Mockingbird and MKULTRA

[W. Niederhut]

P.S.  Oswald sounds suspiciously like a paradigmatic case in Estabrooks' 1943 text-- a spy who is hypnotically programmed to adopt an alter personality A as an enthusiastic communist, with a core personality B as a patriotic anti-communist.

A has no consciousness of B, but B is conscious of A.

[Ron Bulman]

G E.  This is not science fiction.  I've done it.   

[W. Niederhut]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

G E.  This is not science fiction.  I've done it.   

And not only did Estabrooks do it, he was pitching his theories and proposals to the U.S. military during WWII.

Estabrooks' proposals for using his techniques in counterintelligence ops must have intrigued James Angleton in the 1950s.

I wonder if Estabrooks and Angleton arranged for the young Marine, Lee Harvey Oswald, to become an early subject for this kind of counterintelligence programming-- hypnotically inducing an alter A that is an enthusiastic communist, but has amnesia for the induction, while a secondary alter B has full awareness of A's observations and activity.

[Greg Doudna]

W., according to your description there is Estabrooks with theory claiming that it is possible to program an assassin with absence of memory of doing the deed, etc.; there is evidence that intelligence agencies funded studies and hoped to find it possible to have programmed assassins; and there are claims that Sirhan etc. may be an example of such. But to your knowledge is there any uncontrovertible (meaning established and uncontested) evidence that this has ever happened? In a real case? Or is this in the genre of UFO sightings or Loch Ness or Bigfoot in which there will be passionate anecdotal claims which fail to receive mainstream vetting and acceptance as established facts? And even if Estabrooks claimed he had cases of success, have those been replicated? Without replication and repeatability, even claims of a top scientist will not stand. 

There are alternatives to account for that research other than the dramatic Manchurian candidate idea: effectiveness in extracting information in interrogation; techniques to enhance personal abilities in accomplishing what one wills to do, and so on.

I can only give a personal view here, but on Sirhan: I think he fired shots and killed RFK, was conscious of what he was doing, premeditated it, had no lack of memory, and was lying in claiming no memory. It is also clear to me that he attempted techniques of self-programming, perhaps self- or assisted hypnotism, mystical-religious techniques, perhaps pharmaceuticals, in pumping himself up psychologically to accomplish what he was intent on doing. I also think there was contract for payment and enablers in the background (hence although he was a willing shooter, there was more going on, which would go into areas of who would want to see RFK dead). I think his pumped-up venom against RFK over the Palestinian issue was part of self-programming but that the killing was instigated for a promise of money. (Perhaps comparable to large sums of money paid to families of suicide bombers produce suicide bombers who would not otherwise have happened.) He may or may not have visited hypnotists of shadowy reputation, unknown, but either way the notion that Sirhan was unwilling or unwitting, lacked memory, was innocent, etc., all those I consider simply non-starters. The reason neither Sirhan nor his family members have identified any money-promisers in the background, would be parallel to the case with James Earl Ray in that the identity may not be known, and also in Sirhan's case it would demolish his lifelong defense case legally if he were to say that. I know others disagree and I don't wish to get into an argument over it, but just saying that is my take on Sirhan. Which means it is not convincing to me that Sirhan is any example of a programmed unwitting assassin, and the question is whether there do exist any uncontested, noncontroversial instances of that happening. 

There is always also the possibility that the Manchurian candidate idea which makes for great movies and which intelligence agencies the world over would dearly love to be able to do if it were possible, is a sideshow for some less-sensational but realistic operational use of hypnotism techniques in a variety of ways, which were produced out of that research. But I am no expert at all on this or in medical areas, and appreciate your comments and experience on this and other matters W.

[Richard Price]

9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I can only give a personal view here, but on Sirhan: I think he fired shots and killed RFK, was conscious of what he was doing, premeditated it, had no lack of memory, and was lying in claiming no memory.

Greg, I have not spent nearly as much time on the RFK assassination as on the JFKA, but I would agree with you to this extent.  I am pretty confident that he fired shots, many people and things around RFK were struck by bullets.  He DID not kill RFK (and quite possibly never even hit him), the coroner's report pretty much proves that.  Mr. Noguchi was/is an extremely proficient medical examiner and his report pulls no punches.  The shots that killed RFK came from extremely close up, one leaving powder burns and the other traveling UPWARD through RFK.  Both these FACTS obliterate any case against Sirhan.  He was never close enough, nor in a position to fire such shots.  As to his state of mind, I cannot comment with any degree of certainty, but I do believe there is a strong case that he has been kept out of circulation except for APPROVED individuals who all, for one reason or another have their own biases/reasons to keep him bottled up.

Facts are facts:  Sirhan never had the opportunity to do the deed of which he is accused.  EVERY witness (without exclusion - I believe), states that he was never closer than 3 - 5 feet and never in a position to fire upward through the body of RFK who was only 5' 10" compared to Sirhan's 5' 5".

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

Greg, I have not spent nearly as much time on the RFK assassination as on the JFKA, but I would agree with you to this extent.  I am pretty confident that he fired shots, many people and things around RFK were struck by bullets.  He DID not kill RFK (and quite possibly never even hit him), the coroner's report pretty much proves that.  Mr. Noguchi was/is an extremely proficient medical examiner and his report pulls no punches.  The shots that killed RFK came from extremely close up, one leaving powder burns and the other traveling UPWARD through RFK.  Both these FACTS obliterate any case against Sirhan.  He was never close enough, nor in a position to fire such shots.  As to his state of mind, I cannot comment with any degree of certainty, but I do believe there is a strong case that he has been kept out of circulation except for APPROVED individuals who all, for one reason or another have their own biases/reasons to keep him bottled up.

Facts are facts:  Sirhan never had the opportunity to do the deed of which he is accused.  EVERY witness (without exclusion - I believe), states that he was never closer than 3 - 5 feet and never in a position to fire upward through the body of RFK who was only 5' 10" compared to Sirhan's 5' 5".

Richard, I know, I know. I admit I have not studied this as thoroughly as others, but just common sense. Sirhan was at very close range to RFK, lunged at him calling him a son of a bitch and how could he not have hit him? I don't know that there could not have been a second gunman at close range but this analysis by Garry Rodgers convinces me there is not a clear positive case for that: http://dyingwords.net/rfk-assassination-the-second-gunman-evidence/. Garry Rodgers is a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police homicide detective and forensic coroner. I am also influenced by inability to easily see how the hired security guard Thane Cesar (if he is the leading suspect for such a second gunman) would have had foreknowledge, been part of a plot, agreed to have an assassin firing real bullets in his direction while he was also shooting RFK from behind, how nobody nearby noticed and took him down physically or reported seeing Cesar killing RFK to authorities, etc. If there was any chicanery in the assigning of part-time temp-agency Cesar to protect RFK that night I would interpret it as low-level security-stripping if anything. And there are reports that Thane Cesar passed a polygraph indicating his innocence. Yes, he or more to the point, the weapon he was carrrying that night, should have been checked out more thoroughly, which as I understand it was not done. But adding it all up, I think Thane Cesar is more likely one more of the cases of innocent people who get caught up in these assassinations in the crosshairs of conspiracy researchers because of the misfortune to have been in proximity.  

The most compelling argument for the second gunman seemingly are the three points you name which primarily come from coroner Noguchi's autopsy report: angle, direction, and distance of the bullets compared to Sirhan's location, as well as the number of bullets issue. Rodgers' discussion addressing these issues seems sensible to me. I was struck toward the end of his discussion by to me an eye-opening thing about the distance issue, namely that Noguchi could simply be mistaken, and on the evidence probably was, on the must be 3 inches or less claim.

"The JNS reviewers were cautious about distance reports. They note Noguchi made no distance reference in his postmortem exam report. He only verified gunshot residue presence on RFK’s skin and hair. It’s later media recorded comments from Noguchi that committed his estimating an RFK muzzle distance of 3 or less inches.

"Again, Occam’s Razor applies to assess Noguchi’s statements. Although Dr. Noguchi was an experienced pathologist, he wasn’t necessarily an expert in GSR distances and patterns. Noguchi’s credibility has to be questioned in this case. He had a reputation as being an egotist thriving on his fame as the “coroner to the stars”.

"Thomas Noguchi performed autopsies on celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood, John Belushi and Sharon Tate. Some suggest Noguchi loved the limelight and extended his realm of expertise with unqualified opinions. Interpreting gunshot residue patterns may be beyond Noguchi’s talent. He might simply be wrong about estimating GSR discharge distance in RFK’s case.

"Plenty of forensic science literature in murder investigations show GSR patterns present from muzzle distances of 1 or more feet. There’s no reason GSR from a short-barreled .22 Iver Johnson revolver couldn’t have produced stippled powder burns on RFK’s skin and hair from several feet away. Note the only link with the RFK-GSR second gunman theory comes from Noguchi’s belated media opinion. There’s no other source qualifying maximum muzzle measurement." 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[W. Niederhut]

Greg and Richard,

     If you want to understand what really happened with Sirhan and RFK's assassination, read Lisa Pease's excellent book, A Lie Too Big to Fail.  The book covers everything in exhaustive detail-- witness testimony, ballistics, accomplices, Sirhan's hypnosis, and the LAPD (and FBI) cover up of the evidence.

    Her chapter on "Mind Games" is a stellar review of history and references on the subject of Estabrook's Manchurian candidate hypnosis protocols and the related literature.

     Sirhan was, definitely, a patsy/decoy who was hypnotically programmed to fire blanks in the Ambassador Hotel pantry.  And RFK was, obviously, murdered by gun shots fired at point blank range by someone behind him-- evidently, Ace Security guard, Thane Eugene Cesar.  

     Sirhan was in a hypnotically-conditioned alter state called, "Range Mode" when he fired his blanks, and he had bona fide psychogenic amnesia for the incident, and for his pre-assassination hypnosis sessions.  There was a "cue" signal that activated his "Range Mode" alter state-- probably relating to the girl in the polka dot dress.

     Estabrooks described the technical aspects of this kind of programming in his 1943 Hypnosis textbook.  It only works in people who are susceptible to deep hypnosis-- less than 20% of the population. 

      As for confirmed cases of a person being hypnotically programmed to commit a crime, (including murder) the answer is a definite, "Yes."  One well known case was that of a Danish man named Palle Hardrup, who was hypnotized and conditioned to rob a bank in the 1940s.  In the course of the robbery, Hardup murdered a teller and bank manager.

https://paradigmsalon.net/palle-hardruphardwick/

      Two famous, highly reputable doctors, Milton Erickson and Martin Orne, opined during their careers that people could not be hypnotized and induced to commit murders.  (I met Martin Orne in 1988 when he consulted on a murder case at our Colorado State Hospital.)  What I did not realize until the past week, thanks to Ron Bulman, is that Orne worked on a CIA MK-ULTRA contract during his tenure at the University of Pennsylvania.  Erickson also, evidently worked with the CIA.

      In his 1943 Hypnosis textbook, Estabrooks explicitly disagreed with Milton Erickson's opinion that people could not be hypnotized and conditioned to commit murders.

     I now suspect that Erickson and Orne may have deliberately lied to help cover up Manchurian candidate ops used by the CIA (and, possibly, the ONI.)

[Greg Doudna]

W., of the one example you cite, the case of Palle Hardrup of Denmark, what do you think of the report that in 1972 in an interview published in the Danish newspaper B.T., Palle Hardrup confessed to making the whole thing up, cited in D. Streatfeild, Brainwash--The Secret History of Mind Control (2008), p. 177, according to a number of online sources (both sources inaccessible to me to check). Admittedly, B.T. is a weekly tabloid (I lived for a time in Copenhagen), but if the quotation is correct and uncoerced what do you think? 

Without even studying the case I don't believe the Palle Hardrup claim, even if there were not this report that Hardrup later confessed he had been acting and it was a hoax. I think of Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler about Soviet show trials of the early 1950s. Koestler made an influential explanation for how those confessions could come about from accused persons knowing they would be executed anyway. Koestler made a psychological explanation plausible along lines of the closing scene in George Orwell's 1984, the famous scene in which the beaten, broken hero is shown three fingers and asked what he sees, finds through blurry eyes he actually truly now does see four, as wanted. But Koestler's psychological explanation of the Soviet show trial confessions is pretty much discredited now. The ones on trial were not brainwashed, were in full control of their mental faculties. Their public confessions were rational calculations designed to prevent damage to their families and so on.   

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

W., of the one example you cite, the case of Palle Hardrup of Denmark, what do you think of the report that in 1972 in an interview published in the Danish newspaper B.T., Palle Hardrup confessed to making the whole thing up, cited in D. Streatfeild, Brainwash--The Secret History of Mind Control (2008), p. 177, according to a number of online sources (both sources inaccessible to me to check). Admittedly, B.T. is a weekly tabloid (I lived for a time in Copenhagen), but if the quotation is correct and uncoerced what do you think? 

Without even studying the case I don't believe the Palle Hardrup claim, even if there were not this report that Hardrup later confessed he had been acting and it was a hoax. I think of Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler about Soviet show trials of the early 1950s. Koestler made an influential explanation for how those confessions could come about from accused persons knowing they would be executed anyway. Koestler made a psychological explanation plausible along lines of the closing scene in George Orwell's 1984, the famous scene in which the beaten, broken hero is shown three fingers and asked what he sees, finds through blurry eyes he actually truly now does see four, as wanted. But Koestler's psychological explanation of the Soviet show trial confessions is pretty much discredited now. The ones on trial were not brainwashed, were in full control of their mental faculties. Their public confessions were rational calculations designed to prevent damage to their families and so on.   

Greg,

     I'm somewhat skeptical of a tabloid story written three decades after the trial, but I'll look into it.

      As I recall, the Hardup robbery/murder case was tried in court and the hypnotist, Bjorn Nielsen, was actually convicted of the crime and sent to prison!   Hardrup, himself was sentenced to a mental institution.

     Dissociative phenomena and hypnosis may seem far-fetched to people who haven't observed it.

     As with many psychiatric phenomena, people really need to directly observe and talk to afflicted patients to understand the phenomenology.  That is true of schizophrenia, mania, delusional disorders, and dissociative disorders.

      I first came into direct contact with patients suffering from multiple personality disorders on a private hospital ward here in the Denver metro area where I worked as a psychiatrist in the late 1980s.  The ward was a rare specialty inpatient unit for adult patients with MPD.  I was a bit puzzled and skeptical about MPD when I first worked on that ward in on-call coverage.  Patients would talk to me with the voices, personalities, and behavior of young children or teenagers, alternating with adult personas.  At first, I thought it was all fake.

      In time, I came to realize that the dissociative phenomena, and switching between alters, was absolutely real.  I also began to realize that we are all comprised of "alter" ego states/personalities -- a 5 year old self, a 12 year old, various adults, etc.-- but those of us who were not unduly traumatized developmentally have a relatively integrated experience of ourselves over time, without amnesia for experiences in various alters.

      As for hypnotic suggestibility and programming in susceptible people, I think it's quite real.  Milton Erickson has several volumes of case studies on the subject, which are extremely interesting.  Estabrooks' 1943 Hypnosis textbook is also worth reading, and contains numerous case examples.  He also discusses your questions about hypnosis in crime and warfare in considerable detail.

     Estabrook pointedly disagreed with Milton Erickson about the issue of whether susceptible people could be hypnotically conditioned to commit murders.  The American hypnotist William Joseph Bryan also disagreed with Milton Erickson on this question.

Edited February 10, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

On 1/20/2022 at 12:07 AM, Ron Bulman said:

I believe you'll find the whole book interesting, not just the Mind Games chapter.  The psychology involved in the assassination itself is, mind blowing, how Sirhan was developed and used.  I'll not go into Dr. Brown's work much until you've had time to read it.  I think there has been more since by another psychologist that supports and furthers it.

The part that really finished off the big picture for me is on page 493.  Quoting part of it won't totally give away it's import.  The context preceding it is needed.  Though "Bob" kind of gives it away somewhat if you know about him, his past and Cesar.

"Bob Maheu called to ask about the Don Nixon meeting and suggested 8:30 for breakfast at the Desert Inn Country Club.  I went to the club.  Maheu was all smiles, and Don Nixon walks in all smiles.  What followed next had to be seen to be believed.  They embraced each other and Don Nixon said "well that xxxxx is dead," and Maheu said "Well it looks like your brother is in now".  . . . Maheu joked that they should now be calling Don Nixon "Mr. Vice President"."

This is where Meier connects Cesar to Maheu.

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Greg,

     I'm somewhat skeptical of a tabloid story written three decades after the trial, but I'll look into it.

      As I recall, the Hardup robbery/murder case was tried in court and the hypnotist, Bjorn Nielsen, was actually convicted of the crime and sent to prison!   Hardrup, himself was sentenced to a mental institution.

     Dissociative phenomena and hypnosis may seem far-fetched to people who haven't observed it.

     As with many psychiatric phenomena, people really need to directly observe and talk to afflicted patients to understand the phenomenology.  That is true of schizophrenia, mania, delusional disorders, and dissociative disorders.

      I first came into direct contact with patients suffering from multiple personality disorders on a private hospital ward here in the Denver metro area where I worked as a psychiatrist in the late 1980s.  The ward was a rare specialty inpatient unit for adult patients with MPD.  I was a bit puzzled and skeptical about MPD when I first worked on that ward in on-call coverage.  Patients would talk to me with the voices, personalities, and behavior of young children or teenagers, alternating with adult personas.  At first, I thought it was all fake.

      In time, I came to realize that the dissociative phenomena, and switching between alters, was absolutely real.  I also began to realize that we are all comprised of "alter" ego states/personalities -- a 5 year old self, a 12 year old, various adults, etc.-- but those of us who were not unduly traumatized developmentally have a relatively integrated experience of ourselves over time, without amnesia for experiences in various alters.

      As for hypnotic suggestibility and programming in susceptible people, I think it's quite real.  Milton Erickson has several volumes of case studies on the subject, which are extremely interesting.  Estabrooks' 1943 Hypnosis textbook is also worth reading, and contains numerous case examples.  He also discusses your questions about hypnosis in crime and warfare in considerable detail.

     Estabrook pointedly disagreed with Milton Erickson about the issue of whether susceptible people could be hypnotically conditioned to commit murders.  The American hypnotist William Joseph Bryan also disagreed with Milton Erickson on this question.

What you say rings true on the part about the multiple personalities, and so much is unknown. You have a better basis for knowledge than I. I have to keep reminding myself, "How easy it is, in this vain show, to speak of things we don't really know."  

[Ron Bulman]

On 2/1/2022 at 9:44 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Re reading the article I noticed most of the info in it comes from William Turner and John Christian's book "The Assassination of Robert F Kennedy, Conspiracy and Cover Up".  My tin foil hat antenna went off, a little bit.  William Turner, a former FBI agent who quit in disgust over the assassinations and started investigating himself?  (Yep!)

I found the book on amazon where the mockingbird started chirping.  In the description . . . "mysteriously suppressed on it's initial publication".   This version was from 2006 (a dozen years before A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Pease, LIsa, DiEugenio, James: 9781627310703: Amazon.com: Books).  Where Turner is referenced on 19 pages.  Hmm.

Then the bird squawk's.  Under Editorial Review's, "About the Author" "In Superstructuralism, Harlan coins the term to cover the whole field of stucturalists, . . .  Turner never mentioned.  Read it for yourself.  The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Turner, William, Christian, Jonn: 9780786719792: Amazon.com: Books

So I thought under $6 before tax for a used copy?  Worth it for the author bio / end notes at least?  On the way.  Did I waste my money?

Then I found this.  Maybe some accounts are better read firsthand.

William W. Turner: In Memoriam (kennedysandking.com)

  

So this book was originally published in 1978.  Sold out the initial 12,000 copies.  But the promotional tour was abandoned and distribution was stopped by Random House.  "I don't want to talk about it".  "The book vanished from bookstores".  "Out of stock".  1988 12,000 copies forklifted to the incinerator.  Turner was on to something.  The mockingbird replied.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[W. Niederhut]

15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

So this book was originally published in 1978.  Sold out the initial 12,000 copies.  But the promotional tour was abandoned and distribution was stopped by Random House.  "I don't want to talk about it".  "The book vanished from bookstores".  "Out of stock".  1988 12,000 copies forklifted to the incinerator.  Turner was on to something.  The mockingbird replied.

    It would be interesting to compile a list of books about MIC and CIA black ops-- including the Kennedy assassinations-- that have been suppressed and/or disappeared since 1947.

[Ron Bulman]

21 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

So this book was originally published in 1978.  Sold out the initial 12,000 copies.  But the promotional tour was abandoned and distribution was stopped by Random House.  "I don't want to talk about it".  "The book vanished from bookstores".  "Out of stock".  1988 12,000 copies forklifted to the incinerator.  Turner was on to something.  The mockingbird replied.

I shouldn't quote numbers, or anything else I guess without double checking.  They printed 20,000 copies initially and distributed them to bookstores around the country.  Overall positive reviews, though some deriding anything about conspiracy (imagine that).  Turner on the Merv Griffin show.  A planned nationwide promo tour, that then fell through.  Then nothing.  No answers about why.  The 12,000 copies to the incinerator is correct but it happened in 1985.

In 1978 Random House was taken over from RCA by Si Newhouse, owner of 20 major newspapers and Conde' Nast, worth 8 Billion, in 1978.  Buddies with Roy Cohn and J Edgar Hoover.  Naturally he hated all the Kennedy's.

Who wanted a book like this with the HSCA wrapping up?  The mockingbird pulled on a few strings in it's nest.

[Ron Bulman]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:02 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I shouldn't quote numbers, or anything else I guess without double checking.  They printed 20,000 copies initially and distributed them to bookstores around the country.  Overall positive reviews, though some deriding anything about conspiracy (imagine that).  Turner on the Merv Griffin show.  A planned nationwide promo tour, that then fell through.  Then nothing.  No answers about why.  The 12,000 copies to the incinerator is correct but it happened in 1985.

In 1978 Random House was taken over from RCA by Si Newhouse, owner of 20 major newspapers and Conde' Nast, worth 8 Billion, in 1978.  Buddies with Roy Cohn and J Edgar Hoover.  Naturally he hated all the Kennedy's.

Who wanted a book like this with the HSCA wrapping up?  The mockingbird pulled on a few strings in it's nest.

The book is still relevant today.  Some things still not fleshed out in Lie Too Big to Fail, even in its thorough 500 pages.  Turner and Christian were there, in California digging into it from the start.  They provide a unique perspective from 10 years of investigation.  A former FBI agent fired by Hoover for questioning the JFK assassination investigation and a investigative reporter for I think ABC fired for pushing a local SF investigation.