Terms Other Than "Mind Control" (Revised Jan 22, 2003)
Allen L. Barker
alb at datafilter.com
Sun Jan 26 19:02:57 EST 2003
John Michael Williams wrote:
> "Allen L. Barker" <alb at datafilter.com> wrote in message news:<3E32FBBA.1077BD at datafilter.com>...
> > 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.
How do you suddenly "know" this, when before you just had some ideas
about how you *thought* they were doing it? Why mention sine waves at
all, if it is just frequency modulation?
> > 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.
Yes, it is generally accepted. But there are *still* attempts to deny such
70s-era applications of microwave hearing. I never described any Guy
experiment; Justesen credits Sharp and Grove. Perhaps the Soviets in Moscow
should get the real credit, who knows.
In this very recent news article, Frey even speculates on sending voices
by millimeter waves:
> 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.
Here you are speculating. Presumably based on that theory of yours that
you were mentioning earlier. And contrary to what experts in the field
have been quoted as saying.
> 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.
Yes, tiny receivers (such as those which might be used in a tooth
implant) have been around a long time. But for that you have to actually
plant the receiver. It would only be "silly" to use modulated microwave
hearing in contexts where something better were readily available -- like
calling someone on the telephone. But the point of many applications which
have been discussed for the effect is harassment, covert operations, and
covert psychological direction. Even a scratchy voice is harassing, and
for that matter basic microwave "clicks" are too. And surely there has
been much research in making the sound more realistic and/or intelligible.
> > 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."
You surely are not a musician if you do not know the difference between
a xylophone and a drum beat. A xylophone has *pitch*. If you have pitch
you can surely send voice.
> > 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?
How do you know what data they got? Do you think the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence really released everything to the public?
Or just those projects that weren't particularly effective? Marks
mentioned that the MKULTRA "researchers" were in some ways far ahead of
the open scientific community. Having access to the latest classified
technology surely helps. Don't get me wrong, though, the proper
place for those experimenters -- who destroyed the lives of
nonconsenting citizens as their guinea pigs -- is in prison. And
some were worse than just pseudo-science dabblers.
> 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.
Why exactly are these "idiot ideas"? The research itself is not the
problem, and there is quite a bit of good open research that could
be classified along these lines. The problem is the *application* for
torture and human rights abuses, and the testing on nonconsensual
> > 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.
The opinions and observations of Robert Becker, in a field he was
quite familiar with (and indeed, a founder of) carry a bit more weight
than a random accusation. He was accusing the DoD and the Pentagon,
among others. At whose trough many feed.
I don't disagree with you about the orphan thing being horrible.
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
More information about the Neur-sci