The scientific plausibility of microwave induced speech perception

[Mick]

I win.

Clearly you don't win, because you've been hearing things in your head for years, and you can't convince anyone of the validity of your theory that it's the PTB harassing you with microwaves.

You might want to reconsider your debate style if you want to make some actual progress. Scoring arguable semantic points online is not "winning" (besides, my phone did stop ringing when you claimed it would not, hardly a "win", and I know tinfoil hats don't work, which is why I said "hoods").

Microwaves can be detected. Microwaves can be attenuated with aluminum foil. Using these simple facts you can demonstrate if microwaves are causing the auditory effects. The fact that people have not successfully done this is very strong evidence that this type of electronic harassment does not exist.

[John Allman]

you can't convince anyone of the validity of your theory that it's the PTB harassing you with microwaves.

That certainly hasn't been true. It also isn't relevant.

Microwaves can be detected. Microwaves can be attenuated with aluminum foil. Using these simple facts you can demonstrate if microwaves are causing the auditory effects. The fact that people have not successfully done this is very strong evidence that this type of electronic harassment does not exist.

And, when they DO do this "successfully", it's just the placebo effect, I suppose?

I have already explained that perceived volume is not a function of power. Why don't you read the literature? "Microwave induced speech perception" (your choice of thread title) has been demonstrated, and reported in a peer reviewed journal, 37 years ago. QED as far as I'm concerned. What more do you want? It's not my problem that you decide not to find "plausible" the published results.

[Mick]

Why don't you read the literature?

Why don't you quote the literature?

If perceived volume is not a function of power, then why do they need a particular power level for the effect to be audible?

[John Allman]

Why don't you quote the literature?

Because it's only a click away from this thread, and the Justesen paper isn't in a format that enables me to copy and paste, and I've got better things to do with my time than copy typing for your benefit.

If perceived volume is not a function of power, then why do they need a particular power level for the effect to be audible?

Think about a radio or a cell phone. Does it get quieter as you move into an area with a weak signal?

Sharp and Grove, did they, or did they not, demonstrate microwave-induced speech recognition, as reported in 1975 by Justesen? What does it say in the journal? How is what it says they demonstrated, in the journal, different from what you wanted to debunk, as a proposed capability that wasn't plausible?

[Mick]

Because it's only a click away from this thread, and the Justesen paper isn't in a format that enables me to copy and paste, and I've got better things to do with my time than copy typing for your benefit.

Here's a version from which you can cut and paste:
http://sm4csi.home.xs4all.nl/nwo/Min...d_Behavior.htm

Think about a radio or a cell phone. Does it get quieter as you move into an area with a weak signal?

Cell phones now are mostly digital, so they either work or they don't. Radios are amplified, so you get a mixture of the station and static. Either way the attenuation can be demonstrated.

Sharp and Grove, did they, or did they not, demonstrate microwave-induced speech recognition, as reported in 1975 by Justesen? What does it say in the journal? How is what it says they demonstrated, in the journal, different from what you wanted to debunk, as a proposed capability that wasn't plausible?

It says:

Sharp and Grove (Note 2) found that appropriate modulation of microwave energy can result in direct "wireless" and "receiverless" communication of speech. They recorded by voice on tape each of the single- syllable words for digits between 1 and 10. 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. 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.

So they could create short distorted sounds that somewhat resembled the words used, but this required a near dangerous (and certainly detectable) amount of power. This does not at all tally with accounts of extended auditory hallucinations with undetectable microwaves at a considerable distance.

Bottom line - if it's happening it should be detectable.

Present some evidence.

[John Allman]

By radiating themselves with these "voice modulated" microwaves, Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the 9 words.

So they could create short distorted sounds that somewhat resembled the words used

"By George, I think he's got!" I'll overlook your invention that the words that Sharp and Grove were "readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among" by 1975, were really just "distorted sounds that somewhat resembled the words", as you put it. Essentially, you have accepted this evidence, of the proposition that you didn't find plausible at first, when you made up the title to this thread. Well done. You now find it plausible after all, that speech perception can indeed be induced using microwaves, and that Sharp and Grove demonstrated exactly that, getting on for 40 years ago. QED.

Bottom line - if it's happening it should be detectable. Present some evidence.

If you would like to start another thread about a further hypothesis that you would also like to try to debunk, of which "it's happening" would appear to be your favoured precis, then please be my g ... I mean, remain my host. I was happy with the goalposts where you originally put them, when you made up the present thread title, as far as this thread is concerned.

[Stupid]

Via an amplifier assumed. Please justify that assertion. Include an explanation of how to ensure that this is a targeted bucket of water, and where to buy a tape recorder as sensitive as the human ear and central nervous system, and able to replicate the well-documented Silent Sound effect.

Yes, a sensitive pre-amplifier before the microphone.
There are super-sensetive lab preamplifiers, capable of a gain of over 100+ used to sense electrical activity down to the living cell level.


I believe you'd also need a transducer or other sensor capable of capturing waves in the microwave (GHz) range.
I believe this would incorporate a GaS detector diode.....at least in the case of "open air".

[Mick]

I'm sorry, but I thought that it was understood that the thread title implicitly continued "for covert harassment of people who claim to hear voices". I started out quite clearly saying I did not think it was used outside of a lab.

Again, I don't think your focus on winning semantic points is really that helpful to your cause. It's clear to everyone what the real questions are here.

[Mick]

Yes, a sensitive pre-amplifier before the microphone.
There are super-sensetive lab preamplifiers, capable of a gain of over 100+ used to sense electrical activity down to the living cell level.

I believe you'd also need a transducer or other sensor capable of capturing waves in the microwave (GHz) range.
I believe this would incorporate a GaS detector diode.

Encoding of sounds using the microwave auditory effect is done using a kind of pulse width modulation - modulating the frequency of high energy spikes, a bit like musical roads. All you'd have to do to detect this would be to record microwave energy levels, sampling at 40Khz should do it, and then play that back as audio, with maybe some minor digital decoding to recreate the original signal a bit closer.

[John Allman]

I'm sorry

Apology accepted.

but I thought that it was understood that the thread title implicitly continued "for covert harassment of people who claim to hear voices".

Not by me it wasn't. We could use Private Messaging to agree the new thread title, and who will post first, if you wanted that.

I started out quite clearly saying I did not think it was used outside of a lab.

I addressed that explicitly at the time, before you started the present thread.

I don't think your focus on winning semantic points is really that helpful to your cause.

I assume you meant to say "pedantic". (There I go again!)

It's clear to everyone what the real questions are here.

It's clear to me what the one question that this thread has resolved for me was, and that there are several other questions in which you also take a welcome interest. Could we please use separate threads for those separate questions? I have an analytical mind. I hate rambling threads that try to cover too much. This one has already gone to two pages, and it's only two days old. It already contains ad hominem remarks, albeit none that I wrote, I'm proud to say. Some of the squabbling found online is people squabbling about what they each want to talk about. I thought your initial preference for keeping thread "focussed" was right up my street.

Thank you for tracking down the HTML version of Microwaves and Behavior.

[Jay Reynolds]

John appears well fed today.

[Mick]

I think I'm about done. It's quite fascinating though how John reminds me of Lee (and somewhat of George).

[Stupid]

He's much more well spoken, but yes, shares the ability to denounce any well intentioned attempts to ask for real evidence.
That's all we ask for....some hard evidence.
Where is it ?

[John McMurtrey]

Targets have detected fields, but proving that such a field results from targeting requires very expensive equipment, which has to include the appropriate (but unknown) frequencies, and any use of difficult to detect technique like ultrawideband is unknown. Probably the most informative material comes from when a couple of Directed Energy Directorate employees (the same two that developed the pain ray) decided to patent part of the process particularly for making speech transmission intelligible within the head. These materials refer to radio frequency speech transmission, but that's just a broader sprectrum than microwave. The application for getting the Air Force to fund the patent process lists psychological warfare communication tool under government use (2nd page of pdf link):

A method for encoding & transmitting speech by means of the radio frequency hearing phenomenon. Disclosure and record of invention, AF form 1279 to document inventions for consideration of patenting by the Air Force. 1994 Oct 27. [Online] [Cited 2011 May 19] Available from URL: http://cryptome.org/rf-speech/rf-speech-02.pdf

There was material classified from the FOIA, but another interesting release was a letter to the government patent lawyer:

O’Loughlin J. Letter to Ken Callahan, JA. 2001 Aug 30. [Online] [Cited 2011 May 19] Available from URL: http://cryptome.org/rf-speech/rf-speech-03.pdf

Wherein the following statement is more revealing than the patents:

"There are several ways to implement the correct power modulation of a Radio frequency
signal to accomplish the objective of the invention using existing methods and apparatus
as described in the disclosure. Successful experiments have been conducted using the
double side-band balanced modulator approach."

Because the patents themselves only describe methods for producing intelligible speech in the head by suppressing high frequency voice components that distorts sound fidelity within the head. Apparently, however, a carbon impregnated polyurethane sphere of 7 cm radius (which would equate to the average head diameter) with a microphone inside was used for development purposes as this is described in the patents. The patents are:

O’Loughlin JP, Loree DL. Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect. US patent # 6470214, 2002 Oct 22.
O’Loughlin JP, Loree DL. Apparatus for audibly communicating speech using the radio frequency hearing effect. US patent # 6587729, 2003 July 1.

This is why a simple microphone produces distorted sound, and just a hydrophone in a bucket may not be much better. Anyway verbal messaging basically stopped for the guy in the "Recording Microwave Hearing Effects . . . " article who was doing the recording, and he gets much worse harassment now.

Duplicated effort is normal for classified research with considerable inter-service rivalry, and I'm sure the Sharp & Grove Army effort solved these problems in their earlier effort as mentioned in:

Justesen DR. Microwaves and behavior. Am Psychologist 1975;30(3)(Mar):391-401.

I've seen apparently reliable material (but not really good references) that the Soviets had a similar system previous to the Americans, while Sharp and Grove had a major Pandora project relative to the American Moscow Embassy irradiation. Cazzamalli wrote about similar effects to microwave hearing quite some time ago.

An introduction recognizing academic psychiatry complicity with intelligence services, along with recognition that targeting effects may be occurring by a psychiatrist is (available from find article):

Ross CA. Ethics of CIA and Military Contracting by Psychiatrists and Psychologists. Ethical Human Psychol Psychiatry 2007;9(1):25-34.

A more complete treatment of security services utilizing psychiatric diagonosis (dissociative identity disorder particularly) is Ross' book CIA Doctors.

What is really bunk is a supposed medical specialty where diagnosis and treatment is based solely on the response to a series of questions, and no other test as a basis for exploitation.

[John Allman]

He's much more well spoken, but yes, shares the ability to denounce any well intentioned attempts to ask for real evidence.
That's all we ask for....some hard evidence.
Where is it ?

Evidence of what? In my first posting in this thread, there is a link to a webpage. A click or two from that webpage, are hundreds of pages of rock solid evidence. Some of it is evidence for the very matter that had been in dispute in this thread before Mick came around, the feasibility of wireless and receiverless transmission of speech to humans that even Mick has now been forced to accept is feasible. It was like trying to get blood out of a stone, trying to get Mick to look at any of that evidence, and I dare say Stupid hasn't looked at any of it either.

You can't convince an unbeliever of anything; for their unbelief is not based on (falsely alleged) lack of evidence, it's based on a deep seated need not to believe.

I see that John McMurtrey has popped in, as a guest, thus probably dashing my hopes of disengaging from this wretched, quarrelsome little thread just yet.

I feel like a fly in a web. I came to this forum only to comment briefly on what I thought was a satirical piece entitled the Human Protection Software Suite, a spoof (I assumed) that Mick had fallen for, and solemnly debunked as though it was worthy of his pompous efforts, making a few gratuitous derogatory remarks about the TI community in the process. Browsing idly here, to find out about a forum new to me into which I had just posted, I encountered a posting from one Farganne, who is apparently too "far gonne" to have even noticed that I offered her my condolences. Moved with compassion, I commiserated, and tossed off an idle comment in young Mick's direction, never expecting The Spanish Inquisition. The rest is history.

[John Allman]

@John McMurtrey

So there's leaked evidence that the military continued to develop the capabilities that Sharp and Grove had demonstrated in prototype, back before Justesen's first and last publication on this subject in a learned journal? Wow! I was surprised you didn't mention the New Vistas report too. I knew about that. So could Mick, if he wanted to, because I know it's referenced.

I found it counter-intuitive that high frequency components needed to be suppressed, because they were what distorted sound fidelity in the head. I find it easier to understand a whisper than a mumble myself. Life is full of surprises.

I hope somebody else reads you posting too, John, and replies.

Thanks for visiting, as a guest.

[MikeC]

1 Essentially, you have accepted this evidence, of the proposition that you didn't find plausible at first, when you made up the title to this thread.

From mick's first post in this thread:

I very much doubt that anything like that has been used outside of a lab.

so not saying it is implausible at all - just implausible outside a lab - which is exactly where it was done in 1975.

Got any ACTUAL evidence anyone has done it "in the field"? Or is this almost 40 year old LAB EXPERIMENT still the state of the art?

[Stupid]

I do require a day or three, to review all those links and data....then check references.
Do you expect anyone (me, Mick, others) to gulp the titles and/or summaries headlong into a proper response ?

I posted my initial response.....and was hoping to dwindle the data to a single specific narrative.
But you expect me to extrapolate an opinion based upon a wide field of brain functions, and their possible manipulations.

[John Allman]

I do require a day or three, to review all those links and data....then check references.
Do you expect anyone (me, Mick, others) to gulp the titles and/or summaries headlong into a proper response ?

No. I'd have been delighted if people had merely refrained from chirping in unison their usual refrain, "You haven't got any evidence", because they had been too busy to look at the evidence offered.

The onus of proof should be on the would-be debunkers, and the standard of proof should be high, because the verb to "debunk" a proposition has the meaning it has. Debunking a proposition is a lot stronger a verb, than merely showing good reason why somebody with no personal emotional investment in that proposition wouldn't be insulting unjustly those who do, by having reservations about buying into a proposition himself.

Debunking is for follies like homeopathy and alien abductions. We deserve a much kinder verdict of this court than that, as I am glad you have decided to discover.

[Stupid]

Well actually, debunking should nab at the root of the suspicious idea....or flutter away the dead leaves, to discover that root.
...or ask why the normally green leaves, are multi-coloured.

Can I ask why the average citizen may feel they are a target ?
And after reading potential technologies, does that not strengthen their abnormal belief ?
Do you ever feel that there are true schizophrenics, lulled into falling deeper into delusion by giving them an additional worry ?
Could much of your audience "gain paranoia", being they are being fed evidence over the internet, that the psychiatric establishment has rejected ?

[Spongebob]

There is evidence that the US military employed a team of 'new age' soldiers to kill goats by staring at them...

John Allman is simply a tin hatter conspiracy theorist failing to justify his beliefs (or non-beliefs)

[John Allman]

Can I ask why the average citizen may feel they are a target?

You can offer an answer to that question if you like, for others to debunk.

And after reading potential technologies, does that not strengthen their abnormal belief?

I don't know of any relevant studies.

Do you ever feel that there are true schizophrenics, lulled into falling deeper into delusion by giving them an additional worry?

Not as much as I feel that there are true criminals, who get deeper into crime, because they have really good defence lawyers whose job it is to believe their client's defences and to convince juries to believe the same.

How about debunking schizophrenia, or psychiatry as a whole?

Could much of your audience "gain paranoia", being they are being fed evidence over the internet, that the psychiatric establishment has rejected?

I am not aware of any studies that measure the effects of ignorance versus knowledge on mental health outcomes. Intuitively, one suspects that accurate information on the internet will make the world better, and that inaccurate information on the internet will make the world worse.

The "psychiatric establishment" hasn't "rejected" any evidence on the internet that I put there.

[Jay Reynolds]

I feel like a fly in a web.

I see John as a spider in his own web.
Perusing the net, i see you haven't been fed this well in months.

[John Allman]

I see John as a spider in his own web.

"There may also be other reptiles, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again."

[Mick]

Debunking is for follies like homeopathy and alien abductions. We deserve a much kinder verdict of this court than that, as I am glad you have decided to discover.

I find this idea interesting. Homeopathy and alien abductions are follies, and yet the government harassing you by beaming voices into your skull is somehow perfectly sensible.

This is a difficult subject to debate with those involved. It seems that by far the most likely explanation is that the TI community is made up of people with paranoid delusions of persecution, and possibly schizophrenia. However they are utterly convinced that this is not the case, and that such diagnoses (and offers of treatment) are simply part of the conspiracy. So debating with those individual is highly unlikely to lead anywhere.

Delusions of persecution, and hearing voices, is as old as civilization, as are quack cures, and being visited at night by ethereal beings. Angels morphed into aliens, and the voices of the gods morphed into the voices of technologically advanced human oppressors.

[Cliff Huylebroeck]

@ Mick:

I would like to know, can you summarize in a few clear short statements, every each on a new line, why you believe that it's not possible to use microwaves to make someone hear complete sentences of the English language?

Number these arguments like A1, A2 and so on, so we can easily refer to them later.

Now suppose that voice to skull technology exists, that it's possible to beam voices in your head, silently and from a distance, that the government has this technology, and that the government uses this to harass its own citizens.

Then I would like to know, can you summarize in a few clear short statements, every each on a new line, why you believe that the government wouldn't do such a thing.

Number these arguments like B1, B2 and so on, so we can easily refer to them later.

[Mick]

I think it is possible, albeit very low fidelity, and probably involving dangerous levels of radiation.

I don't think it's very practical outside of a lab. The "speech" would be highly garbled as it's just click encoding.

It would be difficult, if not impossible to aim and prevent other people from hearing the voices.

But the bottom line, and really the only relevant thing is that I don't think it's happening, because there's no evidence that it's happening.

I'm not going to get into an extended debate on this. Just simply show some clear evidence that it is happening. Because otherwise all you have is extreme conjecture created to explain the voices in your head. Voices which are much simpler explained as auditory hallucinations.

[John Allman]

I think it is possible, albeit very low fidelity, and probably involving dangerous levels of radiation.

"I think", says Mick. Such scholarship!

Let us compare Mick's opinion with the facts, shall we?

“Communicating Via the Microwave Auditory Effect” is the title of a small business contract for the Department of Defense. Communication initial results are: “The feasibility of the concept has been established” using both low and high power systems. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request as to the project’s final outcome met with denial on the part of the Air Force, on the grounds that disclosure “could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security.” Though the Air Force denied this FOIA disclosure, such a contract’s purpose is elaborated by the Air Force’s “New World Vistas” report: “It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction . . . . If a pulse stream is used, it should be possible to create an internal acoustic field in the 5-15 kilohertz range, which is audible. Thus it may be possible to ‘talk’ to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them.” Means to actualize such communication ‘possibility’ is evident in patents assigned to the Air Force without royalty payment. These patents describe demodulation of speech at the head of a recipient without a proximate emitter, and no beneficial use presumed. The process involves amplitude modulation where the carrier wave’s influence is fully suppressed, high frequency speech components are filtered, and further distortion preventing processing. The inventors are Air Force employees who have received awards from the Directed Energy Directorate, apparently both for assistance in developing the millimeter wave area denial system later discussed. Robert O. Becker, whose eminence was enough to have been twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in biological electromagnetic fields research, is explicit regarding clandestine use of radio frequency voice transmission: “Such a device has obvious applications in covert operations designed to drive a target crazy with “voices” or deliver undetectable instructions to a programmed assassin.”

For years the Center for Army Lessons Learned acknowledged microwave hearing voice transmission as a non-lethal weapon in a 'voice to skull devices' weapons thesaurus entry, but this entry was excluded subsequent to request for congressional investigation of such development, and any implementation or misuse thereof. An article from a magazine that publishes notably non-mainstream views details microwave inner voice device demonstration by Dr. Dave Morgan at a 1993 classified Johns Hopkins sponsored non-lethal weapon conference, manufacture by Lockheed-Sanders, and implies use by the CIA, who call the process ‘voice synthesis’ or ‘synthetic telepathy.’

Check the references, Mick.

I don't think it's very practical outside of a lab. The "speech" would be highly garbled as it's just click encoding.

Why do you "think" this, Mick? Got any evidence? Can you give an example of a 21st century technology that would work in a lab, but not in the street? No? I thought not.

It would be difficult, if not impossible to aim and prevent other people from hearing the voices.

Evidence for this assertion? See the same paper for refutation of this assertion.

But the bottom line, and really the only relevant thing is that I don't think it's happening

because this is Mick's message board. If flagrant ad hominem insults are flung at people on this message board, nobody gets disciplined, if the targets don't "think" what Mick thinks. The only "relevant" thing to young Mick, is what Mick himself "thinks", as far as Mick is concerned. Never mind the evidence.

there's no evidence that it's happening.

Because when Mick uses a word, such as "evidence", it means, to Mick, exactly what Mick wants it to mean. Never mind the countless of thousands of people who would say, in court, under oath, that it's happening to them. That's not "evidence" to Mick.

[Mick]

"New World Vistas" is a speculation piece from 1996 about what might be possible in 50 years time. It's "a forecast of a potential future". It says it "may" be possible. (page 90)

That's not evidence. It's speculation.

What's the evidence that it's actually happening?

[John Allman]

@Mick

“The feasibility of the concept has been established”

[Stupid]

Yes, I read the "New world Vistas" link.
It IS a speculation piece, speaking of future possibilities.....of which many such papers have been written, and spoken at military symposiums, and even possibly at the "pentagon" (example only)....in the effort to broaden the technological expansion if ideas...read>>"ideas".
No doubt, even the military needs to lobby their own employers, to keep continual funding in place.

We don't need to explain here, that future possibilities are just that, and that technological fantasies are anything less than proof, but more of imaginative hope.
Consider the document, Toward New Horizons.
...and a brief comment on that, is found here...
http://www.governmentattic.org/TowardNewHorizons.html

During WWII, U.S. Army Air Forces Commanding General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, among others, saw that the future security of the United States - military supremacy - would depend upon scientific research and development. in 1944 Gen. Arnold directed Dr. von Kármán to:

"investigate all the possibilities and desirabilities for postwar and future war's development as respect the AAF. Upon completion or your studies. please then give me a report or guide for recommended future AAF research and development programs." *

as Mick has noted...and all that is asked for here....."What's the evidence that it's actually happening? "

EDIT: after all, we can cherry-pick all the documents we want....but unless there's evidence that the theory is a reality, there is little else to talk about.

[John Allman]

Yes, I read the "New world Vistas" link.
It IS a speculation piece, speaking of future possibilities...

Quite. Not future impossibilities. Real possibilities based upon extrapolating creatively from what was described as already being feasible sixteen years ago from now, using the past tense, and which the military hadn't minded it being made known to the entire world was feasible all those years ago.

We are already a third of the way into the "50 years" Mick mentioned.

as Mick has noted...and all that is asked for here....."What's the evidence that it's actually happening? "

... unless there's evidence that the theory is a reality, there is little else to talk about.

"It's happening" isn't a statement I wish to defend in this forum. Please tell the forum in precise terms, and in a thread of its own, what the "theory" is that you would like somebody to provide "evidence" for, of which "it's happening" is a precis.

As I wrote to Mick ages ago,

if you would like to start another thread about a further hypothesis that you would also like to try to debunk, of which 'it's happening' would appear to be your favoured precis ...

If you start a thread in which you state, and then proceed to try to debunk, some "it's happening" or other theory that I care about, which I don't think you've misstated to make it easy to debunk (the Aunt Sally method), and which I think you've failed to debunk, I'll look at your thread, and might join in, to defend that theory, with evidence.

[Stupid]

If you start a thread in which you state, and then proceed to try to debunk, some "it's happening" or other theory that I care about, which I don't think you've misstated to make it easy to debunk (the Aunt Sally method), and which I think you've failed to debunk, I'll look at your thread, and might join in, to defend that theory, with evidence.
[/COLOR]

Doesn't this ring of a , "prove my theory is wrong" stance ?
...If it can't be proven wrong, it must be true.

If start a thread on the stance, "The moon is really made of cheese"....I'm right until you prove me wrong, correct ?
If I posted such a thing....it would truly be my job to prove my theory......not your job to prove me wrong.
You'd have a million reasons to why I am wrong, I'd have only a few to prove me right. Why would I neglect to mention my few reasons ?

I think this is the only thread needed here, about microwave induced audibility.
...though I brought the discussion elsewhere....at the chance of embarrassing myself.....
http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=48080.0

[Cliff Huylebroeck]

The subject of this discussion is: the scientific possibility of voice to skull.
Mick wants to debunk that voice to skull is a scientific possibility.
This means: he wants to expose that the statement "voice to skull is scientifically possible" is INTENTIONALLY untrue.
Mick is now supposed to provide evidence that shows that voice to skull isn't possible.
He can't do that.
So he starts a diversion: he asks us to provide evidence that shows that voice to skull is possible.
He says that this is the only relevant question to this matter.
But the mere fact that we have no evidence that Mick finds acceptable, doesn't prove that it's not possible.

I have no evidence that proves that God exists.
Following Mick's logic, this proves that He doesn't exist.
God could eventually exist, so Mick's logic must be crooked.

[Mick]

Of course it's possible. It's been demonstrated in a very limited manner. The mechanism sounds plausible. I just don't think it's particularly practical outside of a lab, and certainly not in the manner that's been described.

The question really is if there's any evidence it's being done to you and John, and the other self-described TIs.

[Stupid]

If I start a thread on the stance, "The moon is really made of cheese"....I'm right until you prove me wrong, correct ?
If I posted such a thing....it would truly be my job to prove my theory......not your job to prove me wrong.
You'd have a million reasons to why I am wrong, I'd have only a few to prove me right. Why would I neglect to mention my few reasons ?

...as I said....

[Cliff Huylebroeck]

Of course it's possible. It's been demonstrated in a very limited manner. The mechanism sounds plausible.

Good.

I just don't think it's particularly practical outside of a lab, and certainly not in the manner that's been described.

We suppose that they transport radar sets in vans that are following us around. This is indeed not practical. But these vans are reported everywhere. Bringing this out of the lab is just a technicality. Computers are now also smaller than they were in the beginning.

The question really is if there's any evidence it's being done to you and John, and the other self-described TIs.

We don't have hard evidence, but we have indirect evidence. In a courtroom, a judge can also accept indirect proof. This proof is good enough for us.

For example, there have been abuses in the past, illegal experiments that have been proven and admitted by the government. These experiments are often horrendous, like injections with radioactive material, so we are wary that we are the next generation of victims. Also, when there were COINTELPRO hearings, they destroyed all the reports, no one was punished and nothing guarantees that this type of operation has stopped. We know that the government is very interested in this type of experimentation and that they will do whatever to make it go on.

[John Allman]

The subject of this discussion is: the scientific possibility of voice to skull.
Mick wants to debunk that voice to skull is a scientific possibility.
This means: he wants to expose that the statement "voice to skull is scientifically possible" is INTENTIONALLY untrue.
Mick is now supposed to provide evidence that shows that voice to skull isn't possible.
He can't do that.

Mick concedes that low fidelity V2K is possible in laboratories.

So he starts a diversion: he asks us to provide evidence that shows that voice to skull is possible.

Which we have. That's not Mick's "diversion" at all. Mick's diversion is introducing a very vaguely defined "theory" that "it's happening", and demanding that we provide "evidence" for that. Again, we have provided evidence of that too. But only proof of feasibility, and of complaints by alleged victims, which Mick rightly does not accept as proof of whatever he means by "it's happening", although it is certainly evidence of that.

The "relevant question" that I raised as long ago as 2002, but not in this forum, so not relevant in this thread, is an ethical, political and social question, not a scientific question, as to whether it was right for so many people, for officialdom, and for the medical profession, to continue discounting widespread complaints of V2K abuse that we had shown was perfectly feasible.

But the mere fact that we have no evidence that Mick finds acceptable, doesn't prove that it's not possible.

I think the discussion of the scientific possibility of voice to skull has reached a natural end. Everybody here should by now know that V2K is, or might be, possible. Everybody knows that there are many people who complain that it is happening, to them. Everybody (with the possible exception of Stupid) knows that the complaints cannot be safely disregarded on the grounds that V2K can be shown to be impossible. The since-deleted thesaurus entry even lists an application.

We are being invited to prove some sort of "it's happening" theory, to people disinclined to believe that it is happening. I am waiting for anybody who wants to discuss that separate issue, to draw a line under this thread about mere feasibility, and to launch a new thread debunking a well-defined "it's happening" theory that I would want to defend. So far, nobody has, so I don't know why this thread is rumbling on. I've got plenty more to be getting on with.

[Stupid]

hmmmm....are you surprised that people don't believe you ? I'm sure you have had that experience before.

You list several "what if" papers, but again, little or no evidence that you are being "tracked" or "targeted", personally.
If I was being tracked, followed, beamed with microwaves....you'd bet I'd have nailed them in the act.
Period.
I'd have evidence that it was happening just for my own well-being.....let alone claiming it on the web.

Yes, I am sort of "calling you out"....I just don't believe it.

[John Allman]

Of course it's possible. It's been demonstrated in a very limited manner. The mechanism sounds plausible.

Thanks for the concession. Can I go now?

The question really is if there's any evidence it's being done to you and John ...

That's not a "question" I've ever wanted to debate with you, Mick.