|The following letter is alarming and vital to the understanding of how far the issue of psychotronic weapons and projects aimed at controlling American citizens and people everywhere has progressed. This letter is dated February 9, 1994. The organization involved is no longer available at this address below. Ms. McKinney is said to be occupying a much lower profile these days. Nevertheless, this is an important document to consider)
Association of National Security Alumni Electronic
February 9, 1994
Chairman John Glenn
Attention: Mr. Chris Kline
Subject: Involuntary Human Experimentation with Non-Ionizing Radiation
Dear Mr. Kline:
Senator Glenn’s publicly-expressed outrage that this government has (once again) been found to be engaging in brutal forms of involuntary human experimentation, and his demand, in effect, that any and all forms of this type of experimentation be exposed was heartening.
A large and growing number of people in this country hope that the Senator’s expressed outrage was sincere, and that your Committee’s investigations are not simply a means of diverting attention from complaints centering on this government’s long-term role in involuntary human experiments with non-ionizing forms of radiation.
Now that the Departments of Defense, Energy and Justice have openly admitted that directed-energy weapons systems do indeed exist, complaints of experimentation with these systems can no longer be ignored.
As stated to you during our telephone conversation last week, this Project is focused on complaints concerning experiments with non-ionizing, so-called "non-lethal," directed-energy weapons, surveillance and psychotronics systems. In bringing this to your attention, I am representing the interests, currently, of some 100 U.S. citizens, who are the subjects of both vicious forms of overt harassment and concurrent directed-energy harassment.
The enclosed copy of Microwave Harassment and Mind-Control Experimentation is a preliminary investigative finding, only. The accompanying Supplement furnishes an update on the current status of this Project.
I am also enclosing copies of letters exchanged with, and directed to the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Food & Drug Administration, which are self-explanatory. I am also enclosing copies of two articles concerning John Alexander, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Nonlethal Weapons Division, which I will address below. Also enclosed is a letter to a woman in contact with this Project which addresses some of the effects of long-term exposure to these so-called "non-lethal" systems. Just as a matter of interest–DoD-sponsored "hy’e" in the media to the contrary notwithstanding–non-lethal weapons systems can be incredibly lethal.
They are not gentle systems, as this government would like for the public to believe. Questions which need to be asked by the Committee on Government Affairs, as a preliminary, are as follows:
1. By what formal means are U.S. Government agencies, to include the
Department of Defense, prevented from testing "non-lethal", directed-energy weapons, surveillance and psychotronics systems on U.S. citizens under involuntary circumstances?
2. By what formal means are U.S. Government contractors and sub-contractors prevented from testing "non-lethal", directed-energy weapons, surveillance and psychotronics systems on U.S. citizens under involuntary circumstances?
3. Why does the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fail to prohibit involuntary human experimentation with non-ionizing forms of radiation?
4. How many members of Congress and of the Administration have investments in firms which are engaged in the development and testing of directed-energy systems?
5. Why is Los Alamos National Laboratory, a Department of Energy agency, engaged in the development of "non-lethal", directed-energy systems?
6. Why is John Alexander–a 30-year US Army Special Forces veteran with a long-term interest in the "psychotronics" (mind-control) aspects of directed-energy systems–regarded as being particularly qualified to direct the Non-Lethal Systems Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory?
7. Why is the Department of Energy (and John Alexander in particular) in the business of promoting "non-lethal" systems as tools for law enforcement, and as weapons systems for the military?
8. Why are these "non-lethal" systems being kept classified?
9. Where is the test data on the efficacy of these directed-energy weapons, surveillance and psychotronics systems being obtained, and who in Congress, specifically, is overseeing those experiments?
10. Why is the Department of Defense pushing for an increase in the numbers of Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) towers in this country?
11. How many satellites launched under the auspices of DoD, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in the surveillance of U.S. citizens" And how many of those satellites qualify as directed-energy emitters; i.e., as "amplified communications" satellites?
12. What federal constraints have been placed on the construction of microwave towers and other antennae arrays in this country; and what assurances do U.S. citizens have that emissions from those towers and antennae arrays are not being used for involuntary human experimental purposes?
14. Who in Congress is overseeing the construction and use of microwave towers and antennae arrays in this country?
15. Why is it that complaints by U.S. citizens concerning directed-energy harassment and experimentation are being ignored?
16. Since Ms. .Susan Patrick Ford, of the Department of Defense, appears to be unable to answer the questions posed in my letter to her dated November 18, 1993, can you answer these questions?
In sum, Mr. Kline, this is a problem which Congress can ill afford to ignore. There are many angry people in this country who are fed up with these experiments. (Not all experimentees are kept effectively isolated.) A number of experimentees recognize the rapidly burgeoning numbers of microwave towers and antennae arrays in this country are a part of the problem–a level of recognition which, indeed, may have prompted the destruction of two major "communications towers" in Chiapas, Mexico, shortly prior to that government’s decision to close the borders to that state.
A lawless government spawns a lawlessness, generally. It is apparent to me that this country is merely "testing its wings", so to speak, where lawlessness and chaos, at this stage, is concerned. Creating more prisons and hiring more police is not the solution.
The U.S. Congress–and Senator Glenn’s Committee, in particular,–is in a position to ensure that no government agency, surrogate or otherwise, has a license to run rampant over the human and civil rights of citizens of this country, and that this government, once again, learns to adhere to the principles which were the basis for this country’s creation.
Please do let me hear from you concerning the foregoing.
Director, Electronic Surveillance Project
Etiket arşivi: SURVEILLANCE
Switching consciousness on and off (Image: Kirk Weddle/Getty Images)
ONE moment you’re conscious, the next you’re not. For the first time, researchers have switched off consciousness by electrically stimulating a single brain area.
Scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness – until now.
Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – might be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises.
Many theories abound but most agree that consciousness has to involve the integration of activity from several brain networks, allowing us to perceive our surroundings as one single unifying experience rather than isolated sensory perceptions.
One proponent of this idea was Francis Crick, a pioneering neuroscientist who earlier in his career had identified the structure of DNA. Just days before he died in July 2004, Crick was working on a paper that suggested our consciousness needs something akin to an orchestra conductor to bind all of our different external and internal perceptions together.
With his colleague Christof Koch, at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, he hypothesised that this conductor would need to rapidly integrate information across distinct regions of the brain and bind together information arriving at different times. For example, information about the smell and colour of a rose, its name, and a memory of its relevance, can be bound into one conscious experience of being handed a rose on Valentine’s day.
The pair suggested that the claustrum – a thin, sheet-like structure that lies hidden deep inside the brain – is perfectly suited to this job (Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, doi.org/djjw5m).
It now looks as if Crick and Koch were on to something. In a study published last week, Mohamad Koubeissi at the George Washington University in Washington DC and his colleagues describe how they managed to switch a woman’s consciousness off and on by stimulating her claustrum. The woman has epilepsy so the team were using deep brain electrodes to record signals from different brain regions to work out where her seizures originate. One electrode was positioned next to the claustrum, an area that had never been stimulated before.
When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn’t respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments (Epilepsy and Behavior, doi.org/tgn).
To confirm that they were affecting the woman’s consciousness rather than just her ability to speak or move, the team asked her to repeat the word "house" or snap her fingers before the stimulation began. If the stimulation was disrupting a brain region responsible for movement or language she would have stopped moving or talking almost immediately. Instead, she gradually spoke more quietly or moved less and less until she drifted into unconsciousness. Since there was no sign of epileptic brain activity during or after the stimulation, the team is sure that it wasn’t a side effect of a seizure.
Koubeissi thinks that the results do indeed suggest that the claustrum plays a vital role in triggering conscious experience. "I would liken it to a car," he says. "A car on the road has many parts that facilitate its movement – the gas, the transmission, the engine – but there’s only one spot where you turn the key and it all switches on and works together. So while consciousness is a complicated process created via many structures and networks – we may have found the key."
Awake but unconscious
Counter-intuitively, Koubeissi’s team found that the woman’s loss of consciousness was associated with increased synchrony of electrical activity, or brainwaves, in the frontal and parietal regions of the brain that participate in conscious awareness. Although different areas of the brain are thought to synchronise activity to bind different aspects of an experience together, too much synchronisation seems to be bad. The brain can’t distinguish one aspect from another, stopping a cohesive experience emerging.
Since similar brainwaves occur during an epileptic seizure, Koubeissi’s team now plans to investigate whether lower frequency stimulation of the claustrum could jolt them back to normal. It may even be worth trying for people in a minimally conscious state, he says. "Perhaps we could try to stimulate this region in an attempt to push them out of this state."
Anil Seth, who studies consciousness at the University of Sussex, UK, warns that we have to be cautious when interpreting behaviour from a single case study. The woman was missing part of her hippocampus, which was removed to treat her epilepsy, so she doesn’t represent a "normal" brain, he says.
However, he points out that the interesting thing about this study is that the person was still awake. "Normally when we look at conscious states we are looking at awake versus sleep, or coma versus vegetative state, or anaesthesia." Most of these involve changes of wakefulness as well as consciousness but not this time, says Seth. "So even though it’s a single case study, it’s potentially quite informative about what’s happening when you selectively modulate consciousness alone."
"Francis would have been pleased as punch," says Koch, who was told by Crick’s wife that on his deathbed, Crick was hallucinating an argument with Koch about the claustrum and its connection to consciousness.
"Ultimately, if we know how consciousness is created and which parts of the brain are involved then we can understand who has it and who doesn’t," says Koch. "Do robots have it? Do fetuses? Does a cat or dog or worm? This study is incredibly intriguing but it is one brick in a large edifice of consciousness that we’re trying to build."
This article appeared in print under the headline "Consciousness – we hit its sweet spot"
Army Research Office’s bankrolling of ‘emotional contagion’ study scrubbed from Cornell press release
Was there a cover-up surrounding the Pentagon’s direct funding of Facebook’s notorious mass psychological study in order to conceal the fact that the experiment’s true purpose was part of preparations to manipulate public opinion in times of civil unrest?
It now appears as though information indicating that the Department of Defense bankrolled the experiment was scrubbed from an online press release by Cornell University in order to hide the connection.
Here’s what we know for a fact to be true. Facebook’s mass psychological study, which proved that altering a user’s timeline feed was a successful method of causing emotional “contagion” to spread through the social network, was conducted in part by Cornell University’s Jeffrey T. Hancock, who was listed as one of the study’s authors.
Hancock is also involved with the Pentagon’s Minerva Initiative, which recently hit the headlines for its role in bankrolling a program which provides “funding to universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world.”
However, an even more creepy connection between the Facebook experiment and the Pentagon has emerged after it was revealed that the original press release from Cornell highlighting the study included a passage at the bottom which read, “The study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office.”
According to the Army Research Office’s official website, “Basic research proposals from educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and private industry are competitively selected and funded,” as part of the Pentagon’s mission of “combating terrorism and new emerging threats.”
However, the text indicating the Facebook study was bankrolled by the Pentagon was later scrubbed from the website, with Cornell claiming it had made a mistake, an explanation that Jay Rosen, Journalism Professor at NYU, finds highly dubious.
“Why do I call this strange? Any time my work has been featured in an NYU press release, the PR officers involved show me drafts and coordinate closely with me, for the simple reason that they don’t want to mischaracterize scholarly work,” writes Rosen.
“So now we have to believe that Cornell’s Professor of Communication and Information Science, Jeffrey Hancock, wasn’t shown or didn’t read the press release in which he is quoted about the study’s results (weird) or he did read it but somehow failed to notice that it said his study was funded by the Army when it actually wasn’t (weirder).”
“I think I would notice if my university was falsely telling the world that my research was partially funded by the Pentagon… but, hey, maybe there’s an innocent and boring explanation that I am overlooking.”
The Pentagon’s involvement with a Facebook study which would have given the DoD a revealing insight into how to manipulate public dissatisfaction via social media during potential civil unrest would not be a surprising move given the Army’s obsession with anticipating domestic disorder.
As we previously highlighted, a 2008 study by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.” The recent Minerva Initiative project to predict disorder and its link to Facebook researcher Jeffrey T. Hancock is also a tantalizing connection.
“So it seems that Facebook and the U.S. military are likely working together to study civil unrest and work on ways to manipulate the masses into apathy or misguided feelings of contentment in the face of continued banker and oligarch theft. This is extremely disturbing, but this whole affair is highly troubling in spite of this,” writes Michael Krieger.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
A pedestrian uses a smartphone as he walks along Market Street on June 5, 2013 in San Francisco, California.
Police need a warrant to search the cell phone of a person who has been arrested, absent special circumstances, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”
NewsNation with Tamron Hall, 6/25/14, 11:00 AM ET
SCOTUS: Cell phone searches require warrant
The high court took two cases involving cell phone searches, one involving a smartphone and the other involving a relatively basic flip phone. In both cases, police used information on each phone to connect the plaintiffs to crimes. San Diego Police used pictures in David Leon Riley’s smartphone, and the guns they found in his trunk after pulling him over for a traffic violation, to tie him to a local faction of the Bloods street gang and an earlier shooting. In Boston, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of being involved in selling drugs and a picture linked to a phone call on his flip phone to a stash of crack cocaine.
The court held that the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement also applied to cell phones – that is, imminent danger to life or the possibility that evidence would be destroyed might justify searching a phone without a warrant. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurrence, opened the door to further exceptions. Alito wrote that he would “reconsider the question presented here if either Congress or state legislatures, after assessing the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the privacy interests of cell phone owners, enact legislation that draws reasonable distinctions based on categories of information or perhaps other variables.”
Civil libertarian groups argued that advances in technology mean that the right of individuals to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers or effects” as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution mean that police should seek warrants before rifling through suspects’ mobile devices. The government has countered that those same technological advancements aid criminals, and that remote wiping and encryption could be used to destroy or conceal evidence of serious crimes. At oral argument, the justices seemed split over where to draw the line for when police should seek a warrant to search a mobile device, and some seemed confused about modern social media applications.
Yet ultimately the high court was unanimous in its judgment. Roberts’ opinion embraced the arguments long advanced by civil liberties groups. “A cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house,” he wrote. “A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form—unless the phone is.”
Modern cell phones contain an incredible amount of information. At 16 gigabytes, the smallest iPhone model can hold a “football field’s worth of books,” according to a brief filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Nine out of 10 Americans, according to a survey by the Pew Center, own cell phones, and more than half – 55% – were identified as “smartphones.”
Roberts joked in his opinion that cell phones ”are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”
The Justices were persuaded that advances in technology significantly changed the meaning of a search as it had been traditionally understood. “The term ‘cell phone’ is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone,” Roberts wrote. “They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”
MuckRock, a US-based organisation that helps people submit freedom of information requests, is suing the CIA under the freedom of information act.
The so-called “transparency journalism site” that helps people submit public information requests to US government agencies, decided to launch legal action because, it says, the CIA frustrates its work.
MuckRock says the agency “has a track record of holding itself apart from, and largely above, the freedom of information act, consistently ignoring deadlines, refusing to work with requesters, and capriciously rejecting even routine requests for what should be clearly public information.”
In its lawsuit document, it lists seven specific examples of the CIA’s refusal to respond to requests under the act.
Additionally, says MuckRock, “we are suing against the CIA’s general practice of rejecting requests for email records which do not include the time frame, subject, and to and from fields, regardless of what other information is including to help narrow the request.”
In its four years of operation MuckRock claims to have published more than 324,000 pages of documents, hours of video, dozens of databases, and built a publicly accessible database of thousands of government agencies.
Pope Francis is urging Christians to work together to abolish every form of torture, condemning the practice as a grave sin.
Francis told the public in St. Peter’s Square Sunday he wanted to reiterate his “firm condemnation of every kind of torture.” He sought united efforts to work for torture’s end and to support victims and their families.
Francis said it was a “mortal sin, a very grave sin, to torture people” and noted that Thursday marks the United Nation’s day for torture victims.
Torture was a powerful tool of the military regime ruling his native Argentina from 1976 till 1983. The local church hierarchy then openly sided with the junta.
Francis has been credited with saving lives of political dissidents while a Jesuit priest in Argentina.