|
Section 15
An unanticipated finding:
a reasonable probability of advanced mind control weapons developed
by the U.S.
Moreno stated that the main ideas of the atomic bomb could be
figured out by physicists even though it was classified. On page
25-26 he wrote:
The process for manufacture of the atomic bomb is the classic
example of science conducted in secret: the most important and
highly classified scientific secret in history stayed secret only
about four years, until the Soviets exploded their own device in
1949. For all the imagined and actual espionage activity around the
bomb, competent physicists only had to study the published
literature to get the main ideas.
As became clear in this paper, the main ideas of EMR mind control
weapons can also be deduced. Major countries for years have had
highly classified EMR weapons programs and are including them
prominently in their future military doctrines. Moreno did not see
that a very common tactical scientific ploy to control information
is to say there is no theory when the theory or information is
almost surely classified.
Much can reasonably be deduced from the history of EMR weapons
development. By reviewing the fifty years of EMR mind control
weapons history in the post Cold War period, a convergence of CIA
mind control research, military mind reading research and the
East/West EMR weapons development and controversy; all together,
formed a mosaic.
This mosaic from several independent sources of unrelated
information revealed an unanticipated and far-reaching finding: the
reasonable probability that the U.S. has successfully developed
advanced mind control weapons. And EMR weapons are known to have
been in development in the U.S. since the 1960s and by major nations
of the world since at least the 1990s, probably earlier.
New,
although very weak, evidence on human surveillance research
developed during the Cold War and as one of the deepest secrets of
the nation. This may start to explain the remote targeting that most
alleged mind control victims report.
It can be argued that Moreno’s outlook of the likelihood of a world
without government EMR mind control weapons after the breakup of the
Soviet Union is unrealistic. The following four paragraphs that
briefly describe an alternative viewpoint. In 2005, a Scientific
American article discussed the issue of mind control and the famous
neuroscientist Jose Delgado and his controversial 1950s-1990s brain
implant and EMR research.
The article cited
Mind Justice as a
resource for information on the issue and the following fifty year EMR weapons development history from the Mind Justice website would
seem to be a reasonable possibility.
This is a brief overview of the more extensive documentation on the
Mind Justice website. Three seemingly separate fields of research
connect in a post cold war examination: the almost fifty years of
very classified electromagnetic radiation (EMR) weapons research,
the almost fifty years of very classified CIA mind control research
and over thirty years of very classified military brain research. By
combining the three fields of research, a new perspective emerges: a
reasonable probability that EMR could be used for mind control
purposes on people at a distance. The connecting link are two
theories for EMR weapons.
Moreno does not discuss that several human rights experts, military
and civilian authorities, and top government science advisors claim
that the bioeffects of EMR are a scientific basis for some EMR
weapons and a biological basis of some brain function. The second
scientific theory for EMR weapons was based on the development and
technology of electromagnetic brain signals and the organization of
the central nervous system.
The mind and nervous system communicate
with electrical, magnetic and EMR signals. Signals from outside
sources can mimic, block, or alter the mind and body’s own signals.
The two theories were established decades ago, are known to be very
classified, and the theories have not been disproven for almost
fifty years.
Remote mind control could now be a classified and potent military
capability.
-
The first field of research to connect is the almost
fifty years of US/Russian scientific controversy over bioeffects of
EMR and the strictly classified research of EMR weapons.
-
The second
field of research to connect is the 1960s CIA,
-
“supersecret
behavioral-control project,” described as a “program [that] was a
full-scale one and just as secret as the earlier MK-ULTRA project.”
-
The third field of research to connect is the classified
mind
reading research funded by the military for over thirty years. The
1976 Los Angeles Times reported that mind reading was possible and
funded by the government in million-dollar-a-year programs.
According to another government scientist in the article, reading
brain signals remotely “a few to several feet from the head” was
feasible in the mid-1970s.
In addition, the three connected fields of research are large,
well-funded, very classified for decades, and based on the same
scientific theories used for EMR and mind control weapons. And
further, for almost fifty years, national security policy has
completely dominated US scientific research of EMR, and also mind
reading and mind control weapons.
As a result, the science and
theories of EMR biological effects or mind reading and mind control
are not available in the open literature and probably never will be.
Together, this evidence suggests a reasonable probability of
advanced mind control weapons developed by the U.S.
Back to Contents
Section 16
No human subject protections in classified experiments:
a case of the highest levels of government
acting above the law and paying lip service
Moreno discounted the impact of U.S. government illegal conduct
surrounding past mind control human experiments and current EMR
weapons programs. Across the board, Moreno minimizes the past
effects of cold war national security, for example in unethical or
illegal radiation experiments conducted as a result of the
development of the atomic bomb.
Moreno notes the significant changes
in secrecy since 9-11 but doesn't analogize to possible current
illegal experiments or another Manhattan project to develop mind
control weapons. Moreno wrote that human subjects protections for
national security experiments are still far from adequate.
Moreno was a member on the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation
Experiments (ACHRE) and their Final Report, concluded that,
"with
respect to classified research, the current requirement of informed
consent is not absolute; if consent is waived, the research may
proceed in ways that do not adequately protect the research
subject."
He is aware that the problem was significant. A 1994
congressional hearing report that “nearly half a million Americans
were subjected to some kind of cold war era tests,” often without
being informed and without their consent.
A 1997 Clinton presidential Memorandum on Protections for Human
Subjects of Classified Research was addressed to government agencies
under the current federal regulations for human experiments, but the
memorandum was only adopted by the Department of Defense. The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not adopted the
new regulations, and the CIA in turn has not adopted the
regulations, since intelligence agencies follow HHS regulations on
human experiments, as directed by Executive Order, (EO) 12,333.
EO 12,333 cites and follows the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Title 45 CFR Part 46, which are the current rules for protections of
human subjects in both classified and unclassified experiments. In
1991, fifteen federal agencies codified the regulations and the CIA
updated the regulations to the current executive order on
experimentation. EO 12,333 still includes:
Section 2.10 Human Experimentation. No agency within the
Intelligence Community shall sponsor, contract for or conduct
research on human subjects except in accordance with guidelines
issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. The subject's
informed consent shall be documented as required by those
guidelines.
Informed consent of the research participants, institutional review
board approval of research conditions and other human subject
protections have been a part of the federal rules since 1974.
Significantly, the current regulations include CFR Part 46 section
46.101(i). This section allows for a waiver of any or all of the CFR
regulations and for a statute or executive order to override the
notification and publication requirements. Section 46.101(i) states:
“Unless otherwise required by law, Department or Agency heads may
waive the applicability of some or all of the provisions of this
policy . . .”
This waiver of any of the federal regulations provisions effectively
nullifies the regulations, allowing for a total lack of protections
for human subjects of classified research at the discretion of
Department or Agency heads and under total secrecy. Without legal
protections, illegal, unethical classified experiments could happen
again.
On page 168, Moreno writes,
“In representative democracies, both
legislative oversight bodies and independent watchdog organizations
play a significant role in keeping responsible parties accountable.”
But in past US national security experiments, this was for the most
part not true. A 1963 CIA inspector general’s report on
MKULTRA, the
CIA’s mind control program, acknowledged the illegalities.
“Some [of
these] activities raise questions of legality implicit in the
original charter. [The charter is congressionally approved]. . . . A
final phase [of some of these projects] places the rights and
interests of US citizens in jeopardy.”
Law professor Alan Scheflin
examined thousands of declassified CIA documents and concluded,
“There are dozens of CIA memos that attest to the illegal and
unethical nature of its work. . . . It is difficult not to conclude
that the CIA is above the law and unhampered by Congress, the
American public or the occupant of the Oval Office of the White
House. “
And more to the point, the illegalities and unaccountability of
intelligence agencies is continuing today. In a September, 21, 2005,
Washington Post article Commandos in the Streets?, William Arkin
described extreme secrecy surrounding secret weapons and possible
illegal acts. This increases the likelihood that illegal experiments
could also be occurring.
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.
Here is one more example. A September 29, 2005, New York Times
article by Douglas Jehl, Republicans See Signs That Pentagon Is
Evading Oversight, reported a lack of legislative and executive
oversight and accountability for secret weapons programs:
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. . . . 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.
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.
In his 1999 book, Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans,
Moreno warned of today’s new weapons and the inevitability of
unethical classified government experiments.
On page 289:
In the next century, as in the past, military medical research
involving human subjects will be dictated by the limits of
information available from other sources. Because a new generation
of weapons is being developed that are intended to incapacitate
rather than kill an enemy, computer simulations and animal models
can only go so far.
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.
Back to Contents
Section 17
National security: utilitarian judgments
at the highest levels of U.S. government
Past mind control experiments were based upon utilitarian judgments
made at the highest levels of government according to testimony by
Columbia University Professor John Rothman at the 1994 Congressional
hearing, Cold War Era Human Subject Experimentation Hearing Before
the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee
On Government Operations House of Representatives.
The testimony of Rothman, explained how a very calculated government
policy incorporates the unspoken but widespread belief of the need
for illegal human experiments as essential to national security.
This policy is well-funded with defense dollars and government
action; thereby easily overpowering the consensus of professional
communities, now including Moreno and the neuroscience society, who
offer rhetoric but seem unable to carry out serious actions for
protecting human subjects:
If the ethics of experimentation were so clearly established, why
did American investigators so frequently violate them? Well, I think
the essence of the answer is the war effort, first in 1940 to 1945,
then the cold war effort after 1945, fostered what we might call
highly utilitarian judgments. Investigators made the calculus that
the national interest outweighed individual rights, that the
exigencies of the cold war justified violations of known ethical
practices. . . . I was most impressed this morning with the
questioning that went on about the chain of command.
Who was it that
allowed or finally passed off on the experiment? How did it work its
way through? Was it simply, well that is a fine idea, let’s go out
and do it? Was there anything approximate meriting chain of command?
Was there anything approximating signoff? . . . And if we are going
to set up various kinds of corrective measures, I think that
knowledge is absolutely essential.
The highest levels of government were involved in past illegal mind
control experiments. The Cold War national security values were held
by professionals in the 1950s and there are indications the values
are continuing today. National security utilitarian judgments were
and are instrumental in overshadowing the ethics of human subject
protections.
For example, an August, 7, 1996 Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) reported the reaction of the medical
community to the 1995 ACHRE (Advisory Committee for Human Radiation
Experiments) report with calls for more voluntary reforms and weak
sanctions:
Today, consensus exists that duties to obtain informed consent apply
to all human subjects, whether healthy or sick, regardless of the
risk or potential for medical benefit from participation in the
research and regardless of the nature of sponsorship or funding
(e.g. federal, military, or private). Based on a finding of serious
deficiencies in the current system of protections for human
subjects, recommendations include accountability and sanctions for
ethics violations.
Ten years after the JAMA article, no laws are in place to implement
the consensus for a duty to obtain informed consent in human
experiments. The core concern raised in this paper is that the very
powerful and silent Cold War culture described by Welsome easily
thwarts human subject protections advocates. The widely-held belief
that secret experiments couldn’t happen again does not take into
account the paradox that this majority fails to act on their very
vocal consensus for informed consent in experiments.
Clearly, classified, unlawful government experiments are
undemocratic, unethical and violate fundamental human rights.
Rothman’s suggestions have not been implemented. The current
ineffective experimentation regulations support that utilitarian
decision-making at the highest levels of government is continuing
today.
The ethics and rules which Moreno advocated are not enough to
prevent future experiments. Legislation with penalties is called for
but there is no political will for legislation, even after scandals
have occurred. Few are confronting or exposing the overwhelming
utilitarian national security consensus and legal inequities. It
seems that Moreno can only offer guidelines to prevent future
abuses. This important but seldom publicized information is
necessary for a balanced debate.
Back to Contents
Section 18
Treaties, laws and proposed legislation on EMR weapons
U.S., Russian and international discussions, proposals, legislation
and international treaties for EMR mind control weapons are crippled
by secrecy. The concerns about possible misuse and abuse regarding
the development and control of EMR mind control weapons is a slowly
growing international issue, as seen in a few of the available
government documents. The weapons are classified and this limits the
discussions and possible legislation, but the following recent US,
Russian, and European documents are significant.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich sponsored House Bill 2977, The Space
Preservation Act of 2001. This bill for banning weapons in space,
included “psychotronic” and “mind control” weapons. According to
Kucinich’s office, amidst pressure and concerns about ensuring bill
passage, the section relating to “mind control” was removed from the
bill in Spring 2002, but the bill still failed to pass.
The relevant excerpt stated:
(2)(A) The terms ‘weapon’ and ‘weapons system’ mean a device capable
of any of the following: . . .(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or
damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily
health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a
person)- . . . (II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or
space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic,
sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or
targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood
management, or mind control of such persons or populations; . . .
A 1998 Russian federal law, About Weapons, is cited in the edition
of Federal Laws of the Russian Federation. This Russian law is in
effect today and prohibits:
“the circulation of civilian and military weapons” including the
“use of radio-active radiations and biological factors - weapons and
other objects, the affects of the operations of which are based on
the use of electro-magnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or
ultra-sonic radiations and which have [existing] parameters,
exceeding the magnitude of established governmental standards of the
Russian Federation and corresponding norms of Federal governmental
organs in the area of the Health Department,”
A 1998 report edited by Morton Sklar of the World Organization
Against Torture USA is entitled Torture in the United States: The
Status of Compliance by the US Government with the International
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.
The report was “prepared by the Coalition Against Torture and Racial
Discrimination, a Joint Working Group of Non-Governmental Civil and
Human Rights Groups in the US.”
This project to “issue a joint
report on US compliance under the Convention Against Torture was
made possible through grants provided by the Ford Foundation and the
World Council of Churches.”
The chapter on involuntary human scientific experimentation
concludes with the following:
Similar concerns also are being raised about involuntary human
experimentation involving new forms of classified research and
testing of high technology military weaponry, including microwave
and laser equipment. Groups working on these issues cite, among
other evidence of the existence of these unauthorized testing
procedures, a White house inter-governmental memorandum dated March
27,1997, establishing stronger guidelines prohibiting non-consensual
testing for classified research, but suggesting, by implication,
that this type of human subject research may, in fact, be taking
place.
Because of the classified nature of these activities, it is
very difficult to confirm or disprove that they are taking place.
Given the serious negative impacts on non-consensual human subjects
that classified research of this type is capable of producing, and
given the past history of secret experimentation by the government,
these allegations of continuing improprieties involving secret
government sponsored human testing should not be dismissed without
more thorough, impartial investigation.
The European Parliament Resolution A4-005/99 entitled “Resolution on
the Environment, Security, and Foreign Policy” passed on January 29,
1999. The draft resolution specifically discussed the serious
concerns regarding EMR weapons. The final resolution “calls for an
international convention introducing a global ban on all
developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form
of manipulation of human beings.”
Michigan is the only state to pass a criminal statute for EMR
devices. The 2004 Michigan law states,
"A person shall not manufacture,
deliver, possess, transport, place, use, or release any of the
following for an unlawful purpose: . . . (d) A harmful
electronic or electromagnetic device," defined as:
"a device designed to emit or radiate or that, as a result of its
design, emits or radiates an electronic or electromagnetic pulse,
current, beam, signal, or microwave that is intended to cause harm
to others or cause damage to, destroy or disrupt any electronic or
telecommunications system or device, including, but not limited to,
a computer, computer network or computer system."
The bill includes the following violation and punishment; "If the
violation directly or indirectly results in personal injury to
another individual other than serious impairment of a body function
or death, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by
imprisonment for not more than 25 years or a fine of not more than
$20,000.00., or both.
The excessive secrecy surrounding nonlethal weapons prevents
evaluation of the new weapons by human rights groups. In the Reuters
World Service, May 30, 1996, Microwave and Acoustic Weapons Pose New
Threats, Jim Della-Giacoma reported:
". . . There are indications that [electromagnetic weapons] may have
adverse affects on the brain," she [Louise] Doswald-Beck, [Deputy
Head of the legal division of the Geneva-based ICRC (International
Committee for the Red Cross)] said. . . . Doswald-Beck said . . .
all developed countries were doing research on microwave and
acoustic weapons.
"The U.S. makes a lot of mention of it in its
specialized literature but then they say it's classified. The same
goes with some European countries. The West assumes that Russia's
doing it, but it is kept under wraps," she said. Doswald-Beck said
the ICRC was unable to do the early research on banning microwave
and acoustic weapons because they were shrouded in secrecy.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, September/October 1994 discussed
unsuccessful efforts to ratify protocols for EMR weapons under the
Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CWC, also known as the
Inhumane Weapons Convention). The CWC is the general treaty which
covers EMR weapons today.
Full article posted here:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so94aftergood
Sidebar: "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). [2] 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. [3]
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.
--Barbara Hatch Rosenberg
. . .
2. The full name of this treaty is "Convention on Prohibition or
Restriction of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be
Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate
Effects."
3. Louise Doswald-Beck, ed., Blinding Weapons: Reports of the
Meetings of Experts Convened by the International Committee of the
Red Cross on Battlefield Laser Weapons, 1989-1991 (Geneva: Internal
Committee of the Red Cross, 1993).
The classified EMR weapons are seriously lacking in any evaluation
by human rights groups for international treaty compliance and lack
any public input or scrutiny. The seriousness of the issue of EMR
mind control weapons becomes apparent with the comparison to the
atomic bomb. The atomic bomb was public information almost from the
start. Nuclear protesters and the general public could express their
views on the atomic bomb, international arms control treaties are in
place.
EMR mind control weapons have been heavily classified for
over forty years and never publicly used, while being described as
powerful as the atomic bomb by many experts. Classified EMR weapons
are beyond the democratic system of oversight, accountability and
checks and balances.
Back to Contents
Section 19
Lessons not learned,
Dr. Strangelove, Or:
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
Moreno wrote that there were no Russian doomsday weapons, another
indication that EMR mind control is probably just disinformation.
Here is an excerpt about the fears of a Russian doomsday weapon from
the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove, Or: or how I learned to stop
worrying and love the bomb.
“The movie was producer/director Stanley Kubrick's brilliant, satirical, provocative black comedy/fantasy
regarding doomsday and Cold War politics that features an
accidental, inadvertent, pre-emptive nuclear attack.“
The Cold War
fears are similar to the fears present in the post 9-11 years.
Posted at
http://www.filmsite.org/drst.html
The narrator (in voice-over) drones ominously, with factual
directness, about a top-secret Doomsday Machine being constructed in
the Arctic that could reduce the world to nothingness:
For more than a year, ominous rumors have been privately circulating
among high-level western leaders that the Soviet Union had been at
work on what was darkly hinted to be the Ultimate Weapon, a Doomsday
device. Intelligence sources traced the site of the top secret
Russian project to the perpetually fog-shrouded wasteland below the
arctic peaks of the Zhokhov Islands. What they were building, or why
it should be located in such a remote and desolate place, no one
could say.
Unlike the Doomsday device, the science,
theories and technology for EMR mind control weapons have been feasible for over fifty years and
the U.S. government is on the record for suppressing, controlling
and at the same time funding EMR nonthermal bioeffects research and
very classified EMR weapons development since the beginning of the
Cold War.
The long-term demonstrated importance of EMR mind control
weapons to national security indicates a Cold War/post Cold War mind
control EMR arms race. International laws and treaties provide
evidence of the public’s need for protection from the illegal uses
of EMR mind control weapons.
Moreno made the very common mistake of not looking beyond the
testimonies of alleged mind control victims. Mainstream press and
now Moreno and the neuroscience community have dismissed the claims
as conspiracy theories without a thorough and impartial
investigation.
Moreno’s did not present the required balanced debate
needed to reach such an unequivocal conclusion. The public is left
to ponder a complex and controversial issue with little hard
evidence. Moreno’s professional beliefs and opinions lack sufficient
supporting evidence. The fallacies and bias in Moreno’s reasoning
are too serious to disregard.
For now, unfortunately, the victim’s position provides a weak
circumstantial case. The pattern of claims of the same cluster of
symptoms by the growing number of victims worldwide since the 1960s
would seem to be an indication of how advanced government mind
control weapons are.
The US Air Force doctrine on Controlled
Personnel Effects for new weapons as early at 2020 sounded like
science fiction but is being carried out. Controlled Personnel
Effects matches the growing victim’s claims of remote satellite
targeting any place in the world. Clearly, hard evidence is needed,
such as tracing the highly advanced EMR signals allegedly used, to
the government.
National security human experimentation law has remained the same in
large part because national security interests are a powerful force
in preventing Congress from passing laws on human subjects of
experimentation for national security and also on the president,
whose executive orders determine the rules for national security
experimentation.
Everyone can agree national security is vital but excessive secrecy
that allows MKULTRA mind control experiments, radiation experiments
and now allegations of illegal government mind control experiments
without further investigation is especially appalling. Government
oversight and accountability of new weapons development are
additional serious ongoing problems.
What can be done now
Because reliable documented
information on brain research and national security for the public
is lacking, requests for a GAO or Government Accounting Office
report on the new technologies and weapons should be made. A citizen
or group may have success if they request a report from the more
prominent members of Congress on topics such as:
-
Classified neuroscience research, the history, regulation,
government oversight mechanisms and future implications.
-
Nonlethal, information and EMR 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.
And finally, the counterarguments to Moreno's reasoning and
conclusion provide a solid basis for a call for a thorough impartial
investigation.
A 60 minute-style investigation is needed because of
the growing numbers of mind control allegations. Mind Justice will
continue to research and disseminate information in the public
forum. The public can now join the real debate underneath the
conspiracy label, although it will not be easy. Conspiracy labels
are only dismissed with solid evidence.
But now an informed debate
can provide the possibility for change.
Back to Contents
|