Jump to content
The Education Forum

Frank Olson And Oswald

Recommended Posts

Of course his records have been tampered with; that's what the CIA and FBI do. What else would you expect?

I'm not much of a comic book fan.

Hi. New at this forum you should know, that some members will nail you down about every little detail. It's a drastic treatment. It's frustrating. Maybe you ll end up like King Lear. But it all is for the benefit of the truth. ;-)


Karl, there are a couple of other things I could have nit-picked had that been what this was about. I am trying to find out if a file exists on Oswald's alleged interview with Kurian. If it does, I will resurrect my material on Oswald and the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee. That committee took evidence supporting its suppositions from places like the Juvenile Court system. A straight answer on the existence of such a file has so far been elusive. I'm not trying to nail Hank to the wall on it. At the time I did all that work on the JD committee, I accepted Kurian's word. It was only when I found that anything in Armstrong's name had to verified before you could trust it, did I look into the claim - and when I did that, I had to dump it.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


I think you have come across something quite interesting: Vineland.

Vineland, as in Thomas Pynchon's title. Pynchon has long been rumored to have CIA ties.

His work played an ominous role in the 1990s in the Olson case. And with the CIA.

I'll explain all of that in part 3 of my Oswald-Olson article.

But I do believe you have discovered some fascinating information...

I write back on Goddard when time allow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, I don't want to get into a pissing match with anyone over these very complex issues and subjects. I have no interest in marking out any exclusive ground. I jumped on board the Forum because John Simpkin was kind enough to invite me so as to share some of the many JFK assassination connections to the Olson case. There are many, far more than I initially imagined. While writing the Olson book I had decided to stay away from these links (for that book) because they presented such a black hole research wise... now that situation is different... Let me complete the posting of the full article and then folks can hack away at it. Already Mr. Bevilaqua has presented some major info helpful to some features of the Olson case (those will be clear in the 3rd part of my article). If it becomes needed that I share certain files and documents then so be it, there are loads in my book and on my websites and more coming. Also, I did not mean to be flip about comic books. Like LHO I read them as a boy; indeed, I most likely read the same comics Oswald did. But comics and Condon are a bit like apple wine and champagne when it comes to actually finding facts and solving mysteries. More to follow soon. -Hank Albarelli

Edited by Hank Albarelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites


To understand [and to answer] a lot of the questions you raise one has to go back to the early

work of Carlton Coon while he was in the OSS and was proposing an elite corps of assassins

for government use... Coon, who I cover in my book in its section on assassination, did quite

a lot of research, as later did Hans Tofte. Tofte actually assembled a team of assassins for use

worldwide [as did Pash]; that group included many notorious characters including David Morales and an American

Indian code named Buffalo, often mistaken to be the same with Morales. I cover some of this in the remaining

parts of my 3-part article, however, the entire subject of state sponsored assassination begs coverage, as of

course, does eugenics as it relates to MK/ULTRA sub-projects.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


To understand [and to answer] a lot of the questions you raise one has to go back to the early

work of Carlton Coon while he was in the OSS and was proposing an elite corps of assassins

for government use... Coon, who I cover in my book in its section on assassination, did quite

a lot of research, as later did Hans Tofte. Tofte actually assembled a team of assassins for use

worldwide [as did Pash]; that group included many notorious characters including David Morales and an American

Indian code named Buffalo, often mistaken to be the same with Morales. I cover some of this in the remaining

parts of my 3-part article, however, the entire subject of state sponsored assassination begs coverage, as of

course, does eugenics as it relates to MK/ULTRA sub-projects.


James Richards brought Maj. Carleton "Carl" Coon to my attention a few months ago when we were discussing

Cairo, Egypt and Gen. Bonner Fellers who was yet another member of Richard Condon's Dirty Dozen. Both Coon,

Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Bonner Fellers were in Cairo when messages about Monty's troop movements were

sent by Fellers to a young James Angelton in Rome who forwarded them all to the Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel.

Coon joined a right wing money bags named Clendenin J. Ryan and Uliuss Amoss in Baltimore, Maryland at a company

known as ISI Intl Services of Information and Gram Trade Intl which was later merged into the Baltimore Metals

Processing Company owned by a figurehead Morris Schapiro who also bought out The Baldt Anchor and Chain

Company in Chester, PA when it was about to go out of business between wars.

Coon and Amoss using Ryan's money pulled off a bunch of major projects over the years including the assassination

of Admiral Darlan using Coon's pistol, who was the leader of the French Vichy pro-Nazi forces. Coon and Amoss were

both anti-Nazi and anti-Communist while Ryan was pure anti-Communist. Ryan's father or grandfather had sent Hitler

industrial diamonds from his Belgian owned diamond mine in South Africa before and during World War II.

The Feller's run operations "For America" and "Ten Million Americans for Justice" (for McCarthy) ended up with offices

in New Orleans in the same building as Guy Banister. Fellers was a MacArthur protege and a friend of Willoughby.

Suffice it to say for now that when Amoss died in 1961, his operations were taken over by Ray S. Cline, also a Condon

charter member of The Dirty Dozen and Harold B. Chait who was also a member of the CIA who worked for Schapiro.

Chait was a well known South Florida SOF bagman who funneled both Ryan's money and some laundered CIA money

from Boston Metals into South Florida. The SOFs thought it was all his money or his wife's money. This came from Roy

Hargraves and some/most these details were confirmed by James Richards as well using his sources.

Cline and Chait took Boston Metals on a turn to the Far Right and later Cline joined other Eugenicists like Elmore Greaves

from The White Citizens Councils and Draper's Pioneer Fund and Roger Pearson also of The Pioneer Fund as heads of the

US delegations to WACL conferences during their most Fascist periods joining Guy Banister as avid WACL supporters

which absorbed the entire band of Fascist and pro-Nazi ABN types into their fold including Raikin and Stetsko.

It was this nexus of characters who highjacked Oswald on the docks of Hoboken, NJ after Oswald tried to kill Stetsko

in West Berlin just like Stashinsky killed Stephan Bandera and Lev Rebet on the way to Rotterdam to hop on the SS Masdaam

from Holland.

The anti-JFK Oswald Legend Building team consisted of Guy Banister, Elmore Greaves, James Eastland, Thomas Dodd, Bonner Fellers,

Alton Ochsner, Patrick J. Frawley, Robert Morris, Edwin A. Walker and Edward Scannell Butler most of whom were linked into either INCA started by Ochsner who later ended up at The Council for National Policy or The Pioneer Fund or The White Citizens Councils from Jackson, MS or Ole Miss.

Where people like the Eugenicists who were close to Draper fit in is just coming into sharper focus: Henry Herbert Goddard and Robert Yerkes plus Carleton Putnam, Roger Pearson, Carleton Coon and R. Ruggles Gates of IAAEE all were adored and cited often by Elmore Greaves in his White Citizens Councils publications and Willis Carto of The Liberty Lobby, although I still maintain that Coon was not part of the actual JFK killing operation. He was probably not even asked to join. The others however were wholeheartedly in favor of the operation and contributed something to the final coup de grace.

Oswald's role as a highjacked assassin? He did not even have to fire a shot in order to be picked as the perfect patsy. He was there just to

act as a lightning rod to assure the PERFECT COVER-UP since he was indeed an MK/ULTRA trained assassin.

Oswald's profile probably fit the pattern of someone who would make a great programmed assassin. Juvenile Delinquent, hated authority, no father

figure, tendency towards violence, easily hypnotized, etc. And apparently he was used to snuff Corporal Schrand right in the armpit with a rifle as a demonstration of his finely tuned and honed skills as a kill on demand robot. Oswald was in Taiwan when Ray Cline was there as well.

And the rest is history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amoss: After his time w/ the OSS, he founded the anti-Communist organization International Services for Information, Inc. headquartered in Baltimore,

Maryland. Amoss was involved in George White's OSS truth drug experiments in New Jersey, New Orleans, and D.C. Amoss is notable because he is claimed to have fathered a concept known as 'leaderless resistance.' This concept is best explained as a leaderless alternative for underground groups or cells under which group activity is autonomous and shared equally among a small tight knit band of individuals that operate without any deemed leader or point of central control. Sound familiar? It should. Today the model is favored by countless terrorist cells worldwide, as well as a few extremist groups in the U.S.

Carleton Coon, who of course knew Amoss well, favored extreme actions (i.e. torture and assassination) against undesired elements in society (i.e.

any race but the white race; anybody without money or 'culture'). Coon's racist philosophy was adopted by many early CIA top officials. As explained in my book, many of these early officials fancied themselves new world Knights Templar, and secretly fancied elements of the Nazi SS, especially the symbols and orderliness. Today a lot of that has been melded into a perverted form of nouveau Christian thinking and action. And, as you say, the rest is -- or may be-- history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amoss: After his time w/ the OSS, he founded the anti-Communist organization International Services for Information, Inc. headquartered in Baltimore,

Maryland. Amoss was involved in George White's OSS truth drug experiments in New Jersey, New Orleans, and D.C. Amoss is notable because he is claimed to have fathered a concept known as 'leaderless resistance.' This concept is best explained as a leaderless alternative for underground groups or cells under which group activity is autonomous and shared equally among a small tight knit band of individuals that operate without any deemed leader or point of central control. Sound familiar? It should. Today the model is favored by countless terrorist cells worldwide, as well as a few extremist groups in the U.S.

Carleton Coon, who of course knew Amoss well, favored extreme actions (i.e. torture and assassination) against undesired elements in society (i.e.

any race but the white race; anybody without money or 'culture'). Coon's racist philosophy was adopted by many early CIA top officials. As explained in my book, many of these early officials fancied themselves new world Knights Templar, and secretly fancied elements of the Nazi SS, especially the symbols and orderliness. Today a lot of that has been melded into a perverted form of nouveau Christian thinking and action. And, as you say, the rest is -- or may be-- history.

Man are we on the same page with almost everything you have posted to date. Do a Search on this site for "Ulius Amoss" or "Carleton Coon" or even

"Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order John" to see where I have definitively linked well over 3/4 of Condon's ManCand Dirty Dozen into either the OSJ designation or SMOM or even "Shickshinny Knights of Malta" who I believe were the ultimate perps including Draper cronies like Admiral Barry Domville, Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton of the Cliveden Set, Lt. Gen. Pedro A. del Valle from the Marine Corps and of course Charles Willoughby and Douglas MacArthur. I describe the SMOM OSJ efforts as "Killing Commies for Christ the King".

And lest you abandon any thoughts of Richard Condon being onto these guys as of 1959 please suspend disbelief for a few days until you read about his Dirty Dozen and how they were linked into both SMOM and MK/ULTRA and WACL as well as the John Birch Society, The Pioneer Fund and the Eugenics movement in all its manifestations including the Mississippi Murderers like Draper who funded the MissSovComm, James Eastland who was Oswald's handler at SISS, Elmore Greaves who headed up the US WACL delegation at one time and Ned Touchstone who was a Yale educated Mississippi Racist. What a parlay that guy was.

And even James Forrestal whom Clendenin J. Ryan, Amoss' moneybags, reported to at one time during WW-II was cited in ManCand by Condon.

I think even Frank Wisner reported to Forrestal as well if I am not mistaken. And then Amoss, Fellers and Coon all reported to Hoyt Vandenberg in Cairo, Egypt during World War II.

I may have to reconsider Maj. Carleton Coon's role in this whole conundrum. I am very familiar with most of his activities and yet somehow see him first and foremost as anti-Fascist rather than as a full-blown xenophobe like Carleton Putnam, R. Ruggles Gates, Henry Goddard, Robert Yerkes, Elmore Greaves and Wickliffe Draper. I used to watch Coon on "Where in the World" as a child and he just seems so professorial and so harmless, but his gun was used on Admiral Darlan and he was the prototype for "Indiana Jones" I honestly think so anything is possible. Otto Rahn was supposed to be another choice for the "Indiana Jones" paradigm so who really knows for sure? Coon is a much closer match though then Rahn. Do a Google for Where in the World Carl Coon and you might find a video from that 1950's program. Amazing stuff, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It seems that the deaths of James Forrestal and Frank Olson may have happened shortly after the arrival of Dr. Erich Traub, Hitler's former chief biological warfare expert, at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, MD. Could these events be related somehow? Just seems very suspicious. Did they both lodge violent protests over their concerns about Traub's experiments which resulted in having them both silenced?

More later...

Dr. Erich Traub (1906-1985) was a German veterinarian and scientist/virologist. During the 1930s, he performed research on vaccines and viruses, including pseudorabies virus and lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCM), at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, NJ.[1][2][3]

Traub worked at the University of Giessen, Germany, from 1938 to 1942, and from 1942 to 1948 at the Reichsforschungsanstalt (für Viruskrankheiten der Tiere) on the Insel Riems (Riems Island), a German animal virus research institute in the Baltic sea, now named the Friedrich Loeffler Institute. The Reichsanstalt was headed by Prof. Dr. Otto Waldmann; Traub was vice-president. From 1949 - 1953 he was associated with the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, MD (Operation Paperclip). Subsequently (1953) he founded and led a new branch of the Loeffler Institut in Tübingen, Germany, and headed it from 1953 to 1963.[4]

Traub was brought to the United States in 1949 under the auspices of the United States government program Operation Paperclip, meant to exploit scientific knowledge gained during Nazi rule in Germany.[5] In the book Lab 257, author Michael Carroll claims that Traub supposedly was a Nazi (Traub was a member of the NSKK (motorist corps, a subsidiary of the SA, from 1938-1942; he was not a member of the NSDAP or SS; Traub and his wife were members of the Amerika Deutscher Bund from 1934-1935). Of note, the NSKK was declared a condemned, not a criminal organization at the Nuremberg trials. Carroll further claims that Traub worked directly for Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and Gestapo, who in 1943 took over the Innenministerium (Ministry of the Interior); the Reichsanstalt was transferred administratively to the Ministry of the Interior in 1943 [6]. The 'chain of command' was Himmler --> Conti --> Dr. Kurt Blome --> Waldmann --> Traub. In 1944 Blome ordered Traub to pick up a strain of Rinderpest virus in Turkey; upon his return, this strain proved inactive (nonvirulent) and therefore plans for a Rinderpest vaccine had to be shelved.

Carroll claims that Traub visited the Plum Island biological research facility in New York on at least three occasions in the 1950s. The Plum Island facility, operated by the Department of Agriculture, conducted research on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) of cattle, one of Traub's areas of expertise.[6] Traub was offered a leading position at Plum Island in 1958 which he declined. Carroll, along with author John Loftus, has alleged the United States performed bioweapons research on Plum Island.[7] Traub never worked with ticks or Borrelia spp. The alleged Plum Island - Lyme Disease - Erich Traub 'connection' is pure fiction. Traub served as an expert on FMD for the FAO of the UN in Bogota, Colombia, from 1951-1952, in Teheran, Iran, from 1963-1967, and in Ankara, Turkey, from 1969-1971. He retired from the West German civil service in 1971. In 1972, on the occasion of the 500. anniversary of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, München, Traub received an honorary doctorate degree in Veterinary Medicine for his achievements in basic and applied Virology (basic research on LCM; definition and diagnosis of type strains of FMD and their variants; development of adsorbate vaccines against fowl plague, Teschner disease of swine, and erysipelas of swine). With regard to Traub's alleged role in biological warfare during WW II, the reader is referred to Erhard Geissler's book: Biologische Waffen, nicht in Hitlers Arsenalen. Biologische und Toxin-Kampfmittel in Deutschland von 1915 bis 1945. LIT-Verlag, Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2. edition, 1999, pp. 483 – 516, ISBN 3825829553. One might wish to consult Erhard Geissler. Biological Warfare Activities in Germany, 1923 - 1945. In: Geissler, Erhard and Moon, John Ellis van Courtland eds., Biological warfare from the Middle Ages to 1945. New York, Oxford University Press, 1999; ISBN 0-19-829579-0. Interested readers might also wish to consult the Alsos Report (1945) and Bernstein, Barton J.: Birth of the U.S. Biological Warfare Program. Scientific American 256: 116 - 121, 1987. These publications confirm that Nazi Germany did not produce offensive biological weapons (see also: PBS 'Living Weapon' film features MIT expert on U.S. biological weapons program (Ms. Jeanne Guillemin)--http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/bioweapons.html - February 2, 2007). Hitler had blocked the development of biological weapons. Rather, vaccines against animal viral diseases, in particular FMD, served defensive purposes. See also: Paul Maddrell: Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany 1945 - 1961. Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0199267502. As is well known, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), entered into force March 26, 1975, prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons; permitted purposes under the BWC are defined as prophylactic, protective and other peaceful purposes. Therefore, the research and the development of animal/livestock vaccines are legitimate.

[edit] References

1. ^ Traub E, A filterable virus recovered from white mice, Science, 1935, volume 81, pages 298-99.

2. ^ Traub E, Cultivation of Pseudorabies Virus, J Exp Med, November 30, 1933, 58(6), 663-81.

3. ^ Barthold SW, Introduction: microbes and the evolution of scientific fancy mice, ILAR J, 2008, 49(3), 265-71.

4. ^ Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, History: Isle of Riems

5. ^ Hunt, Linda. Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. New York: St.Martin's Press, 1991. 340 pages

6. ^ a b Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6

7. ^ Loftus, John (1982). The Belarus Secret. Knopf. ISBN 0394522923.

[edit] Further reading

* Bernstein, Barton J.: Birth of the U.S. biological warfare program. Scientific American 256: 116 - 121, 1987.

* Geissler, Erhard: Biologische Waffen, nicht in Hitlers Arsenalen. Biologische und Toxin-Kampfmittel in Deutschland von 1915 - 1945. LIT-Verlag, Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2nd ed., 1999. ISBN 3825829553.

* Geissler, Erhard: Biological warfare activities in Germany 1923 - 1945. In: Geissler, Erhard and Moon, John Ellis van Courtland, eds., Biological warfare from the Middle Ages to 1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0198295790.

* Maddrell, Paul: Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany 1945 - 1961. Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0199267502.

* John Rather: New York Times, February 15, 2004: Heaping more dirt on Plum I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert M Yerkes - Autobiography

First published in Murchison, Carl. (Ed.) (1930). History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 2, pp. 381-407).

Republished by the permission of Clark University Press, Worcester, MA.

© 1930 Clark University Press.

Posted March 2000


I continue to think of the surroundings into which on May 26, 1876, I came as a first-born child, as nearly ideal. It was in the midst of a beautiful agricultural country, inhabited by intelligent, self- respecting, law-abiding, prosperous folk; hills and vales, forests and streams, as scenes of the ceaseless and ever-varying activities on large farm, with its rotation of crops, dairying, and woodcraft. There were domestic animals of many kinds, and many laborers and mechanics came and went. The great city of Philadelphia was so near that our farm and dairy products were hauled to it overnight in horse-drawn wagons. This is the picture that appears when I think of my childhood. If I were choosing now, I should not change that environment.

Pleasant occupations abounded. Fishing, swimming, skating, berry and nut gathering, fetching the cows, learning to care for, saddle and harness, ride and drive horses, and, finally, to do, and in many instances to enjoy doing well, the multitude of things necessary to comfort and prosperity on a large farm in eastern Pennsylvania, late in the nineteenth century, filled my days and rendered them joyous. Dominant among the recollections of childhood are out-of-door amusements; free, unrestricted, unaided study and enjoyment of nature; the care of household and farm pets; the capture and taming of wild animals. When the household cat one day killed a pet albino rabbit, I was so inconsolable that my parents had the skin mounted and thus I long kept it as a cherished possession. I was extremely fond of every sort of game, from parchesi, dominoes, checkers, and cards indoors to such rough outdoor sports as shinny, baseball, and football. Warm, after nearly fifty years, are my memories of gathering tortoise and snake eggs in new lands when first plowed, of carrying them home in my hat, preparing earth-filled boxes, "planting" them, and watching for the hatch. The young snakes usually managed to escape me, but the tortoises became treasures of entertainment. Thus happily passed the first eight years of my life.

I have delightful recollections of three of my great-grandparents, and I enjoyed and richly profited by long-continued acquaintances [p. 382] with all of my grandparents.[1] My parents, who belonged to families long resident in the vicinity of Philadelphia and devoted almost without exception to agriculture, lived to see me established familially and professionally. Both were ambitious, energetic, musical, religious by nature and training. My mother, a woman of rare sweetness of disposition and unusual ability, beloved of all who knew her, was the strongest influence in my early life, and I think also the wisest. My father and I were intimate merely because of blood and social relationship. We had little in common intellectually, and more often than not we disagreed in practical matters. Except for my attachment to my mother and the influence of a capable, level-headed young German then in the employ of my father, I probably should have run away from home before my fourteenth year. Lest this should appear to belittle my father, I hasten to add that I have been described as a moody, strong-willed, unsuggestible child, difficult to control. Father doubtless lacked the magic touch of sympathetic insight. In early childhood I feared him; later, I actively disliked and disapproved; and finally, in maturity, I came to pity him for characteristics which rendered his life relatively unhappy and unsuccessful.

As I write I am reminded of many incidents of family life which are illuminating. Only a few may appropriately find place in this professional sketch, and as it happens those which I have chosen refer rather to my grandfathers than to my father or self.

Grandfather Yerkes once told me, and he was then more than sixty years of age, that he did not know what it meant to feel tired! The members of his household used to say that, on arising to his day's work about four o'clock in the morning, he would loudly call the poultry to breakfast in order thoroughly to arouse the family and get things started. Father also was like that, and I should confess that in my own household I am sometimes called the slave driver.

Lack of sympathy with my father and our temperamental incompatibility very definitely turned me against his occupation and his vocational plans and desires for me. These misfortunes also robbed me of much that should be most precious in paternal companionship, training, and guidance. The following incident, taken from my relations with Grandfather Yerkes, partially explains my estrangement from Father, for his treatment of me was as direct and unsuited to [p. 383] my disposition as was that I would now describe. I had been set an irksome, arduous, farm task which I performed as I thought proper and necessary, but with maximum economy of effort and simplicity of procedure! Subsequently, I learned that Grandfather had complained to Father that the work might better have been left undone. I bitterly resented the criticism, which I considered unjust, but even more the fact that Grandfather spoke to Father instead of to me. Perhaps, had he come to me and tactfully explained why my method was unsatisfactory, I should have been the wiser and he respected instead of disliked.

Radically different are my memories of Grandfather Carrell, for he genuinely sympathized with my intellectual interests and aspirations and always was ready to encourage and aid me in my educational efforts.

During childhood I was much alone. A sister some four years my junior, to whom I became devoted, died when she was three, and I barely recovered from the same dreaded scarlet fever. Two brothers and another sister, born later, were so much younger that I looked upon them as charges rather than playmates.

Because of its far-reaching influence on my physical and intellectual development and my vocational choice, the scarlet fever tragedy should be more fully described. A man, prematurely discharged from a Philadelphia hospital or for other reasons a carrier of infection, came to us as a farm laborer. He was friendly with us children and, from his arrival, we were much with him. When we became ill he disappeared, doubtless conscience-stricken or fearful of responsibility. Many weeks later I learned that my little sister had gone from us. Vivid is my memory of Mother's gentle, sad words as she told me of this when, for the first time, I sat up beside a favorite window in the sunshine of early spring. In my young life that loss was irreparable. No one ever took the place of my infant sister and I continue to think of her as the most beautiful and altogether lovable of children.

The family physician, during this fight with the forces of destruction, was a cousin, Dr. John Beans Carrell, whose ministrations, often bitterly resented and opposed by my feverish self, nevertheless made lasting impressions and deeply stirred my admiration and vocational hero-worship. Ever since, in my daydreams, I have imagined myself as physician, surgeon, or, in other guise, alleviator of human suffering. This is the first indication of a social-mindedness which subsequently came to pervade my life and to establish fellow service as its chief objective.[p. 384]

I am wholly unable to confirm the observation, but Dr. Carrell assures me that my disposition radically changed during my grave and prolonged illness. Before it, according to him, I had been wilful, violent-tempered, obstinate, unruly, disagreeable. Thereafter I was so greatly improved as to be fit to live with! Be this as it may, I am convinced that my illness so far conditioned my physique and interests as practically to determine vocational choice.

Mine was not a home for formal educational regimen. Neither my parents nor any among my immediate relatives were college graduates. I can recall no thirst for knowledge in early childhood, and, although from six to twelve years I was passionately fond of being read to, I read little myself. Vocational imaginings came early, and, after transient longings for the delights of old-iron collector, huckster, locomotive engineer, preacher, I turned, as intimated above, to medicine mixing, and for a physician. many years purposed to become a physician. My motives I suspect were chiefly utilitarian, for the physician's life appealed to me as less harshly laborious, more interesting, exciting, heroic, useful, and altogether profitable than that of the farmer.

In my eighth year, when first sent to school, I was unable to read well and so shy that I went unwillingly and with intense discomfort until I had become accustomed to the routine and made acquaintances. For some seven years I attended the nearby ungraded rural public schools. I worked hard in school because I liked to succeed and stand well in the class. Ambition and social prestige evidently were primarily motivational, but usually I also liked the work itself and did it eagerly and without pressure in school or home. Subjects which induced lasting attitudes were spelling, because difficult and irksome; arithmetic and algebra, because I found them stimulating, interesting, game-like -- their problems fascinated me, whereas memorizing repelled -- and physiology and hygiene, because their objectives, information, and principles impressed me as peculiarly important.

I lacked gift of graphic expression, being then, as now, quite incapable of seeing or representing objects as does the naturally endowed artist. Musical ability, if present, I suppressed, for, despite my mother's eagerness to teach me and her urging and pleading, I never learned to sing or to play any instrument. Probably music would have been difficult for me, but I suspect that shyness and reluctance to try were the chief causes of my resistance. There are [p. 385] few things which in later years I have more deeply regretted than lack of musical education.

Probably I was prepared for high school, possibly for college except in the ancient languages, when in my fifteenth year I was sent with a cousin, Leonard Slack, to the State Normal School at West Chester, Pennsylvania. This was my first experience away from home and my educational baptism. I worked hard and achieved special commendation and promotions in mathematics. The fact reminds me that subsequently in college a professor of mathematics suggested that I devote myself to the subject professionally. During the year at West Chester I recall being asked by my father whether I still wished to study medicine. My reply was an emphatic affirmative. Father, as I knew, hoped that I would follow agriculture, but, if I would choose a learned profession, he preferred that it be the law. Mother, on the contrary, wished me to enter the church. Almost certainly she would have become a foreign missionary had she been free to choose a career.

I think it was about this time in my educational history that an incident occurred which fixed itself permanently in my memory. Its significance is clear. An aunt, mindful of my exceptional educational opportunities, one day asked me some geographical and historical questions. When I admitted ignorance, she expressed surprise at the imperfection of my education. I well remember my mingled feelings of chagrin, resentment, and disapproval, for her conception of education struck me as unsatisfactory. Even then my interest centered in constructive, creative effort toward the extension of knowledge, instead of in achievement of scholarship through mere accumulation of facts. Thus early, my interest in research manifested itself. The incident suggests the query: Is it perhaps true that persons of exceptionally retentive memories tend to become encyclopedically learned, whereas those of relatively poor memories, among whom I undoubtedly should number myself, tend rather to become inventive, inquiring, and constructive? Whether, in such case, psychological traits are primarily conditions or results is the question in point.

So it happened that at the age of sixteen I possessed vocational orientation and determination to obtain the educational preparation desirable for the profession of medicine. Undoubtedly, our family physician, Dr. Carrell, was chiefly responsible for this choice. His personality and professional example had stirred my imagination, and [p. 386] his interest, encouragement, suggestions, and advice provided the necessary basis for definite decision. Except for the happening now to be narrated, I almost certainly would have gone to Dr. Carrell "to read medicine" and thereafter have matriculated, probably without collegiate training, in his medical alma mater, the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia.

But things happened otherwise and thus. When I returned to the farm from my few months at Normal School, ways and means were not discernible for the continuation of my studies. Father was struggling to pay heavy indebtedness on his farm and there were three younger children to provide for. It was then that an uncle, Dr. Edward Atkinson Krusen, who had married one of my mother's sisters and recently established himself as a homeopathic physician in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, the seat of Ursinus College, offered me opportunity to earn my way in college by doing the chores about his place. There was neither doubt nor hesitation on my part, and I rejoiced greatly in my parents' consent to the arrangement.

In the fall of 1892 I entered Ursinus Academy, and after a year's preparatory work, with concentration on the ancient languages, I was admitted to the collegiate department of the institution. I elected the chemical-biological program of study, and, in addition, did preparatory medical work in human anatomy and physiology. But it was all work and no play, for my eagerness to progress held me to my academic tasks, and my duties in the Krusen home required all my spare hours, morning, evening, and Saturday. As I look back on those happy, toilsome years, it seems as though they would have been perfect if I could have afforded and arranged to have had Saturday as holiday. Yet I was far from self-pity, and I always have considered myself fortunate in my opportunity to obtain collegiate training.

After entering Ursinus I was at home only for short visits or for a few weeks during the summer harvest season, when I worked as a paid laborer. From the small savings of my youth, which, on Dr. Carrell's advice, had been well invested, and from my current earnings in the Krusen home, I was able to pay all of my expenses in college. In addition to board and room, after my first year in his home my uncle paid me a wage of ten dollars per month. This I considered generous and just. Indeed, to Uncle Doctor, as I always called him, my debt is incalculable. He was a wise, broad-minded, generous gentleman, a beloved physician, and a staunch, dependable [p. 387] friend. Had he been my father, and, practically, from my sixteenth to my twenty-first years he stood in loco parentis, he could not well have done more for me. Disinterestedly, devotedly, affectionately, he advised, guided, and encouraged me. I cannot do less than thus acknowledge my debt of gratitude and love.

A word further on personal influences. Up to the time of my entrance into college, my character, vocational leanings, educational endeavors and ambitions, had been markedly affected by six persons: my father and mother; the German farm laborer, Adolph Weise; my public school teacher, Miss Eva Roberts; and the physicians, Drs. Carrell and Krusen.

My father, I suspect, most strongly influenced me negatively. I desired to become what he was not: had he wished me to become a physician, doubtless I should have refused. My mother, on the contrary, through affection, tactful suggestion, the inculcation of the moral code, principles of character of the Christian religion and of her community, influenced me profoundly and permanently. Father's employee, Adolph Weise, was my intimate, wise friend and counselor in those years of early adolescence when I sorely needed guidance and stabilization. He read to me, talked with me of many things, aided with my lessons, and reasoned with me on endless practical matters. By sheer simplicity and convincingness of argument, this strong, clear-minded young German reasoned me away from the undesirable. Of swearing, which he abjured, although most of our farm laborers were adepts, he always said: "It is a foolish, useless, disagreeable habit. Don't form it." As I could not meet his arguments, I naturally followed his example in this and many other matters. My first public school teacher, Eva Roberts, later for many years a highly successful and esteemed teacher in Girard College, Philadelphia, deeply impressed and influenced me by her strength of character and purpose, mastery of pedagogical method, soundness of judgment, and utter justice in the treatment of pupils. I admired her almost worshipfully. There was also the all-pervasive and continuing influence of my cousin, Dr. Carrell, which certainly initially determined and confirmed my choice of medicine as a career; and, finally, that of my uncle, Dr. Krusen. To these few I owe my life and its main traits and trends. My heart goes out to them now in gratitude and affection. Would they were all here to receive such reward of appreciation as I can offer.

In June, 1897, I was graduated from Ursinus College after four [p. 388] profitable years of strenuous intellectual work. Two Ursinus teachers profoundly influenced me. Colonel Vernon Ruby, Professor of English, more, perhaps, than anyone else, taught me the importance of careful, thorough, honest work. My ability to use my mother tongue I owe principally to him and to the subsequent practice which his precept and example encouraged. Dr. P. Calvin Mensch, biologist, I worked with as pupil, disciple, and friend. His ideals and his enthusiasm for creative endeavor became mine. Probably my debt to him is greater than to any other teacher.

Completion of work at Ursinus found me at a crossroads, for a deus ex machina had unexpectedly appeared and I was offered the loan of one thousand dollars for graduate work in Harvard University. Choice was between the study of medicine in Philadelphia or the unexcelled opportunities for graduate work in biology, psychology, and philosophy at Harvard. It was a momentous decision which, as now appears, determined the course of my professional career. I was just twenty-one. Readily I convinced myself that I was young to enter medical school and might better devote at least a year to special work in Harvard before completing my medical training. It was my earnest desire to work with pre-eminently able investigators and teachers.

So, in the fall of 1897 I entered Harvard, not as a graduate student, but with provisional undergraduate classification and opportunity to demonstrate preparedness for professional work. At the end of the first year I was awarded the A. B. degree and given graduate status. I might then naturally have turned to medical studies, but instead I leaned toward preparation for research in some department of biology. Encouraged by my teachers and aided by appointments to assistantship and scholarship, I decided finally to become a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy instead of doctor of medicine.

Again a crossroads which compelled important decision. I was keenly interested in zoölogy and also in psychology. At the suggestion of Josiah Royce, to whom I had gone for advice when I first arrived in Cambridge in 1897, and who became my teacher, friend, and colleague, I undertook to combine these interests by devoting myself to what was then called comparative psychology. Introduced and recommended by Professor Royce, I consulted with Professor Münsterberg about opportunities in animal psychology. He was encouraging and the outcome was my transfer in 1899 from the [p. 389] laboratories of zoölogy, where I had enjoyed the rare privilege of working with E. L. Mark, G. H. Parker, C. B. Davenport, and W. E. Castle, to the laboratory of psychology, in which, during the succeeding eighteen years, as student, assistant, instructor, or professor, I conducted psychobiological research and instructional courses in comparative and genetic psychology.

From the beginning of our acquaintance, Hugo Münsterberg, with almost paternal interest and solicitude, and with rare generosity, aided me both professionally and personally, and, although I never was able to admire him as scientist, I learned to prize highly his friendship, enthusiasm for research, and scholarship. Throughout our association from 1899 until his death in 1916 our relations were intimate, and I was constantly the beneficiary because of his learning, extensive professional acquaintance and knowledge of the world, and his devotion to research. I seriously doubt whether I should have remained in Harvard more than one or two years except for his influence and encouragement. Thus I acknowledge a great debt. In 1902 I was granted the doctorate of philosophy in psychology and offered an instructorship in comparative psychology in the University, with half time for research and a salary of one thousand dollars per year. I well remember Professor Münsterberg's friendly question when he told me of the opportunity: "Can you afford to accept it, Yerkes?" "No," I replied, "but I shall, nevertheless." Thus began a period of professional service to Harvard University and science which continued until it was interrupted by the World War in 1917.

During those fifteen happy, eventful, fruitful years of research and teaching I gave my best to Harvard and received incomparably more benefits from rare associations and companionships than I could give in return. It was for me a period of intellectual and cultural growth and enlightenment, of constant stimulation to improvement and achievement, and of precious inspirational influence. For, unworthily, as it seemed to me, I was a member of a university faculty group of pre-eminently great scholars and great personalities, which at one time or another during the period in question included Josiah Royce, George Herbert Palmer, William James, Hugo Münsterberg, Francis Peabody, George Santayana, Dickinson Miller, Robert MacDougall, Edwin B. Holt, and Ralph Barton Perry. These, my colleagues in the Division, which was then inclusive of philosophy, social ethics, and psychology, were men of such personal quality, [p. 390] originality, and creativeness, as seldom are found in an academic group.

Thus, with victory for the latter, ended in 1902 the struggle between medicine and psychobiology in my vocational imaginings. My taste for scientific research, if not my ability, had long before been revealed at Ursinus when my teacher and master, Professor Mensch, himself a doctor of medicine and of philosophy, proposed for my training the investigation of a problem in physiological chemistry. I did not solve the problem, but in the attempt I learned much about myself and the attractiveness of biological research. From that time I knew positively that I wished to give my life to constructive work in the biological sciences rather than to practical service in medicine or surgery. It was then that I first resolved that making a living should, so far as practicable, be merely incidental to my life work. And so, as it turns out, it has been, these thirty years! But when I abandoned the study of medicine, lively interest in its varied problems and in the sciences basic to both medicine and surgery persisted. Although I lack a medical degree, my dominant interests classify me with the profession. Much of my work has been conducted in medical institutions; more might have been, and my friendships and companionships continue to bear witness to my natural taste and my initial vocational leaning and choice. All this merely to establish the fact that in reality my original choice of career was modified, not abandoned, and my professional interest broadened and liberalized instead of turned into unrelated channels.

A plan, whose realization after nearly thirty years has now been nearly achieved in Yale University, came to me as a stirring vision of usefulness during my graduate days in Harvard. It was the establishment and development of an institute of comparative psychobiology in which the resources of the various natural sciences should be used effectively for the solution of varied problems of life. Naturally, psychological and physiological interests dominated in this vision. For a time it seemed that the dream might speedily come true in Harvard, but President Eliot, wise and far-sighted promoter of productive scholarship and of medical education and research, retired from his responsibilities just too soon. Instead of receiving encouragement in such seemingly impractical planning as I had been indulging in, I was gently and tactfully advised by the new administration that educational psychology offered a broader and more direct path to a professorship and to increased academic usefulness than did [p. 391] my special field of comparative psychology, and that I might well consider effecting a change. In disregarding this well-meant and wholly reasonable advice, I ran true to form. To do what I had especially prepared myself for, what I felt pre-eminently fitted for, and what, above everything else, I wished to do, seemed to me incomparably more important and desirable than a professorship at Harvard. Several of my professional colleagues agreed with me. Many times since I have had to confirm that decision or to make similar ones. I never have regretted the abiding determination to live my own professional life, irrespective of administrative and other practical considerations.

During the first year of my Harvard instructorship, opportunity appeared for a brief visit to Germany and Switzerland to study the organization and equipment of physiological and psychological institutes. This was in preparation for the planning of suitable building and facilities for comparative and other branches of psychological work in Harvard. The experience naturally was very valuable to me. It was seventeen years before I again visited Europe, and then it was to England and France that I journeyed. This neglect of international professional contacts was due to financial limitations and the demands of my research, not to lack of interest or desire. Indeed, it has proved a very serious disadvantage. As I write these words, I am on my third professional foreign tour, which includes visitation of numerous psychobiological establishments in the principal countries of Europe, and, in addition, the laboratories of the Pasteur Institute at Kindia, French Guinea.

In 1905, when I was fairly started in my career as a psychobiologist, began a partnership with Ada Watterson (Yerkes), which perfectly blended our lives and incalculably increased our professional and social usefulness. Successful marriages appear in these times to be not unworthy of record and remark. Moreover, from 1905 my professional autobiography is no longer mine alone. At this moment our partnership is publishing jointly, as the outcome of six years of continuous preparatory labor, a book on anthropoid life, The Great Apes.

Crowded with interesting activities were the years between 1902, the beginning of my professional life, and America's entrance into the World War. My intellectual environment was stimulating, conditions within and without were favorable to creative endeavor, incentives to service abounded. I was busy, contented, happy in my [p. 392] scientific work, my family life, and friendships. As my colleague Ernest E. Southard once remarked, professionally speaking, for years I lived on cream. To supplement my small and obviously insufficient Harvard salary, which during fifteen years of service as instructor and assistant professor averaged about two thousand dollars a year, I taught in Radcliffe College, Harvard Summer School, and the University Extension Department in Boston. It was through my teaching of elementary psychology that I first was brought into contact with Edward B. Titchener. Use of his textbooks in my courses provoked exchange of opinions, discussion, and, on my part, endless questions, for in introspective method and its results I was the novice, he the master. I treasure a folder of letters which represent much of my vital exchange with the most learned psychologist I have ever known. Whatever interest I have in introspection, competence in its use, and appreciation of its results, and whatever I know of the psychology of the self, as contrasted with objective psychology, I owe primarily to Titchener. With his aid I came to distinguish sharply between my special interest in the materials and problems of psychobiology and psychology as the science of experience. Efforts to systematize my thinking in this direction for the benefit of my students resulted in the publication of my Introduction to Psychology, the first and only textbook I have had the will to write. My professional debt to Titchener is equaled only by that to Münsterberg, Royce, and Holt.

In the midst of intensive work with students and colleagues in the Harvard Psychological Laboratory I found time for several profitable adventures in cooperation. These are some of them. From association as pupil and assistant with Edward L. Thorndike at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, I profited much. Later for some years I labored with John B. Watson for the improvement and the standardization of methods for the comparative study of vision in animals. At this time Watson was in Baltimore, I in Cambridge, and our exchanges were mostly by letter. One spring, to my great satisfaction, I was granted leave of absence from Harvard to acquire knowledge of neuro-surgical technique through association with that skillful technician and brilliant investigator, Professor Harvey Cushing. My weeks in the Hunterian Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University, under the guidance of Cushing, provided stimulating, enlightening, and revealing experience, whose effects were permanent. In addition to technical training and new [p. 393] professional insight, I carried from the laboratories of comparative surgery an enduring friendship. That I have made no noteworthy contributions to neurology or psychobiology by way of surgical techniques is the fault of circumstances beyond my control. Yet another important season was that spent with my former pupil, Gilbert V. Hamilton, in his ideally situated private laboratory at Santa Barbara, California. And with another pupil, Daniel W. La Rue, who, like Hamilton, returned with interest what little I had been able to give as teacher, I planned, used in courses of instruction, and finally published An Outline of the Study of the Self.

Much more than an episode in my almost too full professional life of the young century was opportunity, on recommendation of Ernest E. Southard, Professor of Neuropathology in the Harvard Medical School, and Scientific Director of the Psychopathic Department of the Boston State Hospital, to serve as psychologist in the Hospital. This was my introduction to research in psychopathology. During five years I gave half of my time to the direction of psychological service and research in the Hospital. It was here I discovered certain urgent needs of psychiatry for improved techniques of psychobiological examining and measurement, and here also, with the aid of graduate students and assistants, I developed the point-scale method of measuring aspects of intellectual activity and the multiple-choice method for the study of ideational behavior. Naturally, both practical and theoretical relations of psychobiology to medicine, and more particularly to psychopathology and psychiatry, commanded my attention and I thought and talked much about ways of rendering these subjects more helpful to one another.

I have mentioned Ernest Southard as my master in psychopathology. He was that and much more, for, even after a decade of separation from his influence, his brilliant originality, vision, versatility, and tireless industry, continue to stir my imagination and to spur me to more fruitful effort. His was a remarkable intellect, backed by exceptional training and vision, which neurology and psychiatry could ill afford to lose either early or late.[2]

Those were particularly stirring years, for when I accepted hospital duties I gave up no portion of my teaching burden or program of research in the Cambridge laboratories. Doubtless, it was fortunate for my health that in its fifth year this dual life was abruptly ended by the World War. The internal values of my concentrated [p. 394] practical experience in psychopathology it would be difficult to overestimate. The external results are scant because I published relatively little.

Throughout my Harvard connection several graduate students each year shared my labors and enthusiasm for discovery and invention. I then considered the university the logical and altogether fitting home for research, and I now even more strongly hold that conviction after some thirty years of varied professional experience, both within and without American universities. Stable in my professional life and not over-eager for increased income or rank, the current ran smoothly and it seemed that I might continue at Harvard until the end of the chapter. It had been relatively easy to refuse numerous opportunities to migrate. Then out of the war-clouded sky came an attention-compelling, insistent call to reorganize psychological work and take direction of the laboratory in the University of Minnesota. At first I declined thoughtfully and reluctantly, with the urgent advice of Professors Royce and Münsterberg. But when, a year later, the offer was made even more alluring, I hesitated and was lost to my university birthplace and home. It was a difficult decision, opposed I recall by such disinterested friends and advisers as Professors Royce and Herbert W. Rand, but supported by such as ex-President Eliot and Professors Münsterberg and Taussig.

I was in my fortieth year when, in the spring of 1917, I accepted the Minnesota appointment. Barely had I made this new arrangement than America's entrance into the War upset all of my plans. For two years after resigning my appointments in Harvard and in the Boston Psychopathic Hospital I held my western academic post and during that time made necessary recommendations for staff reorganization, planned the establishment of a department of psychology, and arranged for the transfer of the laboratory to a new site and building. It was a profitable experience, although in the end I resigned my post without having at any time been resident in Minneapolis. For this circumstance the War was wholly responsible. The members of my staff in Minnesota who, after my resignation, carried on effectively included, in addition to Herbert Woodrow, who was originally on the ground, Richard M. Elliott, William S. Foster, Mabel Fernald, and Karl S. Lashley. A better-trained, more able, and altogether competent group of young psychologists was not to be found.[p. 395]

Thus, with America's declaration of war ended one of the most important periods of my professional career -- measured by twenty years as student, teacher, and investigator in Harvard University. It is appropriate to note here the distinctive characteristics of my research interests and results during this period.

My first scientific paper was published from the Laboratory of Comparative Zoölogy of Harvard in 1899, when I was twenty-three years of age. It was the outcome of suggestions received from my teacher, Charles B. Davenport, and of observations made under his direction. The title of this maiden publication in psychobiology, Reaction of Entomostraca to Stimulation by Light, indicates one of my major fields of interest, namely, organic receptivity, its nature, conditions, and relations to behavioral expression and to experience. There followed several papers on phases of receptivity and response in invertebrates. All show the helpful influence of my biological teachers, Messrs. Mark, Parker, and Davenport, and all are classifiable under the physiology of the nervous system, although even then it would have been fairer to my interest and point of view to place them in psychobiology.

Shortly my interest extended to include organic adaptivity, which then was almost universally designated as habit formation, and from 1905 to 1912 I published several reports of investigations on adaptivity and receptivity in such relatively lowly vertebrates as the amphibians and reptiles. Other aspects of physiological process which at this time suggested to me important neurological problems were temporal relations of response, inhibition, and facilitation. A little later I became profoundly interested in problems of instinct versus individual acquisition, and several of my investigations and those conducted under my direction were concerned with the essential characteristics and relations of maturational or so-called hereditary modes of response and their neuromuscular mechanisms.

I still consider solution of the assemblage of problems suggested by these phrases of the utmost theoretical and practical importance. Many times my work on the mechanisms and behavioral expressions of inheritance and acquisition has been interrupted, once by the loss of my colony of dancing mice, and again by the World War, which found me with apparatus ready for continuation of work with mice. Investigation of the behavior of wildness and savageness in rats, well begun with the cooperation of Professor William E. Castle, I abandoned because conditions of experimentation were not favorable to reliable results.[p. 396]

Especially conspicuous in my research has been interest in methods and efforts to advance comparative psychobiology by invention, adaptation, and improvement thereof. My work, I suspect, has been characterized rather by ingenuity and originality than by technical skill and mechanical gift. Theoretically, method conditions progress; practically, it has always seemed to me more important than observation. My investigations, I think, entirely support this conviction, for the greater part of my life has been devoted to methodological work in the biological sciences.

I have mentioned my abiding interest in the problems of organic receptivity, adaptivity, and instinct. Always my research has been more nearly physiological than psychological, for I have dealt with problems of behavior, not with experience. Therefore my constant use of the descriptive term psychobiology. That either my interests or methods of work, my descriptions or interpretations, have become consistently more or less objective during the past thirty years I am not aware. Certainly there have been fluctuations of opinion, and gradually the conviction has strengthened that open-mindedness, willingness to envisage all problems and all trustworthy results, and to consider and test the value of all types of method, are prime essentials for the advancement of knowledge. With extreme objectivism, as voiced during the early years of my career by such eminent biologists as Loeb, Beer, Bethe, and von Uexküll, I have never been able to sympathize unreservedly because it impressed me as dangerous in its restrictions and negations. On similar grounds I have rejected the more recent objectivism, or as he calls it, behaviorism, of Watson, for it is characterized by the same logical and practical defects which appear in the historical types of psychological objectivism. More forcibly than ever, after thirty years of earnest thought and persistent study of problems of organic behavior and experience, it strikes me as wholly indefensible, and extremely unprofitable, to deny the possibility of scientifically investigating phenomena of experience in their relations to other vital happenings.

That my own interest has always centered in problems of organic structure and function in no degree prejudices me against the study of consciousness and mind. Instead, I consider the problem of the nature and relations of consciousness as at once the most fascinating and the most important in biology, and it is my earnest hope that I may live to help in some measure toward its solution. That my path is not obviously directed toward this end needs neither explanation nor apology. My course in research is pragmatic.[p. 397]

The scope of my research was broadened in 1913 by the addition of psychopathology, for it was in that year I accepted appointment in the Boston Psychopathic Hospital. Naturally, I undertook work in psychotechnology which promised to be helpful to psychiatry, but at the same time I formulated and, with my peculiar equipment as comparative psychobiologist, attempted to solve certain problems relative to the nature and causation of psychobiological disturbances and defects. Unwittingly I was thus prepared for the military opportunities and demands which were shortly to confront me. Had I planned my adventure in practical mental measurement with full knowledge of what awaited me in the World War I could not have arranged things better. My work at the Hospital was abruptly terminated by the War, but, even without it, removal to the University of Minnesota would have caused a break. Much of my work in psychopathology continues as I then left it, unfinished.

It was thus the presidential proclamation of April, 1917, found me. At the moment a group of experimental psychologists was meeting informally at Harvard University. Naturally, we asked ourselves what professional service American psychologists might hope to render in the military emergency. Discussion revealed eagerness, coupled with optimism and assurance that some, at least, of our techniques could be made serviceable.

Because I happened to be President of the American Psychological Association, it became my privilege and duty to take the initiative in organizing our group and in attempting to discover ways in which we might be useful. It is indicative of my lifelong professional leaning and affiliations that I promptly established relations with the Medical Department of the Army and that the major service for which I was personally responsible throughout the War, the psychological examining of recruits, should have been conducted in that arm of the service.

The story of psychological service his elsewhere been told officially and completely, if not in detail.[3] It is appropriate here to consider its principal relations to my professional life.[p. 398]

For nearly two years I lived in military psychology, with scarcely a thought of the psychobiological problems which previously had occupied me. The novel opportunity which my profession created for itself in the American military establishment called for constructive planning, combined with methodological resourcefulness and skill. For these demands, as contrasted with many which more usually come to the academician and investigator, it shortly appeared that I possessed unusual qualifications.

During my term of military service I wrote little for publication. There was no time. But my official correspondence was both extensive and profoundly important for my intellectual and technical growth and the development of facility in verbal expression. It was necessarily descriptive, expository, argumentative, for my chief task, aside from making clear what we planned and proposed, was to convince military and civil officials that what we desired to undertake possessed practical value. Often it seemed that my foremost duty and obligation -- one for which I usually felt myself peculiarly unsuited -- was to vanquish seemingly insuperable difficulties by overcoming the passive resistance of ignorance and the active opposition of jealousy, misinformation, and honest disagreement.

Fortunately, I flourished amidst difficulties and discouragements, and the service which my group rendered finally yielded abundant satisfaction. It has been characterized by those who observed it from above the battle as uniquely significant alike for military progress and for the development of psychology and its technologies. Assuredly it was highly beneficial to me to be carried by force of circumstance from the comfortably sheltered provincialism of a great university into the swirling current of world conflict. As never otherwise could have happened, I was brought into active give-and-take contact with men of varied interests, abilities, and points of view, at a time when every man rose superior to himself; with national and international problems, plans, and programs; with organizations, methods of administration, and ideals which are foreign to academic experience. Necessity made me at home in this novel situation and I was able to present [p. 399] and maintain the needs, claims, and merits of my profession as determinedly, and I think also as effectively, as I could have done in my customary environment. As obligations and opportunities multiplied, so also my knowledge, insights, faith, and will to succeed, and when suddenly the great conflict ended I was so completely engrossed in helping to increase the efficiency of the military organization of my country that for a time I felt like a person without a calling.

If ever I have spoken or written as though the contribution of military psychology in Army or Navy was largely mine, I would beg here to correct the impression. Mine, as it happened, was the responsibility for initiative and leadership, but scores of my colleagues enthusiastically and loyally gave their best. To mention names would be invidious and in bad taste, because the honor roll is too long to be reproduced entire. I could have accomplished little indeed without the whole-hearted, generous, and efficient constructive work of my fellows. The reward of growth, self-revelation, and confidence in my ability to serve mankind which came to me by reason of my share in the great conflict is more than adequate compensation for the arduous labors of the most trying years of my life.

As never otherwise could have happened, military opportunities, demands, and achievements gave American psychology forward and directed impetus. Owing primarily to an endless succession of difficulties, resultant delays, and finally the termination of the War just when our service was fully organized, our methods perfected, and authority granted for the extension of our work throughout the Army, the strictly scientific as contrasted with the practical returns of our labors, although by no means unimportant, proved meager in comparison with what we had planned for and legitimately expected. It will be long, however, before our profession entirely escapes from the directive influence of psychotechnological military developments or forgets that almost incredibly extensive and precious gift of professional service, which to the laity and the military profession was the more impressive because wholly unexpected and unsolicited.

When discharged from the Army shortly after the Armistice, I found myself faced with choice between continuation of work in Washington in connection with the National Research Council, through which much of our psychological military service had been organized and rendered, or reporting for duty in the University of Minnesota. For two reasons, chiefly, I hesitated and then decided to resign my academic post: I wished to complete and superintend the [p. 400] publication of the official report of our psychological work during the War, and, picking up the threads of my psychological past, to endeavor to find financial support for systematic utilization of the anthropoid apes in biological research. The latter interest, as one of the most important in my professional career, here demands brief historical comment.

In the course of comparative studies of receptivity and adaptivity which I conducted or directed in Harvard University, and especially because of the work of my student, M. E. Haggerty, on imitative tendency in monkeys, and varied observations of my own on marmosets, monkeys, and orangutans, I had become convinced that, for certain major groups of psychobiological problem to whose solution I hoped to dedicate my life, the primates, and, more particularly, the great apes, promised to be supremely and perhaps also uniquely serviceable. My conviction found expression in a plan of action which I formulated for publication as early as 1916.[4] Following the publication of this plan several offers of assistance came to me, but no one of them could be safely accepted because I was not financially independent and thus able to give my time to the project without compensation. From 1917 to 1919 my efforts to finance suitable laboratories were necessarily in abeyance, but my dream recurred with increased vividness and compelling power when the war clouds vanished. So it happened that I was ready and eager to serve the National Research Council as chairman of one of its divisions, in part because the connection enabled me to remain in Washington where conditions seemed peculiarly favorable for the promotion of my pet project.

When I originally decided to stay in Washington instead of going to the University of Minnesota, I supposed that it would be for only one or two years, for I was optimistic that within that period I should succeed in arranging to go forward with my research. But it was not so. Disappointments succeeded one another as in the Army, and the period stretched to five years before I escaped to more congenial activities. In the meantime my personal research was almost wholly in abeyance and my only noteworthy service to my particular branch of science was the organization and facilitation of research in problems having to do with aspects of sex and human migrations. This work was done primarily through the agency of committees. I initiated and for more than two years served as Chairman of the Com-[p. 401]mittee on Scientific Problems of Human Migration of the National Research Council,[5] and simultaneously gave much of my time to the Chairmanship of the Council's Committee for Research in Problems of Sex. During my association with these committees we were able to secure, through the National Research Council for the support of our programs of research, sums aggregating eight hundred thousand dollars. That our promotional endeavors were fruitful is convincingly established by the content of scores of reports which have been published by cooperating investigators. Although it was far enough from my primary interest and desire, I nevertheless took great satisfaction in this promotional work, and I even dared to hope that the committee method as we developed it might become so well established as to continue in use. In this, the migrations organization proved disappointing, whereas that for the study of problems of sex has continued with increasing usefulness to the date of writing.

As I reflect on my experiences I realize that personal relations during my sojourn in Washington were far too significant professionally to be ignored. My period of military service was slightly less than two years. The National Research Council elected me to membership in 1917 and for several years I served that organization in various capacities. Among the many delightful and professionally invaluable acquaintances and friendships which came to me during seven years' residence in Washington, I mention the following because of their pre-eminently great influence on my professional career: with George E. Hale, astronomer, the boldly imaginative and constructive genius of American science; with John C. Merriam, paleontologist, wise, far-sighted organizer and director of research; with Raymond Dodge, physiological psychologist, gifted in methodological inventiveness, friendship, and loyalty; with Clarence E. McClung, zoologist, socially minded, devoted investigator and leader in the organization of research; with Victor C. Vaughan, bacteriologist-physician, beloved and widely influential teacher, investigator, friend; with William H. Welch, pathologist, fount of wisdom, adviser of unnumbered thousands of medical students, colleagues, and friends.[p. 402]

As, earlier in life, it was my good fortune in Harvard University to be intimately associated with men of genius in scholarship and in the art of living, so somewhat later I enjoyed in Washington the incomparable advantages of working with men such as I have named, of wider and different experience, more thorough scholarship, more varied insights, and better intellects than my own. One's professional achievements may not be understood if such aspects of social environment as these are overlooked.

In the spring of 1924, seven years after I left Harvard to enter the Army, I was enabled to return to my professional career by appointment to a professorship in the Institute of Psychology of Yale University. This research position I accepted with the understanding that I should be free to devote myself to comparative psychobiology and to promote, as might prove practicable, achievement of facilities for the scientific utilization of anthropoid subjects. The agreement was for a term of five years. Although it did not provide immediately precisely the type of establishment and equipment which I had long desired and labored to bring into existence, it did supply an institutional connection which, largely because of the sympathetic interest and professional knowledge of President James R. Angell, promised to be incomparably useful.

Turning immediately from my administrative and promotional activities in the National Research Council, I devoted the summer of 1924 to anthropoid research in Havana, Cuba, where, thanks to the generosity of Señora Rosalia Abreu, and with the cooperation of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, I was able to observe a large colony of primates. On returning from Cuba, I took up residence in New Haven.

Progress has been rapid in several lines of endeavor during the five years which I have spent in Yale University. Signally important for the realization of my plans are the following achievements: (1) The establishment in New Haven of a special laboratory for psychobiological study of primates; (2) completion of an inclusive survey of the naturalistic and experimental literature of anthropoid life, preparation of an informational catalogue, abstracts, and indices, and the publication of the source book for investigators previously mentioned as The Great Apes; (3) supplementation of the New Haven primate laboratory by establishment near Jacksonville, Florida, of a subtropical anthropoid station in which subjects may be bred and observed; (4) perfecting of arrangements for systematic natural-[p. 403]istic study of the chimpanzee and gorilla in Africa; (5) preparation and publication of a program of psychobiological research with anthropoid subjects; and, finally, (6) formulation of plans for a department of comparative psychobiology in Yale University which shall include the existing primate laboratory and be conducted in conjunction with, and as the academic headquarters of, the Florida station.

Throughout this period of continuous intense activity I have endeavored to prepare the way for effective use of anthropoid apes and other primates in the solution of assemblages of problems which include the psychobiological, physiological, psychopathological, anthropological, and sociological. Always the ape has been thought of as means to an end: namely, the solution of important problems which may not readily be approached initially by aid of human subjects. Despite considerable contributions of fact, this section of my professional life may best be characterized as one of systematic preparation for work which doubtless will engage many investigators over an indefinite period.

In 1929, after fifteen years of persistent effort, the provision for anthropoid research which I first proposed and urgently recommended in 1916 finally was achieved. Above I have referred to this consummation of my efforts as the establishment of special primate or anthropoid laboratories and station. Not even the difficulties and discouragements of psychological military service equaled those which at one time or another confronted me in my attempts to secure suitable provision for study of the anthropoid apes. Visionary, impracticable, promising slight returns, too difficult of realization, impossible, are some of the unfavorable characterizations offered as objections to investment in the plan. To have succeeded after so long a period of endeavor is heartening indeed. It renews and redoubles my faith in both plans and objectives and my desire to press forward.

As I write these words (September, 1929) I am on an extended tour of those foreign laboratories whose research equipment, personnel, and publications bear obviously important relations to the psychobiological work which I have projected. I have visited several institutions and conferred with many colleagues in Europe and am now homeward bound from the African laboratories of the Pasteur Institute at Kindia, French Guinea, which some eight years ago were established for utilization of the chimpanzee and other African primates in the investigation of problems of disease. Few experiences [p. 404] are more inspiring than discovery or rediscovery of the fact that scientific interest, activity, and sympathetic appreciation recognize no geographical, national, or racial limitations.

My immediate work and my plans for the future find appropriate setting in the recently established Institute of Human Relations of Yale University, in which the former Institute of Psychology has been incorporated, and in the Human Welfare Center of which the Institute is an important part.[6] I firmly believe today, as ever, that comparative method and infrahuman organisms may and will be made to contribute increasingly and importantly to the solution of a multitude of pressing human problems. I believe also in the logic and fitness of establishing laboratories of comparative psychobiology in conjunction with those of physiology in a great center for research in social biology, and as supplementary to the appropriate special establishments for human psychology, psychotechnology, and the various social sciences.

Such value as this account of my professional life may have for the reader, aside from the satisfaction of his legitimate curiosity, is more likely to come from analysis and revelation of character, motives, and methods, than from simple record of achievements or failures. This assumption is my excuse for concluding with an attempt at revelation and appraisal which, if not complete and adequate, is at least honest.

Physically handicapped from my seventh year by scarlet fever, I have had to conserve my strength and act circumspectly in order to work continuously and efficiently. Probably this explains why intellectual and especially professional satisfactions have come to dominate over physical pleasures. Endowed with a mentality in many respects ordinary, I have always had the advantage of a few wholly extraordinary abilities. Love of work and the power to tap new reservoirs of energy seem to have been paternal heritages which the circumstances of my life greatly strengthened. From childhood I have been able to work easily, effectively, and joyously, even when associates whom I considered my superiors physically and intellectually faltered or failed. This I attribute more largely to exceptional planfulness, persistence, sustained interest, and abiding faith in the values [p. 405] of my objectives, than to unusual intellectual gifts or acquisitions. My love of planning and a degree of prophetic insight therein, which sometimes seems to approach genius, have, I suspect, more than compensated in my professional life for relatively poor memory, a degree of inaptitude for the acquisition of languages which, to the amusement of my family, I often refer to as linguistic idiocy, and almost complete lack of power of artistic expression either graphically or vocally.

As I view my life in retrospect, its professional achievements, and especially its originality, constructivity, and fruitfulness, which many of my colleagues characterize as exceptional, are attributable primarily to the habit of planning with care, foresight, and acquired skill whatever I propose to undertake, to steady unflagging interest and constancy of purpose, and, finally, to persistence which is slow alike to yield to discouragement or to admit failure.

At the age of fifty-three, and though deriving from long-lived stock, I cannot say, as did my paternal grandfather in his sixties, that I have never known fatigue. Instead, it is what I most often have had to work against. Reputed among my intimate friends and my family to be a hard worker, I have never been able to accept the fact, for during most of my years of intense professional activity I have worked not more than eight in each twenty-four hours. It is true, however, that during hours of application my concentration usually is intense and my efficiency relatively high. That the chief if not the only secret of my professional progress is hard work finds illustrative support in my ability to use my native tongue. Not infrequently, when I speak to professional friends of my joy in writing, they voice either surprise or envy. I think I enjoy composition almost as much as I do inventing, planning, or perfecting apparatus and methods or the act of observation, but I cannot discover in my present measure of ability unusual native or inborn gift. To me it seems instead the product of ceaseless practice from youth to the present moment. It is said that I have published much, perhaps it might be said too much, but nevertheless of what I have written during the last thirty years I estimate that barely one-tenth has been published. Letter writing has, I am sure, immensely increased my facility in expression. If relieved of the irksomeness of making a multiplicity of symbols, I usually would rather write to a friend than eat my dinner!

Aside from the improving influence of practice in writing, I attribute my power of verbal expression to systematic use of the diction-[p. 406]ary early and late, with resultant growth of vocabulary and increase in the precision of use of words. As a boy of twelve I carried in my pocket a handy English dictionary which I consulted on opportunity during the day's farm work. Often in later years I have wondered whose suggestion led me to this method of self-improvement.

Were I required to single out the one characteristic which, above all others, has influenced my professional career it would have to be planfulness. Whenever I have had to compete with my fellows I have succeeded, if at all, by prophetic planning rather than by greater activity or longer effort. The purity of my joy in creative effort -- it may as appropriately be called play as work -- probably is due chiefly to self-determination, for more often than not I have followed freely and consistently my judgments, plans, preferences, and desires, instead of another's. Whether it be a merit or a shortcoming, I am not a good follower. It cramps my dominant trait, planfulness, and reduces me to a species of intellectual slavery. The low levels in my career are due to inhibition of initiation through limitation of self-determination, and, correlatively, the high levels to large freedom for planning and achievement.

Looking backward over thirty years of diligent labor and abundant intellectual, social, and material rewards, I am impelled to view all as preparation for the future. It is as if I were now on the threshold of a great undertaking which from the first was dimly envisaged and later planned for with increasing definiteness and assurance. Whether in this characterization of my past and prophecy for my future I am substantially correct, time will reveal. As ever, I am optimistic and determined. The prospect is alluring, for, as never before, and in a measure beyond my hopes, it promises the fulfilment of my persistent dream for the progress of comparative psychobiology and the enhancement of its values to mankind through the wise utilization of anthropoid apes and other primates as subjects of experimental inquiry.

My professional self and the program of research which has become identified with that self are parts of a movement which will dominate the twentieth century, the socializing of biology. In this great movement, as in the problems which must be solved and the practical services rendered for its facilitation, I am single-mindedly and intensely interested. As a rule remote or inclusive objectives are hidden or obscured by a multiplicity of immediate demands and responsibilities. Therefore, I have presumed to point a goal toward [p. 407] which all mankind is struggling and to claim it as my own. It should not be difficult to merge the self with such a goal or to lose one's life completely in its quest.

It is ungracious to preach to one's professional colleagues. Here they should stop. Only those whose careers are in prospect may safely continue! The wisdom which has come to me from vicissitudes and achievements finds expression thus: to recognize and accept one's limitations cheerfully, bravely, but also intelligently; to choose as vocation, and to render service through, work for which one is well fitted by nature and acquisition, and, in so doing, to utilize one's special abilities to the utmost. This is the best recipe I have discovered for social usefulness and for personal happiness.

I have done scant justice to my creditors in this brief human document. What throughout I have referred to as such actually is not mine. More truly and largely it belongs to those whose work throughout the ages prepared the way for my constructive efforts and to those also who have labored for and with me as teachers, pupils, assistants, colleagues. In contemplation of my debts, I stand humble and reluctant to use the personal pronoun, for the professional strivings and achievements which I have recorded are ours and thine even more than mine. This is my inadequate acknowledgment to those who have gone before and to those who have personally companioned, guided, enlightened, and inspired me.


[1] Yerkes and Carr (paternal); Carrell and Addis (maternal).

[2] Doctor Southard died February 8, 1920.

[3] Report of the Psychology Committee of the National Research Council. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 83-149. Psychology in relation to the war. Psychol. Rev., 1918, 25, 85-115. The measurement and utilization of brain power in the army. Science 1919, 44, 221-226, 251-259.

Yerkes, R. M., and Yoakum, C. S. Army mental tests. New York: Holt, 1920. Pp. 303.

Cobb, M. V., and Yerkes, R. M. Intellectual and educational status of the medical profession as represented in the United States Army. Bull. Nat. Res. Council, 1921, 1, 457-532.

The personnel system of the United States Army. Vol. 1. History of the personnel system; Vol. 2. The personnel manual. Published by the War Department, Washington, D. C., 1919.

Psychological examining in the United States Army. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., 1921, 15 (Official report).

[4] See "Provision for the study of monkeys and apes," Science, 1916, 43, 231-234.

[5] Yerkes, R. M. The work of the Committee on Scientific Problems of Human Migration. Reprint and Circular Series of the National Research Council, 1924, No. 58.

Wissler, C. Final report of the Committee on Scientific Problems of Human Migration. Reprint and Circular Series of the National Research Council, 1929. No. 87.

[6] Since this was written two years ago. the plan of organization has been altered. My work is now administratively a section of the Department of Physiology of the School of Medicine, Yale University, and I am in charge of the Laboratories of Comparative Psychobiology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty fascinating piece, John.

I've received some really interesting e-mails about my book from readers in Europe and Israel,

many mentioning Operation Gladio and its connections to the Olson and JFK cases... there was a

Gladio connection to the Pont St. Esprit 1951 incident that I did not include in my book because I knew

most American readers would not understand its ties to the CIA and American military at the time.

I'm doing my best to finish parts II and III of the Olson-Oswald article. Hope to have part II up here by end of the week.

(And to do a proper edit on part I.) Take care all. And keep the faith!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short summary of Herr Doktor Erich Traub from Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy:

http://www.MTWSFH.com ...which is a nice Hidden History blog site to say the least. Fills in a lot of the high

level summarized links without getting lost in the details. Wonder how close Camp Siegfried and The Vineland School

are to Camden, NJ? So close and yet so far! Sometimes the answer is right under your nose or in your own backyard

and yet if you look but can not see, or listen but can not hear, there is no chance of discovering the obvious.

1930s-1985: UNITED STATES/NAZI GERMANY. Herr Doktor Erich Traub leads a varied and interesting life. In the 1930s, the German scientist is trained in the fine art of manipulating bacteria and viruses at the Rockefeller Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. He rounds out his first term in the U.S. with membership in the Amerika-Deutscher Volksbund, a German-American ‘club’ also known as Camp Sigfried. Camp Sigfried is the national headquarters of the American Nazi movement.

At the outbreak of World War Two, Traub will return to his native Germany and apply his Rockefeller-acquired skills to Nazi germ warfare, working directly under SS Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler, and conducting grotesque experiments on live victims. Among his many accomplishments for Nazi Germany will be the release of live virus sprays over the occupied Soviet Union.

At the close of World War Two, Traub's life will come full circle when, along with thousands of other Nazi war criminals and mass murderers, he is rescued from prosecution by Allen Dulles' Operation Paperclip and, nicely de-Nazified, goes to work for the government of the United States of America. Traub finds a satisfying new job in the U.S. Navy's biological warfare program at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. America sure is the land of opportunity.

I think James Forrestal died while incarcerated at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. I am now of the opinion

that Forrestal and Olson were probably eliminated when they voiced massive opposition to the work of Herr Doktor Erich Traub and others

who came here under Operation Paperclip and Operation Gladio.

Anastase Vonsiatsky, who was THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE in Condon's novel, often attended Nazi confabs and conferences at Camp Siegfried along with James Wheeler-Hill another White Russian who dressed in a Nazi uniform as head of the German-American Bund. Dick Russell asked me to find out who James Wheeler-Hill was since his informant Richard Case Nagell identified him as a major principal in the plot

to kill JFK. Dick was flabbergasted when I told him he was seen in pictures with Vonsiatsky at Camp Siegfried in The Russian Fascists written by John J. Stephan (Little Brown 1979). All of a sudden his belief in the MK/ULTRA aspects of the JFK hit and the White Russian aspects took a noticeable turn away from incredulity to a strong belief. He also wanted me to find out about a person named Wrangel who was probably

the son of Baron Wrangel who fought in the Czar's Army or Navy against the Bolshevik Rooskies.

Traub is a new entity to me, but I will pursue him as time permits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some counter-arguments on the web questioning whether or not Traub ever worked at Plum Island with Lyme disease, but the mention herein of his role at Fort Dietrich, MD caught my attention as possibly being closely related to the Forrestal and Olson mysterious death cases. I think Forrestal and Olson were going to blow the whistle on various aspects of these bio warfare and mind control programs and were eliminated before it could ever happen.

From Wikipedia...

Dr. Erich Traub was a Nazi germ warfare scientist allegedly smuggled into the United States in 1949 from the former Soviet Union under the auspices of the top secret United States government program Operation Paperclip.Hunt, Linda. Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. New York: St.Martin's Press, 1991. 340 pagesDr. Traub is known as the father of the Plum Island biological research lab, located 6 miles from Old Lyme, Connecticut. According to the book Lab 257, by author Michael Carroll, Dr. Traub was chief of Insel Riems, a virological research institute in the Baltic sea now known as the Friedrich Loeffler Institute.Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, History: Isle of RiemsTraub worked directly for Adolf Hitler's second in charge, Heinrich Himmler.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 At Insel Riems, Dr. Traub's interests included personally collecting Rinderpest virus from Anatolia, and packaging weaponized foot and mouth disease for dispersal onto cattle and reindeer in Russia.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 Dr. Traub also experimented with the glanders bacteria and had a particular fascination for organisms that voraciously devour the brain.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 According to his National Defense Program FBI application form, he was born on June 27, 1906 in Asperglen, Germany and he died in Germany in 1988.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6

Plum Island

From Wikipedia...

In the book, The Belarus Secret, author John Loftus, the Justice Department employee who exposed Kurt Waldheim as a Nazi, states that Nazi germ warfare scientists had experimented with poison ticks dropped from planes to spread rare diseases. Loftus also states that he had received information that the United States had tested some of these poison ticks on the Plum Island artillery range off the coast of Connecticut during the early part of the 1950s. Loftus, John (1982). The Belarus Secret. Knopf. ISBN 0394522923. Michael Carroll quotes former Plum Island lab director Jerry Callis talking about tick research on Plum Island:

"Plum Island experimented with ticks, but never outside of containment. We had a tick colony where you take them and feed them on the virus and breed ticks to see how many generations it would last, on and on, until its diluted. Recently they reinstated the tick colony."

Carroll additionally cites a 1978 US Department of Agriculture (UDSA) document titled "African Swine Fever," which further confirms the study of vector competence in ticks on Plum Island, noting that the report stated:

"In 1975 and 1976 the adult and nyphal stages of Ablyomma americanum (the Lone Star tick) and Ablyomma cajunense (the Cayenne tick) were found to be incapable of harboring and transmitting African Swine fever virus."

Coincidentally, the Lyme disease outbreak was identified about the time of the Swine Fever tick study conducted on Plum Island. Despite rumors to the contrary, at the time of the Plum Island Swine Fever experiments, the Lone Star tick's documented range was not limited to Texas. As early as 1944, lone stars ticks had been reported as abundant in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisianna, Arkansas, and Missouri. Cooley, R.A. and Kohls, G.M. 1944. The genus Amblyomma in the United States. Jour. Parasit. 30:77-111 They were also reported to be present in lesser numbers in Minnesota and Ohio of the same year. Riley, W.A. 1944. The occurence of Amblyomma americanum in Minnesota and in Ohio. Jour. Parasit., 30:200-201 By 1977, these ticks were endemic throughout the American southeast. It's range has since continued to expand. Today it is endemic from New England west through much of the Great Plains and the upper Midwest. Carroll states in Lab 257, that no one can answer how the Lone Star tick migrated from Texas to New York and Connecticut. This is, however, clearly not the case.Erich Traub's legacy of arthropod vector competancy experimentation continued during the 1980s at Plum Island under the jurisdiction of Entomologist Dr. Richard Endris, who is reported to have nurtured over 200,000 soft and hard ticks of varying species in tick nurseries on Plum Island, personally collected from locations as far away as Cameroon, Africa.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 In a footnote in Lab 257, Carroll notes that Endris, while under contract with the US Army lab at Fort Detrick had also conducted experiments in 1987 on Plum Island, using sand flies as vectors of the rarely fatal illness Leishmaniasis.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 The work is alleged by Carroll to have been done in secrecy, with few safety precautions. Carroll cites Dr. Traub as having worked with the U.S. Army, the Navy, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the UDSA before he returned to Germany in 1953. Dr. Traub is known to have visited Plum Island on at least three different occasions, and was offered the directorship there several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to turn this thread into just a bioweapons dominated topic, but I think that Herr Doktor Erich Traub and his role

with both the Forrestal and Olson cases looms large at this time... And certainly the fact that Charles Willoughby was assigned

to visit Unit 731 near Harbin, Manchuria right after World War II where Vonsiatsky had his headquarters is also important given the

blatantly obvious roles played by both Vonsiatsky and Willoughby in the JFK proceedings and its aftermath.

Source : Global Research

By Tom Burghardt

The history of bioweapons research in the United States is a history of illicit–and illegal–human experiments.

From the Cold War to the War on Terror, successive American administrations have turned a blind eye on dubious research rightly characterized as having “a little of the Buchenwald touch.”

While the phrase may have come from the files of the Atomic Energy Commission as Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Eileen Welsome revealed in her 1999 book, The Plutonium Files, an investigation into secret American medical experiments at the dawn of the nuclear age, it is as relevant today as the United States pours billions of dollars into work on some of the most dangerous pathogens known to exist in nature.

That Cold War securocrats were more than a little concerned with a comparison to unethical Nazi experiments is hardly surprising. After all, with the defeat of the Axis powers came the triumphalist myth-making that America had fought a “good war” and had liberated humanity from the scourge of fascist barbarism.

Never mind that many of America’s leading corporations, from General Motors to IBM and from Standard Oil to Chase National Bank, were sympathizers and active collaborators with the Third Reich prior to and even during World War II, as documented by investigative journalists Charles Higham in Trading With The Enemy, and Edwin Black in IBM and the Holocaust. Like much else in American history, these were dirty little secrets best left alone.

Soon enough however, these erstwhile democrats would come to view themselves as mandarins of a new, expanding American Empire for whom everything was permitted. In this context, the recruitment of top German and Japanese scientists who had conducted grisly “medical” experiments whilst waging biological war against China and the Soviet Union would be free of any moralizing or political wavering.

As the Cold War grew hotter and hotter, America’s political leadership viewed “former” Nazis and the architects of Japan’s Imperial project not as war criminals but allies in a new undertaking : the global roll-back of socialism and the destruction of the Soviet Union by any means necessary.

This tradition is alive and well in 21st century America. With the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax mailings as a pretext for an aggressive militarist posture, the national security state is ramping-up research for the production of genetically-modified organisms for deployment as new, frightening weapons of war.

According to congressional testimony by Dr. Alan M. Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Washington D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, with very little in the way of effective oversight or accountability, tens of billions of dollars “have been appropriated for bioweapons-related research and development activities.” Pearson reveals that approximately $1.7 billion “has been appropriated for the construction on new high containment facilities for bioweapons-related research.”

By high containment facilities I mean facilities that are designed for work with agents that may cause serious or potentially lethal disease through exposure to aerosols (called Biosafety Level 3 or BSL-3 facilities) and facilities that are designed for work with agents that pose a “high individual risk of life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted via the aerosol route and for which there is no available vaccine or therapy” (called Biosafety Level 4 or BSL-4 facilities).

Prior to 2002, there were three significant BSL-4 facilities in the United States. Today twelve are in operation, under construction, or in the planning stage. When completed, there will be in excess of 150,000 square feet of BSL-4 laboratory space (as much space as three football fields). The number of BSL-3 labs is also clearly growing, but ascertaining the amount of growth is difficult in the absence of accurate baseline information. There are at least 600 such facilities in the US. (Alan M. Pearson, Testimony, “Germs, Viruses, and Secrets : The Silent Proliferation of Bio-Laboratories in the United States,” House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, October 2007)

Chillingly, one consequence of this metastatic growth “is that the very labs designed to protect against bioweapons may become a source for them.” As the 2001 anthrax attacks amply demonstrated, the threat posed by a biological weapons’ incident may be closer to home than any of us care to think. Pearson writes, “Nor should we ignore the possibility that a US biologist may become disgruntled or turn rogue while working in one of these labs.”

According to Edward Hammond, the Director of the now-defunct Sunshine Project, while “biological arms control is currently in … its worst crisis since the signing of the Bioweapons Convention (BWC) in 1972,” the American Bioweapons-Industrial Complex has “embarked on the exploitation of biotechnology for weapons development.” Indeed, Hammond relates that active programs utilizing genetic engineering techniques have “been employed in offensive biowarfare programs in order to make biowarfare agents more effective.”

But increases in state subsidies for such work have generated new risks to the public. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report faulted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for lax security at three of the nation’s five BSL-4 labs currently in operation that “handle the world’s most dangerous agents and toxins that cause incurable and deadly diseases.” Agents such as Ebola, Marburg and smallpox are routinely studied at these facilities. And yet, as GAO auditors found,

Select agent regulations do not mandate that specific perimeter security controls be present at BSL-4 labs, resulting in a significant difference in perimeter security between the nation’s five labs. According to the regulations, each lab must implement a security plan that is sufficient to safeguard select agents against unauthorized access, theft, loss, or release. However, there are no specific perimeter security controls that must be in place at every BSL-4 lab. While three labs had all or nearly all of the key security controls we assessed, our September 2008 report demonstrated that two labs had a significant lack of these controls. (Government Accountability Office, Biosafety Laboratories: BSL-4 Laboratories Improved Perimeter Security Despite Limited Action by CDC, GAO-09-851, July 2009)

As Global Security Newswire revealed in June, a “recently completed inventory at a major U.S. Army biodefense facility found nearly 10,000 more vials of potentially lethal pathogens than were known to be stored at the site.”

The 9,220 samples–which included the bacterial agents that cause plague, anthrax and tularemia; Venezuelan, Eastern and Western equine encephalitis viruses; Rift valley fever virus; Junin virus; Ebola virus; and botulinum neurotoxins–were found during a four-month inventory at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., according to Col. Mark Kortepeter, the center’s deputy commander. (Martin Matishak, “Thousands of Uncounted Disease Samples Found at Army Biodefense Lab,” Global Security Newswire, June 18, 2009)

The GSN report states that while “half of the newfound material was destroyed after being recorded,” inventory control officer Sam Edwin told reporters that “the other half was deemed worthy for further scientific use, cataloged, and stored in the center’s containment freezers.”

More pertinently, what happens when the state itself turns “rogue” and under cover of national security and the endless “war on terror” creates the “acute risk” in the form of out-of-control laboratories “designed to protect against bioweapons” that instead, have “become a source for them”?

Bioweapons and National Security: A Chronology

Source Notes :

This chronology has drawn from dozens of books, articles and declassified government documents in its preparation. Notable in this regard is Michael Christopher Carroll’s Lab 257 : The Disturbing Story of the Government’s Secret Germ Laboratory; Linda Hunt, Secret Agenda; Bob Coen and Eric Nadler, Dead Silence : Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail; the National Security Archive’s documentary history of U.S. Biological Warfare programs and The Sunshine Project.

* August 1945 :

Operation Paperclip, an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program to import top Nazi scientists into the United States. Linda Hunt relates in her book, Secret Agenda, that Reich Health Leader (Reichsgesundheitsführer) Dr. Kurt Blome, was saved from the gallows due to American intervention. Blome admitted he had worked on Nazi bacteriological warfare projects and had experimented on concentration camp prisoners with bubonic plague and sarin gas at Auschwitz. After his acquittal at the 1947 Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial, Blome was recruited by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps and advised the Pentagon on biological warfare. Walter Paul Emil Schreiber, a Wehrmacht general who assigned doctors to experiment on concentration camp prisoners and disbursed state funds for such experiments was another Paperclip recruit; in 1951, Schreiber went to work for the U.S. Air Force School of Medicine. Hubertus Strughold, the so-called “father of space medicine” discussed–and carried out–experiments on Dachau inmates who were tortured and killed; Strughold worked for the U.S. Air Force. Erich Traub, a rabid Nazi and the former chief of Heinrich Himmler’s Insel Riems, the Nazi state’s secret biological warfare research facility defects to the United States. Traub was brought to the U.S. by Paperclip operatives and worked at the Naval Medical Research Institute and gave “operational advice” to the CIA and the biowarriors at Ft. Detrick.

* September 1945 :

General Shiro Ishii’s Unit 731, a secret research group that organized Japan’s chemical and biological warfare programs is granted “amnesty” by Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific, General Douglas MacArthur in exchange for providing America with their voluminous files on biological warfare. All mention of Unit 731 is expunged from the record of The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. During the war, Unit 731 conducted grisly experiments, including the vivisection of live prisoners, and carried out germ attacks on Chinese civilians and prisoners of war. According to researcher Sheldon H. Harris in Factories of Death : Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover-Up, Unit 731 scientists performed tests on prisoners with plague, cholera, smallpox, botulism and other infectious diseases. Their work led to the development of what was called a defoliation bacilli bomb and a flea bomb used by the Imperial Army to spread bubonic plague across unoccupied areas of China. The deployment of these lethal munitions provided the Imperial Army with the ability to launch devastating biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells and populated areas with anthrax, plague-infected fleas, typhoid, dysentery and cholera. Rather than being prosecuted as war criminals, Unit 731 alumni became top bioweapons researchers. Ishii himself became an adviser at USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick.

1950 :

A U.S. Navy ship equipped with spray devices supplied by Ft. Detrick, sprayed serratia marcescens across the San Francisco Bay Area while the ship plied Bay waters. Supposedly a non-pathogenic microorganism, twelve mostly elderly victims die.

* Early 1950s :

Army biological weapons research begins at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC). Vials of anthrax are transferred from Ft. Detrick to Plum Island. This information is contained in a now declassified report, “Biological Warfare Operations,” Research and Development Annual Technical Progress Report, Department of the Army, 1951.

* 1951 :

Racist experiments are carried out. U.S. Army researchers deliberately expose African-Americans to the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus to discern whether they are more susceptible to infections caused by such organisms than white Europeans. Also in 1951, black workers at the Norfolk Supply Center in Virginia were exposed to crates contaminated with A. fumigatus spores.

* 1952 :

According to 1977 hearings by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research into Project MKULTRA, we discover the following: “Under an agreement reached with the Army in 1952, the Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick was to assist CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, and facilities of the Army to develop biological weapons suited for CIA use.”

* 1953 :

Frank Olson, a chemist with the Army’s top secret Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick was involved with biological weapons research and was tasked to the CIA for work on MKULTRA. In 1953, as Deputy Acting Head of Special Operations for the CIA, Olson is a close associate of psychiatrist William Sargant who was investigating the use of psychoactive drugs as an interrogation tool at Britain’s Biological Warfare Centre at Porton Down. After being dosed with LSD without his knowledge by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the Agency’s liaison to Ft. Detrick, Olson undergoes a severe psychological crisis. The scientist begins questioning the ethics of designing biological organisms as weapons of war. This does not sit well with his Agency and Army superiors. On November 24, 1953, Olson and a CIA minder, Robert Lashbrook, check into New York’s Staler Hotel. He never checked out. According to Lashbrook, Olson had thrown himself through the closed shade and window, plunging 170 feet to his death. But because of his knowledge of CIA “terminal experiments” and other horrors conducted under MKULTRA, the Olson family believes the researcher was murdered. When Olson’s son Eric has his father’s body exhumed in 1994, the forensic scientist in charge of the examination determines that Olson had suffered blunt force trauma to the head prior to his fall through the window; the evidence is called “rankly and starkly suggestive of homicide.” Norman G. Cournoyer, one of Olson’s closet friends at Ft. Detrick also believes the scientist was murdered. When asked by the Baltimore Sun in 2004 why Olson was killed, Cournoyer said, “To shut him up. … He wasn’t sure we should be in germ warfare, at the end.”

* 1955 :

Following a CIA biowarfare test in Tampa Bay, Florida, the area experiences a sharp rise in cases of Whooping Cough, including 12 deaths. The Agency had released bacteria it had obtained from the U.S. Army’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Center at the Dugway Proving Grounds.

* 1956-1958 :

More racist experiments. The U.S. Army conducted live field tests on poor African-American communities in Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida. Mosquitoes were released into neighborhoods at ground level by “researchers” or by helicopter; residents were swarmed by the pest; many developed unknown illnesses and some even died. After the tests, Army personnel posing as health workers photographed and tested the victims, then disappeared. While specific details of the experiments remain classified, it has been theorized that a strain of Yellow Fever was used to test its efficacy as a bioweapon.

* 1962 :

A declassified CIA document obtained by the National Security Archive relates the following: “In November 1962 Mr. [redacted] advised Mr. Lyman Kirkpatrick that he had, at one time, been directed by Mr. Richard Bissell to assume responsibility for a project involving the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, then Premier, Republic of Congo. According to Mr. [redacted] poison was to have been the vehicle as he made reference to having been instructed to see Dr. Sidney Gottlieb in order to procure the appropriate vehicle.” Gottlieb was the chief scientific adviser for the CIA’s MKULTRA program.

* June 1966 :

The U.S. Army’s Special Operations Division dispenses Bacillus subtilis var niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million people were exposed when Army operatives dropped light bulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.

* December, 1967 :

The New York Times reports, “Fatal Virus Found in Wild Ducks on L.I.” A virus never seen before in the Western hemisphere, began with ducks in Long Island at a site opposite Plum Island; the virus devastates the area’s duck industry and by 1975 has spread across the entire continent.

* 1971 :

The U.S. Department of Agriculture proclaims that “Plum Island is considered the safest in the world on virus diseases.” USDA’s proof? “There has never been a disease outbreak among the susceptible animals maintained outside the laboratory since it was established.”

* 1975 :

PIADC begins feeding live viruses to “hard ticks,” including the Lone Star tick (never seen outside Texas prior to 1975). The Lone Star tick is a carrier of the Borelia burgdorferi (Bb) bacteria, the causal agent of Lyme Disease. The first cases of the illness are reported in Connecticut, directly across from the facility. Current epidemiological data conclusively demonstrate that the epicenter of all U.S. Lyme Disease cases is Plum Island. It is theorized that deer bitten by infected ticks swam across the narrow waterway separating the island from the mainland.

* September 1978 :

A PIADC news release relays the following: “Foot and Mouth Disease has been diagnosed in cattle in a pre-experimental animal holding facility at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.” A documented outbreak has occurred.

* 1979 :

An internal investigation of the FMD incident reveals massive, widespread failures in the containment systems at PIADC. A USDA Committee report recommends that “Lab 101 not be considered as a safe facility in which to do work on exotic disease agents until corrective action is accomplished.”

* 1979 :

Despite containment failures and poor practices, USAMRIID undertakes the investigation of the deadly Zagazig 501 strain of Rift Valley Fever at PIADC. Producing symptoms similar to aerosolized hemorrhagic fevers such as Marburg and Ebola virus, the Army inoculates sheep that should have been destroyed as a result of the FMD outbreak with an experimental Rift Valley Fever vaccine. The experiments are conducted outdoors, in violation of the lab’s primary directive prohibiting such work. During a 1977 Rift Valley outbreak in Egypt, some 200,000 people are infected and 700 others die excruciating deaths. A survey of blood serum taken before 1977 proved that the virus was not present in Egypt prior to the epidemic. By 2000, rampant outbreaks of the disease have occurred in Saudi Arabia and Yemen with the virus poised to unfurl its tentacles into Europe.

* 1982 :

A Federal review begun after the FMD outbreak concludes: “We believe there is a potentially dangerous situation and that without an immediate massive effort to correct deficiencies, a severe accident could result… [L]ack of preventive maintenance, [and] pressures by management to expedite programs have resulted in compromising safety.”

* 1983 :

Six PIADC workers test positive for African Swine Fever virus. The workers are not notified of the test results which are conducted clandestinely during routine annual physical exams.

* 1991 :

USDA privatizes PIADC. A New Jersey firm, Burns & Roe Services Corporation low bids other competitors and is awarded the contract. In cost-cutting moves, the contractor scales back on safety and security measures in place for decades.

* June 1991 :

An underground cable supplying Lab 257 shorts out but is not replaced since there is no money left in the budget.

* August 1991 :

Hurricane Bob, a category 3 storm similar to Hurricane Katrina, slams into Plum Island, knocking down overhead power lines that connect Lab 257. The underground cable which was Lab 257’s primary power source has not been repaired. Freezers containing virus samples defrost, air seals on lab doors are breached and animal holding room vents fail. PIADC’s “fail safe” mechanism of “air dampers” to seal off the facility also fail. Melted virus samples mix with infected animal waste on lab floors as swarms of mosquitoes fill the facility.

* September 1991 :

The USDA denies that any system failures occurred during the hurricane. Whistleblowing workers in Lab 257 at the time of the blackout are fired in further cost-cutting moves and several subsequently develop mysterious undiagnosed diseases.

* 1992 :

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cite PIADC with hundreds of safety violations. When OSHA returned five years later, none of the violations have been corrected and discover 124 new violations.

* July 1992 :

Although USDA officially denies that PIADC conducts biological warfare research, fourteen officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon visit Plum Island. Internal documents reveal that that the visit was “to meet with [Plum Island] staff regarding biological warfare.” According to Carroll, “the visitors were part of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency reviewing the dual-use capabilities of the facility.”

* Spring 1995 :

Lab 257 is closed. Although scheduled to be fully decontaminated and demolished in 1996 Carroll reports: “Lab 257 still stands today, rotting from weathered decay, harboring who knows what deep within.”

* August 1999 :

The first four human cases of West Vile virus, a mosquito-borne pathogen never diagnosed in North America are diagnosed on Long Island. Horse farms within a five-mile radius of one another, directly opposite Plum Island, report horses dying following violent seizures. An investigation reveals that 25% of the horses in this small, localized area test positive for West Nile. The outbreak begins in August 1999 when birds, including half the exotic bird species in the Bronx Zoo begin dying mysteriously. The virus has an affinity for birds and the vector is soon identified as the mosquito. In 1999, the disease was confined to the New York City area, however by 2002, the Centers for Disease Control reports all but 6 of the lower 48 states reported West Nile virus in birds, mosquitos, animals or human populations. CDC estimates that some 200,000 people are infected nationally. During the initial outbreak in 1999, veterinary pathologist Tracey McNamara suspected a casual relationship between the bird die-offs and the human cases; CDC rebuffs her concerns. Through her persistent efforts, it is determined that the virus was indeed West Nile, a pathogen that had never been seen in North America. The CDC announces that West Nile virus was in the nation’s blood supply when transplant patients who had no prior exposure to the pathogen develop the disease. The USDA’s response? Deny, deny, deny? However, Jim House, a former PIADC scientist, believes that West Nile samples existed prior to 1999 on Plum Island. He told Carroll, “There were samples there, and it wasn’t answered clearly to the public. They didn’t honestly tell how many samples they had and that’s when people started to get upset. When Carroll filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a catalog of germs held in the Plum Island virus library, he was turned down on grounds of “national security.”

* September 1999 :

The New York Times reports that due to “the growing threat of biological terrorism” against America’s food supply, USDA “is seeking money to turn the Plum Island Animal Disease Center … into a top security laboratory where some of the most dangerous diseases known to man or beast can be studied.”

* 1999 :

A Cold War-era document is declassified proving that in the early 1950s USAMRIID shipped twelve vials of weaponized anthrax (enough to kill one million people) to PIADC. In 1993 Newsday revealed that previously unclassified documents demonstrated Pentagon plans to disrupt the Soviet economy by spreading diseases to kill pigs, cattle and horses.

* 1999 :

Plans to “upgrade” PIADC by building a BSL-4 lab are killed when Congress pulls funding after a public outcry.

* September 2001 :

After the anthrax attacks, despite USDA denials that anthrax was ever present on the island, FBI investigators include the following questions in their polygraph examination of scientists under investigation: “Have you ever been to Plum Island?” “Do you know anyone who works at Plum Island?” “What do they do there?”

* December 2002 :

The New York Times reports “a three-hour power failure at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center last weekend renewed concerns about the safety of the high-security government laboratory.” According to the Times, “the loss of power and failure of all three backup generators raised fears for the first time that the containment of infectious pathogens could have been seriously compromised at the laboratory.”

* June 2003 :

President George W. Bush transfers control of PIADC to the Department of Homeland Security. The airspace over the island is unrestricted and the gates leading to Lab 101 remain open and unguarded.

* May 2004 :

In a sign that work on Plum Island is being shifted to “other sites,” including those run by private contractors, DHS announces an $18 million grant to study Rift Valley fever, avian influenza and brucellosis.

* August 2004 :

DHS confirmed that an FMD outbreak “had spread briefly” in “two previously undisclosed incidents earlier this summer,” The New York Times reports. A DHS spokesperson said the virus remained “within the laboratory’s sealed biocontainment area” and that there “had be no risk” to human or animals. An investigation into the cause “was continuing.”

* 2004 :

At the Medical University of Ohio, a researcher is infected with Valley Fever at the center’s BSL-3 facility; Valley Fever is a biological weapons agent.

* February 2005 :

University of Iowa researchers conduct unauthorized genetic engineering experiments with the select agent Tularemia (rabbit fever). The Sunshine Project reports that researchers mixed genes from Tularemia species and introduced antibiotic resistant characteristics into the samples.

* March 2005 :

When a containment facility fails, workers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are exposed to tuberculosis when the BSL-3 “fail-safe” systems malfunction; a blower pushes contaminated air out of the work cabinet, infecting the workroom. The facility had been inspected one month prior to the accident by U.S. Army.

* Summer 2005 :

At the same Ohio facility a serious accident occurs when workers are infected with an aerosol of Valley Fever.

* October-November 2005 :

Dozens of samples thought to be harmless are received by the University of California at Berkeley. In fact, they are samples of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, a BSL-3 bioweapons agent due to its transmission as an aerosol. The samples are handled without adequate safety precautions; however, the community is never notified of the incident.

* August 2005 : The whistleblowing watchdog group Tri-Valley Cares obtains documents in May 2009 proving that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had conducted “restricted experiments” with “select biological agents” at the facility. In 2005, LLNL “inadvertently” released anthrax at the lab in another incident that lab officials attempted to cover-up; five individuals were infected with the deadly pathogen.

* April 2006: Three Texas A&M “biodefense” researchers are infected with Q Fever, a biological weapons agent. Rather than reporting the incident to the CDC as required by law, Texas A&M officials cover-up the accident.

* August 2006: DHS announces that PIADC is “not on the rebuilding list” and a new site to study infectious diseases is being considered.

* January 2009: DHS announces that the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility will be built in Manhattan, Kansas.

* July 2009: Government Accountability Office investigators charge that DHS relied on “a rushed, flawed study” to locate the $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens “in a tornado-prone section of Kansas.” Among other concerns, the GAO cites DHS’s “flawed and outdated methodology” in its criticism. Those concerns are: “the ability of DHS and the federal government in general to safely operate a biosafety facility such as the proposed NBAF; the potential for a pathogenic release through accidents, natural phenomena, and terrorist actions; our May 2008 testimony that concluded that DHS had not conducted or commissioned a study to determine whether FMD research could be conducted safely on the U.S. mainland; natural phenomena such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes that could cause catastrophic damage to the NBAF and result in the release of a pathogen; the possibility that an infected mosquito vector could escape, allowing a pathogen such as Rift Valley Fever virus to become permanently established in the United States; the economic effects of a release or a perceived release on the local, state, and national livestock industry.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I have yet to devote as much attention to Oswald as many others already have done, I would like to describe a few aspects of his background which have intrigued me for almost 15 years, in order to elicit some constructive feedback. Many portions of this theory are controversial and even fly in the face of some of the generally accepted principles held almost universally about him. Since I was able to sway Dick Russell at least a little bit on these concepts I think there is still hope for the true diehards on these subjects.

And even though I believe that no one could have fired the kill shots in Dealey Plaza from the TSBD, let alone Oswald, I still think that he was trained in both the MK/ULTRA program and in a comparable Russian program in Minsk also attended by Bogdhan Stashinsky (Murder to Order) as a programmed assassin. The mere knowledge of his presence in both of these programs made him the "perfect patsy" and the perfect "cover-up lightening rod".

1) The Corporal Schrand case when Oswald was present on guard duty in close time and space proximity to Schrand when he was shot in the armpit and into his heart, indicates that something very sinister occurred that night. I believe that Schrand had to have had his arms either held above his head in the classic "surrender" pose or clasped behind his neck in the "prisioner's march" posture. The bullet that killed him traveled in a path almost horizontal to the ground. It is quite likely that the prowess of Oswald as a "kill-on-demand" trained assassin was being demonstrated for some audience.

2) Oswald's activities in or near Ping Tung, Taiwan when Ray S. Cline was also stationed there also lead me to believe that Oswald was taking part in some sort of conditioning or training as one of Cline's programmed assassin guinea pigs. Cline, of course, was identified by Richard Condon as a principal in the entire Manchurian Candidate conundrum. And the fact that Cline inherited the penetration and insurgency teams run by Coon and Amoss leads me to believe that the leadership of both of these groups were involved with trained assassins including Robert Emmett Johnson.

3) George de Mohrenschildt as a North American Nazi spy reported directly to Anastase Vonsiatsky, according to Charles Higham in American Swastika who stated that ALL Nazi spies in North America reported to Vonsiatsky. And since Vonsiatsky was THE Candidate from Manchuria to lead the Russian Fascists, according to Richard Condon, also leads me to believe that George was indeed well aware of Oswald's talents as a programmed assassin, although he may not have known that the ultimate target of his operation was going to be the husband of Jacky Kennedy, his family's close friend for an entire lifetime.

4) The paths from Coon, Amoss, Fellers and Cline lead right into the now infamous Baltimore Connections to the JFK Assassination, through Gram Trade Intl, Boston Metals and Baldt Anchor and Chain and end up in the WACL operations of Maj Gen John Singlaub and Iran-Contra money laundering via The Bank of Maryland. Robert Barrett, the Olympic Gold Medalist in the 1896 Athens Olympics in the Discus was the "Baltimore Eugenicist" who evaded my detection for so long. More on him later. He sponsored two Intl Eugenics Conferences between the Wars and was one of the two Baltimore and Ohio Railroad references made by Richard Condon in ManCand. The other one was to Clendenin J. Ryan, Amoss' financial sponsor at ISI, whose grandfather Thomas Fortune Ryan delivered industrial diamonds to Hitler before and during the War from South Africa.

Taken in the aggregate, it is now apparent that the building of the Oswald legend in New Orleans and elsewhere was done by Guy Banister, Alton Ochsner, Ed Scannell Butler, James Reily and Patrick Frawley from INCA, Bonner Fellers from New Orleans, James Eastland Ned Touchstone and Elmore Greaves from the Draper-funded Mississippi Murderers and Edwin Walker, Robert Morris and George De Mohrenschidt from Dallas. And except for James Eastland at SISS, there was nary a single representative on the payroll of ANY U.S. Government Agency involved with the building of the "Oswald Legend", like it or not. And since almost everyone agrees that the builders of the Oswald Legend were also the JFK plot masters and the killers of JFK, then we all now know who was behind the murder of JFK.

And certainly James Eastland was not representing MY Government but rather the Government and the White Citizens Councils of the Sovereign Confederate State of Mississippi. Thankfully, Senator Everett Dirksen talked Eastland out of convening "The Eastland Commission to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" although the process had already begun. This fact was cited and noted by Jim Marrs in Crossfire.

Controversial? For sure. Accurate? For certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...