The 13 Most Evil U.S. Government Experiments on Humans

13 Conspiracy theories, not facts... Well not all the facts.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by TechUnique
What about the use of atomic weapons on Japan?
Was that not a bit extreme?

Nope. Not extreme or a war crime.

Want to read about war crimes? How about "Rape of Nanking". Tell me that was something that the Japanese needed to do to assist with their "war effort".

Of course, this is ATS. "@@"

How on earth does one war crime exonerate another

reply to post by sirhumperdink


"how can you do battle with monsters without becoming one this was for the good of the nation you filthy terrorist"

This has got to be a noise up eh? For the good of the nation??? Any nations goverment that is doing these things to people, including their own citizens for christ sake surely deserve the same. If your definition of terrorism is the exposure and annihilation of these animals then myself and 99.9999% of ATS members must also be terrorists in your eyes.

There can be no justification for these atrocitys against humanity!!!!!

reply to post by ninjas4321


Very good job at summarising this sort of action. Eventhough I stronlgy believe that the list is much shorter than it should be in reality.
And also, these were experiements conducted decades ago, just think about what is possible today, even happening!
And think of what is/was happening in Soviet Union, China and other big powers!

I would like to add one: The '___' Experiment in Pont Saint-Esprit (southeast France) in 1951, where CIA contaminated bread with '___'.

Horrific but great post. Hope it opens some eyes. The worst part of all of this is that our laws in the U.S. allow testing on humans. Public law 105-85-NOV. 18, 1997
Not much outcry about this law. Wake up and make some noise unless you like being a test subject at their whim.

Originally posted by kykweer
13 Conspiracy theories, not facts... Well not all the facts.

Would you be so kind as to point out what is not fact?

human being See MONSTER.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.
—Ballentine's Law Dictionary (1930)

Maybe the world of commerce is on the money here.

All the secret projects and experiments are on Human Beings and not man/living breathing souls because living breathing souls don't exist in the eyes of the commercial world because we have all contracted and given up our God given natural rights and maybe we have given up our first love and have a new master, the government through excepting privileges and benefits?

Adhesion contracts are very real and everywhere in almost every agreement, Birth certificates, tax, bank accounts, land and home contracts, marriage, licences, ECT.
No your rights or you have none.

Originally posted by Atom12
Horrific but great post. Hope it opens some eyes. The worst part of all of this is that our laws in the U.S. allow testing on humans. Public law 105-85-NOV. 18, 1997
Not much outcry about this law. Wake up and make some noise unless you like being a test subject at their whim.

to be fair the law (as ridiculous as it is) does require consent and was formed after the examples the op provides

"(c) INFORMED CONSENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense
may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject."

not that law really means anything to the people in positions that allow them to actually carry out experiments like the 13 examples given and it would be foolish to think inhumane experiments like these are not still taking place in secret or legitimized under the guise of "medicine"
(and for anyone to take my first statement seriously speaks volumes about the state of the country and world as a whole)

We would all be fools to believe that human experimentation has stopped ! Whether its physical or psychological , somewhere someone is performing tests right now.
Think of Abu Grahaib or Gitmo , think of the ease at which they could conduct tests on prisoners without their consent and without fear of reprisal from anyone.

Im all for the advancement of science and medicine , but at the expense of a life animal or human is not lawfully or morally sound

I know a friend in Glasgow who has sent his letter of intent to the queen and parliament and to the local council in scotland , and he is now free from his contract !
Yes it does happen and yes you can be free from the system if you know what to do !

Oh my god. Totally never thought this type of behaviour possible. Feel sick to my stomach...

Originally posted by TechUnique

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by TechUnique

 

how can you do battle with monsters without becoming one this was for the good of the nation you filthy terrorist

What about the use of atomic weapons on Japan?
Was that not a bit extreme?

Think about this before you answer. Place yourself back in the 1940's...

So... it's 1944. You had just been pulled out of Germany after fighting for three years in the heat and snow, seeing your friends get blown to pieces, yourself having kill other human beings while personally observing horrible things no one should EVER SEE, and you being told you have 15 days to relax at home before we start gathering you all back together to invade Japan. Now you know that we have a weapon that could potentially stop the Japanese and destroy their will to fight. Should we use it prior to invasion? If it works, it could potentially save thousands of US soldiers lives. I think you'd been the first in line to vote for dropping the bomb (if it was up to a vote). If you say "no", I think your not being honest with yourself...

how can you do battle with monsters without becoming one this was for the good of the nation you filthy terrorist

reply to post by sirhumperdink


Both sides are part of the same elite club and aren't doing battle with each other. They are just evilly experimenting on the cannon fodder.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by crawdad1914
Care to elaborate on why targeting Civilians Japanese and Korean and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands is not a war crime?

Korean civilians? Really? The atomic attacks of World War 2 targeted Korean civilians? How about some details on that, Ace?

How come ATS can't come to grips with the fact that it was better to use the Atomic bomb than land Allied Troops and engage in a prolonged ground attack. How many casualities were they estimating? A million, plus?

If the Japanese had a problem with that in 1945, maybe they should have thought ahead before they started the war with the US in 1941.

As to Korean civilians, its estimated 1 in 7 people living in Hiroshima were of korean descent. Start your lesson here: articles.latimes.com...
As for the rest of you're post, I have provided easily the most comprehensive compilation of facts concerning this topic in my initial post on this subject, here it is again in case you missed it: www.doug-long.com...

Take the time and read through all the information provided. It may upset you to find that what you and I were taught in the history books is quite different than reality, as evidenced by the main players and their reflections on the events. I can cut and paste the various quotes and links if needed, but you really should just go to the site yourself and start reading. This is an important topic and worthy of a serious consideration by all of us.

Peace.

reply to post by sirhumperdink


Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. Nothing involving the suffering of innocents is good for any country. Time for a reality check, fool.

reply to post by Kryties


I wish that was plausibly the case, but it looks like a nasty case of sheer ignorance.

reply to post by igor_ats

In B4 someone says: - this was all a "long time ago" (yes I know) (followed by "show me recent!"). - we shouldn't be punished for other ppl's actions - government tests existed before Much like the slavery debate where ppl downplay/damage control it by saying something like "slavery existed before".

And you "change-agents" highlight it, as a tool towards destroying this country and making way for the global agenda.

I was thinking more of the experiments that are going on today.... in our public education system...then I saw you list yourself as a teacher... ironic isn't it... Tell me teacher, it has been over 25 years since teachers stopped teaching and became "change-agents" for the D.O.D. experiments on our children...seems like few in the system are exposing them and the experiments continue at the expense of these generations, with your help btw....you shall hang onto every shame of America's past and use it "as instructed" in your "lesson nuggets" to promote the "Anti-America" agenda to make way for the global agenda. Who will expose the psychological experiments you are part of today? Come on other teachers chime in.....(see if you can do this without blaming the children, or those above you) try honesty.
Someday people are going to learn the truth and say, ah..ha...now it makes sense... the kids didn't learn because real education has been effectively withheld/controlled and selectively distributed as planned. The kids cannot think because most were/are used as lab rats. Each child is an animal cataloged and selected for various psychological experiments based on what is in their personal/family and real-time updated E-profile. Someday people will realize what "teacher" really meant during these experiments and by then, it won't even matter because it's already too late the damage has been done (we all funded this too). The written legislation supports all that I have said, but the government says "no we don't do that"... yet, they do.

I say it's all our fault, because we trust known liars with our kids.

Bring on the dis-info agents , I'm ready for you.
(I know, I am probably in trouble again...no pain, no gain) *shrugs

reply to post by nixie_nox


The cost is simply not worth it. Let's say the lives of......oh let's say 100 people gets saved by research that, in it's procession, resulted in the lives of 1000 being ruined beyond repair. Doesn't quite add up now does it? To be honest with you, I really don't care if someone has their life saved by treatments that were developed through means like this, morally that means that that person would be benefiting from the suffering of others. I honestly think if most people knew about all this, some of them wouldn't even accept the treatment. I know I wouldn't. Benefitting from the suffering of others is sick, regardless of how well you come out in the end, or how many are saved by unethical research.

Originally posted by wrkn4livn

Originally posted by TechUnique

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by TechUnique

 

how can you do battle with monsters without becoming one this was for the good of the nation you filthy terrorist

What about the use of atomic weapons on Japan?
Was that not a bit extreme?

Think about this before you answer. Place yourself back in the 1940's...

So... it's 1944. You had just been pulled out of Germany after fighting for three years in the heat and snow, seeing your friends get blown to pieces, yourself having kill other human beings while personally observing horrible things no one should EVER SEE, and you being told you have 15 days to relax at home before we start gathering you all back together to invade Japan. Now you know that we have a weapon that could potentially stop the Japanese and destroy their will to fight. Should we use it prior to invasion? If it works, it could potentially save thousands of US soldiers lives. I think you'd been the first in line to vote for dropping the bomb (if it was up to a vote). If you say "no", I think your not being honest with yourself...

The following people were actually around in 1944, and they have a different "take" on wether dropping the bomb was neccesary. Perhaps we should pay attention to them:
From the Doug Long link:

DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

~~~HERBERT HOOVER
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.


to be continued..

reply to post by crawdad1914


GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.




~~~JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.




~~~RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part:

"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

"I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out."

Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308).

Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 144-145, 324.

to be continued...

reply to post by ScatterBrain


Sad thing is, I remember having teachers when I was young that cared too much if anything. The kind of teacher that would deck you for lashing out at her but then turn around and give you a life lesson. Teachers like that simply do not exist anymore. They might exist within the D/HH (Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing) or Special Education departments in some schools, but on a general level, teachers like Ms. Dion (my favourite from gr. 2-4) do not get very far in the system as even the teacher that I gave as an example was always getting in trouble for deviating from "curriculum" activities.