Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

United States Patent 3,951,134 Now Public Domain

Skip to first unread message


May 21, 2004, 1:03:15 AM5/21/04

Remote Behavioral Influence Technology Evidence
John J. McMurtrey, M. S.[a], Copyright 2003, 23 Dec. 2003[b]

People discerning remote manipulation by technology capable of such
influence have formed protest organizations across the world.[1] [2] [3] [4]
Educated society is uninformed regarding authentic documentation of the
development and existence of these technologies, and unaware of the dangers.
Complaint of ‘hearing voices’ and perception of other remote manipulation
must receive appropriate scientific and legal investigation with protection.
Professional awareness is virtually absent with eminent texts and opinion
being presumptuous, without appraisal of the evidence.

Herein is substantiated:

1. Human wireless internal voice transmission and tracking technologies.

2. Reports of electroencephalographic (EEG) thought reading capacity,
evidence of covert development, and remote EEG capture technology.

3. References to the use of these, or similar technologies
against humans.


The first American[c] [5] to publish on the microwave hearing effect was
Allan H. Frey in 1962,[6] yet radar technicians had anecdotes of microwave
perception in World War II.[7] Deaf and normal subjects, even with
earplugs, can hear appropriately pulsed microwaves at least up to thousands
of feet from the transmitter.[8] Transmitter parameters above those
producing the effect result in a severe buffeting of the head with dizziness
and nausea, while parameters below the effect induce a pins and needles
sensation. Peak power is the major determinant of loudness, though there is
some dependence on pulse width. Pulse modulation appears to influence pitch
and timbre. The effect “is the most easily and reliably replicated of low
power density (microwave) illumination.” [9] Review of human and animal
microwave hearing confirmation by independent investigators of the effect
establishes validity.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Designs for scaring birds
away from aircraft or other hazards by microwave hearing[15] and induction
of vertigo[16] exist.[17] [18]

While working for the Advanced Research Projects Agency at Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research, Sharp and Grove discovered “receiverless” and
“wireless” voice transmission. [19] Their method was simple: the negative
deflections of voiceprints from recorded spoken numbers were caused to
trigger microwave pulses. Upon illumination by such verbally modulated
energy, the words were understood remotely. The discovery’s applications
are “obviously not limited to therapeutic medicine” according to James C.
Lin in Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications.[20]

A Defense Intelligence Agency review of Communist literature affirmed
microwave sound and indicated voice transmission. The report states,
“Sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating
intracranially (within the head) can be induced by signal modulation at very
low average power densities.” [21] Among microwave weapon implications are
“great potential for development into a system for disorientating or
disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic personnel.” An
Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command report affirms
microwave speech transmission with applications of “camouflage, decoy, and
deception operations.” [22] “One decoy and deception concept presently
being considered is to remotely create noise in the heads of personnel by
exposing them to low power, pulsed microwaves . . . By proper choice of
pulse characteristics, intelligible speech may be created” quotes the

The Brunkan Patent # 4877027 “Hearing system” is a device capable of verbal
microwave hearing. [23] The invention converts speech for remote
introduction into the head by parabolic antenna with indication of direct
microwave influence on neural activity. The microwave spectrum granted is
broad: 100-10,000 MHz (0.1-10 GHz.) Pulse characteristics are essential to
perception. Bursts of narrowly grouped, evenly spaced pulses determine
sound intensity by their amount per unit time. Although a wide spectrum is
patented, with ranges of pulse and burst duration, preferred operation has
burst duration at 2 microseconds, and pulse duration at 100 nanoseconds.
Operation is at 1000 MHz, which is the frequency of optimal tissue
penetration.[24] Another patent application based on microwave bursts is
“designed in such a way that the burst frequencies are at least virtually
equal to the sound frequencies of the sounds picked up by the microphone,”
though the transducer here is not remote.[25]

Stocklin Patent # 4858612 “Hearing device” 7 affirms the microwave hearing
effect. Stocklin gives exposition to the concept that a microwave component
is part of neurophysiology and electroencephalogram (EEG) potentials.[26]
Microwaves are considered both emitted and absorbed by nerve cell membrane
proteins. Microwaves generally excite the brain[27] perhaps by influencing
calcium,[28] a central ion in nerve firing.[29] Stocklin represents the
auditory cortex as normally producing microwave energy, which the device
simulates, thus eliciting sound sensation. Each acoustic tone is weighted
for several microwave frequencies by a formula called the mode matrix, which
is used to calculate best perception requirements. Observation of EEG
desynchronization, delta waves, and brain wave amplitudes helps calibrate
the device.[30] The lowest frequency for hearing is estimated by the
cephalic index. Microwave speech transmission in this patent is unremote
with the antenna over and sized for the auditory cortex. Other patents have
non-remote transducers of radiowave elicited hearing. [31] [32]

Descriptions in the above patents attribute microwave hearing to direct
neural influence. However, the most accepted mechanism in review is by
thermoelastic expansion,12 most likely inducing bone conducted hearing. The
cochlea does appear to be involved, but not the middle ear.14 This
divergence of mechanism illustrates the non-thermal/thermal controversy. US
exposure standards are based on thermal effects, yet there are effects very
difficult to explain by thermodynamics.13 [33] All accept thermal effects
at some level, yet the thermal only school is rather dogmatic related to
liability issues of commercial[34] and national security concern.[35] It
must be said that the open literature regarding microwave hearing indicates
a thermo-acoustic mechanism.

“Communicating Via the Microwave Auditory Effect.” is the title of a small
business contract for the Department of Defense. Communication initial
results are: “The feasibility of the concept has been established” using
both low and high power systems.[36] A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request as to the project’s outcome met with denial on the part of the Air
Force, on the grounds that disclosure “could reasonably be expected to cause
damage to national security.” [37] Though the Air Force denied the FOIA
disclosure, such a contract’s purpose is elaborated by the Air Force’s “New
World Vistas” report: “It would also appear possible to create high fidelity
speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and
psychological direction . . . . If a pulse stream is used, it should be
possible to create an internal acoustic field in the 5-15 kilohertz range,
which is audible. Thus it may be possible to ‘talk’ to selected adversaries
in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them.” [38] Robert Becker,
whose eminence was enough to have been twice nominated for the Nobel Prize
in biological electromagnetic fields research, is more explicit: “Such a
device has obvious applications in covert operations designed to drive a
target crazy with “voices” or deliver undetectable instructions to a
programmed assassin.” [39]

The above Army efforts had results. A microwave voice transmission
non-lethal weapon is referenced in the thesaurus of the Center for Army
Lessons Learned, which is a military instruction website.18 The military
thesaurus entry lists analogous devices using “silent sound.” [d] [40]


Internal voice capability, without discernment by others nearby. is also
evident in ultrasound-based technology. Lowrey Patent # 6052336 “Apparatus
and method of broadcasting audible sound using ultrasonic sound as a
carrier” clearly focuses on non-lethal weapon application against crowds or
directed at an individual.[41] Communication is understood as an inner
voice with loss of the directional quality of sound perception. “Since most
cultures attribute inner voices either as a sign of madness, or as messages
from spirits or demons, both of which . . . evoke powerful emotional
reactions”, quotes the Lowrey patent’s effect on people. Replaying speech,
with a delay impedes talking and causes stuttering. Normal brain wave
patterns can be changed (or entrained), which “may cause temporary
incapacitation, intense feelings of discomfort.” This technique is detailed
by Monroe Patent # 5356368 “Method of and apparatus for inducing desired
states of consciousness”, with license to Interstate Industries and involves
an auditory replication of brainwave patterns to entrain the EEG as

Norris Patent # 5889870 “Acoustic heterodyne device and method”,
directionally produces sound on interference (or heterodyning) of two
ultrasound beams.[43] The cancellation leaves the carried audible sound
perceivable. The effect becomes apparent particularly within cavities such
as the ear canal. An individual readily understands communication across a
noisy crowed room without nearby discernment. Sound can also be produced
from mid-air or as reflecting from any surface.

American Technology Corporation, which licensed this patent, has an acoustic
non-lethal weapons technology,[44] a cooperative agreement with the Army
Research & Development Command,[45] and is working with numerous other
government agencies.[46] The corporation’s Long Range Acoustic Devices
(LRADTM) account for 60% of military sales, and have integration into the
Navy’s situational awareness & radar surveillance systems[47] with
deployment on naval vessels and fleet harbors.[48] A popular magazine
writer describes the device’s inner nature of sound perception.[49] From
separate references, non-lethal weapons treatments affirm sound localization
and individual ultrasound effect limitation[50] with obvious lack of nearby
discernment;[51] the latter by a non-lethal weapons program director. A
similar ultrasound method of limiting sound to one person, Audio Spotlight
is marketed, with exhibition at Boston’s Museum of Science and the
Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum.[52] Both the American Technology
device and Audio Spotlight are discussed in an article with some history of
ultrasound acoustics, which has origins in sonar.[53] Other acoustic
influence methods may utilize ultrasound.[e] [54]


The maintenance of effects on people requires obstacle penetration and
target tracking. These internal voice capable energy forms penetrate
obstruction and can be localized. Sound transmission through enclosures is
commonly experienced. An inaudible ultrasound high intensity carrier wave
is unnoticed. Solid defect inspection is one use of ultrasound, which is
being developed to discern movement through walls.[55] Common technology
utilizes the microwave hearing spectrum, which partly or completely
encompasses cell phone,[56] [57] TV, and radar frequencies. [58] Commercial
signals are not perceived, since the hearing effect requires pulsation
within the limits that elicit perception. A variety of antennae localize
the structurally penetrating microwave illumination with collimation or
focusing.[59] [60] A patent, “compatible for mobile platforms with DEWs,”
(Directed Energy Weapons) includes a modified Luneburg lens emitting
parallel rays with over 50 years utilization.[61]

Hablov Patent # 5448501 “Electronic life detection system” is for microwave
radar within the hearing spectrum that finds and distinguishes individuals
through obstruction.[62] Therein is stated: “the modulated component of
the reflected microwave signal . . . subjected to frequency analysis . . .
forms a type of “electronic fingerprint“ of the living being with
characteristic features, which . . . permits a distinction between different
living beings.” Though this patent has use in trapped victim rescue,
another Hablov et. al. Patent # 5530429 “Electronic surveillance system”
detects interlopers with security emphasis.[63] Other literature describes
the basic method.[64]

The Hablov et. al. patents discern people thru structures by vital organ
motion, but others offer more detailed imaging. Fullerton et. al. Patent #
6400307 “System and method for intrusion detection using a time domain radar
array” is such a design,[65] and is commercially available as RadarVision by
Time Domain. [66] Further designs for imaging within structures include: a
portable system determining suspect distance,[67] and presentations by the
International Society for Optical Engineering.[68] [69] Software for
displaying radar detection on a personal computer is sold.[70]

Rowan Patent # 4893815 “Interactive transector device commercial and
military grade” describes the acquisition, locking onto, and tracking of
human targets.[71] Stated therein: “Potentially dangerous individuals can
be efficiently subdued, apprehended and appropriately detained.” The
capability of “isolating suspected terrorists from their hostages . . . or
individuals within a group without affecting other members of the group” is
stated. Laser, radar, infrared, and acoustic sensor fusion is utilized to
identify, seek, and locate targets. Locking illumination upon the target
until weapons engagement accomplishes tracking. Among available non-lethal
weapons is an incapacitating electromagnetic painful pulse. Another target
tracking system is the Manportable Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar
by Systems & Electronics, Inc., which is capable of tracking moving targets
including personnel. This system has an auto target track feature, and
lists moving target detection as 12 km for a walking man.[72]

A track initiation processor acquires a target, while a data association
filter maintains a tracking lock on the target.[73] An original method for
target tracking is the Kalman filter. Numerous weapons guidance examples
utilize similar processes and illuminate targets for tracking. Laser
illumination is also used for non-human targets.[74] Other examples utilize
microwave beam target recognition and weapons guidance.[75] [76] Target
illumination tracking systems have nanosecond to microsecond response times.
Such responses do not require a wide scan area to lock illumination upon
persons at achievable speeds. At 90 miles per hour an auto travels less
than 1/100 of an inch in a microsecond.


Ultrasound voice transmission technology is publicly demonstrated in museum
exhibits. The numerous microwave voice transmission citations rest on a
considerable foundation of microwave hearing literature. Internal voice
non-lethal weapon applications are discussed in many of the citations.
There are are examples of either existence or sales of non-lethal weapons
based on both technologies. Numerous designs involving human location,
identification, and tracking methods, have long demonstrated the feasibility
of constructing devices capable of producing internal voice continuously in
isolated individuals. To deny such technological capabilities in the face
of extensive complaint is willfully to ignore documented development of the
relevant technologies and engineering competence for complete integration.


Many people who report experiencing remote behavioral influence also
perceive mind reading. Thought reading capacity, or brain wave analysis
word recognition, is seriously reported. Publications by a Stanford group
support and report recognition of specific words from brain waves,[77] [78]
[79] [80] with recent enhanced success. [81] Other investigators publish
above chance magnetoencephalographic (MEG) word recognition.[82] The
current publications lack reference to a 1975 US government technical report
of prior results from Stanford comparable to the recent articles,[83] and an
apparent Russian report of specific EEG word recognition before 1981.[84]
Electroencephalographic (EEG) instant detection by syllables of “a content
of category which the testee wishes to speak” quotes Kiyuna et. al. Patent #
5785653 “System and method for predicting internal condition of live body.”
[85] A stated use: “the present invention may be use (sic) to detect the
internal condition of surveillance in criminal investigation” by EEG. NEC
Corporation licensed this patent. Remote EEG communication with Armed
Forces or clandestine application are the cited uses for Mardirossian Patent
# 6011991 “Communication system and method including brain wave analysis
and/or use of brain activity.” [86] This patent affirms EEG word
recognition, proposes transmitter capable skin implants, utilizes neural
networks (artificial intelligence), and is licensed by Technology Patents,

Activation of brain cell assemblies provides a theoretical framework[87] for
the above word recognition reports, and extensive publications of averaged
EEG word category differentiation. These differentiation reports themselves
are consistent with specific word recognition, since their basis is by
visual analysis of averaged categories, without the use of sophisticated
computer programs as are essential for specific word recognition. Based on
EEG/MEG responses, words can be differentiated as to length, [88] and visual
nouns can be differentiated from action verbs.[89] [90] [91] [92] [93]
Brain wave patterns distinguish proper names from common nouns, [94] animal
names from numerals,[95] or content from function words.[96] [97] [98] [99]
Face, arm, or leg action verbs are reported distinguished by brain waves as
well.[100] [101] Concrete versus abstract words,[102] and unambiguous
versus ambiguous noun/verbs[103] have distinctive EEG patterns.

Some of these word category differentiation reports are consistent with both
the specific recognition reports, and/or the differentiation of non-verbal
cognition. Based on EEG/MEG responses, words are readily distinguished from
non-words,[104] [105] [106] or pictures.[107] EEG differentiation of words
rated as to affective meaning such as good-bad, strong-weak, or
active-passive is reported.[108] [109]

Other literature indicates EEG differentiation of completely non-verbal
cognition. Emotion differentiation by EEG is patented, referencing Air
Force research.[110] Movement anticipation potentials
(bereitschaftspotential) and those of actual movement are detectable by
EEG.[111] [112] EEG movement signals have been used to move a cursor left
or right,[113] and just the imagination of movement is sufficiently
distinguished by EEG to control switches,[114] or control prosthesis
grasp.[115] Guiding robots through simulated rooms by EEG detection of
imagining the spinning of cubes or arm rising of appropriate direction is
reported.[116] [117] [118] Even more complex grasping and reaching robot
arm control has been achieved by signals from implanted brain electrodes in
monkeys without body arm movement.[119] A number of groups have developed
procedures to detect deception based on the P300 (positive @ 300 millisec.)
event related potential (ERP) from EEG.[120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]
A commercial system, Brain Fingerprinting,[126] which includes analysis of a
late negative ERP potential and frequency analysis in addition to the P300,
even asserts 100% accuracy over five separate studies.[127] [128] [129]
[130] [131] [f]

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies also report
differentiation of cognitive states. Different fMRI brain activation loci
for face, natural and manufactured object recognition are reviewed.[132]
Neural network differentiation of fMRI response to noun categories for fish,
four legged animals, trees, flowers, fruits, vegetables, family members,
occupations, tools, kitchen items, dwellings, and building parts is
reported.[133] Distinguishing truthful from deceptive responses by fMRI is
also reported.[134] [135] [136] [137] The ability to discern the state of
romantic love towards an individual by fMRI has report as well.[138]

The research arm of agencies with missions to covertly acquire information
would certainly develop to operational capability any technologic thought
reading potential. Assertions that such development has progressed are
multiple, and two are confirmed by details of the 1975 government EEG
specific word recognition report, which itself is evidence of development
covert to open databases.83 An International Committee of the Red Cross
Symposium synopsis states EEG computer mind reading development by Lawrence
Pinneo in 1974 at Stanford.[139] A letter by the Department of Defense
Assistant General Counsel for Manpower, Health, and Public Affairs, Robert
L. Gilliat in 1976 affirmed brain wave reading by the Advanced Research
Projects Agency.[140] “Thought reading or synthetic telepathy”
communications technology procurement is considered in a 1993 Jane’s[g]
Special Operations Forces (SOF) article: “One day, SOF commandos may be
capable of communicating through thought processes.” [141] Descriptive
terms are “mental weaponry and psychic warfare” Although contemplated in
future context, the availability of a technology without adaptation to troop
level requirements is implied, since anticipation of mobile deployment would
have to assume prior development.

In 1976, the Malech Patent # 3951134 “Apparatus and method for remotely
monitoring and altering brain waves” was granted.[142] Example of operation
is at 100 and 210 MHz; frequencies penetrating obstruction. “The individual
components of the system for monitoring and controlling brain wave activity
may be of conventional type commonly employed in radar”; and “The system
permits medical diagnosis of patients, inaccessible to physicians, from
remote stations” are quotes indicating remote capacity. License is to Dorne
& Margolin Inc., but now protection is expired with public domain. The
Malech patent utilizes interference of 210 and 100 MHz frequencies resulting
in a 110 MHz return signal, which is demodulated to give EEG waveform.

The capability of remote EEG is predicted by electromagnetic scattering
theory using ultrashort pulses, which are not part of the Malech
patent.[143] Ultrashort pulses are currently defined in the range of 10-12
to 10-15 second. Considering that EEG word elicited potentials are
comparatively long (hundreds of milliseconds), indicates that remote radar
EEG capture is adequate to word recognition, with ultrashort pulses allowing
some 109 or more radar reflections in a millisecond (10-3 sec.)

The possibility of impressing an ‘experience set’ on an individual by
ultrashort pulses is also contemplated.143 The above patent can alter brain
waves as well as detect them. Microwave non-lethal weapon brain wave
disruption[144] and behavioral change including unconsciousness[145] are

The above EEG telemetry patent and ultrashort pulse method are by active
radar probe. Yet a passive field extends as far as 12 feet from man as
detected by a cryogenic antenna.[146] A technical article maintains this
device as entirely adaptable to clandestine applications, and pointedly
comments on the disappearance of physiological remote sensing literature
since the 1970’s for animals and humans, while all other categories of
remote sensing research greatly expanded.[147]


Complete rejection of assertions of a remote mind reading capability is just
as presumptuous, in the face of complaints, as has been the dismissal of
internal voice capacity. Considerable capacity to detect and differentiate
mental states is evident from literature reports particularly by EEG. The
fact that EEG movement imagination signals are detected for robot guidance
on a voluntary unprompted basis116 117 118 suggests a similar capacity is
feasible for specific EEG word identification, which has only been reported
for word prompted responses. Though references to remote EEG are less, they
provide plausibly exploitable mechanisms, which may be covertly developed.


References to behavioral influence weapon use by government bodies and
international organizations are numerous. Negotiation submissions to the
United Nations Committee on Disarmament affirm the reality of microwave
weapon nervous system effects.[148] European Parliament passage of
resolutions calling for conventions regulating non-lethal weapons and the
banning of “weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human
beings” [149] includes neuro-influence capability.[150] A resolution
relates to HAARP, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, which has
environmental consequences, and although utilizing high frequency,
ionospheric extra low frequencies (ELF) emanation results. Since ELF is
within brain wave frequencies the project has capacity to influence whole
populations.[151] [152] President Carter’s National Security Advisor,
Zbigniew Brzezinski, predicted development of such capacity.[153] Nature
News reports concern by a French government panel about the potential for
thought reading and such a remote capacity.[154] An American draft law
prohibiting land, sea, or space-based weapons using electromagnetic,
psychotronic (behavioral influence), and sound technologies “directed at
individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information
war, mood management, or mind control” has not yet passed.[155] Russian
electromagnetic standards are nearly 1000 times lower than the West, so
their weapon law forbidding electromagnetic weapons exceeding Health
Department parameters is strict.[156] The Russian draft law explicitly
references behavioral influence non-lethal weapons, and development in
several countries.[157] Resolutions by the International Union of Radio
Science recognize criminal use of electromagnetic technology, though largely
relevant to use against infrastructure.[158]


The microwave irradiation of the American Embassy in Moscow received little
publicity until the winter of 1976 instillation of protective screening, but
irradiation was known since 1953.34 Original frequencies were 2.56-4.1 GHz
with additional intermittent 0.6-9.5 GHz signals being permanent by 1975 in
a wide band frequency hopping[h] consistent pattern with one signal
pulsating. The irradiation was directional from nearby buildings and
modulated. Complaint to the Soviets had no avail, but the signals
disappeared in January 1979 “reportedly as a result of a fire in one or more
of the buildings.” [159] A 9-11 GHz signal recurred in 1988.[160] Observed
frequencies are basically within the microwave hearing spectrum, and
pulsation is required. Psychiatric cases occurred during the exposure
period, though no epidemiologic relationship was revealed with fully a
quarter of the medical records unavailable, and comparison with other Soviet
Bloc posts.159 The CIA had Dr. Milton Zaret review medical Soviet microwave
literature to determine the purpose of the irradiation. He concluded the
Russians “believed the beam would modify the behavior of the personnel.”
[161] In 1976 the post was declared unhealthful and pay raised 20% 140

The most documented citizen microwave irradiation was of peace protesters at
Greenham Common American Air Force Base in Berkshire England, who prompted
investigation of unusual symptoms.[162] Radiation measurements exhibited
microwaves with symptom experience up to a hundred times the background
level, and rose sharply on protests nearer the base.160 Symptoms became
pronounced on cruise missile transport, a protest focus.160 Recorded were
wide ranging complaints: skin burns; ‘severe’ headaches; drowsiness;
temporary paralysis; incoordinated speech; two late (5 mos.) spontaneous
abortions; an apparent circulatory failure; and unlike usual menstrual
synchronization, irregular or postmenopausal menstruation. The symptom
complex fits well with electromagnetic exposure syndrome 160 It has also
been reported that some of the women ‘heard voices.’[163] The base closed
finally in 1991.

Criminal directed energy weapon use has been reported in Germany.[164] In a
number of cases there is similarity of circumstances, complaints, and
symptoms. In at least one case microwave fields have been measured with
exclusion of the usual sources (cell phone towers, etc.)[165] Plans for
construction of a crude device from a microwave oven are sold.164

Measurement of non-ionizing radiation fields in the vicinity of an
Australian victim is described.[166] The intensity ranged from 7 mV in an
adjacent room to 35 mV next to the head. The victim suffered from multiple
personality disorder attributed to ritual abuse, and claimed an implant with
radiological evidence.

Ultrasound behavioral influence technology use in Northern Ireland is cited
[167] The device could focus on one person; and utilized ultrasound
cancellation like those patented. It was employed in Vietnam by the
Americans, and is known as the squawk box. Mentioned infrasound frequency
(ultrasound carrier directed) is like Loos 1/25/00 patent, with
psychological effects summarized as ‘spooky.’ More detail by a defense
journalist is quoted: “When the two frequencies mix in the human ear they
become intolerable. Some people exposed to the device are said to feel
giddy or nauseous and in extreme cases they faint. Most people are
intensely annoyed by the device and have a compelling wish to be somewhere
else.” [168] British police inventories list the specific device, though a
spokesman denied use.160

Sophisticated behavioral influence capability is confirmed by
ex-intelligence officers. Julianne McKinney, Director of The National
Security Alumni Electronic Surveillance Project is prominent. This is a
largely classified employee victim study with internal voice transmission


The logic in the prediction by Brzezinski[i] of the appearance of a more
controlled and directed society dominated by a power elite willing to use
the latest modern techniques for influencing behavior without hindrance by
liberal democratic values is compelling.153 Potential behavioral influence
targets are multiple. Since those supposedly expert regard a victim’s
perceptions as psychotic, all complaints are disregarded, not to mention
capability to bear witness. Targets may include anyone worth
neutralization: domestic adversaries;[170] security risks, which may only
comprise classified disclosures; persons witnessing serious improprieties;
and those prone to committing advantageous felonies. Legality is readily
circumvented by executive orders, (particularly declaration of a crisis or
emergency situation), which can be sealed, and this prerogative is only
accountable to co-equal branches of government as is now the case with
terrorism suspects. Internal voice technology is most applicable within the
same language and culture. Space here limits more than mention of remote
EEG influence capacity, hypnosis, and footnoting remote subliminal
technique. Hypnotic or subliminal message presentation represent
particularly insidious means of influencing thought, mood, behavior, and
undermining civil liberties.

Most complainants allege public sector involvement or sub-contracted private
companies.[171] Remote behavioral influence research has long been funded
by the US,39 with evidence of development19 22 36 45 46 and weapons,18 44 47
48 51 though denying on national security grounds project results37 and
foreign literature analyses.[172] Some thirty countries evidence active
behavioral influence weapon research.[173]

Though there is some scant psychoanalytical acknowledgement,[174] current
medical awareness ensures effective neutralization of the afflicted. Not
all those affected are stigmatized. However phenomena of ‘hearing voices’,
or perception of remote manipulation, when recounted to health professionals
results in various stigmatizing diagnoses, [175] [176] totally without
investigation. Determination of relevant fields around complainants is
mandatory, or abatement by proven shielding of such phenomena. Professional
opinions formed without excluding these technologies are negligent.

The medical community has long heard either identical or similar
complaint[177] to that above delineated as known internal voice technology
from numerous victims. This fact indicts the scholarship and presumption of
impossibility evident in the pertinent medical literature. In addition,
microwave bioeffects have considerable congruence with reported symptoms of
major psychosis other than ’voices.’ [178] All of society should be
disturbed at the prospect of technologic induction of voice, since the
unaware subject would perceive such voices as his own natural thought,
without such an assault as to provoke complaint.

It is difficult to deny the level of substantiation for the possibility that
a thought reading capacity exists, even with references that support a
remote basis. The logic that in the thirty years since the Pinneo work
started, this capability has had full development is too sound to dismiss
victim corroboration. It would have to be admitted that funding for projects
by the defense and security agencies is considerably greater than for open
science, and that thought reading would be a priority area. Educated
democracies should not be complacent at this prospect, given the potential
for political control, and existence of a remote EEG method in the public

Acknowledgements: Thanks are given to God for inspiration, and a benefactor
of Christians Against Mental Slavery for financial support. There is
gratitude also to Dr. Paul Canner, and Dr. Allen Barker for their

All patents are printable from the U. S. Patent Office website.

EEG word recognition articles are printable thru Pubmed as designated.

Each is free

Pinneo LR and Hall DJ. “Feasibility Study for Design of a Biocybernetic
Communication System” is available from Christians Against Mental Slavery at



[a] Address: 903 N. Calvert St., Baltimore MD 21202. Email- Phone- 410-539-5140.

[b] Financial contribution to this article was made by fellow members of
Christians Against Mental Slavery.

[c] American discovery may not be the first. Soviet and East European
electromagnetic bioeffect literature is prior, more extensive, and
transparent. A translated Russian treatment is the next text reference,
which refers to F. Cazzamalli, an Italian, who mentioned radiofrequency
hallucination about 1920.

[d] Also called S-quad, Silent Sounds, Inc. licensed Lowery Patent #5159703
“Silent subliminal presentation system”, and has advanced brain wave
entrainment technology (vide infra) with several classified patents. (See and links.) Unessential is
individual direction, but possible by ultrasound.

[e] Loos Patent # 6017302 “Subliminal acoustic manipulation of nervous
system” can “cause relaxation, drowsiness, or sexual excitement, depending
on the precise acoustic frequency near ½ Hz used. The effects of the 2.5 Hz
resonance include slowing of certain cortical processes, sleepiness, and

[f] Referred to, but unavailable, however are a CIA Office of Technology
Assessment report, a security industry publication, and a doctoral

[g] Jane’s is the most respected and authoritative of defense reporting

[h] A means evading detection.

[i] National Security Advisor to President Carter.


[1] Citizens Against Human Rights Abuse, Director, Cheryl Welsh, 915
Zaragoza Street, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Website at Email is

[2] Christians Against Mental Slavery, Secretary, John Allman, 98 High
Street, Knaresbourough, N. Yorks HG5 0HN, United Kingdom. Email is

[3] Moscow Committee for the Ecology of Dwellings, Chairman, Emile Sergeevne
Chirkovoi, Korpus 1006, Kvrtira 363, Moscow Zelenograd, Russia 103575. .
Website at Email is

[4] International Movement for the Ban of Manipulation of the Human Nervous
System by Technologic Means, Founder, Mojmir Babacek, P. O. Box 52, 51101
Turnov, Czech Republic, Europe. Website at Email is

[5] Presman AS. Electromagnetic Fields and Life Plenum, New York-London,
1970. Presman mentions Cazzimalli and another English reference to this
Italian work is at p 2, a
semi-popular treatment with references.

[6] Frey AH. “Human Auditory System response to modulated electromagnetic
energy” J Applied Physiol 17 (4): 689-92, 1962. Also at

[7] Stocklin PL. Patent #4858612 “Hearing device” USPTO granted 8/22/89.

[8] Frey AH and Messenger R. “Human Perception of Illumination with Pulsed
Ultrahigh-Frequency Electromagnetic Energy” Science 181: 356-8, 1973.

[9] Eichert ES and Frey AH. “Human Auditory System Response to Lower Power
Density Pulse Modulated Electromagnetic Energy: A Search for Mechanisms” J
Microwave Power 11(2): 141, 1976.

[10] Michaelson SM. “Sensation and Perception of Microwave Energy” In:
Michaelson SM, Miller MW, Magin R, and Carstensen EL (eds.) Fundamental and
Applied Aspects of Nonionizing Radiation Plenum Press, New York, p 213-24,

[11] Puranen L and Jokela K. “Radiation Hazards Assessment of Pulsed
Microwave Radars” J Microwave Power Electromagn Energy 31(3): 165-77, 1996.

[12] Hermann DM and Hossman K-A. “Neurological effects of microwave exposure
related to mobile communication” J Neurol Sci 152: 1-14, 1997.

[13] Lai H. “Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Radiation” In: Lin JC (ed.) Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living
Systems vol 1, Plenum, N Y & London, p 27-80, 1994.

[14] Elder JA and Chou CK. “Auditory Responses to Pulsed Radiofrequency
Energy” Bioelectromagnetics Suppl 8: S162-73, 2003. Also at and

[15] Kreithen ML. Patent #5774088 “Method and system for warning birds of
hazards” USPTO granted 6/30/98.

[16] Lenhadt ML and Ochs AL. Patent #6250255 “Methods and apparatus for
alerting and/or repelling birds and other animals” USPTO granted 6/26/01.

[17] Nordwall BD. “Radar Warns Birds of Impending Aircraft” Aviation Wk
Space Technol March 10, p 65-6, 1997.

[18]Center for Army Lessons Learned Thesaurus at

[19] Justesen DR. “Microwaves and Behavior” Am Psychologist, 392(Mar):
391-401, 1975. Excerpted reference at

[20] Lin JC. Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications Thomas, Springfield
Ill, p 176, 1978.

[21] “Surveillance Technology, 1976: policy and implications, an analysis
and compendium of materials: a staff report of the Subcommittee on
Constitutional Rights of the Committee of the Judiciary. United States
Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session, p 1280, US GOV DOC Y 4.J
882:SU 7/6/976.

[22] Oskar KJ. “Effects of low power microwaves on the local cerebral blood
flow of conscious rats” Army Mobility Equipment Command Report,. #
AD-A090426, 1980. Available form NASA Technical Reports. Abstract at

[23] Brunkan WB. Patent #4877027 “Hearing system” USPTO granted 10/31/89.

[24] Frey AH. “Behavioral Biophysics” Psychol Bull 63(5): 322-37, 1965.

[25] Thijs VMJ. Application #WO1992NL0000216 “Hearing Aid Based on
Microwaves” World Intellectual Property Organization Filed 1992-11-26,
Published 1993-06-10. Also at Not a US Patent.

[26] Stocklin PL and Stocklin BF. “Possible Microwave Mechanisms of the
Mammalian Nervous System” T-I-T J Life Sci 9: 29-51, 1979.

[27] Beason RC and Semm P. “Responses of neurons to an amplitude modulated
microwave stimulus” Neurosci Lett 333: 175-78, 2002.

[28] Adey WR. “Biological Effects of Low Energy Electromagnetic Fields On
the Central Nervous System” NATO Advanced Study Institute on Advances in
Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Low Energy Electromagnetic Fields Erice
Italy, Plenum, p 359-391, 1981.

[29] Shepherd GM. Neurobiology 2nd ed. Oxford Univ. Press, New York-Oxford,
p146-7, 1988.

[30] Bise W. “Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human
electroencephalogram and behavior” Physiol Chem Phys 10(5): 387-98, 1978.

[31] Puharich HK and Lawrence JL. Patent #3629521“Hearing systems” USPTO
granted 12/21/71.

[32] Flanagan GP. Patent #3393279 “Nervous System Excitation Device” USPTO
granted 7/16/68.

[33] Frolich H. “The Biological Effects of Microwaves and Related
Quiestions” Adv Electonics Electron Physics 53: 85-152, 1980.

[34] Steneck NH. The Microwave Debate MIT Press Cambridge, Mass, London
Eng, 1984.

[35] Becker RO. Cross Currents Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc, Los Angeles, St
Martin’s Press, p 297-304 & p 303-4, 1990.

[36] Kohn B. “Communicating Via the Microwave Auditory Effect” Defense
Department Awarded SBIR Contract # F41624-95-C9007, 1993. Also at &

[37] Margo P. Cherney Freedom of Information Act Memorandum at

[38] Castelli CJ. “Questions Linger about Health Effects of DOD’s
‘Non-Lethal Ray’ Inside the Navy 14(12): 1-6, 2001.

[39] Becker RO and Selden G. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the
Foundation of Life Quill William Morrow, New York, p 319 & 320, 1985.

[40] Lowery OM. Patent #5159703 “Silent subliminal presentation system”
USPTO granted 10/27/92.

[41] Lowrey A. Patent #6052336 “Apparatus and method of broadcasting audible
sound using ultrasonic sound as a carrier” USPTO granted 4/18/00.

[42] Monroe RA. Patent #5356368 Method of and apparatus for inducing
desired states of conscisousness” USPTO granted 10/18/94.

[43] Norris EG. Patent #5889870 “Acoustic Heterodyne device and method”
USPTO granted 3/20/99.

[44] American Technology Corporation Announces Acoustic Non-Lethal
Acoustical Weapon Technology for Military and Law Enforcement, press release
of 10/30/01.

[45] American Technology Corporation Shareholder Alert, press release of
4/23/03 at .

[46] American Technology Corporation Announces Generation II HSSR Emitter at
Annual General Meeting, press release of 5/30/03 at

[47] American Technology Corporation Awarded Key Military Contract to
Deliver Modified Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADTM) press release of
10/21/03 at

[48] American Technology Corporation Announces Expansion of Military
Business press release of 6/30/03 at

[49] Sparrow D. “Best of What’s New Grand Award Winner: Hypersonic Sound”
Popular Science, Dec, p 94, 2002. Also at,16106,388134,00.html

[50] Bunker RJ (ed.) Less-than-lethal Weapons: Reference Guidebook Los
Angles Calif {National Law Enforcemnt and Corrections Technology, Western
Region}, 2000. Similar treatment is Bunker RJ (ed.) “Nonlethal Weapons
Terms and References” INSS Occasional Paper 15, USAF Institute for National
Security Studies, USAF Academy, Colorodo at

[51] Alexander JB. Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in Twenty-First-Century
Warfare, St. Martin’s Press, New York, p. 101, 1999.

[52] Audio Spotlight, Holosonic Research Labs, 51 Water Street Watertown, MA
02472 at

[53] Lawton G. “They are playing my tune” New Scientist 9 Sept. p 38-42,

[54] Loos HG. Patent #6017302 “Subliminal acoustic manipulation of nervous
systems” USPTO granted 1/25/00.

[55]Hunt A, Tillery C, and Wild N. “Through-the-Wall Surveillance
Technologies” Corrections Today 63(4): 132-3, 2001. Also at

[56] Frey AH. “Headaches from Cellular Telephones: Are They Real and What
Are the Implications” Environ. Health Perspect. 106(3): 101-3, 1998.

[57] Lin JC, “Cellular Telephones and Their Effect on the Human Brain” Mob
Comput and Comm Review, 3(3): 34-5, July, 1999. Also at

[58] Nolan PJ, Fundaments of College Physics Wm. C. Brown: Dubuque, Iowa,
Melbourne, Australia, Oxford England, p 716, 1993.

[59] Reits BJ. Patent #5736966 “Adjustable microwave antenna” USPTO granted

[60] Maier G and Harrison D. Patent #5825554 “Lenses with a variable
refraction index” USPTO granted 10/20/98.

[61] Jasper LJ. Patent #6407708 “Microwave generator/radiator using
photoconductive switching and dielectric lense” USPTO granted 6/18/02.

[62] Hablov DV, Fisun OI, Lupichev LN, Osipov VV, Schestiperov VA, and
Schimko R. Patent #5448501 ”Electronic life detection system” USPTO granted

[63] Hablov DV, Fisun OI, Lupichev LN, Osipov VV, Schestiperov VA, and
Schimko R. Patent #5530429 “Electronic surveillance system” USPTO granted

[64] Giori FA and Winterberger AR. “Remote Physiological Monitoring Using a
Microwave Interferometer” Biomed Sci Instr 3: 291-307, 1967.

[65] Fullerton LW and Richards JI. Patent #6400307 “System and method for
intrusion detection using a time domain radar array” USPTO granted 6/4/02.

[66] Time Domain Corporation, Cummings Research Park, 7057 Old Madison Pike,
Suite 250, Huntsville, AL 35806 at , company
website is at

[67] Nacci P. “Radar-Based Through-the-Wall Surveillance System” National
Law Enforcement and Corrections Center at

[68] Ferris DD. “Microwave and millimeter-wave systems for wall penetration”
SPIE Proceedings 3375: 269-79, 1998.

[69] Frazier LM. “Surveillance through walls and other opaque materials”
SPIE Proceedings 2497: 115-19, 1995.

[70] Radar PC at

[71] Rowan L. Patent #4893815 “Interactive transector device commercial and
military grade” USPTO granted 1/16/90.

[72] Systems & Electronics Inc., 201 Evans Ave., St. Louis MO 63121,
Manportable Surveillane and Target Acquisition Radar at Company website is at

[73] Brookner E. Tracking and Kalman Filtering Made Easy Wiley, New York,

[74] Tisdale GE and Lindemann HB. Patent #4497065 “Target recognition system
enhanced by active signature measurements” USPTO granted 1/29/85.

[75] Peralta EA and Reitz KM. Patent #4562439 “Imaging radar seeker” USPTO
granted 12/31/85.

[76] Ahlstrom LGW. Patent #4796834 “Method for combating of targets and
projectile or missile for carrying out the method” USPTO granted 1/10/89.

[77] Suppes P, Lu Z, and Han B. “Brain wave recognition of words” Proc Natl
Acad Sci 94: 14965-69, 1997. Printable free online thru Pubmed or at

[78] Suppes P, Han B, and Lu Z. “Brain-wave recognition of sentences” Proc
Natl Acad Sci 95: 15861-66, 1998. Printable free online thru Pubmed or at

[79] Suppes P, Han B, Epelboim J, and Lu Z. “Invariance of brain-wave
representations of simple visual images and their names” Proc Natl Acad Sci
96: 14658-63, 1999. Printable free online thru Pubmed or at

[80] Suppes P, Han B, Epelboim J, and Lu ZL. “Invariance between subjects of
brain wave representations of language” Proc Natl Acad Sci 96(22): 12953-8,
1999. Printable free online thru PubMed or at

[81] Suppes P and Han B. “Brain-wave representation of words by
superposition of a few sine waves” Proc Natl Acad Sci 97: 8738-43, 2000.
Printable free online thru Pubmed or at

[82] Assadullahi R and Pulvermuller F. “Neural Network Classification of
Word Evoked Neuromagnetic Brain Activity” In: Wermter S, Austin J, and
Willahaw D (eds.) Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence: Emergent
Neurocomputational Architechures Based on Neuroscience Heidelberg Springer,
p 311-20, 2001. More limited preliminary communication at

[83] Pinneo LR and Hall DJ. “Feasibility Study for Design of a Biocybernetic
Communication System” Report #ADA017405 National Technical Information
Service, 1975. Prepared for the Advanced Research Projects Agency Order
#2034, Program Code #2D20, Contractor: Stanford Research Institute Contract
dates: 2/9/72-8/31/76, SRI Project LSU-1936. (US cost ~$50.)

[84] Selden G. “Machines That Read Minds” Sci Digest Oct 89: 60-6, 1981.
Also at

[85] Kiyuna T, Tanigawa T, and Yamazaki T. Patent #5785653 “System and
method for predicting internal condition of live body” USPTO granted

[86] Mardirossian A. Patent #6011991 “Communication system and method
including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity” USPTO granted

[87] Pulvermuller F. “Words in the brain’s language” Behav Brain Sci 22:
253-336, 1999.

[88] Assadollahi R and Pulvermuller F. “Neuromagnetic evidence for early
access to cognitive represtentations” Cog Neurosci Neurophysiol 12(2):
207-13, 2001.

[89] Preissl H, Pulvermuller F, Lutzenberger W, and Birbaumer N. “Evoked
potentials distinguish between nouns and verbs” Neurosci Lett 197: 81-3,

[90] Pulvermuller F, Mohn B, and Schleichert H. “Semantic or
lexico-syntactic factors: what determines word-class specific activity in
the human brain?” Neurosci Lett 275: 81-4, 1999.

[91] Pulvermuller F, Lutzenberger W, and Preissl H. “Nouns and Verbs in the
Intact Brain: Evidence from Event-retlated Potentials and High-frequency
Cortical Responses” Cerebral Cortex 9(5): 497-506, 1999.

[92] Pulvermuller F, Preissl H, Lutzenberger W, and Birbaumer N. “Brain
Rhythms of Language: Nouns Versus Verbs” Eur J Neurosci 8: 917-41, 1996.

[93] Kellenbach ML, Wijers AA, Hovius M, Mulder J, and Mulder G. “Neural
Differentiation of Lexico-Syntactic Categories or Semantic Features?
Event-Related Potential Evidence for Both” J Cog Neurosci 14(4): 561-77,

[94] Muller HM and Kutas M. “What’s in a name? Electrophysiological
differences between spoken nouns, proper names and one’s own name”
Neuroreport 8: 221-5, 1996.

[95] Dehaene S. “Electrophysiological evidence for category-specific word
processing” Neuroreport 6: 2153-7, 1995.

[96] Neville HJ, Mills D, and Lawson DS. “Fractionating Language: Different
Neural Subsystems with Different Sensitive Periods” Cerebral Cortex 2:
244-58, 1992.

[97] Pulvermuller F, Lutzenberger W, and Birbaumer N. “Electrocortical
distinction of vocabulary types” Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 94: 357-70,

[98] Mohr B, Pulvermuller F, and Zaidel E. “Lexical Decision After Left,
Right, and Bilateral Presentation of Function Words, Content Words, and
Non-Words: Evidence For Interhemispheric Interaction” Neuropsychologia
32(1): 105-24, 1994.

[99] Munte TF, Wieringa BM, Weyerts H, Szentkuti A, Matzke M, and Johannes
S. “Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: class
and frequency effects” Neuropsychologia 39: 91-102, 2001.

[100] Pulvermuller F, Harle M, and Hummel F. “Walking or Talking? Behavioral
and Neruophysiological Correlates of Action Verb Processing” Brain Lang 78:
143-68, 2001.

[101] Pulvermuller F, Harle M, and Hummel F. “Neurophysiological distinction
of verb categories” Cog Neurosci 11(12): 2789-93, 2000.

[102] Kounios J and Holcomb PJ. “Concreteness Effects in Semantic
Processing: ERP Evidence Supporting Dual-Coding Theory” J Exp Psychol 20(4):
804-23, 1994.

[103] Federmeier KD, Segal JB, Lombrozo T, and Kutas M. “Brain responses to
nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context” Brain 123(12): 2552-66,

[104] Krause CM, Korpilahti P, Porn B, Joskim J, and Lang HA. “Automatic
auditory word perception as measured by 40 Hz EEG responses” Encephal Clin
Neurophysiol 107: 84-7, 1998.

[105] Diesch E, Biermann S, and Luce T. “The magnetic mismatch field
elicited by words and phonological non-words” Neuroreport 9(3): 455-60,

[106] Lutzenberger W, Pulvermuller F, and Birbaumer N. “Words and
pseudowords elicit distinct patterns of 30-Hz EEG responses” Neurosci Lett
176: 115-18, 1994.

[107] Kiefer M. “Perceptual and semantic sources of category-specific
effects: Event-related potentials during picture and word categorization”
Mem Cog 29(1): 100-16, 2001.

[108] Skrandies W. “Evoked potential correlates of semantic meaning—A brain
mapping study” Cog Brain Res 6: 175-183, 1998.

[109] Skrandies W and Chiu MJ. “Dimensions of affective meaning – behavioral
evoked potential correlates in Chinese subjects” Neurosci Lett 341: 45-8,

[110] Patton RE. Patent #6292688 “Method and apparatus for analyzing
neurological response to emotion-inducing stimuli” USPTO granted 9/18/01.

[111] Deeke L. “Bereitschaftspotential as an indicatory of movement
preparation in supplementary motor area and motor cortex” Ciba Found Symp
182:132-231, 1987.

[112] Chen R. and Hallett M. “The Time Course of Changes in Motor Cortex
Excitability Associated with Voluntary Movement” Can J Neurol Sci 26(3):
163-9, 1999.

[113] Pfurtscheller G, Kalcher J, Neuper CH, Flotzinger D, and Pregenzer M.
“On-line EEG classification during externally-paced hand movements using a
neural network classifier” Electrophysiol and Neurophysiol 99: 416-25, 1996.

[114] Birch GE. “Initial On-Line Evaluations of the LF-ASD Brain-Computer
Interface With Able Bodied and Spinal-Cord Subjects Using Imagined Voluntary
Motor Potentials” IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 10(4): 219-24, 2002.

[115] Guger C, Harkam W, Hertnacs C, and Pfurtscheller G. “Prosthetic
Control by an EEG-based Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)” In: Bühler C and
Knops H (eds.) Assistive Technology on the Threshold of the new Millennium,
2003 :at

[116] Millan JR. “Adaptive Brain Interfaces” Communications of the ACM
46(3): 74-80, 2003. Abstract at

[117] Millan JR and Mourifio J. “Asynchronous BCI and Local Neural
Classifiers: An Overview of the Adaptive Brain Interface Project” IEEE
Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
(Brain-Computer Interface Technology) 11(2): 159-61, 2003. Article also at

[118] Millan JR, Renkens F, Mourifio J, and Gerstner W. “Non-Invasive
Brain-Actuated Control of a Mobile Robot” Proceedings of the 18th Joint
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Aug 9-15, in press,
2003. Article also at

[119] Carmens JM, Lebedev MA, Crist RE, O’Doherty JE, Santucci DM, Dimitrov
DF, Patil PG, Henriques CS, and Nicolelis MAL. “Learning to Control a
Brain-Machine Interface for Reaching and Grasping by Primates” Public
Library of Science, Biology Oct 1(1). 2003 at

[120] Farwell LA and Donchin E. “The Truth Will Out: Interrogative
Polygraphy (“Lie Detection”) With Event-Related Brain Potentials”
Psychophysiology 28(5): 531-47, 1991.

[121] Johnson MM and Rosenfeld JP. “Oddball-evoked P300-based method of
deception detection in the laboratory II. Utilization of non-selective
activation of relevant knowledge” Int J Psychophysiol 12: 289-306, 1992.

[122] Rosenfeld JP, Ellwanger J, and Sweet J. “Detecting simulated amnesia
with event-related brain potentials” Int J Psychophysiol 19: 1-11, 1995.

[123] Allen JJB and Iacono WG. “A Comparison of methods for the analysis of
event-related potentials in deception detection” Psychophysiology 34:
234-40, 1997.

[124] Lorenz J, Kunze K, and Bromm B. “Differentiation of conversive sensory
loss and malingering by P300 in a modified oddball task” Neuroreport 9:
187-91, 1998.

[125] Tardif HP, Barry RJ, and Johnstone SJ. “ Event-related potentials
reveal processing differences in honest vs. malingered memory performance”
Int J Psychophysiol 46: 147-58, 2002.

[126] Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Inc., 108 West Palm Drive,
Fairfield, IA 52556 at

[127] Farwell LA and Smith SS. “Using Brain MERMER Testing to Detect
Knowledge Despite Efforts to Conceal” J Forensic Sci 46(1): 135-46, 2001.

[128] Farwell LA. “Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave
detection of occupational information” Psychophysiology 29(4A): S3, 1992.

[129] Farwell LA. Patent #5363858 “Method and apparatus for multifaceted
electroencephalographic response analysis” USPTO granted 11/15/94.

[130] Farwell LA and Conte FL. Patent #5406956 “Method and apparatus for
truth detection” USPTO granted 4/18/95.

[131] Farwell LA and Conte FL. Patent #5467777 “Method for
electroencephalographic information detection” USPTO granted 11/21/95.

[132] Joseph JE. “Functional Neuroimaging studies of category specificity in
object recognition: A critical review and meta-analysis” Cog Affect Behav
Neurosci 1(2): 119-36, 2001.

[133] Mitchell TM, Hutchinson R, Just MA, Niculescu RS, Percira F, and Wang
X. “Classifying Instantaneous Cognitive States from fMRI Data” Am Med
Informatics Assoc November, 2003. Also at

[134] Spence SA, Farrow TF, Herford AE, Wilkinson ID, Zheng Y, and Woodruff
PW. “Behavioral and functional anatomical correlates of deception”
Neuroreport 12(13): 2849-53, 2001.

[135] Lee TM, Liu HL, Tan LH, Chan CC, Mahankali S, Feng CM, Hou J, Fox PT,
and Gao JH. “Lie detection by functional magnetic resonance imgaging” Hum
Brain Mapp 15(3): 157-64, 2002.

[136] Langleben DD, Schrneder L, Maldjian JA, Gur RC, McDonald S, Ragland
JD, O’Brien CP, and Childress AR. “Brain activity during simulated
deception: an event-related functional magnetic resonance study” Neuroimage
15(3): 727-32, 2002.

[137] Ganis G, Kosslyn SM, Stose S, Thompson WL, and Yurgelun-Todd DA.
“Neural correlates of different types of deception: an fMRI investigation”
Cereb Cortex 13(8): 830-6, 2003.

[138] Bartels A and Zeki S. “The neural basis of romantic love” Neuroreport
11(17): 3829-34, 2000.

[139] Guyatt DG. “Some Aspects of Anti-Personnel Electromagnetic Weapons”
International Committee of the Red Cross Symposium: The Medical Profession
and the Effects of Weapons, ICRC publication ref. 06681996 (The paper is
available from the Health Division of the ICRC.) Also at

[140] Brodeur, P. The Zapping of America Norton, New York, p 299 & 105,

[141] Lopez R. “Special operations survives Pentagon budget constraints”
Jane’s International Defense Review 26(3): 247-51, 1993.

[142] Malech RG. Patent #3951134 “Apparatus and method for remotely
monitoring and altering brain waves” USPTO granted 4/20/76.

[143] Department of the Army, USAF Scientific Advisory Board. “New World
Vistas: air and space for the 21st century” 14 vol. (Ancillary Volume) p
89-90, 1996. Also at

[144] Morehouse DA. Nonlethal Weapons: War without Death Praeger, p 20,

[145] Dando M. A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Non-Lethal Weapons
Brassey’s, London, Washington, p 22, 1996

[146] Taff BE and Stoller KP. Patent #49400558 “Cryogenic remote sensing
physiograph” USPTO granted 7/10/90.

[147] Stoller KP and Taff BE. “Remote Physiological Sensing: Historical
Perspective, Theories and Preliminary Developments” Med Instrum 20(5):
260-5, 1986.

[148] Soviet Union Draft Agreement on the Prohibition of the Development and
Manufacture of New Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction and New Systems of
Such Weapons. UN Committee on Disarmament, CCD/511/Rev.1, Aug 1977. Also at

[149] European Parliament, 28.1.99 Enviroment, security, and foreign affairs
, A4-0005/99 EP1159, resolutions 23, 24, & 27, January 28, 1999 . Limited
excerpts at

[150] Wright S. “Future Sub-lethal, Incapacitating & Paralysing
Technologies—Their Coming Role in the Mass Production of Torture, Cruel,
Inhumane & Degrading Treatment. Presented to The Expert Seminar On Security
Equipment & The Prevention of Torture 25-26 October 2002 London, UK and The
16th ISODARCO Winter Course On "The Surge in Non-State Violence: Roots
Impacts & Countermeasures" 9 - 16 February, 2003, Andalo, Trento, Italy.
Also at &

[151] Begich N and Manning J. Angels Don’t Play This HAARP: Advances in
Telsa Technology Earthpulse Press, Anchorage Alaska, p 176-8, 1995.

[152] Persinger MA. “On te Possibility of Directly Accessing Every Human
Brain By Elcctromagnetic Induction of Fundamental Algorithims” Percept Motor
Skills 80: 791-799, 1995.

[153] Brzezinski Z. Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
Viking Press, New York, p 57 & 252, 1970. Article also at

[154] Butler D. “Advances in neuroscience ‘may threaten human rights’”
Nature 22 January 391: 316, 1998. Also at

[155] Space Preservation Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House) HR 2977 IH,
107th Congress 1st Session Introduced by Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich. Also at

[156] Federal Law “About Weapons” Federal Laws of the Russian Federation
from 21.07.98 [1998] No. 117-F3, from 31.07.98 [‘98] No. 156-F3 , from
17.12.98 [‘98] No. 187-F3, from 19.11.99 [‘99] No. 194-F3, from 10.04.2000
[’00] No. 52-F3, from 26.07.01 [‘01] ISBN 5-86894-393-7 Translation at

[157] Gurov AI. Federal Assembly—Parliament of the Russian Assembly,
Govermental Duma, Committee on Safety, “Resolution: Regarding the draft of
the Federal Law ‘About the Sumission of addendum to Article 6 of the Federal
Law ‘About Weapons” No 28/3 Nov. 30, 2000. Also at

[158] General Assembly. International Union of Radio Science “USRI
Resolution on Criminal Activities Using Electromagnetic Tools” In: Records
of the USRI General Assembly, Toronto, 25: 178-9, 1999. Also at

[159] Microwave irradiation of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow: review of its
history and studies to determine whether or not related health defects were
experienced by employees assigned in the period 1953-1977. United States,
Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. US GOV.
DOC. Y 4.C 73/7: IR 7.

[160] Smith CW and Best S. Electromagnetic Man J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,
London p 211, 233, & 235, 1989.

[161] Schiefelbein S. “The Invisible Threat: The Stifled Story of Electric
Waves” Saturday Review Sept. 15: 16-20, p 17, 1979.

[162] Parry G. “Doctors investigating claims of Greenham radiation cases:
Peace women fear electronic zapping at base” (Manchester) Guardian, Mar.
10: 3, 1986.

[163] Ramsay R. “ELF: from Mind Control to Mind Wars” Lobster 19: 23, 1990.

[164] Munzert R. “High-Tech Waffe Mikrowelle - Kriminelle Anwendungen von
Mikrowellen” Aufklärungsarbeit, Heft 9, April, S. 25-31, 2003. English
treatment “Targeting of the Human with Directed Energy Weapons” is at

[165] Munzert R. personal communication.

[166] Gillin LM and Gillin L. “Subtle Energies, Intentionality and the
Healing of Traumatically Abused Persons” International Conference on Trauma,
Attachment and Dissociation, Melborne, Australia, Sept 12-14, 2003.
Internet availability of victim field measurements are “Submission to
Coroner: Additional Information on Possible Cause of Death of Ms. Deva
Denise Paul on 10th September 2000, Case Reference 2958/00.” at CAT scan indication
on an implant is “Mind Control Using Holography and Dissociation a Process
Model” at

[167] Lewer N and Schofield S. Non-Lethal Weapons: A Fatal Attraction? :
Military Strategies and Technologies for 21st-Century Conflict Zed Books,
London & New Jersey, p 62, 1997.

[168] Rodwell R. defense correspondent report “Army tests new riot weapon”
New Scientist Sept. 20, p 684, 1973.

[169] McKinney J. “Microwave Harassment and Mind Control Experimentation”
Unclassified, June-July1992 4(3): 1-20. Also at

[170] Lamb C, and Swett C. Department of Defense Directive, Non-Lethal
Weapons Policy Draft of 21 July 1994.
at particularly last paragraph of
p 7 onto p 8.

[171] McKinney J. Letter to President Clinton at

[172] Cheryl Welsh Freedom of Information Act request reply for review of
Soviet literature, March 19, 1997 at

[173] Lopatin VN, and Tsygankov VD. Psychotronic War and the Security of
Russia Moscow, 1999. See research abroad section in translation at

[174] Smith C. “On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in
the Light of Mind Invasive Technology” J Psycho-Social Studies 2(2) #3,
2003. Article at

[175] American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Task Force. Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV-TRTM) American
Psychiatric Association, 2000.

[176] Flaum M and Schultz SK. “The Core Symptoms of Schizophrenia” Ann Med
28(6): 525-31, 1996.

[177] Isselbacher, KJ, Adams RD, Brunwald E, Petersdorf RG, and Wilson JD.
Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine Ninth Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
p 150, 1980.

[178] McMurtrey JJ. “Microwave Bioeffect Congruence with Schizophrenia” In
press, 2003. Available at

"We are not in the trolling and kook business. We are in the
business of making a complete fool out of ourselves, aside
from the fact we're getting drug money kick backs for posting to Usenet."

The Blue Resonant Human Quartet
--John B. Alexander, Edward Dames, David Green,
Christopher "Kit' Green & Mr. Jim "Andrea Chen" Glass

Plant, Animal & Human Extinction:
Message-ID: <>

0 new messages