brain tissue. However, magnetic fields cannot be finely focused on small groups of brain cells, whereas ultrasound could be.
If the method described by Sony really does work, it could have all sorts of uses in research and medicine, even if it is not capable of evoking sensory experiences detailed enough for the entertainment purposes envisaged in the patent. “This was a prophetic invention. It was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction technology takes us”
Details are sparse, and Sony declined New Scientist’s request for an interview with the inventor, who is based in its offices in San Diego, California. However, independent experts are not dismissing the idea out of hand. “I looked at it and found it plausible,” says Niels Birbaumer, a pioneering neuroscientist at the University of T￩ngen in Germany who has created devices that let people control devices via brain waves.
The application contains references to two scientific papers presenting research that could underpin the device. One, in an echo of Galvani’s classic 18th-century experiments on frogs’ legs that proved electricity can trigger nerve impulses, showed that certain kinds of ultrasound pulses can affect the excitability of nerves from a frog’s leg. The author, Richard Mihran of the University of Colorado, Boulder, had no knowledge of the patent until New Scientist contacted him, but says he would be concerned about the proposed method’s long-term safety.
Sony first submitted a patent application for the ultrasound method in 2000, which was granted in March 2003. Since then Sony has filed a series of continuations, most recently in December 2004 (US 2004/267118).
Elizabeth Boukis, spokeswoman for Sony Electronics, says the work is speculative. “There were not any experiments done,” she says. “This particular patent was a prophetic invention. It was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us.”
Susan Saylor deserves a special mention for finding and posting the Sony patent. Here are excerpts.
United States Patent 6,536,440 Dawson March 25, 2003
Method and system for generating sensory data onto the human neural cortex
Abstract
A non-invasive system and process for projecting sensory data onto the human neural cortex is provided. The system includes a primary transducer array and a secondary transducer array. The primary transducer array acts as a coherent signal source, and the secondary transducer array acts as a controllable diffraction pattern that focuses energy onto the neural cortex in a desired pattern. In addition, the pattern of energy is constructed such that each portion projected into the neural cortex may be individually pulsed at low frequency. This low frequency pulsing is formed by controlling the phase differences between the emitted energy of the elements of primary and secondary transducer arrays.
Inventors:
Dawson; Thomas P. (Escondido, CA) Assignee: Sony Corporation (Tokyo, JP); Sony Electronics, Inc. (Park Ridge, NJ) Appl. No.: 690571 Filed: October 17, 2000
Current U.S. Class:128/897; 128/898 Intern’l Class: A61B 019/00Field of Search: 128/897,898,24
Part 1:
Other References
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Colorado, 1990, Richard T. Mihran, Frank S. Barnes, Howard Wachtel. “Transient Modification of Nerve Excitability in Vitro By Single Ultrasound Pulses”.
Ultrasound Med Biol 1990, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Colorado. “Temporally-specific modification of myelinated axon excitability in virto following a single ultrasound pulse” (pp. 297-309) Mihran RT; Barnes FS; and Wachtel H.
The Pennsylvaia State University, Department of Physics. 1984, J.D. Maynard, E.G. Williams, and Y. Lee. Nearfiled acoustic holography:n I. Theory of generalized holography and the development of NAH.
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Division of Neurobiology, University of California. Garrett B. Stanley, Fei F. Li, and Yang Dan. “Reconstruction of Natural Scenes from Ensemble Responses in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus” The Journal of Neuroscience, pp 8036-8042; 1999.
Ultrasonics Fundamentals, Technology, Applications. Dale Ensminger, Columbus, Ohio. (pp. 373-376). “Human hearing in connection with the action of ultrasound in the megahertz range on the aural labyrinth” 1979. L. R. Gavrilov, G. V. Gershuni, V.I. Pudov, A.S. Rozenblyum, and E.M. Tsirul’nikov. American Institute of Phusics pp. 290-292.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 1996; Richard A. Normann, Edwin M. Maynard, K. Shane Guillory, and David J. Warren. “Cortical Implants for the Blind”.
Computational Neuroscience 13; Eric L. Schwartz, Bjorn Merker, Estarose Wolfson, and Alan Shaw. 1988. “Applications of Computer Graphics and Image Processing to 2D and 3D Modeling of the Functional Architecture of Visual Cortex”.
CMPnet. The Technology Network. Feb. 10, 1997. “Treading fine line between man and machine, researchers pursue silicon prostheses–Chip implants: weird science with a noble purpose–Second of two parts” Larry Lange.
EETIMESonline, ; The Technology Network/ 1999; ;Craig Matsumoto, EE Times; ISSCC: “Papers outline biochips to restore eyesight, movement”.
JN Online. The Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 77 No. 6 1997, pp. 2879-2909, The American Physiological Society. “Encoding of Binocular Disparity by Complex Cells in the Cat’s Visual Cortex”.
Gttp: www.bionictech.com, Center for Neural Interfaces. Richard A. Normann, Ph.D.
BBC News Online Science, Dr. David Whithouse, Sci/Tech Computer uses cat’s brain to see.
PennState College of Engineering, The Whitaker Center for Medical Ultrasonic Transducer Engineering. Dpmi.tu-graz.ac.at/research/BCI; Brain Computer Interface.
Ipaustralia.gov.au/fun/patents/02_ear.htm; Bionic Ear Patent; Melbourne University–Australian Patent 519851; filing date 1978.
Measurement and Projection of Acoustic Fields; Earl G. Williams; Naval Research Laboratory, Code 5137, Washing D.C. 20375.
Resonance, Newsletter of the Bioelectromagnetics Special Interest Group. pp. 11-13, 15-16. Judy Wall.
Primary Examiner: Huson, Gregory; Assistant Examiner: Kokabi, Azy; Attorney, Agent or Firm: Mayer Fortkort & Williams, PC, Williams, Esq.; Karin L. Parent Case Text
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
The present Application is related to the U.S. patent application entitled “Method And System For Forming An Acoustic Signal From Neural Timing Difference Data,” Ser. No. 09/690,786, co-filed with the present application on even date, and assigned to the Assignee of the present invention, and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Claims
…Low frequency amplitude modulation combined with wavelength phase interactions from the primary and secondary transducer arrays 200, 202 form a stimulus to activate neurons in the visual cortex area 100 or another other part of the human neural cortex. By controlling the pattern of signal amplitude and phase shifts in secondary array 202, a wide range of patterns can be focused towards visual cortex 100 or any other region of the human cortex. Ultrasonic signals altering neural firings are discussed in “Temporally-specific modification of myelinated axon excitability in vitro following a single ultrasound pulse” by Mihran et al. published by the Ultrasound Med Biol 1990, 16(3), pp. 297-309 and “Transient Modification of Nerve Excitability In Vitro by Single Ultrasound Pulses” by Mihran et al. found in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Colorado, 1990, paper #90-038, which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Changes in the neural firing timing induce various sensory experiences depending on the location of the firing timing change in the cortex. The mapping of sensory areas of the cortex is known and used in current surgically invasive techniques.
…In a block 303, the signal generator 102 converts the firing time differences to a first signal 104A. For example, the first signal 104A may comprise an acoustical pattern, which comprises a plurality of amplitude and phase differences. I n one embodiment, this conversion is accomplished by using known techniques in generating projective holograms. Acoustic holography is discussed in “Nearfield acoustic holography: I. Theory of generalized holography and the development of NAH” by J. D. Maynard et al. in the October 1985 issue of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
…One advantage of the present system is that no surgery is needed to change neural activity causing a sensory experience.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to specific embodiments, these embodiments are illustrative only and not limiting. Many other applications of this present invention will be apparent in light of this disclosure and the following claims.
Part 3:
9) Government goals of developing electromagnetic brain cognition and non-invasive brain to brain communication devices.
The proposed research below describes cognition via electromagnetic signals which is a much more advanced technology than the transcranial magnetic stimulation therapies, TMS, currently available for depression and other ailments. TMS or magnetic stimulation therapies don’t have the capability for precise targeting of specific brain cells. TMS technologies are often cited as being incapable of development into sophisticated mind control. But precise targeting via magnetic signals is a proven and classified technology as reported in the 1990 International Review of the Red Cross article which described weapons with specially adapted antenna systems and using the principle of magnetic concentration for precise targeting on the battlefield.
The Department of Commerce, June, 2002, four-hundred page report entitled, ‘Converging Technologies For Improving Human Performance’ (http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/)
Page 355-6; ‘Non-drug Treatments for Enhancement of Human Performance’ by Robert Asher, Sandia Laboratories. …Cogno. Understand how electromagnetics can be used to enhance cognitive performance as well as physiological performance. …biotechnology in the understanding of cellular interaction with the electromagnetic fields. …information technology in that the pulses need to be so shaped as to cause desired interconnected cell electromagnetic responses of cognition by external fields.
This article echoes the government’s unwavering stance on mind control technologies for decades, i.e. full of promise but always a future capability. The articles never mention the classified mind control research dating back to the 1950s. May 1, 2003, Technology Review, “Mind -machine merger: a $24 million government initiative is jump-starting researchers’ efforts to link brains and computers” by Gregory T. Huang;
Even more remarkable, such devices could enhance decision-making, upgrade memory and cognitive skills, and even allow one person’s brain to communicate wirelessly with another’s. Although such applications are as speculative as they are spectacular, scientists no longer view them as pure fantasy.
…[DARPA’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Allen Rudolph, program manager of the initiative] said, “we really don’t envision implanting healthy people with these kinds of devices. The key to being able to restore or augment human capabilities, he says, will be gaining access to the brain signals in an unobtrusive way,-ideally, without wires, electrodes, or surgeries.” …And though this vision is still years away, our minds may already be on the road to a new way of thinking.”
10) Nonlethal and information weapons programs in 2005; reports of excessive secrecy and little accountability.
Ethical abuses are being reported with recommendations of further study, discussion and regulation.
The 2005 articles below describe the secrecy issues surrounding nonlethal electromagnetic and mind control weapons. Mind control and electromagnetic weapons have been categorized by military experts under information warfare. See http://mindjustice.org/russ9-05.htm. As reported below, the weapons are advanced and overclassified with little accountability. There is ample evidence for concern and further investigation.
Washington Post Sept. 21, 2005 ‘Commandos in the Streets?’ by William Arkin. The article described “…the use of experimental non-lethal weapons, and federal and military control of incident locations that are highly controversial and might border on the illegal.”
Further, Granite Shadow posits domestic military operations, including intelligence collection and surveillance, unique rules of engagement regarding the use of lethal force, the use of experimental non-lethal weapons, and federal and military control of incident locations that are highly controversial and might border on the illegal.
…Both plans seem to live behind a veil of extraordinary secrecy because military forces operating under them have already been given a series of ”special authorities” by the President and the secretary of defense. These special authorities include, presumably, military roles in civilian law enforcement and abrogation of State’s powers in a declared or perceived emergency. …
September 29, 2005, New York Times, “Republicans See Signs That Pentagon Is Evading Oversight” by Douglas Jehl;
Republican members of Congress say there are signs that the Defense Department may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress and the new director of national intelligence.
Part 4:
The warnings are an unusually public signal of some Republican lawmakers’ concern about overreaching by the Pentagon, where top officials have been jockeying with the new intelligence chief, John D. Negroponte, for primacy in intelligence operations. The lawmakers said they believed that some intelligence activities, involving possible propaganda efforts and highly technological initiatives, might be masked as so-called special access programs, the details of which are highly classified.
“We see indications that the D.O.D. is trying to create parallel functions to what is going on in intelligence, but is calling it something else,” Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview.
Mr. Hoekstra said he believed that the purpose might be to obscure the extent of Pentagon intelligence activities and to keep them outside Mr. Negroponte’s designated orbit. …
The report said the committee believed that “individual services may have intelligence or intelligence-related programs such as science and technology projects or information operations programs related to defense intelligence that are embedded in other service budget line items, precluding sufficient visibility for program oversight.”
“Information operations” is a military term used to describe activities including electronic warfare, psychological operations and counterpropaganda initiatives. …
A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, Carl Kropf, described coordination between Mr. Negroponte’s office and the Pentagon as “excellent” on budget issues.
“Successfully integrating D.O.D.-unique intelligence programs and missions into the National Intelligence Program requires full transparency,” Mr. Kropf said. “Such transparency exists today.”
Finally, the October 6, 2005, Washington Post, National and Homeland Security Microwaves, Lasers, Retired Generals For Sale by William Arkin;
…Those concerns are being brushed aside as the weapons advance along the familiar development path of boosters and patrons feeding information to war gamers who feed study participants who feed researchers who feed manufactures. At the end of the day, it is hard to tell whether high powered microwaves and laser came into being because someone conceived it out of need or because its existence in the laboratory created the need.
This week, for example, one of my favorite directed energy patrons — retired General Ron Fogleman — received appointments at two corporations, as a “senior advisor” to the Galen Capital Group, LLC; and as a member of the board of advisors of Novastar
Resources.
The former chief of staff of the Air Force is a military-industrial legend, head of his own consulting company Durango Aerospace Inc. with a client list that includes Boeing, FMC, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and RSL Electronics.
A quick check on the web shows that Fogleman also serves on the boards of no few than 14 corporations: AAR Corp, Alliant Techsystems, IDC, Mesa Air Group, MITRE Corporation, Rolls-Royce North America, Thales-Raytheon Systems, First National Bank of Durango, International Airline Service Group, ICN Pharmaceuticals, DERCO Aerospace, EAST Inc., World Airway, and North American Airlines. He is also Senior Vice President of something called Projects International, a DC consultancy and is or was a partner in Laird and Company, LLC. And he is a member of Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, on the NASA Advisory Council, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Advisory Board, chairs the Falcon Foundation and the Airlift/Tanker Association. This guy is busy!
Fogleman gave up the job as the most powerful man in the Air Force on principle when he could no longer serve Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Since leaving, however, he has dispensed so much wisdom one wonders how much principle could be left.
One of Fogleman’s first jobs upon leaving the Air Force was to chair the 1998 Directed Energy Applications for Tactical Airborne Combat study (known as “DE ATAC”) which identified 65 concepts, particularly microwave weapons, selecting 20 for further analysis. The laboratory then awarded short-term concept development contracts for the five most promising to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Coherent Technologies, and Sanders.
All during the 1990’s, money flowed into continued development of directed energy weapons, but frankly not much happened. Everyone talked about an E-bomb being used in Iraq in 2003, but once again for a variety of technical and ethical reasons, and because the real world intervened, the silver bullets remained on laboratory benches or in the world of “black” super-secret contracts, waiting for an opportunity. …
11) Remote surveillance and NLWs (Nonlethal weapons); ethical concerns need to be studied and debated by experts and the public, ethicists conclude.
Concerns and ethics surrounding the ongoing development of electromagnetic mind control and surveillance technologies have been reported. Scientists having no qualms about the ethics of mind control are working on it. Ethical concerns regarding remote surveillance and NLWs need to be studied and openly discussed and regulations need to be implemented.
Opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission No. 20 Adopted on 16/03/2005 posted at http://europa.eu.int/comm/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20en.pdf
On page 11; Surveillance or tracking devices.
Wearable ICT devices for tracking the human body: such a device allows an individual with a receiver to pinpoint someone’s position worldwide.
Subdermal GPS Personal Location Devices: in May 2003, Applied Digital Solutions (ADS) claimed that “Digital Angel”, a prototype implantable GPS tracking device had been successfully tested. However, technical experts are questioning whether the system could really work.
The disc-shaped “personal location device” measures 6.35 centimetres in diameter and 1.27 centimetres in depth – roughly the same size as a pace- maker. This GPS monitoring could be used for several purposes, such as for example, in case of medical emergencies (heart attack, epilepsy or diabetes), or for identification and location purposes (for people in high risk occupations, children, stalkers or suspected terrorists).
On page 35; Public Debate and Information
A broad social and political debate is needed as to what kind of applications should be accepted and legally approved, particularly concerning surveillance and enhancement. A precautionary approach is recommended by the EGE. The Member States and their national ethics councils (or corresponding institutions) have a responsibility to create conditions for education and constructive, well-informed debates in this area.
More information on the Digital Angel Corporation; Digital Angel Corporation develops and deploys sensor and communications technologies that enable rapid and accurate identification, location tracking, and condition monitoring of high-value assets. Applications for the Company’s products include identification and monitoring of pets, fish, livestock, and humans through its patented implantable microchips; location tracking and message monitoring of vehicles and aircraft in remote locations through systems that integrate GPS and geosynchronous satellite communications; and monitoring of asset conditions such as temperature and movement, through advanced miniature sensors. Digital Angel Corporation is a majority-owned subsidiary of Applied Digital. For more information about Digital Angel, visit the company’s website at www.destronfearing.com/rfid.htm
Part 5:
The Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project- Research Report No. 7 (May, 2005) is posted here: www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/nlw/
On page 13; Medical Ethics; In the December 2004 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics Jonathan Moreno, Professor of Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virgina, draws attention to ‘Medical Ethics and Non-lethal Weapons.’ His article reiterates the ethical issues surrounding the involvement of medical professionals in non-lethal weapons development, as previously discussed by Robin Coupland of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Moreno makes the following recommendation: From NLWs to the treatment of terrorists, it is time for a respected, independent entity such as the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to commission a study of these emerging challenges to medical ethics in the context of terrorism and national security.
The New Scientist published an editorial in March 2005 detailing research in the US to develop a Pulsed Energy Projectile (PEP) directed energy weapon(see the Directed Energy section of this report), which raised serious ethical concerns over the research:
There is something chilling about turning research intended to ease suffering into a weapon that can be used to hurt people. Nociceptors, nerve cells that convey pain in the body, have been studied by researchers trying to relieve chronic pain. It emerged this week that a group working for the Pentagon is using that knowledge to turn the tables: to maximize the pain caused by a non-lethal weapon called PEP. So it is no surprise that pain researchers have reacted in horror to the plan.
This research was presented at the November 2004 Non-Lethal Technology and Academic Research (NTAR) Symposium at the University of New Hampshire, a forum where researchers, who are funded by the Joint-Non Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD)through the Non-lethal Technology Innovation Center (NTIC), present their results.
Another example from the NTAR conference of medical research being channeled into weapons development is based on a new technology developed by the Center for Bioelectrics, which is a joint venture between the College of Engineering and Technology at Old Dominion University, Virginia and Eastern Virginia Medical School. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) funds the Center. Potential benefits of the new technology are described on the Center for Bioelectrics’ web site;
Bioelectrics refers to the use of pulsed power, or the application of powerful electrical pulses, for extremely short periods of time, to manipulate biological cells, tissues and/or organisms. Researchers at the Center for Bioelectrics are testing the use of these high-intensity electrical surges to remove diseased or unwanted cells or groups of cells, such as tumors. Use of this technology in medicine and biology is the first of its kind in the world. The biomedical applications, based on ultrafast pulse-cell interactions, have extraordinary potential to treat persons with cancer, cardiovascular disease and other conditions.
However the US Air Force’s interest in the technology is less altruistic. Part of the research effort, which was jointly presented at NTAR 2004 by the Center for Bioelectrics and the AFRL, addresses “Neuromuscular Disruption with Ultrashort Pulses.” The purpose of research is to find a way of using the technique to cause electrical incapacitation in humans for use as a non-lethal weapon.
12) How real and/or imminent is the possibility of sophisticated and surreptitious remote mind control? A summary.
Independent sources provide relevant information for the debate.
So far mainstream press does not report on the ongoing classified government neuroscience for weapons research. This incomplete and inaccurate reporting contributes to public misinformation.
Zhijun Wei verified the science and technology of the russian electromagnetic antipersonnel weapons described in the 1988 German think tank article. Wei concluded that the descriptions of battlefield tracking and targeting of soldiers were scientifically accurate and possible.
Zhijun Wei’s report concluded, “the science is feasible but very challenging for remote surveillance and tracking of humans via satellite.” Wei’s conclusions are reasonable given the evidence of classified remote surveillance programs and national security interests.
While Wei was able to conclude that with battlefield distances, remote tracking and targeting of humans is possible today, a classified new discovery or technology is necessary to achieve remote tracking and targeting of humans via satellite. Given the very real consequences of classified research, the possibility of classified surveillance technologies becomes more likely.
Addressing scientific criticisms against the possibility of mind control and remote human surveillance.
The 2005 Scientific American, the 1988 think tank article, the 2005 Washington Post article and Zhijun Wei all cited the same technological roadblocks to sophisticated mind control and surveillance.
The need for a huge power source. But the 1988 think tank article described technology for battlefield distances which are available today. In addition, the military predicts development by 2009, according to the Dayton Daily News articles. Finally, the ICRC article described weapons technology using much lower energy levels to produce incapacitating and lethal effects.
Precise targeting of specific areas of brain is not possible with remote technology because electromagnetic pulses decline in power and precision with distance. But the 1988 article described alternative power sources, phased array radar and holography principles which overcome this problem at battlefield distances. The 1990 International Review of the Red Cross article also cited available technology using the principle of magnetic field concentration and specially adapted antenna systems.
Sophisticated mind control is not possible because as Delgado stated in the 2005 Scientific American article, “how complex information is encoded in the brain [is] a goal that neuroscientists are far from achieving.” But Delgado described uncertainty with his 1950s-1970s mind control research; therapeutic benefits of human implants were unreliable, results varied from patient to patient and could be unpredictable even in the same patient. Delgado’s nontherapeutic research on animals and humans was successful and “could control subjects’ minds and bodies with the push of a button, according to the 2005 Scientific American article.
The precision problem and complex encoding of information by the brain was overcome to some degree in the 2003 Sony patent describing technology that is entirely non-invasive, unlike implants. The Sony patent describes technology for communication of complex information to the brain via an external source. Sensory data that could be finely tuned, focused and transmitted onto small groups of brain cells with ultrasound, creating sensory experiences such as sight, sound, taste, smell, touch. While the patent is not developed yet, the science is feasible according to scientists interviewed in the article.
The 1990 International Review of the Red Cross article, the 1976 Los Angeles Times article and several other sources above described developed and classified mind control technologies. Strangely, brain reading has not advanced since the 1976 Los Angeles Times article reported that an EEG or brainwave signals can determine whether someone is fatigued, puzzled or daydreaming, how someone perceives colors and shapes and tell the difference between a ‘right’ answer based on knowledge and one that was merely a lucky guess. Brainwave and related technologies are far from being developed into sophisticated thought reading which may be explained by the fact that thought reading is known to be classified since the mid 1970s.
And after many decades, the same rudimentary mind control technology that targets the human nervous system is repeatedly ‘in development’. The unclassified weapons stun, disorient or immobilize. With a closer examination, a pattern of government control of the development and funding of electromagnetic mind control research emerged. In spite of the decades of research and interest, only the most basic ‘mind control’ technologies are ever discussed in the unclassified literature. After many decades, electromagnetic weapons are known to be extremely classified but how sophisticated or well developed is impossible to determine. What is known is that after decades of research, the science of electromagnetic mind control continues to remain well funded and scientifically feasible.
Sophisticated electromagnetic mind control weapons of extreme importance to national security are a likely explanation for this decades old pattern of classified electromagnetic weapons and the concurrent development and lack of progress with unclassified electromagnetic mind control technologies.
Part 6:
Articles and books describe mind control and remote human surveillance as heavily classified national security priorities.
Mind control and remote human surveillance are classified among the deepest secrets of the nation. Dr. McCulloch described 1950s classified mind control government research to find “where fancy is bred”, i.e. the biological basis of consciousness.
The capability of technologies to detect and target the brain would seem to be, by analogy the same technology for detecting weak signals of moving targets and targeting weak signals towards a moving target. Tracking and targeting human brain signals may seem like science fiction, but when the problem is reduced to categories such as extremely weak signal detection and signal to noise issues, the science becomes feasible, although almost impossible to imagine from this vantage point. And as described in this report, government agencies were willing to go to extreme technological lengths for national security purposes.
Expert Jeffrey Richelson described classified satellite surveillance technologies. Two daunting technological problems were overcome. Richelson described scientist William Perry’s work ; ” it was feared that the noise from other, and unwanted, transmissions such as television signals would drown the telemetry in an ocean of noise. …Before proceeding further, Wheelon asked William Perry, who had just left Sylvania’s Electronic Defense Laboratories to form his own company, to study the matter. Six months later, he reported that the idea was workable.” Richelson then described Project Moonbounce, in which “A typical signal received via moonbounce was a billion times weaker than if it were intercepted by an airplane ten miles from the transmitter. As a result, only very large antennae could effectively hear such signals and distinguish them from other signals” Dr. Cloud reported that remote sensing technologies were intended to be classified forever and were developed with unaccountable CIA funding and dating back to the 1940s.
Two 2005 Washington Post articles and a 2005 New York Times article cited excessive secrecy and evasion of congressional oversight surrounding very sophisticated psyops, information and nonlethal weapons which are related to mind control.
The capability for remote sensing of target individuals and groups was publicly cited as a government need, it looks like for the first time in 2003. National Defense, ‘Special operators seeking a technological advantage, U.S. Special Operations. The 1976 Los Angeles Times article and the 1990 International Review of the Red Cross article both described classified human surveillance capabilities; thought reading capabilities from a distance of several feet and electromagnetic weapons targeting capabilities at battlefield distances.
In light of this report, it becomes likely that scientifically feasible and powerful remote mind control weapons have been classified for decades. The general consensus is that sophisticated remote mind control is a future capability. Surprisingly and with a closer look, a valid and worthwhile counterargument can be made that sophisticated mind control and remote human surveillance are classified military and intelligence capabilities and are likely to remain classified. Mind Justice’s position
Some people believe that future weapons should remain classified. Some people believe that mind control technology should remain classified but that public input is a part of the democratic process. Mind Justice has collected reports of allegations from all over the world of abuses and torture using mind control technologies. Clearly the evidence in this report supports the news accounts of the lack of accountability and oversight of new mind control and electromagnetic technologies, even without the allegations.
Given the pattern of government development of mind control technologies for the past several decades, it is unlikely that sophisticated mind control will ever be an unclassified technology. Remote mind control technology requires huge research dollars and the potential of developing remote mind control technologies into weapons requires government regulation and control. Victims who claim they are targeted with mind control technologies are told that mind control is still science fiction and the claims are not investigated further. As illustrated in this report, mind control technologies today have remained rudimentary and little progress has been made even after decades of government funding, classified research and continued government funding and interest. This is an indication that mind control research is a national security priority and is very controlled by the government. The logical explanation is that unclassified mind control research is still science fiction but that the classified goverment research is well developed and advanced. Given this evidence, the many claims world wide should be taken seriously and investigated further. Mind Justice’s position is that some public input is called for, along with accountability, oversight and mechanisms and processes for whistleblower reporting and protections.
Most people are unaware that mind control and surveillance technologies have been national security priorities and in development in most industrialized countries for decades. The hard to find facts and resultant conclusions in this report have rarely been reported in mainstream press, in part as a result of the government’s interest in keeping mind control weapons classified. As seen in this report , a circumstantial case and serious argument in support of the existence of sophisticated, classified government mind control weapons and surveillance technologies can be made.
Mind Justice’s position is that this issue should be extensively explored and publicized, mainly because of the growing numbers of complaints worldwide of government mind control abuses. The allegations of government mind control abuse are serious and shock the conscious of the reasonable person. Mind Justice hopes to hire professionals and experts in the future and gather information so that thorough investigations will take place.
Part 7:
13) Experts warn of a lack of study and legislation for surveillance technologies and nonlethal weapons; a call for public and professional discussions, legislation and regulation. What can be done now.
The 2005 European Commission ethics report on surveillance and tracking devices recommended social and political debate. The 2005 University of Bradford nonlethal weapons research report cited ethicist Dr. Moreno and his recommendation for independent studies on the medical ethics of nonlethal weapons and the treatment of terrorists within the context of national security. Research by scientists to develop weapons to maximize pain were cited as serious ethical concerns. Three 2005 newspaper articles cited the lack of government regulation and oversight of new, very controversial and classified weapons, the Washington Posts article by William Arkin and New York Times article on the lack of oversight of very classified nonlethal weapons.
In the Washington Post article, William Arkin cited a lack of a sound deliberative process and careful weighing of consequences of the use of new weapons.
Now the public needs impartial and thorough reports and unbiased, reliable facts and information.
One possibility is a GAO or Government Accounting Office report on the new technologies and weapons. Any citizen can request a report from their congressman on topics such as;
Classified neuroscience research, the history, regulation, government oversight mechanisms and future implications.
Nonlethal, information and electromagnetic weapons, the history, regulation, government oversight mechanisms and future implications.
Remote human surveillance , the history, regulation and government oversight mechanisms and future implications.
Given the reported abuses and calls for regulation, public education of new emerging technologies and weapons should be a top priority.
XIII. [Legal] Lawsuit by San Quentin prisoner regarding microwave auditory effect in 1965.
http://mindjustice.org/ginter.htm
http://mindjustice.org/ginter-transcript.htm
Interviewee: John Ginter Interviewer: Cheryl Welsh Date: September 30, 1994 Place: Sacramento, California Transcriber: Teresa Bergen Copyright Mindjustice.org
JOHN GINTER: My name is John Ginter, G-i-n-t-e-r. I was a prisoner in San Quentin in 1967. And after a riot we had there in the first part of 1967, they put me in the Adjustment Center. Well two or three days later, I found myself hearing voices and not being able to figure out what was going on, so I thought that somehow there was something going on behind my cell. So I broke down the stool in the cell and knocked down the back frame of the door in the back of the cell, trying to figure out what was going on.
Well they kept simulating an environment by sound projections. That means I could hear in my frame voices that were trying to make me believe that things were going on around me that actually weren’t going on at all. But they were doing that to, they were trying to instill fear in me, I presume, to either make me commit suicide or try to disorganize my mind. But then I kept figuring out every scenario that they had, changed to a degree, that I can’t think of now what was going on.
And eventually, after about two or three months of this crazy shit, excuse me for saying “shit.” (laughs) Anyway, I figured out that the transmission of energy that was in my brain and the voices I heard were coming from an external force which I believe was in a James Parks, who was the associate warden, that lived up over the hill of the Adjustment Center. So I come to formulate in my mind that the only way they could be doing this to my mind was as if they used a beam of electromagnetic energy that was directed at my aura, or my brainwave.
And so I filed a petition in the federal court. I went through the state court on a habeas corpus. And I constantly wrote to the judge explaining this technology and what was going on. And when my mother come up to visit me, I told her to go to the FBI office and get an FBI agent out there as fast as possible.
Well I finally got interviewed by an FBI agent for about an hour. And he went to interview Dr. Schmidt, who was the head psychiatrist, the head prison psychiatrist, of San Quentin. Well Dr. Schmidt come over to interview me, and told me the name of this device was called M.I.N.D. He classified me after I went before a big panel, a large panel of about 18 different doctors, that I was a paranoid schizophrenic. But he give me the knowledge that this thing was called M.I.N.D. Magnetic Integrated Neuron Duplicator. And he also told me that General Erwin Walker had made the same claim while he was in Springfield under a court order.
And so that stayed in the back of my mind. And I just brought it out here in the last couple of years.
CHERYL WELSH: Could you explain who Erwin Walker is?
GINTER: General Erwin Walker was one of the commanders in Europe that was considered to be fascistic, or even Nazi-orientated. But he was a member of the John Birch Society. And he went to the University of Mississippi to stop the integration of James Meredith into the University of Mississippi. And he was declared to be mentally unstable and put into the Springfield Medical Facility before he was even been diagnosed. I mean, they just diagnosed him that way.
So this technology has been going on. In fact, I read where Operation Pandora started in the ʼ50s.
WELSH: Well don’t forget to mention, just so that they know, Erwin Walker was the one who, can you explain about Oswald and how—
GINTER: Oh, yeah. Well, anyway, Oswald supposedly, before he supposedly shot the president, President Kennedy, Oswald supposedly had taken a shot at Walker. Yeah. But—
WELSH: So, okay. The fact that Erwin Walker was a political case—
GINTER: Yeah. It was definitely a political case. And the same way, now that goes back to my case. I was definitely political. I am, and remain, a staunch anti-Zionist subscriber. And I’ve studied, my world picture, and because of some of my activities in prison, this is the reason why they use, because of my political beliefs.
WELSH: So Erwin Walker claimed that they had brainwashed him in Springfield?
GINTER: Well, according to Dr. Schmidt, he said that General Erwin Walker claimed that he had the same thing going on in his mind, that he was hearing voices, that he had been penetrated by some external force.
WELSH: Okay. And Dr. Schmidt had heard about it and had told you about it, that he knew of this—
GINTER: By the way, that reminds me. Also, Dr. Schmidt was born in Russia. I donʼt know if he was Jewish, but he had a German name. But the doctor that oversaw General Erwin Walker was also born in Russia. But he had a direct Jewish name. So I contend that it was Zionist, or people with Zionist interest, that did use this device on me. Because that was the only, that was the only reason it could possibly be. (coughs) Want to turn it off? [pause]
Cheryl just mentioned the fact that prisoners at that time back in the ‘60s, at Vacaville, especially, were most of the guinea pigs. And Jessica Mitford had written a book called A Kind and Unusual Punishment: The Prison Business. And she pretty well documented the fact that Vacaville had been used for the big pharmaceutical companies, and they had a connection with the military, also. Because most of these men were all military, former military people. In fact, most of the prison guards were former military people.
But getting back to the environment of the ‘60s, the prisoners were looked on as, from the left wing perspective, as both potential for being revolutionary fighters in the war of independence for the Marxist/Leninist type of thinking, like George Jackson.
WELSH: Was George Jackson in prison with you, then?
GINTER: He was, George Jackson was in a cell right next, see, he killed four or five, or he was responsible for killing four or five guards. And he was right next door to me, in the cell next door to me in the Adjustment Center.
But the whole environment of the Bay Area at this time was left, extremely left wing. There was a political correctness there, and the prison system was at a loss to be able to control these outbursts of prison rebellion. Now I was on the extreme right, and I was an anomaly all to myself, because the majority, they had Vacaville in such a way that everybody was getting loaded. They had all the queens that was performing for all the people there, all the convicts. The place was completely loose. And it was a conflict with custody, more or less.
WELSH: You mean the prison guards?
GINTER: Yeah. Right. Right.
WELSH: And what time period was this?
GINTER: This was during the ʼ60s. This was, it started about 1965. In fact, let’s see what, here’s a book that describes the whole incident. It’s called The Rise and Fall of California’s Radical Prison Movement. This will give you the best description of what was going on in prison at that time. Also Jessica Mitford’s books will also give you a good interpretation. You want to turn it off? [pause]
Cheryl wanted me to explain the process of how this thing was working, so that other prisoners will know that they’re being processed, also. The majority of the trauma was in the voices and when they turned up the volume into different parts of the body. They could make me feel that I couldn’t get off the bed, because they could use electromagnetic energy in my stomach. But mostly it was concentrated in my brain. And they knew everything I felt, everything I seen. I couldn’t even go to the bathroom. That’s the ultimate you know? No privacy whatsoever.
The main thrust was to make me believe something that was going on that really wasn’t. In other words, to almost project a hallucination in the mind, to make you think something was going on that really isn’t. But I was always cognizant of what was going on in my mind. I had no far out superstition, so they couldn’t make me believe that say I was hearing from aliens or God or what have you, you know. But this technology is real and it’s been going on since the ‘50s, as I’ve been able to read. And now it’s widespread. It’s all over everywhere. I’m specifically interested in what’s going on in the prison system.
WELSH: How long did they do this to you?
GINTER: They did this to me for about 18 months. But they kept me monitored. And as far as I know, I could be monitored at this time. Maybe there was a period of years there where they took it off me, then they put it back on me. When I started to network with people like Cheryl. But there’s a chance that I’m monitored now. But the only thing that makes me believe that is because I hear funny little things in my ear. Little, sounds like volume shifts in my ear. Frequency modulation in my ear. But that could be anything. So.
WELSH: Could you talk about, did they try to change your political beliefs?
GINTER: Oh, yes. They did that. They tried to make me feel that my political beliefs were too extreme. And they wanted me to read Marxist and Leninist type literature. Which I did do. I even read Exodus and felt emotionally compelled to have a tear or two, because I felt sorry for the Jews. This went on and on and on. And they did establish my thinking toward the radical left. In fact, I even sent a letter to the embassy of the East German government to ask for political asylum over there.
But now I’ve come back full tilt. I’m not afraid of anything. They don’t worry me a bit. I’m going to reveal this thing if it’s the last thing I ever do. And I feel secure in that. And my political beliefs are the same. I still believe that the Jews control this whole country. I know that Deutsch is a Jew, is a Zionist. I know that Madeleine Albright is a Zionist. And they practically tried to destroy that country. And I’m going to (?) that also.
WELSH: Now Deutsch is the head of the CIA?
GINTER: Right. Deutsch is the head of the CIA. He’s a staunch Zionist. All you have to do is read the Spotlight.
WELSH: So can you tell us a little bit about your current networking with current prisoners you mentioned who are—
GINTER: The main prisoner that I get most of my information about what’s going on in prison is David Fratus. He’s in Utah.
WELSH: What types of things do they do to him? To give us an idea.
GINTER: Well, they try to monitor his thinking. They keep him up for days on end.
WELSH: I know you mentioned sleep deprivation.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: And how long did they—
GINTER: Well, when they first used it on me, they were using it on me for 27 days and nights without any sleep. I couldn’t get any sleep whatsoever. And I was, you know, you just imagine 27 days and nights without any sleep. Well that’s enough to make any normal human being hallucinate on your own.
WELSH: Would you like to talk a little about the, that you felt that they also drove you to commit, try to commit suicide?
GINTER: Oh, yeah. They set up a scenario where they had doctor technicians that were coming into my cell. This is the scenario they set up. Coming into my cell and was going to strap me down and cut off my penis and my testicles. Well it instilled such terror in me that I cut my throat. See the scars there on my throat? And then I went to sleep and I woke up and I found out this had all been a play, a scenario. It had been part of their projections, their sound projections. But it scared the hell out of me at the time. But after that, they quit doing that because I realized they couldn’t scare me anymore. That was the ultimate thing they could do.
Cheryl asked me what I thought their goal was. And I figured that what it was was to scramble my mind, fry my brain. To make me believe something that I wouldn’t hold the value before. And basically what it is is they want to make me less of a threat. Because I was so mad that my basic perception was to go up to the University of California with a machine gun and start blowing them away. But that’s what they were mostly concerned with was trying to pacify me and make me less of a threat.
And another thing I was a threat to, just like right now, I’m a threat because I have that information. I know what the capabilities, and most people don’t know what they have, the technology. Most people don’t know it. I’m a threat in that way. But they wanted to pacify me, basically, is what they did. But they failed. Because I’m going to fight this thing.
WELSH: Well you mentioned, so this technology, this M.I.N.D machine, it’s a computer brain kind of communication device and you mentioned that Erwin Walker had some strong political beliefs.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: And that you also had some political beliefs. So you believed that the government would—who do you think is behind this project?
GINTER: Well, the people that I feel are directly involved are Procunier, who is the director of the Department of Corrections in ’67-’68, and from the house of associate warden Parks. And also the Dr. Keating and Urbino. Now they are both, Dr. Keating was the head of Vacaville. He was a psychiatrist. And I believe they have military connections, and I believe they got the device from the military under a secret project, under different covert echelons of power structure within the military-industrial complex or the CIA.
WELSH: You also mentioned the University of California at Berkeley.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: And that you thought that they also may have been involved in the testing?
GINTER: Yeah. Because most of these people that I had come in direct contact with were all professors from the University of California, and/or psychiatric doctors that worked within the prison. Because the prison system was nothing but a big guinea pig farm. All you have to do is start looking at the literature on the ʼ60s and ʼ70s. It’s nothing but a big guinea pig farm! Everything was psychotherapy babble! Psychobabble all the time! Constantly!
WELSH: So in other words, the prison administrations were very concerned about how to control violent prisoners, and were doing a lot of studies along those lines?
GINTER: Oh, sure! Sure they were. Especially Vacaville. But Vacaville they, the main force in Vacaville was to get the prisoners to go along with their experimentation voluntarily. And the only way to get them to do that is to loosen up. Now they would have unlimited access to different kinds of drugs. I mean, drugs that they could get high on, not the experimental kind. And like I say, the cells were always open, so there was unlimited sexual activity. The place was total confusion. I mean, nobody was in order. Nobody was in charge.
WELSH: And would this be under Dr. Keating at Vacaville?
GINTER: Under Dr. Keating, yeah.
WELSH: Right. Who had the philosophy that—
GINTER: He had Menninger’s philosophy. The Dr. Karl Menninger. He was the head theorist on prisoners at the Mayo Clinic, I believe it was the Mayo Clinic, back in Kansas.
WELSH: Okay. So could you talk about the Solano Institute for Medical and Psychiatric Research that Jessica Mitford wrote about in her book, and on the drug experimentation on prisoners?
GINTER: Well I’m not really too much aware, only what I’ve read. And anybody can get the literature if they want to. If they read Kind and Unusual Punishment by Jessica Mitford, they can get the information concerning the extent of the experimentation.
WELSH: I know that you had mentioned that you think that might be a conduit for CIA funding?
GINTER: Yeah, right, because all these doctors were connected. See, Travis Air Force Base is right next to, right next to Vacaville. And most of the personnel came out of Travis Air Force Base. And I think that they’re all, like I said before, I believe that there is different strata of security clearance within these governmental agencies. And some rogue, maybe not rogue, but some organization within the military-industrial complex had these devices.
WELSH: Could you talk about the radiation advisory committee and their findings that have to do with San Quentin? And actually Vacaville, I know you mentioned.
GINTER: Yeah. Well, the only thing I know about that is that it’s mentioned that Dr. James Alex Hamilton that was a psychiatrist that worked under MK Ultra. And he had an office at Vacaville. See, this is just information that you can check on if you do research on this.
WELSH: I know that Dr. Hamilton was mentioned in John Mark’s book. What was the title of that book?
GINTER: That book was [The Search for] The Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control [The Secret History of the Behavioral Sciences].
WELSH: And he mentions that—
GINTER: Here’s that book right here.
WELSH: And he mentions the experiments at Vacaville that had CIA funding?
GINTER: Yeah, right.
WELSH: And Dr. Hamilton was involved in the McSearch? Subproject 3. And then I know that you talked about the Radiation Advisory Committee’s final report, and how Dr. James Hamilton was alleged to have conflicting information with the advisory committee. In other words, he was not admitting that the government documents were accurate. Is that right?
GINTER: Yeah. Yeah. He, he wouldn’t admit his, when he was under cross-examination by that committee, he would not admit that he was into this radiation processes. But the radiation processes, it was even in San Quentin as long ago as the ʼ40s. And there’s a research library at the federal building in Oakland, 1301 Clay Street in Oakland.
WELSH: In Oakland. And you can get some copies of the radiation experimentation?
GINTER: Yeah. In prison. In the San Quentin there. Yeah.
WELSH: Oh, okay. So there’s a long history of prison experimentation, in other words. And it would not be a far-fetched idea that the CIA would fund a mind control experiment at San Quentin. I guess that would be the point.
GINTER: No, well San Quentin, being where it is, where it’s located, it’s close to Berkeley and all the different colleges.
WELSH: Well I know that in that final advisory report, just to finish up on this point, they mentioned that Dr. Hamilton had a sleeper lab, where he could do CIA experiments at Vacaville in the ʼ60s.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: And that just came out in the 1996 Radiation Advisory Committee’s reports. So it would be really likely, as hard as your story may be to believe, if there really is a lot of facts, aren’t there, to support your allegation of mind control experimentation at San Quentin.
GINTER: All right. Cheryl wanted me to emphasize the fact of what I was able to reveal to the outside world, especially in my federal case in San Francisco in 1968. I had an evidential hearing where I wrote to the judge constantly about this device. Also, my mother heard a program called “Miracle of the 21st Century: Miracle of the Mind.” And she sent away for the transcript of that and sent it to the judge. And the judge made a notation in the, yeah. This program was called “Miracle of the Mind” about the, on the 21st century, with Walter Cronkite. And my mother sent it to the judge. The judge read it and put it in my transcript of my court case. And what he come to the conclusion was that it appeared, he said, he used the word “apparently,” because he didn’t know. Apparently you have to use electrodes in the mind. But then that’s what I’ve been trying to prove all this time, that you don’t have to use electrodes. Society already knows that they can use electrodes.
WELSH: So in other words, this show by Walter Cronkite was on the new technology leaks and mind control?
GINTER: Right. In mind, in mind experimentation, yeah.
WELSH: Do you happen to remember any of the people they interviewed?
GINTER: No, I don’t.
WELSH: Okay.
GINTER: No, I don’t.
WELSH: Okay. Yeah.
GINTER: But anyway, getting back to that, so all these years I’ve been trying to get information and to fight my case in court. So one of the things I did, I come across a book called Mind Wars [The True Story of Government Research into the Military Potential of Psychic Weapons] by Ron McRae. And he states in there that they don’t need electrodes in your brain, that it can be processed through electromagnetic energy waves.
So then I kept researching and researching and I got in touch with Cheryl Welsh. And she give me the information to really have a strong case in court through her networking. And so here in the last two or three years I’ve been fighting my case in court. And the last decision was that I failed to send a summons to (Lacuneae?) Parks and Kerr that I relied on, they were going to have to use the state as the defense, because they all work for the state, so I didn’t do that. So that’s what I’m waiting on right now, to get an answer–
WELSH: In other words, I’m sorry, but you are filing this as pro se, on your own?
GINTER: Yeah, I’m filing this on my own. But I’m waiting also from an organization back in Washington, DC, that handles cases of a very unique nature, to see if they’ll handle my case. Because I don’t feel qualified, really, to do this by myself. But I’ve been doing it by myself all this time. But I make too many mistakes. I mean, you have to dot the “i” and cross the “t.”
WELSH: That’s so true.
GINTER: Now the most important thing I feel by this phenomena is that how this technology works. I believe that is the most important thing for the general public to know and realize. Because everybody’s threatened. For example, like you take Linda Thompson, now she’s always talking about black helicopters. Now it’s not inconceivable after knowing what I know about this technology, that these black helicopters can come over a residence and send out a beam and tune in on whoever they want to inside the residence. And so they have everything covered. If they have anybody that was, that would be a threat would be automatically tuned in and they would know it. So the most important thing is to realize that all it takes is for them, from their stationary position, they can be in any building. As long as they have you in a radius and know just about where you’re at, they can send out a beam, contact your aura or your brainwave, and it’s just like jumping off into somebody’s brain. And that is the most important thing. Because this, all these religious freaks talking about Jesus is here, look what it’s going to do to this God concept. All these people are playing God. They’re playing God. And they got that technology.
Now we haven’t even mentioned the technology they have in the biological sciences. That’s mind boggling. But this here is out of sight.
WELSH: So what you’re hoping to do and accomplish is to—
GINTER: What I hope to do and accomplish is to reveal this to the general public. Reveal it to the general public. That’s the main focus.
WELSH: That you don’t want this technology to be in the wrong hands, and not to have anyone go through what you experienced.
GINTER: Right.
WELSH: And it was just a real torture experience, wasn’t it?
GINTER: Right. Right.
WELSH: And really changed the direction of your life.
GINTER: Well, it did. In fact, I donʼt know whether I’m a robot. I mean, that’s all possible because I haven’t even got a jaywalking ticket in 20 years. And before that, I was one of the most violent people. So I could be programmed. I donʼt know.
WELSH: You have no indication of that.
GINTER: No, no. No.
WELSH: Yeah. You just know that the technology is so—
GINTER: Maybe some stranger come up to me and just said the word “itsy bitsy boo, you too, too, too” and I’d be all jumping on somebody or shooting somebody or doing something.
WELSH: So you believe a lot, do you believe that the government is experimenting with this equipment on people like you and other prisoners?
GINTER: I believe their main focus right now, I believe that Russia has these devices. I believe that Red China has these devices. I believe they tune in, they’ve got themselves in too much trouble by putting it on high profile people and trying to manipulate their mind. So they concentrated on prisoners where prisoners can’t do anything about it.
But I personally believe, this is just my theory now, but I believe that the technology is so widespread throughout the world right now that when Hillary Clinton went to China, she did that because they let that guy, that dissident go, that they tuned in on her mind. They didn’t play with her mind; they just tuned in. But see, that’s the thing. You don’t know when you’re tuned in if they don’t want you to. They can tune in and you’d never know it. And that’s the playing God part. Because you’ve got no privacy.
WELSH: Right. They can read what they’re thinking, and it could be a real political or intelligence agency weapon, couldn’t it?
GINTER: That’s another thing. They feel threatened by people like us who they call “wavies,” because if this was in the hands of, say, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, they could tune in on the vice versa and what if they had, what if they had the head of the CIA tuned in? What if they had him tuned in? A foreign body could know everything that’s going on.
WELSH: Right. And I know I’ve read about the allegations that President Nixon was under some kind of mind control. That’s in a book, isn’t it?
GINTER: Oh, yeah. There are stories about even Oswald being a part of this technology. Being programmed. But he was a patsy. I don’t believe that, I believe that the shots come from the grassy knoll.
WELSH: Well basically, could you talk about the Defense News article that was so good?
GINTER: Oh, yeah. The Defense News article, that was one of the first articles that described to a degree this technology. They give a firsthand account of what was going on. And I got a hold of this article from a friend of mine that worked for TRW. And I Xeroxed it and sent it out all over the world, practically. So I know that if not the general population knows about it, I know that the people in power know about it, all the people in power.
WELSH: So in other words, you think it’s a real classified, like the atomic bomb, it’s that kind of technology that will change the world?
GINTER: It will definitely change the world, because there will be no more security. There will be no, how can you lie anymore when they know what you’re thinking? How can there be any secrets? How can there be any, it’s going to cause a complete revolution. A complete sociological revolution throughout the world. And they know that.
WELSH: And so they—
GINTER: And so they keep it secret as much as possible.
WELSH: And so the Defense News article was talking about their Russian technology, wasn’t it?
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: That they had mind control technology and were using it to program their soldiers and were making bilateral agreements with the United States to control the use of this technology. Is that right?
GINTER: Right.
WELSH: Right. So they’re still trying to keep it out of the public sight, aren’t they?
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: Yeah. So.
GINTER: Things that I want to emphasize here is that when they classified me paranoid schizophrenic, they sent me to Vacaville. And they tried, they ordered that I have electroshock therapy. But my mother would not sign the papers.
WELSH: Could you just explain, was that after you had been through the mind control experiment?
GINTER: Right. Right. That was after I’d been through the mind control experiments. And my mother has stuck by me all these years. And she knows. She knows what they did to me. She believes me. One of the biggest traumas you have when you’re dealing with this technology is trying to explain it to somebody else, because they think you’re automatically crazier than a bat out of hell. And only lately, now that I have the evidence, and when I tried to talk about this technology, only now can I present myself on a logical premise, and people believe me. I’ve been fortunate in that way, because everybody I talk to, even the ones who were the most fervent thinking I was crazy believe me now.
WELSH: And how long have you been out of prison?
GINTER: I got out of prison in 1977. And I came here to Sacramento because my mother had moved here to be close to me, where she could commute to Vacaville. My mother and father, my father is dead now, but my mother constantly would come see me, and send me money.
WELSH: So just to get the chronology right, you were on this mind control machine from 1967 to 1968?
GINTER: Yeah. The hardcore part of it, where they tried to destroy my mind so much, is from January of 1967 until about the mid part of 1968. And then they just monitored my mind.
WELSH: And then how much longer after that did they, you said you were presented to a panel of 16 psychiatrists or doctors after the experiment?
GINTER: While the experiments were still going on, they took me over to the Psych Department in front of a panel of all these doctors, and asked me a bunch of screwball questions. And then come up with the idea that I was paranoid schizophrenic.
WELSH: Did you talk about the M.I.N.D device at that time to those—
GINTER: Oh, sure! Every single person I’d come in contact with, the first thing I would relate would be about the M.I.N.D device. That’s the first thing I would relate, because it played such a role in my psyche.
WELSH: So you told this panel of doctors what they were doing to you, and you got no response except that you were a paranoid schizophrenic.
GINTER: Right. Right.
WELSH: I see. And Dr. Schmidt was on that panel?
GINTER: Yeah, he was.
WELSH: Do you happen to remember a couple of the questions that they asked you? The panel?
GINTER: No. They just stared at me like I was some kind of a bug under a microscope.
WELSH: Is that right? Did the try to ask you questions about your past and analyze you?
GINTER: No, no, no. Nothing like that.
WELSH: Nothing about your political views?
GINTER: No.
WELSH: Nothing, just general—
GINTER: Just general, they wanted to hear what I had to say. And what I had to say was, “Turn the damn thing off.”
WELSH: Oh. So you actually told them—
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: Did you talk about Parks, the Warden Parks and how you thought—
GINTER: Well, the reason I’m pretty confident that Parks played a major role, because his house overlooked the Adjustment Center. And at nighttime, I could see people coming and going from his house. And the reason I use (say?) Parks is because he was part of the Vacaville gang, the gang of behavioral modifiers that wanted to change society. So I’m pretty sure. In fact, I know that if I get him on the stand, he’ll be under oath, and I’ll be able to hit him hard with that.
WELSH: Okay. So you only went before this panel of psychiatrists once. Is that right?
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: And then after the M.I.N.D machine attempted suicide, they turned the machine off, basically, that you know of.
GINTER: They turned the frequency down, but they still had me monitored.
WELSH: Right. They didn’t play any games with you.
GINTER: No. They didn’t play any more games.
WELSH: Right.
GINTER: They didn’t simulate an environment. See, that’s the way they do. If they, see, they know what you’re thinking practically at the same moment you know it yourself. Now if a person has any phobias, or any pet beliefs, they can play on them and create a situation to their liking by your own psychology. By the weaknesses or strengths in your own psychology.
WELSH: And that’s exactly what they did to you then.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: Okay. Okay. And then do you feel that the shock treatment — not to present leading questions, but you mentioned this before. I talked to you a lot over a couple of years – you felt that the shock treatment was a way of discrediting you and wiping away your memories?
GINTER: Right. That’s what shock treatment generally does. It disassociates you from your memory.
WELSH: Okay. And then you feel that they actually wanted you to go through shock treatment to erase your memories of the mind—
GINTER: Yeah. Because they still felt that I was a major threat. I still had access to the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And they felt that I was a threat not only physically, but if I could, because at this time, ’67, you imagine, this is almost 30 years. And this technology is just now becoming foreseeable. At that time, it was completely, nobody knew about it.
WELSH: But it’s interesting that you were aware and able to pick up right away that they were doing, they were experimenting on you.
GINTER: That’s because I know my own mind.
WELSH: Right.
GINTER: And I know that I had a strong, healthy mind. And the only thing, they wanted to destroy me because they didn’t like what I found out, because I read the protocols of the learned elders of Zion.
WELSH: And when was that, that you read that?
GINTER: 1963.
WELSH: 1963. And you were into the Nazi beliefs and you were organizing other prisoners.
GINTER: I was more or less, I knew all the prisoners that thought the same way I did. But I was pretty much a loner. At that time, you could do your own time.
WELSH: Well I know that you mentioned a (dual?) vocational institute was where you kind of got a reputation with Dr. Keating.
GINTER: I don’t want to talk about it. When I was in Tracy, Raymond Procunier was the director of the Tracy DVI. And I made the request, because I was getting in so much hassle in Tracy that I be sent back to San Quentin. Well at this time, this was when Reagan won the election from Pat Brown. And I believed that Procunier was appointed, he was just a second-rate stooge in the Department of Corrections. I believe he was appointed because he had top security clearance, was in the military, and knew about this technology. I donʼt think Reagan had any knowledge about what was going on in the prison system whatsoever, because he was just appointed. And his whole spectrum was a sociological one of what was going on in the country generally. But Procunier, being an ex-navy man, was appointed to be director of the whole 24 or 25,000 inmate population of the Dept of Corrections. But I believe because he had knowledge of this device. And he was brought in as a sympathizer with these doctors who wanted to behavioral modificate themselves into oblivion, I guess. But that’s about it on that.
WELSH: Okay. Well would you mind just talking for a few minutes on, just to give the viewer an idea of the social climate around the country, just about the, about the stress program that was run out of San Quentin.
GINTER: It was run out of Vacaville. See, the stress program was set up as a behavioral modifier to control violent prisoners. They wanted to put them under high intensity stress situations. Now they sent me to that program in 1965. That’s where I played bridge with Dr. Keating. They sent me to that program in 1965 and I failed it the first three or four weeks of the program. I couldn’t tolerate them stressing me out.
WELSH: Could you describe just a few of the things that they would put you through as a stress—
GINTER: Well they would have you working in the dining room, and working on line of all the people that come through the dining room. Just interaction, group therapy two or three times a week. And then they would put you on the hot seat and talk about your case in front of everybody. And intricate criticism of your case.
WELSH: Okay and also could you talk a little bit about Governor Reagan, just to give the viewer a perspective. And how in the newspapers there were articles about the proposed violence center that Dr. Louis Jolyn West of CIA fame out of UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute was proposing violence centers so that they could learn to control violence. And, of course, as we know, or as I believe, that they abused this technology and need to be monitored more closely. Could you tell about what happened with that just in your own experience, a little bit more about that?
GINTER: Well, actually, Cheryl, I donʼt know about Jolyn West, because when I was classified paranoid schizophrenic, I was segregated in a predominantly psychopathic environment. S Wing in Vacaville. ITC, mostly all psychotic unit. So I didn’t give information about the other things that were taking place too much in the prison.
WELSH: Well I do know there was enough public protest against that proposal that it was defeated. But the fact that it was close to, where they were discussing it, is a little disturbing, especially after your experience, I think.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: I just wanted to make that comment. And then I would like to know, I know you’ve shown me articles on the bridge club that took place at the, I donʼt know, I guess that wasn’t part of the stress program.
GINTER: No, that wasn’t part, that was the general. You had to pay so much money to get into the bridge club. And the bridge club was composed of outsiders, mostly from the University of Davis and from the Travis Air Force Base. And Dr. Keating sat in on that all the time. And all these doctors and free people would play bridge with the inmates. And that’s where I made some of my biggest enemies, because I would get in conversations with people’s wives that were there with their husbands, and talk about the Zionist control of the US government. As a result, it got me a lot of enemies.
WELSH: And you also mentioned that, wasn’t there a couple from Davis, one who was an English professor and you would discuss the latest—
GINTER: Oh, that was on the stress program. Mr. Heiss, he was the director of the stress program. His wife was a professor of English literature at Davis. And I would constantly get in arguments with her, with her left leaning philosophy. And this added to the tension, because she wanted to, she wanted to manipulate and control the inmates. Pacify them. That’s their general—you know, like right now, everybody’s on some kind of a pacifier or a tranquilizer or something. And that’s about what they wanted to do is just tranquilize everybody.
WELSH: Well I know you mentioned these different professional people would play bridge with the prisoners. And to give a sense of the social situation at the time, why do you think they had a program like that? Was that what you were talking about earlier?
GINTER: No. I think it was just Dr. Keating’s interest. He was probably a bridge enthusiast and wanted to establish it in the prison. I didn’t know how to play bridge. I picked up a book on it and read it in two or three nights, and started playing. (laughs)
WELSH: Oh, okay. So this was Dr. Keating’s idea.
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: Okay. Okay. And—
GINTER: Is it on? Oh. I feel that if this video is able to show people how this technology works, if anybody has information about it, if they can contact me or Cheryl. Primarily Cheryl, because she’s the network in the bunch here. But my number is 448-4959, if anybody wants to contact me.
WELSH: And your address?
GINTER: 1230 N Street, Apartment 411. Sacramento, California 95814
WELSH: Well thank you very much for putting this video together. I just want to say that I hope any victims out there maybe will recognize the pattern before they, and don’t have to go through what you went through someday—
GINTER: Yeah.
WELSH: –basically would be my whole point. Thank you very much for your time.
[End Interview.]
X. Nonconsensual Brainwave and Personality Studies by the U.S. Government
I am a survivor of ongoing mind control experimentation by the U.S. government since 1989. I would like to prevent victims from experiencing much of the pain that I went through by telling my testimony within the framework of background information and history on government weapon testing programs, especially radiation experimentation. I would state the same testimony under oath in a Congressional hearing or in a court case. I first learned of microwave harassment and mind control experimentation from Julianne McKinney, director of the now inactive Electronic Surveillance Project. This is an overview and does not include the unsavory details as the point is to recognize the general pattern of experimentation. It will greatly help your understanding of this paper if the preceding Research Possibilities list of reputable newspaper and magazine articles on behavior control weapons is read first.
I would challenge the reader to recognize the “plutonium vitamin pill” of mind control technology before the U.S. government admits to it’s use. This paper is attempting to describe something that the reader is not familiar with. This is critical to keep in mind so that this paper will communicate on the basis of accepted reality.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT EXPERIMENTATION
The Congressional Record states that the U.S. government had been involved in mind control experimentation from the 1950s up to the early 1970s.1 These illegal behavior control experiments are similar to the documented illegal radiation experiments. The U.S. government currently denies that there is ongoing classified behavior control experimentation. This is debatable and in my opinion will some day be as undeniable as the radiation experiments are today.
There were at least 23,000 radiation victims of institutionalized unethical experimentation.2 There are similarities between radiation and mind control experimentation because the government bureaucracy is the same, the groups of victims are the same and it involves weapon testing. But unlike the atomic bomb, the U.S. public is not aware of the highly classified behavior control weapons. This fact contributes to the difficulty that victims have in exposing the experimentation.
The purpose of U.S. government research with electromagnetic frequencies and computer-brain interface technology is to develop mind control weapons that meet or surpass the enemy’s mind control weapon program, in particular Russia. The U.S. military’s interest in controlling behavior and in using this on it’s enemies in future warfare is well documented.3 The lethal doses and parameters of radiation were explored and now the limits of computer-brain interface and emf technology are explored in the same unethical way. And by using unwitting victims, experiments are conducted without limits of human subject experimentation committees.
There are strong indications that electromagnetic frequency (emf) behavior control weapons and electronic warfare has been a classified area of research since at least the 1960s4, that there are highly classified international agreements to control it’s use, that it is being tested on unwitting human subjects and that there is an active government program to cover up the whole situation. Recently, there have been several articles published on nonlethal weapons, emf weapons, and mind control in the U.S.5
And in the last five years there have been several articles in mainstream publications about the Russian mind control technology and emf.6 And several reliable sources confirm that the cover up involves government policy such as the CIA refusing to release this information to the Radiation Advisory Committee. Glenn Krawczyk wrote in Nexus, Vo1. 2, No. 22, Oct-Nov 1994, that the CIA used a trick of terminology to disguise the development of microwave weapons in the 1977 Congressional hearings on CIA behavior control programs and has done the same thing with the Radiation Advisory Committee in 1994.
Another example: two top scientists in emf research have discussed government harassment. Dr. Puharich, well-known for emf and previous government work, described that his house was burned down and he was shot at for discussing emf technology and it’s development.7 Dr. Becker, the author of Body Electric on emf, also lost government funding and discussed other examples of harassment by the U.S. government.8
“The Soft-Kill Fallacy” by Steve Aftergood and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, Sept/Oct 1994 p. 45 stated that discussions under the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention on electromagnetic weapons, including weapons that interfere with mental processes and modify behavior and emotional response, may lead to protocols to control their use. The fact that behavior control weapons are in the public eye officially could mean that the government wants to use these weapons and may not be able to control their use enough to keep the emf weapons a secret.
WHAT MIND CONTROL EXPERIMENTATION IS
It is probable that classified computer-brain interface research has had a highly advanced technological leap similar to the pattern of the development of the atomic bomb weapon program. Many documented articles support this claim.9 It has been fifty years since the development of the atomic bomb and there have been major advancements in science, satellite technology, computers and information. In my case, mind control experimentation is the use of military electromagnetic frequency technology on human subjects in order to develop baseline studies of the brain, including brainwave studies and the study of personalities. As in radiation experiments, the lethal doses and the limits of the technology are explored and the experiments are inhumane. Mind control experiments are conducted as a result of development of behavior control weapons and are, like the radiation experiments, examples of science at it worst. Weapon testing programs are designed to disable and kill the enemy and therefore the experiments are also designed to destroy.
There are over 500 documented cases of victims in the U.S., 1 million alleged victims in Russia and cases in Germany, England, Canada, Finland, and South America.10 A few of the main similarities between victims are as follows. Women, prisoners and mental patients are a few of the powerless groups targeted in U.S. government experimentation. Most of the victims describe long term experimentation, some over 30 years. All ages, socioeconomic and political groups are represented in mind control experiments.
This is a wide area of research and there are probably many umbrella projects to test many different parameters of behavior control weapons. Government experimentation with behavior control technology is based on psychological principles of war. For example, multiple personalities are thought to be caused by traumatic experiences. To determine how to control and destroy people, the experiments are designed to reliably create multiple personalities, (as in Project Monarch)11. Victim’s testimony matches this fact.
The U.S. government is using mental illness as a cover-up of mind control experimentation. Many of the experiments are designed to mimic mental illness. For example, the mental illness diagnosis manual for psychiatrists states that the mentally ill patient put unusual meaning or interpretations into normal objects. The experimenters can engineer visual and audio patterns and change the amount and timing of any environment in a specific way to make the victim see what a mentally ill person would see. In my case, I have videotaped evidence of this effect. A report by a university statistics professor confirmed an extremely high amount of red and white cars on two separate occasions when compared with normal car color populations.12
With no meaningful evaluation, mental illness is the given explanation for the million plus victims. The concurrent development of technology, the U.S. government’s history of involvement in mind control experiments and their motive to research this area can also strongly support the fact that these are victims of government experimentation. Further investigation of this situation is necessary rather than dismissing it as mental illness.
RADIATION AND MIND CONTROL VICTIMS: THE SAME DILEMMA
I and most survivors have not able to obtain help. This is typical in government cover up situations. And because of the nature of the technology itself, any efforts to stop the experimentation can be sabotaged with the mind control technology itself. I have gone to the police, lawyers, private investigators, newspapers, magazines, organizations such as the ACLU, government agencies such as the U.S. Attorney General, Congressman Glenn, Kennedy, Feinstein, Sharp and more. The answers vary from “you are crazy”; “you have to know the source of the experiment and have monitoring equipment evidence”; “we don’t handle cases such as this, it is out of our area of expertise”; to no reply, or “we are aware of the situation but it will take years and over $100,000 to pursue in court,” and many other ways of saying no.
Victims also cannot get around the unavailability of necessary government documents classified under the National Security Act. There is documented evidence that the superpowers have developed mind control weapons and that the use of these weapons are classified and controlled by the National Security Act. In the meantime, the government system is failing the mind control victim in the same way that it failed the radiation victim. I use what tools that I have, such as research of open literature and networking, a painfully slow process.
At this point, none of the victims, singly or as a group have the funds to stop the experimentation. I do not have the funds to rent or buy signal analyzers to document signals that the government would surely cover up or jam. Some victims have documented some unusual signals, but it is such a small piece of evidence and is not directly tied to the government source. The evidence has been ignored or discounted. I am currently organizing a group of victims to be monitored by experts. Another group is also organizing.
Victims work with their meager resources against a formidable foe. There is only one successful court case of mind control experimentation against the government and it was settled of court. There was small compensation to a few of the victims.13 Until I can document in other more scientific ways, I am documenting with videotapes and comparing them with normal tapes or accepted statistics. Then it is evident that certain patterns in the environment are unusual in timing and amount and statistically relevant and this is another small piece of the mind control picture.
Experts are necessary to verify information for court cases and Congressional hearings. Videotape evidence and other mind control experimentation evidence does not directly tie the U.S. government to my allegation and therefore is not accepted by courts, congressional hearings, or UN complaints. There are many other basic and also complicated reasons for the government system and its failure to help victims in any significant way. The system obviously needs to be changed.
By combining relevant facts with the testimony of victims, the conclusion about mind control experimentation is becoming clearer. I am networking with close to 75 victims. Based on my experience, several victim’s testimony, and literature on mind control topics, it is logical to deduce that I am one of many hundreds of victims. Fortunately, documentation of behavior control weapons is increasing and the documentation matches previous and current testimonies of victims. But, so far it is too little, too late. This is the harsh reality of the situation.
This is a lengthy description, but certain issues must be emphasized in order to survive normal skepticism that occurs when documented facts are missing. Why for example, did radiation experiments occur after the Nuremburg trials and why is mind control experimentation occurring in 1995? Reasons include; that evil such as the Auschwitz experiments did not end with the Nuremburg trials; that the National Security Act increased the odds that radiation experiments could occur; and in 1995, there is no meaningful deterrent for the actions of radiation and mind control “scientists”.
REMEDIES AND SOLUTIONS
Government experimentation is illegal and is an abuse of U.S. constitutional rights. One solution would be funding that would match the U.S. government’s resources. Or it will take someone such as Hazel O’Leary of the Department of Energy who called for an investigation of radiation experimentation14, to start an investigation of the mind control experiments.
Another possibility may be an accident in which the technology is exposed. Or time will pass, such as ten to twenty years, after which the technology will become public knowledge. Then there will be enough victims who come forward and protest. It would be an indication of man’s humanity if the mind control scenario could be changed.
For further information and networking, I can be reached at welsh@calweb.com. Comments are appreciated.
ENDNOTES
More Information Upon Request from welsh@calweb.com.
1. Alexander M. Capron, Human Experimentation, (University Publications of America, 1986), 247.
Exerpt: “Apparently, it was not unusual for such research to begin with volunteers and then move on to naive subjects. For example, in 1953 the CIA began a series of highly sensitive experiments into the use of biological and chemical agents to alter human behavior, under the general code name, MK-ULTRA. The areas explored included radiation, electroshock, paramilitary devices and materials, anthropology, graphology, psychiatry, psychology, and sociology.”
Also: Andrew Weil, Acid Dreams: the C.I.A., L.S.D. and the Sixties Rebellion, by M. Lee and B. Shlain Book reviews, Nation, 8 Nov. 1986. p 492.
Excerpt: “Lee and Shlain sifted through mountains of heavily censored reports to piece together the early history of L.S.D…. Meanwhile the U.S. Army toyed with the idea of driving whole populations insane with hallucinogenic drugs. By the mid-1960s nearly 1,500 military personnel had taken L.S.D. in tests run by the Army Chemical Corps.”
2. “Radiation Test Involved At Least 23,000,” Seattle Times, Oct.22, 1994, p.A1.
3. Lt.Col David J. Dean USAF, Low-Intensity Conflict and Modern Technology with a forward by Congressman Newt Gingrich, (Air University Press, Center for Aerospace Doctrine Research and Education, Maxwell AFB June, 1986)
Exerpt: THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM IN LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT
By Capt Paul E. Tyler,MC,USAF
POTENTIAL MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF EMR
The exploitation of this technology for military uses is still in its infancy and only recently has been recognized by the United States as a feasible option. A 1982 Air Force review of biotechnology had this to say: Currently available data allow the projection that specially generated radio frequency radiation (RFR) fields may pose powerful and revolutionary antipersonnel military threats. Electroshock therapy indicates the ability of induced electric current to completely interrupt mental functioning for short periods of time, to obtain cognition for longer periods and to restructure emotional response over prolonged intervals. Experience with electroshock therapy, RFR experiments and the increasing understanding of the brain as an electrically mediated organ suggested the serious probability that impressed electromagnetic fields can be disruptive to purposeful behavior and may be capable of directing and or interrogating such behavior. Further, the passage of approximately 100 milliamperes through the myocardium can lead to cardiac standstill and death, again pointing to a speed-of-light weapons effect. A rapidly scanning RFR system could provide an effective stun or kill capability over a large area. System effectiveness will be a function of wave form, field intensity, pulse widths, repetition frequency, and carrier frequency. The system can be developed using tissue and whole animal experimental studies, coupled with mechanisms and waveform effects research. Using relatively low-level RFR, it may be possible to sensitize large military groups to extremely dispersed amounts of biological or chemical agents to which the unirradiated population would be immune.(1)
4. Joint Hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, Project MK-ULTRA, The CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 75 (1977)
Also, Paul Brodeur, The Zapping of America, Toronto edition George J. MacLeod, 1977. Explains the Russian Microwaves on the Moscow U.S. Embassy.
Also, Declassified CIA document, Pulsed Microwave Used for Mind Control…1974.
5. Newsweek, Science of War nonlethal weapons. 7 Feb, 1994.
Also, Daily News, Nonlethal Weapon, 3 Aug, 1994.
Also, SPIE REPORTS New Technologies Provide Tools For Law Enforcement Challenges Conference, chair William H. Webster, 9-94.
6. Refer to eight articles under Research Possibilities, this paper, #1,3,5,6,8,9,10,11.
7. Dr. A. Puharich, Electromagnetic Conference, Sept. 1987, New York, audiocassette.
Excerpt: “About ten years ago in 1976, no I’m sorry early 1977 I made the basic measurements which showed the elf nature of elf coming from Russia and that it was psychoactive, that was my finding and I deduced the chemicals that were released by the frequencies that were being used and I passed that information onto every intelligence agency we have in this country from the president on down and England and Canada and all I got was four years of harassment. My house was burned down, I was shot at, they tried to kill me, they tried to eliminate me, etc., etc., and finally they agreed I was right and in 1981, the U.S. government went into full scale elf warfare and set up all their big transmitters down under in Australia and Africa so on and so on and now their in business and everything’s classified and you can’t say a god damned thing about it, a tough situation. And you can’t get any real information out of any government agency. And I know all of them that do the work. I know the people who head the projects etc. When they’re in trouble, they usually come ask me. And they classify what I tell them. Insanity.”
8. Robert O. Becker,MD and Gary Selden, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Wm Morrow & Company, NY 1985.
9. Dr. Karl H. Pribram,(Stanford Professor, famous for holograghic theory of the brain),editor, Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1993. p.156-7.
Excerpt: ” B. Multiple Personality….Now suppose that the diabolical training is ‘extensive’, both figuratively and literally. that is, suppose that it succeeds in placing other avoidance patterns into a geometry that surrounds and isolates a large cognitive domain from the rest of the neural network. Subsequently, wavepackets that form in that domain will be trapped there, and that domain will then develop a personality that is distinct from the personality of the exterior domain(s). But the entrapment is not permanent: Quantum tunneling provides a mechanism for penetration of the barrier, after which another distinct personality emerge.”
Also, Fox Butterfield, The New York Times, $2.15 million for hidden-weapon research, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, March 10, 1995, A3.
Excerpt: “…for the development of new high-technology gun detectors that would permit the police to spot people carrying concealed guns on the street or inside stores. “The camera works because the body naturally emits strong electromagnetic signals in the millimeter wavelength, said Dr.Richard Huguenin, the inventor of the device at Millitech Corp.”
Also, C.C.Morton, Brain trust, New Recruits, UC Davis Magazine, Spring 1994, p.21.
Excerpt: ” In the lab of psychology professor Ron Mangun, UC Davis students serve as research subjects for a technique known as electrophysiology, in which 64 electrodes dotted on a cloth cap record electrical impulses from the surface of the head. The impulses are thought to correspond to cognitive processes inside the brain. The subjects sit in a sound booth. While one computer system flashes images, another computer system records the brain’s responses 400 times a second.11
Also, The Guardian, The Future Art of War, 25, May 1995, p. 9.
Excerpt: “Nick Lewer, peace researcher at the University of Bradford, looks in the latest issue of Medicine and War,…” “There are plans for ‘mind control’ with the use of ‘psycho-correction messages’ transmitted by subliminal audio and visual stimuli. There is also a plan for ‘psychotronic weapons’ – apparently the projection of consciousness to other locations – and another to use holographic projection to disseminate propaganda and misinformation.”
Also, The Houston Chronicle, Brainpower, 16, Feb. 1995.
Excerpt: “‘Brain-actuated control’ is under development at the Dayton, Ohio, base to help pilots deal with the increasing amount of information needed to fly modern jets, said Grant McMillan, director of Patterson’s biocybernetics lab. Eventually, pilots may be able to control flight using only their minds, he added. With biofeedback, in which changes in the brain are portrayed on screens, volunteers learn how to control the electrical activity created by their thought processes. Scalp monitors pick up the electrical signals, and a computer translates them into mechanical commands.”
10. Association of National Security Alumni, Electronic Surveillance Project Julianne McKinney, Director. Not in existence at present. Over 100 victims in 1993.
International Committee For the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons P.O. Box 58700 Philadelphia, PA 19102-8700. Tel: (215) 893-9505. Harlan Girard, Director. Over 500 victims in 1995.
Freedom of Thought Foundation, P.O. Box 35072 Tucson, AZ 85740 Walter Bowart, Founder. Over 150 survivors in 1995.
Mediacco, Director, Robert Naeslund P.O. Box 136, 11479 Stockholm, Sweden. Implant victims and mind control.
Canadian Stone Angels, Director, Lynne Moss sharman 369 Pearl St. Apt 2, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 1A9, Masonic/military/medical/mind control victims.
Ecology And Living Environment, A Russian environmental and civil liberties group, Moscow, 500 members. Set up an association of “Victims of Psychotronic Experimentation, President, Emilia Cherkova,” No address. From: Owen Matthews,” Report: Soviets Used Top Secret ‘Psychotronic’ Weapons,” The Moscow Times, 11, Jul., 1995, Section No 750.
11. Walter Bowart, Operation Mind Control. Flatland Editions 1978, 1994.
12. Letter from Jessica Utts, Professor of Statistics University of California, Davis October 18, 1995 to Cheryl Welsh.
Excerpt: “…For whatever reason the color distributions at the two locations do not appear to be statistically equivalent. In other words, if the cars at both locations were considered to be randomly sampled from the same population of cars, discrepancies in color as extreme as those you have observed, or more so, would only occur with probability 0.0004. Most statisticians would conclude, based on this number, that the populations from which the two sets of cars were sampled were different in terms of color distribution. …”
13. Refer to Research Possibilities, this paper, #5.
14. Stephen Budiansky, Erica E. Good & Ted Gest,” U.S. News Investigative Report” U.S. News & World Report, 24, Jan. 1994, p. 34. ” Orlikow v. U.S., filed in 1979, was settled in 1988 for $750,000.” It was settled out of court and split among the several defendents.
15. Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times,” Energy chief says U.S. owes radiation victims,” The Sacramento Bee final 29 Dec. 1993. p A1.
Excerpt: “Under O’Leary, the department has vowed to ‘come clean’ on the secrets of nuclear testing. Her department and a special panel of doctors, lawyers and department aides she has named are investigating dozens and possibly hundreds of government-sponsored experiments in which humans were subjected to radiation.”