# Timmy McVeigh Was Telling the Truth!

## It's Not Your Father's Mind Control Technology

## by Kathy Kasten

** Kathy Kasten is a researcher and targetted individual living in Los Angeles, on the staff at the University of California, Los Angeles. Four years as Staff Liaison to the Human Subject Protection Committee/Institution Review Board developed an awareness of worldwide need for human subject protection policies.

When those of us who have been researching and investigating rumors of microchip implants for the last 10 years heard that Timothy McVeigh was claiming to have been implanted by the U.S. Army, we could only nod our heads.(1) The mainstream could barely contain their laughter at McVeigh's allegations of being implanted by the military. They pretended he was another "lone gunman."

However, many researchers knew that it was not above our government to use unwitting American citizens in "field testing." There had been reports from private citizens since the 1940s of the implantation of humans.(2) The only thing we could add to McVeigh's statement was that before the microchips were implanted by the military in soldiers it was suspected that there were many years of covert testing in an unwitting human subjects. In recent years, government documentation has been released showing past and present atrocities committed by the U.S. government and its contracted private corporations funded by public monies. These documents show a pattern of utilizing unwitting citizens in covert "field testing."

The possible proof that McVeigh was speaking the truth is suggested in public documents. A document which proves that the military is quite familiar with microchip implantation in human subjects is pointedly referred to in the U.S. Air Force's 2025 Research Paper(3), quoted as follows:

"Chapter 4-1: "IIC

The IIC is a constellation of integration or "smart" satellites that receives all-source information. Within the IIC, resident intelligent software will run decision support tools, correlate and fuse data into useful information, identify inconsistencies and information gaps, and task collectors to seek data to fill information gaps.

Implanted Microscopic Chip

The implanted microscopic brain chip110 performs two functions. First, it links the individual to the IIC, creating a seamless interface between the user and the information resources (in-time collection data and archival databases). In essence, the chip relays the processed information from the IIC to the user. Second, the chip creates a computer-generated mental visualization based upon the user's request. The visualization encompasses the individual and allows the user to place himself into the selected battlespace."

Do not be fooled by its forward-looking statement. That statement would not be made if the technology were not already in place. Remember the above statements as we put the pieces together to show control of individual via electronic harassment. The following statement from the same source more directly relates to McVeigh and other soldiers whom I have heard from during my investigations:

"Ethical and Public Relations Issues. Implanting "things" in people raises ethical and public relations issues. While these concerns may be founded on today's thinking, in 2025 they may not be as alarming. We already are evolving toward technology implanting. For example, the military currently requires its members to receive mandatory injections of biological organisms (i.e., the flu shot). In the civilian world, people receive mechanical hearts and other organs. Society has come to accept most of these implants as a fact of life. By 2025 it is possible medical technology will have nerve chips that allow amputees to control artificial limbs or eye chips that allow the blind to see. The civilian populace will likely accept an implanted microscopic chips that allow military members to defend vital national interests. Further, the US military will continue to be a volunteer force that will freely accept the chip because it is a tool to control technology and not as a tool to control the human."

I hardly know what to make of that last sentence. After all the reassurance that microchip implantation is good for you, why make statements about controlling humans? Could the authors be anticipating that some readers might think the microchip would be utilized for human mind control; i.e. readers who are knowledgeable enough to know that the brain cortex needs to be accessed/controlled in order to control the physical part of the human? There is no way to separate physical control from mind control. Such powerful technology that can control humans invites misuse; pushing the envelope to see what will work. (Perhaps, creating the perfect crime using a "patsy"?)

For those still doubting that this type of mind control technology (which utilizes a radio frequency called microwave) is just science fiction, an announcement was made on a mainstream public radio station that the Los Angeles Police Department, just before New Year's - in December, 1999, had purchased equipment from a company called WesCam. From the WesCam website we read the following:

"In use by most of the biggest names in broadcasting in the U.S. and abroad, the PRO-300 has become the industry standard in long range, microwave receive systems for reliable, continuous, high quality reception of video and audio transmissions. The antenna is typically installed on a tower or rooftop at a location selected for best continuous line-of-sight coverage to the potential transmitting sites (terrestrial and / or airborne). The equipment rack containing the microwave receiver and controller can be located up to 1,500 feet away, and the control location can be situated just about anywhere to which video, audio and data links can be established.

Related TouchStar options now available include integrated searchable maps (dependant on location), networked Master Controllers, on screen Real Time Video window, remote access modems enabling a remote diagnostics capability, integrated single or multiple ground camera control, and remote switcher control."

These advertising statements mean that there is now a link between satellites, ground control and covert accessing of humans. As alluded to by the U.S.A.F. 2025 report, the American public is being utilized in "field testing" with the clear prospect of collecting data on the targeted individual. What is more important is that the Los Angeles Police Department, along with other major cities' police departments, has been declared an arm of the Department of Justice.

I have personal knowledge of this fact. How that happened had nothing to do with the war on drugs. Briefly, it was alleged that I was jaywalking. I was not carrying any identification on my person. Therefore, I was detained by the University of California-Los Angeles Campus Police and taken to their campus headquarters. After being kept in a holding cell, I was photographed and fingerprinted. When asked where this material was going to be filed, I was told that it would be sent to the Department of Justice. And, yes, there is now a law on the books that individuals must carry identification at all times. Originally, this law applied only to drivers of vehicles. Apparently, the law is being stretch to cover pedestrians walking on the sidewalks. Unbelievable? If someone had told me such an incident was possible, I would have not believed it.

We have President Ronald Reagan to thank for the fact that local police departments are now arms of the federal government. This includes university campus officers. Just to make sure that Reagan's executive order was clear to everybody in law enforcement, the U.S. Code was "updated" recently. (U.S. Code Annotated Title 10, Sect. 124.)

To help local law enforcement stay abreast of the activities of the American public, just in case citizens were doing drugs or something else that might be illegal, monies were allocated to allow those units to carry out the U.S. Code for the Department of Justice. The following is from the WesCam website(4), which describes a tracking unit mounted on a helicopter, used no doubt to watch everybody and anybody without a search warrant, wiretap, or any messy legal stuff:

"The SKYPOD V airborne microwave system is the next generation of long range airborne video microwave transmission and relay systems from WesCam, providing reliable, continuous, high quality video and audio signals in real time to fixed or mobile ground receive sites. The system includes an externally mounted antenna pod integrated with its own microwave transmitter, receiver, channel filter and up to three separate antennas: an autotracking directional high gain antenna (using GPS and aircraft heading sensors for tracking control), an omnidirectional antenna and a downlooking antenna. This configuration provides maximum operational flexibility while still maintaining optimum signal quality for superior image transmission. Antenna selection is performed remotely from the operator position inside the aircraft. Each antenna can be configured for simplex or duplex operation, allowing the system to also be operated as an airborne microwave repeater."

The announcement declaring that the Los Angeles Police Department would be watching Los Angelenos using WesCam technology was mentioned only once on a major public radio station in Los Angeles, presumably to meet the U.S. Code that requires local officials to make a public announcement before using the public in "field testing." Section 1805 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code (5) reads as follows:

"(f) Testing of electronic equipment; discovering unauthorized electronic surveillance; training of intelligence personnel. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, officers, employees, or agents of the United States are authorized in the normal course of their official duties to conduct electronic surveillance not targeted against the communications of any particular person or persons, under procedures approved by the Attorney General, solely to - (1) test the capability of electronic equipment, if - (A) it is not reasonable to obtain the consent of the persons incidentally subjected to the surveillance; (B) the test is limited in extent and duration to that necessary to determine the capability of the equipment; (C) the contents of any communication acquired are retained and used only for the purpose of determining the capability of the equipment, are disclosed only to test personnel, and are destroyed before or immediately upon completion of the test; and: (D) Provided, That the test may exceed ninety days only with the prior approval of the Attorney General; (2) determine the existence and capability of electronic surveillance equipment being used by persons not authorized to conduct electronic surveillance, if - (A) it is not reasonable to obtain the consent of persons incidentally subjected to the surveillance; (B) such electronic surveillance is limited in extent and duration to that necessary to determine the existence and capability of such equipment; and (C) any information acquired by such surveillance is used only to enforce chapter 119 of title 18, or section 605 of title 47, or to protect information from unauthorized surveillance; or (3) train intelligence personnel in the use of electronic surveillance equipment, if - (A) it is not reasonable to - (i) obtain the consent of the persons incidentally subjected to the surveillance; (ii) train persons in the course of surveillances otherwise authorized by this subchapter; or (iii) train persons in the use of such equipment without engaging in electronic surveillance; (B) such electronic surveillance is limited in extent and duration to that necessary to train the personnel in the use of the equipment; and (C) no contents of any communication acquired are retained or disseminated for any purpose, but are destroyed as soon as reasonably possible."

Notice the statement "if consent cannot be obtained," and the statement that electronic technology will be used only for the purposes of "testing." If it is just a test, why is there a problem with obtaining consent? How about the statement that nothing will be done with the information gathered from "testing"? Are you reassured by these paragraphs in the U.S. Code? I understand this: There is a group of people claiming they are/have been under electronic surveillance/harassment. Are these people classified as guinea pigs for government field testing, or perhaps even as terrorists? If individuals are classified as "terrorists" (whether they truly or not), this means that they can be targeted in any way shape or form, because they are enemies of the state. Therefore, is it okay to do whatever - torture, harass, etc. using microwave technology - in the name of "field testing"? Is the American public so fearful of possible crimes that they would give up all their privacy?

WesCam is microwave technology that can "access," listen in on conversations, using RF/microwave radiating through walls at a distance. The dome-like shell surrounding the equipment is shown on their website. The device is mounted on the roofs of vans, the roofs of police stations, and on the undercarriage of helicopters. Be sure to watch for this equipment coming to a neighborhood near you. A fellow researcher sent me a list of 20 outlets for the WesCam in the Los Angeles area. That means your next door neighbor can, and probably some of them will, own this equipment.

Along with WesCam, there is a company called Millivision that sells "infrared" equipment which it claims can "see" through walls. The Millivision website(6) states the following:

"Millimeter wave technology offers the opportunity for developing a new generation of security and safety products. Millimeter waves can pass through walls, clothing, and packaging to detect hidden people and objects. Not limited to metal, millimeter-wave-based systems allow the detection of ceramic weapons, plastic explosives, drugs, and other contraband. Millivision is developing a line of passive millimeter wave security products that are: Non-invasive: Passive systems use only the natural radiation present in the scene. Safe: Using no man-made radiation ensures complete safety for subjects, operators, and bystanders. Difficult to countermeasure: Inanimate objects emit different radiation signatures than living beings, making attempts to disguise contraband ineffective. Effective: Advanced imaging software overcomes resolution and visualization limitations.

Millivision's line of passive millimeter wave security products currently in development are: Surveillance camera - overt or covert monitoring and contraband detection in interior or exterior spaces; Gateway scanner - contraband and concealed weapons detection for secure portals; Handheld scanner - portable contraband and concealed weapons detection."

Feel safer now that Millivision devices are on the scene? Wondering whether that passing van is scanning your house? Do you think this will not happen because you think you have nothing to hide? Think again.

The Los Angeles Airport claims it owns one of theses devices. Checking individuals to see if they are . . . what, carrying guns after going through the metal detector? After news of this device was published in the Los Angeles Times, people were concerned that the device was being used to see through women's clothes - just for the fun of it. As a matter of fact, a recent TV news program discovered that airport security personnel do single out Los Angeles African American women traveling alone for questioning in a special room at the Los Angeles Airport. There was concern that this was the room were the Millivision device was located. The suspicion was confirmed by Los Angeles Airport Security with the promise it will never happen again.

Just recently, in the mainstream press, there was public outrage over a satellite system called "Echelon." The sinister nature of this satellite has produced a group called "Echelon Watch" run by the ACLU.(7) This satellite system has generated hearings in Western governments by legislators who want to know Echelon's capabilities, as well as how to stop it from spying without regard to national boundaries or nationality of targeted individuals. But long before there was Echelon there was the National Reconnaissance Organization's (NRO) Rhyolite satellite system.(8) This was part of a group of satellite technologies referred to as ferrets, designed for electronic surveillance. All of the world powers have had satellite spy systems since the early 1960s.

In February of 1997, the New York Times published an article by William Broad called "Private Ventures Hope for Profits on Spy Satellites," ("Privacy is seen as Issue; Images Can Show Warships or Hot Tubs, Halting a Long Government Monopoly"). The article informed readers that a new policy allowed them to request satellite images and pay for them with a credit card. It was claimed by federal officials that "the risks and benefits were carefully weighed before the 1994 decision and that economic gains will offset military or diplomatic losses." A vibrant economy, they say, is "one of the most important elements of national security." Does the preceding statement anticipate the trading of satellite technology with the Chinese? With the claim that so-called "leaks" of this technology "bring about a new age of peacefulness"? Or, the more realistic stance that this technology will allow accessing any individual anywhere on Earth.

Because of the interest in espionage from space, ultra long distance high altitude accessing optics were developed and installed in satellites. The most recent public access satellite company is IKONOS(9). The one-meter resolution black-and-white image of Washington, D.C., collected by Space Imaging's IKONOS satellite, has unprecedented clarity and detail for commercial space imagery. As the IKONOS web site sales pitch goes: "The potential uses for IKONOS imagery are vast and we have just begun to scratch the surface," said Copple. "The value of this new source of information will create a demand like we've never seen before for imagery of the Earth." So, if you have the money, this company will spy for you. This technology can search for the target, capture their images and relay the image to a ground base in real time. Please be aware that this is merely the latest technology that has been allowed to go public.

Let's recap: The technology has been around since the early 60s which transmits and receives imagery from space; human implantable transmitters/receivers have been in development since the 50s; and experimental "field testing" using its tax-paying citizens has been a regular activity of the U.S. Government - and the British and Russian governments. How do we directly link the above technology to a targeted individual (TI) on the ground, esp. since so far no "smoking gun" document has been found? And, how is it possible to manipulate the TI physically and access the human mind to implant ideas/commands? Let's start with a brief history of telemetry and monitoring of humans. The following quotes by Dean C. Jutter are from Engineering in Medicine and Biology, dated March 1983(10):

"In 1903 Einthoven transmitted electrocardiogram voltage over Leiden Telephone System wires about a mile to a string galvanometer. In 1921 Winters transmitted heart sounds over a marine radio link as a demonstration for ships without a physician. External transmitters of various signals evolved as electronic methods evolved to produce smaller transmitters. Later, several groups inserted small coils and electrodes into the skulls of animals so alternating currents could be induced for a primitive form of telestimulation.

Stuart Mackay was in biotelemetry from the very beginning and gives us a glimpse of the early developments and evolution of the field. Dr. Mackay's message is replete with examples and applications to an impressively wide variety of animal species. Miniature and micropower are two cornerstones of modern biotelemetry design and construction. Improvements in these areas have closely paralleled the evolution of semiconductor and microcircuit technologies. He has been involved with reliable, stable integrated sensors and biotelemeters on microcircuit designs and implementations in recent years. The works is truly state-of-the-art.

Eli Fromm has provided an example of a "poor man's" hybrid biotelemeter to illustrate that some rather sophisticated circuit operations can be done on a low budget and without extensive microcircuit capabilities. His comments focus on a design for a two channel, FM-FM formatted implanted biotelemeter for multiple channel monitoring using resistance type transducers. Biomedical telemetry like many other things began as a "laboratory curiosity" but has evolved to a useful, reliable tool for data gathering. It has become an important, often complex, part of physiologic monitoring, but it also can be exciting and a lot of fun."

The scientists who worked on this study, I am sure thought their research would be utilized for the highest and most ethical purposes. Jutter's paper was published in 1983; however, it probably took 5 years to reach publication. The following paragraph from this previously cited paper provides a clue as to how many years this technology had been in development/research:

"The transmission of signals from within a subject was a technique that evolved slowly. On July 2, 1952 William Shockley and Bell Labs sent me [Dr. Jutter] four experimental point-contact transistors, which were difficult to power in a small package. (Junction transistors were only available for military use.) Thus, another approach was developed to provide for the totally passive transmission of information. Figure 2 is taken from Markevitch's 1954 undergraduate research report. The tuned circuit could be placed in the mouth and its frequency monitored from outside the face by the grid-dip meter. Thus the circuits tested by Markevitch showed that signals could be transmitted through the tissues of the body from quite small coils placed within the body."

The closing paragraphs of the journal article discuss implants:

"Implantable transducers. With this type of package, the biomaterial must meet two basic requirements. First, it must protect the device from the influx of body fluids; second, it should provide minimal interference with the transduction of the desired signal. In packaging most biomedical transducers, an insulating conformal layer is deposited onto the device - in particular, over electrically conductive and potentially corrosive areas. The material (usually an adhesive rubber or resin) provides a thin, but tough, film capable of guarding against environmental effects. Also, foreign material or bacteria may remain on objects if the parts are not adequately cleaned beforehand.

A minimal weight is required for any implantable package. The pressure (amplitude, duration, etc), produced by the implant on the surrounding tissue may alter the blood circulation at the implant site, possibly affecting tissue reaction. One reason titanium is used commonly as an implantable metal is because it possesses a low specific gravity and an excellent strength-to-weight ratio compared to other metals such as tantalum, tungsten, and stainless steel. Blunt corners and sharp edges should be eliminated because they irritate tissues locally. A streamlined contour is desirable. Implant location and implant technique also influences the local reaction at the site."

The article also provides a chart with "Biomedical frequency allocation in the United States for Research and Patient Monitoring." The following citation from this 1981 report by the US electronic research provides details of the types of implants that were available for study in 1981(11):

"Microelectronics has made possible immensely complicated feed-back and logic controls, so consequently the current difficulties lie primarily in the detecting and sensing aspect of the system. . . . . There are reports in the literature regarding the development of other prosthetic devices such as pain suppressors, urological controllers, blood sugar measurement for diabetic control, auditory prosthesis and intracranial pressure measurement. This is not a complete list of devices currently being developed, but merely an indication of the wide variety of prostheses that will be available in the future. . . . . Telemetry systems with multiple sensor inputs, but with a single radiofrequency transmitter link are also available. The sophisticated microelectronics currently available makes the electrical amplification and signal condition relatively easy."

The above citations provide documentation that the specific knowledge and technology for accessing various physical systems in humans has been available for many years. What about accessing a human mind to manipulate it? Dr. Jose Delgado was the first publicly recognized scientist to implant an animal and manipulate it from a distance. Based on Dr. Delgado's work, other research scientists came later. For example, the following is from a paper discussing manipulation of human emotions by researchers in 1978 at the University of California-Los Angeles (12) possibly utilizing, in addition to patients, volunteers from the Reed Brain Institute's Sleep Lab:

"Electrical stimulation of the human brain may evoke reports by patients of a wide variety of simple and complex sensations, emotions, and cognitions. These mental phenomena have been primarily considered in relation to the localization of function within the human brain. Penfield, in his pioneering studies describing the mental phenomena evoked by stimulation of the human temporal lobe, interpreted these evoked phenomena in a manner analogous to those evoked by specific sensory cortex stimulation. Penfield found, and others have confirmed, that the most common categories of mental phenomena evoked by temporal by stimulation include complex hallucinations. When discussing the hallucinations, which he considered to be memories, Penfield labeled the temporal cortex "memory records" (Penfield and Jasper, 1954, p. 145). When considering the deja vu other misinterpretations of present sensations, Penfield (1958) referred to this cortex as "perceptual" in analogy to "visual" or "motor" cortex, because stimulation there evoked "psychical responses" corresponding to the visual sensations or movements evoked by stimulation of the specific cortices."

The closing paragraphs of the above article suggest that, if required, emotional phenomena can be stimulated by directly accessing the temporal lobe electronically. As this paper states:

"Most of the mental phenomena reported by our patients during temporal lobe stimulation could be categorized as a hallucinated image or scene, an emotion, usually fear or anxiety, a visceral sensation, usually epigastrice, or an informed sensory sensation (visual, auditory, or somesthetic).

Of 3495 stimulations of the medial temporal lobe of 36 psychomotor epileptics, 266 were accompanied by reports of mental phenomena, including hallucinations of complete scenes, deja vu, anxiety, visceral sensations, amnesia, and uniformed sensory experiences. Olfactory and frankly aggressive responses were not observed. Our findings suggest that, in contrast to the primary visual or somatosensory areas, where the evoked mental phenomena are highly predictable and are closely related to the anatomical site, the mental phenomena evoked by medial temporal lobe stimulation are idiosyncratic and variable, and are related to the personality of the patient stimulated."

In light of the research cited above, it is possible to explain remotely controlled hallucinations or synthetic scenarios referred to as virtual realities. But, how can a targeted individual hear "voices" from external sources? Over the years, even though it appears the research went "black" in the early 1980s, information has come forward, usually in academic journals. One of the breakthrough papers, authored in 1962 (13) by Allan H. Frey, entitled "Human Auditory System Response to Modulated Electromagnetic Energy," is the link. This was the breakthrough. It must have been like watching movies for the first time. People made of light moving across a wall. . . Only this time, people in a laboratory could "hear" without a radio/transmitter. What they heard at first was only clicks and buzzes. The operator controlled the clicks and buzzes. Dr. Frey had figured out how microwave signals created sound in the head of a target.

In 1975, Dr. Don R. Justesen published a paper in the American Psychologist called "Microwaves and Behavior."(14) This is the only journal article mentioning an experiment by Dr. Joseph C. Sharp. Dr. Sharp does not seem to have published the results of his experiment anywhere. Or, maybe, he requested not to. Following is the quote from Justesen's paper regarding the experiment:

"Sharp and Grove (note 2) found that appropriate modulation of microwave energy can result in "wireless" and "receiverless" communication of speech. They recorded by voice on tape each of the single-syllable words for digits between 1 and 10. The electrical sine-wave analogs of each word were then processed so that each time a sine wave crossed zero reference in the negative direction, a brief pulse of microwave energy was triggered. By radiating themselves with these "voice modulated" microwaves, Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the 9 words. The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with artificial larynxes."

The research results discussed in Sharp's paper prove that the human being has had the capacity for many years to receive audible signals without being implanted. It should be apparent that humanity has had both the technology and the will to manipulate each other remotely. Information about the possibility of mind control has surfaced with regularity every few years. Yet, there is no public outcry en masse of the incredible invasion of privacy, and emotional and physical manipulation of everybody on the planet. In the next installment we will look at the possible reasons why there is no angry public demanding an end to this technology.

Footnotes

    (1) See, "McVeigh: The Manchurian Candidate" by David Hoffman, Special to
    ParaScope, http://www.parascope.com
    (2) Beginning with Andrija Puharich's work for Bell Laboratories using a
    patient at New York City's Bellevue Hospital in 1947 (Terry Milner's
    unpublished manuscript "Ratting out Puharich," TerryM2881@aol.com).
    (3) U.S. Air Force's 2025 Research Paper, (see,
    http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docorps/usaf/2025/v3v2/v3c2-4.htm#ImplantedMicroscopicChip)
    (4) Wescam, http://www.wescam.com/product_info/microwave_systems/index.htm
    (5) Section 1805 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code, see,
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1805.html
    (6) Millivision, http://www.millivision.com/mmw.html
    (7) http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html
    (8) See, The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford; pages 508-509.
    (9) IKONOS,
    http://www.spaceimaging.com/newsroom/releases/1999/firstimage.htm
    (10) Jutter, Dean C., Ph.D., Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 3/83,
    Assistant Professor in Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University,
    Milwaukee.
    (11) "Survey of Implantable Telemetry: a report by the US electronic
    research," Tomas B. Fryer, in Biotelemetry Patient Monitoring, 8/1981.
    (12) "Mental Phenomena Evoked by Electrical Stimulation of the Human
    Hippocampal Formation and Amylgada," Eric Halgren, Richard D. Walter, Diana
    G. Cherlow and Paul H. Crandall, from the Brain Research Institute, Reed
    Neurological Research Center and Department of Surgery, UCLA School of
    Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 1978.
    (13) "Human Auditory System Response to Modulated Electromagnetic Energy,
    Allen H. Frey, in Journal of Application Physiology, 17(4): 689-692, 1962.
    (14) "Microwaves and Behavior," Don R. Justesen, American Psychologist, see,
    Journal of the American Psychological Association, Vol. 30, March 1975, No.3.