HISTORY IN 4D – THE “REALITY” OF SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY?

ABSTRACT

 “Today, everything serves war. There is not one discovery which the military does not study with the aim of applying it to warfare, not one invention which they do not attempt to turn to military use.”

—Nikolai Fyodorov, “Philosophy of the Common Cause, 1891”

In a world of rapidly increasing scientific and technological innovation, much of which is conducted under the auspices of corporate and defense contracts, it is reasonable to believe that types of technologies exist which would appear to be science fiction to the average person. But in fact are quite real. Some of these technologies can affect us in ways that could make someone appear mentally disturbed. Is the fact that certain neurological or physiological conditions could be caused by some variety of exotic corporate or military technology not worth determining? Would disclosure of such technology impact the medical field or improve treatment? If such technologies were treated as “real” by the media or academia in general, what changes and protections could arise from that?

Keywords: Scientism, Synthetic Telepathy, Non-lethal weapons, Defense, Microwave hearing, voice to skull

INTRODUCTION

“Mentally aware I C truth within the square / The future’s here, catch me on computer software, (software), warfare’s, inevitable… ”

– Rebel INS, The City, Wu-Tang Forever

The power to control what is considered technologically possible lies disproportionally in the hands of the corporate and defense industries and the media all of whom subscribe to scientism is some form or another.

“Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” 

–  Tom Sorell

The products of scientific research and publication largely define the borders of what is deemed to be “reality”. Technologies and phenomena that are not easily reproducible as per the scientific method are referred to as science fiction. The military application of most technologies is explored early in their creation process. Myriad technologies are already known to have originated in the defense industry and migrated into the commercial space or rather into “public knowledge.”

Research on the human brain concludes that there is a difference between sensory capture of an event and the mental perception of the event. A tree may be perceived by the visual and olfactory senses yet the attention paid to the tree by the conscious mind is minimal. In the collective social mind, i.e. “reality,” the attention and perception of events is directly influenced by our adherence to culture, tradition, religion and in the so-called western world, a deference to the claims of the scientific community as the primary indicator of what “real” is.

Scientific breakthroughs are shared with the public through media and government communications. Nowadays most science worthy of note is confined to interlocking legacy university systems, elite laboratories and installations, and government connected contractors. Terms like parapsychology, pseudo-science, and science-fiction, serve as gate-keepers to acceptable conversation in academic circles. Knowledge is not guaranteed by exposure to a subject, but lack of exposure certainly precludes it.

With scientism as a modern load-bearing pillar of what defines reality the parameters of what is considered worthwhile, or “real” science, for many, has become intertwined with what they see as a logically acceptable reality. Drawing the parameters around reality based upon scientism is not necessarily a fatal flaw in of itself, however in the 21st century when most scientific research has been dominated by government and corporate contractors there are far reaching repercussions. This essay will flow from the following assertion and supplemental questions.

  1. The parameters of our scientific reality have been established and disseminated through universities, governments, and the media, the e-State. (The e-State is the transnational collective consisting of powerful financiers, media companies, “mainstream” elite academia, globe spanning political networks and the military industrial complex.)

 

  1. Why would we assume that technology created in the foundry’s of the military industrial complex and its suburb, the world’s university systems, would be to our benefit?
“You cannot see anything that you do not first contemplate as a reality…” ~Ramtha

 


 

 SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

If asked whether or not they thought telepathy was real most people would say no. If someone told you they were hearing voices in their head most people would assume that person was experiencing hallucinations or some sort of unfortunate mental derangement. Having voices in your head that aren’t your own is the stuff of horror movies. It is also something that the public consciousness is well aware of. Many people who have committed horrible crimes have claimed to have heard voices in their head. We know that an affect of schizophrenic conditions is auditory hallucination. The effects of certain drugs cause hallucinatory voices in your head as well. That said, technology is said to exist which can produce those same effects. Let’s explore what has been announced and begin to delineate between what we know, what we are told and what might be actually going on.

Terms such as Voice to Skull technology and microwave-hearing, have been in use for many years. There are also companies like Holosonics who says, “The Audio Spotlight PrivateSound™ technology creates a tight, narrow beam of sound that can be controlled with the same precision as light. Aim the speaker at your desired listening area to keep sound focused specifically to your listeners and quiet everywhere else.” The potential for hearing voices in your head and not being “crazy” or hallucinating exists. Therefore should claims of being influenced by such a machine be completely ignored in the mainstream press and by academics? Should the media not cover a known technology that can produce voices in your head or hallucinations in people? What role does the scientific community itself have in pushing awareness about issues like this to the fore?

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.387852

“The public is treated to a version of narrative history that we will call 3D. History in 4D is the acknowledgement of the reality that, namely in the post WWII era, the e-State has an unmatched ability in crafting and presenting narrative history, in near real time, to the world.”  

History in 4D- Birth of the e-State

 To this day the Cold War remains as a preeminent incubator of technologies and ideas, which continue to play a major role in how our world operates. Advances in physical and biological sciences, computing, aviation, and psychology are some of the most relevant. The climate of the Cold War was one of tension and suspicion between East and West that manifested itself both in proxy wars and feverish research (both public and private) to create new technological advancements of key interest to military and intelligence agencies. Of great importance to military intelligence was the need for encrypted communications and the ability to avoid detection of their plans by the enemy. Moreover, the stakes of the time: nuclear war and mutually assured destruction (M.A.D), encouraged the cold warriors to push the boundaries of science and morality in pursuit of their goals.

Beginning in the midst of the Cold War the public began to learn about experiments in mind control and manipulation, hidden nuclear testing and bases, the development of secret weapons, and cooperation between the government and corporate and academic entities. Quite often, the modus operandi driving Cold War “commerce” was a daisy chain of scientists working at universities in receipt of government funding leading dual purpose programs wherein one component was weaponization of their work by the State and the other was possible uses in civilian life.

Let’s take a look at a brief timeline concerning advancements in technologies that purport to send audio and in some cases “voices” into people’s heads without the need for direct contact:

TIMELINE

  • In 1956 E. Holzer and O. E. Deal observed naturally occurring electromagnetic signals within human auditory range were produced by thunderstorms.

 

  • In 1958 while conducting experiments at General Electric’s Advanced Electronics Center at Cornell University Allen H. Frey discovered that human auditory systems responded to electromagnetic energy within a certain band of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum. “The intent of this paper is to bring a new phenomenon to the attention of physiologists. Using extremely low average power densities of electromagnetic energy, the perception of sounds was induced in normal and deaf humans.”

 

  • At Walter Reed hospital in 1973, Dr. Joseph Sharp heard “words” beamed at him in a pulsed microwave audiogram while in an isolation chamber

 

  • In 1975, researcher A. W. Guy stated that “one of the most widely observed and accepted biologic effects of low average power electromagnetic energy is the auditory sensation evoked in man when exposed to pulsed microwaves.”

 

  • In 1988 Wayne B. Brunkan earned patent US4877027A which states, “This invention relates to a hearing system for human beings in which high frequency electromagnetic energy is projected through the air to the head of a human being and the electromagnetic energy is modulated to create signals that can be discerned by the human being regardless of the hearing ability of the person.”

 

Abstract

A silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or very high audio frequency range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or frequency modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones or piezoelectric transducers. The modulated carriers may be transmitted directly in real time or may be conveniently recorded and stored on mechanical, magnetic or optical media for delayed or repeated transmission to the listener.

  • In 1996 patent # US08766687 was filed as, “Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect.” In 2003 an incarnation of that patent was granted for proprietary use by the US Air Force:

Description

This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/766,687 filed on Dec. 13, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,214, and claims the benefit of the foregoing filing date. The invention described herein may be manufactured and used by or for the Government for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalty thereon.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

  1. This invention relates to the modulating of signals on carriers, which are transmitted and the signals intelligibly recovered, and more particularly, to the modulation of speech on a carrier and the intelligible recover of the speech by means of the Radio Frequency Hearing Effect.
  2. The Radio Frequency (“RF”) Hearing Effect was first noticed during World War II as a subjective “click” produced by a pulsed radar signal when the transmitted power is above a “threshold” level. Below the threshold level, the click cannot be heard.
  3. The US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health published an article in 2003 titled, “Auditory response to pulsed radiofrequency energy.” Its abstract included the following, “The site of conversion of RF energy to acoustic energy is within or peripheral to the cochlea, and once the cochlea is stimulated, the detection of RF induced sounds in humans and RF induced auditory responses in animals is similar to acoustic sound detection.”

 

 

  • In 2008 “Today @ UCI,” an online blog hosted by UC Irvine it was reported, “A team of UC Irvine scientists has been awarded a $4 million grant from the U.S. Army Research Office to study the neuroscientific and signal processing foundations of synthetic telepathy.”

 

SAY WHAT NOW?

It can be said that at the very minimum that the scientific, military and even commercial communities are aware of the ability to project sound into the head of listeners without bodily contact. While advancements in technology would be required for some of the items listed above to project audible voices others portend to do that from their inception. With some evidence to examine and some time to think we can move on to the next phase of our couplet:

  1. The parameters of our scientific reality have been established and disseminated through media.

 

  1. Why would anyone assume that a majority of truly scientific breakthroughs are announced to, actually created for, and distributed in the public good?

While the scientific reality is that sound can be projected in a cone that affects one or a few people, the “scientific reality” we are conditioned to adhere to wouldn’t like you to think about that too hard. If someone reports that they are hearing voices in their head we have been socialized to believe:

1) That they most likely are delusional and,

2) That the cause of the voices is the person’s own mind.

The reasons this is important is because in cases when a crime is committed, such as a mugging, murder or mass shooting, and the perpetrator reports that they were guided by voices in their head, the mainstream media (and academia) almost never investigate the plausibility of such claims. The horror of the event focuses people attention on those lost, but what if a perpetrator was telling the truth about voices being induced upon them? Wouldn’t that make them a victim as well? Moreover, if the investigation turned up the cause of these voices as being electronically projected upon a person we then would have to ascertain by whom? Was the military or government actually responsible for projecting voices into the head of an eventual killer? Was it a corporate entity?

What tech did they use and where did they get it? These are all reasonable questions following basic steps of reasoning and investigation. 

WHAT IF?

To bring this closer to home just imagine if a relative of yours came down with a bout of apparent schizophrenia. Their lives would most likely be destroyed. Unable to focus on work, drive without distraction or be trusted with children, that afflicted person would become imprisoned within their own mind.

While schizophrenia is by no means a death sentence this would be a harrowing event.

From WIRED, 

The question has always been: is this anything more than urban myth? We may not have the final answer to this question, but a newly declassified Pentagon report, Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons, obtained by a private citizen under the Freedom of Information Act, provides some fascinating tidbits on a variety of exotic weapons ideas.

Continuing with this example the person would likely be proscribed anti-psychotic medicine and therapies of various types. Now, what if the person claimed they had the voices in their head thrust upon them? Would you have no interest in figuring out if it was true or not? When humans are afflicted with terminal or incapacitating afflictions they usually do the best they can to diagnose and cure themselves. In their search for a cure people with cancer have done everything from electro-therapy to visiting shamans in the Amazon.

What would you do in order to help a loved one with an affliction? What if you learned that there was a possible cause for their affliction that you’d never heard about?

THE SCIENTIFIC REALITY OF OUR WORLD IS NOT OBJECTIVELY OBSERVABLE 

With that example under our belt we can move to analyze the original premise of this essay, the definition of “scientific reality” by the government and media and how it affects the average citizen. Paraphrasing my second question, “…Why would anyone assume that a majority of truly scientific breakthroughs are announced to, actually created for, and distributed in the public good?” It must be said that the technology behind synthetic telepathy and microwave hearing were the results of military research and development. Quickly the discoveries were analyzed, as most are, for military use, effectiveness and utility. The idea of microwave hearing has been discussed as a way to send coded communications and as a weapon.

A commercial use of the technology, augmenting the abilities of people with hearing deficiencies or even deafness, has been laid out as well. We also have proof of this concept and its operation in the companies like HoloSound which advertise and deliver installations which beam sound in focused shapes able to affect a single person from distance. The technology can be used for good but many of its likely uses have to do with military, counter intelligence and weaponization. 

CONCLUSION

The scientific reality of the modern world is not objectively observable. It is shared with the public through press releases, televised space rocket launches, and predominantly in news stories. Most often the technology we are appraised of has a commercial or medical form that eventually will be sold to us. Many of the facets of communication technologies such VOIP, and Bluetooth were invented by people working at companies which also serve as defense contractors. VOIP has its origins in the early 1970s as Americans worked on ARPANET the precursor to the Internet. Someone working at Ericsson, a multinational telecommunications company in Sweden, invented Bluetooth. In the 20th century onward the cutting edge technological and scientific advancement has arisen overwhelmingly from the domains of those with vast resources, i.e. state governments, military and multi-national corporations. It is these same entities that either control or directly influence the media, who in turn keeps the public informed. They say knowledge is power. I disagree. Knowledge is responsibility.

Who has what responsibility in defining the borders of reality in a world being influenced by technocrats who create and use real life tools of science fiction all under media cover?

 

 

References:

Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons

Radio Hypnotic IntraCerebral Control and Electronic Dissolution of Memory (RHICEDOM), 11 June 2008

MICROWAVE BIOEFFECT CONGRUENCE WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA, John J. McMurtrey M. S.,Copyright 2002, 10 Apr. 2005

Human auditory system response to Modulated electromagnetic energy. by ALLAN H Frey

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *