Rauscher

On December 3, 2011, Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher was interviewed in Davis, California. An excerpt of the Rauscher interview is posted here.

The interview includes Rauscher's scientific look back at the issue of electromagnetic (EMR) mind control. Significantly, Rauscher discussed how she became convinced that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) could cause behavioral and biological effects on humans, despite the widespread belief to the contrary. Rauscher commented on classified EMR weapons research and U.S. secrecy efforts that hindered her own bioelectromagnetics research. Bioelectricity, now called bioelectromagnetics is the study of the electromagnetic forces generated by living organisms, and the effects of external electromagnetic forces and fields upon living organisms.^{^[1]} Bioelectromagnetics is the scientific basis for some EMR weapons. In the 1980s, Rauscher conducted a key mind control experiment in which "simple images can be impressed on the conscious mind without going through the visual system at all."^{^[2]} Dr. Robert Becker, two time Nobel Prize nominee and bioelectromagnetics researcher ^{^[3]} described Rauscher's experiment as "a substantial step forward in understanding how the visual system works," and as having the potential to be developed into a powerful weapon.

By comparing some of today's cutting edge areas of neuroscience research to the science behind Rauscher's experiment--bioelectromagnetics--the scientific outline of powerful secret brain weapons are becoming apparent. For example, neuroscientists are only beginning to discover from the study of brain signals "that we have a direct way to visualize what you are seeing. . . . . it raises the possibility that we can actually see what others are thinking or dreaming. We’re not there but we’re moving in those directions."^{^[4]} Could weapons based on this neuroscience research already be developed? Most neuroscientists dismiss the idea.

However, leading ethicists are recommending public discussions are to establish the ethics of new 'neuroweapons'; called mind control weapons during the Cold War.^{^[5]} Neuroweapons are weapons that target the brain and nervous system.^{^[6]} Neuroscientists agree that advanced neuroweapons capable of reading thoughts or targeting the enemy remotely are still science fiction, although they will be scientifically possible some day: "To achieve truly precise mind-reading and control, neuroscientists must master the syntax or set of rules that transform electrochemical pulses coursing through the brain into perceptions, memories, emotions and decisions."^{^[7]} However, as Rauscher's interview illustrates, there seems to be one area of neuroscience--bioelectromagnetics--that may be essential for solving how the brain works and that has been classified during the Cold War. Most neuroscientists have been unaware of or have discounted the importance of bioelectromagnetics. With a closer look at; Rauscher's key mind control experiment, some of the history of bioelectromagnetics, secret EMR neuroweapons research and the neuroscience related to bioelectromagnetics, it becomes more likely that remote advanced EMR neuroweapons may already be developed.

Click here for transcript of Chuck DeCaro, "Special Assignment: Weapons of War, Is there an RF Gap,?" CNN, November 1985. For a $55 copy of videotape call CNN at 404 827 2712 and ask for R2501 #13, R2747 #33, R2501 #15, R2501-#17."

Click here for transcript of David Jones "Opening Pandora’s Box," Fulcrum Central Productions, BBC documentary, Channel 4, England, 1984.

Dr. Rauscher is a really nice and extremely smart physicist. In the 1970s, she had a Q government security clearance for her research on the cosmos with physicist Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb. She turned down offers to work on Star Wars and today she develops medical devices based on bioelectromagnetics to enhance health. In 2011, MIT professor David Kaiser published the book How the Hippies Saved Physics: science, counterculture and the quantum revival.^{^[8]} Scientific American, New York Times and other major news sources have reviewed this fascinating book about Rauscher and George Weissmann, graduate students at Berkeley, California. Rauscher and Weissmann founded the Fundamental Fysiks Group (Group) in 1975, an informal weekly discussion group. Formal physics education did not include discussion groups even though the pioneers of quantum mechanics - Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger - debated endlessly in their day. Rauscher was ahead of her time; for example, participants of the Group were almost all men and as shown below, her 1980s key mind control experiment went beyond even today’s cutting edge neuroscience.

In the 1970s, Californians were discussing popular topics such as psychedelic drugs, para-psychology, telekinesis, ESP and a search for extra-terrestrial communication. The Group debated it all with an open-minded attitude, unlike most of their colleagues. The Group were trained scientists interested in a well-recognized feature of quantum theory, non-locality or entanglement, which basically implies that, even when separated, two elementary particles can still have an instantaneous effect on each other. When this phenomenon was originally discovered in the 1930s, Einstein did not like it, calling it "spooky actions at a distance." Luckily, quantum physics became understandable to the general public when Kaiser detailed this aspect of quantum theory on one of the episodes of the 2011, PBS NOVA series The Fabric of the Cosmos with Brian Greene.

The Group sessions contributed to the field of quantum information science; they helped make possible a world in which bankers and politicians shield their most critical information with quantum encryption. The Group and a few other isolated physicists contributed to how we think about information, communication, computation, and the subtle workings of the microworld today.

Rauscher's key mind control experiment, however, is not based on quantum physics but on bioelectromagnetics. As Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist, explained, mind reading of the future will not require quantum physics: "The ancient myth of telepathy induced by occult and spooky action-at-a-distance would be replaced by a prosaic kind of telepathy induced by physical tools."^{^[9]} Dyson stated that detailed observation or control of a brain will emerge before the twenty-first century ends and will require two new tools; first, the direct conversion of neural signals into radio signals and vice versa; and second, the placement of microscopic microwave transmitters and receivers inside the brain.^{^[10]} Rauscher's experiment was a step towards doing just that, only better. Rauscher directed EMR magnetic signals into a CNN news reporter's brain without microwave transmitters and receivers, thus providing evidence of a scientific basis for EMR--without brain implants--for direct communication with the brain.

Raucher has had an inspiring career, often questioning authority, asking unconventional questions and delving into brain science. Rauscher’s interview reflects her remarkable life, intelligence and enduring humanity. The next sections discuss background information for the interview.

A 1985 CNN news broadcast, featured an experiment by Rauscher and her husband, Dr. William Van Bise.^{^[11]} Rauscher and Van Bise directed magnetic signals into the brain of news reporter Chuck DeCaro. DeCaro was blindfolded and his ears were blocked for sound in an experiment using Soviet specifications for equipment capable of generating specific but very weak magnetic signals designed to cause visual “hallucinations.” When the magnetic signals were directed at DeCaro, he stated: "A parabola just went by. . . . I could see wave forms changing shape as they went by." The experiment on DeCaro was successful and it was an indication that remote EMR mind control weapons were scientifically possible. "In three weeks, I could put together a device that would take care of a whole town," Van Bise commented. Rauscher discussed Van Bise's comment in her 2011 interview and explained what he meant by the comment.

The CNN program also featured Becker, mentioned above, who commented that the Rauscher experiment would be a powerful weapon if used on fighter pilots while trying to fly. Becker wrote:

Science "explains" the visual system in simplistic terms that are quite inaccurate. Photons of light are focused on the retina where they form an image of the external world. The "pattern" of this image is transferred to impulses in the optic nerves, and it is ultimately expressed as a similar pattern on the optic cortex at the back of the brain. This process is much like the process a computer uses to form a graphic image on the screen. This graphic image is expressed as a specific collection of individual dots: the more dots there are and the closer together they are, the more realistic the image will be. We call this "image digitizing."

If things were this simple we should be able to electrically stimulate the optic cortex with a pattern of electrodes arranged, for example, in the shape of the letter A, and the subject would report seeing the visual image of the letter A. The fact of the matter is that even the letter A cannot be perceived in this way; the patient merely reports the sensation of light. We expect that somewhere in the brain such a patterning is expressed--on the "computer screen of the mind," for example. But we have not found the screen. This may be because it exists only in the state of consciousness, not in the physical brain.

I know of one experimental circumstance in which simple images can be impressed on the conscious mind without going through the visual system at all. This technique was discovered by Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher, a physicist, and William Van Bise, an engineer. It uses magnetic fields generated by two coils of wire, each pulsing at a slightly different frequency and directed so as to intersect at the head of the subject

When two beams of electromagnetic energy with different frequencies intersect at some point in space, a third frequency is formed. This frequency is the difference between the two original frequencies and is called either the "difference" or the "beat" frequency. For example, if one beam had a frequency of 100 kHz and the other a frequency of 99.99 kHz, the difference would be 0.01 kHz, or 10 Hz. This is a useful technique for producing extremely low frequencies (ELF) within a small volume located a distance away from the original transmitters. In Van Bise and Rauscher's experiment, the difference frequencies were always in the ELF range. The size of the volume in which this occurs depends upon the diameter of the two beams. (This technique will be discussed further in a later chapter.)

Van Bise and Rauscher's blindfolded subjects "saw" such simple figures as circles, ellipses, or triangles, which could be changed by altering the frequency of one of the coils. The coils were several feet from the subject's head. The magnetic field strength from the coils were so small that no electrical currents could have been generated in the brain, and the control electronics were located in another room.

This technique seems to bypass the entire visual system as we know it, acting directly at the interface between the organic brain and the conscious perception of visual images. If this supposition is even partially correct, it is highly unlikely that the conscious perception level is based upon a digital or nerve-impulse system. The technique could not possibly have stimulated nerve impulses in any part of the brain, because the field strengths were far too low and the ELF frequency cannot produce such stimulation. It is probable that this sensitivity to such low-strength, low-frequency magnetic fields requires the presence of semiconducting DC elements.^{^[12]}

Becker explained that Rauscher's experiment raised a radical idea that went against conventional neuroscience thinking: "it is highly unlikely that the conscious perception level is based upon a digital or nerve-impulse system." Becker's suppositions about the visual system were based on neuroscience research established prior to World War II, below. Furthermore, subsequent neuroscience research has extended Becker's suppositions and his radical idea about Rauscher's experiment. The next section compares Rauscher's experiment to cutting edge neuroscience; this illustrates how conventional neuroscience overlooked an important area of neuroscience research--bioelectromagnetics and how the radical idea raised in Rauscher's experiment is proving to be true.

The 'image digitizing' that Becker discussed above was described by Dr. Bruce Rosen, who spoke at President Obama's Bioethics Commission in 2011 on the state of neuroscience today:^{^[13]}

The next thing I would like to talk about very quickly is fMRI. Functional brain imaging really started now two decades ago with this work from Jack Belliveau published in Science. But, of course, since that time has really evolved. I’ll give you just one example to give you a state of the current technology. Let’s say that we know there is a direct relationship between your primary visual cortex, the part of your brain that first processes visual images, and your retina, the back of your eye, what it’s seeing.

Let’s say we wanted to imprint this letter M on the back of your cortex. We would have to show your retina an M. It would be slightly distorted because there is kind of a warping between the retina and the brain but there is this simple mapping. We actually did the experiment and we showed subjects a figure that looked like this and we wanted to see whether we could — what we would see in the brain.

When you first look at the brain with fMRI you typically see pictures like this, grayscale anatomy. The bright spots are the part of the brain that turned on. It doesn’t really look like much of anything. If you look at it on the folded surface of the brain, again you almost get the sense that there may be something there of interest.

But hopefully this next slide will show when you actually look at it on the surface when you blow up the brain. Basically take the raisin and turn it back into the grape. There’s our M right on the back of the brain. The point of this is that we have a direct way to visualize what you are seeing. Of course, because we know that the visual cortex activates when we imagine visual scenes, we know it activates when we’re dreaming, it raises the possibility that we can actually see what others are thinking or dreaming. We’re not there but we’re moving in those directions.

It is interesting to note that Rosen’s experiment involving the “M” described the same neuroscience research that Becker described in 1985 involving an “A.” Rosen's experiment 'read' the brain signals to see the visual image while Rauscher's experiment beamed magnetic signals into the reporter's brain and created a visual image. Rosen and Rausher have approached the study of how the brain processes human vision from two different perspectives; Rosen from a conventional neuroscience approach and Rauscher from a physics and bioelectromagnetics approach. In the next section, the conventional neuroscience behind Rosen's experiments is briefly presented, followed by a section on Rauscher and Becker's bioelectromagnetics approach. The two approaches are then compared and contrasted.

Conventional neuroscience has focused on the study of neurons as the only means of brain communication. The research on vision as Rosen described involved the study of neuronal brain signaling. Since Ramon y Cajal's Nobel Prize winning discovery of the neuron at the beginning of the twentieth century, his neuron doctrine has prevailed.^{^[14]} The 'neuro-centric' view of the brain is implicit in the name of the discipline--neuroscience--which had its beginnings in the 1960s.^{^[15]} The defining characteristic of a neuron is its ability to transmit rapid electrical signals in the form of action potentials. The longstanding belief is that each of the brain's 100 billion neurons communicate strictly by a digital code.'^{^[16]} As in a computer, digital coding transmits "enormous amounts of data at high speed, but only if the information can be reduced to yes-no, on-off bits--the digits 1 and 0."^{^[17]}

In the 1920s, it was discovered that the transmission of the nerve impulse included the release of chemicals at the nerve ending, called the synapse. From then on, biological thinking focused on action potentials and synapses and disregarded bioelectricity. "The drug industry had developed soon after the Civil War. . . . The increasing reliance on drugs fed and fed off of the ascendancy of biochemistry."^{^[18]} Electrotherapeutics, the use of electricity to treat any ailment, was practiced by prominent doctors but some of the medical electrical devices were proven to be quackery and the whole field of bioelectricity declined.^{^[19]} Consequently, the study of the brain has remained focused on the neuron doctrine and the study of the action potential and the biochemical synapse.

The following example further illustrates the conventional neuroscientific approach to the study of vision. Neuroscientists today describe a technique of almost reading thoughts using fMRI and computer modeling. As Rosen described, there is a direct relationship between the image projected onto the back of the eye and the unprocessed signals of the image that start to travel through the brain. Likewise, there have been cat experiments involving the study of neuronal signals received from the cat's eye but before the brain significantly processes the signals; these experiments have successfully recorded the unprocessed brain signals of what the cat sees in real time without the use of fMRI. A 2011 article described the cat experiments:^{^[20]}

The next section contrasts the conventional neuroscience approach of the study of neuronal signals to the bioelectromagnetics approach in Rauscher's experiment and discusses the importance of this difference.

Glia are another type of brain cell. 'Glia do not fire action potentials like neurons, but instead surround and ensheath neuronal cell bodies, axons and synapses throughout the nervous system.^{^[22]} Glia make up over half of the brain cells, yet until recently they were believed to have only a passive supporting role, consequently, the study of glia has been completely ignored by neuroscientists.^{^[23]} However, in the last decade, neuroscientists have described glia research and their excitement 'about the prospect that more than half the brain has gone largely unexplored and may contain a trove of information about how the mind works.'^{^[24]} As Becker mentioned above, the brain communicates with neuronal digital brain signals and it also seems to communicate with analog EMR signals. Analog signals occur outside of the neuron and are electromagnetic signals coded by strength of current, direction of flow and slow, wave-like variations for precise brain control.^{^[25]} Based on neuroscience research in the pre-World War II era, Becker suggested that the brain may depend on the synergy of both types of brain signals for higher brain functions such as vision, memory and thinking.

The pre-World War II research that Becker referred to included computer pioneer, John von Neuman, a group of Harvard Medical School scientists and a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scientists who around 1939 established that the interaction of neurons and glia are the basis for thought processes and how the brain works.^{^[26]} This required a combination of both the digital signals of neurons and analog brain signals outside neurons. "The digital system would transfer sensory and motor information, but the processing of that information--memory and recall, thought, and so on--would be accomplished by the synergism of both methods."^{^[27]} If such a hypothesis proved to be true, the implications for national security would be tremendous; it would have been scientifically possible to develop advanced remote mind control weapons in the 1950s. Significantly, Von Neuman would go on to be well connected to secret atomic bomb research. With the threat of communist mind control in the 1950s, it can be argued that Von Neuman's hypothesis would not have been overlooked by the researchers conducting CIA mind control experiments at that time. The analog/digital brain research was further developed in the 1940s by prominent neuroscientists including Wilder Penfield^{^[28]} who established that the electrical 'current was transmitted by structures outside the neurons.'^{^[29]}

Neurophysiologists Ralph Gerard and Benjamin Libet were also "convinced that the simplistic concept of the nerve impulse being the sole neural mechanism was inadequate to explain the complex functions of the brain. During the 1930s and 40s they reported evidence for actual electrical currents flowing outside of the nerve cells proper in the brain."^{^[30]} The research conflicted with neuron doctrine and the "majority of neurophysiologists went on measuring the action potentials and tracing out fiber pathways in the brain."^{^[31]} In the early 1960s, Robert Galambos, a neuroscientist, hypothesized that the brain's "two cellular components-the neurons and the glia-mutually collaborate to produce behavior"^{^[32]} and "his superiors at Walter Reed [Army Institute of Research] found the theory so radical that he was soon job-hunting."^{^[33]} Several scientists subsequently reported similar experiences. By contrast, some bioelectromagnetics researchers such as Becker and others extended Von Neuman's hypothesis with further bioelectromagnetics research. Today, some neuroscience research has confirmed and extended Von Neuman's 1930s hypothesis. For example, some neuroscientists have concluded that the analog-digital nature of brain communication will need to be considered in order to achieve "a truly in depth understanding of the brain and its disorders:"

Contrary to popular belief, brain cells use a mix of analog and digital coding at the same time to communicate efficiently, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine researchers published this week in Nature. . . .

"It's as if everyone thought communication in the brain was like a telegraph, but actually it turned out to be more similar to a telephone," he [ David McCormick, professor in the Department of Neurobiology] said. . . .

Neurons receive input from other cells largely through synaptic contacts on their dendrites and cell bodies. The release of neurotransmitters at these synapses causes the voltage inside the cell receiving the transmitters to fluctuate continuously. Once this voltage passes a threshold, an action potential is generated. The action potential is a specialized waveform known to be able to travel down the axon, or output portion of the cell.

McCormick's group demonstrated that the analog signal present in the cell body also propagates down the axon and influences synaptic transmission onto other neurons. As the voltage on the sending cell becomes more positive, the amplitude of the subsequent transmission to the receiving cell, mediated by an action potential, is enhanced. This means that the waveform generated in the receiving neuron is not just determined by the digital pattern of action potentials generated, but also by the analog waveform occurring in the sending neuron.^{^[34]}

In the 1930s and 1940s, Gerard and Libet's research, mentioned above, found similar findings as McCormick’s group; Gerard and Libet "demonstrated that such currents [electric currents] influenced the way in which the neurons operated, but their work evoked little interest, not only because it flew in the face of established dogma [the neuron doctrine] but also because the measurement of direct currents of such small magnitude was extremely difficult."^{^[35]} Likewise, as Becker wrote in 1985: "It is now known that glial cells have electrical properties that, while not the same as nerve impulse transmission, enable them to play a role in communication with the body."^{^[36]} Thus, the research of Rauscher, Becker, McCormick and several others suggests that Von Neuman's 1930s hypothesis is scientifically valid, although it remains unproven.

This line of research suggests that bioelectromagnetics may be an important but understudied and under funded area of promising neuroscience research. Both the neuronal and bioelectromagnetics approach seem to be critical to solving how the higher brain functions such as vision work, although clearly, for decades, neuroscientists have focused on a neuronal approach. Significantly, this suggests that the bioelectromagnetics research related to neuroscience has been scientifically valid for decades, although it has been overshadowed by the neuronal approach to neuroscience and its continuing focus on the neuron doctrine. Likewise, the 1950s classified mind control research could also have resulted in further promising bioelectromagnetics research related to neuroscience and EMR neuroweapons; therefore it is not farfetched to surmise that advanced EMR neuroweapons may already be developed.

During her 2011 interview, Rauscher explained that in the 1970s, like nearly all scientists, she was taught that EMR could not affect behavior and body functions. However, Rauscher became convinced by her personal experience of such effects and also by scientific evidence that EMR could have an impact on the behavior and biology of humans. Moreover, both Becker and Rauscher have recounted how secret government EMR weapons research interfered with their bioelectromagnetics research. The 1950s CIA mind control research included EMR remote mind control research and the related classified research has continued.^{^[37]} In the 1980s, there was much talk among bioelectromagnetics researchers about EMR mind control effects and how advanced the secret EMR government research might be. Both Becker and Rauscher had lost government funding and Rauscher was told not to talk publicly about her promising research. Furthermore;

As the Rauscher interview suggests, Becker, Rauscher, Van Bise and others seemed to have stumbled onto an area of neuroscience research involving bioelectromagnetics and national security. In a 1983 academic science journal, Samuel Koslov, a researcher at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, presented "a radical proposal" in an academic journal article. Koslov wrote about the bioelectromagnetics research presented at a conference:

Koslov was referring to the famous letter Albert Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939 advocating for research to build an atomic bomb before Nazi Germany did. A 1984 BBC documentary included an interview of both Becker and Koslov, who had also worked on Project Pandora, a super-secret Pentagon project on EMR mind control:

TV Announcer: But when governments want to develop new weapons systems, moral considerations are almost invariably one of the first casualties. The last time scientific ethics clashed so directly with the goals of governments and politicians was in the 1940s, when Einstein and a group of other scientists decided to tell President Roosevelt about the scarcely believable destructive power of a theoretical device known as the atom bomb. The result of that fact was Hiroshima, Nagasaki and, a few years later, when the Soviet Union began to catch up, the establishment of the present system of reciprocal terror known as nuclear deterrence.

This 1976 American intelligence report noted that the Soviets saw great potential in use of microwaves for disorientating military and diplomatic personnel. It also noted that the Soviets had found a microwave frequency to cause heart seizure in animals. They added that a frequency could be found to do the same to human beings.

Narrator: For scientists, there seem to be two major possibilities. First, that people's behavior, that their health can be affected by low level [EMR] fields. And the second one is that there’s a potential for creating a new genre of weapons that presumably are extremely sensitive areas for government. It seems to me inconceivable that there isn’t an area of research that is totally black.

Koslov: You know back in 1965, there were a lot of hypotheses and conjectures about the Pandora classified program to find out what the hell was going on. Since then, I think we have found generally that there doesn’t seem to be very much possibility here. I don't know of any US government program that is seriously looking at that. I cannot exclude, you know, someone, for example, in the navy department; we have here something like 7,000 test units in research and exploratory development. And each of those test units perhaps consists of two or three or more separate scientific program projects. Somewhere buried somewhere, there could be somebody doing it. But I think in general, at this point in time, we don’t think there is too much possibility in EMR weapons potential.

Becker: The United States Navy may very well not have any program whatsoever. On the other hand, it’s equally valid to have such a program being conducted in even greater secrecy than the Manhattan Project was conducted. And the best cover I could think of for that would be for the United States to portray itself to the rest of the world as a nation that was discounting the possibility of electromagnetic weapons entirely, based upon its best scientific evidence.^{^[40]}

Koslov's denial of any weapons potential of EMR was an illogical reversal of his stated position in the academic science journal a year earlier. This reversal of opinion begins to make sense with the possibility that Becker was right about an EMR weapons project with greater secrecy than the Manhattan Project and that Koslov was told by the U.S. government to change his statement about EMR weapons science to protect a vital national security secret. A 2010 book by a bioelectromagnetics researcher commented on Koslov's government career, further supporting such a possibility:

It becomes clear that official government statements about EMR neuroweapons involve national security and can hardly be trusted. By contrast, the science behind EMR neuroweapons--bioelectromagnetics-- is now based on decades of research that, although relatively obscure, is scientifically valid. The science for advanced EMR neuroweapons remains scientifically possible, although unproven and classified. The decades of unclassified neuroscience research suggests that bioelectromagnetics may be a missing neuroscience link for solving how the brain's higher functions work including how the brain processes vision. Furthermore, Rauscher's experiment used magnetic signals beamed remotely without the need for fMRI machines and brain implants that are utilized in cutting edge neuroscience research today. The capability of surreptitious targeting would be another fundamental reason for the importance of bioelectromagnetics to national security.

Most scientists believe that advanced EMR neuroweapons are science fiction, a belief so deeply rooted that recently a group of experts wrote that new rat implant technologies capable of transmitting signals remotely had 'nothing to do with the fantasies of mind control by electromagnetic fields, long a staple of science fiction and lately of conspiracy theory Web sites.'^{^[42]} This belief however, now appears to be based on a lack of key information. For decades, the U.S. government seems to have gone to extreme lengths to keep secret the critical neuroscience behind EMR neuroweapons--bioelectromagnetics. At the same time, as Becker noted, government disinformation tactics were designed to make EMR mind control "absolutely unbelievable." In this way, a science secret has been hidden in plain sight even as classified research may have led to the successful development of advanced EMR neuroweapons. The Rauscher interview is an overlooked and critical part of the unclassified history and science of bioelectromagnetics and EMR neuroweapons. As it has turned out, the neuroscience underneath the "weird and bizarre" government cover stories described by Becker is almost certainly a serious wake up call.

Caption: Deception has been integral to intelligence agencies' communications with outsiders. Don Adams and Barbara Feldon in "Get Smart," the television send-up of spies.

In New York Times, August 14, 1994, The Nation: Let's Play Spy! (And the Money is Real!) by Tim Weiner, Washington.

The covertly created headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret agency that builds the nation's spy satellites, is turning from puzzle palace into cold war parable. Skeptics snickered last week when the senators charged with overseeing the nation's spies said the agency had hidden its $347 million budget for a new office complex west of Washington. Congressional oversight: careful scrutiny or careless failure? "Constitutional oversight of intelligence services is largely an illusory concept," the novelist John le Carre' wrote. "If they're good, they fool the outsiders-and if the're bad, they fool themselves." So who's fooling whom? . . . Secret spending for spooks was blessed by Congress back in 1949. The Central Intelligence Agency Act said the nation's secret services could spend money "without regard to the provisions of law and regulations relating to the expenditure of public funds." Few in Congress knew what the intelligence services were up to. . . .
[In 1994] In theory, a score of staff members scrutinize tens of billions of dollars spent by tens of thousands of secret servants and help Congress come to consensus with the CIA on the nation's intelligence needs. This has little relation to reality. . . .
Some of the last bitter battles of the cold war are being fought in those closed door sessions. . . .
The brouhaha over the National Reconnaissance Office was not about a piddling few hundred million dollars. It was about civilian control of secret agencies: where the nation's intelligence agencies are headed: how they will get there: who will command them: what justifies the secrecy that protects their power, and who exactly is the enemy now?

Note: For an update on the tremendous growth of government secrecy after 9-11, see the 2011, book Top Secret American: The Rise of the New American Security State by Washington Post's Dana Priest and William Arkin. See http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

^{^[1]} Robert Becker, 'Electromagnetism and Life', in Modern Bioelectricity, Andrew Marino, ed. (New York: M. Dekker, 1988), p.1.

^{^[2]} Robert Becker, Cross Currents: The perils of electropollution, the promise of electromedicine, (New York, NY: Jeremy Tarcher/Penguin, 1990) p.105.

^{^[3]} Ibid, Back cover.

^{^[4]} Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Transcript Meeting 4, Session 2. Bruce Rosen, "State of the Science," February 28 2011. See http://bioethics.gov/cms/node/201.

^{^[5]} Jonathan Moreno, Center for American Progress, Mind Wars: Brain Science and the Military in the 21st century, May 8 2012. See http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2012/05/mindwars.html

^{^[6]} Ibid.

^{^[7]} John Horgan, 'The Myth of Mind Control: Will anyone ever decode the human brain?', Discover Magazine, October 29 2004, p.42. See http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/cover.

^{^[8]} David Kaiser, How the Hippies Saved Physics, Science, counterculture and the quantum revival, (W.W. Norton and Co., 2011). See http://www.hippiessavedphysics.com/.

^{^[9]} Ibid.

^{^[10]} Freeman Dyson, "Radiotelepathy: Direct communication from brain to brain" in John Brickman, ed. This will Change Everything: Ideas that will shape the future, (New York, NY: Harper, 2010.), pp.146, 147.

^{^[11]} Chuck DeCaro, "Special Assignment: Weapons of War, Is there an RF Gap,?" CNN, November 1985. For a 55$ copy of videotape call CNN at 404 827 2712 and ask for R2501 #13, R2747 #33, R2501 #15, R2501-#17."

^{^[12]} Becker, Cross Currents, p.104-106. See fn.2.

^{^[13]} Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Transcript Meeting 4, Session 2. Bruce Rosen, "State of the Science,". See fn.4.

^{^[14]} Douglas Fields, "Beyond the Neuron Doctrine', Scientific American Mind, June/July 2006, p.20.

^{^[15]} Nicola Allen, Ben Barres, "Glia-more than just brain glue," Nature, February 5, 2009, p.677.

^{^[16]} Yousheng Shu, Andrea Hasenstaub et. al, "Brain communicates in Analog and Digital Modes Simultaneously," Science Daily, April 13 2006. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412223937.htm

^{^[17]} Becker, Cross Currents p.89. See fn.2.

^{^[18]} Andrew Marino, Going Somewhere: Truth about a life in science'. (Belcher, LA: Cassandra Publishing, 2010). p.73. Available at http://www.goingsomewherebook.com/.

^{^[19]} Ibid.

^{^[20]} David Whitehouse, "Looking Through Cats' Eyes," BBC News, October 11, 1999. Posted at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/471786.stm.

^{^[21]} Ibid

^{^[22]} Nicola Allen, Ben Barres, "Glia-more than just brain glue," Nature 457, February 5, 2009, p.675.

^{^[23]} Douglas Fields, "The Other Half of the Brain: Mounting evidence suggests that glial cells, overlooked for half a century, may be nearly as critical to thinking and learning as neurons are," Scientific American April 2004. p.56.

^{^[24]} Fields, "The other Half of the Brain," p.55. See fn.23.

^{^[25]} Becker, Robert, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, (New York, NY: 1985), Becker, Body Electric, p.88.

^{^[26]} Matt Peckham, "Scientists Can (Almost) Read Your Mind, Turn Thoughts into Movies," Timetech, September 23, 2011. See http://techland.time.com/2011/09/23/scientists-can-almost-read-your-mind-turn-thoughts-into-movies/

^{^[27]} Becker, Body Electric, pp.88,89. See fn.25.

^{^[28]} Ibid, p.89.

^{^[29]} Ibid, p.90.

^{^[30]} Becker, "Electromagnetism and Life," See fn.1.

^{^[31]} Ibid, p.91.

^{^[32]} Robert Galambos, "A Glia-Neuronal Theory of Brain Function," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, January 15, 1961, pp.135,6.

^{^[33]} Douglas Martin, "Robert Galambos, Neuroscientist who showed how bats navigate, Dies at 96," New York Times, July 15, 2010. See nytimes.com/2010/07/16/science/16galambos.html.

^{^[34]} Shu, et al., "Brain Communicates in Analog and Digital Modes Simultaneously". See fn.16.

^{^[35]} Becker "Bioelectromagnetism and Life," p.5. See fn.1

^{^[36]} Becker, The Body Electric, p.350. See fn.12.

^{^[37]} Douglas Pasternak, “Wonder Weapons: The Pentagon’s Quest for Nonlethal Arms is Amazing. But is it Smart?” US News and World Report July 7 1997, p.40.

^{^[38]} Vladimir Binhi, Electromagnetic Mind Control Fact or Fiction? A scientific view, (New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2010). p. xi.

^{^[39]} Samuel Koslov, "Bridging the Gap," in Ross Adey, Albert Lawrence ed., International Conference on Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Biological Systems, (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1984), pp.586,595,597.

^{^[40]} David Jones "Opening Pandora’s Box," Fulcrum Central Productions, BBC documentary, Channel 4, England, 1984.

^{^[41]} Marino, Going Somewhere, p.168. See fn.18.

^{^[42]} Kenneth Foster, Paul Root Wolpe, Arthur Caplan, 'Bioethics and the Brain', IEEE Spectrum, June 2003. See http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/ethics/bioethics-the-brain/0.

Interview With Elizabeth Rauscher:
A physicist ahead of her time

Sponsored by Mindjustice.org Copyright. Not for reposting.

Interview With Elizabeth Rauscher: A physicist ahead of her time

Sponsored by Mindjustice.org Copyright. Not for reposting.

Interview With Elizabeth Rauscher:
A physicist ahead of her time