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

John Michael Williams jwill at AstraGate.net
Sun Jan 26 14:27:05 EST 2003


"Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E32FBBA.1077BD at datafilter.com>...
> John Michael Williams wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> According to Justensen, "The electrical sine-wave analogs of each word 
> were then processed so that each time a sine wave crossed zero reference 
> in the negative direction, a brief pulse of microwave energy was triggered."
> Sounds like a Fourier representation, but it is not entirely clear.

It's not related directly to any Fourier operation.  It is just
frequency modulation:  The frequency of the pulses depends on the
frequency of 0-crossings, which is just twice the frequency of
the input wave.  One might see it as a sort of rectification.

> The US patent is similar but has a more complicated modulation technique.
> You can read the patent online.  I'm not going to debate the quality of 
> the sound because I do not have the data.  It does seem to be generally 
> accepted that voices can be transmitted, and certainly they've researched 
> making the sound as realistic as possible.

No, I disagree.  It is not "generally accepted".  Read the 
Guy, et al paper, which came out 
years LATER than the Guy experiment you are describing.  Guy denies
any reasonable semblance of speech.  Also, it doesn't make sense
to me that voice COULD be transmitted.

The sound would resemble that of a playing-card in
bicycle spokes:  You know that children will try to make a
bicycle sound like a motorcycle by mounting a card on the fork,
so it rubs against the spokes.  So it produces a "BRRRPT" sound,
a little like a small engine.  That's what the microwave "voice"
would sound like.  Now, I agree that one could modulate the
pulses and make out words (especially if preselected from
a population of a few), but I wouldn't call it voice.  

However, if that is what you are willing to accept as 
voice, then, yes, it can be done.  But, it wouldn't sound like
a voice and it would be silly to use it for communication,
when a tiny receiver would do so much better a job.  Even in
the 1970's, crystal or other tiny (~ 2mm) receivers were
available.  Transistors were in use in military applications
in the early 1960's.

> 
> Here's a quote from a short article by Lin (presumably relating to 
> pitch):
> 
>    http://www.datafilter.com/mc/c_linAcm99.htm
> 
>    "A train of RF pulses could be perceived as a tune corresponding to 
>    the pulse repetition rate"

One might call a drum beat or xylophone "music".  But not "voice."

>  
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Stealth airplanes, atomic bombs, ...

NASA didn't do either of those, and it should stick to
little robots:  They are worth money!

> 
> > 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.
> 
> I wish this were the case, but with weapons tests it often has
> not been.  The MKULTRA researchers specifically wanted subjects
> who were unwitting, for example.  And who volunteers for a terminal 
> experiment?

That's maybe what they WANTED, being pseudo-science dabblers;
but, that isn't what they succeeded in getting:  All they got 
was unfavorable publicity.  Was it a "successful" experiment
to slip LSD into someones coffee?  If so, where are the data?

And, then there were idiot ideas like 
"mind reading" or "mind control" by electronic means.  If they 
had stuck to the electronics, maybe they would have done some 
good.  I've had radios break down, and a good repair job would 
have been worth something.

> 
> With regard to your comments on an academic conspiracy, here is
> a good link from a book by Robert Becker, describing the conspiracy
> to conceal knowledge of non-thermal electromagnetic bioeffects:
> 
>    http://www.datafilter.com/mc/beckerConspiracy.html

Thanks.  I read there,

  Control over the scientific establishment was maintained by 
  allocating research funds in such a way as to ensure that only
  "approved" projects -- that is, projects that would not 
  challenge the thermal-effects standard -- would be undertaken.

  Scientists who persisted in publicly raising the issue 
  of harmful effects from any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum
  were discredited, and their research grants were taken away. 

There is good history, based on analysis of fact; and, 
there is bad history, based on a desire to manipulate 
politics without getting caught.  I would put that 
article in the latter category.  All opinions; nothing
to support such a conclusion as the above.

I'll grant that it is POSSIBLE; but, if so, who was
responsible?  John Moulder?  Hardly.  Name the names, and
I'll pay attention.  Lyndon Johnson?  Richard Nixon?
John Poindexter?  Who could exert such control, when George
Bush can't do it today?  Whoever gets blamed, should
have the opportunity to be defended against such claims.

My point in describing the academic conspiracy against
the orphans, was that it is well documented.  Also,
the underlying motivation (selfish concern with 
laughing at the famous Johnson, or simple cowardice
common in the halls of learning) is common and reasonable.  
Several of the academics involved essentially admitted it in 
press interviews; and, Johnson's former grad student,
who visited the orphanage and performed the
experiment, belatedly has tried to contact the
former orphans, now aged or dead, to apologize.

See http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/jun01/stutter11061001.asp,
or search Google for [Wendell Johnson Orphan].

Since revelation of the orphan experiment a couple
of years ago, some of those who knew about it have 
tried to defend their actions.  You'll find them at
Google, too.  Not one of them tried to correct the 
mistake, though, so far as I know.  If they had tried, 
they would have been helping Johnson and going against the 
prejudices of their peers.

See http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/oldinav/wjhome.html
for another side of the Johnson story.

Here's a REAL example of "mind control", to disable helpless
and ignorant little children, praying to be adopted,
and then run away.  Not likely a military project--maybe
some spy, acting on their own initiative, would do
such a thing.

Who was it who "controlled the scientific establishment" 
as the writer was claiming above?  Who COULD?  Where did
they run to?



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list