Microwaves, Radars, etc.
Ned Kelly
There are a lot of fun to read web pages describing microwaves and an
alleged device where it will transmit voices into someone's head. A
device like that would be fun for practical jokes or even funnier, to
disrupt political conventions! The device either doesn't exist (most
likely) or is a closely guarded secret!
The Alleged Device:
The alleged microwave mind-control device uses UHF frequencies and when
beamed at someone, it can be modulated to create a voice in someone's
head as though some part of the brain acted like a crystal radio. The
alleged device uses short high-power pulses at a lot duty cycle and
pulse-with modulated with the voice.
Radar Sets:
Funny, but that modulation scheme describes a radar set perfectly.
Consider the 49 Radar that the Navy uses on a lot of the ships. It may be
say, 100,000 Watts, but the duty cycle is one tenth of a percent! That
means that each little pulse is 100 Megawatts.
During driveabout, they used this radar, which was on the second set of
smokestacks. People would go to the flight deck of the ship with a
Walkman, and the Walkman would have a buzzing noise that varied as the
radar rotated. However, people would not hear the obviously audio
frequency of the buzzing without the Walkman. Also, they would
occasionally set up the "ship's band" and it's amplifiers, and the
buzzing would come out of the speakers.
If anyone heard the buzzing in their heads, I sure never heard about it,
and I spent 4 years on that ship. It's possible, of course, that the
frequency used by the radar set was wrong. After all, if the alleged
device existed, they's ensure that radar sets won't spill the beans.
A fun side note here is the invention of the Microwave Oven. The inventor
was an Air Force radar technician who discovered a "warm and fuzzy
feeling" while near lit-off radar sets! If there's something to hear, he
would surely have noticed!
Cell Phones:
There was a lawsuit in the case of a woman suing Mototola in connection
with a cell phone and a brain tumor... right where she holds the antenna!
This apparently proves microwaves and cancer! Cell phones, at least the
older ones, use AM modulation to put the voice on the wave to the
repeater. Now, here anyone with a cell phone can try this for themselves:
Get a Walkman, and start it up. Call your "real" phone with the cell
phone. Once you call yourself, place one of the Walkman headphone
speakers by the cell phone's microphone, verifying placement using the
"real" phone. Now, wave the antenna of the cell phone around your head
and listen for music in your head..... and find it's not there! :) Of
course, I might be immune too. Your mileage may vary. :) Also, the
induced voice (music in the test) may be really weak, and thus not
noticed. Have fun!
Ham Radio Operators:
If the alleged device is going to be discovered outside the CIA, KGB,
ASIO, DEA, NSA, Secret Service, FBI, ATF, ETC. it will be accidentally
discovered by a ham radio operator. Ham radio operators will often have
equipment problems with stuff they are first testing out. For example,
that RF amp will oscillate badly. Surely, a ham radio operator will
stumble on the bizarre buzz in his head while playing around. Also, there
are a lot of ham radio operators around the world, thus optimising the
chance of it getting out.
About the only way to suppress the "secret" from getting out in this case
would be to have a lot of FCC trucks or their ilk in every nation.
Doubtful. The errant Ham Radio Operator is probably the most likely way
for this alleged device to be exposed as real. Also, sooner or later, one
will come forward with the device, using it for a big practical joke, in
which the FCC will catch him!
Scanners:
Hasn't anyone hearing voices tried a scanner? The minute the scanner has
a voice on it's speaker matching the hallucination voice you've got the
match!
Conclusion:
The probability of the alleged device being used is fairly low. Given the
comparitively available ham radio technology, a small group of people
could use it for "psychoterrorism" by building the alleged device.
Consider the consequences of a militia with the needed ham radio gear
going in front of the Congress while voting themselves a raise, and using
it on them to not do so. :)hehehe
The existence of a device to transmit voices into peoples' heads would
probably be well-known by now and be used by ham radio knowlegible
terrorists and militia groups, yet we don't hear about it on the news.
The technology for such a device could be easally obtained by using and
adapting pre-existing consumer technology. The instructions would be by
now available in sites where you download the instructions for building
atom bombs. (Plutonium not included!)
The probability of the existence of a "voices in your head" transmitter
is very low, but you can never tell!
This concludes this test of the Emergency Aussie-in-your-head Broadcast
System. Had this been an actual emergency, you'd be instructed to stay
awake and pay attention to the ditzy-brained Chicagoan in your head with
propaganda and official misinformation. This concludes this test of the
Emergency Aussie-in-your-head Broadcast System(tm).
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!!
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
x
In article <4smlai$s...@news.ais.net>, nedk...@eagle.ais.net says...
>
>
>There are a lot of fun to read web pages describing microwaves and an
>alleged device where it will transmit voices into someone's head. A
>device like that would be fun for practical jokes or even funnier, to
>disrupt political conventions! The device either doesn't exist (most
>likely) or is a closely guarded secret!
>
>The Alleged Device:
<clip>
The fact that you mention Austrailia means you are a part of the
conspiracy. The waves described in previous articles are directed...
not something that is just "picked up" by a radio by a cell... waves
from an antenna are "emminated"... unidirectionally, unlike photon
energy.
You are a hoax... Dallas, TX uses mind-control in all buildings...
you say, "turn off ELF" and the people will accept those that have
been "blacklisted"... this happens all over Oak Lawn, Dallas, TX...
dba...@nwlink.com
nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
>There are a lot of fun to read web pages describing microwaves and an
>alleged device where it will transmit voices into someone's head. A
>device like that would be fun for practical jokes or even funnier, to
>disrupt political conventions! The device either doesn't exist (most
>likely) or is a closely guarded secret!
Do you realize that you are (most likely) mocking a small percentage
of people that are being systematicaly tortured by such a device for
experimental reasons by sick scientists getting government funds. They
can not offer proof to validate themselves because they are alone in
their torture chamber. Any attempts to cry out are met with a
diagnosis of mental illness. If you hear voices you are crazy, yet the
technology is documented. Who makes the desicion, YOU?
Ned Kelly
x (x@x.x) wrote:
: The fact that you mention Austrailia means you are a part of the
^^^^^^^^^^
What does Australia have to do with a microwave voice-in-your-head
device? Have you ever considered the idea that I may not be a bloody
Aussie, mate? Am I making you more paranoid? Relax, go down the boozer
and have some blue tubes, mate.
Have you ever heard of Yanks with self-taught Aussie accents?
--
This has been a test of the Emergency Aussie-in-your-head Broadcast
System. The broadcasters have been coerced into cooperating with Federal
and UN Authorities by providing this System. Had this been an Actual
Emergency, you would have been ordered to stay awake and pay attention to
the ditzy-brained Chicagoan in your head who'll provide you with propaganda
and official misinformation. This concludes this test of the Emergency
Aussie-in-your-head Broadcast System.
Dennis Jensen
In article <4spgjn$k...@news.ais.net>,
nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
>
>x (x@x.x) wrote:
>
>: The fact that you mention Austrailia means you are a part of the
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>What does Australia have to do with a microwave voice-in-your-head
>device? Have you ever considered the idea that I may not be a bloody
>Aussie, mate? Am I making you more paranoid? Relax, go down the boozer
>and have some blue tubes, mate.
>
>Have you ever heard of Yanks with self-taught Aussie accents?
>
Streep did not do such a great job, although more authentic than most.
So what is your self-taught Aussie accent like?
Dennis
William Mayers
In <4suvhq$hh0...@mel.dit.csiro.au> d.je...@geel.dwt.csiro.au (Dennis
Come on, cobbers, lets down to the pub and quaff a brew. Toss a koala
on the barbie, mate, and don't forget to visit the Fremantle Doctor.
Pequod
> The probability of the existence of a "voices in your head" transmitter
> is very low, but you can never tell!
As one in the electronics biz and a former ham, that about sums it up
with the possible exception of those rare cases where people pick up radio
signals on bad fillings in their teeth. That is caused by a rectifying
junction formed in the conductive material of the filling.
While it isn't really based on a radio transmitter, this does remind me
of a prank that a former sailor I know claims to have played while in the
Navy. He says that while in port they would find somebody standing alone
and point the ships radar dish at them. One of them would then climb up
onto the dish and placing their mouth at the focal point of the dish, he
would proceed to shout a quick string of his most shockingly obscene
insults. The others would observe the victim with binoculors.
He claimed that a good 10 foot dish would project your voice a good
fraction of a mile (just like the dishes bird watchers use, but in
reverse) causing the victim considerable surprise when he turned around
and found no one there. Apparently this was standard procedure on
visitors day when they would lay in wait for a civilian to stand near the
edge of the deck of a nearby carrier. When they heard the voice and
turned around, they would find nothing but open water and a 100 foot drop.
Sounds like fun. Somebody ought to try using a dish to project spooky
music into a crop circle or something. I'm sure that the resulting
mis-interpretations would be most amusing.
-JJ
x
Any post containing the origins in the following header
is not posted by me.
I use the pseudoaddress x@y.z not to conceal my idendity but
to prevent my mailbox from being flooded, since I regularly
post the CDT POLICY POSTS at alt.conspiracy
I suspect no malice, but since the x@x.x posts to military groups
(arpa is essentially a military monitoring system) and since I
have inadvertently used his commonly used pseudoaddress once or
twice in the past, I hereby tender this clarification to all
military and civilian law enforcement personnel monitoring the
newsgroups--since they are prone to making mistakes such as not
checking with targeted persons' sysops in cases of investigators'
own forged posts.
x@x.x's header (his header) as viewed at my end:
Path: solaris.cc.vt.edu!homer.alpha.net!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!swrinde
!sdd.hp.com!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!news.celestar.com!news.sprintlink.net
!news-ana-7.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-fw-22.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!usenet
From: x@x.x (x)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.war,sci.skeptic,alt.mindcontrol,sci.military.naval,
talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Microwaves, Radars, etc.
Date: 19 Jul 1996 03:20:19 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4smutj$5...@news.onramp.net>
References: <4smlai$s...@news.ais.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dal23.onramp.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.3
Xref: solaris.cc.vt.edu alt.conspiracy:214453 alt.war:34777 sci.skeptic:190895
alt.mindcontrol:13661 sci.military.naval:50359 talk.politics.misc:601081 soc.culture.usa:142930
x@y.z's header (my header) as viewed at my end:
Path: solaris.cc.vt.edu!usenet
From: x@y.z (x)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: CDT POLICY POST - Online Interactive Senate Crypto Hearing Thursday!!!!
Date: 22 Jul 1996 07:40:37 GMT
Organization: x
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <4svb9l$3...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: as2511-13.sl006.cns.vt.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.93.14
Xref: solaris.cc.vt.edu alt.conspiracy:215497
Paul J. Adam
In article <4t5mlh$l...@unx1.shsu.edu>, "WILLIAM S. ROWELL"
<std...@unx1.shsu.edu> writes
>Ah, yeah. I bet the scientists are using the ubiquitous Black Helecopters
>to project their mind voices. All part of a UN plot, eh?
No UN plot. The scientists are just beaming their mind voices at
Congress.
"More funding. MORE FUNDING! Oh, yeah, and better coffee and cuter lab
assistants."
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Patrick Juola
In article <4t5mlh$l...@unx1.shsu.edu> std...@unx1.shsu.edu (WILLIAM S. ROWELL) writes:
>dba...@nwlink.com wrote:
>: Do you realize that you are (most likely) mocking a small percentage
>: of people that are being systematicaly tortured by such a device for
>: experimental reasons by sick scientists getting government funds. They
>: can not offer proof to validate themselves because they are alone in
>: their torture chamber. Any attempts to cry out are met with a
>: diagnosis of mental illness. If you hear voices you are crazy, yet the
>: technology is documented. Who makes the desicion, YOU?
>
>to project their mind voices. All part of a UN plot, eh?
Nonsense. Do you have any idea of how expensive the black helicopters
are? We^H^HTHe Evil Commission to Control Scientific Progress can't
usually afford their prices except in absolute emergencies; I can
personally attest that I^Hthey haven't authorized their use for at least
six months in this area.
Patrick
Colin McElroy
dba...@nwlink.com wrote:
>nedk...@eagle.ais.net (Ned Kelly) wrote:
>>There are a lot of fun to read web pages describing microwaves and an
>>alleged device where it will transmit voices into someone's head. A
>>device like that would be fun for practical jokes or even funnier, to
>>disrupt political conventions! The device either doesn't exist (most
>>likely) or is a closely guarded secret!
>Do you realize that you are (most likely) mocking a small percentage
>of people that are being systematicaly tortured by such a device for
>experimental reasons by sick scientists getting government funds. They
>can not offer proof to validate themselves because they are alone in
>their torture chamber. Any attempts to cry out are met with a
>diagnosis of mental illness. If you hear voices you are crazy, yet the
>technology is documented. Who makes the desicion, YOU?
Right on brother! What these scientists do not realize is that we
know that the microwaves are originating from secret giant ovens in
Utah and are covering the whole world. Since it is well known that
microwaves only travel in straight lines this is clear proof that the
Earth is flat which is the main secret the government has been hiding
from us until the aliens arrive from the other side.
Brian Zeiler
Colin McElroy wrote:
> Right on brother! What these scientists do not realize is that we
> know that the microwaves are originating from secret giant ovens in
> Utah and are covering the whole world. Since it is well known that
> microwaves only travel in straight lines this is clear proof that the
> Earth is flat which is the main secret the government has been hiding
> from us until the aliens arrive from the other side.
What all you ignorant twits don't realize is that the US government
admits to having done *research* into this area, particularly under the
auspices of Col. John Alexander at Los Alamos in the "Non-Lethal Weapons
Research Program". Experiments were conducted to test the effect of
microwave radiation (and other frequencies) on the human brain in order
to assess the feasibility of using such technology to disorient the
enemy.
That is a fact which you can verify with Los Alamos or by contacting John
Alexander in Las Vegas at the National Institute for Discovery Sciences,
and it has absolutely nothing to do with aliens.
However, the conspiracy-nut aspect only arises in those people who think
the research never stopped and that everybody has an implant in their
left buttock, which is certainly not something I believe to be the case.
But the research certainly did occur and is available for your
verification through Alexander or an FOIA to Los Alamos.
Of course, if ignorant ridicule makes you feel good, you can do that too.
--
Brian Zeiler
dba...@nwlink.com
std...@unx1.shsu.edu (WILLIAM S. ROWELL) wrote:
>dba...@nwlink.com wrote:
>: Do you realize that you are (most likely) mocking a small percentage
>: of people that are being systematicaly tortured by such a device for
>: experimental reasons by sick scientists getting government funds. They
>: can not offer proof to validate themselves because they are alone in
>: their torture chamber. Any attempts to cry out are met with a
>: diagnosis of mental illness. If you hear voices you are crazy, yet the
>: technology is documented. Who makes the desicion, YOU?
>Ah, yeah. I bet the scientists are using the ubiquitous Black Helecopters
>to project their mind voices. All part of a UN plot, eh?
>Sigh.
I don't know about any black helecopters. I do know that sound wave
weapons are in use today. They are being tested on unwitting human
subjects for unknown to me reasons. As far as a UN plot, I wouldn't
know. It sounds like you have been reading too much conspiracy
bullshit. I am talking about technology that is being tested by
unknown arms of the US government.
I can understand your disbelief, but can you deny that our government
would not do such a thing considering the past history (that we have
finaly heard about) involving plutonium injections and other hideous
crimes. Wake up or shut up.
Sigh...
Arved Sandstrom
In article <31F757...@students.wisc.edu> Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> writes:
>Colin McElroy wrote:
>
>> Right on brother! What these scientists do not realize is that we
>> know that the microwaves are originating from secret giant ovens in
>> Utah and are covering the whole world. Since it is well known that
>> microwaves only travel in straight lines this is clear proof that the
>> Earth is flat which is the main secret the government has been hiding
>> from us until the aliens arrive from the other side.
>
orbiting at the Lagrangian points. The Earth is round. We made it so
12 million years ago.
>However, the conspiracy-nut aspect only arises in those people who think
>the research never stopped and that everybody has an implant in their
>left buttock, which is certainly not something I believe to be the case.
>But the research certainly did occur and is available for your
>verification through Alexander or an FOIA to Los Alamos.
>
The implants exist, but they are organic symbionts. And the new Series
Corona models are implanted as a neural network.
Warm Regards,
Sol-3 Directorate of Research,
Sector HV-003-A-454 Outer Ring,
Galaxy P021-BB7 HQ,
Ministry of Health,
Rumal Empire
--
Arved H. Sandstrom * YISDER
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia * ZOMENIMOR
(at least for now) * ORZIZZAZIZ
best email: asnd...@emerald.bio.dfo.ca * ZANZERIZ ORZIZ
Sue Thing
>Warm Regards,
Do not succumb to this evil Episilon-Eridani propaganda. Our countermeasures
have been in place for years. We mean no harm to your planet.
With Best Wishes,
Ministry of Agriculture for Terra
Sector for Crop Field Designs and Execution
Low Rim Area 9007-ngHT3-47Y
Department of Black Airships
The Pleiades
dba...@nwlink.com
plbu...@indirect.com (Sue Thing) wrote:
>>Warm Regards,
>With Best Wishes,
Boy, it sounds like you highly intelligent people have found a
replacement for comic books in your old age.
Would you be so eager to mock human torture if it was happening to
you?
Listen to yourselves, Aliens?, it sounds like you are affraid of
something. You should be.
I would reccomend turning off the television and do some real study
before you mock something you do not understand. I do not claim to
know exactly how and at what frequency I am being assaulted at. Some
documentation I have found claims UHF and some Microware, I don't
know, but I have been targeted for at least three years now and I
think if it were Microwave, I would have died by now. What I write is
directly relivant to what I have experienced. What else could I really
know?
You have to live with your statements as I do mine.
Colin Campbell
ar...@cs.dal.ca (Arved Sandstrom) wrote:
>>However, the conspiracy-nut aspect only arises in those people who think
>>the research never stopped and that everybody has an implant in their
>>left buttock, which is certainly not something I believe to be the case.
>>But the research certainly did occur and is available for your
>>verification through Alexander or an FOIA to Los Alamos.
>>
>The implants exist, but they are organic symbionts. And the new Series
>Corona models are implanted as a neural network.
Are there any that come with daytimers and autodialers? The guys
putting the implants in psople should consider this, maybe they could
get people to pay them for the status symbol of a "high end" implant.
Mark O'Leary
In article <31F757...@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>What all you ignorant twits don't realize is that the US government
>admits to having done *research* into this area, particularly under the
>auspices of Col. John Alexander at Los Alamos in the "Non-Lethal Weapons
>Research Program". Experiments were conducted to test the effect of
>microwave radiation (and other frequencies) on the human brain in order
>to assess the feasibility of using such technology to disorient the
>enemy.
Could you know explain how this relates to "They're torturing me with voices
in my head that they put there by microwave"?
That it might be reasonable to explore low power microwaves as a means to
incapacitate troops or rioters by inducing headaches or whatever is one
thing. To suggest that one can extrapolate from that research to a
'telepathic communicator' is a simple step is just silly.
I understand the microwave stuff was abadnoned in favour of sonic barrages
tuned to the resonant frequency of the stomach cavity. German riot police
use these. The rioters forget about rioting and start throwing up instead.
M.
--
-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
Network & Communications Group. Email: mol...@dmu.ac.uk
De Montfort University, UK.
Mark O'Leary
>I do not claim to know exactly how and at what frequency I am being
>assaulted at. Some documentation I have found claims UHF and some
>Microware, I don't know, but I have been targeted for at least three years
>now and I think if it were Microwave, I would have died by now. What I
>write is directly relivant to what I have experienced. What else could I
>really know?
Assuming just for a moment that this isnt a troll, then you sound as though
you need urgent medical attention. 'Voices' are a common symptom of
depression, and it could become suicidal or otherwise dangerous to others.
Get some help.
>You have to live with your statements as I do mine.
The way I see it, you have two hypotheses:
1) The govt/world conspiracy is doing this to you. You darent go to the
authorities so you are condemned to be their victim til you die.
2) You might *just* be ill, and that illness might manifest itself in harming
other people if it continues unchecked. You ought to self-refer to at
least be checked out.
Now you cant tell the difference between 1 and 2. However, only (2) contains
the possibility of harm to other innocents, so perhaps you ought to act as
if it were true?
All that said, I think you're a troll.
dba...@nwlink.com
mol...@dmu.ac.uk (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
>In article <31F757...@students.wisc.edu>,
>Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>What all you ignorant twits don't realize is that the US government
>>admits to having done *research* into this area, particularly under the
>>auspices of Col. John Alexander at Los Alamos in the "Non-Lethal Weapons
>>Research Program". Experiments were conducted to test the effect of
>>microwave radiation (and other frequencies) on the human brain in order
>>to assess the feasibility of using such technology to disorient the
>>enemy.
>Could you know explain how this relates to "They're torturing me with voices
>in my head that they put there by microwave"?
I being the victim of your doubt will answer. First, I never claimed
the frequency being used was microwave. You have picked that up
yourself.
>That it might be reasonable to explore low power microwaves as a means to
>incapacitate troops or rioters by inducing headaches or whatever is one
>thing. To suggest that one can extrapolate from that research to a
>'telepathic communicator' is a simple step is just silly.
I have been tortured by synthetic and real sounding voices since 1/93
while working for a DOD contractor, long before you heard of the
government non-lethal weapons bullshit. Do you actually think you are
going to hear the truth about the latest defense technology from the
media? I am speaking here as a victim, I know what is being done to
me, not exactly how or why. But I am just another voice in the lunacy,
so why beieve me.
>I understand the microwave stuff was abadnoned in favour of sonic barrages
>tuned to the resonant frequency of the stomach cavity. German riot police
>use these. The rioters forget about rioting and start throwing up instead.
Maybe true but that has nothing to do with what is affecting me. I am
not speaking of a hand held device like a gun.
>M.
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
>Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
>Network & Communications Group. Email: mol...@dmu.ac.uk
>De Montfort University, UK.
Who will be proven right in the long term. After I'm dead maybe
someone will remember, after the truth is leaked and denied thirty
years from now.
Try convincing someone of a unbelievable fact that is absolutly known
by you, have fun.
Colin Campbell
dba...@nwlink.com wrote:
>I have been tortured by synthetic and real sounding voices since 1/93
>while working for a DOD contractor, long before you heard of the
>government non-lethal weapons bullshit. Do you actually think you are
>going to hear the truth about the latest defense technology from the
>media? I am speaking here as a victim, I know what is being done to
>me, not exactly how or why. But I am just another voice in the lunacy,
>so why beieve me.
Look at it from our point of view. Which is more likely to be true?
1) that the government has developed a secret weapon and is
endangering its secrecy by using it on you for no apparent reason; or
2) that you need professional help.
>
>Try convincing someone of a unbelievable fact that is absolutly known
>by you, have fun.
If it were me in this situation I would begin to consider the
possibility that I am wrong.
Scott Barrett
dba...@nwlink.com wrote:
: mol...@dmu.ac.uk (Mark O'Leary) wrote:
: >In article <31F757...@students.wisc.edu>,
: >Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
: >>What all you ignorant twits don't realize is that the US government
: >>admits to having done *research* into this area, particularly under the
: >>auspices of Col. John Alexander at Los Alamos in the "Non-Lethal Weapons
: >>Research Program". Experiments were conducted to test the effect of
: >>microwave radiation (and other frequencies) on the human brain in order
: >>to assess the feasibility of using such technology to disorient the
: >>enemy.
: >Could you know explain how this relates to "They're torturing me with voices
: >in my head that they put there by microwave"?
: I being the victim of your doubt will answer. First, I never claimed
: the frequency being used was microwave. You have picked that up
: yourself.
: >That it might be reasonable to explore low power microwaves as a means to
: >incapacitate troops or rioters by inducing headaches or whatever is one
: >thing. To suggest that one can extrapolate from that research to a
: >'telepathic communicator' is a simple step is just silly.
: I have been tortured by synthetic and real sounding voices since 1/93
: while working for a DOD contractor, long before you heard of the
: government non-lethal weapons bullshit. Do you actually think you are
: going to hear the truth about the latest defense technology from the
: media? I am speaking here as a victim, I know what is being done to
: me, not exactly how or why. But I am just another voice in the lunacy,
: so why beieve me.
: >I understand the microwave stuff was abadnoned in favour of sonic barrages
: >tuned to the resonant frequency of the stomach cavity. German riot police
: >use these. The rioters forget about rioting and start throwing up instead.
: Maybe true but that has nothing to do with what is affecting me. I am
: not speaking of a hand held device like a gun.
: >M.
: >--
: >-=-=-=-=-=- -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -- . -.-. --- --- ... .-.-.- -=-=-=-=-
: >Mark O'Leary, Voice: Extn. 6201
: >Network & Communications Group. Email: mol...@dmu.ac.uk
: >De Montfort University, UK.
: Who will be proven right in the long term. After I'm dead maybe
: someone will remember, after the truth is leaked and denied thirty
: years from now.
: Try convincing someone of a unbelievable fact that is absolutly known
: by you, have fun.
Sorry but I feel the need to jump in here...
Just in case you don't know, one of the textbook symptoms of schizo-
phrenia is the sensation that thoughts are being "broadcast" into
one's mind. People in the early stages of schizophrenia suffer from
increasing anxiety and fear from this sensation for quite some time,
until they develop a delusion to "explain" these frightening sensations.
Almost invariably this delusion centres around some "thought machine"
which is broadcasting thoughts into the "victim". While this may sound
totally irrational, the logical gaps cannot be seen by the schizophrenic
who has a limited ability to perform linear logic. The delusion also
serves as a source of great relief, since the person now has an
"explanation" for the strange perceptions he is suffering from. Of
course, these two factors combine to make it virtually impossible
to convince the schizophrenic that the delusion is false.
Sir... does any of this sound familiar? I don't want to antagonize
you, but just for a moment I want you to consider the possibility
that what you are experiencing is not real.
If you were to seek medical help, I think you would find that the
frightening voices you hear could be controlled.
Just a suggestion.
-Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
dba...@nwlink.com
sbar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Scott Barrett) wrote:
Thank you Sir
Here it is, The all conclusive, widely accepted, Psychiatric manifesto
for one who hears voices. This factor makes it virtually impossible to
convince anyone of other possibillities.
>Just in case you don't know, one of the textbook symptoms of schizo-
>phrenia is the sensation that thoughts are being "broadcast" into
>one's mind. People in the early stages of schizophrenia suffer from
>increasing anxiety and fear from this sensation for quite some time,
>until they develop a delusion to "explain" these frightening sensations.
>Almost invariably this delusion centres around some "thought machine"
>which is broadcasting thoughts into the "victim". While this may sound
>totally irrational, the logical gaps cannot be seen by the schizophrenic
>who has a limited ability to perform linear logic. The delusion also
>serves as a source of great relief, since the person now has an
>"explanation" for the strange perceptions he is suffering from. Of
>course, these two factors combine to make it virtually impossible
>to convince the schizophrenic that the delusion is false.
You would have to experience what I and others are being exposed to to
believe it. I am not saying that everyone who hears voices is a mind
control victim. In fact the statement "hearing voices" in my case is
not correct. I am being conversed with mentally. I am not paranoid
that I am in mental contact with a group of experimentors. It is an
absolute fact. This is not a fun experience because their main goal
seems to be to harrass me mentally, disturb my private thinking, and
follow their cue.
And wow, I wonder just how long that definition has been in the
textbooks? Possiblly since the late 50's when Delgado first introduced
this technology?
The question you need to consider is whether you want to condem
everyone claiming to be a victim of the covert synthetic telepathy to
the schizophrenic box when the claims are documented. Lawsuits have
been filed, research into DOD secret technology has been done, Books
have been written about the subject, and least of all, I am sitting
here most likely wasting my time telling you people it is real,
painfully real, I know it first hand and I have nothing to gain here
except to hopefuly exopse the truth. If enough victims do this maybe
an investigation will be done and maybe I will gain the full rights to
my mind again. Is there reasonable dout here?
Dr. Jim Stevenson
What would solve this puzzle is if anyone could modify a Radar detector etc
to demodulate these voices. Until then, the theory of schizophrenia must be
high on the list of possible explinations.
Signature Memetic Virus
The worst enemy of those who now or will need medical care is the politician
who proscribes what doctors are allowed to prescribe and research,
with the consent of their patients.
Those who understand this are strongly encouraged to modify this to
fit their personality, and add this to their signature file, and
organize to recover our freedom from Big Brother.
For those who wait until they are sick, it will be too late.
Those who suffer from diseases which might have been cured by fetal tissue
research or schedule 1 drugs banned by Big Brother have the right to
hold those accountable who sat on their hands while they remained ill.
Mark S. Bilk
>sbar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Scott Barrett) wrote:
>>Just in case you don't know, one of the textbook symptoms of schizo-
>>phrenia is the sensation that thoughts are being "broadcast" into
>>one's mind.
>You would have to experience what I and others are being exposed to to
>believe it. I am not saying that everyone who hears voices is a mind
>control victim. In fact the statement "hearing voices" in my case is
>not correct. I am being conversed with mentally.
Modulated microwaves can make you hear things, but there
is no way (except real psychic telepathy) to "read" your
thoughts. If you don't speak them (even subvocally), then
no one can tell what you are thinking.
>I am not paranoid
>that I am in mental contact with a group of experimentors. It is an
>absolute fact. This is not a fun experience because their main goal
>seems to be to harrass me mentally, disturb my private thinking, and
>follow their cue.
There are some simple experiments you can do to differentiate
between microwave-induced sounds and normal hallucinations.
Microwaves can't penetrate aluminum foil. Wrap your head
completely, down to your shoulders, in a couple of layers of
heavy ("oven" grade) foil (don't block your access to air!) for a
couple of minutes. Or place a large galvanized steel bucket over
your head. Or drive down into an underground parking garage (and
make sure you're not followed by someone who could be carrying a
transmitter). All of these procedures will stop, or at least
greatly lessen, any microwave bombardment. If the "voices"
remain, they must be of either psychic or psychological origin.
Note that if you hear the voices clearly, but other people in
the room with you don't (as they walk around you to intercept
any radio beams), then either you've been implanted with a
sensitive receiver of some kind, or the voices aren't being
caused by microwaves, because other people's brains (or inner
ears, etc.) would receive the signals and hear the voices just
as well as yours.
Conversely, you might also try taking 25 to 50 mg. of Thorazine,
or an appropriate dose of some other anti-psychotic drug (under
medical supervision, of course), in such a way that nobody knows
when you've taken it. If the voices go away, they're probably
coming from your own mind.
>The question you need to consider is whether you want to condem
>everyone claiming to be a victim of the covert synthetic telepathy to
>the schizophrenic box when the claims are documented. Lawsuits have
>been filed, research into DOD secret technology has been done, Books
>have been written about the subject, and least of all, I am sitting
>here most likely wasting my time telling you people it is real,
When a person hears voices in his or her head, it's generally
an attempt at communication by part of their mind that they have
suppressed. We all have full sight and sound hallucinations
when we sleep, and those who remember their dreams frequently
find valuable information in them from parts of themselves
that are normally subconscious.
When the suppression results in intense emotional conflict,
these communications may occur even when the person is awake.
It's not that unusual, and is nothing to be ashamed of.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is stigmatized in Western
culture, rather than recognized as a potential pathway to
personal re-integration.
The book _The Politics of Experience_, by R.D. Laing, gives
a superb presentation of this viewpoint. It is fascinating
and enlightening; I recommend it for everyone.
Peter F. Curran
>>
>>You would have to experience what I and others are being exposed to to
>>believe it. I am not saying that everyone who hears voices is a mind
>>control victim. In fact the statement "hearing voices" in my case is
>>that I am in mental contact with a group of experimentors. It is an
>>absolute fact. This is not a fun experience because their main goal
>>seems to be to harrass me mentally, disturb my private thinking, and
>>follow their cue.
>>
Please try and explain the experimenter's GOAL in harrassing you
mentally. Can you explain why you SPECIFICALLY were chosen to be
attacked in this way? Remember, you can't claim that they are
attacking you because you know about them, because you only know
or learned of them because they were attacking you! I hope you can
understand the reasons why people are so skeptical of your claims, (
primarily because it makes no sense to us.) The ONLY way you can
convince us of the validity of your claims is to seek medical
attention, and if that fails, we would be more open to other
explanations.
Sincerely,
Pete Curran
dba...@nwlink.com
cur...@stu.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran) wrote:
>>>
>>>You would have to experience what I and others are being exposed to to
>>>believe it. I am not saying that everyone who hears voices is a mind
>>>control victim. In fact the statement "hearing voices" in my case is
>>>not correct. I am being conversed with mentally. I am not paranoid
>>>that I am in mental contact with a group of experimentors. It is an
>>>absolute fact. This is not a fun experience because their main goal
>>>seems to be to harrass me mentally, disturb my private thinking, and
>>>follow their cue.
>>>
>Please try and explain the experimenter's GOAL in harrassing you
>mentally. Can you explain why you SPECIFICALLY were chosen to be
>attacked in this way?
How could I possibly know this? Might have something to do with
working for a DOD contractor at the time it started. I had just signed
for a security clearance when it began. Maybe I was considered good
game for some reason. I obviously can't convince you mental giants of
the truth I am experiencing. Good choice by "them".
> Remember, you can't claim that they are
>attacking you because you know about them, because you only know
>or learned of them because they were attacking you!
So basically you are saying "I know you are lying, So make up
something real amusing for me.
> I hope you can understand the reasons why people are so skeptical of your claims, (
>primarily because it makes no sense to us.) The ONLY way you can
>convince us of the validity of your claims is to seek medical
>attention, and if that fails, """we""" would be more open to other
>explanations.
I understand many things and that can be a burden.
As far as medical attention, I have looked into all possibilities of
my situation and have not found an answer to how my situation can
exist, other than covert technology that can not be verified, yet is
documented to produce the exact situation I am experiencing.
Have you read SUCH THINGS ARE KNOWN by Dorthy Burdick? I was sent a
copy of the out of print book in 1995 after a long search for
knowledgable people. Her experiences are very realivant to mine.
And by the way, who are WE, The duped majority?
> Sincerely,
Oh Really
> Pete Curran
Bruce Lewis
I guess now's the time to annnounce my Microwave Mind Control Bet.
I volunteer to be subjected to any microwave device designed to
influence human behavior for a period of one hour. If during that time
the operator of the device can cause me through the operation of the
microwave device to write the letters "CIA" on a piece of paper, I will
present the operator with a crisp $100 bill and will publicly announce
here on Usenet that microwave mind control is a reality. If the operator
cannot force me to write "CIA" on the paper, however, the operator (or
his/her backers) agree to walk for one hour naked down Fifth Avenue in
New York City wearing a placard reading "I am a damned fool" in four
languages.
Bet?
Bruce "B-chan" Lewis
Manhattan Projects Multimedia
**************************
Currently writing and drawing
STAR BLAZERS comics from
Argo Press. Try one, won't you?
**************************
Alan Gindlesperger
I have a question about this whole Microwave mindcontrol theory. If
Microwaves can be used to control a human mind, then wouldn't random
bombardment of microwaves with no direct purpose or function cause a period
of insanity? Think about it, when they are controlled, they alledgedly can
get the reciever to think what the operator wants him to think, but if
microwaves come at a person in all directions, shouldn't the interference
in the brain cause insanity? If this is the case, why is it that everyone
in the world isn't insane? If I'm not mistaken, aren't we pretty much
surrounded my microwaves all the time? They are generated by microwave
ovens, and if I'm not mistaken, they are used to communicate over long
distances (I think).
Oh well...just my $0.02.
Peter F. Curran
In article <4v0vge$j...@texas.nwlink.com>,
dba...@nwlink.com writes:
>cur...@stu.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>You would have to experience what I and others are being exposed to to
>>>>believe it. I am not saying that everyone who hears voices is a mind
>>>>control victim. In fact the statement "hearing voices" in my case is
>>>>not correct. I am being conversed with mentally. I am not paranoid
>>>>that I am in mental contact with a group of experimentors. It is an
>>>>absolute fact. This is not a fun experience because their main goal
>>>>seems to be to harrass me mentally, disturb my private thinking, and
>>>>follow their cue.
>>>>
>
>>Please try and explain the experimenter's GOAL in harrassing you
>>mentally. Can you explain why you SPECIFICALLY were chosen to be
>>attacked in this way?
>
>How could I possibly know this? Might have something to do with
>working for a DOD contractor at the time it started. I had just signed
>for a security clearance when it began. Maybe I was considered good
>game for some reason. I obviously can't convince you mental giants of
>the truth I am experiencing. Good choice by "them".
>
>> Remember, you can't claim that they are
>>attacking you because you know about them, because you only know
>>or learned of them because they were attacking you!
>
>So basically you are saying "I know you are lying, So make up
>something real amusing for me.
>
Actually, I was merely trying to get you to examine your
situation as it appears to "us", (meaning people who are skeptical
of your claims). You are in effect saying that a crime is being
commited against you, and so the usual proofs of a crime should apply.
Since I'm not aware of any means by which the crime against you
could be commited, (and I'm an Electrical Engineering PhD
candidate), I sought to have you back up your claim by demonstrating
motive.
>> I hope you can understand the reasons why people are so skeptical of your claims, (
>>primarily because it makes no sense to us.) The ONLY way you can
>>convince us of the validity of your claims is to seek medical
>>attention, and if that fails, """we""" would be more open to other
>>explanations.
>
>I understand many things and that can be a burden.
>
>As far as medical attention, I have looked into all possibilities of
>my situation and have not found an answer to how my situation can
>exist, other than covert technology that can not be verified, yet is
>documented to produce the exact situation I am experiencing.
>
If you have not yet tried medication then you have not explored all
the mundane explainations for your situation.
>Have you read SUCH THINGS ARE KNOWN by Dorthy Burdick? I was sent a
>copy of the out of print book in 1995 after a long search for
>knowledgable people. Her experiences are very realivant to mine.
>
>And by the way, who are WE, The duped majority?
>
>> Sincerely,
>Oh Really
>> Pete Curran
>
Yes, Sincerely!
I have no reason to bear you malice!
Pete Curran
Dr. Jim Stevenson
There is no good evidence for telepathy or any other psychic non-physical
transfer of thoughts or any other information.
A single dose of an anti-psychotic medication is not enough to suppress
schizophrenic hallucinations.
R D Laing has done much harm by asserting that schizophrenia is not a
disease, and just a normal altered state in response to stress.
See the book Edens Express.
I find it disturbingly curious that to my knowledge, none of the many people
who report being harassed by microwave voices, and who devote their lives
to attempting to convince others that these voices are not schizophrenic
hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
In article <msbDw5...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4ueklt$3...@texas.nwlink.com>, <dba...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>sbar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Scott Barrett) wrote:
>
>>>Just in case you don't know, one of the textbook symptoms of schizo-
>>>phrenia is the sensation that thoughts are being "broadcast" into
>>>one's mind.
>
>>You would have to experience what I and others are being exposed to to
>>believe it. I am not saying that everyone who hears voices is a mind
>>control victim. In fact the statement "hearing voices" in my case is
>>not correct. I am being conversed with mentally.
>
>Modulated microwaves can make you hear things, but there
>is no way (except real psychic telepathy) to "read" your
>thoughts. If you don't speak them (even subvocally), then
>no one can tell what you are thinking.
>
>>I am not paranoid
>>that I am in mental contact with a group of experimentors. It is an
>>absolute fact. This is not a fun experience because their main goal
>>seems to be to harrass me mentally, disturb my private thinking, and
>>follow their cue.
>
b
In article <4v9ee0$c...@shellx.best.com>,
Dr. Jim Stevenson <ji...@best.com> wrote:
>I find it disturbingly curious that to my knowledge, none of the many people
>who report being harassed by microwave voices, and who devote their lives
>to attempting to convince others that these voices are not schizophrenic
>hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
>demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
>
broad set of frequencies. Another technique wouild be to use a spectrum
analyzer with a series of antennaes, the antennaes for different frequencies.
It is not trivial. Then there is the problem of demodulation. I think the
must be AM, as FM is too hard to demodulate. AM demodulation would require
only a diode and capacitor if I remember correctly. People have reported
hearing AM radio from their teeth, with braces or fillings, and the metal
to tooth connection acting as the diode, with the braces acting as an antennae.
Also, frequently, I believe the harrassment is coupled with hidden micophones
in the victims house and/or sophisticated phone surveillance, so any serious
attempt would probably get the voices turned off, because they know you are
doing this.
BlackBeard
In article <01bb8c49$37d926e0$4308...@alang.apk.net>, "Alan
Gindlesperger" <al...@apk.net> wrote:
Well, I know a guy here that got zapped at ear level by quite a bit of
RF energy. He's a looney as a fruitcake and on full disability.
BlackBeard
-. .- -..- --.-
De Profundis
William Mayers
In <4v9uqa$c...@lace.colorado.edu> ba...@euclid.colorado.edu (b) writes:
>
>In article <4v9ee0$c...@shellx.best.com>,
>Dr. Jim Stevenson <ji...@best.com> wrote:
people
>>who report being harassed by microwave voices, and who devote their
lives
>>to attempting to convince others that these voices are not
schizophrenic
>>hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
>>demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
>>
very
>broad set of frequencies. Another technique wouild be to use a
spectrum
>analyzer with a series of antennaes, the antennaes for different
frequencies.
>It is not trivial. Then there is the problem of demodulation. I think
the
>must be AM, as FM is too hard to demodulate. AM demodulation would
require
>only a diode and capacitor if I remember correctly. People have
reported
>hearing AM radio from their teeth, with braces or fillings, and the
metal
>to tooth connection acting as the diode, with the braces acting as an
antennae.
>
>Also, frequently, I believe the harrassment is coupled with hidden
micophones
>in the victims house and/or sophisticated phone surveillance, so any
serious
>attempt would probably get the voices turned off, because they know
you are
>doing this.
>
your brain via microwaves, you need to consider that you may have a
medical problem. Your brain cannot, and I stress CAN NOT, recieve and
demodulate radio signals. (there is ONE documented case of a person
recieving AM broadcasts via dental bridgework - and that person was in
very close physical proximity to a very powerful commercial broadcast
antenna)
In the rare case wherein a person might legitimately have reason to
suspect electronic surveillance of the home, it's real easy to find out
if this is indeed the case: you hire a security expert to come sweep
your dwelling for "bugs", hidden microphones and all. With the latest
technology, the "bugs", if they're there, are detectable even if
they're switched off!
Bill Mayers, aka KG2DI
Ted Yamada
Ted Yamada wrote:
> I've never heard of anyone hearing voices
> (at least not any that didn't already before
> they got here! heh heh <G> ).
>
> But if your brain gets "FRIED"(ie. COOKED) by high power
> stuff, then all bets are off...
>
> Ted (KJ6ZJ)
Here I go, answering my own message again.
I hadn't read the earlier posts to this thread when
I posted this one.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone, this wasn't my
intent. My intent was to keep people from being
paranoid about low power RF.
If your really are hearing voices, get some help quick.
I know people that have gotten their life Real Messed Up!
Ted...
Ted Yamada
William Mayers wrote:
>
> >
> Aw, come on, if you seriously think someone's directing messages into
> your brain via microwaves, you need to consider that you may have a
> medical problem. Your brain cannot, and I stress CAN NOT, recieve and
> demodulate radio signals. (there is ONE documented case of a person
> recieving AM broadcasts via dental bridgework - and that person was in
> very close physical proximity to a very powerful commercial broadcast
> antenna)
> In the rare case wherein a person might legitimately have reason to
> suspect electronic surveillance of the home, it's real easy to find out
> if this is indeed the case: you hire a security expert to come sweep
> your dwelling for "bugs", hidden microphones and all. With the latest
> technology, the "bugs", if they're there, are detectable even if
> they're switched off!
>
> Bill Mayers, aka KG2DI
I have to agree with you Bill.
With all the RF around my place (microwaves included) Home & work,
Harry H Conover
b (ba...@euclid.colorado.edu) wrote:
: In article <4v9ee0$c...@shellx.best.com>,
: Dr. Jim Stevenson <ji...@best.com> wrote:
: >to attempting to convince others that these voices are not schizophrenic
: >hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
: >demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
: I believe that what you would need is a scanner that could pick up a very
: broad set of frequencies. Another technique wouild be to use a spectrum
: analyzer with a series of antennaes, the antennaes for different frequencies.
: It is not trivial. Then there is the problem of demodulation. I think the
: must be AM, as FM is too hard to demodulate. AM demodulation would require
: only a diode and capacitor if I remember correctly. People have reported
: hearing AM radio from their teeth, with braces or fillings, and the metal
: to tooth connection acting as the diode, with the braces acting as an antennae.
:
: Also, frequently, I believe the harrassment is coupled with hidden micophones
: in the victims house and/or sophisticated phone surveillance, so any serious
: attempt would probably get the voices turned off, because they know you are
: doing this.
You are either joking or seriously in need of mental health help.
Harry C.
Gary Broughton
You guys had better stop theorizing about how I'm exercising mind
control through my soon to be patented machinery or I'll turn you all
into chickens!
Wayne Johnson
Gary Broughton <gar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
What a load of bullsh
BRAAWWWWK KLUK KLUK
got DAM
Never mind.
Wayne "I'm impressed - when you going public?" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
(On a Usenet troll): It is said that each person has a
purpose in life. His is to show that things are never perfect.
....DCI
dba...@nwlink.com
ji...@best.com (Dr. Jim Stevenson) wrote:
>There is no good evidence for telepathy or any other psychic non-physical
>transfer of thoughts or any other information.
>A single dose of an anti-psychotic medication is not enough to suppress
>schizophrenic hallucinations.
>R D Laing has done much harm by asserting that schizophrenia is not a
>disease, and just a normal altered state in response to stress.
>See the book Edens Express.
>I find it disturbingly curious that to my knowledge, none of the many people
>who report being harassed by microwave voices, and who devote their lives
>to attempting to convince others that these voices are not schizophrenic
>hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
>demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
I have, I own a 25-1300 scanner and a shortwave, Currently trying to
scrape up money for a broad frequency bug detector. Unfortunately I am
not experienced in radio electronics. Even if I was I doubt I could
detect this technology being used on me. It is beyond what civillians
are aware of. Do you think the DOD is going to release information so
that detectors can be developed for their victims to expose them?
>In article <msbDw5...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <4ueklt$3...@texas.nwlink.com>, <dba...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>>sbar...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Scott Barrett) wrote:
>>
>>>>Just in case you don't know, one of the textbook symptoms of schizo-
>>>>phrenia is the sensation that thoughts are being "broadcast" into
>>>>one's mind.
>>
ETC
What fallowed here was selected paragraphs from many articles with no
explanation that that was what he was doing, making it out of context
and false.
Who is Dr. Jim Stevenson? Why does he send automated requests for
information about people posting in particular headings and then deny
it was automated? I recieved the below once, then several times more
just after posting an artical. All his automated emails are exacly the
same and once only a few minutes after my post (I happened to check my
Email just before and just after posting news). That is what clued me
in, not just a bonehead that dosn't remember who he has mailed
recently.
******************************************************************************
Hi.
If I asked you this before, it was my error. Just tell me. No need to
answer twice.
Interesting and excellent post.
I would like to know more about you.
What is your career?
What else are your greatest interests?
In what city do you work?
I design audio displays for Nasa in northern CA.
This is basic research. They generate sonification of graphs on pc
soundcards.
Thanks.
Jim Stevenson Ph.D
Experimental psychologist & certified master Ericksonian clinical
hypnotherapist.
ji...@best.com
ji...@eos.arc.nasa.gov for work related email only
(415) 604-5720 w a.m. p.s.t
or leave message any time.
ham call
wb6yoy
***************************************************************************
I recieved the fallowing Email after I asked him what software he was
using for automated response by Email to selectecd Newsgroup/Heading.
I questioned him after recieving the above Email for the third time
and only minues after my post that trigered it.
************ My Question *************************
>Hi.
>
>If I asked you this before, it was my error. Just tell me. No need to
>answer twice.
>
>
>
>Interesting and excellent post.
How would you know, you didn't read it?
What kind of software are you using to monitor newsgroups and post
automatically?
************* His response ***************************
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:16:04 -0700
From: "Dr. Jim Stevenson" <ji...@best.com>
To: dba...@mail.nwlink.com
Subject: Re: Microwaves, Radars, etc.
X-UIDL: 3def2aaad58c5b12e21564f5959cc0eb
I did read your post, or I wouldn't have asked you about it.
*********************************************************************
************** I Recieve Another One **************************
>Hi.
>
>If I asked you this before, it was my error. Just tell me. No need to
>answer twice.
>
>
>
>Interesting and excellent post.
>I would like to know more about you.
>
>What is your career?
>What else are your greatest interests?
>
>In what city do you work?
>
>I design audio displays for Nasa in northern CA.
>This is basic research. They generate sonification of graphs on pc soundcards.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Jim Stevenson Ph.D
>Experimental psychologist & certified master Ericksonian clinical hypnotherapist.
>ji...@best.com
>ji...@eos.arc.nasa.gov for work related email only
>(415) 604-5720 w a.m. p.s.t
>or leave message any time.
>
>ham call
>wb6yoy
>
So do I make my point. What software are you using?
********** His Response *****************************************
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 00:22:19 -0700
From: "Dr. Jim Stevenson" <ji...@best.com>
To: dba...@mail.nwlink.com
Subject: Re: isn't awareness to mind control removes it's effects?
X-UIDL: 9fffaa882b20d7d5493c13c014ec3939
I use mastertouch to make the screen talk, rn to read news.
*************************************************************************
He still avoids the automation question.
Why is this guy so interested in discrediting people who are suffering
from symptoms related to Govt Mind Manipulation Weapons?
Dr. Jim Stevenson
If a patient has schizophrenia, it does no good to just post a 1 liner
asserting that he needs help. It may help more to encourage him to test his
voices by physical methods. Tape recorders, or in this case radio
demodulators. Although microwaves do not stimulate the brain in specific
areas, they can produce thermal shock waves in the cochlea which are heard
as voices.
In article <4vdo04$1...@news-central.tiac.net>,
Harry H Conover <con...@tiac.net> wrote:
>b (ba...@euclid.colorado.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4v9ee0$c...@shellx.best.com>,
>: Dr. Jim Stevenson <ji...@best.com> wrote:
>: >I find it disturbingly curious that to my knowledge, none of the many people
>: >who report being harassed by microwave voices, and who devote their lives
>: >to attempting to convince others that these voices are not schizophrenic
>: >hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
>: >demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
b
Dr. Jim Stevenson <ji...@best.com> wrote:
>If a patient has schizophrenia, it does no good to just post a 1 liner
>asserting that he needs help. It may help more to encourage him to test his
>voices by physical methods. Tape recorders, or in this case radio
>demodulators. Although microwaves do not stimulate the brain in specific
>areas, they can produce thermal shock waves in the cochlea which are heard
>as voices.
>
Jim Rogers
Tinfoil would do fine, but you might have to completely wrap your head.
Metal windowscreen material should be about as effective. I suggest the
privacy of your own home.
A complete test would be to sit in a Faraday cage and see if the
voices continue. If they do, it can't be microwave beams. You can find
a Faraday cage at many colleges and schools teaching electronics, plus
many anechoic chambers are fully shielded, too, doubling as Faraday
cages. Any full metal enclosure will suffice; you could, for instance,
sit in a 55-gallon metal barrel with the lid loosely on, with metal
windowscreen grounded to the barrel covering any air holes. You could
make a tent out of aluminum foil, or fully line a discarded
refrigerator box with foil, etc.
Thie is a serious suggestion, by the way.
Jim
webp...@earthlink.net
Re:Dr. Jim - radar detection
No doubt you are right about mental disorders as to the reason for much
of the "voices". From what I know to be a fact, practical mind control
tech. utilizes subliminal/above threshold sound that be delivered to
the ear by telephone, cassettte players. Electromagnetics as described
by Alan Yu is not that useful except for disorienting effects.
Jensb...@delphi.com
ji...@best.com (Dr. Jim Stevenson) writes:
[In reference to a poster who believes a microwave mind machine is
making him hear voices]
> If a patient has schizophrenia, it does no good to just post a 1 liner
> asserting that he needs help. It may help more to encourage him to test his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> voices by physical methods. Tape recorders, or in this case radio
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> demodulators.
You know, I have never heard a psychiatrist say this before. It makes
sense and I am sure you are right, but shrinkery is usually the last
profession to encourage objective tests. Usually the attitude toward a
patient is much more arrogant -- the assumption that the patient will be
uncooperative, the hair-trigger diagnosis(es), the eager collection of
symptomatic evidence, the equally eager dismissal of counterevidence.
The typical attitude is the attitude of a district prosecutor trying to
convict the patient of insanity, as it were.
Which is sad.
William Mayers
from the truth of the matter, I have to question whether you've the
slightest real-life experience from which to draw such a bizzare
conclusion.
Trouble is, if this person is a psychiatrist, he sure ain't an
electronics expert, or even a technician. This, or some other
misinformed character, claimed that microwaves can induce a response in
the human auditory system that can be "heard" as voices. If this were
to be attempted, the power levels to which the subject (victim) would
have to be exposed would kill him long before they reached the level
necessary to produce any physical response that the subject could
"hear". It would cook his brain as surely as if you locked his head
inside a microwave oven and cranked 'er up to "high".
Bill Mayers, RT, RN
Harry H Conover
Jim Rogers (j...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
:
: Tinfoil would do fine, but you might have to completely wrap your head.
: privacy of your own home.
:
: A complete test would be to sit in a Faraday cage and see if the
: voices continue. If they do, it can't be microwave beams. You can find
: a Faraday cage at many colleges and schools teaching electronics, plus
: many anechoic chambers are fully shielded, too, doubling as Faraday
: cages. Any full metal enclosure will suffice; you could, for instance,
: sit in a 55-gallon metal barrel with the lid loosely on, with metal
: windowscreen grounded to the barrel covering any air holes. You could
: make a tent out of aluminum foil, or fully line a discarded
: refrigerator box with foil, etc.
:
: Thie is a serious suggestion, by the way.
Why a discarded refrigerator box (cardboard). A discarded refrigerator
would likely work much better, and would not require the aluminum foil
lining.
Another solution would be to rent a dumpster or international shipping
container (the type that container ships carry). This could be outfitted
in similar comfort to a studio appartment, while at the same time
providing a defense against government mind control and those annoying
electronic mind control technologies utilized by the secret government
agencies.
This is a serious suggestion, by the way.
Harry C.
Jim Galasyn
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Tinfoil would do fine, but you might have to completely wrap your head.
> Metal windowscreen material should be about as effective. I suggest the
> privacy of your own home.
>
> A complete test would be to sit in a Faraday cage and see if the
> voices continue. If they do, it can't be microwave beams.
> ...
> You could make a tent out of aluminum foil, or fully line a discarded
> refrigerator box with foil, etc.
>
> This is a serious suggestion, by the way.
Definitely worth a try, but remember that a Faraday cage will only
shield out quasistatic fields -- for signals rich in high-frequencies,
e.g. impulses or square waves, the field strength inside a conductive
enclosure will generally not be zero. Reports of Frey/Adey-type
devices usually describe low-amplitude *pulsed* microwave carriers.
The possibility exists that a capacitative shield will filter out
such signals: maybe a layer of wax paper sandwiched between two
layers of aluminum foil, making sure the two foil layers do not
touch anywhere.
It may also be worthwhile to rearrange all the conductive objects in
the room. This will change the radiation impedance and perhaps screw
up any carefully computed field densities on which the harassers
may be relying.
Jim Galasyn
Jensb...@delphi.com
h...@ix.netcom.com(William Mayers) writes:
(A bunch of garbage I won't bother repeating)
So if you can't explain away the facts, attack the messenger, huh? Face
facts: Your profession is a scam that preys on the vulnerable.
Dr. Jim Stevenson
There was a book published in the early 70s called
Auditory Effects of Microwaves. Sorry, I don't have it.
It does give all the specs, modulation, frequencies etc.
Thanks.
Jim Stevenson Ph.D
experimental psychologist & certified master Ericksonian clinical hypnotherapist.
ji...@best.com
ji...@eos.arc.nasa.gov for work related email only
(415) 604-5720 w a.m. p.s.t
or leave message any time.
ham call
wb6yoy
When you answer my messages, please save bandwidth, and don't email my
text back to me.
Signature Memetic Virus
The worst enemy of those who now or will need medical care is the politician
who proscribes what doctors are allowed to prescribe and research,
with the consent of their patients.
Those who understand this are strongly encouraged to modify this to
fit their personality, and add this to their signature file, and
organize to recover our freedom from Big Brother.
For those who wait until they are sick, it will be too late.
Those who suffer from diseases which might have been cured by fetal tissue
research or schedule 1 drugs banned by Big Brother have the right to
hold those accountable who sat on their hands while they remained ill.
Long healthy life.
In article <4vl0lt$g...@lace.colorado.edu>, b <ba...@euclid.colorado.edu> wrote:
>Dr. Jim Stevenson <ji...@best.com> wrote:
>>If a patient has schizophrenia, it does no good to just post a 1 liner
>>asserting that he needs help. It may help more to encourage him to test his
>>voices by physical methods. Tape recorders, or in this case radio
Dr. Jim Stevenson
The idea of strong subliminal effects has been debunked.
If you can't hear it, it doesn't effect you. People given the wrong subliminal
tape, respond by what they believe is on the tape. It is called the
placebo effect.
Jim Galasyn
William Mayers wrote:
> Trouble is, if this person is a psychiatrist, he sure ain't an
> electronics expert, or even a technician. This, or some other
> misinformed character, claimed that microwaves can induce a response in
> the human auditory system that can be "heard" as voices. If this were
> to be attempted, the power levels to which the subject (victim) would
> have to be exposed would kill him long before they reached the level
> necessary to produce any physical response that the subject could
> "hear". It would cook his brain as surely as if you locked his head
> inside a microwave oven and cranked 'er up to "high".
>
> Bill Mayers, RT, RN
This turns out not to be the case. The Frey effect has been replicated
in literally hundreds of studies. Auditory perception occurs with
pulsed microwaves at a power density on the order of 100 microW / cm^2.
Jim Galasyn
Jim Rogers
Harry H Conover wrote:
> Jim Rogers (j...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
> :
> : Tinfoil would do fine, but you might have to completely wrap your head.
> : Metal windowscreen material should be about as effective. I suggest the
> : privacy of your own home.
> :
> : A complete test would be to sit in a Faraday cage and see if the
> : a Faraday cage at many colleges and schools teaching electronics, plus
> : many anechoic chambers are fully shielded, too, doubling as Faraday
> : cages. Any full metal enclosure will suffice; you could, for instance,
> : sit in a 55-gallon metal barrel with the lid loosely on, with metal
> : make a tent out of aluminum foil, or fully line a discarded
> : refrigerator box with foil, etc.
> : Thie is a serious suggestion, by the way.
>
> Why a discarded refrigerator box (cardboard). A discarded refrigerator
> would likely work much better, and would not require the aluminum foil
> lining.
A large box is perhaps easier to find, and a little roomier...and
with a refrigerator, you'd want to tear out all the interior
plastic to make sure you haven't left gaping holes in the shield
somewhere.
> Another solution would be to rent a dumpster or international shipping
> container (the type that container ships carry). This could be outfitted
> in similar comfort to a studio appartment, while at the same time
> providing a defense against government mind control and those annoying
> electronic mind control technologies utilized by the secret government
> agencies.
>
> This is a serious suggestion, by the way.
Excellent! But bring metal window screening and watch those gaps.
Jim
Mark S. Bilk
In article <4vjdau$8...@texas.nwlink.com>, <dba...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>ji...@best.com (Dr. Jim Stevenson) wrote:
>>There is no good evidence for telepathy or any other psychic non-physical
>>transfer of thoughts or any other information.
Jim, Russell Targ's remote viewing experiments are very impressive,
and there have been many others, as well. I've had a precognitive
experience myself which stands up well under probability analysis.
Don't accept the CSICOP/skeptic line on this--it is simply dis-
honest; check the literature yourself.
>>I find it disturbingly curious that to my knowledge, none of the many people
>>who report being harassed by microwave voices, and who devote their lives
>>to attempting to convince others that these voices are not schizophrenic
>>hallucinations, has attempted to build or buy electronic equipment to
>>demodulate these asserted microwave signals.
It is *very* much easier and cheaper to use shielding, as I
described in the previous article, to see if it makes the sounds
disappear.
>I have, I own a 25-1300 scanner and a shortwave, Currently trying to
>scrape up money for a broad frequency bug detector. Unfortunately I am
>not experienced in radio electronics. Even if I was I doubt I could
>detect this technology being used on me. It is beyond what civillians
>are aware of. Do you think the DOD is going to release information so
>that detectors can be developed for their victims to expose them?
dbader, did you try the shielding experiments I mentioned?
If not, why not? If so, what were the results? Here is the
information again:
=There are some simple experiments you can do to differentiate
=between microwave-induced sounds and normal hallucinations.
=
=Microwaves can't penetrate aluminum foil. Wrap your head
=completely, down to your shoulders, in a couple of layers of
=heavy ("oven" grade) foil (don't block your access to air!) for a
=couple of minutes. Or place a large galvanized steel bucket over
=your head. Or drive down into an underground parking garage (and
=make sure you're not followed by someone who could be carrying a
=transmitter). All of these procedures will stop, or at least
=greatly lessen, any microwave bombardment. If the "voices"
=remain, they must be of either psychic or psychological origin.
=
=Note that if you hear the voices clearly, but other people in
=the room with you don't (as they walk around you to intercept
=any radio beams), then either you've been implanted with a
=sensitive receiver of some kind, or the voices aren't being
=caused by microwaves, because other people's brains (or inner
=ears, etc.) would receive the signals and hear the voices just
=as well as yours.
Mark S. Bilk
[I wrote previously]
=When a person hears voices in his or her head, it's generally
=an attempt at communication by part of their mind that they have
=suppressed. We all have full sight and sound hallucinations
=when we sleep, and those who remember their dreams frequently
=find valuable information in them from parts of themselves
=that are normally subconscious.
=
=When the suppression results in intense emotional conflict,
=these communications may occur even when the person is awake.
=It's not that unusual, and is nothing to be ashamed of.
=Unfortunately, this phenomenon is stigmatized in Western
=culture, rather than recognized as a potential pathway to
=personal re-integration.
=
=The book _The Politics of Experience_, by R.D. Laing, gives
=a superb presentation of this viewpoint. It is fascinating
=and enlightening; I recommend it for everyone.
>>R D Laing has done much harm by asserting that schizophrenia is not a
>>disease, and just a normal altered state in response to stress.
And psychiatrists have done much harm by insisting that all
schizophrenia is of organic origin. I know of someone who was
kept in a VA mental hospital on and off for eleven years with a
diagnosis of "schizophrenia due to chemical imbalance of the
brain", because he went to them for help with depression due to
actual problems in his life, and happened to tell them about the
*one* audio hallucination he had had (lasting a few seconds).
The more anti-psychotic drugs they gave him, the more they turned
him into a staggering, drooling, frightened, helpless vegetable.
He was drugged up and warehoused because it was much *cheaper*
than counselling him about his problems and helping him learn
how to cope.
On the urging of various people, he finally got out of there and
is now on only a very tiny dose of drug, and tapering off of that.
And, strangely enough, he is no longer diagnosed as being schizo-
phrenic. His "chemical imbalance", previously said to be due to
(permanent) genetic organic causes and not to problems in his
life, has now mysteriously disappeared.
In fact, it never existed.
Schizophrenia is sometimes caused by emotional conflict and
sometimes by organic disease; I don't know which is more common.
However, if it is a priori considered to be a physical disease,
then the therapist (if there even is one) won't even try to
investigate emotional problems that might be the cause.
If this is a misdiagnosis, it can destroy a person's life--not
only aren't they helped with their problems, they are told that
their brain is malfunctioning and will continue to do so for the
rest of their life. This makes them extremely unsure of them-
selves, and fills them with fear (since most people believe what
authority figures tell them). These emotions are then treated by
increasing the drug dosage, which renders them less capable of
understanding or doing *anything* (except lying or sitting still
all day). If the dosage is high enough and maintained long
enough, permanent neural damage--tardive dyskinesia--can result.
Harry H Conover
Jim Galasyn (blac...@bbox.com) wrote:
:
: This turns out not to be the case. The Frey effect has been replicated
: in literally hundreds of studies. Auditory perception occurs with
: pulsed microwaves at a power density on the order of 100 microW / cm^2.
In that case, I should hear a distinct audio tone each time I drive
by the Newark Airport, who radar antenna is immediately adjacient to
the New Jersey Turnpike.
Oddly, even while bathed in multi-kilowatt radar pulses repeated at
audio frequencies, I hear nothing. I've never heard a report of anyone
else hearing anything either.
What do you make of this, who is Frey, and how about a few citations
from these hundreds of studies?
For whatever it's worth, I'm just a person that worked with microwaves,
radar, and high powered r.f. at Raytheon for over 12 years, and have never
heard of or experienced such an effect. I've worked at Raytheon facilities
at Sudbury, Wayland, Marlboro and Waltham Massachusetts producting radars
on C, L, X band, and other, with pulse powers up to a megawatt (with
repetition rates generally in the 1-Khz range, but have never encountered
even one person that could detect if the radar transmitter was on or
off, except by the flashing warning lights that accompany it.
Sorry guy, you're talking folklore and urban legend, not fact.
Harry C.
Harry C.
Jim Bowery
If psychiatry were subjected to the same standards of scientific rigor
and ethics of more physical branches of medicine, one could begin to
argue for their being accepted in courts of law as expert witnesses, as
recipients of insurance benefits and one might even have a basis upon
which to discuss their recommendations for prior restraint of some
individuals.
However, the history of abuse of human rights of tens of millions of
people, including shock treatments and forced surgical brain damage,
renders any appeal for continued acceptance of this "profession" as
ridiculous as the acceptance of Nazi holocaust revisionism.
--
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
Change the tools and you change the rules.
Mark S. Bilk
In article <jaboweryD...@netcom.com>, Jim Bowery <jabo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>If psychiatry were subjected to the same standards of scientific rigor
>and ethics of more physical branches of medicine, one could begin to
>argue for their being accepted in courts of law as expert witnesses, as
>recipients of insurance benefits and one might even have a basis upon
>which to discuss their recommendations for prior restraint of some
>individuals.
>
>However, the history of abuse of human rights of tens of millions of
>people, including shock treatments and forced surgical brain damage,
>renders any appeal for continued acceptance of this "profession" as
>ridiculous as the acceptance of Nazi holocaust revisionism.
What I know is ridiculous, Bowery, is your endlessly repeated
claim that Jews are destroying the White Aryan European Race.
(Several megabytes of unsorted Bowery crapola to that effect
are available upon request. It serves as an example of an
extremely elaborate paranoid delusional system.)
Dave Morgan
I was stricken by the following statement in your post....
> I've had a precognitive experience myself which stands up well under > probability analysis.
Care to elaborate??
Dave Morgan
Dick Pack/Helen S. Waite
There was a case a long time ago, of a woman who heard voices in her
head, but knew that they were not "real" and did not believe that they
were gods or demons talking to her. As you can imagine, this interested
her psychiatrist greatly; seeing as she wasn't your typical nutcake.
I believe there is a name for this condition, and that it is
extremely rare, so whoever says that they hear 'voices',do not despair.
You are not crazy.
The difficult part is determining whether your condition is this
rare, well, condition; or externally induced. Also to answer the question
of why detect the voices instead of shield yourself against them: 1. you
can't walk around with a barrel over your head all day, and 2. if you
figure out their frequency, you can trace them with a radio direction
finder and find who the slime is behind this operation.
Nik
Patty Blass
jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> If psychiatry were subjected to the same standards of scientific rigor
> and ethics of more physical branches of medicine, one could begin to
> argue for their being accepted in courts of law as expert witnesses, as
> recipients of insurance benefits and one might even have a basis upon
> which to discuss their recommendations for prior restraint of some
> individuals.
>
> However, the history of abuse of human rights of tens of millions of
> people, including shock treatments and forced surgical brain damage,
> renders any appeal for continued acceptance of this "profession" as
> ridiculous as the acceptance of Nazi holocaust revisionism.
Absolutely. Bullseye. I agree with every word you said.
And you deserved a better response than that creature that responded
with holocaust-revisionist innuendo.
Mark S. Bilk
If I'm the creature you are referring to, let me clarify what
I meant. For years, Jim Bowery has been posting articles
claiming that Jews are purposely causing the extinction of the
White Aryan European race. He has developed complex pseudo-
scientific rationalizations for this claim, which others have
debunked. If you are unfamiliar with Bowery's Nazi philosophy,
which he uses to justify the holocaust, just say the word and
I'll e-mail you my collection of his posts and essays; it is
a couple of mega-bytes in length, and is easiest sent as
uuencoded zip files (if you can deal with that format).
Mark S. Bilk
A couple of years ago, I was driving along a highway in the
afternoon, and a picture suddenly came into my mind: an
ICBM re-entering the atmosphere (seen through the wind-
shield), me ducking under the dashboard (to be shadowed
from the radiation to come), and the sky lighting up with a
brilliant H-bomb explosion at high altitude.
I had not been thinking about any such thing, or anything
related to it. Foolishly or not, I haven't worried about
nuclear war for at least a decade.
About an hour later, after completing my shopping errand,
I was driving back along the same highway, and was about
a mile from the place where I'd had the vision.
Suddenly the sky lit up, as if a huge flashbulb had fired!
There was no light source visible, until I lowered my head
to see under the top frame of the windshield. I looked up,
and saw a *very* bright bolide leaving a brilliant white
incandescent trail in the atmosphere. The trail was nearly
horizontal, self-luminous (not an afterimage, as I verified
by briefly shifting my vision to a point some distance away),
and was on the order of 1/4 of a moon diameter wide, and
several moon diameters long when it stopped growing. It
continued to glow for a couple of seconds, and then became
(if I remember correctly) a faint black smoke trail.
As I think about it now, it's possible that what I saw was
not a bolide, but rather some military experiment. For the
dark "smoke trail" to be visible afterwards, there would
have to be luminous sky, i.e., atmosphere, behind and above
it, which makes me wonder why the trail didn't start until
after the bolide traveled through that much air. But maybe
it took that long for it to heat up sufficiently, or for
an inner layer of material to be exposed and volatilized,
creating the bright glow.
I have seen only one other bolide in my life, years before,
at night, nowhere near as bright, green in color, and it
did not leave a self-luminous trail.
Probability analysis:
There are two series of events, A and B, that occur with an
average frequency of Fa and Fb per year, respectively.
What is the probability per year that an A event and a B
event will occur within time t of each other (t is measured
in years and is much less than 1).
For any single A event, randomly situated within one year,
what is the probability of its occurring within time t of
any single B event randomly situated within the year?
Clearly it is simply t (including dimensions, t yr./1 yr.).
So the aggregate probability that *any* of the Fa A events
in the year will be within time t of any of the Fb B events
is Fa * Fb * t.
A is having a vision of the sky lighting up, B is seeing a
bolide (or other cause of an unusual flash), and t the
interval between.
Fa is less than 1 per year. In fact, it is much less
frequent than this because the vision was unusually clear
and intense, and had a very distinct and unusual feeling
of being meaningful and important, which my usual visual
imagery lacks. Also, this particular vision was very
similar to the actual occurrence that followed it so
closely, so Fa is probably closer to 1/50 (I'm 50 years
old). But I'll be skeptical and leave Fa as 1 per year.
Fb is 1/25 per year--two bolides in my lifetime. (Elec-
trical storms don't count--I see them with visible light-
ning where I live only every few years, and there was no
lightning in the vision, while there *was* a flash from an
object coming in from space).
t is 1 hour = 1/24 * 1/365 year.
The probability per year of the conjuction of A and B by
random chance within time t is then 1/25 * 1/24 * 1/365 or
1 in 219,000.
Now, probabilities and statistics are not my field, so I
welcome criticism of this analysis. However, I would ask
axe-grinding PSI-COPs who "know" (with fundamentalist
fervor) that ESP is impossible, to please spare me their
rhetoric on that point.
Darren Garrison
m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>Garrison then formulates an unlikely way that precognition
>could work within our current knowledge of physics and
>brain/sensory functioning.
There is nothing "unlikely" about it. Like it or not, if you want to
have some kind of "precognition" of the future, you need, yes NEED
some sort of signials traveling back in time to your mind, carried by
some sort of particles over some sort of medium, and some sort of
physical mechanism within the mind to regester and intrepret those
signals. If you do not wish to accept that, maybe you should edit the
sci newsgroups from your headers and stick with the non-science and
nut groups who are more tolerant to drivel.
>
>[snippity doodah]
>
>> You can either try to come up with a framework within all of
>>this can happen, or shrug it off as a coincidence. You can do the
>>former if you like, but, personally, I'd take the latter.
>
>No doubt.
>
>I'll choose a third course--I will accept the evidence of
>my own mind and senses (and probability calculations), even
>though I don't have any way of explaining what happened.
>
>
Robert Link
Actually, there is an important point you missed in your analysis.
You must take into account the number of times the experiment was
performed, and the number of successes obtained. That is, how many
people saw the event but had no precognitive impulse whatsoever? Or,
equivalently, how many important events have happened for which you
had no precognitive impulse? (Or, to add another, how many
``precognitive'' impulses turn out not to correspond to anything in
reality?)
Taking your estimate of the probability for a single success as given,
the probability for a single failure is 218,000/219,000. The
probability of 0 successes in 1000 trials is then
(218,000/219,000)^1000, or about 0.01. Thus, the probability of at
least one success is about 99%. I think it not unreasonable that 1000
people might have seen an event such as you describe, and so, it
seems, using your numbers, a near certainty that someone would have an
experience like you describe.
--
-r | 'Cause I'm livin' on things that excite me
| Be they pastry or lobster or love
| I'm just trying to get by being quiet and shy
| In a world full of pushin' and shove.
Joel Nikoleit
m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>The probability per year of the conjuction of A and B by
>random chance within time t is then 1/25 * 1/24 * 1/365 or
>1 in 219,000.
This may seem like a good argument that your experience was not just a
coincidence, but it really is an argument for the opposite. In 1990
(the latest figures that I have) there were 248,000,000 residents in
the U.S. that means that if your figures were right 1,130 people per
year have an experience similar to yours. The medium age of the
population was 33. Therefore 37,290 people or one person in every
6,700 persons in the U.S. in 1990 have had similar experiences.
That's better odds then for getting struck by lighting.
Darren Garrison
m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <3222CA...@physics.wm.edu>, Dave Morgan <mor...@physics.wm.edu> wrote:
>>I was stricken by the following statement in your post....
>>
>>> I've had a precognitive experience myself which stands up
>>> well under probability analysis.
>>
>>Care to elaborate??
>
<snip>
>
>Now, probabilities and statistics are not my field, so I
>welcome criticism of this analysis. However, I would ask
>axe-grinding PSI-COPs who "know" (with fundamentalist
>fervor) that ESP is impossible, to please spare me their
>rhetoric on that point.
>
>
Okay, I won't give you rhetoric, but I will give you a
quick-n-dirty course on some of the things that we know about the
human mind and perceptions. First off, what is the brain constructed
of? Answer; the main components of the brain are neurons, where
actual "computations" take place, and support and structual cells.
Now, these "computer" cells, called neurons, communicate with each
other by both chemical and electrical means; when one neuron is
stimulated, it sets off a depolarization along the long body of the
neuron, which in turn causes the release of more chemical stimulants
at the end of that neuron, where these chemicals diffuse across the
gap between that neuron and the next neuron or neurons, continuing the
series of reactions. All sensory imputs are propagated by that
combination of chemical and electrical impulses (and the electrical
ones are really chemical, too, so I'm being redundant here.) Sight?
Photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by protiens in the cones
and rods of the eye that are specially tuned for those particular
wavelengths. The absorbed photon causes an electron or electrons to
be kicked up in a higher orbital in an atom of that molicule, causing
a change in conformation of that molicule, causing a chemical signal
to be sent back to the brain that light of that particular wavelength
was sensed, where specific reigons of the brain assign it with the
abstract, interpretive concept of COLOR. Hearing? Breifly, pressure
waves, after a few steps, cause vibrations to cillia on specialized
cells, which send chemical messages to the brain where specific
reigons of the brain assign it with the abstract, interpretive concept
of SOUND. Taste? Touch? Smell? All have some type of physical,
chemical mechanim by which the inputs are recorded by the body, and
all are processed in specialized, specific areas of the brain.
Okay, let's go on to more abstract products of the mind, like
language, reading writing. Extensive studies of people with specific
reigons of the brain damaged in accidents show that the brain is very
specialized in how it processes things. Not only are there different
reigons of the brain used for written and for spoken expression, but
there are also seperate reigons of the brain for nouns vs. verbs, even
seperate reigons of the brain for vowels vs. consants. Damage one
area of the brain, and you are severely impaired in the ability to do
the task that that reigon controlled. Cause a misbalance in the
chemicals of the brain, and your abilities to think and to feel and to
remember are severely damaged.
My point? The processes of the brain are inextricably linked
to the physical structure of it's neural network and to it's chemical
signals. There is no non-anecdotal evidence that there is any
component of "mind" that exists seperate from "brain."
As for precognition, in all other sensory inputs I meantioned,
each had a very specific input point, and each was recieved and
processed by very specific reigons of the physical brain.
Precognition dosn't fit that model. First, you would have to have
some way to violate causality; having the effect before the cause (and
foreknowledge IS an effect.) THEN, you would have to invoke some type
of particle moving against the general arrow of time, AND you would
have to have some type of physical sensory reigons somewhere in the
body (made of normal matter and normal organic compunds) that capture
these time traveling particles (which have never been captured in any
way in elaborite atom smashers built specificly for the purpose of
finding exotic particles.) THEN, you would have to have some way to
collect the data from these particles and turn it into a real "signal"
that can be intrepreted by the brain.
A few question to ponder on those theoretical signals.
1.) What is the travel time of these particles. Specificly, how far
back in time can they travel, and how would the brain diffrentreate
between particles, say, from 1 day in the future, and those from 1
minute, and one year, and one hour?
2.) How would these particles propigate in such a way that, if the
brain COULD sort them according to temporal displacement, it could
also sort them for spacial displacement so that it appears in the
mind's eye to be from a stero-optical source, indistinguishable from
those produced by your eyes.
3.) How do these carrier particles differ to allow the brain to
interpret color? And in the cases of other people's precognitive
claims, how do they allow for the intrepretation of sound? Smell?
Touch? Taste? How do these senses effect the atoms around them in
such a way as to send particles shooting backwards in time?
Patrick Juola
In article <501uv4$n...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu> li...@enif.astro.indiana.edu (Robert Link) writes:
>m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>
>>random chance within time t is then 1/25 * 1/24 * 1/365 or
>>1 in 219,000.
>
>You must take into account the number of times the experiment was
>performed, and the number of successes obtained. That is, how many
>people saw the event but had no precognitive impulse whatsoever? Or,
>equivalently, how many important events have happened for which you
>had no precognitive impulse? (Or, to add another, how many
>``precognitive'' impulses turn out not to correspond to anything in
>reality?)
>
>Taking your estimate of the probability for a single success as given,
>the probability for a single failure is 218,000/219,000. The
>probability of 0 successes in 1000 trials is then
>(218,000/219,000)^1000, or about 0.01. Thus, the probability of at
>least one success is about 99%. I think it not unreasonable that 1000
>people might have seen an event such as you describe, and so, it
>seems, using your numbers, a near certainty that someone would have an
>experience like you describe.
Where did you get 218,000/219,000? If the chances for success are
reciprocal 219,000, then the chances for failure are 218,999/219K.
In any case, it still gets common fast. On the trust TI-30, the
revised probability for zero successes in ten thousand trials (the
population of a small midwestern town) is just under .96. The
probability of zero successes in a hundred thousand trials is just
over .63. So, using your analysis, there's probably someone in Boise
ID right now who has had that experience, just from chance.
Patrick
Mark S. Bilk
In article <3223e819....@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
>m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>>> I've had a precognitive experience myself which stands up
>>>> well under probability analysis.
>>Now, probabilities and statistics are not my field, so I
>>welcome criticism of this analysis. However, I would ask
>>axe-grinding PSI-COPs who "know" (with fundamentalist
>>fervor) that ESP is impossible, to please spare me their
>>rhetoric on that point.
Totally ignoring my request, as well as the story of my
experience, Mr. Garrison summarizes some of the current
understanding of how our brain and sensory organs work
(which, thank you, I already knew).
[Snip, except for:]
>seperate reigons of the brain for vowels vs. consants.
Resisting a mighty temptation, I will just say that there
is also evidence for distributed, "holographic" storage in
the brain.
> My point? The processes of the brain are inextricably linked
>to the physical structure of it's neural network and to it's chemical
>signals. There is no non-anecdotal evidence that there is any
>component of "mind" that exists seperate from "brain."
There's no non-anecdotal evidence that I'm sitting here
right now, either. So?
Actually, there *is* non-anecdotal (systematic experimental)
evidence for ESP, such as Targ's remote viewing experiments
(and lots of others).
But true-believer PSI-COPs *know* that there must have been
something wrong with all those experiments (and all the
anecdotal reports) because they *know* that ESP is impossible.
Some of them also *know* that Oswald killed JFK and acted
alone (I'm not kidding, folks). In science, this is called
changing (or ignoring) the data to fit the theory.
Garrison then formulates an unlikely way that precognition
could work within our current knowledge of physics and
brain/sensory functioning.
[snippity doodah]
> You can either try to come up with a framework within all of
>this can happen, or shrug it off as a coincidence. You can do the
>former if you like, but, personally, I'd take the latter.
No doubt.
Lawrence Foard
Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
> In article <32247b09...@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
> >m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
> >
> >>could work within our current knowledge of physics and
> >>brain/sensory functioning.
> >
> >have some kind of "precognition" of the future, you need, yes NEED
> >some sort of signials traveling back in time to your mind, carried by
> >some sort of particles over some sort of medium, and some sort of
>
> "Don't talk to me--I don't want to know about those things!"
>
> Here is an example of real drivel:
>
> 1) Assume that everything of major importance in physics
> and neuro-biology has already been discovered.
No one assumes this.
> 2) Ignore, discard, or ridicule any data that is difficult
> to explain within the framework of that current knowledge.
Give an example of some convincing evidence for PSI? Real evidence
stands up to skeptical analysis, so far all evidence for PSI crumbles
when it is put to the test. When it doesn't crumble at the lightest
challenge then people will be interested.
Look at the Martian Meteor, it is far from conclusive, but unlike
alien abductions, etc. its some real evidence that can really be
put to the test. Maybe it will turn out to be real, maybe an
accident, but unlike PSI/UFO people the scientists arn't hiding
from the skeptics, they are inviting them.
False hood is destroyed by skepticism, Truth is only made stronger.
Patty Blass
m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) writes:
> I meant. For years, Jim Bowery has been posting articles
> claiming that Jews are purposely causing the extinction of the
> White Aryan European race. He has developed complex pseudo-
> scientific rationalizations for this claim, which others have
Why would he say "as ridiculous as the acceptance of Nazi holocaust
revisionism." if he were a revisionist?
> debunked. If you are unfamiliar with Bowery's Nazi philosophy,
> which he uses to justify the holocaust, just say the word and
> I'll e-mail you my collection of his posts and essays; it is
> a couple of mega-bytes in length, and is easiest sent as
> uuencoded zip files (if you can deal with that format).
I'll save you the trouble and try DejaNews.
Matt McIrvin
In article <4vvbsa$l...@news.dmv.com>, "Dick Pack/Helen S. Waite"
<gri...@dmv.com> wrote:
> There was a case a long time ago, of a woman who heard voices in her
> head, but knew that they were not "real" and did not believe that they
> were gods or demons talking to her. As you can imagine, this interested
> her psychiatrist greatly; seeing as she wasn't your typical nutcake.
Some psychologists make a distinction between "true hallucinations," which
the subject believes are real, and "pseudo-hallucinations," which the
subject perceives but knows are not real.
> I believe there is a name for this condition, and that it is
> extremely rare, so whoever says that they hear 'voices',do not despair.
> You are not crazy.
> The difficult part is determining whether your condition is this
> rare, well, condition; or externally induced. Also to answer the question
> of why detect the voices instead of shield yourself against them: 1. you
> can't walk around with a barrel over your head all day, and 2. if you
> figure out their frequency, you can trace them with a radio direction
> finder and find who the slime is behind this operation.
Even if the voices are due to some external agency, it might not be
deliberate! As hard as it is to believe, there seem to be well-documented
cases of people audibly picking up AM radio signals with tooth fillings
(I think this is mentioned in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ; people there
have found the references).
--
Matt McIrvin <http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/>
Jim Bowery
Mark S. Bilk (m...@netcom.com) wrote:
: (Several megabytes of unsorted Bowery crapola to that effect
: are available upon request. It serves as an example of an
: extremely elaborate paranoid delusional system.)
By the way, for a good example of "paranoid delusional systems" at work,
one might consider the way people have become so obsessed with certain of
my ideas that they can't see my name in print without going ballistic --
regardless of the topic of conversation. This is classic obsessive behavior.
Continually casting me as part of some "Nazi", claiming I am attending
secret meetings of "Nazis" and the like is classic paranoid behavior.
They go around collecting megabytes of my writings despite the fact that I
am a lone individual with no organizational backing. They persist in
hallucinating things I did not say nor intend to say such as Bilk's
claim about "Aryans".
There are quite a number of such sick people around collecting my prose.
I think it has something to do with the fact that I am breaking pervasive
cultural taboos against certain vital truths, the denial of which has
caused a traumatic split in many an person's personality structure. This
split, when disturbed by my writings, is emotionally painful to many
people, and they seek to preserve their rather fragile world view by their
obsessive behavior.
The truth will set them free, but not without some painful reassessment.
Dan Parker
Darren Garrison wrote:
> My point? The processes of the brain are inextricably linked
> to the physical structure of it's neural network and to it's chemical
> signals. There is no non-anecdotal evidence that there is any
> component of "mind" that exists seperate from "brain."
>
I learned a lot from your very informative post, but disagree with your
stance on the status of science. Throughout history, scientific
theories have been refined and disproven as more information became
available. Many expert opinions, such as bleeding a patient to cure
them, the inviolability of Newtonian physics etc. have been overturned.
Yet very often scientists overreact against non-scientific data by
taking the pose that somehow, all this is in the past, and anything that
can't be explained by science today must happen because of coincidence
etc. That this is obviously false has been illustrated by scientific
speculations on such basic things as anti matter, black holes, the
effect of high energy cosmic particles on earth particles (including the
mind) etc.
The concept that no part of the mind exists outside of observable brain
functions is, I believe, along the lines of thought argued by John Locke
centuries ago. I think he coined the term tabula rase or some such to
designate the mind as a blank slate that only reacted to aquired
experience. Another philosopher, Immanual Kant, disagreed with this and
postulated that there was something he termed -the thing in itself-
which was separate from the experience of the entity. The discovery of
high energy cosmic particles impacting earth particles would seem to
support the Lockean view that all unexplained phenomena have some
external physical cause. But by the same token, one could ask what
creates the effect of the particles on the patterns of subatomic
particles that constitute our brains and ourselves. This is where
religious thought usually comes in, and the accompanying morality (that
is often subverted by those who use religion for manipulation).
Kant described innate morality as a valid reasoning tool that was as
good as scientific reasoning. This innate morality often went beyond
the tit for tat reciprocity found in other animal species. All of the
world's great religions seem to have this in common. I would have to
agree after assessing what an over emphasis on science alone has wrought
in today's world. Anyways before I ramble too much more, I think you
could attain a better balance in seeking knowledge, by being aware of
how little science actually knows, as well as being aware of the
scientific data that is highly probable due to repeatable, observable
experiments.
Dan Parker
Pete
>jabo...@netcom.com (Jim Bowery, aka "Spawn of Satan") jabbered:
>> If psychiatry were subjected to the same standards of scientific rigor
>> and ethics of more physical branches of medicine, one could begin to
>> argue for their being accepted in courts of law as expert witnesses, as
>> recipients of insurance benefits and one might even have a basis upon
>> which to discuss their recommendations for prior restraint of some
>> individuals.
>>
>> However, the history of abuse of human rights of tens of millions of
>> people, including shock treatments and forced surgical brain damage,
>> renders any appeal for continued acceptance of this "profession" as
>> ridiculous as the acceptance of Nazi holocaust revisionism.
>
Jimbo,
You stand like a Colossus, a God-proplled Titan,floodlighting the cosmos
with your inspirational thunderbolts.You have zoomed up the voltage of more
downtrodden souls than most all Teachers,Adepts,Masters, and Leaders of Men
put together. Most of your posts are stunners--torrid capsules. Your word
arrows are the language of TRUTH, not the piffle of intellectual witch
doctors. Reading your posts truth-starved souls gulp your gems, eager to
utilize the Jewels of your thoughts!
By the way, cut-out the %$#@&* cross-posts, dickbreath!
Jim Bowery
Please provide the quote in which I discussed "Aryans".
Mark S. Bilk
>>could work within our current knowledge of physics and
>>brain/sensory functioning.
>
>There is nothing "unlikely" about it. Like it or not, if you want to
>have some kind of "precognition" of the future, you need, yes NEED
>some sort of signials traveling back in time to your mind, carried by
>some sort of particles over some sort of medium, and some sort of
>signals.
>If you do not wish to accept that, maybe you should edit the
>sci newsgroups from your headers and stick with the non-science and
>nut groups who are more tolerant to drivel.
Ah, spoken like a true fundamentalist PSI-COP!
"Don't talk to me--I don't want to know about those things!"
Here is an example of real drivel:
1) Assume that everything of major importance in physics
and neuro-biology has already been discovered.
2) Ignore, discard, or ridicule any data that is difficult
to explain within the framework of that current knowledge.
It's a shame you weren't around to pontificate during the first
few decades of this century. Your pronouncements about the non-
existence of quantum and relativistic phenomena and your subsequent
comeuppance would have provided some first-class entertainment!
>>> You can either try to come up with a framework within all of
>>>this can happen, or shrug it off as a coincidence. You can do the
>>>former if you like, but, personally, I'd take the latter.
>>
Mark S. Bilk
In article <32247441...@news.ripco.com>, Joel Nikoleit <niko...@ripco.com> wrote:
>m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>random chance within time t is then 1/25 * 1/24 * 1/365 or
>>1 in 219,000.
>
>coincidence, but it really is an argument for the opposite. In 1990
>(the latest figures that I have) there were 248,000,000 residents in
>the U.S. that means that if your figures were right 1,130 people per
>year have an experience similar to yours. The medium age of the
>population was 33. Therefore 37,290 people or one person in every
>6,700 persons in the U.S. in 1990 have had similar experiences.
>That's better odds then for getting struck by lighting.
I don't think the size of the U.S. population is relevant. Why
not use the size of the world population--about 24 times as large?
Then you'd have about 900,000 people with a similar experience.
You can come up with any arbitrary number you want by choosing
a large enough population. There's just no connection between
the size of some arbitrary population and the nature of the
event in question.
Dr. Jim Stevenson
Hallucinated voices can occur from many causes.
True schizophrenia is an organic brain disease.
Alter personalities are usually dissociated splits with a history of repeated
severe abuse. Such dissociated identity disorder (DID formerly called MPD)
is very frequently misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. This mistake is a real
disaster. DID patients have no organic disease, and anti-psychotics only
make them worse.
Fantasy prone personalities may hear voices, and hopefully learn how to
distinguish there hallucinations from reality.
Extreme stress and or severe sleep deprivation can cause anyone to hallucinate.
Fore a really good presentation on many of these topics see the excellent book
Fire In The Brain by Ron Siegal.
Harry H Conover
Matt McIrvin (mmci...@world.std.com) wrote:
: Even if the voices are due to some external agency, it might not be
: deliberate! As hard as it is to believe, there seem to be well-documented
: cases of people audibly picking up AM radio signals with tooth fillings
: (I think this is mentioned in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ; people there
: have found the references).
It is quite common for sources of audible white noise (air conditioners,
hissing sounds, showers, etc.) to induce a perception of hearing voices
and recognizable sounds, particularly when the listener is tire, very
relaxed or semi-conscious.
My guess is that the brain exhibits some sort of a correlation processing
function (stupid statement, obviously it does) to help it identify sources
of information. I conjecture that the auditory processing function attempts
such a correlation on background noise sources (particularly random and
quasi-white noise) to produce something recognizable sounds like voices
and music. This is equivalent to seeing recognizable images in visual
randomness, like seeing a recognizable face or object in the randomness
of a cloud...or even like the 'Martian Face.'
Harry C.
twitch
Harry H Conover <con...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<4vopm5$h...@news-central.tiac.net>...
><snip>
> Another solution would be to rent a dumpster or international shipping
> container (the type that container ships carry). This could be outfitted
> in similar comfort to a studio appartment, while at the same time
> providing a defense against government mind control and those annoying
> electronic mind control technologies utilized by the secret government
> agencies.
>
> This is a serious suggestion, by the way.
>
> Harry C.
>
One word of warning: A dumpster or equivalent meets the osha requirements
requiring breathing apparatus to go into. I kid you not. It is a closed
environment since the noxious gases, if any, will not escape even if the
top is open. We got in trouble once with the safety folks for letting
someone go in to get something, since he hadn't had enclosed space
training!
This is a serious comment, by the way.
Darren Garrison
m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <32247b09...@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
>>m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>
>>>Garrison then formulates an unlikely way that precognition
>>>could work within our current knowledge of physics and
>>>brain/sensory functioning.
>>
>>There is nothing "unlikely" about it. Like it or not, if you want to
>>have some kind of "precognition" of the future, you need, yes NEED
>>some sort of signials traveling back in time to your mind, carried by
>>some sort of particles over some sort of medium, and some sort of
>>physical mechanism within the mind to regester and intrepret those
>>signals.
>
>>If you do not wish to accept that, maybe you should edit the
>>sci newsgroups from your headers and stick with the non-science and
>>nut groups who are more tolerant to drivel.
>
>Ah, spoken like a true fundamentalist PSI-COP!
>
I beg to differ completely. You ask not to recieve rhetoric
(rhet-o-ric 1.a. the art of effectively using language in speech or
writing, including the use of figures of speedh. b. language
skillgully used c. a book or treatise oh rhetoric 2. the undue use of
exaggerated language; bombast. 3. the art of prose writing. 4. the art
of persuasive speaking; oratory. Random House Webster's College
Dictionary, McGraw-Hill Edition, copyright 1991 by Random House)
Okay, you got me there.. by some of the definitions, some of my reply
might be rhetoric.
BUT, I replied with some explination of the structure of the
brain, and how sensory imputs are recieved by nerves throughout the
body and transfered to and processed to the brain. Then, I made some
points about problems that would be associated with any type of
precognition, which I will repeat here.
<begin quote>
A few question to ponder on those theoretical signals.
1.) What is the travel time of these particles. Specificly, how far
back in time can they travel, and how would the brain diffrentreate
between particles, say, from 1 day in the future, and those from 1
minute, and one year, and one hour?
2.) How would these particles propigate in such a way that, if the
brain COULD sort them according to temporal displacement, it could
also sort them for spacial displacement so that it appears in the
mind's eye to be from a stero-optical source, indistinguishable from
those produced by your eyes.
3.) How do these carrier particles differ to allow the brain to
interpret color? And in the cases of other people's precognitive
claims, how do they allow for the intrepretation of sound? Smell?
Touch? Taste? How do these senses effect the atoms around them in
such a way as to send particles shooting backwards in time?
<end quote>
At NO POINT in my post did I say that ESP (specificly
precognition) was impossible. At NO POINT in my post did I say that
ESP (specificly precognition) was improbable. Yet, in your reply to
me, you said.
>Actually, there *is* non-anecdotal (systematic experimental)
>evidence for ESP, such as Targ's remote viewing experiments
>(and lots of others).
>
>But true-believer PSI-COPs *know* that there must have been
>something wrong with all those experiments (and all the
>anecdotal reports) because they *know* that ESP is impossible.
>Some of them also *know* that Oswald killed JFK and acted
>alone (I'm not kidding, folks). In science, this is called
>changing (or ignoring) the data to fit the theory.
Throwing the label "PSI-COP" on me, which, I suppose, to you
is some type of derogratory term. (I've never heard it before, and I
doubt that I would take it as an insult, but it must be a popular term
among the ESP proponents.) THEN expanding my statements about
possible difficulties with precognition to cover ALL types of ESP,
NONE of which you meantioned in your original post, nor did I in my
reply mention such things as telepathy, telekenisis and such. Setting
up a possible case of hyprcracy against yourself... It is small
mindedness for me to belive in physics, but not so for you to believe
in ESP.... You can question a huge base of physical and biological
research, but I can't question your fringe subjects. In my original
reply I DID NOT call you a nut, or use any derogratory term to
describe you or your experience. I only gave a brief explination of
some of what is known about the structure of the brain/mind, and
extrapolated questions about problems that would have to be overcome
for precognition to work. I left the conclusions open for you to
form. YOU were the one that started slinging derogratory terms, and
comments suggesting small-mindedness for not accepting your
conclusions lock, stock, and barrel.
>
>Garrison then formulates an unlikely way that precognition
>could work within our current knowledge of physics and
>brain/sensory functioning.
YOU were the one to bring up the unlikely phenonomon of
precognition. My questions, (see above) are logical extensions of
that postulate. How would precognition work? What is the mechanism
by which information from the future would be sent to the past? How
would the brain collect that information? How would it intrepret it?
I DID NOT "formulate an unlikely way that precognition could work" I
asked YOU (or someone else) to provide mechanisms by which it could
work.
>
>"Don't talk to me--I don't want to know about those things!"
>
>Here is an example of real drivel:
>
> 1) Assume that everything of major importance in physics
> and neuro-biology has already been discovered.
I do not assume that. But I can tell you, precognition would
require a large number of particles to travel against the general flow
of time, would have to some way carry enough info that the brain could
reconstruct sterioscopic, color images with stero sound, and often
with touch, taste, and smell. There HAS TO BE a physical mechanism by
which those particles could travel through time. There HAVE to be
physical particles that do that traveling. And there HAVE to be
reigons of the body that sense those particles, and there HAVE to be
reigons of the brain that intrepret those signals. Now, the structure
of the brain has quite a few secrets left in it, but in physics, there
is less room for error. There would have to be some sort of mass or
energy loss in producing that particle. That missing mass isn't
dectected in physical experiments. Negative time particles and their
detection would not require just a minor adjustment to biology and
physics-- it would require earth-shattering changes. And, while we do
not know everything about neuro-biology and physics, I do believe that
we have a pretty good rough idea, and are not 180 degrees off of the
truth.
>
> 2) Ignore, discard, or ridicule any data that is difficult
> to explain within the framework of that current knowledge.
Not so. But I do ignore, discard, or ridicule questionable
data from questionable sourses. Like those biased towards a certain
conclusion (NEED to prove the positive, and will not be satisfied with
disproving themselves.) Any data that isn't available for peer
review, that isn't consistantly reproducable is questionable. And I
have yet to see a single PSI "study" to draw any solid, reputable,
take-it-to-the-bank positive results.
>
>It's a shame you weren't around to pontificate during the first
>few decades of this century. Your pronouncements about the non-
>existence of quantum and relativistic phenomena and your subsequent
>comeuppance would have provided some first-class entertainment!
Wrong. But I WOULD be fighting against creationsim vis. the
Scopes trial. And this far into this century, I'll say that evidence
points to the conclusion that ESP and "crystal energy" and astrology
and UFO abductions and channeling and God and Angels and Devils are
all probably unmitigated bullshit.
>
>>>> You can either try to come up with a framework within all of
>>>>this can happen, or shrug it off as a coincidence. You can do the
>>>>former if you like, but, personally, I'd take the latter.
>>>
>>>No doubt.
>>>
>>>I'll choose a third course--I will accept the evidence of
>>>my own mind and senses (and probability calculations), even
>>>though I don't have any way of explaining what happened.
Let's see-- rather than accept that, out of the large number
of dreams (or hallucinations) that people have, and the large number
of events that happen in their lives, that, occaisonaly, one dream and
one event would be in some way similar is merely a coincidence, some
latch on to that one incident (ignoring the countless incidents where
the dreams and the realities do NOT coincide) and draw the conclusion
that they are truly seeing a vision from the future. Our knowledge of
the mind and physics is FAR from perfect, I'll admit, but I would MUCH
rather accept a coincidence than jump to the conclusion that modern
biology and physics MUST be wrong, because I KNOW that my dream HAS TO
BE a message from the future. That isn't logical-- arguably not even
rational. Ever hear of Occam's razor? I gave you the benifit of the
doubt in my original reply-- I assumed only ignorance on your part,
but assumed that you did possess the intelligence to see how the idea
of precognition dosn't stand up well to not only physics and biology
as we know it, but also to logic. Maybe I was wrong.
Robert Link
>not use the size of the world population--about 24 times as large?
>Then you'd have about 900,000 people with a similar experience.
>You can come up with any arbitrary number you want by choosing
>a large enough population. There's just no connection between
>the size of some arbitrary population and the nature of the
>event in question.
>
>
Gak! This shows a gross misunderstanding of the principles of
statistics. If I pick a number between 1 and 300,000, and you are
supposed to guess it, it is most unlikely that you will do so
successfully. However, if I ask 250,000,000 to do the same, I can
expect to get quite a few `hits,' simply through random chance. The
number of times the experiment is repeated has everything to do with
it.
Now, I agree that not everyone in the US was eligible to see this
event, so the case is probably a little overstated, but the principle
still holds, considering that this was not the only event that one
might have a precognitive flash about.
Also, I probably added confusion to the issue when I posted a
probability analysis in which a bungled the arithmetic by forgetting
to subtract from 1. That makes, according to my analysis, the
probability of somebody having your experience about 1%, far from the
``virtual certainty'' I claimed, but not entirely out of the realm of
conceivability. My apologies for the goof; I claim the lateness of
the hour and associated fatigue as my defense.
Finally, note the trimmed newsgroup list; just because a meteor was
involved doesn't mean we're discussing astronomy.
Jim Rogers
twitch wrote:
> Harry H Conover <con...@tiac.net> wrote in article
> <4vopm5$h...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> ><snip>
> > Another solution would be to rent a dumpster or international shipping
> > container (the type that container ships carry). This could be outfitted
> > in similar comfort to a studio appartment, while at the same time
> > providing a defense against government mind control and those annoying
> > electronic mind control technologies utilized by the secret government
> > agencies.
> >
> > This is a serious suggestion, by the way.
> >
> requiring breathing apparatus to go into. I kid you not. It is a closed
> environment since the noxious gases, if any, will not escape even if the
> top is open. We got in trouble once with the safety folks for letting
> someone go in to get something, since he hadn't had enclosed space
> training!
>
> This is a serious comment, by the way.
So for the purpose of this experiment, tip it on its side.
Jim
William Mayers
In <mmcirvin-280...@news.std.com> mmci...@world.std.com
(Matt McIrvin) writes:
>
There's but one throughly documented case of a person recieving
intelligible radio signals through dental bridgework, and that was a US
Navy sailor in W.W. II. What has, apparently, been postulated is the
liklihood of someone being capable of demodulating and comprehending
messages beamed into his/her head in the absence of any device external
to human anatomy that might aid in this task. At present, it can't be
done. ...and we better hope it never does become reality!!
Bill Mayers
>Even if the voices are due to some external agency, it might not be
>deliberate! As hard as it is to believe, there seem to be
well-documented
>cases of people audibly picking up AM radio signals with tooth
fillings
>(I think this is mentioned in the alt.folklore.urban FAQ; people there
>have found the references).
>
Pete Taylor
Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
> In article <3222CA...@physics.wm.edu>, Dave Morgan <mor...@physics.wm.edu> wrote:
> >I was stricken by the following statement in your post....
> >
> >> I've had a precognitive experience myself which stands up
> >> well under probability analysis.
> >
> >Care to elaborate??
>
> A couple of years ago, I was driving along a highway in the
[description of apparent premonition
> Probability analysis:
>
> There are two series of events, A and B, that occur with an
> average frequency of Fa and Fb per year, respectively.
> A is having a vision of the sky lighting up, B is seeing a
> bolide (or other cause of an unusual flash), and t the
> interval between.
[probability analysis snipped]
> The probability per year of the conjuction of A and B by
> random chance within time t is then 1/25 * 1/24 * 1/365 or
> 1 in 219,000.
>
> Now, probabilities and statistics are not my field, so I
> welcome criticism of this analysis. However, I would ask
> axe-grinding PSI-COPs who "know" (with fundamentalist
> fervor) that ESP is impossible, to please spare me their
> rhetoric on that point.
OK, I'll have a go: from your wording it appears that you apply
your probability analysis to a single person, in this case yourself.
Now I don't know the population of the USA, but it must be
substantially greater than the UK - about 50 million. So if the
probability of one person having such an experience in one year
through random chance only is
1/219000, we should expect about 230+ people in the UK to have this
experience every year. (I'll let you do the relevant calc for the US).
Hence the experience, while startling to you personally, isn't exactly
convincing evidence for precog. Of course if one person continually
experienced this (and provided proof), or if substantially more than
the 230 (for the UK) were proven to have genuine experiences like this
(can any statisticians suggest a significant value?), it would be less
explainable as a coincidence.
Pete
Mark S. Bilk
In article <32251429...@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
>In article <msbDwu...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>In article <32247b09...@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
>>>[Garrison wrote] Like it or not, if you want to
>>>have some kind of "precognition" of the future, you need, yes NEED
>>>some sort of signials traveling back in time to your mind, [etc.]
>>>
>>>If you do not wish to accept that, maybe you should edit the
>>>sci newsgroups from your headers and stick with the non-science and
>>>nut groups who are more tolerant to drivel.
>
> Throwing the label "PSI-COP" on me, which, I suppose, to you
>is some type of derogratory term.
See the end of this article for info on the PSI-COPs.
>THEN expanding my statements about
>possible difficulties with precognition to cover ALL types of ESP,
But you did say:
>It is small mindedness for me to belive in physics, but not so
>for you to believe in ESP....
I believe in physics, too. What is small-minded is insisting that
present-day physics encompasses everything of fundamental importance
relating to the functioning of the human mind.
>> 2) Ignore, discard, or ridicule any data that is difficult
>> to explain within the framework of that current knowledge.
> Not so. But I do ignore, discard, or ridicule questionable
>data from questionable sourses.
I was there. It happened. I don't care whether you believe it or not.
>Any data that isn't available for peer review, that isn't consistantly
>reproducable is questionable. And I have yet to see a single PSI "study"
>to draw any solid, reputable, take-it-to-the-bank positive results.
How many published reports by parapsychology researchers have you
looked at?
>And this far into this century, I'll say that evidence
>points to the conclusion that ESP and "crystal energy" and astrology
>and UFO abductions and channeling and God and Angels and Devils are
>all probably unmitigated bullshit.
Hmm... sounds like Sagan's latest book. He's a big cheese in CSICOP.
(And I loved _Cosmos_ so much <sob!>)
>>>>> You can either try to come up with a framework within all of
>>>>>this can happen, or shrug it off as a coincidence. You can do the
>>>>>former if you like, but, personally, I'd take the latter.
>>>>I'll choose a third course--I will accept the evidence of
>>>>my own mind and senses (and probability calculations), even
>>>>though I don't have any way of explaining what happened.
>Our knowledge of the mind and physics is FAR from perfect, I'll
>admit, but I would MUCH rather accept a coincidence than jump to
>the conclusion that modern biology and physics MUST be wrong,
Not wrong, just incomplete.
>I gave you the benifit of the
>doubt in my original reply-- I assumed only ignorance on your part,
>but assumed that you did possess the intelligence to see how the idea
>of precognition dosn't stand up well to not only physics and biology
>as we know it, but also to logic. Maybe I was wrong.
In other words, you're saying that either you're right or I'm stupid.
And you've never heard of CSICOP? (Conservative Society for the
Inquisition and Condemnation Of the Paranormal) Where have you
been all your life? Sci.skeptic is infested with them. You'll
agree with them completely about ESP (but hopefully not about
everything... )
One of the most famous PSI-COPS (and the most active on the Net)
is Robert Sheaffer, ex-Chairman of Bay Area Skeptics. Quoting
from his web page:
I HAVE BEEN A FELLOW OF CSICOP - THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF THE PARANORMAL - SINCE
1977. I HAVE BEEN A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR AND COLUMNIST FOR THEIR
MAGAZINE, THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, SINCE ITS SECOND ISSUE OF
PUBLICATION (SPRING/SUMMER, 1977).
Sheaffer hates and fears feminists, lesbians, and women in general,
openly advocates male-supremacy, and supports the racist claims
of Arthur Jensen that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
Evidently, CSICOP has no problem with any of this. In fact, on
their Web page, they include a link to Sheaffer's Web site, which
contains many anti-woman pages, as well as a long article by Jensen.
CSICOP has a fundamentalist belief in the non-existence of psychic
phenomena. It also does not permit any dissenting views to be
published in its journal. The combination of these two factors
insures that it cannot be a source of objective information.
Quoting from _The New Inquisition_, by Robert Anton Wilson *
...Dennis Rawlins, a Harvard physics graduate ... knows CSICOP
from the inside. He was a co-founder in 1976, served on its
Executive Council from 1976 to 1979 and was Associate Editor of
their journal (originally the _Zetetic_, now the _Skeptical
Inquirer_) from 1976 to 1980. ...
Rawlins discovered in early 1977 that the first scientific
study performed by CSICOP was, to put it mildly, erroneous.
[Wilson gives a page of details and goes on to describe how the
CSICOP Executive Council censored an article by Rawlins about
this matter in the journal, and stopped a press conference in
which Rawlins tried to speak out about it.]
The executive council then met in closed session, with all
members but Rawlins, and voted him out of the executive. They
allowed him to continue as Associate Editor of their journal,
however, and he went on struggling to get the correction
published for another year. In 1980, he resigned from CSICOP
in total disillusionment.
To summarize: CSICOP published a scientifically false report.
They blocked all attempts by a member of their own Executive
Council to inform members that the report was false. When
their own selected referees agreed the report was false, they
suppressed the referees' report.
Wilson then describes how Prof. Marcello Truzzi, editor of the
CSICOP journal, resigned or was ejected from the organization
because he wanted to print both sides of debates. Apparently,
CSICOP does not permit those whose work it criticizes to answer
the criticism in their journal.
[Truzzi] says CSICOP isn't skeptical at all in the true meaning
of that word but is "an advocacy body upholding orthodox
establishment views."
Truzzi started his own journal in which he allows open debate.
* _The New Inquisition_, Robert Anton Wilson, 1986, ISBN
0-941404-49-8, Falcon Press, Phoenix AZ, $9.95. (pp. 45-47)
Reprinted by New Falcon Publications, 1994, ISBN 1-561840-02-5
$14.95
Donna Maso-Furedi
In article <msbDwr...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com says...
voice telling me what to do, (2) I was feeling suicidal, (3) My child
hits peers in his class.
Darren Garrison
m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <32251429...@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
>>In article <msbDwu...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>>In article <32247b09...@news.cris.com>, Darren Garrison <Dar...@cris.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <msbDwv...@netcom.com>, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>>>[Garrison wrote] Like it or not, if you want to
>>>>have some kind of "precognition" of the future, you need, yes NEED
>>>>some sort of signials traveling back in time to your mind, [etc.]
>>>>
>>>>If you do not wish to accept that, maybe you should edit the
>>>>sci newsgroups from your headers and stick with the non-science and
>>>>nut groups who are more tolerant to drivel.
>>
>> Throwing the label "PSI-COP" on me, which, I suppose, to you
>>is some type of derogratory term.
>
>See the end of this article for info on the PSI-COPs.
<snip>
>
>> Not so. But I do ignore, discard, or ridicule questionable
>>data from questionable sourses.
>
>I was there. It happened. I don't care whether you believe it or not.
>
I do not question the fact that you had a vision/dream of a
nuclear weapon exploding. I do not question the fact that you later
saw a bolide. (I've seen many of those bright green meteors, BTW,
look like a round from a roman candle.) The only thing that I
question is your conclusion; that the image of a nuclear explosion was
an instance of foreseeing the future.
>>Any data that isn't available for peer review, that isn't consistantly
>>reproducable is questionable. And I have yet to see a single PSI "study"
>>to draw any solid, reputable, take-it-to-the-bank positive results.
>
>How many published reports by parapsychology researchers have you
>looked at?
>
Few, I'll admit that. Because (and I'm sure that you will
think this is narrow minded of me, and maybe it is) I've seen enough
evidence to the negative on ESP, plus my knowledge of physics and
biology as it is known, that I concider it to be a closed case. I
can put aside ESP, along with things like alien abductions, visions of
Jesus and the Virgin Mary, Elvis sightings, and ideas that crop
circles are created by extraterrestrials, along with older belifs like
astrology, alchemy, and phrenology, as myths, superstitions, and
misunderstandings based on anecdote and ignorance. Life is short, you
can concentrate on only so many things, and these are some of the
things that I concider too unlikely with too little evidence
supporting them to be worth dedicating much of my limited time to. To
borrow from the title of chapter 12 in the book that you allude to
below, I have to try to use "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection."
>>And this far into this century, I'll say that evidence
>>points to the conclusion that ESP and "crystal energy" and astrology
>>and UFO abductions and channeling and God and Angels and Devils are
>>all probably unmitigated bullshit.
>
>Hmm... sounds like Sagan's latest book. He's a big cheese in CSICOP.
>(And I loved _Cosmos_ so much <sob!>)
Thank you. Carl Sagan has a good mind, and a good grasp of
reality. To have my post compaired to his fine book,
_The_Demon_Haunted_World_ is a high compliment.
>
>>>>>> You can either try to come up with a framework within all of
>>>>>>this can happen, or shrug it off as a coincidence. You can do the
>>>>>>former if you like, but, personally, I'd take the latter.
>
>>>>>I'll choose a third course--I will accept the evidence of
>>>>>my own mind and senses (and probability calculations), even
>>>>>though I don't have any way of explaining what happened.
>
>>Our knowledge of the mind and physics is FAR from perfect, I'll
>>admit, but I would MUCH rather accept a coincidence than jump to
>>the conclusion that modern biology and physics MUST be wrong,
>
>Not wrong, just incomplete.
Incomplete...yes... and you once again use selective editing
of my reply to remove credit from my stance and add credit to yours. I
quote:
<begin quote>
I do not assume that. But I can tell you, precognition would
require a large number of particles to travel against the general flow
of time, would have to some way carry enough info that the brain could
reconstruct sterioscopic, color images with stero sound, and often
with touch, taste, and smell. There HAS TO BE a physical mechanism by
which those particles could travel through time. There HAVE to be
physical particles that do that traveling. And there HAVE to be
reigons of the body that sense those particles, and there HAVE to be
reigons of the brain that intrepret those signals. Now, the structure
of the brain has quite a few secrets left in it, but in physics, there
is less room for error. There would have to be some sort of mass or
energy loss in producing that particle. That missing mass isn't
dectected in physical experiments. Negative time particles and their
detection would not require just a minor adjustment to biology and
physics-- it would require earth-shattering changes. And, while we do
not know everything about neuro-biology and physics, I do believe that
we have a pretty good rough idea, and are not 180 degrees off of the
truth.
<end quote>
Incomplete knowledge is one thing... complete opposition to
biology and physics as we know it is another. You DO realize that,
for a signal to travel back in time, it MUST be transported by some
type of carrier particle/wave don't you? And that producing that
particle would require SOME amount of mass/energy? Studies preformed
in particle accelerators attempt explicitly to track every last
electron volt of energy that is "used" in a collision. Why have the
scientist not found missing mass for the time negative particles?
And, for precognitive events to occur, these particles would have to
travel back in time from normal, day-to-day atomic interactions, not
just esoteric high-energy science experiments. How far back in time
would these particles travel? Would particles with different amouts
of (non-missing) energy travel different amounts backwards in time?
And again, how could the brain intrepret these particles in such a way
as to form "visions" composed of the five normal senses? These aren't
just nit-picking questions--these are fundamental questions that would
have to be addressed to explain precognition.
>
>>I gave you the benifit of the
>>doubt in my original reply-- I assumed only ignorance on your part,
>>but assumed that you did possess the intelligence to see how the idea
>>of precognition dosn't stand up well to not only physics and biology
>>as we know it, but also to logic. Maybe I was wrong.
>
>In other words, you're saying that either you're right or I'm stupid.
In other words, I'm saying a little of both. I won't say that I'm
absolutely right-- but the significant base of scientific knowledge
leans more towards agreeing with my conclusions than with yours.. And
I won't say that you are stupid, but you apparently aren't totally
ignorant of the known functions of the mind and known physics-- and
yet you still choose to think that simply because you dreamed of a
nuclear explosion and then later saw a meteor, the most rational,
logical, conclusion is that you were seeing a vision from the future,
and if that contradicts biology and physics as we know it, well, then,
there must be major gaps in our knowledge of biology and physics. If
I can rule out ignorance as a cause for that conclusion... well, I'm
rapidly running out of alternate causes.
>
>And you've never heard of CSICOP? (Conservative Society for the
>Inquisition and Condemnation Of the Paranormal)
I do belive that I've heard of them, in passing. But I didn't
associate the term "PSI-COP" with it.
> Where have you been all your life?
Fortunantly, I've been in places where ESP isn't taken seriously
enough to have to form a society to oppose it. Might as well form an
anti-vision-of-Jesus-in-the-mildew-on-my-bathroom-tiles society.
>Sci.skeptic is infested with them. You'll
Let's see-- in a newsgroup called sci.skeptic, you will find people
who are skeptical towards claims that directly contradict the best
science that we have at the moment. Who would've thunk it?
>agree with them completely about ESP (but hopefully not about
>everything... )
Sometimes I've read sci.skeptic-- but there seems to be too high of a
noise to signal ratio for my taste. But, just in case you are
interested in my amount of agreement on their skepticism, I do not
belive in the existance of any type of precognition, telepathy,
telekenisis, gods, immortal souls, afterlives, Noahchian deluges,
angels, faries, gardian angels, channeling, aliens running around the
Earth buzzing airplanes, making crop circles, and shoving tubes into
redneck's orafaces, significance in astrology or phreneology, massive
government conspiracies to cover up alien artifacts throughout the
inner solar system, and plenty of other crap that I won't bother to
list. My mind is still open on the Martian microbe thing-- but I
still remain guardedly skeptical until given futher evidence. And I
think that there may yet remain some interesting effect in the PF
"cold fusion" research outside of the poor labratory methods.
Mark S. Bilk
In article <3225CC...@open.ac.uk>, Pete Taylor <p.a.t...@open.ac.uk> wrote:
>Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>>
>> >> I've had a precognitive experience myself which stands up
>> >> well under probability analysis.
>>
>
>[description of apparent premonition
>
>> Probability analysis:
>>
>> There are two series of events, A and B, that occur with an
>> average frequency of Fa and Fb per year, respectively.
>
>> A is having a vision of the sky lighting up, B is seeing a
>> bolide (or other cause of an unusual flash), and t the
>> interval between.
>
>[probability analysis snipped]
>
>> The probability per year of the conjuction of A and B by
>> random chance within time t is then 1/25 * 1/24 * 1/365 or
>> 1 in 219,000.
>>
>> Now, probabilities and statistics are not my field, so I
>> welcome criticism of this analysis.
>OK, I'll have a go: from your wording it appears that you apply
>your probability analysis to a single person, in this case yourself.
>Now I don't know the population of the USA, but it must be
>substantially greater than the UK - about 50 million. So if the
>probability of one person having such an experience in one year
>through random chance only is
>1/219000, we should expect about 230+ people in the UK to have this
>experience every year. (I'll let you do the relevant calc for the US).
>Hence the experience, while startling to you personally, isn't exactly
>convincing evidence for precog.
Thanks! You are the second person to offer help on this, and
your analysis is the same as the other guy's (I'll bet your
news feed is a bit slower across the Big Pond 8^).
My response is, why limit yourself to the population of the
U.S.? The world population is about 6 billion, so there will
be 30,000 people per year in the *world* who will have this
happen by chance. That makes it look *really* commonplace.
You can make the number come out to any arbitrary value by
selecting the appropriate population size. Which says to me
that the population size is totally irrelevant to the eval-
uation of whether my single experience happened by chance
or not.
>Of course if one person continually
>experienced this (and provided proof), or if substantially more than
>the 230 (for the UK) were proven to have genuine experiences like this
>(can any statisticians suggest a significant value?), it would be less
>explainable as a coincidence.
Now this certainly makes sense. But it's a different
situation than the one we're dealing with.
Bill Goodrich
In article <msbDwx...@netcom.com>,
Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> writes:
[...]
Was that the "sTAR BABY" incident? There has been a lot of discussion of
that on the 'net over the years.
>Wilson then describes how Prof. Marcello Truzzi, editor of the
>CSICOP journal, resigned or was ejected from the organization
>because he wanted to print both sides of debates. Apparently,
>CSICOP does not permit those whose work it criticizes to answer
>the criticism in their journal.
> [Truzzi] says CSICOP isn't skeptical at all in the true meaning
> of that word but is "an advocacy body upholding orthodox
> establishment views."
That still seems to be the case. From a psychological standpoint, it
is somewhat interesting to watch some of their proponents as they
condemn "unreasoning belief" from their own position of unreasoning
belief. And heaven help anyone who points that out to them.
W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
*-----------------------*------------------------------------------------*
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * bgoo...@nyx.net *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
*-----------------------*------------------------------------------------*
Matt Kriebel
Bill Goodrich (bgoo...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <msbDwx...@netcom.com>,
:
: >CSICOP has a fundamentalist belief in the non-existence of psychic
: >published in its journal. The combination of these two factors
: >insures that it cannot be a source of objective information.
: >Quoting from _The New Inquisition_, by Robert Anton Wilson *
A really lousy book on the subject of sTARBABY. Try the source material
at http://www.skeptic.com/
:
: > ...Dennis Rawlins, a Harvard physics graduate ... knows CSICOP
: > from the inside. He was a co-founder in 1976, served on its
: > Executive Council from 1976 to 1979 and was Associate Editor of
: > their journal (originally the _Zetetic_, now the _Skeptical
: > Inquirer_) from 1976 to 1980. ...
: > Rawlins discovered in early 1977 that the first scientific
: > study performed by CSICOP was, to put it mildly, erroneous.
Mistakes were made. Rawlins went overboard in his criticism though. Way,
way overboard in his criticism of Gauquelin, the proponent of the
Mars-effect.
: > [Wilson gives a page of details and goes on to describe how the
: > CSICOP Executive Council censored an article by Rawlins about
: > this matter in the journal, and stopped a press conference in
: > which Rawlins tried to speak out about it.]
Yeah, and misses several important details such as Rawlins out-of-control
behavior, viscous and unwarrented criticism of all parties involved, and
so on. Wilson was very much impressed with himself in the writing of T.N.I.
: > The executive council then met in closed session, with all
: > members but Rawlins, and voted him out of the executive.
A closed session called the annual CSICOP meeting. Rawlins was invited
and did not attend. Rawlins says his airfare was never sent.
: They
: > allowed him to continue as Associate Editor of their journal,
: > however, and he went on struggling to get the correction
: > published for another year. In 1980, he resigned from CSICOP
: > in total disillusionment.
His ego clashed with other egos. It happens. He had valid criticism and
they were eventually re-addressed. But his method ofhandling the matter
and other relationships with CSICOP member left a lot to be desired. It
shows if you read the original material instead of depending on Wilson.
:
: > To summarize: CSICOP published a scientifically false report.
Actually it was a faulty analysis.
: > They blocked all attempts by a member of their own Executive
: > Council to inform members that the report was false.
Hardly 'all'. But when the executive council member is an incredible
loose cannon his efforts tend to get nowhere no mater how much he is in
the right.
: When
: > their own selected referees agreed the report was false, they
: > suppressed the referees' report.
Yeah, they backed up and eventually corrected the errors in 1983. It took
time but then again data-analysis is not something you do
easily in an afternoon.
: Was that the "sTAR BABY" incident? There has been a lot of discussion of
: that on the 'net over the years.
Yup.
: >Wilson then describes how Prof. Marcello Truzzi, editor of the
: >CSICOP journal, resigned or was ejected from the organization
: >because he wanted to print both sides of debates.
Intesting how the hero Rawlin's efforts in the area of Truzzi's are
judiciously ignored by Wilson. Wouldn't want to tarnish his hero, eh?
There was common beleif that Truzzi was too soft, yes. But so what?
Truzzi hasn't published a 'Zetetic' in years.
:> Apparently,
: >CSICOP does not permit those whose work it criticizes to answer
: >the criticism in their journal.
Try reading a Skeptical Inquirer some time. Esp. the letter section. For
your info: Rawlins got several unedit pages to make his complaint in SI,
Gauquelin had several of his objections printed, and more recently the
whole "mars effect" has had an article from pro-Gauqueling author
Suitbert Ertel published (with criticism, to be fair) in SI. Wilson, and
your charges, don't hold too much water.
:
: > [Truzzi] says CSICOP isn't skeptical at all in the true meaning
: > of that word but is "an advocacy body upholding orthodox
: > establishment views."
Wilson is far more guily of this in his book. Truzzi has far less effect
on the world of reason.
: That still seems to be the case. From a psychological standpoint, it
: is somewhat interesting to watch some of their proponents as they
: condemn "unreasoning belief" from their own position of unreasoning
: belief. And heaven help anyone who points that out to them.
Not really. The only problems with CSICOP in this whole matter are purely
internal ones. These are not concerns that proponents of the paranormal
should be concerned with, let alone use as any form of evidence against
CSICOP. In fact, the sheer amount of distortions presented by paranormal
advocates when using sTARBABY gets downright sad.
I wrote a FAQ on sTARABY. I can mail it to any parties interested.
Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
Not so much a shotgun approach, more like a double-loaded grapeshot approach.
Mark S. Bilk
In article <50786g$o...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, Bill Goodrich <bgoo...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>In article <msbDwx...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> writes:
>>CSICOP has a fundamentalist belief in the non-existence of psychic
>>phenomena. It also does not permit any dissenting views to be
>>published in its journal. The combination of these two factors
>>insures that it cannot be a source of objective information.
>>Quoting from _The New Inquisition_, by Robert Anton Wilson *
>
>> ...Dennis Rawlins, a Harvard physics graduate ... knows CSICOP
>> from the inside. He was a co-founder in 1976, served on its
>> Executive Council from 1976 to 1979 and was Associate Editor of
>> their journal (originally the _Zetetic_, now the _Skeptical
>> Inquirer_) from 1976 to 1980. ...
>> To summarize: CSICOP published a scientifically false report.
>> They blocked all attempts by a member of their own Executive
>> Council to inform members that the report was false. When
>> their own selected referees agreed the report was false, they
>> suppressed the referees' report.
>Was that the "STAR BABY" incident? There has been a lot of discussion of
>that on the 'net over the years.
Indeed it was.
>> [Truzzi] says CSICOP isn't skeptical at all in the true meaning
>> of that word but is "an advocacy body upholding orthodox
>> establishment views."
>That still seems to be the case. From a psychological standpoint, it
>is somewhat interesting to watch some of their proponents as they
>condemn "unreasoning belief" from their own position of unreasoning
>belief. And heaven help anyone who points that out to them.
All too true. For example, Wilson* describes how Martin Gardner,
one of the founders of CSICOP, lead the media attacks in the 1950's
against Dr. Wilhelm Reich.
Reich's ideas and observations are among the most vital for
understanding the nature, history, and present situation of
mankind (although he was undoubtedly mistaken about some things).
One of his major areas of inquiry was the cause of unreasoning
belief and narrow-mindedness and the authoritarianism that
results from them.
The attacks by Gardner and others led to the burning of Reich's
books by the U.S. government in 1957, and to Reich's imprisonment,
and death while in prison, possibly by assassination.
Interestingly, while Gardner condemns others (a priori, without
investigation) for any belief in the spiritual or paranormal,
he himself believes in God. (See the sci.skeptic FAQ:
http://ubd3.vdospk.com/KEVINP/skeptic.html)
* _The New Inquisition_, Robert Anton Wilson, 1986, ISBN
0-941404-49-8, Falcon Press, Phoenix AZ, $9.95. (pp. 45-47)
Reprinted by New Falcon Publications, 1994, ISBN 1-561840-02-5
$14.95
This is a very interesting and wide-ranging book, which, along
with most of Wilson's works, I recommend very highly.
Matt Kriebel
: >condemn "unreasoning belief" from their own position of unreasoning
: >belief. And heaven help anyone who points that out to them.
:
: All too true. For example, Wilson* describes how Martin Gardner,
: one of the founders of CSICOP, lead the media attacks in the 1950's
: against Dr. Wilhelm Reich.
Hardly. Riech had *many* critics of his Orgone energy nonsense.
: Reich's ideas and observations are among the most vital for
: understanding the nature, history, and present situation of
: mankind (although he was undoubtedly mistaken about some things).
He came of a huckersterism called 'Orgone energy' and just piled on BS
after BS on top of it. His work in the field of mental study was quite
useful, but his biological stuff was downright *dangerous*.
: One of his major areas of inquiry was the cause of unreasoning
: belief and narrow-mindedness and the authoritarianism that
: results from them.
Orgone energy, you mean. There is a reasonit was rejected by the world at
large, it was utter nonsense with absolutely *no* evidence for it. The
whole Orgone energy concept was thatthis stuff is what produced 'Id'
reactions in the human body, and is also what makes the northern lights,
St. Elmo's fire, even sunspots. Any criticism of his work was fair and no
less than any other scientist can expect to recieve when producing a new
idea. The only thing is that he had no evidence to back up his hogwash.
: The attacks by Gardner and others led to the burning of Reich's
: books by the U.S. government in 1957, and to Reich's imprisonment,
: and death while in prison, possibly by assassination.
While Gardened did act as one of his most vocal critics, the FDA acted
against Riech because he was building and selling his quack "Orgone
accumulators" and making false claims about it. Don't misunderstand,
Riech sincerely beleived in his work, but he was a hazard.
The FDA probably overreacted and should not have burned his books and
equipment. But his jail time was deserved since he broke federal law by
transporting those nonsense devices.
As for the assasination you allude to, he had a heart attack a year
later. Keep your grip on reality.
: Interestingly, while Gardner condemns others (a priori, without
: investigation) for any belief in the spiritual or paranormal,
: he himself believes in God. (See the sci.skeptic FAQ:
: http://ubd3.vdospk.com/KEVINP/skeptic.html)
Beleives in a personal god. There is a major difference. And in fact I
have yet to see utter proof of this beleief given. Itcome sup as a topic
in s.s. every now and then
: * _The New Inquisition_, Robert Anton Wilson, 1986, ISBN
: 0-941404-49-8, Falcon Press, Phoenix AZ, $9.95. (pp. 45-47)
:
: Reprinted by New Falcon Publications, 1994, ISBN 1-561840-02-5
: $14.95
:
: This is a very interesting and wide-ranging book, which, along
: with most of Wilson's works, I recommend very highly.
In this book Wilson is very much full of himself and very impressed with
his own attacks. There are several criticism links of him at
http://www.skeptic.com/ where it is noted that Wilson is more guilty of
intolerance than those he accuses.
James J. Lippard
In article <msbDwx...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>CSICOP has a fundamentalist belief in the non-existence of psychic
>phenomena. It also does not permit any dissenting views to be
>published in its journal. The combination of these two factors
CSICOP has had problems publishing criticisms in _SI_, but this
statement ("... does not permit any dissenting views ...") is
quite wrong. _SI_ has published dissenting views on numerous
occasions, most frequently in the letters and "Forum" sections.
Regarding the Mars effect controversy, it has published dissenting
articles (e.g., Suitbert Ertel's article in 1992 and a 5 1/2 page
unedited rant from Dennis Rawlins about a decade earlier).
For more reasonable criticisms of CSICOP, see my "Critiques of
Organized Skepticism" section of
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/skeptical.html
>insures that it cannot be a source of objective information.
>Quoting from _The New Inquisition_, by Robert Anton Wilson *
This source sucks. Wilson didn't bother to investigate the Mars effect
controversy at all, and most of his facts are wrong. See Matt Kriebel's
FAQ. Since I've pointed this out to you previously, giving you
online references (e.g., the files on my FTP site at
ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard), I have to wonder why you continue to
post the same misinformation.
[posted and mailed]
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
James J. Lippard
In article <msbDwz...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>All too true. For example, Wilson* describes how Martin Gardner,
>one of the founders of CSICOP, lead the media attacks in the 1950's
>against Dr. Wilhelm Reich.
Wilson makes it sound like Gardner was lighting the matches to
burn Reich's books, when all he did was criticize. (See chapter
21 of Gardner's _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_, 1957,
Dover.)
>Reich's ideas and observations are among the most vital for
>understanding the nature, history, and present situation of
>mankind (although he was undoubtedly mistaken about some things).
Gardner writes: "Reich's early books (The Function of the Orgasm, 1927;
The Sexual Revolution, 1930; The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1933; and
Character Analysis, 1933) were fairly close to the Freudian tradition.
Although they contain much debatable material--presented in a repetitious,
heavy-handed, totally humorless style--they also contain many fresh and
impressive ideas which have become a permanent part of the analytic
literature."
>One of his major areas of inquiry was the cause of unreasoning
>belief and narrow-mindedness and the authoritarianism that
>results from them.
>
>The attacks by Gardner and others led to the burning of Reich's
>books by the U.S. government in 1957, and to Reich's imprisonment,
>and death while in prison, possibly by assassination.
Gardner had nothing to do with the burning of Reich's books. This is
called "guilt by association." Just because Gardner criticized Reich's
work doesn't mean he wanted his books to be burned.
>Interestingly, while Gardner condemns others (a priori, without
>investigation) for any belief in the spiritual or paranormal,
>he himself believes in God. (See the sci.skeptic FAQ:
>http://ubd3.vdospk.com/KEVINP/skeptic.html)
Gardner's belief in God is not unreflective. See his book _The Whys of a
Philosophical Scrivener_. Also enlightening is his fiction novel,
_The Flight of Peter Fromm_, which parallels Gardner's own spiritual
journey.
paul fletcher
Yes ScienceCop is a pain in the neck. A friend of mine from the fifties helped the "Amazing
Randi" from committing suicide at the YMCA on College St. in Toronto. Randi's real name,
can you get this: "Zwingy". Really. Randi (Zwingy) copied Houdini a guy who tried too hard.
One time Houdini did a a jailhouse escape with no witnesses around by hiding a wire-file
under his skin. Painful but not really magic. A con artist no less. Randi outdid Houdini's
record with his use of yoga-breathing to stay underwater longer. Apparently the Amazing
Randi at the time of his suicide intentions was suffering from manic depression. He was also
a practicing homosexual (Nothing personal here.). Could it be that Randi was able to be a
successful stage performer by learning the performers "tricks" and therefore can't believe
astrologers or psychics are able to function without the use of fraud? Is Randi a failed
psychic? Who just can't get it? More recently I saw Randi's name in a list of celebrity
atheists. Guess he's afraid of rubbing elbows with any believer. I wonder how he has the
faith to open his eyes in the morning in case the world disappeared when he had his eyes
shut overnight? I mean how can he have FAITH like that?
Matt Kriebel
paul fletcher (vpf...@sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Yes ScienceCop is a pain in the neck. A friend of mine from the fifties helped the "Amazing
: can you get this: "Zwingy". Really. Randi (Zwingy) copied Houdini a guy who tried too hard.
: One time Houdini did a a jailhouse escape with no witnesses around by hiding a wire-file
: under his skin. Painful but not really magic. A con artist no less. Randi outdid Houdini's
: record with his use of yoga-breathing to stay underwater longer. Apparently the Amazing
: Randi at the time of his suicide intentions was suffering from manic depression. He was also
: successful stage performer by learning the performers "tricks" and therefore can't believe
: psychic? Who just can't get it? More recently I saw Randi's name in a list of celebrity
: faith to open his eyes in the morning in case the world disappeared when he had his eyes
Gee, I just *love* it when paranormal advocates argue with proper
evidence and don't resort to false stories, snide remarks, slander,
innuendo and character assasination.
This is twice now I've seen 'fletcher' post this BS story about his
'friend' along with several incomprehensible attacks on Randi and his
conjuring & escape artist skill. Don;t you just love the part where he
says that folks 'suffer' from homsexuality?
BTW, since you've had so much BS thrown here I would like to correct one
particular error in your crap. Randi's name used to be 'Zwinge', not
'Zwingy'. But from your tone and attitude I guess you feel that one east
European name is as mockable as another.
V. Treude
paul fletcher wrote:
>
> Yes ScienceCop is a pain in the neck. A friend of mine from the fifties helped the "Amazing
> Randi" from committing suicide at the YMCA on College St. in Toronto. Randi's real name,
> can you get this: "Zwingy". Really. Randi (Zwingy) copied Houdini a guy who tried too hard.
> One time Houdini did a a jailhouse escape with no witnesses around by hiding a wire-file
> under his skin. Painful but not really magic. A con artist no less. Randi outdid Houdini's
> record with his use of yoga-breathing to stay underwater longer. Apparently the Amazing
> Randi at the time of his suicide intentions was suffering from manic depression. He was also
> successful stage performer by learning the performers "tricks" and therefore can't believe
> astrologers or psychics are able to function without the use of fraud? Is Randi a failed
> psychic? Who just can't get it? More recently I saw Randi's name in a list of celebrity
> faith to open his eyes in the morning in case the world disappeared when he had his eyes
> shut overnight? I mean how can he have FAITH like that?
I don't care about Randi's personal life. He gets my admiration by
exposing all those psychic bullshitters.
Vaughn Treude
Atheist and Proud of It!