|
Summary
Many experts are claiming that mind control weapons will be
developed in the twenty-first century and public debate and
government oversight are called for. New research and information is
now available. A thank you to Dr. Moreno for opening up a debate on
brain research and national defense and for addressing the alleged
government mind control victims in a nonjudgmental way.
In his 2006
book,
Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense,
Moreno
concluded there are no advanced government mind control weapons.
This paper presents a counterargument and the rarely heard fifty
year history and facts indicating the likelihood of already
developed, advanced mind control weapons.
The consequences are serious. The public knew of the immense power
of the atomic bomb and could debate and protest. The very classified
advanced EMR weapons are known to be in development but are
completely surrounded in government denials, cover stories and
disinformation. No solid facts from the government have been
forthcoming. The public has a right to be concerned now.
Moreno is an ethicist, not an investigative reporter and he reported
on the overwhelming consensus; that mind control is a conspiracy
theory. Moreno failed to look beyond the common assumptions,
interview impartial experts or analyze the comprehensive information
required to come to a reliable conclusion. Instead he relied on very
entrenched assumptions and overlooked important but hard to find
information. Moreno was misled by the national security bully pulpit
and government control of research on electromagnetic radiation (EMR)
mind control weapons. How will the public find out about mind
control weapons when they are developed?
This is a summary of a complex issue and facts and citations are
included in the paper below. EMR mind control weapons are one of the
deepest secrets of the nation and advanced EMR mind control weapons
would be more powerful than the atomic bomb, according to experts.
In the Cold War era, major nations developed EMR weapons in total
secrecy, without public input. In the post Cold War era, the U.S.
has gone public with some of it's EMR weapons programs and the EMR
arms race has spread mainly from the U.S. and Russia, to China and
India.
Moreno wrote that he should have heard leaks about any long running
government mind control program but he did not, so there must not be
one. But Moreno is an ethicist, not an insider and he did not
interview secrecy experts who agree that many insiders know of
national security secrets held at the executive branch level. But
there are rarely serious leaks of information and the public almost
always remains in the dark. New facts continue to support the
likelihood that advanced and very classified EMR mind control
weapons have already been developed.
Moreno and others believe the lack of scientific theories and
deployment of EMR weapons is proof that there are no advanced mind
control weapons. But there are several indication of successful
research and weapons. For example, there are hard to find,
scientifically sound, general EMR-based mind control theories and
successful demonstrations of EMR bioeffects research.
Over the
decades, there has also been the continuous discovery of ‘new’ mind
reading technologies and EMR weapons but this is always followed by
a government classification of the ‘new’ research as secret, so that
mind control has remained a national security secret going back to
the 1960s.
A commonly used scientific delay tactic
Moreno discussed the belief held by many that since there is no
worldwide consensus on a mind control theory, there couldn't be
advanced mind control weapons. But the claim of a lack of a theory
is an old, misleading, inaccurate but very effective scientific
delay tactic. This tactic involves claiming a scientific certainty
when there is none.
A scientific theory is not essential for making
scientific findings or discoveries. In addition, the empirical
scientific method is defined as using trial and error or experience
rather than theory and is a well accepted scientific method.
For example, tobacco companies suppressed known health effects
linked to smoking for decades in order to maintain their profits and
avoid lawsuits. In the 1950s, medical doctors observed serious
health problems found mostly in their smoking patients. For years
tobacco companies claimed there was no direct cause and effect
evidence and no theory on which to base the doctor's claims.
In
1994, tobacco company executives lied under oath to Congress,
stating they didn't believe cigarettes caused cancer or were
addictive. Tobacco company documents contradicted their testimony.
For decades, tobacco companies had successfully employed several,
misleading, scientific delay tactics, for example, discounting
empirical evidence, suppressing unfavorable research and blatant
lying.
Another example of this scientific delay tactic is the analogy to
Cold War scientists who controlled scientific information
surrounding the atomic bomb. Government scientists claimed a lack of
scientific proof for a causal connection to alleged ill health
effects and denied known health risks from ionizing radiation.
Government studies and documents on radiation health risks were not
publicly available.
Today, declassified government documents show
that the government suppressed government documents and studies that
proved otherwise. In the 1994 book
Myths of August: A Personal
Exploration of Our Tragic Cold War Affair with the Atom,
Stewart
Udall described his unsuccessful legal battles with the U.S.
government over scientific evidence and classified government
documents.
Publisher's Weekly stated:
Above-ground nuclear bomb tests in Nevada after WW II made human
guinea pigs of civilians living downwind in several western states,
as later revealed by thousands of cases of radiation-induced cancer,
childhood leukemia, burns and birth defects. In an expose of the
government's decades-long policy of public deception concerning the
hazards of radiation, Udall, secretary of the interior under JFK and
LBJ and a former congressman from Arizona, condemns the U.S. nuclear
testing program as a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He also
describes his protracted struggle as a lawyer, beginning in 1979,
representing the widows of Navajo uranium miners who developed
cancer.
One final example, the U.S. military withheld information about
possible links between Agent Orange and birth defects, and
downplayed the defoliant's link to cancer. This was reported in the
Sacramento Bee November 1, 1998, page A4.
Now this same scientific delay tactic can be seen in Cold War EMR
bioeffects research and this has contributed to a lack of agreement
on a scientific theory for how EMR bioeffects work or even if there
are EMR bioeffects. One noted expert stated that EMR scientific
uncertainty can be shown to be a result of industry and government
inactions and policy.
Simply put, the U.S. military wanted to keep EMR weapons secret. During the Cold War era, the government's cover
story was; if there are "no proven EMR bioeffects then there are no
EMR weapons." The government cited national security concerns to
some EMR scientists who then cooperated and this cover story was
successfully circulated publicly.
Moreno, like most experts do not report on Cold War/post Cold War EMR research and weapons history. This history is important because
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.
Therefore, very powerful mind control weapons
are scientifically feasible. Moreno and most experts state that
decoding the brain is decades into the future and this fact
virtually eliminates the possibility of the current development of
advanced EMR mind control weapons. But Moreno does not explore the
possibility that a brain theory could be classified. And scientific
evidence of the bioeffects and psychological effects of EMR have
never been disproven.
This could be all disinformation as Moreno believes. Moreno pointed
out in his book that government funding of research does not prove
anything. But what would account for this sweeping government effort
surrounding EMR bioeffects research and weapons by major nations in
the world since the 1960s and the escalating efforts in the post
Cold War era? Not surprisingly the public is rarely informed of the
Cold War history of the East/West continuous funding of EMR weapons
research.
Russian classified mind control programs were revealed
only as a result of the monumental event of the breakup of the
Soviet Union. Mainstream press does not write of the post Cold War
revelation of a flip flop on the U.S. policy for EMR bioeffects and
subsequent ‘new’ funding of EMR bioeffects weapons research. Taken
as a whole, the evidence suggests a reasonable probability of
advanced mind control weapons developed by the U.S.
The evidence is clear that the systematic and misleading government
scientific tactics are continuing today. The question becomes
whether as a democracy, we want to allow this pattern continue in
the name of national security. The denials from some experts that
there are no health risks from EMR and there are no EMR weapons to
worry about have completely overpowered any counterargument.
There
is a new post Cold War, patronizing and paternalistic campaign by
some top scientists to stop ‘bad’ or fringe science and to save
government money. These scientists are recommending that 'needless' EMR bioeffects research be discontinued, based on the claim that
health effects have not been conclusively demonstrated. The campaign
is extremely disingenuous, dishonest and egregious, given the known EMR bioeffects controversy
and history which these scientists fail
to mention.
The counterargument and evidence today is undeniable but
top scientists still deny vigorously and some use personal attacks
rather than arguing on the scientific merits. This is science at its
worst.
It will be up to the public to recognize the deceptive scientific
tactics and the overwhelmingly powerful national security scientific
culture. Top scientists such as the atomic weaponeers lied about
radiation exposure health effects. Any trust in public and
government officials has been lost and ought to be continuously
questioned.
In the case of EMR weaponeers, exposure of any ongoing
unethical behaviors and the weak rationalization that this behavior
is necessary for national security does not hold up in a democracy.
Certainly, cigarette company executives, and also scientists who
conducted the nonconsensual radiation experiments have not been
judged harshly enough for the large numbers whose health was
affected.
Cold War and new post Cold War EMR history
The public has rarely been told the following key facts of
EMR
history. The 1984 BBC TV documentary, Opening Pandora's Box,
explained how EMR health standards were set in the 1950s:
The safety standards for electromagnetic radiation, EMR, were set
higher in the 1950s to allow the military to have unlimited use of
EMR technology. At the time, American science reports suggesting EMR
health effects of brain tumors, heart conditions, leukemia,
cataracts and more, were ignored. The military was a major source of
funding and reports were not followed up. The government safety
levels for EMR were challenged in courts all around the world.
Microwave News, a journal on non-ionizing radiation, for example,
reported that radar men opposed microwave tower EMR health dangers.
Air traffic controllers and police officers filed complaints. These
court cases revolved around the validity of the safety standard.
Dr.
Milton Zaret, another Pandora scientist explained that most
government committees who set the safety standards around the world
were set up the in the same way as in the U.S. Members of the
committee did not want to impede or put restraints on progress by
tightening the safety standards for EMR.
[The 1960s
Project Pandora
was run by the department of defense to determine if there were bioeffects from the microwave bombardment of the U.S. embassy by the
Russians.]
The U.S. government wanted to avoid costly lawsuits and to be able
to develop EMR technologies such as radar systems that were
considered essential for national security. The EMR bioeffects
scientific uncertainty and also opposing US/Russian scientific views
on nonthermal effects of EMR continued into the 1980s. The official
government position on EMR bioeffects never varied during the Cold
War.
Some experts still cite this position even as scientific
evidence from U.S. military sources now refutes the old government
stance. For example, Richard Garwin is a member of
the JASONs, a
high-level group of physicists, whose advice is usually classified
and routinely sought by the Department of Defense. He coauthored the
1999 and 2004
Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR) reports on
nonlethal weapons.
In reply to email questions in 2005, he stated:
". . . In my analyses of the effect of radiowaves on people, I have
never found any significant effect other than heating of the
tissues. . . . So I don't think there is much in the threat of
electromagnetic signals to control or disorient people by the effect
on the human brain.”
Dr. Robert O. Becker conducted research on
EMR bioeffects from the
1950s-1980s and was a two time Nobel prize nominee for his EMR
bioeffects research. He provided a rarely stated and startling new
explanation for that time.
In the 1984 BBC documentary, Opening
Pandora’s Box, Becker claimed:
The U.S. may very well not have any [secret EMR weapons] program
whatsoever. On the other hand, it is equally valid to have such a
program being conducted in even greater secrecy than the Manhattan
Project was conducted. And the best cover story I could think of for
that would be for the U.S. to portray itself to the rest of the
world, as a nation that was discarding the possibility of EMR
weapons, entirely, based upon its best scientific evidence.
In the post Cold War era, the U.S. belief that EMR bioeffects are
significant and extensive is indicated by official policy and
statements, and funding of the EMR weapons research. With the
breakup of the Soviet Union, the Pentagon publicly unveiled the
nonlethal weapons program including weapons based on nonthermal EMR
bioeffects. Now the U.S. policy that there are “no proven nonthermal
EMR bioeffects” took a 180 degree turn.
The July 7, 1997 US News and
World Report, Wonder Weapons article confirmed:
For hundreds of years, sci-fi writers have imagined weapons that
might use energy waves or pulses to know out, knock down, or
otherwise disable enemies-without necessarily killing them. And for
a good 40 years the U.S. military has quietly been pursuing weapons
of this sort. Much of this work is still secret, and it has yet to
produce a usable 'nonlethal' weapon. . . . Scores of new contracts
have been let, and 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. . . .
Here is a 2006 article describing current military interest in EMR
nonthermal bioeffects weapons research and that EMR weapons are
scientifically feasible and would likely be successful. The article
reported on U.S. Air Force-sponsored weapons research and disputed
the U.S. government’s long held 'heating only' theory of EMR. The
Russian research described below would indicate that the U.S., for
national security reasons, would also have developed EMR weapons.
But the reporter was skeptical of already developed EMR weapons,
almost certainly because he is unaware of the history of the EMR
bioeffects controversy. November 24, 2006, Defense Tech, Directed
Energy, US Bioelectromagnetic Weapons Research by David Hambling,
posted at
www.defensetech.org:
Could new weapons stun or paralyze with a beam of radio energy? I
have discussed proposals for 'bioelectromagnetic weaponry' in
Defense Tech before, here and here, but for the first time details
are emerging of Air Force-sponsored work in this field. This report,
entitled "Interdisciplinary research project to explore the
potential for developing non- lethal weapons based on
radiofrequency/microwave bioeffects" -- states their goal:
Our research is to lay the foundation for developing non-lethal
stunning/immobilizing weaponry based on radiofrequency (RF)/microwave (MW)
radiation by identifying RF/MW parameters potentially capable of
selectively altering exocytosis, the process underlying
neurotransmitter release and hence nervous system functioning.
. . .The researchers at the University of Nevada have concluded that
non-thermal effects of RF do exist and may be harnessed. In an
abstract here (on page 317)- a study of Non-Thermal effects of RF
Radiation on Exocytosis - states "The effects of RF exposure on
catecholamine release that have been observed to date cannot be
explained by an increase in temperature."
And there's more. Other work by the same team, is described here. It
will also support a DEPSCoR- funded program that extends those
studies to include microwave frequencies and to explore the effect
of pulsed and CW RE/microwave exposure on skeletal muscle
contractility.
The suggestion is that a correctly tuned beam of
microwaves (possibly pulsed or modulated) would be able to interfere
with skeletal muscles. This might ultimately give a means of
producing the same sort of non-lethal effects as a Taser -- but
potentially from much greater range and over a wide area.
So far, the work has been entirely on 'in vitro' cell samples in the
laboratory, and only modest alterations in cell function have been
produced. This is a very long way from being able to actually
influence a living creature. Any suggestion that this sort of weapon
has already been fielded by the US should be treated with
skepticism.
Everything is in very early stages in the US program. But, as I
mentioned a while back, the Russians have been looking at this
technology for years. Dr. Vitaly N. Makukhin of the Trymas Center in
Moscow has published papers on "Electronic equipment for complex
influence on biological objects" which he claims can produce effects
including "disorder of the autonomic nervous system." Few people
have taken him seriously in the West before. Now that the same sort
of effects are being confirmed in US labs, perhaps we will start
taking more of an interest in what this type of weapon may be able
to do.
In the post Cold War era, a new public campaign to close down the
EMR bioeffects research effort is based on the premise that EMR
bioeffects or health effects have not been conclusively
demonstrated. The outcome is that EMR bioeffects research will be
conducted for the most part as classified research, as it has since
the 1960s.
The public will continue to be unaware of the very
classified EMR mind control weapons.
The EMR scientific research and weapons culture
Largely unknown to the public, systematic tactics were used to
successfully carry out the government cover story of only heating
effects and no proven bioeffects from EMR. Eileen Welsome, Pulitzer
prize-winning reporter and author of the 1999 book,
The Plutonium
Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War wrote
about the atomic bomb scientific culture from the 1940s to the
1990s.
The very same utilitarian culture is present in the Cold War
and post Cold War EMR scientific culture and is documented in detail
below. The methodical and systematic tactics were very successful in
promoting the atomic bomb, preventing costly lawsuits that claimed
health effects from radiation exposure, and questionably, protecting
national security.
Welsome’s description provided a key explanation
for how the U.S. government national security science policy is
actually carried out.
Welsome wrote:
Many scientists couldn’t accept the idea that they or their peers
had committed any wrongs. They maintained their belief that the ends
they had pursued justified the means they used, expressed little or
no remorse for the experimental subjects, and continued to bash . .
. the media for blowing the controversy out of proportion. . . . A
few of the experiments increased scientific understanding and led to
new diagnostic tools, while others were of questionable scientific
value . . .
[There was a] pervasive deception that the doctors,
scientists, and military officials routinely engaged in even before
the first bomb had been detonated. General Leslie Groves [head of
the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb] lied
egregiously when he testified to Congress in 1945 about radiation
effects of the bomb.
“A pleasant way to die,” he said-fully aware of . . . [what happened
to the Japanese victims and in a fatal laboratory accident.]
Stafford Warren [director of the Manhattan Project’s Medical
Section] downplayed the fatalities and lingering deaths in Japan. .
. . During the war, the bomb makers believed that lawsuits would
jeopardize the secrecy of the project. After the war they worried
that lawsuits would jeopardize the continued development of nuclear
weapons . . .
The weaponeers recognized that they would have to
allay the public’s fear of atomic weapons in order to keep the [US
plutonium] production plants operating . . . This meant an
aggressive propaganda campaign about the “friendly atom” and the
suppression of all potentially negative stories about health hazard
related to atomic energy . . .
AEC officials routinely suppressed information about environmental
contamination caused by weapons plants . . . The fact is, the
Manhattan Project veterans and their protégés controlled virtually
all the information. They sat on the boards that set radiation
standards, consulted at meetings where further human experimentation
was discussed, investigated nuclear accidents, and served as expert
witnesses in radiation injury cases.
Public awareness
As shown below, a few new laws and treaties on
EMR weapons have
passed and this is another of many indications that EMR weapons are
a real concern. Still, discussions have been crippled by secrecy,
suppression of information and a lack of support.
In the case of EMR bioeffects research and EMR weapons development,
the U.S. government controlled the research funding and a
utilitarian EMR scientific culture enabled systematic scientific
tactics to be carried out in order to maintain EMR weapons as one of
the deepest secrets of the nation.
As a result, the public is in the
dark about the next generation of powerful EMR weapons after the
atomic bomb. But a small handful of outspoken critics like Becker,
Brodeur, Adey, Slesin, Lopatin, Arkin and others have published hard
to find information on EMR bioeffects science and weapons in the
Cold War and now post Cold War era.
The government’s cover story of the lack of proven EMR bioeffects
has been the result of extensive and questionable government
scientific tactics in the name of national security. Becker was
right about an EMR Manhattan project. The U.S. government will never
admit to government mind control weapons, although the tell tale
signs are present. What EMR bioeffects are so important to merit
this long history?
The U.S. military is not a reliable source of information on EMR
mind control research and weapons because their primary goal is to
protect national security. Where can the public go for reliable
answers? Public input, debate, and government accountability and
oversight are a part of the checks and balances in a democracy.
For
example, 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 brain technologies
and weapons could be requested from Congress.
No effective legal protections for nonconsensual secret experiments
The public should also be very concerned because the development of
the atomic bomb involved extensive nonconsensual human
experimentation that was thought to be essential for protecting
national security.
A 1994 congressional hearing reported that
“nearly half a million Americans were subjected to some kind of Cold
War era tests,” often without being informed and without their
consent. The widely-held belief by Moreno and most experts is that
secret mind control experiments couldn’t happen today.
It is true
that experimentation law is well grounded in constitutional and
international law. But effective laws have not been implemented
despite past secret human experiment scandals including radiation
experiments. Current federal regulations do not provide legal
remedies for victims or punishments for intelligence agency
scientists, although the department of defense has adopted better
rules and regulations.
The current ineffective legal protections are caused in part by a
very powerful but silent Cold War culture based on the belief that
human experiments are the only feasible means to achieve essential
national security goals. This culture overwhelms the majority
consensus of advocates for human subject protections whose rhetoric
is well-accepted but who fail or are unable to act in any meaningful
way.
Given the strong consensus for protecting national security at all
costs, it is highly likely that the current regulations will also
prove ineffective in reality. For example, it is well documented
that congressional laws were passed to retroactively eliminate
government contractor liability for radiation experiments, court
rulings were interpreted to severely limit government liability, and
government lawyers and scientists suppressed scientific evidence of
the health effects from exposure to radiation.
The government won
most legal cases brought by victims. In past CIA mind control
experiments, the CIA had the approval from the very top levels of
government to use any means necessary and the CIA acted above the
law. No one was punished and almost all victims of LSD experiments
lost their legal battles. Moreno and most experts do not give any
weight to this paradox.
A thorough, impartial investigation
Moreno wrote that since writing his 1999 book Undue Risk: Secret
State Experiments on Humans, he has received a huge volume of
letters and calls from victims claiming nonconsensual government
mind control experiments. So much so that Moreno wrote extensively
of the problem in his new book Mind Wars. But Moreno made the very
common mistake of not seeing beyond the 'crazy sounding' testimonies
of alleged government 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 and
Moreno’s professional beliefs and opinions which lack sufficient
supporting evidence. The fallacies and bias in Moreno’s reasoning
are too serious to disregard.
Moreno wrote that there is no evidence of ongoing government mind
control experiments today. Sufficient hard evidence will always be
lacking for this issue. Classified weapons programs are surrounded
in government denials, disinformation and cover stories and
predictably, a lack of hard evidence. It becomes irresponsible to
wait for hard evidence or government admissions before investigating
further.
Investigating claims of alleged illegal mind control experiments can
be made in light of this little known and now more complete picture
of the long history of international EMR bioeffects weapons research
and the very successful and documented U.S. government methods,
tactics and illegalities used in the development of EMR bioeffects
weapons. 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. Based on these
findings, much more research and information is called for.
Back to Contents
Section 1
Introduction:
Nature magazine book review
Cheryl Welsh is cited in
Mind Wars: Brain Research and National
Defense by Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D.
On page ix,
“Acknowledgements
Mind Wars grew out of a wide variety of conversations and
experiences. Among those who provide me with specific assistance on
problems I confronted as I explored this largely uncharted territory
were . . . [list of seventeen names including Cheryl Welsh].”
For a
book review, see Nature, Vol 443, 26 October 2006 page 911,
Battlefield Between the Ears by Charles Jennings.
A generally positive Nature magazine book review described a few
minor problems:
"One weakness of the book is that Moreno’s treatment
of technical issues is sometimes superficial. . . . The book is a
fascinating read despite these reservations, but it still left me
wondering, is this stuff for real?"
Moreno concluded that it is the
nation to develop serious neuroweapons in the 21st century that will
dominate. Jennings disagreed, citing the failure of technology fixes
in the Iraq war.
Jennings wrote;
"It is not obvious how a new
generation of brain-based weapons would represent more than an
incremental gain."
Moreno concluded classified mind control weapons
do not seem to be advanced today.
Moreno’s book is highly influential and will reach a wide audience.
I highly recommend this fascinating account because it provided an
extremely interesting overview of national security and brain
science and contains new analysis and information. For the first
time, a widely disseminated book included several references to
government mind control allegations and a detailed, nonjudgmental
evaluation. Most can agree that mind control weapons are classified
but how advanced are they? Is mind control just science fiction and
a conspiracy theory or the next weapon of mass destruction and one
of the deepest secrets of the nation?
On page 107, Moreno wrote:
For years, I have corresponded with several very bright and highly
functional people who are absolutely sure that at some time or
another they have been the victim of mind control experiments by a
government agency. Once I asked one of them if anything would alter
her view about this; she acknowledged that probably nothing would,
such is her certainty about her victimization by surreptitious
forces. My own experience with government-on the staffs of
presidential advisory committees, in congressional testimony, and so
forth-makes me doubt that such experiments could be kept quiet for
decades. Our government just isn't that airtight. So I'm no
conspiracy theorist.
He wrote that "there are thousands" who contact him because they
believe they are victimized by government mind control experiments.
Moreno believes they are "misguided" and many of them "associate
their ideas with conspiracy theories."
Since the 1960s, the growing numbers of alleged victims have been
stereotyped without further investigation in large part because the
mind control claims sound so overwhelmingly like science fiction and
symptoms of mental illness. Victims report remote dream and memory
manipulation, hearing voices that nobody else can hear, (microwave
hearing can create voices in the head and is a known military
technology), remote control bodily functions or pain that can be
turned on or off in an instant, in any part of the body, and more.
Moreno followed suit and only superficially investigated the
possibility of human surveillance beyond battlefield distances and
advanced mind reading. National security and neuroscience are
complex subjects and reliable information so necessary for a
balanced viewpoint is scarce.
A serious investigation into government activity and national
security areas would be necessary to come to a reliable conclusion
on how advanced mind control weapons are likely to be and on the
possibility of current clandestine mind control experiments. The
counterarguments presented below challenge widely-held assumptions
held by Moreno and most people.
The counterarguments are more
convincing than one would guess at first glance.
Back to Contents
Section 2
Most genuine secrets ironically remain secret
Moreno is addressing a sophisticated audience of neuroscientists
about a very controversial topic, mind control. The Nature reviewer
described the dilemma of a lack of reliable technical sources and an
abundance of questionable information;
Some of the ideas discussed here - such as brain scanning at a
distance, or memory augmentation through hippocampal implants - fall
close to the fine line separating the visionary from the crackpot,
and a more critical examination of the border territory would have
been welcome. Moreno recognizes the outright nonsense as such, but
an over-reliance on popular news stories rather than technical
sources sometimes leads him to give outlandish ideas more credence
than they deserve.
If the government had secret mind control weapons, the technical
papers and scientific theories would be classified and the
government's national security bully pulpit would disseminate
rumors, disinformation and denials. Moreno did find extensive
classified government-sponsored neuroscience research and he wrote
about the disinformation surrounding mind control weapons. Steve Aftergood, a highly regarded secrecy expert explained that excessive
use of government cover stories is routine.
In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist article entitled, The Soft-Kill
Fallacy, September/October, 1994, he wrote:
The government secrecy system as a whole is among the most poisonous
legacies of the Cold War. . . . the Cold war secrecy system also
mandates active deception... A security manual for special
access programs [SAPs] authorizes contractors to employ 'cover
stories' to disguise their activities. The only condition is that
'cover stories must be believable'. Even the government is starting
to recognize that official cover and deception programs are getting
out of hand and need to be curtailed.
The cover story for mind control weapons seems to be that they are
science fiction or don't work. For example, Jon Ronson, author of
the 2005 New York Times reviewed book Men Who Stare at Goats wrote
on page 53:
Colonel Alexander has been a special advisor to the
Pentagon, the
CIA, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and NATO. He is also one of
Al Gore's oldest friends. He is not completely retired from the
military. A week after I met him, he flew to Afghanistan for four
months to act as a "special advisor." When I asked him who he was
advising and on what, he wouldn't tell me."
On page 200 of his book, Ronson wrote:
“Colonel Alexander has spent
a lifetime in the world of plausible deniability and I think he's
got to the stage where he just trots these things out.”
Page 201
continues with a question to Alexander about frequencies and
psycho-correction devices and he replied,
"This is not something
that has been brought up or addressed, and we have covered the
waterfront of nonlethal technologies."
"We are not warping people's
brains or monitoring people or da da da da da. It's just nonsense."
Here is a typical official government position. In the December
17-23, 2001 Defense News, Israel Fields Means to Suppress
Palestinian Violence, Barbara Opall-Rome reported:
. . . 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.
Everyone can agree that if government mind control was an effective
weapon, officials would never admit it. Since the break up of the
Soviet Union, information on Russian mind control became available
although as in the U.S., no government documents or proof of mind
control weapons other than circumstantial evidence were ever
publicly confirmed.
The public is not likely to find out about any possible advanced and
classified government mind control programs. "Most genuine secrets
ironically remain secret" explained William Arkin, a military
weapons expert and author of the 2005 book
Code Names Deciphering
U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World.
His
book was reviewed by the New York Review of Books. Arkin described
the current secrecy system:
"As I have learned in compiling this directory, most genuine secrets
ironically remain secret. . . . Yet Abu Ghraib is like every other
national security surprise: We cannot know who the players are or
what they are up to until after disaster strikes."
Arkin listed
disasters including
". . . domestic spying operations, illegal weapons developments, and
human experimentation." Some nonlethal weapons like blinding lasers
were
classified at some of the highest levels of secrecy only because the
weapons are repugnant. Arkin reported that all can agree there is a
lack of effective oversight, particularly in Congress.
In a January 27th, 2005 Democracy Now interview, Arkin reported
extensive government retaliatory actions for a book he wrote, even
though it contained only unclassified information. Few experts are
willing to write about classified research if there is a likelihood
of government reprisals.
Arkin state:
"I wrote a book in the 1980's that revealed where all the nuclear
weapons were around the world. The Reagan administration was not
very happy about it and came down on me pretty hard. And --
Amy Goodman: How?
William Arkin: Well, they threatened to throw me in jail. And it
took many months of negotiations with the Reagan administration to
convince them that I had not used any access to classified
information in order to compile that book. That was the key that
they would have used as the excuse to put me in jail. So it took
many, many months to do that. It was quite a hairy time.
The methods for keeping national security secrets out of the public
eye have been well developed and are extensive. The May 3rd, 1992
Washington Post article by George Lardner reported on a 1992 CIA
report entitled Greater CIA Openness.
Director Joseph DeTrani
stated:
" PAO [CIA's Public Affairs Office] now has relationships
with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly
and television network in the nation," the report said.
"This has
helped us turn some 'intelligence failure' stories into
'intelligence success stories, and it has contributed to the
accuracy of countless others."
"In many instances," the report
continued, "we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold or
even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national
security interests or jeopardized sources and methods . . . "
Here is a more recent example. On the April 13, 2003, CSPAN
Booknotes program, Philip Taubman, a New York Times editor stated:
. . . if you stumble or learn about something that's particularly
sensitive, the government will sometimes come to news organizations.
. . . They've done it with the Washington Post and they'll say
please don’t publish that and, on occasion, we will agree with that
to protect the security of the country.
According to Daniel Ellsberg, a top Pentagon official, who leaked
the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, the successful keeping of secrets
is a routine occurrence. Ellsberg commented that "thousands of
insiders" know secrets.
"But the fact is that the overwhelming
majority of secrets do not leak to the American public."
In Ellsberg's 2002 book
Secrets, A Memoir of Vietnam and the
Pentagon Papers, page 43, he explained:
It is a commonplace [belief] that,
"you can't keep secrets in
Washington" or "in a democracy"... These truisms are flatly false.
They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading
journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping
secrets well... But the fact is that the overwhelming majority
of secrets do not leak to the American public."...
The reality
unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press
is that secrets [that] would be of the greatest import to many of
them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive
branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.
Neuroscientists who conduct secret research rarely discuss anything
publicly. A Dana Press interview with Moreno posted at
http://www.dana.org/news/mindwars102406.cfm
explained:
In the book, there's some careful writing about talking to people
and the source of your material. Were people unwilling to talk to
you?
I really consider myself a member of the establishment, and I think
by any fair measure I am, but I did find that -- unlike physicists
whom I've spoken with about the social issues in nuclear physics, or
these days, increasingly, biologists who worry about biosecurity --
people who work in neuroscience, at least the people that I spoke
to, were very reluctant to talk for the record. And I think there
are a number of reasons for that.
Part of it is because scientists generally don't want to say
something stupid and jeopardize a funding source. Part of it also is
that some of them are working in "secured circumstances" -- they're
not just working for DARPA, which is not a spy agency, but they're
working for spy agencies and they didn't want to stumble and say the
wrong thing. Part of it also is that, in general, scientists think
they're the smartest guys in the room, and even believe that -- and
I pretty much got this reaction from a couple of people --
"Well,
this agency, I don't know what their goal is but they're funding
important research that's going to help people and I don't think I'm
doing anything that's going to be a problem downstream."
Weapons comparable to the atomic bomb are classified as the deepest
secrets of the nation. The methods employed by the U.S. government
to accomplish this goal are extensive. The numerous secrecy experts
cited above illustrate how the deepest secrets of the nation are
successfully kept under wraps. It is unlikely that the public will
find out when the government has developed advanced mind control
weapons.
Back to Contents
Section 3
EMR mind control weapons:
one of the deepest secrets of the nation
Moreno does not write about the area of research in which mind
control weapons would likely be found, i.e. the fifty year U.S.
classified EMR weapons programs. Louis Slesin is the editor of the
trade journal Microwave News. In a 1997 US News and World Report
article entitled Wonder Weapons, The Pentagon's quest for nonlethal
arms is amazing. But is it smart?
Slesin wrote:
[T]he human body is essentially an electrochemical system, and
devices that disrupt the electrical impulses of the nervous system
can affect behavior and body functions. But these
programs--particularly those involving antipersonnel research--are
so well guarded that details are scarce. “People [in the military]
go silent on this issue,” says Slesin, “more than any other issue.
People just do not want to talk about this.”
Insiders were not willing to publicly discuss known but classified
antipersonnel weapons research, an indication national security has
and will effectively keep mind control weapons classified.
On page 113, Moreno wrote:
“just because national security agencies
are spending money on them doesn't mean they are a sure thing, but
that's often enough to make conspiracy theorists feel vindicated.”
Generally speaking that is true but heavily funded and classified
government programs running for over fifty years and based on sound
general scientific theories are unlikely to be disinformation. The
brief history and specific details given below differentiates the
funding of serious mind control weapons from disinformation. Mind
control areas of research such as EMR weapons were known to be
heavily classified since the 1960s.
Moreno and experts do write of numerous brain-related weapons
research programs and that this research is heavily classified. Here
is a secrecy expert reporting on a long running government weapons
program.
In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, September/October
1994, The Soft-Kill Fallacy, Steven Aftergood wrote:
"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."
Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) is a co-author of the 1999 and 2004 CFR nonlethal
weapons reports. Garwin was a member of the JASONs, a high-level
group of physicists, whose advice is usually classified and
routinely sought by the Department of Defense. Garwin served on the
President's Science Advisory Committee. He was named one of ten
Founders of national reconnaissance by the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO), scientists who contributed to the founding of this
space discipline. Garwin’s views are more critical of nonlethal
weapons and more informative than most and is representative of the
government position on EMR weapons.
Garwin replied to email questions in January 2005 and concluded:
"... I have evaluated electromagnetic signals for the Defense
Department a number of times. Nevertheless, there are always
"compartments" to which even people with high-level security
clearances do not have access..."
While nonlethal weapons became better known to the public in the
1990s, Garwin reported there were already developed and highly
classified “large programs” in “psychological warfare, information
warfare, and nonlethal weapons with strategic potential.” Garwin
co-authored the subsequent 2004 CFR report, Nonlethal Weapons and
Capabilities which described the ongoing interservice conflicts, the
problem of redundancy, a burdensome secrecy system and the lack of
accountability for weapons. Here are a few critical excerpts from
the reports, again illustrating significant government interest and
very large, classified programs, contrary to Moreno's analysis.
The 1999 Council on Foreign Relations, (CFR) report entitled,
Non-Lethal Technologies: Progress and Prospects illustrated the
already developed and very large classified programs that include
neuroscience and nonlethal weapons.
First, the 1999 CFR report excerpt:
Once developed, these weapons [NLW or nonlethal weapons] must be
deployed coherently, in synergistic coordination with
information/psychological warfare technologies and conventional
weaponry. Finally, various NLW programs dispersed throughout the
individual services should be coordinated by the existing Joint
Nonlethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD). . . .
And until January 1999, the directorate essentially had no access to
joint programs in information warfare or psychological warfare. Nor
did its brief extend to Air Force and Navy programs in nonlethal
weapons. To reduce barriers between the Joint Nonlethal Weapons
Directorate and what are said to be 'large programs' in
psychological warfare, information warfare, and nonlethal weapons
with strategic potential, a so-called insight program was
established. As a result, a few individuals in the directorate now
have an overview of these programs. . . .
Recommendations . . . 5.
Department of Defense policy for nonlethal
weapons is inadequate in practice. The substantial barriers that
exist between the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Directorate, with its
focus on research and development for tactical applications, and the
apparently larger Air Force and Navy classified programs constitute
an impediment to the desired single, optimum nonlethal weapons
program that is required to exploit the full potential of these
weapons and that is mandated by Congress. . . .
In a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted June 23, 1999, the
services agreed to "coordinate and integrate the development of all nonlethal weapon programs and activities through the DOD nonlethal
weapons Executive Agent." While this seems to be progress, the new
MOA codifies restrictions-e.g., "insight, not financial
oversight"-and limits access-e.g., "monitor status of service-unique
programs through annual status briefings from the responsible
service.
Page 19 of the
2004 Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations, entitled
Nonlethal Weapons and Capabilities,
recommended that skilled engineers and scientists work on directed
energy, electromagnetic coupling, modeling and physiology.
Page 21
described the lack of access to classified programs such as cyber
warfare, electronic and communications warfare, although the
legislative mandate required access.
Page 25 discussed already
existing and much larger classified programs in the individual
services that were not accessible to current nonlethal weapons
development programs.
Page 36 described the recommendation that more
access to classified programs be made available so that coordination
can take place and redundancy can be avoided.
A 1979 Washington Post article reported that a supersecret CIA mind
control program bigger than MKULTRA went on into the 1970s. One of
the most influential U.S. scientists, Dr. Edwin Land is best known
for his highly successful but classified work on satellite cameras.
He also conducted 1960s and 70s CIA mind control research.
The NRO
recently honored Land, like Garwin, as one of the ten Founders of
national reconnaissance. An imagery intelligence expert, Land
chaired the Intelligence Subcommittee of the Technology Capabilities
Panel. As Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee
Intelligence Panel, he advised the NRO on new and existing overhead
systems.
The CIA's infamous mind control programs and experiments were
revealed in 1970s congressional hearings. Classified mind control
research took place in over eighty institutions, such as UCLA, MIT,
Stanford and Harvard. A January 29, 1979 Washington Post article
reported that classified mind control research continued under the
direction of Land.
The article was entitled Book Disputes CIA Chief on Mind-Control
Efforts: Work Went on Into 1970s, Author Says:
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 supersecret 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 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 C.I.A. began
looking for the answer in the early 1950s."
Slesin described the 1979 book,
Search for the Manchurian Candidate
by John Marks and that 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, "[t]he agency refused to release the
papers, and they remain classified." Mind Justice made a similar
FOIA request and the CIA would not release the papers.
There are also more obscure signs of the likelihood of secret
government mind control programs. For example, in the November 1990
International Review of the Red Cross, Louise Doswald Beck and
Gerald Cauderay wrote about international EMR weapons development.
Even though the research is heavily classified, the authors came to
a reliable conclusion about the weapons.
This is the interpretation
by experts that the public needs to know but was absent in Moreno’s
analysis.
Research work in this field [EMR 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... 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.
Here is another example. As reported in the August 15, 1994 Aviation
Week and Space Technology by William Scott,
“An industry scientist
said that the Army's Research Institute worked on a variety of "neurotechnologies"
in the mid-1980s, ostensibly abandoning the program--although there
are indications to the contrary. Since these activities were
classified, military officers will not comment on the success or
failure of such programs.”
An educated guess can be made, but Moreno
is unconvinced and wrote that one cannot be sure what is classified.
Moreno does not err on the side of caution in a situation that calls
for an awareness of the conflict between national security and
democratic principles. Moreno's skepticism that these are advanced
mind control programs is debatable.
Back to Contents
Section 4
Mind control is controversial
and would be a very classified weapons program:
“vigorous protection of one nonnegotiable premise” - freedom of
thought
Mind control and human surveillance technologies are 'red button'
issues. Moreno explained on page 176:
[a] number of the scientists, lawyers, ethicists, and advocates with
whom I spoke in the course of writing this book agreed that there
had to be vigorous protection of at least one nonnegotiable premise
when considering the appropriate security applications of
neuroscience. In terms of the law, this principle might be expressed
in terms of the protections afforded in the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution regarding self-incrimination; "to be a witness against
himself." Philosophically, this can be expressed as the proposition
that no one else should be able to decide what goes into my brain or
who "reads" it.
But Moreno doesn’t examine the consequences. At the least, if or
when the development of advanced mind control weapons takes place,
it is hard to imagine any scenario that would survive public outcry.
A likely government choice to protect national security would be to
develop the weapons as one of the deepest secrets of the nation,
surrounded in rumors, disinformation and government denials.
Back to Contents
Section 5
'Misguided' or real: government mind control victims
Moreno's book was written to suggest neuroscientists do a better job
at educating the public about neuroscience and to consider the
ethical implications of their research. It becomes clear why Moreno
spent a large part of his book on government mind control
allegations and debunked the claim of secret advanced government
mind control programs.
Moreno warned of the problem that
neuroscientists will face in carrying this out; thousands of alleged
mind control victims will contact them with letters and calls which
the experts won't want to be associated with because it makes their
research harder to take seriously.
Moreno does not see the mind control claims as a human rights issue.
He does not accept the possibility that mental illness could be a
government cover story for illegal mind control experiments. Like
most people, he assumed that alleged mind control victims must be
'misguided' or mentally ill for two compelling reasons; many of the
victims act and sound like mentally ill people.
Secondly, the claims sound fantastical, bizarre and a large number
include testimony involving conspiracy theories. Moreno, as with
most people, never gets past the assumption of 'misguided' or
mentally ill, especially given that his father was a famous
psychiatrist.
In a Dana Press interview, Moreno explained his
viewpoint:
So I have a feeling this is going to change when Mind Wars comes
out. I also have a feeling that a lot of people aren't going to be
very happy with me.
Why do you say that?
People in bioethics are supposed to be gadflies. We're supposed to
point out what's going on. And it's hard to do that without looking
like you're playing gotcha. So I kind of bent over backwards in the
book not to do that. That's not what I'm interested in doing.
Also, there is a big subculture that believes that their brains are
being manipulated by insidious forces. Just today I got an email
from somebody who is one of these folks who believes that mind
control is going on right now and has been since the Sixties. And
I'm sure that many neuroscientists do not want to touch that with a
10-foot pole; they don't want to be identified with any of that
stuff. It just makes it a little harder to be taken seriously and it
makes it important to be as careful as you can about the way you
describe what's going on.
Victims do not have proof of their claims. Victims have been unable
to obtain classified government documents. They have been unable to
convince experts of their claims and to hire experts for advanced
monitoring or shielding for the alleged EMR signals used on them.
Many victims don’t speak out. A few of the alleged victims are
mentally ill. The mind control technology could be very advanced and
yet unknown and fantastic sounding to the public. And if the
allegations are true, articulating a personal experience of
targeting by remote and advanced technology would sound bizarre,
‘crazy‘, like a ‘nut case with delusions of persecution’ or resemble
science fiction.
But here is a 2004 U.S. Air Force (USAF) document
that sounds like science fiction and provided a striking match to
victim allegations. The doctrine included "Controlled Effects", a
military description of EMR weapons as soon as 2020-2050. Notable is
the description of remote human targeting of "Controlled Personnel
Effects" anywhere in the world via satellite.
The USAF is already funding the "Controlled Effects" research and
stated the goals can become a reality. The document was authored by
USAF chief scientists, taking it out of the realm of science fiction
and conspiracy theory. The doctrine included this statement;
"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."
According to conventional wisdom, classified research is
approximately twenty years ahead of unclassified research, another
factor in favor of the victim allegations. Here is the full USAF
document.
Long-Term Challenges
Fourth in a Series of Articles Addressing Long-Term Challenges from
the Air
Force's Air Power Theory and Doctrine.
AFRL’s Directed Energy Directorate, Kirtland AFB NM, and Munitions
Directorate, Eglin AFB FL
Dr. William L. Baker (Chief Scientist) and Dr. Eugene J. Bednarz, of
the Air Force Research Laboratory' s Directed Energy Directorate,
and Dr. Robert L. Sierakowski (Chief Scientist), of the Air Force
Research Laboratory' s Munitions Directorate, wrote this article.
Controlled Effects
Scientists Explore the Future of Controlled Effects
The long-term challenges, formulated as part of the Air Force
Science and Technology (S&T) Planning Review, sought to determine
the capabilities that the Air Force would need in the 2020 to 2050
time period. The identified capabilities needed to address
compelling requirements of the Air Force. They are intended to be
high risk endeavors with high payoffs, difficult to attain but
probably achievable, and not necessarily linear extensions of
ongoing technology development programs. One of the long-term
challenges developed as a result of this effort is Controlled
Effects.
The Controlled Effects challenge envisions the ability to tailor and
deliver the most appropriate type and amount of energy onto targets
of military significance to create a particular desired effect.
Certainly, military capabilities in this general area have improved
through the application of advanced technology research and
development. Long-range bombers can strike anywhere on the earth in
a matter of hours and have the capability to deliver devastating
power.
Moreover, laser and Global Positioning System/ inertial
guided weapons have demonstrated unprecedented precision during
recent military conflicts. The Controlled Effects challenge focuses
on new and revolutionary technologies to significantly enhance these
capabilities and determine how these technologies could change the
face of military conflict over the next 20 to 50 years.
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. The Controlled Effects long term technology challenge
embodies this vision. Targets of military significance include
facilities and equipment, personnel, and communications and
information systems.
Military commanders want to inflict effects
that can be either lethal or nonlethal, and they can be either very
localized or dispersed in nature. In general, if it becomes possible
to instantaneously put warning energy spots on any target worldwide
and then rapidly follow this warning with varying levels of effects,
the military commander would possess unparalleled operational
flexibility and response. The end result is a significantly enhanced
conventional deterrence.
The Controlled Effects long term challenge focuses technology
developments in three primary areas (see figure). Measured Global
Force Projection looks at the exploitation of electromagnetic and
other nonconventional force capabilities against facilities and
equipment to achieve strategic, tactical, and lethal and nonlethal
force projection around the world. Controlled Personnel Effects
investigates technologies to make selected adversaries think and act
according to our needs.
Dominant Remote Control seeks to control, at
a distance, an enemy' s vehicles, sensors, communications, and
information systems and manipulate them for military purposes. The
S&T Planning Review panel looked first at extending the applications
of advanced military technologies currently under development and
then at new, revolutionary technologies for their military
significance.
Within the Measured Global Force Projection capability, the panel
investigated the potential for using electromagnetic and other nonconventional force capabilities to achieve strategic, tactical,
lethal, and nonlethal force projection. The electromagnetic spectrum
includes lasers, high-power microwaves, and particle-beam weaponry.
Nonconventional weapons included loitering micromunitions, variable
effects munitions, and environmental energetics.
Lasers and
high-power microwaves represent the majority of technical research
in the directed energy arena, and each has its own set of
advantages. Laser weapons are capable of putting a small, very high
intensity, very hot spot of light on a target, causing structural
damage. High-power microwaves, on the other hand, generally flood
target areas with radiation to cause electronic disruption and
destruction.
By varying the output power, both are capable of
graduated effects from denial and disruption of operations at low
power to destruction at high power. Both travel at the speed of
light, so the effects are nearly instantaneous. Particle beams are
another form of directed energy. Particle beam weapons accelerate
atomic or subatomic particles, such as electrons or protons, to form
high-energy beams. These beams of accelerated particles penetrate to
the interior of the targets, causing damage or destruction through a
combination of ionizing radiation, shock, and heating.
In the nonconventional arena, loitering micromunitions take
advantage of very small-scale combinations of sensing, tagging, and
damage mechanisms integrated into units that can be very
inconspicuous. Micromunitions will be very small-less than a 6-inch
wingspan-and can be equipped with a suite of cameras and two-way
communications. They would have the ability to operate
surreptitiously in a particular environment and then be called into
action when needed to provide target location information, tag
targets of interest, or cause required damage.
Another concept is
variable effects munitions or 'dial-an-effect' weapons. These take
advantage of ultrahigh- energy-density materials known as nanoexplosives or, in the very long term, antimatter. Scientists
envision variable effects munitions that can accurately deliver an
optimal lethality to a broad range of targets.
The effects can vary
in the type of damage mechanism (e.g., blast/fragment, thermal, or
electromagnetic pulse) as well as the magnitude of the energy
deposited on the target so that it will be just enough to defeat the
target while minimizing collateral damage. And lastly, environmental energetics looks at the possibility of controlling the forces of
nature on a local basis to enable the warfighter to disrupt an
adversary' s operations. A common nonmilitary example of this is
cloud seeding to produce rain, but taking this a step further for
military applications might include the initiation of lightning to
disrupt communications or destroy electronic systems.
For the
Controlled Personnel Effects capability, the S&T panel
explored the potential for targeting individuals with nonlethal
force, from a militarily useful range, to make selected adversaries
think or act according to our needs. Through the application of
nonlethal force, it is possible to physically influence or
incapacitate personnel. Advanced technologies could enable the
warfighter to remotely create physical sensations such as pressure
or temperature changes.
A current example of this technology is
Active Denial, a non-lethal counter-personnel millimeter wave system
that creates a skin heating sensation to repel an individual or
group of people without harm.1 By studying and modeling the human
brain and nervous system, the ability to mentally influence or
confuse personnel is also possible. Through sensory deception, it
may be possible to create synthetic images, or holograms, to confuse
an individual' s visual sense or, in a similar manner, confuse his
senses of sound, taste, touch, or smell.
Through cognitive
engineering, scientists can develop a better understanding of how an
individual' s cognitive processes (pattern recognition, visual
conditioning, and difference detection) affect his decision-making
processes. Once understood, scientists could use these cognitive
models to predict a person' s behavior under a variety of conditions
with the potential to affect an adversary' s mission accomplishment
via a wide range of personnel effects.
As technology has advanced over recent years, most, if not all,
systems are controlled by, or include, some form of computer or
electronic components. Within the Dominant Remote Control
capability, the S&T panel investigated the remote manipulation of
adversarial electronic systems to control vehicles, sensors,
communications, and information systems.
In one scenario, the vision
is to take control of enemy offensive and defensive military systems
(a spacecraft, aircraft, or ground vehicle) and use them to our
advantage. It might be possible to either confuse enemy systems so
they would be unable to successfully perform their mission or to
take control of enemy systems and remotely manipulate them. In
another application, the control and manipulation of an adversary' s
communications and information streams would cause confusion or
provide false information.
The ability to disrupt or degrade an
adversary' s computers and information systems could render them
inoperable or insert false information which, in turn, would
significantly impair the enemy' s ability to communicate. If our
military commanders could achieve this dominant remote control
capability, all aspects of the enemy' s operations in the
battlefield could be controlled to our advantage.
Within the
Controlled Effects long term challenge, the S&T panel
investigated the ability to tailor and deliver the most appropriate
type and amount of energy onto targets of military significance to
create a desired effect. Scientists are currently developing
technologies to enable a number of first-generation applications.
These include high-energy lasers, highpower microwaves,
micro air
vehicles, and some forms of antipersonnel systems.
Others, like
sensory deception and environmental energetics, are truly futuristic
and require a great deal of research and development for far-term
applications. Scientists will have to overcome technological
hurdles, such as the production and storage of antimatter, the
ability to propagate sensory information, or the ability to harness
and extract energy from the environment, before these science
fiction concepts will become reality. The technologies and
applications described within the Controlled Effects long-term
challenge will revolutionize the face of military conflict in the
coming century.
Dismissing victims as crazy is not new. The August 31, 1997, New
York Times Magazine article Atomic Guinea Pigs, discussed radiation
experiment victims who were labeled "the crazies" by the Department
of Energy officials until declassified government documents proved
otherwise. Past illegal and unethical radiation experiments
illustrate that the U.S. government is capable of wide scale,
long-term, inhumane treatment by trusted officials.
The 2002 scandal involving
Catholic priests sexually molesting young
boys is analogous to mind control experiments and is a persuasive
case of how terrible acts can be kept secret for years by a great
and trusted organization. Many top Catholic officials kept the
sexual molestations secret for years. See December 31, 2002, Los
Angeles Times, Molestation Scandal Wrenched Church Hierarchy and
Faithful. The sexual molestations took place for decades, on a large
scale and were called "the greatest scandal in the history of the
American Catholic Church."
The molestations were not known by the
public because the policy of the Catholic church was to ignore the
problem. Surrounded by the denials of Catholic officials, the
charges were unbelievable, horrific and extremely difficult to
prove. Finally, widespread media coverage forced the very reluctant
church in Rome to address the scandal. Mind control victims are in a
similar situation.
The disclosure of the tobacco industry’s decades-long knowledge of
the health risks of smoking and it’s addictive nature is also
analogous to mind control experiments. Tobacco company officials at
the highest levels condoned and contributed to the tobacco deaths of
smokers while at the same time, making billions of dollars for over
half a century. In 1994, top officials lied under oath to Congress
stating they didn't believe cigarettes were addictive or caused
cancer. Tobacco company documents contradicted their testimony.
In the information age, inhumane, even horrific acts and the
complicity of the many silent bystanders does occur. Mind control
experiments could happen today. The thousands of victims that
contact Moreno are for the most part, alleging very advanced mind
control EMR weapons targeting and Moreno completely rejected this
viewpoint.
The main lesson from this book for Mind Justice is to
change the focus on how to work on this issue. A better strategy may
be to work on gathering hard evidence such as detecting the alleged
advanced electromagnetic signals used on victims to prove mind
control allegations and to call for a thorough, impartial
investigation.
Back to Contents
Section 6
No thorough or impartial investigations
Jon Ronson’s 2005 book,
Men Who Stare at Goats is an entertaining
yet unsettling examination of the serious issues in the mind control
debate. Ronson interviewed military experts who say there are no
advanced mind control weapons, just claims of nonsense and science
fiction.
Ronson guardedly concluded mind control weapons are
possible, given that mind control patents have been bought up by the
U.S. government. Ronson reported on allegations of mind control
experiments by Guantanamo detainees and Iraqi prisoners of war and
concluded we don’t know whether advanced mind control weapons really
work although mind control research is known to be classified.
At a book talk, Ronson described alleged mind control experiments in
Guantanamo and Iraq.
April 14, 2005, Politics and Prose book store,
Washington DC. Available from C-span, Book TV at
www.booktv.org.
Videotape # 186334:
. . . But what you see is all these nonlethal technologies. You see
all these kind of nutty ideologies. All battling for supremacy like
a kind of casserole of ideas -outside the church of Waco. 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 "I felt like a laboratory rat.” And he
said, "I felt they were trying stuff out on me.”
And we know that the history of the army- in this room is
Eric Olson
whose father was victim to two of these think-tanky ideas- one known
as MK-ULTRA, [with the drug, LSD used on unsuspecting victims] . . .
and another think-tanky program called Artichoke, [involving the
injection of heroin]. . .
. . . 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. I mean this was the funny story of the war. [Ronson
reads from his book] OK, So this is the description with the
photograph of the man who had just been given the Barney Treatment.
. . But I can say this. In the last photograph he is screaming so
hard it almost looks as if he is laughing.
. . . 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.
Tony Collins, author of the 1991 book
Open Verdict, An Account of 25
Mysterious Deaths in the Defense Industry described plausible mind
control allegations and an investigation that was never publicly
solved. Tony Collins is executive editor of Computer Weekly. He
worked for the BBC and national newspapers, such as Sunday Mirror.
Twenty five Star Wars Marconi defense workers mysteriously died by
suicide and strange accidents in the early 1980s in England.
Collins
wrote,
"This book is about a new type of war, electronic war. . . .
It is fought by . . . research students in universities and
electronics engineers working for defense contractors. . . . It is a
war that must be waged constantly during peacetime to maintain the
upper hand. It is a war that must be waged in secrecy."
Collins reported:
The companies and establishments where they worked are reluctant to
give out details of any projects, even those already in the public
domain. In addition, there are many other project, so called 'black'
projects, which these organizations cannot even officially admit to.
The secrecy surrounding the peacetime preparations for a future
electronic war ensures that any attempt to prove or disprove a
definite work link can be not more than a calculated stab in the
dark.
. . . In May 1989, for example, eleven Russians and four Czechs were
expelled from the UK for allegedly trying to obtain highly sensitive
information about powerful microchips, radar, laser technology and
advanced materials such as titanium and carbon fibers. These agents
were reported to have approached the executive of defense
contractors in a series of 'cash for secrets' deals.
. . . Another
theory . . . concerns the investigation into alleged fraud at
Marconi. . . . This investigation [by the Ministry of Defense
Police] has since resulted in charges being brought, . . . However
there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that any of the
scientists named in the book were involved in fraud. . . . the
deaths and disappearances of 28 defense workers is one of the most
bizarre and enigmatic stories of the past decade."
Back to Contents
|