No evidence of a project named "Project Monarch" (2)

[filedactivity]

I don't question his integrity as a journalist, nor his findings.
Quite the opposite.

But I do have a question for you PW.
Who are the authoritives on this subject?
Is it you perhaps, because you are maybe a victim, and therefore know more than someone who isn't a victim like me, but has done extensive research on the subject?
Or perhaps the 1977? Congress hearings who admitted they had destroyed records?
Or is it the people who are trying to cover it all up and let the American population be ignorant?
I'm asking in all sincerity.

Because if that's the case, then my apologies.

[Project Willow]

I don't question his integrity as a journalist, nor his findings.
Quite the opposite.

But I do have a question for you PW.
Who are the authoritives on this subject?
Is it you perhaps, because you are maybe a victim, and therefore know more than someone who isn't a victim like me, but has done extensive research on the subject?
Or perhaps the 1977? Congress hearings who admitted they had destroyed records?
Or is it the people who are trying to cover it all up and let the American population be ignorant?
I'm asking in all sincerity.

Because if that's the case, then my apologies.

Well, it would seem to me that in your list there, with the way you've worded it, it's self evident which are authoritative, no?

I am tempted to make the argument that every person, outside of the most incapacitated, psychotic or literally infantile, is the authority on their own life experience, but we know there can be other mitigating factors as to whether that experience is relayed accurately. We've seen challenges to the central assumption, shockingly enough, by such comers as the FMSF that claimed sometimes some people (mostly those involved in sex abuse cases, as opposed to other traumas, oddly enough) are not the primary source of their own experiences, which of course is absurd.

Those whom you mentioned in the last bit, who are trying to cover it all up, they have a process they go through to discredit survivor accounts. Oddly enough they have to familiarize themselves somewhat with the subject matter, so they may hold authoritative information, but they do not use it with honest authority.

They begin with the premise that neither MC or RA can exist. Right off the bat there, that's a self defeating error. If one is looking for some bit of tuth in a situation, to deny one possibility at the outset is poor practice, well unless you're talking about phenomena far outside what our understanding of physcis could describe, which we aren't here, so it's just highly irrational. The next step is to find how this impossible idea came into being, and usually, though not always, that centers on finding fault in the character or circumstances of the person speaking out. There's a long list of possibilities here, like the speaker is delusional (that one is terribly unimaginative), or profiting monetarily or socially (fat chance), or using the account as an organizing life principle, or seeking perpetual victimhood. Those are a few, I'm sure I've forgotten some. All of these are spurious assumptions made about people whom the assumptuous have generally never met, of course. They serve rhetorical purposes and have no basis in any known fact. The rhetoric serves extraordinarily strong drives, most often as a bulwark against identification and therefore extreme emotional pain or the need to cover-up criminal activity.

My motivations are simple and I am always happy to share them. I have a strong desire to live a life free of overwhelming trauma. That requires the assistance of others in the community, such as protective and restorative institutions, which in turn requires that I tell my story. I have a strong desire to feel a sense of belonging to my community and that requires that others around me begin to accept my experience rather than regard it as impossible or anomalous.

So as to one of your questions there, am I an authority because I was a victim of MC? I will say this, being of adult age, and not afflicted with psychosis or physical brain incapacity, and being very far along in a process of recovery from strong behavioral conditioning, I am most certainly an authority on my own life experience. I can speak to my experience of having been subjected to MC. As for the other possible authoritative sources, each of those can be evaluated quite well according to the rules that guide that sort of thing.

[nathan28]

I would assume he's grounding that formerly mystical experience to a process that can be defined and measured, a process taking place in the brain, like dissociation.

Besides the fact that I feel no need to qualify an out of body experience as "mystical", because "unusual" is fine and what Nobblit recounts his patient telling him in that instance is very, very quotidian, Noblitt calls it "dissociation."

That also meant some of the MC procedures developed in the labs leaked out via these routes and then were used in private settings. Basically it's a public private split, state-actor torture vs. non-state actor torture with some limited areas of overlap.

Colin Wilson recounts several MC-like stories that pre-date both the CIA and the OSS, which suggests to me that the techniques predate "developed in labs."

[elfismiles]

Hi PW.

No offense. Just simply cannot understand why you take that source or any of those links to be in any way credible.

Thank you for that clarification.

Hopefully I can clarify my own perspective on the links I posted as they relate to your uncertainty about “why you take that source or any of those links to be in any way credible.” Perhaps my explanation will go some distance towards helping you have a better sense of who I am and where I'm coming from such that you won't have to invoke 10 foot long barge poles where I'm concerned.

Elfies, I really don't know you, I don't know you at all.

I'm sorry to hear you say that so I suppose I should try a little harder right here and now to remedy that.

Well, besides what I've presented in this forum about myself there is plenty available online about me for one to grok that I try and cultivate an agnostic appreciation for those things I can find cold and hard facts about balanced with those for which I only have personal anecdotes and folkloric rumors. I encourage others to try and have a high-tolerance for ambiguity when navigating paranormal and parapolitical claims and evidence.

Perhaps I should try and consolidate some of this over at this old thread:

Who the Frak are YOU: The RI Membership Directory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25305&start=105

But before doing that, I guess I should just try and answer your question as succinctly as possible:

“why you take that source or any of those links to be in any way credible”

Well, because I know and respect the two people involved. However, posting a link and re-stating that someone claims something is a hoax does not imply I agree. It seemed appropriate to throw links to that info regarding Candy Jones since you had brought her up in a thread which is suggesting that (at least the supposed subproject name) "Monarch" didn't exist and might have been a hoax - again, the name, not the claims of children abused for whatever purposes.

I can certainly understand why someone might not consider Jim Moseley and Karl Pflock to be trust-worthy sources as Jim has perpetrated hoaxes and Pflock was former-CIA.

However, I will repeat, while I may not always agree with these two (radically different) people's perspectives, I truly honor their contributions to the field of Ufology. Pflock passed away some time ago:
http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays ... flock.html

A quick backgrounder on my friendship / acquaintance with both of them and their significance to the UFO community...

Together they authored one of the best historical overviews of the modern ufo scene based largely on Moseley's personal experiences and encounters with the original contactees and historic ufo witnesses:

Shockingly Close to the Truth! : Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/index.ph ... ts_id=1025

Jim Moseley has been publishing the longest running UFO related publication on the planet. He also organized one of the longest running UFO conferences - which is how he and I came to be friends when I accepted responsibility for hosting and organizing the (ill-fated) 2001 event here in Austin.
http://www.nufoc.com/nufoc38/

I first met Jim in San Antonio at the 1999 National UFO Conference. I got to hang out with him and Dennis Stacy for hours talking UFOs over glasses of wine in 2000 at the Corpus Christi National UFO Conference as I accepted the helm for 2001's event.

While Jim has a reputation for being silly and stirring up trouble, to me, he is an American treasure who has a sincere interest in the phenomenon and appreciates as I do both the crazy circus aspects of the ufo scene and the scientific import at the heart of the phenomenon.

Karl Pflock on the other hand, has a much more professional background:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail105.htm

He wrote one of the more skeptical books on Roswell...

Roswell : Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe
http://www.amazon.com/Roswell-Inconveni ... 1573928941

And he debunked other UFO crash retrieval stories:

Karl Pflock explains the Aztec UFO Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLba0balMvE

Besides having some interesting takes on the UFO phenomenon (he tended to think that there were possible true ETs involved early on but that they left in the 1970s) Karl also participated in an interesting re-investigation of the Betty and Barney Hill case:

ENCOUNTERS AT INDIAN HEAD: The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Abduction Revisited
Edited by Karl Pflock and Peter Brookesmith
http://www.anomalistbooks.com/pflock-brookesmith.html

However, as much as I respect each of them for their unique perspectives and contributions to the field, their areas of interest do not extend into the many other areas I am interested in and I'd say they are both vastly unaware of huge swaths of research that I keep up with including parapsychology, mind control and parapolitical milieus.

So, while I don't necessarily think they are the best judges of the case regarding "The Control of Candy Jones", the fact that Moseley met her on a number of occassions and was told it was a hoax of some sort by some of those involved in her life, is for me both noteworthy and potentially relevant to a discussion of the case.

My tolerance for the esoteric cover memes of life is truly, finally at an end. I don't belong here.

And just completely out of patience with how every time there's talk of mind control a variety of posters have to interject every other fringe phenomena that ever wafted a trial balloon over open-headed starers.

Well, the thing I've always liked most about Jeff's RI blog and the forums is that it encompasses both the paranormal and the parapolitical while examining the intersection and influences of each upon the other. If it were exclusively one or the other it wouldn't be what it is and wouldn't have garnered my attention and respect for as long as it has.

I often feel a pull within RI between general interest in all these things and the desire among many of us to pull it in different specific directions such as various activism avenues and as a support group for those who feel they've been victimized by the wide variety of systematic abuse that is so often a topic here whether SRA or MK or otherwise.

I don't know how it can be all things to all people or even most things for just a few people but I think RI has done alright finding a balance for half a decade now.

- miles

[Project Willow]

Colin Wilson recounts several MC-like stories that pre-date both the CIA and the OSS, which suggests to me that the techniques predate "developed in labs."

It should be a given that throughout history various cultures, for good or ill, tested the limits of suggestibility, control, trance and dissociative states, and effects of mind-altering substances. The term mesmerized is still in common usage. I have said in my own writings as have many others that at least one possible source of general TBMC techniques was the occult practices of some imported personnel, though the evidence is mainly circumstantial. However, none of these comes close to the level of efficacy reached by military/gov. experimenters in their quest for absolutely precise and predictable levels of control, and the degree of neurological manipulation they could obtain in the controlled environment of the laboratory. So maybe what we have here is a rhetorical problem. Or perhaps the simple answer to your first question is that not all RA experiences involve overt mind control.

[Project Willow]

Hi PW.

Hi elfis.

...
I can certainly understand why someone might not consider Jim Moseley and Karl Pflock to be trust-worthy sources as Jim has perpetrated hoaxes and Pflock was former-CIA.
...

.....

So, while I don't necessarily think they are the best judges of the case regarding "The Control of Candy Jones", the fact that Moseley met her on a number of occassions and was told it was a hoax of some sort by some of those involved in her life, is for me both noteworthy and potentially relevant to a discussion of the case.

Uh-huh. Thanks for sharing that.

While Jim has a reputation for being silly and stirring up trouble, to me, he is an American treasure who has a sincere interest in the phenomenon and appreciates as I do both the crazy circus aspects of the ufo scene and the scientific import at the heart of the phenomenon.

Tell me then, how is it possible to discern the scientific import from the crazy circus? Whom do you think the crazy circus aids or harms? Do you factor that into your activity on the subject?

[elfismiles]

Tell me then, how is it possible to discern the scientific import from the crazy circus?
Whom do you think the crazy circus aids or harms?

Will do, later. Right now, I'm off to to do some house hunting and then to the ole day job.

Do you factor that into your activity on the subject?

Uh ... yeah.

[Simulist]

No offense. Just simply cannot understand why you take that source or any of those links to be in any way credible.

Well, because I know and respect the two people involved.

[...]

I can certainly understand why someone might not consider Jim Moseley and Karl Pflock to be trust-worthy sources as Jim has perpetrated hoaxes and Pflock was former-CIA.

[...]

While Jim has a reputation for being silly and stirring up trouble, to me, he is an American treasure who has a sincere interest in the phenomenon and appreciates as I do both the crazy circus aspects of the ufo scene and the scientific import at the heart of the phenomenon.

Okay. I hate to admit this, but I will: I'm confused.

Jim Moseley has a "sincere interest in the phenomenon" [of UFOs], but has "perpetrated hoaxes"? How does that work, exactly? Doesn't the latter cancel out the sincerity of the former?

[nathan28]

IMO Candy Jones gets filed in the barge-pole file. Like elfi says some think it's a hoax, but that's less relevant than the fact that Long John what'shisface--who was followed on the air by Larry King and JAMES RANDI--was the dude largely behind the book. Considering he was known to fuck with people, I'd be wary of using that material... even if it is accurate (and it sounds like parts of it certainly are, though I haven't read it) it's of dubious origin.

I'm not sure this is on-topic, but DSM-III, the first to include multiple personality disorder, wasn't introduced until 1980. Sibyl was published in 1973, the year MK-ULTRA was formally discontinued, packed up and shipped to another dep't (and if the Church Committee is right, even discontinued informally by 1976, though that doesn't mean MC work discontinued). The film was 1976. What psychiatric model was in use, then, prior to then? MC experiments date to the 1950s, and I haven't read enough in-house documents to know.

[Simulist]

Although I've posted this before, the source file for the transcription that follows is convincing evidence to me that the ability to alter memory — even to control human behavior outright under certain conditions, using hypnosis — was not only possible but was in use from at least 1954.

A/B, 3, 2/18

To: File

Subject: Hypnotic Experimentation and Research, 10 February 1954


On Wednesday, 10 February 1954, hypnotic experimentation and research work was continued in Building 13 by Mr. [blacked out] using the following subjects: Misses [blacked out] and [blacked out].

The group of five subjects appeared on schedule. The operator expecting only three subjects, namely Misses [blacked out] and [blacked out] was forced to alter his plans somewhat due to the unexpected arrival of two more subjects.

Plans were originally made to conduct experiments in color blindness, blindness and intoxication. These plans were altered to permit first, the subjects to present questions and discussions. (This was to permit the operator to spot any subjects who were critically analyzing their progress.) Several questions were presented and promptly clarified to the satisfaction of the subjects. In this discussion it was obvious that Misses [blacked out] and [blacked out] were beginning to lose confidence in themselves. From this point on the work proceeded as follows:

1. A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Misses [blacked out] and [blacked out] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state with no further suggestion. This was to test whether the mere carrying out of the posthypnotic would produce the state of hypnosis desired. Needless to say, it did.

2. Miss [blacked out] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [blacked out] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep) and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss [blacked out]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [blacked out] for failing to awaken. Miss [blacked out] carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded pneumatic pistol) gun at [blacked out] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. Miss [blacked out] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.

If this sort of thing were possible in those days — in 1954 — then exactly what is possible today?

[elfismiles]

Instead of hijacking this thread in the directions it seems to be going perhaps we can, A) - start a thread on "Segregation, Balance, or Wheat From Chaff" and B) - continue / add upon an existing Candy Jones thread...

ParaTopics: Segregation, Balance, or Wheat From Chaff?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28581

Taking Control of Candy Jones
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1308

[elfismiles]

Attempt at a response here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28581&p=343617#p343617

Tell me then, how is it possible to discern the scientific import from the crazy circus?
Whom do you think the crazy circus aids or harms?

Will do, later. Right now, I'm off to to do some house hunting and then to the ole day job.

Do you factor that into your activity on the subject?

Uh ... yeah.

[elfismiles]

More coverage of Albarelli's work and commentary about Monarch in the comments here:

Obama Interrogation Official Linked to U.S. Mind Control Research
By: Jeff Kaye Sunday May 23, 2010
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/50281

And Wikipedia (which sadly does not yet cite Albarelli's book)...

Cathy O'Brien

Project Monarch

O'Brien alleges that she was abducted by the CIA as a child and forced to participate in a mind control program named Project Monarch, which is said to be a subsection of Project MKULTRA and Project ARTICHOKE.[2][3][4][5][6] Despite scholarly investigation of the MKULTRA program, there is no evidence for the existence of Project Monarch except for O'Brien's testimony.[6] O'Brien also alleges that her daughter Kelly is also a victim of Monarch.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mo ... ct_Monarch

[Project Willow]

IMO Candy Jones gets filed in the barge-pole file. Like elfi says some think it's a hoax, but that's less relevant than the fact that Long John what'shisface--who was followed on the air by Larry King and JAMES RANDI--was the dude largely behind the book. Considering he was known to fuck with people, I'd be wary of using that material... even if it is accurate (and it sounds like parts of it certainly are, though I haven't read it) it's of dubious origin.

No barge pole necessary, from wikipedia of all places:

Bain reported that associates in Jones' modeling schools asserted that Jones indeed had some puzzling absences — supposed business trips where little or no business seemed to be conducted.[5] Bain also writes that another piece of evidence came forth when "Candy inadvertently held onto a passport of 'Arlene Grant': Candy in a dark wig and dark makeup." Jones says she had no memory of dressing up in such an outfit, or of posing for a passport in a different name.

Bain also claimed that a tape recorded answering machine message was left on Jones and Nebel's home telephone number on July 3, 1973: "This is Japan Airlines calling on oh-three July at 4.10 p.m. ... Please have Miss Grant call 759-9100 ... she is holding a reservation on Japan Airlines Flight 5, for the sixth of July, Kennedy to Tokyo, with an option on to Taipei. This is per Cynthia that we are calling." When Jones telephoned the number and asked for Cynthia, she was told that no one of that name worked at the reservations desk. Bain speculates that "Cynthia" might have been "Arlene's" CIA contact, or perhaps a "code word" meant to trigger a hypnotic suggestion.

Additionally, Brian Haughton notes that "There was also a letter [Jones] wrote to her attorney, William Williams, to cover herself in case she died or disappeared suddenly or under unusual circumstances; she told him she was not at liberty to reveal exactly what she was involved in. Bain wrote to Williams who corroborated this fact." [6]

It is also worth noting[original research?] that in 1971, an article by Estabrooks was published in Science Digest, wherein he openly discussed the successful creation of amnesiac couriers of the type Jones claimed to have been.[7]

Dr. Herbert Spiegel, a nationally-recognized hypnosis expert, wrote a foreword to the Playboy Press edition of The Control of Candy Jones. Spiegel opined that though Nebel was an amateur hypnotist, he had in fact hypnotized Jones well, and had seemed to avoid planting ideas or leading Jones' recollection. Spiegel was not convinced that the entire story was accurate, but he thought that the corroborate evidence Jones, Bain and Nebel had uncovered made it difficult to dismiss the account outright.

I'm not sure this is on-topic, but DSM-III, the first to include multiple personality disorder, wasn't introduced until 1980. Sibyl was published in 1973, the year MK-ULTRA was formally discontinued, packed up and shipped to another dep't (and if the Church Committee is right, even discontinued informally by 1976, though that doesn't mean MC work discontinued). The film was 1976. What psychiatric model was in use, then, prior to then? MC experiments date to the 1950s, and I haven't read enough in-house documents to know.

Jeezuz Nathan, here, try this http://didiva.com/about-did/history/ and that goes for anyone starting MC 101.

[nathan28]

If this sort of thing were possible in those days — in 1954 — then exactly what is possible today?

What was possible the day before yesterday?