Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003)
John Michael Williams
jwill at AstraGate.net
Sat Feb 1 14:14:33 EST 2003
"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E3B4D52.B92D7268 at datafilter.com>...
> > You brought up the Fourier analysis, not I. I am saying it is
> > irrelevant, because 0-crossings
> > can not be represented by frequency components.
> You still either just don't get it or intentionally don't want to. Do you
> know what a Fourier series, real-valued, in time domain is?
Yes. What you are missing, is that I can tell you don't, or
you would never have suggested it to analyze 0-crossings.
> > Foil has almost no mass per unit area; thus, it can
> > be vibrated by momentum of the microwave photons. The
> > head is too massive to respond AT ALL (measurably)
> > because of this effect. Vibrating foil then vibrates the
> > air, like a fly's wings, and can be heard.
> The momentum of the microwave photons... that's a new one and a
> calculation I'd like to see.
Then read the paper! You are just arguing over stuff you don't
understand, because of a few words in a second-hand report
by Justensen which never was published except as a rumor.
> Sharp also did experiments with
> something like a jar of water held up to the head (I don't have
> the article with me right now).
That was Foster and Finch (1974). They did nothing with a head
(except their own). They confirmed an acoustic wave. But they
did not correctly calculate whether it could
be heard, because apparently they were not
aware of the existing data on human hearing.
> The thermoelastic effect is a real
> one. Head size predictions of Lin's model even held across different
> species of animals, if I recall. (I think that was mentioned in the
> 1982 survey article referenced below.)
Yes, it is physically real. But it is inadequate to explain
microwave hearing. One has to factor in the sensitivity of the
auditory system; they didn't. They used a microphone as a substitute.
> > The thermoacoustic theory of microwave hearing depends
> > of heating of the head, thermal expansion, and thus sound waves.
> > It doesn't work out, if you figure the expansion coefficients
> > and the postulated temperature rise.
> Your statements don't mean anything at this point. You're trying
> to disprove (by handwaving) an established effect -- one with both theory
> and research behind it. Check out the following survey article, please:
> C.K. Chou, A.W. Guy and R. Galambos, Auditory perception of
> radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, J. Acoustic Soc. America 71
> (1982) 1321-1334.
> There's Guy again, from 1982 this time.
Yes, I know that paper well: They discuss microwave
hearing, NOT voice. They all had abandoned voice
communication by the middle 1970's. Where did
they claim voice communication?
I again point out that this is 2003, not 1973! You have
dug up a lot of old stuff about voice communication
which was abandoned long ago by ALL concerned, whether
arguing by a "thermoacoustic" effect or not.
They are incorrect about the CAUSE of the microwave hearing, not
the fact that it occurs. Like everyone in the whole group (there
are about a half-dozen frequent authors through the 1980's), they
didn't do the elementary calculations to check
whether the auditory system could respond to an acoustic
wave created by a thermal pulse of the magnitude they
describe. Read it again: Where do they mention
auditory sensitivity, or even the magnitude of
the pressure wave. Nowhere. They just repeat
Foster & Finch's "10^-6 K" temperature change.
You'll notice that they DO say that people with normal
hearing can hear microwaves. This is why I said
previously that I doubted Justesen's claim he
could not: Justesen probably had a hearing defect.
> > I have no idea what an "artificial larynx" is. I assume the words
> > were barely understandable.
> I know you assume that. You assume all sorts of things and assert
> them as facts.
> > > > The problem is that the microwave hearing effect
> > > > is not a hearing of sounds, but a direct effect of
> > > > the microwaves on the inner ear. Sounds require
> > > > detailed effects inside the cochlea, on the order of
> > > > distances of 1/10 to 1/100 mm. No microwave of this
> > > > wavelength can penetrate to the inner ear without
> > > > destroying the skull and surrounding tissue.
> > >
> > > That is your *assumption*.
> > No, it's not an "assumption":
> Yes it is an assumption. It is based on your assumption of cochlear
> effects, for starters.
> > > This is supposed to tarnish Lin's large body of work?
> > No, only that relating to microwave hearing. We are past Lin's
> > calculations, in the year 2003.
> You sure are arrogant. From what I've seen you can't back it up, either.
> I'll take Lin any day over your tripe. You should hope the reviewers of
> your paper aren't especially familiar with the field.
If Lin can't solve Maxwell's equations correctly,
you shouldn't cite his work depending on it.
He also calculates stuff with the speed of sound in the human
head equal to that of water (~1500 m/s). Bekesy actually measured
it at under 600 m/s. So much for Lin's calculations.
> > > > > Dr. Robert O. Becker, twice nominated for the Noble prize for
> > > > > his health work in bio-electromagnetism,
Dr. Georg Bekesy, who actually received the Nobel prize, has published
data making the idea of THERMOacoustic microwave hearing
untenable. It doesn't stand up to quantification. You are citing the
work of a would-be winner over that of a real winner.
was more explicit in
> > > > > his concern over illicit government activity. He wrote of
> > > > > "obvious application in covert operations designed to drive a
> > > > > target crazy with "voices." What is frightening is that words,
But, by 1975, it had been shown that voices could not be
transmitted by microwave. Anything else was speculation.
By 1980, voices had been completely abandoned.
> > No. According to Justesen, Sharp and Grove did not publish
> > their results. It is an unpublished, personal communication.
> > Possibly, they were not able to reproduce their 9-word result,
> > and so they did not publish it. This would be the honest thing
> > to do. This again casts doubt on the
> > conclusion that voice communication would be possible.
> Wonder why they didn't publish that result? They published enough
> related info for it to be clear, and Justesen described their experiments.
> Others like Lin and Becker also reported it.
Nevertheless, all we have is a rumor of 9 words.
I assume they
didn't publish it because they got all
excited over what they thought was voice communication,
tried to actually communicate language, and failed. So, being
honest, they realized a mistake and held off publication.
Unfortunately, Justesen picked up the rumor before it
was found wrong. This explains the whole mess.
I definitely think telegraphy would be possible. But not voices.
> [Recall the Soviets microwaving the US Embassy in Moscow for years,
> while the CIA observed and didn't tell the employees? That all came
> to a head in the mid-70s.]
Why should I recall that?
> > The only "data" you have produced is a spoken rumor relayed
> > by Justesen, of 9 words. That isn't speech. I'm willing
> > to believe that 9 words were communicated, and that neither Justesen
> > not Sharp and Grove were purposely exaggerating. However,
> > most people would want more than 9 words to substantiate
> > a claim of speech.
> > Guy, et al, a year or two after Justesen and Sharp & Grove,
> > say that they had NOT been able to achieve speech, but that they
> > hoped someday they might.
> Was that in the Guy paper that Justesen *referenced* in his article?
Yes, the NYAC paper. The 1973 "personal communication" quoted by
Justesen on voice communication apparently had been abandoned by 1975.
> > They report "chirpy tones" could
> > be heard (which would fit what we have been discussing on pulses).
> > Meanwhile, Frey writes in 1998 that
> > he quit fiddling with microwave hearing in the 1960's
> > because of microwave induced headaches. Many users of cell
> > phones have also reported headaches, and at least one
> > epidemiological study has supported this effect (Mild, et al 1998).
> I have presented quite enough data, from recognized leaders in the field.
> Both for microwave hearing effects and the modulation of such signals
> with speech.
You presented a rumor, relayed by Justesen, from Guy, that he could
distinguish 9 words of speech. Later abandoned if not retracted
(there may be a published retraction somewhere, I don't know). If you know
of any others, you haven't yet presented them. I agree that someone
willing to admit a mistake might be trusted to be
a "leader", but I'm using my head and not following anyone without
solid proof. 9 words just doesn't cut it. But, you have
a right to your own standards of evidence . . ..
> You have repeatedly misunderstood even the simple explanations (with Fourier
> series) that I've given.
Well, that you TRIED to give---but got totally fouled
up. Better to try and fail, then not to try at all.
> You deny the existence of the *established*
> thermoelastic effect. And you assert, with no backing data, your own personal
> "cochlea theory."
> I think that is pretty clear. If I didn't have some morbid enjoyment of this
> exercise it would be a waste of my time.
You should read von Bekesy, then. He used to bring
human heads home from work. I hate to play cat with you, but
I can't resist.
More information about the Neur-sci