Usually mind control is discounted and portrayed as a fringe issue and yet top scientists have warned about the dangers of mind control technology and predicted that it is a certainty in the near future. This section presents examples of the human behavior of discounting the victim's problem with the result that nothing is done to help the victim. Most victims have been unable to convince friends and family that the government is "reading their mind" or "beaming microwaves at them". The second section presents several world class scientists opinions about mind control. The similarity between the two sections is notable.
Section 1. Victim stereo-type
Victims have been labeled with simplistic terms like 'conspiracy nuts' and 'kooks'.
Here is an example of how victims are lumped with conspiracy theories and loony street people or mentally ill. Jim Martin, who runs Flatland Publishing (PO Box 2420, Fort Bragg, California 95437 or http://www.flatlandbooks.com) is an alternative press publisher which sells mind control books and more. He wrote in Flatland Magazine #15 that " I get calls from Hollywood on an irritatingly regular basis. Warner Brothers called me and picked my brain on 'conspiracy theories,' telling me about some movie they were making which would have Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts. [This is the movie Conspiracy Theory] based on the ravings of loony Mel, as Jerry Fletcher. .The central plot element involves a mind-controlled assassin who has flashbacks of his mistreatment at the hands of a rogue CIA psychiatrist.] .Just check out Flatland Magazine #11, on mind control, to discover where they came up with their plot line. The audience took it as fantasy."
A 1998 movie entitled "Disturbing Behavior" is about a neuro-pharmacist who's devised a behavioral modification program combining simple brainwashing techniques with cybernetics. He plants microprocessors in the kids' brains and transforms them from deviants to motivational blue Ribbon kids and something goes awry. It was rated as "too silly to be frightening." This movie may be disinformation, it is probably just a movie but it is easy to see how victims can be labeled and discounted.
And finally, refer to the victims section to find numerous examples such as the following. A New York Times 8-2-98 article goes as far as describing an American archetype: the paranoid schizophrenic. This article by Joe Sharkey described the archetype as a deranged man who believes that the CIA and other secret government forces are conspiring to control his mind who goes on a rampage, and innocent people die.
Section 2. Top scientists warn of mind control technology
From the 1950s to 2000, scientists have been "on the verge of the discovery" of the key to consciousness or the fundamental brain code similar to the discovery of DNA. Here are predictions by Robert Oppenheimer in 1955, Dr. David Krech, UC Berkeley, 1965, Dr. H. Jack Geiger,1994, Dr. Perpich of Howard Hughes Medical Foundation in 1998, Hans Mark, Director U.S. Defense Researach and Engineering in 1999 and Bill Joy, computer expert in 2000.
Robert Oppenheimer wrote "Analogy in Science in The American Psychologist and presented the paper at the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA on Sept 4, 1955. Oppenheimer stated:
There are other ways in which we are brothers. In the last ten years the physicists have been extraordinarily noisy about the immense powers which, largely through their efforts, but through other efforts as well, have come into the possession of man, powers notably and strikingly for very large-scale and dreadful destruction. We have spoken of our responsibilities and of our obligations to society in terms that sound to me very provincial, because the psychologist can hardly do anything without realizing that for him the acquisition of knowledge opens up the most terrifying prospects of controlling what people do and how they think and how they behave and how they feel. This is true for all of you who are engaged in practice, and as the corpus of psychology gains in certitude, and subtlety and skill, I can see that the physicist's plea is that what he discovers be used with humanity and be used wisely will seem rather trivial compared to those pleas which you will have to make and for which you will have to be responsible."Mind Control on Way, Scientist Warns" in the New York Times Dec. 28,1965. " Scientists must start thinking now about the possibilities of mind control that their research may soon make possible, the chairman of a symposium on the brain said today." " I don't believe that I am being melodramatic," Dr. David Krech, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley said in the opening of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science." 12-29-65 of the New York Times, Krech suggested that " probable future capabilities for controlling human minds contain more serious implications than even the successes of the nuclear physicists". "
Here is a warning and recommendation from a human rights expert. On January 25, 1994 at the Hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate entitled "Human Radiation and Other Scientific Experiments: The Federal Government's Role", the lead-off government witness, H. Jack Geiger, MD, professor of community medicine at City University of New York Medical School and national president of Physicians for Human Rights and founding member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Dr. Geiger urged that citizens needed to be protected from human experimentation "invoking national security and secrecy."
He stated further;
Second, I think we need to look specifically to the risk that all of this can occur again [radiation experiments], and we have been told frequently that by today's standards, no, it can't. What concerns me is the likelihood, the possibility, that we will have some other intense national security scare of the kind that we have in the 1940's and 1950's; that we will have some other development of a new category of weapon or potential weapon, whether chemical, biological, radiological, electronic, or other, and that there will be the same desperate urgency, invoking national security and secrecy, to discover the parameters of this threat, the parameters of the potential usefulness of this agent, and therefore to conduct experiments independently and without public knowledge or scrutiny of the kind that have drawn our attention to these. It seems to me that is critical situation that we have to find ways to protect against, and one answer, at least, is that there should be no research, no matter how secret, no matter how classified as involving national security, that should be independent of the scrutiny of an institutional review board which includes non-governmental scientists not connected with the agencies that are conducting the research and which will apply the same standards and the same protocols both to individual and to public exposures.Dr. Joseph G. Perpich, director for the grants program at the Howard Hughes Medical Foundation, spoke at the Woodley House Mental Illness Conference in 1998. The conference was aired on CSPAN and Dr. Perpich described the current state of research, "It has not been for lack of interest that brain research has not found its "revolution in neuroscience". He stated that "a New York Times article talked about computer chips to be so powerful that your knowledge and consciousness can be stored and uploaded into a clone's brain" Dr. Perpich was probably referring to the article entitled "Merging of Man and Machine Challenges Natural Selection, 8-14-98, by Rob Fixmer, New York Times. It discussed the 'Soul Catcher' by British Telecommunications PLC which "seeks to develop a computer that can be implanted in the brain to compliment human memory and computational skills." The article continues, " This area of research may seem far-fetched, but it is really the logical extension of devices like pacemakers, ocular implants, which simulate hearing for the deaf, and neuro-stimulators, which send small electrical charges through nerves to alleviate certain kinds of pain. The article ends with the warning, ".perhaps the most frightening question in these futuristic visions of the mind-machine meld is who or what can be entrusted to run the system."
U.S. News & World Report, March 27, 2000 page 10 reviewed a Wired article by Bill Joy, chief scientist of Sun Microsystems. The article states " Joy predicts that robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology.could prove more dangerous than nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. His argument? First, the technologies tempt abuse. Where governments, by and large, controlled nuclear weapons, individuals will handle the new genies-and individuals are prone to mishaps and misdeedsSecond Joy fears these technologies will render human beings obsolete. This is not, he pleads, science fiction."
Predictions of future technology
Dr. Dean E. Wooldridge founded TRW in 1958 and quit in 1962 to pursue scientific interests. His comments in a book entitled The Machinery of the Brain, 1963, p. 178 illustrate the mindset on space research of that era. To solve the problem of speed of light travel that may require thousands of years one could " record the contents of the astronaut's brain.[and transfer to a man made version of the astronaut ] the total recorded contents of the brain."
Fortune December 12, 1994 page 101, "AT&T's $12 Billion Cellular Dream by Andrew Kupfer contained the following. Craig McCaw, who stepped down as chief executive [of AT&T] when the deal closed in September, is a strategist and dreamer. He's the kind of man who in an interview with Fortune once suggested in all apparent seriousness-as color drained from the face of a PR man in attendance-that the Federal Communications Commission should reserve spectrum for telepathic communications to be made possible by brain implants he thinks will exist some day."
Here is example of the same scientific idea. A 1998 article from CNI News discussed the 'Soul Catcher" a chip which makes it possible to imbue a new-born baby with a lifetime's experiences of another person. " This is the end of death" said Dr. Chris Winter, of British Telecom's artificial life team. He predicted that within three decades it would be possible to relive other people's lives by playing back their experiences on a computer. "British Telecom would not divulge how much money it is investing in the project, but Dr. Winter said it was taking "Soul Catcher 2025' very seriously. He admitted that there were profound ethical considerations, but emphasized that BT was embarking on this line of research to enable it to remain at the forefront of communications technology."
And finally, see CAHRA [now Mind Justice] previous article for quote on Hans Moravec, Carnegie Mellon researcher of the largest robotics center in the world, stated, " .that within the near future, it will be possible to put a person's personality into a computer and a computer personality into a person."
A February 22, 1999 Forbes article described the thoughts of Peter Cochrane-the head of research at British Telecom Laboratories (BT Labs), the British version of Bell Labs. Cochrane and his R&D staff of 660 biologists, engineers and physicists are working on the kinds of technologies that usually exist only in science fiction movies." In a 1996 paper, Cochrane dubbed this chip [in the brain] "Soul Catcher" .The article went on, "Cochrane estimates that silicon implants will be common by 2010." "Cochrane dreams of the ability to access, and even interact with, the greatest minds of our time. . But if a silicon chip were embedded in their brains, it could capture their thoughts and also be removed once they died."
From Defense News, August 16th, 1999 "Hans Mark Director, U.S. Defense Research and Engineering. As the chief technical advisor for the secretary of defense and the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, Hans Mark oversees the Pentagon's research, development, test and evaluation programs. After 45 years conducting or administering military and government research, he is eminently qualified to guide development of new technology for the military. An excerpt of the interview,
.Q. If you could pick three things for the DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Project Agency] what would you spend money on? A. The first priority is to get heavily into basic biological research. Why biology? Well, biological warfare is obvious. But there are other things that are perhaps even more important in the long run. .The obvious answer is that there's a computer between your ears that's pretty damn good in lots of ways. Q. So what you're talking about is creating a computer that works like biology? A. Yes. The scientific community already is beginning with neural networks to look at the architecture of the brain. Which means you have self-programming and all these things. We now need to look at biology to look at the functioning elements."U.S. News & World Report, June 12, 2000, page 50 described a conference "Scientific Approaches to Consciousness." The dispute is whether consciousness can be reduced to a quantifiable element. The article stated that " AI prophet Ray Kurzweil says that computers will exceed human intelligence no later than 2020. Not only that, he adds but computers will merge, with human memories being downloaded into machines and mechanical neural implants being installed in human brains." Scientists are writing books and actively researching this issue.
Top scientists over a fifty year period have publicly stated the same scientific idea for research and have described how important neuro research is. It would be logical to assume that another branch of the government may be working on it secretly.