PMIC Welsh



PMIC Welsh

Participants: Jean Maria Arrigo, Cheryl Welsh, David MacMichael, Nellie Amondson, Roberta Culbertson (partial attendance)

Date: June 28, 2008

Place: Herndon, VA

Transcriber: Teresa Bergen

Edited, condensed and summarized by Ray Bennett

Summary

David MacMichael gives a historical perspective, covering a government’s interest in research that can be used in the national security field, and can be defended as such.

Cheryl Welsh describes her own experiences as the subject of a mind control program, and cites historical precedents on the level of secrecy involved in such programs, i.e. the Manhattan Project.

Jean Maria Arrigo seeks to develop an epistemic schema for evaluating allegations of fringe weapons research on human subjects, taking Welsh’s report of human experimentation with neuroweapons as a starting point.

Roberta Culbertson explains how secret government-contract research can appear to be so far ahead of academic scientific research. Government-contract scientists may achieve practical results through hit-or-miss trials rather than application of theory.

Arrigo: [To David MacMichael] I think you are the one who introduced me to Harlan Girard and know a lot about these things. At least from the outside. Possibly also from the inside, but at least from the outside. So I’m hoping we can start with you talking about that kind of outsiders’ grasp of it.

MacMichael: [The question is: Is there], in fact, an ongoing mind control program in some way associated with the United States government or branch thereof which is conducting experiments of activities which are designed to influence, or more specifically, to control the behavior of individuals?

Let me start from the so-called national security perspective. There is, as you all know much better than I, a tremendous amount of research going on, much of it directed through the Advanced Research Projects Agency[1].

I associate much of this, or what little I know about it, in terms of the exotic nature of this, with the Advanced Research Project Agency within the Pentagon. And you will recall that not too long ago, in the last four or five years, Admiral Poindexter had been appointed head of the Advanced Research Projects Agency and had announced a very wide-ranging expansion of its activities in the area of personal surveillance and other things. It caused enough of a controversy that he in fact stepped down. I don’t know who handles that ARPA at the present time. But it’s certainly one of the more visible and identifiable organizations [that] is involved in this.

And I’ll take it a step further. There has been much and very open discussion in military circles about the development of techniques to control the behavior of enemy troops in the field. They’re causing them, among other things discussed, mental breakdown as well as intense, non-lethal pain, which will cause them to be unable to carry out a military function. This has been discussed sometimes in terms of chemicals. Very frequently in terms of the use of electronic means, radio, for lack of a better term, frequencies and so forth, which will cause these effects. I don’t follow this research attentively, but I will come across from time to time reports of experiments related to this which have caused all sorts of bizarre behavior in experimental animals, rats, etcetera.

The most recent thing that I’ve come across is an announcement by the British government that it is designating as legal under the Geneva Conventions what are called, thermal-baric weapons, which are explosives which basically are designed to collapse the lungs, suck the air out of individuals against which these are directed, sort of the human equivalent of a neutron bomb. No effect on buildings or anything else. The main effect, as I understand it, is on the human respiratory system, but it’s in the context of what I’m talking about here, the range of weaponry designed to incapacitate both physically or mentally, or both, the opponent in the field.

Arrigo: My understanding of military weapons development is that anything that’s used would always be tested on human beings ahead of time. And you have mentioned here animal studies. But could you imagine any weapons development that doesn’t test on human beings?

MacMichael: Well, I can tell you from my long ago personal experience as one of these American forces that were put in the field in Nevada [and] had nuclear weapons [explode] over them. And while we weren’t told this was to test the effects of the weapons on us, the exercise, at least one in which I participated, involved sitting down there under a trench and experiencing the explosion of a twenty kiloton device from the top of a 250-foot tower about 1500 meters from where we were. These [tests] were known as Desert Rock. 1950s.

And I’m very sorry that Hazel O’Leary, who was not allowed to continue, was the Secretary of Energy. Because I had a good chance to talk with her a few years ago. She described the forces that pushed her out during the Clinton administration because of her attempts to provide more openness.

Arrigo: I recall that there was a scandal involving her expense accounts or something.

MacMichael: I have no idea how badly mishandled her expense account was. But I do know that there was very strong resistance within the Department of Energy to a change in their policy, which was to close all this stuff off. She described to me the reaction that the Department of Energy security people had to her when they came in to assure her. “Don’t worry about this stuff getting out, Madame Secretary. We have ways of squashing it.” She said, “I don’t want it squashed. I want it to be discussed.” And just really there was a closing of ranks. Which whether that affected the reporting on her expense account or not, I haven’t the faintest idea.

Jean Maria, you raised the question in the right way, that weapons aren’t developed without some form of experimentation on their ultimate targets: human beings.

Arrigo: On their ultimate targets, and on the people that are going to use them have to have practice in using them.

MacMichael: I was fortunate enough thirty years after taking part in these experiments to be at the test site again, protesting the Reagan administration’s desire to reopen atmospheric tests in the area. Knowing the fact that systematically the troops who had “participated” in these were assured beforehand that there should be no adverse effects from radiation or other effects. And knowing thirty years after the event that in fact those levels had been exceeded.

So, a question comes up about people who are enduring the experience [of, for lack of a better term, mind control], Cheryl, which you have continuously had. And I [have had several contacts], which have gone over for long periods of time, with people who to me are very credible by virtue of their own personal accounts of what occurred. The fact that when one knows of analogous experimentation [that] has taken place in other areas, we of course will refer to this radiation. One of the historical landmarks in this is the long ago syphilis experimentation, or, if you will, observation by the Department of Health on, unfortunately mostly–

Arrigo: And the chemical weapons, in World War II, at Edgewood Arsenal.

MacMichael: Yeah. Look, 1925 is the date of the Geneva Convention prohibition of the use of poison gas, okay? The year the United States government finally signed that treaty is 1975. We had a United States Army Chemical Corps, which I think still exists, but defined in terms of defense against use of chemical weapons. By the same token, much of the ongoing research on various biological weapons is defended because of the need to develop means to defend against others’ use of biological weapons. And unfortunately, in Anniston, Alabama, where most of this stuff is stacked up and they still can’t figure out a safe way to get rid of it. So we have a long history. And this is why I’m putting this all in, as a matter of context to people who say, “Well it’s unthinkable that the United States government would do this,” what we’re talking about here, these mind experimentation things. Unfortunately, the historical record tells us that there is a pattern of doing the unthinkable. Now whether that proves that in a specific case this particular unthinkable is being done is, of course, a matter for debate.

Arrigo: Well, this one is unthinkable in two ways. One is the moral way. But the other is just in terms of physics, right? That for instance people will say, “Well, I know lots of neuroscientists who are really sharp people, and they don’t think that this is possible at this time.” That this is a thousand years away. So there needs to be, for those people, some way of reconciling this with the physics, the neuroscience that’s known today.

MacMichael: What the exact scientific or technological limitations of this are, I don’t know. My major source of interest in, and experience with this area, are the numerous individuals whom from the mid-1980s on contacted me and talked to me about the experience that they were having. And these ranged from this representative of a very distinguished Philadelphia family, Harlan Girard, to a former US Army intelligence officer, Julianne McKinney, to a Minneapolis-based former Honeywell corporation physicist, [a leading edge computer guy,] with a contract [which was through Honeywell with the United States], and he had felt obliged because of his top secret national security clearance to report on the activities of his foreign counterparts at international conferences, including Soviet scientists. After his contract ran out, [he] decided that as a matter of his scientific ethic, as a scientist, that since he was no longer obliged to continue to report on it, he was no longer going to do so. I’ve checked him out very carefully. And he was in fact who he said he was, and a leading person in the computer science field at the time who then reported getting the same sort of treatment which characterizes the stories told by many of the people who allege that they’re victims of this experimentation. And it checked out completely. And what they said in the larger meeting, what made his story most interesting to me is that he filed a federal tort lawsuit. And for reasons which I still am astonished, the government, instead of doing its usual “We can’t go there because of national security,” chose another defense, to identify the individual whom he had charged with being the CIA contact with him, with being in fact a CIA officer operating under a pseudonym, and to move for the dismissal of the suit not on national security grounds, but on grounds that the CIA was not a police organization by definition, and that the Federal Tort Claims Act under which this guy is suing, you know, required that it show [malice] against this individual. And he moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the CIA is not a police agency. And therefore what the individual had done could not be, by definition, a federal tort under the claims act, which required this be done by a police agency.

So these are cases that I know of. I’ve been fairly close to Harlan for years. And occasionally, whether under the influence of his controller that he talks about, he’ll go off and do something which I regard as ill advised, at least, such as filing a lawsuit years ago which he had no possibility of winning, but further undermined his credibility.

I employed [Julianne McKinney] for about a year and a half and she was preparing a paper based on her own network of contacts with people who allege to have been under this treatment. And I went over that paper with her while she was writing it, and I would point out that she was not, in my opinion, following the proper form for presenting her evidence, identifying sources and making appropriate reference, and so forth and so forth. And she did not take my advice. I had told her I would assist her, I’d put up several thousand dollars to get the paper published. And she did. But I insisted, since she was identified in this as a member of the Association of National Security Alumni, to point out, to my perspective, the failures in appropriate form and procedure in this.

She was an Army warrant officer. And she was responsible working first in Germany and then out of Fort Meade on intelligence about the Czech military. Czechoslovakia. My own impression over a long, a relatively long period of contact with her is that the information she was giving was straight. Her method of presentation of it made it attackable.

Arrigo: Could you put yourself in the position, since you are an intel insider, of people who would run such a program? Can you imagine how it would be from their perspective?

MacMichael: Very, very easily. Look, I mean, the fact that there was Sid Gottlieb, right? And there were a lot of people around Sid Gottlieb, including my former brother-in-law. He was my brother-in-law because I was at one time married to his sister, and worked directly under Sid Gottlieb. So she knew what was going on.

Arrigo: So wife worked directly under Sid Gottlieb. That’s quite a link there.

MacMichael: Yeah. All I’m saying, and I’ll just say from the perspective of intelligence, when I was in the business of speaking publicly and writing frequently about this, I insisted on using the term “United States government.” I avoided using the term “Central Intelligence Agency” to indicate, basically, a copout from, or adopting the “rogue agency” view. “These people over there, these horrible people.” No. The United States government does these things. I feel about this very strongly, and that’s why I say it the way I do.

There are people at all levels within the United States government, we have seen them more visibly over the past few years than we had previously, whose concept of national security, to use that suspect term, or the even more suspicious term national interest, is very strong. And for them, what serves their perception of the national interest, in defining not only the objectives sought by the United States government or the means employed to achieve those ends, admits to no moral boundaries whatsoever. And one can’t say these are everybody, but occasionally these people do come forward and assume positions.

This is getting basically off the subject, but one of the things which perhaps reflects my own thwarted ambitions in life, is to wonder how in the hell do some of these people get in the positions they do? I mean, I first met Paul Wolfowitz twenty-eight years ago, and very briefly, during a poker [game]. Okay, he’s a bright enough guy. But one wonders what in the world brought this person to become [an] assistant secretary of defense, the protégée of, among others, Henry Kissinger, to become the head of the World Bank. On the basis of what? I mean, this is something that intrigues me, these careers and the way in which they’re made within our political system.

I would probably say that one wants to avoid the bureaucratism, if you will, or the familiar situation, let’s say, in Italy, where over a long period of time the governor changed every six months but it didn’t look any different because the entrenched bureaucracy was there and doing it. But to a situation which we have now, you know, in which the “unitary executive” is able, or enabled, to make decisions in a Czarist method. And to have this [be] the law of the land.

Arrigo: Could you fill this out a little bit institutionally for us, because we see Cheney and Rumsfeld, so we can imagine that there are people with these intentions?

MacMichael: Look, let’s take, very quickly, since you mentioned Cheney. Karen Kwiatkowski is a member of VIPS[2]. A very nice woman who’s a retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force, currently pursuing her PhD and teaching at the University of Virginia at Harrisonburg. Karen was in the Department of Defense, the Near East intelligence office there. After the 2000 election, there suddenly set up a Special Plans unit, [and effectively takes over their office]. It’s headed by a man named Douglas Feith, whose name I think you know.

These people moved in and took absolute control, bypassed the institutional intelligence system within the Department of Defense. They were the ones who of course were funding Mr. Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress to the tune of quite a few millions of bucks a year, peddling their lies. I recommend to you a piece I had in Counterpunch in which I outlined Chalabi’s career, and again, in the context of the question I raised, how do these people get into these positions, you know? How do they sell this stuff? They’re good salespeople, I guess. But they have willing buyers.

Arrigo: But set up this organization of which Cheryl is a targeting victim. Could you imagine how that would be set up?

MacMichael: Yes, I easily can. I mentioned ARPA previously. Off in the CIA, they convoluted the Office of Science and Technology. I think you’re familiar [with] the ramifications of a system of experimentation and funding which has very large sums available and its ability, then, to work with professional groups. Or, in fact, in some way to control professional groups. Look in the federal register where contracts are let, and go through that from time to time. You’re going to be blinking, and saying, “What is that all about?” But you have a now institutionalized base, if you will, of research organizations. And I worked for one for the better part of a dozen years, and the people who work in them depend upon getting federal contracts. They work for private organizations as well, of course. But in many of these areas, you’re coming to your potential funder and you know the people professionally because you worked with them on past projects, or know them from past professional association. And they say, “Look, wouldn’t this be a great idea?” The person in the bureaucracy, who also has to sell to get funding for his office, says, “That’s a bold and imaginative idea! That’s very good, because this project we’ve been working on for years of-“, in this case, let’s say of developing means of mind control.

Arrigo: I think that many people, most people, are stuck on sort of the neuroscience of it. But if we could just continue a moment more with the organizational issues of it. And how many people, how many targets are there now?

Welsh: Hundreds.

Arrigo: And how many people does it take to surveille you all?

Welsh: Here’s what I think, just in a nutshell, what’s going on. I think it’s all done remotely and with electromagnetic signals. They don’t have to know you, they don’t have to implant you, they don’t have to have any device in you.

MacMichael: I’ll tell you right now, [implanting devices] is one part which is very much there. If somebody was putting a plug in your head, this would be easily detectable by an X-ray or at your autopsy.

Yes, it is done remotely. And if you look at in terms of the institutional interest, if you accept the thesis that this is being done experimentally, at random, through developed techniques which will allow you to control the behavior of people you don’t select at random. The foreign leader of the rogue nation, the terrorist state or whatever, [turning] that wolf into a lamb any time we want to, or just cause him to drop dead in his tracks. This makes absolute sense.

Let me give you the definition of covert operations as it appears in the 1993 Defense Appropriation Act, which was the first time covert operations were legally defined. And I’m paraphrasing very closely. Covert operations are those activities undertaken by the United States government to control or influence for the benefit of the United States the political, economic, military conditions in another country, carried out in such a manner that the participation of the United States cannot be observed or, if revealed, can plausibly be denied.

We know, because it has been revealed so many times, the constant activity, over fifty bloody years now, to assassinate Fidel Castro. Operation ZR Rifle has been revealed many times. By the Cuban government’s account, there have been over 633 attempts. The United States government admits in ZR Rifle to well over a hundred definite attempts to get rid of him. Some of these have been exotic means. Others involve sending out guys like Posada Carilles with a telescopic [scope] to Panama to try to whack him off there.

One of the more notorious ones, of course, was to send over with the party that was negotiating the return of the prisoners that had been taken by the Cubans, the Playa Girón invaders, in return for medical supplies and the whole sort of thing that the swap was arranged for, one of the official United States parties that was sent there to carry out this negotiation and exchange and so forth was carrying with him the scuba diving stuff that was, I don’t know what kind of germs they had, some toxins in there that were supposed to do him in. You’re asking what is conceivable.

Victor Marchetti, with John Marks, wrote The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence[3]. At [one] time, he was the assistant to the deputy director of intelligence. He described in great detail the work that was done right down the road here in Langley to install [electronics] in a cat, and you could introduce this cat into the Soviet embassy, for example, and it could wander around in these places. And they spent quite a lot of money and time developing this cat. And as Victor tells this story, and he’s in a position to know, unfortunately the cat was able to leap out an open window at the lab where it was being worked on, and didn’t make it across the street before it was squashed by a car.

Arrigo: I need to bring this back to the topic, which is, which has to do with the psychological issues here. So thanks for helping us to understand how such an institution, how such an organization, can form.

MacMichael: What do you mean, such an institution?

Arrigo: I don’t mean such an institution, I mean such a research project can form. My deep concern in this is that when we’re looking at something like torture interrogation, people are always sort of distressed at, how do I say, discussing the methods of the moment, or at least the ones that have been made public. And we’re not able to look ahead, or look into the dark areas at all, because people are saying, “We don’t have proof,” blah, blah, blah, blah. So you can’t look ahead or look into the dark areas. And this electromagnetic resonance targeting and all that stuff, the applications to torture are so obvious, and the implications for neuroscientists being involved are so big, that it seems to me that it behooves us to look at this as one of the possibilities. But how we can look at the possibilities depends on our being able to kind of envision it or formulate for people who haven’t had the experience of it, right? So that’s what I want is if you two can articulate it so that it can be made plausible.

MacMichael: Well, Cheryl, you are the one who is or has been experiencing it. You’re the only one in this room as far as I know who can speak to it from a personal and experiential point of view. But the other question has to do with people who have worked in the institutional system whence these activities are carried out and are planned for. And I’m going to respond to this in this way. This is probably not as narrowly focused as you want, but when a question of adherence to ethical principle is expressed, let’s say in terms of international conflict with the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, the constitutional limitations that you have in a particular country, that whole range of things-

[Interruption as Roberta Culberston joins the group]

Arrigo: Before you go on, David, let me just bring Roberta up to the point in the conversation. I’ve been worried about sort of the future of torture interrogation, or the part in the dark areas that we can’t see. So all this electromagnetic radiation targeting and so on. Electromagnetic resonance targeting seems to me it’s something that we have to consider because of its obvious applicability to torture. So I was asking David to help us present as an [intelligence] insider to help us understand how something like this could be set up from the inside, how it would work institutionally. Now we’re getting to the point of, at least my question is how many people would it involve? Would it involve very many?

MacMichael: I can’t imagine. Some of you, I’m sure, are familiar with the late French philosopher Jacques Ellul. His dictum was, in this area that we’re discussing, is what technologically or scientifically can be done, inevitably will be done, regardless of the adverse consequences. I’m paraphrasing, [but it’s] a remark which I think has a fair amount of truth to it. I want to put it in another context, this one of so-called national security. Put the question this way: If you are a national leader, and you find yourself and your country involved in an armed conflict, and you come to realize that if you adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the human rights conventions and various international treaties to which you are a signatory and to which your country is a signatory, your country is going to lose the war. Now, what is your responsibility? To adhere to the treaty and to lose the war? Or to use illegal means and stave off defeat?

We might point to a certain late Middle East head of state named Saddam Hussein. During the 1980s war with Iran, it reached a point by the mid to late 1980s when the cakewalk that the Iraqis had expected had not occurred. And the Iranians, using, if you will, a human wave of attack, were successfully invading Iraq and threatening the country with defeat. It’s at that point that the Iraqi regime, for the first time in the conflict, and they continued till the end of it, to use prohibited chemical weapons in large amounts. And that, they came to believe, was what finally allowed there to be a truce and an end to a conflict which on both sides, as you know, had killed probably a million people in both those countries. It was huge. Huge loss. But I’m putting at question, again, the ethics through which people in a “national security” context are looking at things. “Do you achieve your objectives? Or do you-?”

Arrigo: I’d like to go on to the issue of the moral problem that you laid out for us, which is a hard one. But the question of as far as psychologists or scientists getting hold of this topic isn’t even going to be the moral problem. The question for them is going to be “Could neuroscience within the government be so far ahead of neuroscience in universities?? That’s the question I would have. How can you make sense of that?

MacMichael: The universities provide the huge pool, or whatever size pool it is, of neuroscientists, that’s where neuroscientists are developed, I guess. I don’t know of any training schools in the woods around Langley that are training neuroscientists. There may be, but I don’t know about it. Do universities, for reasons of custom or whatever, ethics, would university scientists carry out these type of experiments?

Arrigo: Oh, sure, in a second. The question is, could they keep it secret? Could they have essentially two separate developments of science? Or one lagging way behind the other? I mean, we know they do these things. For instance, you and Cameron, we have his story. He’s doing psychic driving on the one side, and then he’s publishing articles, which are sanitized. But the fact is, he couldn’t really do anything. Whereas we’re hearing from Cheryl that these people actually can do something. So that kind of gap. I don’t think it’s a moral question in [that] sense. It’s not morally implausible at all. It’s just how can we understand the gap in the neuroscience?

Welsh: I think I can help a little bit with that. There’s the development of the electromagnetic weapons from back in the ‘60s where it first started. Non-lethal weapons were really heavily classified. And there was a Dr. Robert Becker. And all this is on my website. But he recently died. He was almost a two-time Nobel nominee. He was a top expert in electromagnetics.

Just to be brief, though, what he documented was the military control of the electromagnetic research, starting in the ‘50s. It’s intertwined, of course, with the need for radar, national security, signals intelligence. So they basically are suppressing all the health research, so you’ve got that crossover. But he also mentioned, he was one of the few scientists who actually in the ‘80s spoke out, and of course lost government funding, and wrote a book about it and about the military connection and about the mind control connection. He’s one of the most credible people who’s written about it. So he actually said “sure it’s possible to target a person remotely with this electromagnetic”. So there’s some good quotes.

And if I can define the problem, I’ve really looked at the atomic history. And going back into the ‘40s and ’50s, what I can show you is the electromagnetic radiation. All of that research is the deepest secret of the nation. Because it’s all related to NSA signals intelligence. It’s all related to radar. So you’re looking at research that’s been black, black, black since the ‘50s. And up until this time, you can’t touch it.

Arrigo: Are these researchers at universities?

Welsh: Well, no. They work for the NSA, just the NSA. Of course they have other jobs, but I think they would have full time, so I’m saying there is that body of research that’s related to mind control that’s totally black. And then you also have the DARPA mind control that all seemed to go black in the ‘80s. You can look at the history and I think it could have been hidden back then.

To give you an example, on PBS there was a show on neuroscience. And they’re talking about in the future, it’s way off in the future, this advanced remote mind control. And that all of these things will be possible. You can dream and manipulate the memories. And you’re going to have the brain-computer interface. Anyway, there was one little section, I cited it. It was on PBS’ website where a neuroresearcher said the NSA approached him about the neuroscience research and that it had very ominous implications. They’re always checking to see what the advances are in the real world. So I have about three or four connections like that that show that the NSA actually is interested in the electromagnetic mind control research. So I think it’s blackest of the black. I think the rumors are few, you know, I’ve got quotes about it. So I really think that it’s very possible that you’ve got this whole, also with the satellite technology. A lot of that stuff is just NRO[4]. It’s all very, very black, and it was born black.

Arrigo: I want you to come back to the sort of sociology of the scientific community. [Stpehen Soldz] knows some very fancy neuroscientists who say that this is a thousand miles away, being able to control people’s thoughts or know exactly what they’re thinking. Because if we knew, we’d just do that instead of all these torture regimens, right? If you really know what the guy’s thinking, do that. So try to answer that to a sociological issue.

Welsh: I think I can answer that a little bit. It’s like the no touch torture. The spread of that is really a way of doing it surreptitiously, leaving no trace. It’s a way of meeting all of your goals, where you’re reading somebody’s thoughts, you’re tracking and targeting or neutralizing the enemy, and it’s all remotely.

Arrigo: But the no-touch torture really isn’t getting the truth out of people.

Welsh: It’s a way of neutralizing the enemy, though. That is the goal of counterinsurgency, if you read about the definitions of counterinsurgency. The goal of non-lethal weapons, counterinsurgency and the mind control is all to neutralize. You don’t have to kill them, but you can neutralize them very, very effectively. And you can use them. You can use them as spies. So I think that’s the part that I think Moreno[5] really missed.

I can tell you one really interesting thing. I was working on a law review article about rumors and leaks, and whether it would be possible to keep something like this secret. Of course, the Pentagon Papers is the real big case of a leak. So I talked to Morton Halpern and Goodale and one more. But they did say they felt it was possible to keep a secret like mind control. And I gave the example of how the non-lethal weapons, nobody knows. See, the rumors and leaks are supposed to show you how advanced the weapons are. Moreno was quoted as saying, “No, but it’s strange, I can’t understand it. Nothing’s been written on this topic for fifty years. If there was an experimentation program, there should be rumors and leaks.”

Arrigo: We know that there are things that are not exposed, that isn’t the sticking point for us. The sticking point for us psychologists is that one group of neuroscientists could be so far advanced and the others like completely are way beyond that.

Welsh: Well, I’m trying to give you an example of how that could happen. In Moreno’s book, he did talk about Murray[6]. Murray was a great friend of Moreno’s father, a psychiatrist. So they knew this guy very well. They knew he did the LSD experiments. But they didn’t know about Kaczyinski and all of the very secret tests. So I mean, you can keep secrets from–

Arrigo: Okay, that isn’t the problem. It’s one part of science being so far behind the other science. [Say] I’m Professor X. Roberta’s my graduate student. She graduates and goes off and works for Barbara or whatever. But suddenly what Roberta can do is like miles beyond [what I taught her or was capable of teaching her]. [It’s] as if I was a doctor putting leeches on people, and suddenly Roberta’s got penicillin out there. How could that leap happen?

Culbertson: Well, one thing it would seem to me is that the goals are very different. The goal of a neuroscientist is the pure research, to put the whole picture together, to put all the different elements together. And he’s also looking to publish in journals that are going to be peer-reviewed, and to have some kind of respect in his community.

On the other hand, [here] you’re just going right for the results. That’s what you want. And you have people to experiment on. You have a much more targeted sort of direction in which you want to go. And the effects of what you do are not subject to the restrictions and human experimentation and so on that somebody in the university’s going to be. And if they don’t work, they don’t work.

You don’t have to talk about one being far more advanced than the other. You can talk about one having certain kinds of things they’re trying, or techniques they’re trying, that are more advanced in certain kinds of areas. So of course it would be different from what a university professor would be doing. And they don’t have accountability in the same way that a university professor does.

I’m thinking of, for example, the remote viewing stuff that the military was involved in also. They weren’t trying to figure out what is remote viewing. They were doing remote viewing.

MacMichael: [The chief of Army intelligence, around ’90 or ‘92] was a firm believer in, for lack of a better term here, the wildest speculation about what could be done with this mind control and so forth. Another guy who supported a lot of this was the congressman Charlie Rose from North Carolina. He was a big fan of this sort of exotica, and saw to it that a lot of money went into it. So it was a considerable constituency for this sort of thing. But I really think that your question is so very much on the mark.

Welsh: If I can make one brief comment, that Eileen Wilson in her book Plutonium Files, she really talks about the institutionalization, and how the scientists, starting with Leslie Groves [head of the Manhattan Project], lied to Congress.

I mean so, and these scientists are on the committees, just like the APA thing. So they control the information, basically, and they get their message out that the atomic bomb, there’s no health effects, don’t worry about it. And of course the health effects are classified, so then you can’t have court cases. And she really follows that down and documents it very well.

Arrigo: But that’s really still on the moral issue. I’m not questioning the moral issue.

Welsh: Well, it shows how the scientists lied and how they–

Arrigo: Yes. But that’s the moral issue. Whereas what the physicists were doing there, and all the biologists and so on, wasn’t so far different from what the physicists in the academic domain knew. So they didn’t have a “secret” physics.

MacMichael: That plays a role right now in our policy toward Iran. If you take the statements that the administration to the extreme level, it’s intolerable for a country like Iran to teach anything but high school physics, because this would give them the quote unquote “capability” to do bad things. It’s interesting to me, but it seems to be somewhere in the context of your question about what does one branch of the particular science know, and what does the other?

Welsh: You can also show with the mind control, beginning with the CIA mind control, you can show it always goes black at a very rudimentary level, going back to the 1950s, any new discovery comes out, it goes black.

Arrigo: I’m with you there. But the problem is they didn’t really have very much to show for that.

Welsh: Right. Because it goes black from the very beginning. Unlike the atomic bomb, which was known before the war. The one argument that Moreno makes is the theory for the atomic bomb, it was known before it became classified. I mean, that basic theory was known. So then they classified it. But with the neuroscience, it was black first, and so you never had a theory emerge for the mind control. You can show that.

Arrigo: Do you see what problem I’m struggling with, Roberta?

Culbertson: You’re concerned that if you’re trying to make a case, and the officially recognized scientists say, “This can’t possibly be. We don’t know enough.” Then how do you counter that?

Arrigo: Yes.

Culbertson: Well, one piece that occurs to me, first of all, is what we just said. The rules are different, so you can try different things. But another thing that pops into my head is that the kinds of equipment and technology that are used for this are now massively available. I’m thinking of how neurological research is done. It uses PET scans, MRIs, these kinds of equipment are easily available. In fact, private organizations actually are the ones who run the shop where you go to get your MRI. It’s not even a hospital or a university or anything else. It’s just a company. The point is that if anybody wanted this stuff, or wanted to try something or wanted to develop something, it doesn’t even have to be government supported.

Welsh: Well I will say that the level that we’re talking about that the victims are alleging is really advanced. And it’s like the atomic bomb; you know, countries can’t just build it. So this technology is going to take really advanced equipment. It’s not something that a terrorist could ever build. Even the rudimentary ones, it’s pretty hard.

Arrigo: If it’s at the level of dealing with, let’s say, when Roberta comes out of here, I want things to be weird for Roberta, okay? So if I want Roberta’s experience to be weird out here, and I’m going to affect the people she interacts with. She’s going to run up to Ray Bennett and Ray Bennett will not recognize her or whatever. How am I going to do this? Do I have to have one person on the task, paying attention to Roberta and Ray Bennett–

Welsh: You know, the computer programs and virtual reality these days and that feedback. You can play games, you know, that have that feedback now where you can interact with the computer and it’s reading your brainwaves. There’s that basic technology.

Arrigo: Okay. So I target Roberta. And then I make something strange. I don’t have to target Ray, also. I just target something, make something go strange in Roberta so she’s having a (?)

Welsh: No, they’re actually targeting the people up there. It’s like a radio and a radio signals. And you can pick it up. And different radio signals, I mean, it’s that advanced. It’s a program that–

Arrigo: But all I need is a couple of kids who play computer games to do this sort of thing. What do I need? How many people do I have working on Roberta? You don’t have to touch into somebody very often to make everything go out of whack.

Welsh: Well, you’d probably call up the NSA and say, “Let’s put the person on this torture program, and let’s put it up to six or seven or ten, or let’s break them”. It would be like a tracking situation. They’ve got the programs. The people are all describing the same set of harassment. So they’re using some kind of program that they’ve developed. And they’re testing it and seeing what it takes to drive [the subjects] this far, this far. There’s a lot of stimulus/response.

First, you have to build that program, which I think was done back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. And now they’re using and trying it out. So it’s very developed. So it’s big software programs, and several people sitting at a computer. And then the feedback. I think they monitor it. I think maybe a couple of people.

Arrigo: In an ordinary day for you, how many interventions would you experience?

Welsh: Well, really tough the first three or four years, for me, anyway. And then now it’s gradually gotten better and better to where I almost feel like it’s a normal situation. So I’d say they let you know that you’re being [monitored]. You know how like in torture they want you to know that they’re the boss? So they give you little cues, regularly, to let you know “we’re watching you”, that sense that you’re still involved. They create that theater which is so well described in the no-touch torture. They create the lighting and the effect, and it really has a theatrical effect to it, torture does.

Arrigo: Yes. So take us, help me out with how this would actually happen. How much manpower is it taking? How many interventions are you experiencing in a day?

Welsh: It’s done remotely. And they can do groups of people. They can get your phone. They can make your phone not work.

MacMichael: [How many] interventions on an average day?

Welsh: With me right now? I’d say, let me think, just in the last year, oh, maybe twenty times a day. They’re mild, though. It’s real intense, but I feel that it’s very repetitive, and it’s like a computer’s doing it. You know, it’s not like somebody’s there and they give me a different reaction every time.

Arrigo: Give us a sense of what the things actually are, because we can’t even imagine this. You’ve got to help us out.

Welsh: I hate to really get into it because it just sounds like mental illness. Well, people feel like they’re stalked and surveilled.

Arrigo: [In the book 1996, by Gloria Naylor] she said when she would go out of her driveway, all these cars were following her and stopping by her and stuff. But that was what made me think that there was a huge amount of manpower involved.

Welsh: No, it’s done remotely, like I say. They subliminally can target you, like the Delgado bull[7], to do certain actions, to say certain things.

Arrigo: Yeah, but when she pulled out of her driveway, there would be all these cars.

Culbertson: There’s somebody sitting there hitting the button. A couple of people. It’s a program.

MacMichael: Is your response that Gloria Naylor was being induced by her controller to see these automobiles? Or were there automobiles?

Welsh: I can’t answer that. I heard Dr. Jessica Utts, a UC Davis statistics professor who was involved with the CIA’s Stargate project. She wrote a statistical report. Because what happens to me is there’s red and white cars wherever I go. It’s an in your face kind of thing, so you just can’t ignore what they’re doing to you. So wherever you go, there’s red [cars], and I would take pictures, I would videotape this, because I’m not imagining this. So she did a statistical report, and she showed that it was statistically a much larger number than would happen by chance.

But it’s not so noticeable, you can’t convince people of it. I mean, it sounds too much like a mental symptom.

Arrigo: But my question is, do they have to actually mobilize people to drive all these cars?

Welsh: No. It’s subliminal. It’s like hypnotism, exactly like hypnotism. They get people to, they give them a message.

Arrigo: You mean the guy who’s in a white car suddenly has to take a detour.

Welsh: That’s right. That’s right.

Culbertson: Yeah, she’s saying that actually these other people are doing things. Because they, too, have been targeted.

Welsh: But they don’t know it. They’re not targeted to know it. [several talking]

Culbertson: So they receive suggestions.

Welsh: Exactly. Just like hypnotists.

Arrigo: So they’re not regularly targeted. Just useful for the moment.

Welsh: Right. Right.

Culbertson: So are you saying that a person, okay, so let’s say that I’m driving along and I have a white car. And all of a sudden I find myself going to another location?

Welsh: I don’t know how, it’s so amazing when I first experienced this. But somehow they can do that. Somehow they can get a lot of red cars to drive around your car. I can’t explain it. I just know that there’s computer programs that can do that kind of thing.

Culbertson: And it’s not just that you’re perceiving red cars.

Welsh: I can videotape it. I can do that. I can show that the phone’s not working. I just can’t show any of the reading of my thoughts, and I can’t prove, other than I had sardines for breakfast and then somebody said “sardines,” you know. And that’s so coincidental. But then when they do it twenty times a day…

Arrigo: It’s a frequency issue.

Welsh: It’s real Pavlovian, very harassing. It’s like the loud music. You think well, that’s not so bad, or sleep deprivation. But when you get the quantity, it’s a weapon.

Arrigo: So in this picture, they’re not actually mobilizing that many people. They’re just tapping those people coincidentally.

Welsh: No, it’s all done on computer. I think a lot of the victims have a lot of different ideas. So you’re going to have to sort through that yourself. I’ve sorted through it and I’ve decided on mine.

Arrigo: We are trying to grapple with this now the best we can. So we need your best answers rather than telling us to sort through it.

MacMichael: Okay. Let me intrude with a question here. As a phenomenon, not just your personal experience, how long has this been going on?

Welsh: Since 1987.

MacMichael: Since 1987, which is now twenty-one years ago. Have there been qualitatively any noticeable changes in what’s happened?

Welsh: Well, yes. It was like the first three years it was like they wanted to break you. And that really did ruin my career. I mean, I graduated, and then everything I do takes me longer, it just–

MacMichael: No, no, no. This is on your individual problem. What I’m saying is in terms of the community of the affected person. So my question was if over this period that this phenomenon has been noticed and reported by people, has the quality or the type of experiences changed for these individuals who were first experiencing it, let’s say, in 1981, and people who are now experiencing it for the first time in 2001?

Welsh: Honestly, not that much. The only difference is the people that are targeted are more middle class. And [that it is] worldwide. That’s the change.

MacMichael: So this gets back to the neuroscientist question. And one aspect is “what use is this supposed to be?” What are you trying to do with people in terms of their control? Are we trying to get Vladimir Putin and have him do what we want to do?

Welsh: USA Today reported in 1992 that Saddam Hussein said he was targeted with CIA weapons, and they were trying to give him [a] heart attack. Psychotronics are what the Russians call it. So I think they’re using it in these Third World countries. Just the last couple of years, Indian victims are coming forward. And I mean, that cluster of symptoms is really pronounced. And even the top forensic scientist in India is talking about how the thieves, and they have a big problem with terrorism there, are using the electromagnetic radiation tools. And the government is actually having to fight the problem of these tools.

Arrigo: Explain that a little more.

Welsh: Well, apparently they have electromagnetic generators that the thieves are… So this Dr. Rao says we have to combat this technology. We have to find a way to stop these electromagnetic generators. And I’ve been unable to get more information, but he’s very reputable.

Arrigo: How are the thieves using it?

Welsh: The article did not give details. The article is on my website. Of course they do interrogate their terrorist suspects there with methods that aren’t approved in the United States. That one where you can read the guy, it’s controversial and it’s just starting to be introduced into the courts system. You know, where they can tell if a guy was there at the crime scene. What do you call that?

Arrigo: Oh, yes, I’ve forgotten, but the idea is you can tell whether somebody has seen something that they’ve seen before. You have to get a baseline of things they’ve seen, things they haven’t seen. And then you show them something else.

Welsh: That’s already used by the police force in India. They’re already using that technology. So there’s a lot that can be uncovered. I do what I can, but I think there’s a lot of information out there that shows that it’s more widespread than you think.

MacMichael: I wonder if this could explain Sarkozy, the premiere of France.

Arrigo: What’s going on with him?

MacMichael: It’s hard to figure out. His behavior is bizarre in the extreme. Maybe he’s one of these guys that we’re– I’m jesting, of course. I shouldn’t. I’ve been trying to be serious. But it really, my question was, over this long period of time in which the phenomenon has been known, whether it’s changed qualitatively, if, as I assume, and again, saying if such techniques in fact exist and are they being employed as a means, eventually, of controlling the behavior of leaders of other countries? The national security aspect of it. I mean, the behavior of so many so-called world leaders is so bizarre that I just find it hard to– [laughter]

Welsh: I really think that the way to look at this is that it’s too valuable as a surreptitious weapon. There’s no reason to expose it like the atomic bomb. They’re not going to drop it. They’re going to keep using it surreptitiously because it’s so effective.

MacMichael: But against whom? This is the thing that intrigues me, is that we have, at least in my knowledge and experience, a twenty-plus year–

Welsh: Saddam Hussein, Third World countries.

MacMichael: Well, yeah, but the thing is that, Saddam Hussein argued that he was being given skin rashes by the CIA through some means, which arguably is the case. But I’m just interested if, with this lengthy use and going into the period which we’ve just gone, with the identification of rogue states and rogue leaders, the obvious willingness to use shock and awe, and kill thousands of people in an attempt to nail the bad guy. It’s interesting to me that there’s no reporting or speculation about the use of these techniques to whack the bad guy.

Arrigo: Why wouldn’t you use it? If there are government agents that are willing to use this on just a convenient sample of people, you could hardly believe that they wouldn’t be using it on domestic political enemies, or economic enemies, or whatever.

Culbertson: Another question or another thing I think was important to think about here is that you said that the purpose of this kind of work is largely to neutralize. And there are three different categories of things that I hear are sometimes conflated. One is interrogation. One is torture. And one is neutralizing the enemy. In my opinion, they’re quite different. They have places of overlap, but it seems that what you’re talking about is not really to get any information out of anybody. It’s to screw the person up so that they’re not particularly effective.

The other thing that would seem to me, friends of mine were in Argentina in the Dirty War. And they would torture people and then they would release them. And the point was that the person who was released was now screwy, they were messed up. And they had a lot of fear, and they could certainly tell what had happened to them. And other people would believe them. So it was a way of controlling more than one person. So is that what you’re talking about? That you see that as being the use of this? Because the other question, then, is: you are doing fairly well; how are other people managing?

Welsh: Different cases. Just like with the atomic bomb, you’re going to have different. To me, in my opinion, they’re testing the different parameters of it.

Culbertson: So it’s all just basically testing, is what you’re thinking at this point.

Welsh: The victims that contact me, yeah. To me, it’s testing.

Culbertson: So is it to neutralize somebody? Or basically at this point it’s not even to do that. It’s just to figure out how it all works?

Welsh: Well, I would say that with the plutonium experiment, the famous one where they feed the pregnant women [radioactive material in order to follow it through the fetus], I mean, they really just, their experiments are poorly designed, so there’s a lot of that. And there’s no accountability.

Culbertson: That’s what I was trying to get at. So you have people who have, something they want to try, and there’s no reason to stop it. So their own psychiatric condition may come into the experiment.

Arrigo: Well as far as I’ve gotten with this picture now, what I feel that I could explain to a critic, okay, I’ve gotten as far as the intentions of it, the capability, the willingness of, say, an intelligence agency to do this. And I’ve gotten so far in my own mind as the capability of targeting people and seriously disrupting them. Okay, I can get that far with it. And I can get as far as there being some separation in scientific knowledge. As far as disrupting people, the part I wouldn’t be able to justify or argue for is actually being able to do something productive with people’s mental capacities. I can only see at this point disrupting them.

Welsh: I thought one good thing you could get out of the no-touch torture is the fact, I think the same techniques are used, like I go in my article and talk about, so the treatment could be the same for victims. It is torture. It is psychological torture. So you could have the treatment for victims.

Arrigo: But as far as reading the person’s thought, you know, “I’ve got the guy here, I want to know who he’s associated with”, for interrogation. “Does he know the guy in the cell next door? Are they cronies or not?” That’s where I can’t see–

Welsh: Why they’re not using it? Why they’re not using the technology?

Arrigo: Yeah. If they could actually read minds and get it translated into words and images that we can understand, why wouldn’t that be happening?

Welsh: In like interrogation and things like that?

Arrigo: Well, interrogation or what the opposite political party has on their minds, or whatever. If you had a tool like this, you’d want to head for the minds of CEOs and be able to do some sort of insider trading.

Welsh: It’s like the atomic bomb, though. You’re not going to let that technology out. And you’re going to only use it in, you know, that thought of war, over the rules of engagement and rules of war, “light force on light force”. This technology is like–

Arrigo: So you think there would be very few people who actually had the capability of using this.

Welsh: It’s a strain, it’s sort of a long story. But the one case on my website is Rex Niles, who was the defense contractor, and he was targeted with it for reporting on kickbacks. I hear a lot of use of it in retaliation. [several speaking]

Culbertson: What I’m hearing from you is retaliation, disorganization, but not necessarily information-getting. Are you saying they also can look at your mind and figure out exactly what you’re thinking?

Welsh: Oh, yeah. They really don’t need to interrogate. I’m telling you, this stuff is sophisticated. But for political reasons, and just like the atomic bomb, you don’t use it even though you’d like to use it. That’s the only way I can explain that.

Arrigo: It would be compatible with everything else you’ve said if, in fact, these things were being used in these ways that we’re imagining.

Culbertson: But also what she’s saying is, “no system can observe itself”. So how would you know?

Welsh: You were talking about that one [congressman], Charlie Rose, also this Senator Fulbright was also very interested in this whole topic. And there are people off the record who have said there are international treaties. There’s one person, it’s confidential, but he said there are actually international treaties controlling the use of these weapons. And so you wouldn’t use it on a Russian here, because you’ve got a treaty. But he’s going to use it, then, you know–

MacMichael: You don’t have a treaty. You may have an agreement.

Welsh: Right, a treaty would be legal.

MacMichael: Well, treaties would have to be submitted to the United States Senate.

[Brief interruption as Culbertson leaves the room]

Arrigo: But there’s one more topic I want to take up before we take a break here. Ray Bennett, especially Ray Bennett and Steve Soldz approached me. And they were sort of alarmed that I was going to put you through this, and that you would be upset and so on. So I would like you to kind of reflect on the experience or the value of it, should I sign off for being a psychologist.

Welsh: Oh, well, I’ve been doing this for a long time and I’ve convinced very few people. It’s a tough subject. To be even invited here and to be able to talk about it, I felt it was a really honor. I’m not just saying that. I really felt what an opportunity to try to present my best case and then go from there. You know, it’s hard to separate that personal, so it’s hard for me not to, but the same questions do come up. So for me to talk about the personal part of it, it always ends up sounding so nutty and you get lost in that rather than some really good facts that you can really concentrate on. So it’s not a problem with me at all. I was just so pleased to be able to present this. I appreciate the concern.

Arrigo: Okay. Well maybe it would be good if you actually said a few words to Ray, especially, okay?

Welsh: Okay. I probably came across as very defensive.

Arrigo: Well, the interrogators read body language. The rest of us just hear words. You know he’s a professional interrogator, right?

Welsh: Oh, okay. Sure.

Arrigo: So they, I think it would be good if you could talk to them some. My feeling about it is that psychologists are very timid, really, about looking into the beyond, right, and one reason is historically psychologists have been sort of written off as flakes, okay? We were scientific. We were written off as flakes. So there’s nobody more scientific than a psychologist, right? Really trying to hold our ground with science, and don’t want to be written off as flakes. You know, we’re practically astrologers. It’s the way people sort of look at us. But we have to be able to get out to these dark areas, into these fringe areas with all this human manipulation. You know, torture’s just one piece of this, a little piece of it, in order to almost be responsible about this. But it’s so hard to move in this direction.

Welsh: It is hard. I will tell you that scientists, neuroscientists, every scientist, most scientists, don’t like to speculate, especially for the record. It was better back in the ‘80s when people were, you know, but now it’s just a different atmosphere. And they don’t want to talk about mind control. You talk and they do not like talking about it. I can tell you that’s my experience.

MacMichael: May I intrude to say that your expression that interests me a lot as well as historical, if you will, the amount of speculation about mind control and what could be done. I need only mention the word Svengali. This has fascinated people for hundreds of years, you know. They can control others, or the early enthusiasm about hypnotism and the idea of electromagnetic means of controlling other people’s behaviors, actions, the ability to, you know, it’s a constant literary [and cultural] theme: “How do we control others?” You know, “Adam, take a bite of this apple.” [laughs] It reappears in so many forms. I’d also say in regard to your expression as a psychologist of not wanting your colleagues or yourself to be taken as flakes, it gets back to the point I made this morning in my rambling presentation about the military industrial academic complex is the desire of academics to be taken seriously in the real world. You’re not just a nutty professor, you know. Again, you look to literature and the themes that emerge there in our culture. And certainly one of them is the totally clueless academic, the professor who doesn’t really know what’s going on in the real world and who is in a certain sense very much respected, and in another sense, rather despised. I think anecdotally to the response, alleged response in the mid nineteenth century of a Cambridge professor who’s responding to the questions of a student as to why they had to learn Latin and Greek, which seemed to have no relevance to what’s going on in the world. And to which the professor responded, “That may be so, but we have found that knowledge of these languages often leads to positions of great (amount?).” [laughter]

So I mean, I read a lot, or used to read a lot. I continually run across or think about these themes as they come up and say, how does this happen? I’ll totally digress to give you another one that has fascinated me since I’ve really begun serious study of history some thirty years ago: the question, and it really may be kind of relevant here, of legitimacy. In politics, legitimacy, just consider, go back to Dumas novels and think about The Man in the Iron Mask and all that stuff. What was legitimacy? What were these terrible battles fought about? Well of course it was who was the true heir to the throne? The first born, primogeniture, who was the real person entitled to rule? Okay? Interesting change over the last two hundred years. Who was, and you certainly saw this in the debate of the year 2000. Who was the elected, because we know that you have to have, this is now the seal of legitimacy, is that there has to be an election. And the person who is decreed the winner of the election is the legitimate ruler. And you know, we can look at the way, God help us, elections are conducted in many places, I won’t name them, in terms of this. But it’s just like who was the first born son. The focus on this is who won that election. That determines his or her legitimacy to rule.

Going back to Central America, it just drove me nuts. We’d deal with, sometimes in distance, with the head of the FMLN in El Salvador. The insane decision that the people in the first junta down there, I would say roughly 1980, made as the military moved in and were seizing control of the junta, to leave San Salvador, the capital, go into the bush and declare themselves against the government. I said, that was the dumbest goddamned thing you could ever have done. You could go in the bush if you want, but declare yourselves the legitimate government, not that you were fighting to get control of the government. That was stupid. The insistence on legitimacy is so important. And today, of course, the seal comes from having been in some form of election which allows you to be God’s anointed and rule. And the people should respect it.

That sounds like it’s getting way off the subject, but this whole idea you’re talking about here is legitimacy in scientific research to some considerable extent.

Arrigo: But we need you to have a history of that. I think, Mom, you make the last comment and then we’re going to break.

Amondson: Oh, if you haven’t done it already, I’d like to know from Cheryl when you first had your affliction and how it felt to you. And why.

Welsh: It was like the shock and awe, basically, because you don’t know what’s going on, you don’t know the technology. Julianne McKinney was the first victim that I contacted in ’93. It happened to me in ’87. So you don’t know what’s happening. It’s hard to figure it out. It takes a while to really figure out.

Amondson: Did it come in your head first?

Welsh: You know, only the government has that kind of power to control all the governments wherever I go. If I go to Europe, if I go to California, cross country, I mean, to have this stuff follow you across country. I never doubted my sanity, I will say that. I could always document what was happening, except for the thought reading. No, at first it was just in the environment. And my case was a little milder than most. Like with Harlan Girard and the voices, the microwave hearing. That would just do me in, I think, to have that 24/7 voices constantly.

Amondson: Is ringing in the ears the same thing?

Welsh: Yeah, a lot of the people report that. But that’s also a medical symptom.

MacMichael:. Tinnitus.

Welsh: Yes. Yes.

Amondson: I admire you.

Welsh: Well, thank you very much. That’s nice of you.

[End Session.]

-----------------------

[1] The Advanced Research Projects Agency was started by the U.S. government in 1957, was renamed the Defense Research Projects Agency in 1972, and is commonly known by the acronym DARPA.

[2] Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

[3] Co-authored with John D. Marks, published in 1973.

[4] National Reconnaissance Office. The NRO designs, builds and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the United States governement, and is one of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

[5] Jonathan Moreno, author of Mind Wars – Brain Research And National Defense (2006)

[6] Henry A. Murray, a social relations professor at Harvard University, who led that institution’s experimentation with LSD in the CIA-sponsored MKULTRA program. One of the 22 test subjects was a student named Theodore Kaczynski, later known as the Unabomber.

[7] Dr. José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado (b. 1915) was a Spanish professor of physiology at Yale University, famed for his research into electrical stimulation of regions in the brain. Delgado's research interests centered on the use of electrical signals to evoke responses in the brain. Much of Delgado's work was with an invention he called a stimoceiver, a radio which joined a stimulator of brain waves with a receiver which monitored E.E.G. waves and sent them back on separate radio channels. This allowed the subject of the experiment full freedom of movement while allowing the experimenter to control the experiment. The most famous example of the stimoceiver in action occurred at a Cordoba bull breeding ranch. Delgado stepped into the ring with a bull which had had a stimoceiver implanted. The bull charged Delgado, who pressed a remote control button which appeared to cause the bull to stop its charge. Delgado claimed that the stimulus caused the bull to lose its aggressive instinct; skeptics suggested that the electrical impulse had caused the bull to turn aside. (From en.)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download