Get paid to surf

MindNet is no longer active.

Back to MindNet Index

================================================================
     MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 3c * [Part 3 of 6 parts]
================================================================
     V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"
================================================================

Notes:

The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
the author.

Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy, remain intact and unedited.

The views, and opinions, expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editor, unless
otherwise noted.

Editor: Mike Coyle 

================================================================
   
[Continued from part 2]
   
   Orlikov's testimony has received much respectful attention
from those writers who have examined MKULTRA, and correctly so.
When I studied the files at the National Security Archives, I was
particularly keen to read her original letters to John Marks, for
these pages had led to the unmasking of an especially heinous CIA
project. The letters, interestingly enough, proved just as vague,
disjointed, and bizarre as similar correspondence which
researchers routinely dismiss. Orlikov can't be blamed for the
hazy nature of her recollections; a certain amount of fog is to
be expected, given the nature of the crime perpetrated against
her. The important point is that her story,  ultimately, was
found to be true. All of which leads me to wonder: Why did  HER
claims prompt investigation when those of others prompt only
dismissal?  Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that Orlikov's
husband became a Canadian Member of Parliament. Any victims of
CIA experimentation who wish to be taken seriously ought,
perhaps, first make sure to marry well.
   Of course, we can easily forgive previous writers and readers
whose researches into MKULTRA have been biased in favor of
complacency[96]. But we can't let this natural prejudice cripple
our present investigation. Let us  examine, then, a few of the
"horror stories" from the mind control literature and highlight
possible correlations to abductee testimony.

PALLE HARDRUP'S "GUARDIAN ANGEL"

   As mentioned previously, I have not delved much into the
subject of hypnosis in this paper -- primarily because of space
and time limitations, but also  because discussions of the
possibilities of hypnosis PER SE tend to cloud the issue of its
use in conjunction with the above-mentioned electronic
techniques. Obviously, however, hypnosis is a major weapon in the
mind controller's armament; in a forthcoming full-length work, I
intend to deal with this subject at much greater length.
   Needless to say, one of the primary objectives of MKULTRA and
related projects was to determine whether one could hypnotically
induce someone to commit an anti-social act. This possibility
remains one of the most hotly- debated issues in hypnosis, for
conventional wisdom asserts that no individual can be hypnotized
to commit an action which violates his interior moral code.
Martin Orne, editor of the presitigious INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL HYPNOSIS agrees with this axiom[97],
and he is in a position to codify much of the established view on
this topic. Orne, however, is a veteran of MKULTRA, and
furthermore seems to have lied -- at least in his original
communications -- to author John Marks about his witting
involvement in subproject 94[98]. While I respect much of Orne's
ground-breaking work, his pronouncements do not hold, for this
layman, an Olympian unassailability.
   To be sure, many other hypnosis experts, untainted by Company
connections, also discount the possibility that anti-social
actions can be induced. But a number of highly-experienced
professionals -- including Milton Kline, William Kroger, George
Estabrooks, John Watkins, and Herbert Spiegel -- have argued that
such actions can, at least to some degree, be elicited by an
outside manipulator.
   Occasionally, claims of hypnotically-induced anti-social
behavior find their way into the courtroom; one such case, which
led to the incarceration of the hypnotist, was the Palle Hardrup
affair. This incident occurred in Denmark in 1951[99]. Palle
Hardrup robbed a bank, killing a guard in the process, and later
claimed that he had been instructed to do so by the  hypnotist
Bjorn Nielsen. Nielsen eventually confessed to having engineered
the crime as a test of his hypnotic abilities.
   The most significant aspect of this incident concerns the
"pose" Nielsen adopted to work his malicious designs. During the
hypnosis sessions, Nielsen hypnotically suggested that he was
Hardrup's "guardian angel," represented by the letter X. Hardrup
testified that "There is another room next door  where Nielsen
and I go and talk on our own. It is there that my guardian
spirit usually comes and talks to me. Nielsen says that X has a
task for me."
   One of these tasks was arranging for Hardrup's girlfriend to
have sex with the hypnotist. The other tasks, he mentioned,
included robbery and murder. Nielsen convinced his victim that
"X" wanted the robbery funds to be used for worthwhile political
goals. The end, Hardrup was told, justified the means.
   Compare this scenario to that encountered in the typical
contactee case,  in which alien "guardians" convince their
victims/subjects that the encounter will eventually serve some
unspecified "higher purpose."  Indeed, in my interviews with
abductees who have established a "long-term" relationship with
their visitors, I have found that some of them originally
believed themselves in contact with Hardrup-like angelic
guardians. Only in recent years was the "angel" pose discarded
and the true "alien" form revealed.
   Thus we have one possible means of overcoming the proposition
that hypnosis cannot induce anti-social behavior. If a hypnotist
lacks scruples, and has access to a particularly susceptible
subject, he can induce a MISPERCEIVED REALITY. Actions which we
would abhor in an everyday context become acceptable in
specialized circumstances: A citizen who could never commit
murder on a surburban street might, if drafted into an army, kill
on the field of battle. In hypnosis, the mind becomes that
battlefield. In the words of Dr. John Watkins,

         We behave on the basis of our perceptions. If our 
      perceptions of a situation can be altered so as to cause us 
      to misconstrue  it, or to develop a false belief, then our 
      behavior in relation to it will be drastically altered. It 
      is precisely in the area of changing perceptions that the 
      hypnotic modality demonstrates its most powerful effects. 
      Hallucinations both under hypnosis, and posthypnotic, can 
      easily be induced in the suggestible subject. He can be made 
      to ignore painful stimuli, be apparently unable to hear loud 
      sounds, AND "SEE" INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT PRESENT [my 
      italics]. Moreover, attitudes and beliefs can be initiated 
      in him which are quite abnormal and often contrary to those 
      which he previously held[100].

   If traditional hypnosis, unaided, can achieve such changes in
perception, one can only imagine the possibilities inherent in
the combination of hypnotic techniques with the psychoelectronic
research previously described.
   Scientists such as Orne and Milton Erickson[101] have taken
issue with Watkins' assertions. But the Hardrup case would appear
to bear Watkins out. If someone can be convinced that he, like
Jeanne D'Arc, acts under the influence of a supernatural higher
power, then previously unthinkable capabilitites may be evinced
and "impossible" actions carried forth. Indeed, when we consider
the extreme personality changes -- and occasionally, the heinous
actions, elicited by leaders of certain cults, and occult
groups[102], we understand the desirability of installing a
hypnotic "cover story" within a supernatural matrix. People will
do for God -- or the Devil, or the Space Brothers -- what they
would not do otherwise.
   The date of the Hardrup affair corresponds to the institution
of BLUEBIRD/ ARTICHOKE; it doesn't require much imagination to
see how this case could have served as a model to the scientists
researching those and subsequent projects.
   
SCREEN MEMORY

   According to declassified documents in the Marks files, a
major difficulty faced by the MKULTRA researchers concerned the
"disposal problem."  What to do with the victims of CIA-sponsored
electroshock, hypnosis, and drug experiment- ation? The Company
resorted to distressing, but characteristic, tactics: They
disposed of their human guinea pigs by incarcerating them in
insane asylums, by performing icepick lobotomies, and by ordering
"executive actions."[103]
   A more sophisticated solution had to be found. One of the
goals of the  CIA's mind control efforts was the erasure of
memory via hypnosis (and drugs, electronics, lobotomies, etc.);
not only would this hide what occurred during the experimental
indoctrination/programming sessions, it would prove useful in the
field. "Amnesia was a big goal," confirms Victor Marchetti, who
points out its usefulness in dealing with contract agents: "After
you've done it, the  agent doesn't even know what he's done...you
send him in, he does the job. When he comes out, you clean his
head out."[104]
   The big problem: Despite hypnotically-induced amnesia, there
would be memory leaks -- snippets of the repressed material would
arise spontaneously, in dreams, as flashbacks, etc. A proposed
solution: Give the subject a "screen memory," a false story;
thus, even if he starts to recall the material, he will recall it
incorrectly.
   Even the conservative Dr. Orne notes that:

         A S [subject] who is able to develop good posthypnotic
      amnesia will also respond to suggestions to remember events 
      which did not actually occur. On awakening, he will fail to 
      recall the real events of the trance and will instead recall 
      the suggested events. If anything, this phenomenon is easier 
      to produce than total amnesia, perhaps because it eliminates 
      the subjective feeling of an empty space in memory.[105]

   Not only would the screen memories fill in the uncomfortable
blanks in the subjects' recollection, they would protect against
revelation. One fear of the MKULTRA scientists was that a
hypno-programmed individual used as, say, a courier, could be
un-programmed by another hypnotist, perhaps working for the
enemy. Thus, the MKULTRA scientists decided to instill multiple
personalities -- multiple cover stories, if you will -- to
confuse any "unauthorized" hypnotist.[106]
   One case using this technique centered on an assassin named
Luis Castillo, who, after his capture in the Philippines, was
extensively de-briefed and studied by experts in the employ of
the National Bureau of Investigation, that country's equivalent
to our FBI. Castillo was discovered to have had at least FOUR
separate personalities hypnotically instilled; each personality
could be triggered by a specific cue. In one state, he claimed to
be Sgt. Manuel Angel Ramirez, of the Strategic Air Tactical
Command in South Vietnam; supposedly, "Ramirez" was the
illegitimate son of a certain pipe-smoking, highly-placed CIA
official whose initials were A.D.[107]  Another personality
claimed to be one of John F. Kennedy's assassins.
   The main hypnotist involved with this case labelled these
hypnotic alter- egos "Zombie states."  The report on the case
stated that "The Zombie pheno- menon referred to here is a
somnambulistic behavior displayed by the subject in a conditioned
response to a series of words, phrases, and statements,
apparently unknown to the subject during his normal waking
state."
   Upon Castillo's repatriation to the United States, the FBI
claimed that he had fabricated the story. In his book OPERATION
MIND CONTROL, Walter Bowart makes a convincing case against the
FBI's claims. Certainly, many aspects of the Castillo affair
argue for his sincerity -- including his hypnotically- induced
insensitivity to pain[108], his maintenance of the story (or
stories) even when severly inebriated, and his apparently
programmed suicide attempts.
   If Castillo told the truth, as I believe he did, then he
manifested both hypnotically-induced multiple personality and
pseudomemory. The former remains controversial; the latter has
been repeatedly replicated in experimental situations[109].
   This point is vitally important for students of the abduction
phenomenon. We CANNOT assume the accuracy of abduction
descriptions given during subsequent hypnotic regression.
Moreover, we cannot even assume the accuracy of spon-
taneously-arising recollections (i.e., abduction memories not
elicited through hypnotic regression). Indeed, responsible
skeptics have argued that hypnotic regression may prove
inadvertently harmful, in that it may lock in place a false
remembrance. (Note, however, that other psychiatric professionals
consider hypnotic regression the best technique, however flawed,
in unlocking amnesia[110]. For my part, I maintain an ambivalent
and cautious attitude toward the use of hypnosis in abductee
work.)
   Granted, it is all too easy for the debunkers to cry
"confabulation" to dismiss hypnotic testimony which does not
conform to our preconceptions about the possible; I do not intend
to make this same error. Whenever skeptics offer the phenomenon
of pseudomemory to rationalize abduction claims, they cite
experimental situations in which PSEUDOMEMORY WAS ORIGINALLY
CREATED BY A HYPNOTIST[111]. These experiments can not be cited
as proof that an individual abductee spontaneously conjured up a
fantasy (which just happens to correspond to the details of
hundreds of similar "fantasies"). Rather, laboratory studies of
pseudomemory creation prove MY point: Pseudomemory can be induced
BY  PREVIOUS HYPNOSIS[112]. 
   In other words, an abductee may talk of aliens -- when the
reality was something else entirely.
   In correspondence with me, a noted abduction researcher wrote
of an instance in which an abductee recounted seeing a helicopter
during his experience; as  the abductee testimony progressed, the
helicopter turned into a UFO. During one of the (quite few)
regression sessions I attended, I heard an exactly similar
narrative. Hopkins would argue that the helicopter was a "screen
memory"  hiding the awful reality of the UFO encounter. But does
Occam's razor really cut that way? Shouldn't we also consider the
possibility that the object in question really WAS a helicopter
-- which the abductee was instructed to recall as a UFO?

THE SUPER SPY

   Among the released BLUEBIRD/ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA papers was the
following handwritten memorandum, unsigned and undated:

         I have developed a technic which is safe and secure (free
      from international censorship). It has to do with the
      conditioning of our own people. I can accomplish this as a
      one-man job. The method is the production of hypnosis by 
      means of simple oral medication. Then (with NO further 
      medication) the hypnosis is re-enforced daily during the 
      following three or four days. Each individual is conditioned 
      against revealing any information to an enemy, even though 
      subjected to hypnosis or drugging. If preferable, he may be 
      conditioned to give FALSE information rather than NO 
      information.

   In the margin of this document, one of Marks' assistants
wrote, "Is this Wendt?"  The reference here is to G. Richard
Wendt, a professor employed by project CHATTER who, in 1951, led
both his Naval employers and the CIA on a mind control
merry-goose-chase, when an experiment similar to that described
above failed to produce results[113]. Even if the above
memorandum DOES describe an operational failure (and the tactics
described in this memo do not seem very feasible to me), we
should not rest complacent. We now know that, in at least ONE
case, more sophisticated techniques made the above scenario a
reality.
   I refer to the case of Candy Jones.
   Her story has filled at least one book[114] and ought, one
day, to give rise to another. Obviously, I cannot here give all
the details of this fascinating and frightening narrative. But a
precis is mandatory.
   Ms. Jones (born Jessica Wilcox) achieved star status as a
model during World War II, and later established her own
modelling agency. An FBI man requested her to allow her place of
business to be used as a "mail drop" for the Bureau and "another
government agency" (presumably, the CIA); Candy, deeply
patriotic, accepted the proposition gladly. Toiling on the
fringes of the clandestine world, Candy eventually came into
contact with a "Dr. Gilbert Jensen," who worked, in turn, with a
"Dr. Marshall Burger."  (Both names are pseudonyms.)  Unknown to
her, these doctors had been employed as "spy- chiatrists" by the
CIA. Using a job interview as a cover, Jensen induced  hypnosis,
found Candy to be a particularly responsive subject -- and
proceeded to use her as other scientists would use a rhesus
monkey. She became a test subject for the CIA's mind control
program.
   Her job -- insofar as it is known -- was to provide a
clandestine courier service[115]. Estabrooks had outlined the
basic idea years earlier: Induce hypnosis via a disguised
technique, give the messenger information to  memorize,
hypnotically "erase" the message from conscious memory, and
install a post-hypnotic suggestion that the message (now buried
within the sub- conscious) will be brought forth only upon a
specific cue. If the hypnotist can create such a courier,
ultra-security can be guaranteed; even torture won't cause the
messenger to tell what he knows -- because he doesn't know that
he  knows it[116]. According to the highly respected Dr. Milton
Kline, "Evidence really does exist that has not been published"
proving that Estabrooks' perfect secret agent could be
successfully evoked[117].
   Candy was one such success story. Success, in this context,
means that she could be -- and was -- brutally tortured and
abused while running assignments for the CIA. All the MKULTRA
toys were brought into play: hypnosis, drugs, conditioning -- and
electronics. Using these devices, Jensen and Burger  managed to:

-- install a "duplicate personality,"

-- create amnesia of both the programming sessions and the field
assignments,

-- turn Candy into a vicious, hate-mongering bigot, the better to
isolate her from the rest of humanity (previously, her associates
considered her noteworthy for her racial tolerance; her modelling  
agency was one of the first to break the color barrier), and

-- program her to commit suicide at the end of her usefulness to
the Agency.

   The programming techniques used on her were flawed. She
breached security when she married famed New York radio
personality John Nebel[118], who, using hypnotic regression,
elicited the long-repressed truth. Eventually, the "Other Candy"
was bade farewell, and the programming broken.
   Skeptics might find Candy's story as incredible as the
abduction accounts-- after all, an amateur had conducted her
hypnotic regression, and the possi- bility of confabulation
always lurks. Nevertheless, I feel that the veracity of her
narrative has been established beyond reasonable doubt. In her
hypnotic regression sessions, she recalled being programmed at a
government-connected institute in northern California -- which,
as John Marks' investigators later proved, was indeed heavily
involved with government-funded brainwashing research[119]. Marks
himself believes Candy's story -- not least, because the details
of the programming methods used on her were substantiated by
documents released AFTER her book was published[120]. Interviews
with Milton Kline, Dr. Frances Jakes, John Watkins and others
provided the testimony that the programming of Candy Jones was
feasible -- and Deep Trance substantiated the story[121].
   Recently, the case has received important "indirect"
confirmation:  Investigators interested in follow-up research
have filed FOIA requests with  the CIA for all papers relating to
Candy Jones. The agency admits that it has a substantial file on
her, but refuses to release any part of it. If her tale is false,
then why would the CIA be so reluctant to deliver the
information? Indeed, why would they have a file in the first
place?[122]
   The final confirmation of Candy's tale requires a revelation
-- one which I make with some trepidation, even though the
individual named is dead.
   "Marshall Burger" was really Dr. William Kroger[123].
   Kroger, long associated with the espionage establishment, had
written the following in 1963:

         ...a good subject can be hypnotized to deliver secret
      information. The memory of this message could be covered
      by an artificially-induced amnesia. In the event that he
      should be captured, he naturally could not remember that he
      had ever been given the message...however, since he had
      been given a post-hypnotic suggestion, the message would be
      subject to recall through a specific cue.[124]

   If Candy confabulated her story, why did she name this
particualr scientist, who, writing theoretically in 1963,
predicted the subsequent events in her life?[125]
   After L'AFFAIR JONES, Kroger transferred his base of
operations to UCLA -- specifically, to the Neuropsychiatric
Institute run by Dr. Louis Jolyon West, an MKULTRA veteran. There
he wrote HYPNOSIS AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION[126], with a preface
by Martin Orne (another MKULTRA veteran) and H.J. Eysenck (still
another MKULTRA veteran). The finale of this opus contains
chilling hints of the possibilites inherent in combining hypnosis
with ESB, implants, and conditioning -- though Kroger is careful
to point out that "we are not concerned that man might be
conditioned by rewards and punishments through electronic brain
stimulation to be controlled like robots."[127]  HE may not be
concerned -- but perhaps WE ought to be.
   The control of Candy Jones gives us much information useful to
our "alien abduction" hypothesis.
   1. Her torture sessions -- inflicted during her programming by
her CIA masters, and on missions by as-yet mysterious persons --
seem strikingly like the otherwise senselessly painful
"examinations" allegedly conducted aboard alien spacecraft.
   2. Her personality shifts roughly parallel those experienced
by certain UFO abductees.
   3. Despite her brutalization, she remained "loyal" to Drs.
Jensen and  Burger. This bewildering behavior reminds me of my
first abductee interviews, during which I heard ghastly
descriptions of UFO torture sessions -- followed by protestations
of limitless love for the alien pain-mongers.
   4. Like many abductees, Candy had to attend regular
"conditioning" sessions. Repeated exposure to the programming is
necessary to effect continuous control.
   5. To maintain their hammerlock on her mind, Candy's handlers
programmed her to remain isolated. Specifically, they instilled a
deep paranoia toward other human beings; "outsiders" were
probable enemies, out to use or abuse her. I  have seen this
pattern consistently in my own work with abductees[128]. Skep-
tics would argue that unreasonable abductee fears probably
indicate paranoid schizophrenia--one symptom of which can,
indeed, be hallucinatory experiences. But most abductees are
easily hypnotized, while paranoid schizophrenics are extremely
difficult to "put under," according to Dr. Edward Simpson-Kallas,
a psychiatrist with wide experience in the area of forensic
hypnosis[129]. If, however, those unreasonable fears had been
hypnotically induced, the contra- diction is resolved.
   6. Candy was the product of an unhappy childhood, hence her
propensity toward multiple personality[130]. Many of the
"repeater" abductees I have interviewed had similarly depressing
family histories[131].
   7. The story of Candy Jones also has what we might call a
"negative relevance" to the abduction accounts. Because the
Controllers did not establish a hypnotic cover story, or
pseudomemory, the true facts of the case managed to percolate
into her conscious mind. No matter how thorough the post-
hypnotic amnesia, leaks will occur -- hence the need for a false
memory, to fill the gap of recollection. The CIA learns from its
mistakes. Candy's hypno-programming broke down in early 1973 --
the year the "alien disguise" became (if my hypothesis proves
correct) standard operating procedure[132]. (Milton Kline
accepted the Candy Jones story, but considered the job amateurish
and inconsistent with the best work done at that time[133].
Perhaps the major fault was the lack of a pseudomemory cover
story?)

BASES OF SUSPICION

   "Underground base" rumors are as hot as jalapenos in the UFO
field right now, and several of these stories involve abductions.
   For example, a sideshow of the famous Bentwaters UFO case
involves the abduction of an airman named Larry Warren to an
underground cavity beneath the military base. There, while in
what he later described as "a bit of a drugged state," he saw
aliens and human beings -- military figures -- working side-by-
side[134].
   I have spoken to another abductee, Nancy Wright, who was
allegedly taken to an underground chamber ten miles north of
Edwards AFB, California. As this was a multiple-witness event,
and Ms. Wright has not attempted to capitalize on the story for
financial gain, I tend to credit her story[135]. According to
abduction researcher Miranda Parks, an elderly couple living in
the vicinity was also abducted in an exactly similar
fashion[136].
   In 1979, Paul Bennewitz and Leo Sprinkle researched a
particularly controversial abduction involving a young woman
(name unrevealed) who was apparently taken to a facility where
aliens processed fluids and body parts from a cattle mutilation.
This investigation seems to have led to the  government
harassment of Bennewitz, in which some form of mind control (or,
as I have previously referred to it, "electronic GASLIGHT") may
have played a  part[137].
   How do we account for these tales of alleged alien
skullduggery carried out in conjunction with the military? I, for
one, cannot credit the generally- unsubstantiated tales of
"cosmic conspiracy" now promulgated by ex-intelligence agents
such as John Lear and William Cooper. While I cannot assert
insincerity on the part of these men, I often wonder if they have
been used as conduits -- witting or unwitting -- in a
sophisticated disinformation scheme. 
   A simpler, though no less chilling, explanation for the "base"
abductions may be found in the story of Dr. Louis Jolyon West,
now notorious for his participation in MKULTRA experiments with
LSD[138]. Inspired by VIOLENCE AND THE BRAIN (a book by Drs.
Frank Ervin and Vernon H. Mark which ascribed inner city turmoil
to a "genetic defect" within rebellious blacks), West proposed,
in 1973, a Center for the Study and Reduction of  Violence, where
potentially violent individuals could be dealt with
prophylactically. ["I was cured, all right." - A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
 -jpg]
   And who were these individuals? According to West's proposal,
the note- worthy factors indicating a violent predisposition were
"sex (male), age (youthful), ethnicity (black) and urbanicity."
How to deal with them? "...by implanting tiny electrodes deep
within the brain, electrical activity can be followed in areas
that cannot be measured from the surface of the scalp...it is
even possible to record bioelectrical changes in the brains of
freely-moving subjects, through the use of remote monitoring
techniques..."  By monitoring the subjects' EEGs remotely,
potentially violent episodes could be identified.
   For our purposes, the most significant aspect of this proposal
had to do with location. In a secret communication to Dr. J.M.
Stubblebine, director of the California State Department of
Health (fortunately, this missive was "leaked" to the public),
West disclosed that he intended to house his Center in an
abandoned Nike missile base, whose location was accessible yet
relatively remote. "The site is securely fenced," West wrote.
"Compara- tive studies could be carried out there, in an isolated
but convenient location, of experimental model programs, for the
alteration of undesirable behavior."[139]
   Public outcry stopped these plans. But was this scheme truly
eliminated? Or was it merely modified, stripped (temporarily) of
its overtly racial overtones and relocated to some
less-accessible spot?
   One thing is certain: A CIA "spy-chiatrist" favored secret
behavior control experimentation in a remote military
installation. Perhaps someone within the espionage
establishment's mind-modification divisions still thinks highly
of the idea. If so, the disposal problem would once again rear
its ugly head, should "visitors" to these installations ever
reappear in outside society. Again, a hypno-programmed cover
story -- the less believable, the better -- would prove
invaluable.

THE SCANDINAVIAN CONNECTION

   Many books have been written about abductees, yet few exist
about the  victims of mind control. I cannot understand this
situation; the reality of UFOs is still controversial, yet the
existence of mind control was verified in two (heavily
compromised) congressional investigations and in thousands of
FOIA documents. Nevertheless, the abductees find many a
sympathetic ear, while those few who dare to proclaim themselves
the victims of known government programs rarely find anyone to
hear them out. Our prejudices on this score are regrettable, for
if we listened to the "controllees" we would hear many details
strikingly similar to those mentioned by UFO abductees.
   Two cases in point: Martti Koski and Robert Naeslund.
   Koski, a Finnish citizen, claims to have been a victim of mind
control experimentation while visiting Canada. Shortly after his
experience began, he attempted to broadcast his situation to the
world and draw attention to his plight. Few listened. Many of his
details were bizarre, and not being a native speaker of English,
he could not express himself convincingly to those he approached
for help. Yet many aspects of his story correspond closely to
known details of MKULTRA and related programs.
   Naeslund, a Swedish citizen, tells a similar story. Moreover,
his claims were backed by special evidence: X-rays revealed an
implant in his brain. Naeslund actually went to the extreme of
having his implant tested by electronic technicians employed by
Hewlett-Packard. A Greek surgeon performed the necessary
trepanation to remove the device.
   Many aspects of the Koski and Naeslund stories correspond to
my hypothesis. Koski, for example, was at one point told that the
doctors afflicting him were actually "aliens from Sirius."  At
another point, he was led to believe that he was under direction
of "the Lord."  (As I previously indicated, manipulation of
religious imagery could help induce anti-social behavior; the
subject's super-ego can be nullified if he believes that he
follows commands from on high. Such manipulation may explain the
more bizarre aspects of Betty Andreasson Luca's abduction[140].)
   Naeslund's implant was originally placed through his nasal
cavity. He first realized that something terrible had happened to
him after an experience of missing time, followed by an
INEXPLICABLE NOSEBLEED.
   This detail will be instantly familiar to anyone who has
studied abductions; I have encountered it in my own conversations
with abductees. For an excellent example in the UFO literature, I
refer the reader to the case of Susan Ransted, as detailed in
Kevin D. Randle's THE UFO CASEBOOK[141]; the background of
alleged contactee Diane Tessman is also noteworthy in this
regard[142].  Intriguingly, I have located a reference in the
open literature to the use, in animal study, of nasally-implanted
electrodes for the measurement of electro- magnetic radiation
effects[143].
   There are other claimed mind control victims bearing evidence
of implants; note, especially, the fascinating case of James
Petit, a CIA-connected pilot and alleged brainwashing alumnus;
X-rays of his cranium have revealed abductee- style implants --
fitting, perhaps, since his body bears abductee-style scars.
[144]  Conversely, certain abductees will, if allowed a thorough
and sympa- thetic hearing, deliver testimony strongly agreeing
with Koski's narrative.

HELICOPTERS AND DISKS

   The bizarre story of Rex Niles and his sister (not named in
news accounts) may shed interesting light on a variety of
abductee cases, particularly that of Betty and Barney Hill[145].
Niles, the high-rolling owner of a Woodland Hills defense
subcontracting firm (Rex Rep) was fingered by authorities
investigating defense industry kickbacks. He became an
extraordinarily cooperative witness in the investigation -- until
he was targeted by his enemies, who allegedly used
psychoelectronics as harassment.

[Continued to part 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERICOMM BBS Filename: [control.zip] = [control.txt]
================================================================

To subscribe to the MindNet Journal:

Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

To unsubscribe:

Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet 
Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy 
weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions, 
electromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics, will be 
accepted with the author's statement of permission to publish. 
The editor reserves the right to accept or reject for 
publication. Send articles for submission to: , 
or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM, POB 32314, Oakland, 
CA 94604-2314 USA.

The MindNet Journal is produced in cooperation with the
Freedom Of Thought Foundation and the International Committee
for the Convention Against Offensive Microwave Weapons. Please
visit the Freedom Of Thought Foundation home-page at:

.

================================================================

    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||  ||||  |      |       |  |      |      |   |   |   |   ||
    |||  ||  ||  |||||  |||  |  |  |||||  ||  |  | |  |  | |  ||
    ||||    |||  ,,,,|      ||  |  |||||  ||  |  |||  |  |||  ||
    |||||  ||||      |  |||  |  |      |      |  |||  |  |||  SM
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||  VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303 / MindNet : vericomm@c2.org ||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||