Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003)

John Michael Williams jwill at AstraGate.net
Fri Jan 24 17:49:09 EST 2003

Hi Allen.

"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E2F5FBB.37116635 at datafilter.com>...
> John Michael Williams wrote:
> > 
> > "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E2E38F1.50BEA6FB at datafilter.com>...
> > >
> > > Many of the microwave hearing articles deal with the issues of "what
> > > are the psychophysical correlates of the beam's physical parameters."
> > > Knowing this one can then technologically create the *physical* event,
> > > causing the corresponding *psychophysical* event in the person's
> > > "mind."  That is, you can modulate a microwave beam with the right
> > > pulsed waveform so that if you "illuminate" a person with the beam he
> > > or she perceives as sound whatever signal has been modulated onto it
> > > -- including voice signals.
> > > ...
> > 
> > Allen, can you support this with evidence?
> > 
> > According to Guy, et al (Annals of the NY Academy of
> > Sciences, 1975,  v. 247, 194 - 218, Discussion), it
> > is not possible to transmit voices.
> > 
> > I've studied this problem, and I have good theoretical
> > reasons for believing that voice (or music) direct
> > transmission should not be feasible.  The only way
> > I would think might work would be by modulation of
> > pulses spaced in time by maybe 500 us or more -- it might
> > be possible to understand, but it would not seem to
> > be a voice.  I think Morse code might be possible.
> > 
> > The underlying problem is that the wavelength of
> > microwaves known to produce "microwave hearing"
> > is many times too big to synthesize a cochlear
> > response corresponding to the sound of a voice.
> > 
> > I'd change this view, but only on the basis of
> > good evidence.  Nothing is impossible, but
> > this kind of "control" does not seem possible.
> I am not familiar with the particular Guy, et al. article you mention.  
> The wavelength of the microwave signal has to be in a certain range, 
> but the important point is that it is *pulsed*.  It is this pulsing pattern 
> that is modulated.
> See, for example, this article:
>   Microwaves and Behavior
>   by Don Justesen, 
>   _American Psychologist_, 
>   March 1975, pp. 391-401.
>   http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/justesen.htm

Thanks:  This is a good reference, of which I was not aware.
Justesen in fact cites Guy, et al (above).

In introductory remarks, Justesen describes a dipole
interaction with microwaves, so that the dipole will 
rotate freely at frequencies below (Larmor) resonance,
but then misses the point of the flaw in thermal arguments:  
That at GHz-range frequencies,
the orderly arrangement of tissue boundaries determines the
nonthermal fraction of the energy delivered to a living
organism.  See my http://arXiv.org/pdf/physics/0102007

>   [...]
>   By radiating themselves with these "voice modulated" microwaves, Sharp 
>   and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among 
>   the 9 words. The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons 
>   with artificial larynxes. Communication of more complex words and of 
>   sentences was not attempted because the averaged densities of energy 
>   required to transmit longer messages would approach the current 10 
>   mW/cm2 limit of safe exposure. 

He describes a Morse-code experiment (pulse modulation) and
crude transmission of a few distinct words in your quote above.
It seems almost
certain that the experiments were about what I was suggesting:
Pulses at maybe a kHz or two, modulated so that some semblance
of a vocalization could be discerned.  They would  not
sound like "voices" at all (I don't know anything about an
artificial larynx).   They would sound like a radio being
interfered with, so that a buzz was coming through, and the buzz
changing so as to sound somewhat like words.

>   [...]
> There is also a US patent for a device based on this principle.  Devices
> based on microwave hearing have been discussed in certain military circles 
> for years, for use in covert operations and psychological warfare.

Well, I don't find that convincing.  We've had actual military
funding on "faster-than-light travel", or perpetual motion machines.
I think NASA CURRENTLY is funding research on perpetual motion -- 
the "hydrino" theory of hydrogen energy, I think.

Technological advances are adopted by military groups; they rarely
are discovered or initiated by military groups, because that
isn't what military personnel do very well.

> For more info, see for example my web pages at
>    http://www.datafilter.com/mc/microwaveHearing.html
> and
>    http://www.datafilter.com/mc/nonlethalWeapons.html

I'll read these later.  Thanks.

> It is also important to keep in mind that the microwave speech-modulation
> was only an example -- though it is a good one.  There has been a great
> deal of military research into all sorts of ways to transmit voices to
> people.  It is sort of an unholy grail of psyop.  Ultrasonic heterodyning
> devices are even starting to come out in the consumer market these days. 

I agree that ultrasound could transmit voices over relatively
short, line-of-sight paths.

> On the political front, there are *known* mind control victims now in the
> population who are at best ignored and not even told what was done to
> them.  For example,
>    The Cold War Experiments
>    Radiation tests were only one small part of a vast research program 
>    that used thousands of Americans as guinea pigs.
>    _U.S News and World Report_, January 24, 1994.
>    http://www.datafilter.com/mc/coldWarExperiments.html

I'll read this later, but I suspect I won't find
anything there that I haven't read elsewhere.

I don't think much useful data could be
obtained without experimental controls implying
consent.   So, secret, nonconsenting studies would
generally be a waste of tima and money.
If you are going to claim these
were a sort of military imitation of actual
research, I could agree with you, but I am skeptical
that any actual project would have been involved.

Someone responsible eventually would have to be
asked for money to fund a real study, and such funds
would be denied.  However, secret "rogue" experiments
without authorization, possibly coupled with vengeance,
political suspicions, or other motivation for 
harassment, would be very possible, in my opinion.

There was a scandal some years ago involving a famous
speech therapist, Wendell Johnson, a basically kind
man, who made the mistake of training some orphans to
stutter as a research project.  This was a competent
scientist, and the data would have been valid.  His
mistake was that it worked, but he didn't work hard to
reverse the stuttering in those who were in the
experimental group.  This was in the days before
departmental or other reviews of experiments on 
humans.  So, he concealed his findings.

Worse yet, an entire group of "peers" became 
aware of the study and they basically blackballed him
secretly.  And THEY didn't try to reverse
the stuttering in the orphans, either.  So, a whole
conspiracy of crooked academics developed, all desperately
working to conceal a "professional" mistake.  But
with no thought at all of trying to correct it.

In this sense, a "conspiracy theory" definitely is possible,
and Wendell Johnson was a real example--and to some 
extent a victim--of it.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list