(1) Just as no person here on Earth is perfect, so there is no perfect country or perfect democracy. Malefactors exist and that is the principal (presumably only) reason why there are laws prohibiting a host of crimes. However, even if there is a law against an act, the existence of such a law clearly does not prevent violations of the law from occurring, hence there are police and other enforcers of the law to apprehend criminals, there are courts to prosecute accused offenders, and there are prisons and fines to exact penalties for breaking the law. Nevertheless, no such system is perfect, and it has been estimated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for example, that even the crime that has the highest rate of “clearance” (i.e., settlement of the case), namely murder, was “cleared” less than 2/3 of the time in 2004 in the US (62.6% to be precise). In other words, murderers succeeded in killing 6,035 victims in 2004 in the
(2) What is considered acceptable at a given time and place in a democracy can still allow for what others at another time and place can consider to be gross violations of human rights, hence, the existence of slavery in both classical Athens and the United States for the first nearly 90 years of the latter’s existence, just to mention two flagrant examples. Only slightly less heinous violations of human rights on a large scale have also occurred in democracies, such as systematic discrimination for at least a century against blacks in the
(3) A country with greater freedoms at the outset can devolve into a more controlled or even repressive state, such as what happened in post-classical
(4) It is notable that various efforts to limit the use of “nonlethal weapons” and technology that can adversely affect the human nervous system have overwhelmingly failed. In fact, at least one publicly released NATO document strongly implies NATO opposition to such efforts (see http://overcontrol.webs.com/, 2004 under “Suspect Present”). One factor is also public apathy and ignorance, for instance, there failed to be sufficient public outrage after the Church Commission revealed multiple abuses by the CIA and other governmental agencies during the 1970s as well as after the disclosure by the Clinton administration of nonconsensual human experimentation involving ionizing radiation, so that no momentum was established to outlaw nonconsensual human experimentation in the US (the respective distractions of Watergate and Vietnam during the 1970s on the one hand, and the coincidence of President Clinton’s apology to the victims of the radiation experiments with the far more publicized announcement of the OJ Simpson verdict on 3 October 1995 on the other, certainly played a role in the relatively tepid public response each time). A further factor was the government’s refusal to disclose the identity of, let alone prosecute, any of the perpetrators of either the MK-ULTRA-era experiments or the ionizing radiation experiments. The latter concealment exacerbated the difficulties faced by the victims, thus rendering nearly hopeless any attempts at legal redress.
(5) A country that uses torture under some circumstances is more likely to use it under other ones. On 11 April 2008 President Bush admitted to ABC News that he knew his top advisers had officially authorized torture by the CIA. Furthermore, numerous allegations by prisoners detained by the US of torture in the War On Terror have surfaced over the last several years, and now sufficient medical evidence has emerged from the investigation by Physicians for Human Rights that former Maj. General Antonio Taguba (author of the 2004 report on treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq) acknowledges that such has happened in the 130-page report of the findings, “Broken Laws, Broken Lives”: In addition to beatings, sodomization, sensory deprivation and bombardment, stressful positions, prolonged isolation, extreme temperatures, sexual and other physical assault, etc., sleep deprivation (passim) and even electrical shock (p. 6) were administered.
Torture has previously been found to have been conducted in US jails and prisons, including 70 deaths from use of electroshock in 2006 and 69 in 2007 (cumulatively almost 300 since 2001) (see, for example, the Amnesty International Report 2007 for the US and Amnesty International Report 2008 for the US).
(1) As in law, so in the physical world, ignorance is no excuse. The fact that a person may be unaware that an act he/she commits is against the law does not exempt the person from applicability of the punishments that the law may include. The fact that a person may be completely ignorant of science does not exempt him/her from being subject to demonstrable physical laws of the universe. The fact that a person may be completely ignorant of a plan to commit harm against him/her does not serve to prevent that person from becoming a potential victim of crime. The fact that a person’s education in a particular society at a particular time did not include the teaching of certain historical events or certain technology does not mean that such historical events did not occur or that such technology does not exist. From a practical standpoint, it is admittedly not possible for any one person to know everything, from all branches of science and engineering to every law to every single historical fact, etc., since the human brain only has about 100 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses among them. These are large numbers, but just the number (well over 100 million) of books, publications, and other materials in what is admittedly the largest library in the world, the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, would completely overwhelm the capacity of a single human brain to absorb and retain. Consequently, an argument that is based on ignorance is clearly not viable.
(2) If a person seeks to become informed about a scientific, technological, or historical fact, there are well-known ways to carry that intention out successfully. Clearly, attempts to ascertain reliable information may fail to some extent (as pointed out above, all humans are fallible, including scientific geniuses) – for instance, there may be a typographical error in what is otherwise a volume of impeccable research, be it technical or historical. Such a mistake certainly does not invalidate the remainder of the volume. Similarly, an extreme skeptic may doubt even the findings of scientific experiments, but if the latter are able to be conducted repeatedly, the findings are determined to apply according to the scientific community. It is true that new scientific paradigms can appear that at first encounter skepticism among the holders of scientific consensus, but with sufficient experimentation can replace the old paradigm as a result of explaining the observable data more convincingly and comprehensively, hence the succession of Newtonian physics by relativistic physics and quantum mechanics.
The situation is somewhat different for the social sciences, of course. There, too, consensus governs what is considered acceptable – although it is much more fractured than previously – but usually the data (historical evidence of all kinds, including written material, other cultural artifacts such as works of art, archaeological remains, etc.) remain, while new data may appear and interpretations of the data can evolve. The explosion of knowledge in the scientific and technical world has not been quite so enormous in the social sciences, but enough of that has occurred that extreme specialization has often developed, resulting in such phenomena as an historian expert in ancient Athenian history being quite ignorant of the history of his/her own present-day country. That, together with the increasing politicization of the social sciences as well as often increased levels of poor education among the average citizen, has produced a popular mindset that considers all history to be the subject of personal preferences and ideology and thus disregards attempts to follow the exhortation of one of the most important figures in modern historiography, Leopold von Ranke (1795-1866), who wanted “[…] nicht das Amt die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, sondern bloß zu zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen” (“[…] not the duty to judge the past, nor to instruct one's contemporaries with an eye to the future, but rather merely to show how it actually was”).
As an example of such politicization of what should be an activity conducted as neutrally and openly as possible, some reader might read my quotation of the German historian Ranke and jump to the absurd conclusion that I am therefore some sort of Nazi. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, inasmuch as every indication to the contrary exists on this website – I am, as I always have been and always will be, utterly opposed to repressive regimes of all kinds, be they Nazi, Communistic, or any and all other sorts of despotic governance. For instance, I found it quite appalling when I discovered the existence of Project Paperclip, which included the clandestine secretion of Nazi scientists into the US at the end of, and after WWII (see, for instance, Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip by Linda Hunt [St. Martin’s Press, 1991]).
(3) Frequently there is misinformation, disinformation, and deception, especially at unreliable websites on the Internet. Obviously not only do some persons with an agenda lie, but even democratic governments have been known to lie and in some respects continue to require mendacity (see information on “cover stories” at http://overcontrol.webs.com/). Just one example of an entire class of such governmental deception is the all too real phenomenon of agents provocateurs.
(1) It is true that for a few years, there seemed to be a significant détente with
(2) The lamentable but undeniable reality is that there remains no blanket prohibition against nonconcensual human testing at the federal level in the US, just as there was not when Sen. John Glenn attempted but failed to have such a law enacted in 1997 (see http://overcontrol.webs.com/). In fact, there are times – rare but notable – when leading ethicists have failed to rule such testing out especially for “national security” purposes (see reference to Jonathan Moreno on http://overcontrol.webs.com/), which was precisely the publicly unspoken rationalization for such atrocities during the Cold War.
(1) It is certainly truer now than ever before that conspiracy theories abound (with considerable dissemination via the Internet), but it is also true that some conspiracies, be they civil, criminal, or political, actually have occurred during the course of history and thus are not merely “theories”. Various laws exist in many, if not most, countries against civil and criminal conspiracies, persons are frequently accused and tried for them, and various persons have been convicted of them (perhaps most notably in the cases of organized crimes and gangs). As for political conspiracies, consider the following merely scattered examples: the successful conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar in 44 BC, François-Noël Babeuf’s unsuccessful Conspiracy of the Equals during the French Revolution in the 1790s, and the conspiracy to kill President Abraham Lincoln, Secretary of State William Seward, and Vice President Andrew Johnson in 1865 (partially successful – Lincoln alone was killed).
(2) Whether one wishes to call them conspiracies or not, the fact remains that various governmental programs in the US and the UK in the past carried out pain and sometimes death against their own unwitting, noncriminal citizens, for the purposes of experimentation with various means to develop techniques of neurological manipulation and control (again, for this and below, see sources cited at http://overcontrol.webs.com). It is also a fact that even though quite considerable numbers of persons in the executive branch as well as doctors and researchers outside government were involved, the very existence of such programs was successfully kept secret for decades. Further, it is a fact that no persons involved in the perpetration of such programs were ever punished, the identities of most of those involved were kept secret, and the evidence was largely destroyed. Finally, it is a fact that research involving neurological manipulation and control continues to be conducted by governmental agencies throughout the world as well as newer research (since at least the 1980s) involving “nonlethal” weapons. Since there is an undoubted need for such research to be as “realistic” as possible, i.e., involving human beings, which conflicts with the overt disclaimer of nonconsensual, intrusive experimentation by medical review boards, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that humans continue to be used nonconsensually but covertly for the development and refinement of such techniques and devices.
(3) It is also true that many victims of externally induced neurological manipulation have suffered so much that they often form conclusions about the precise identities of those responsible even in the absence of irrefutable evidence as to the current perpetrators, and/or they expand their ideas to include other phenomena that are more speculative and thus virtually impossible for others to accept (such as blame cast on alien involvement or nongovernmental secret societies), thus inadvertently discrediting the entire effort to disclose and stop nonconsensual experimentation. Further, the physiological and psychological trauma inflicted on victims usually impairs to some extent their pre-existing capabilities to think and reason clearly and logically, let alone to write compellingly, and their emotions – naturally struck hard by years of suffering – often result in responses that have been overly but understandably heightened as a result of their conditioning, which frequently amounts to torture, such as chronic sleep deprivation, extreme pains, various ill effects on the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems (a frequent consequence of overexposure to various electromagnetic radiation), subjection to negative and sometimes criminal subliminal messages, and endurance of often interminable voice-to-skull projections that are intentionally sadistic.
(4) Finally, far more victims of externally induced neurological manipulation live in countries other than the
(1) Certainly there are mentally ill people who experience auditory and/or other types of hallucinations, or who perceive paranoically that they are being hounded by others when in fact they are not. Good judgment is necessary, but not necessarily applied even by mental health professionals – a famous experiment by Rosenhan in 1972 (see http://overcontrol.webs.com/) showing that once labeled as mentally ill (interestingly after pretending to “hear voices” in their heads), normal individuals (psychologist Rosenhan and colleagues of his) continued to be considered and treated at the mental hospital as mentally ill, despite their subsequently behaving perfectly normally.
What is particularly interesting about intracranial auditory phenomena is that for decades – including prior to the 1972 Rosenhan experiment – certain scientists have known about the “microwave auditory effect”, i.e., the ability to transmit sound remotely, including voice by modulations of the signal, via a microwave carrier signal. This effect was first reported during WWII, was first described by Allan Frey in a peer-reviewed journal in 1962 (“Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy”, Journal of Applied Physiology 17: 689-692, 1962) and is thus often known as the Frey effect, has been described in at least one peer-reviewed psychology journal (Don Justesen, “Microwaves and Behavior”, Vol. 30 [3], March 1975, pp. 391-401, American Psychologist), and has been extensively documented incontrovertibly since then in both technical articles and patents (see as but one example, US Patent 5,774,088, a “Method and system for warning birds of hazards” away from airports by causing intracranial noise and vertigo) but remains unknown to all but specialists in the field – and to those victims of externally induced neurological manipulation who have discovered the technological basis for the effect: In addition to the above, see the many references at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect, including an entire book devoted to the subject by James C. Lin (Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications, [Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1978], unfortunately out-of-print), who is a brilliant electrical engineer with numerous awards, multiple peer reviews, past and present membership in scientific and technical committees and on editorial boards of numerous journals, including four IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) publications and four microwave journals, twice testifier to the US Congress, and writer of 262+ technical presentations, 161 peer-reviewed journal papers and book chapters, and other publications, including many on microwaves (see http://www.ece.uic.edu/~lin/, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1455852&isnumber=31285, etc.). As Lin mentions tantalizingly in his book (p. 176), “the capability of communicating directly with humans by pulsed microwaves is obviously not limited to the field of therapeutic medicine.”
(2) In fact, there are now other methods for remotely inducing noises or voices into people’s heads without any externally audible sounds. For instance in 2005, inventor Woody Norris won the distinguished Lemelson-MIT prize for his inventions, including “HyperSonic Sound” (HSS), for which he first filed a patent in 1996 (see US Patent 5,889,870, “Acoustic heterodyne device and method”) and developed applications for it in 2002. In fact, Norris has reportedly used HSS to play pranks on children on Halloween and to startle people on streets. Another method that has been publicized recently is the “Audio Spotlight”, an ultrasound technique developed by Joseph Pompei while at MIT, currently marketed by Holosonic Research Labs, and now in use in various public places. These methods admittedly do not penetrate walls.
(3) In view of the above, the only mystery is not the existence of non-mentally ill persons who experience nonconsensual intracranial sound, but why the authors of the DSM, even in its latest edition of 2000, refused to consider the possibility of such externally induced intracranial sound instead of automatically labeling anyone experiencing such to be mentally ill (for more on the details and implications of this and other technology, see http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/remoteBehavioralInfluence.html). The sad truth of the matter is that there have certainly been a not insignificant number of persons who have been falsely diagnosed by health professionals as delusional, when in fact they were perfectly sane but experiencing events that were not known to the clinician as possible or appeared to the latter as so implausible as to be effectively impossible; such a misdiagnosis has come to be known as the “Martha Mitchell effect” (after the wife of Nixon’s attorney general who mentioned that illegal acts were being committed by the Nixon administration prior to the Watergate affair, was accordingly labeled delusional, and was subsequently proven correct and thus sane). For a recent example of such misdiagnosis in the face of ignorance by clinicians of the reality of a condition, consider the case of “Morgellons” Disease, which was initially falsely diagnosed in many of its complainants as “Delusional Parasitosis”, but finally recognized after several years by the US Centers for Disease Control in August 2007 as a valid though still mysterious condition, which it preferentially labels “Unexplained Dermopathy”, and for which it has initiated an investigation.
(4) Quite aside from the debatable applicability of mental illness to those hearing an internal voice as a religious experience, and even insofar as genuine auditory hallucinations are concerned (as opposed to externally induced auditory phenomena), various mental health professionals acknowledge that such an experience may be very widespread; by itself is not necessarily an indicator of mental illness; and even where it is, medication does not usually work:
o William Lee Adams writes in “In Your Head: Hearing Voices” in Psychology Today (1 January 2007) that “Despite their association with mental illness, auditory hallucinations don't always torment those who hear them. In fact, only one out of every three so-called ‘voice hearers’ requires psychiatric help…For those terrorized by voices, anti-psychotic drugs help in only 30 percent of cases.”
o Andrea Thompson writes in “Hearing Voices: Some People Like It” at LiveScience (15 September 2006) that “For some people, hearing voices in their heads is a positive experience, not a sign of mental illness or cause for distress…studies by Dutch researchers that began in the 1990s found that some healthy people also regularly hear voices.”
o A study in a peer-reviewed psychiatric journal (“Prevalence of hallucinations and their pathological associations in the general population” by Maurice Ohayon in Psychiatry Research, Vol. 97, Issues 2-3, December 2000, pp. 153-164, abstract at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBV-428DTS2-7&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F27%2F2000&_alid=830846820&_rdoc=6&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5152&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1aa9998a33bc58efa234f2af41f62cd5) found that using “representative samples of the non-institutionalized general population of the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy aged 15 years or over (N=13 057)...Overall, 38.7% of the sample reported hallucinatory experiences”.
(1) In some cases this may be true; more than a few victims have died in unusual accidents that may have been engineered.
(2) Although remotely inflicted electromagnetic pain, corporeal damage, and even death (such as via a heart attack) conveniently leave no evidence of their remote nature, the planners of the program surely realized the lesson of previous programs that further precautions were necessary, lest any undue suspicion accrue to the true nature of the program. Other aspects of the careful planning are apparent from (a) the almost statistically equal distribution of the targets throughout each country (i.e., not too many in any one place), (b) the self-concealing nature of the targeting as a result of official disbelief of multistalking and ignorance of effects of “nonlethal” weapons, and (c) the self-discrediting statements of the victims as a result of nearly perfect alignment of some of the effects (such as intracranial voices) with official diagnosis of psychosis or other mental illness.
(3) More typically the harassment does not end, inasmuch as it is probably less costly for the experimentation/torture to continue indefinitely on an existing victim rather than go to the added expense of selecting and preparing a new victim with often years of preconditioning via organized stalking prior to the onset of the electromagnetic experimentation. Consequently, sheer avarice, a constant of human behavior throughout history, undoubtedly plays a key role in the way in which the program is executed. Precisely that motivation has been mentioned verbally by a representative of a human rights organization to an Italian victim, under the explicit condition of anonymity for the representative (most likely for fear of reprisal); consequently, a citation can unfortunately not be made here.
The full extent and exact nature of the technology used are not known by persons who are not complicit in its development and deployment, however, enough is publicly known (see main page for some details) to be able to say that many effects do not require an implant of any kind, including the infliction of pain or transmission of voice-to-skull, at least when the target is not part of a crowd.
However, implants of various kinds have been increasingly proposed, devised, and/or implemented for certain benign purposes, such as subdermally inserted tracking devices for persons at risk for kidnapping, cochlear implants for restoring hearing, or neural implants for countering conditions such as essential tremor, as well as for law enforcement purposes from no later than 1972, including the remote tracking and control of released prisoners (see articles in the Los Angeles Times by Harry Nelson on 16 April 1973 [“Psychosurgery Controversy Triggers Protest” and “Psychosurgery: Curing Violence or Altering Egos?”] as well as Ross, Bluebird, p. 119, for proposed, then cancelled project involving such control of prisoners released from Vacaville State Prison in California). Insofar as their use in involuntary human test subjects, a reasonable inference is that they may facilitate either their tracking and individualized identification for special effects or the delivery of particularly acute and localized pain wherever the subject may be.
A few targets report onset of various remotely induced neurological phenomena just after visits to a clinic or hospital involving full anesthesia, so that a cooperating or coerced doctor could have placed an implant in the person at that time without the target’s knowledge. However, it may be more common for implantation to be done at a time when a person typically suspects nothing – at night during sleep:
(1) It is improbable that skilful thieves and governmental specialists (police or other authorities conducting secret searches, intelligence operatives, et al.) have been unable to bypass locks surreptitiously (e.g., without obvious damage to a door or window) for at least hundreds of years. With public access to the Internet, so many thousands of webpages devoted to the topic exist that one would have to be truly incompetent not to be able to learn how to do so (for example, a recent Google search with “how to pick a lock” as the search phrase resulted in almost 30,000 webpages, including YouTube videos, etc.). Furthermore, there are numerous firms that sell lockpicking tools even to the general public. Seemingly, each new technique for locking elicits means to counter any such technique, and some covert methods of entry are effective for a wide variety of locks. Consider, as just two examples, the recently publicized technique of “lock bumping”, or the now demonstrated ability to replicate a key from its picture (“’Stealing’ Keys by Camera Proven Easy”: “...the researchers set up a camera with a zoom lens 200 feet away. Using those photos, they created a working key 80 percent on their first try. Within three attempts they opened every lock.”). Similarly, alarm systems can be jammed (or the electricity to the residence can be cut for the duration of the entry until after exit) and thus bypassed.
(2) Prior to entry, devices can be used to induce sleep (as mentioned on the main page or even one from 1970) and thus to ensure sleep as well. An anaesthetizing gas is sometimes employed as an auxiliary method for ensuring no premature awakening during the implantation, which, if neural, can be done in a minimally invasive manner (such as endoscopic transspenoidal pituitary surgery through a nostril without skin incision or nasal packing). Non-neural implants have also been suspected by targets, such as when they observe acute pain in an area where a nonorganically shaped protuberance suddenly appears.
Modern implants are increasingly small (a few millimeters in the largest dimension), with virtually no metallic content to show up on an MRI, let alone an X-ray, and are sometimes even made to resemble human tissue (see Larson’s report) as if to invite malicious use. Even if they could be located and removed (and some targets report surgeons unwilling to remove even obvious implants – consider the report and update concerning Brian Wronge in the City Sun newspaper, now defunct), the unidentifiability of the perpetrators as well as the ease with which the implants were initially installed would render such costly and time-consuming attempts futile.
One of the primary indicators that the ultimate perpetrators of the phenomenon wish that it not come to light is the set of extremely sophisticated ways in which the acts are conducted. Take as an example such an act as stalking. Typically, this is done in such a way that while obvious to the target, the stalking is often committed by a large group of individuals working in rotation and previously unknown to the target, thus substantially lessening the likelihood of establishing either a pattern or rationale for abuse clear enough for proving a legal case (for instance, even the existence of stalking by a number of individuals unknown personally to the target is not generally recognized as a crime by police unless aggravating circumstances such as assault occur).
Moreover, targets are not normally in a position to video record their mail boxes or post office boxes continuously to establish proof of theft or rifling (unauthorized opening) of mail, to install perpetual, 360-degree video recording around their person or their vehicle for capturing evidence of stalking, vehicular vandalism, and engineered accidents, to have access to devices that could prove the multiple remote terminations and rerouting of telephone calls and Internet connections despite the most sophisticated consumer-available hardware and software protection, etc. If they attempt to video record break-ins to the target’s personal residence when the target is away or at night when the target is asleep, even new equipment from reputable manufacturers fails just “by coincidence” when such an entry occurs. Alternatively, the signal is jammed (even when the camera is directly wired to the recording device such as a computer), whereas just “by coincidence” failure or jamming does not take place when the target is at home and awake.
Furthermore, recording, let alone identifying the source of, the various electromagnetic wave generation used to inflict pain, to induce voices, etc., is essentially impossible given the unavailability or prohibitive expense of devices that may be capable of doing so. Even when a target is able to record unhealthy high levels of various electromagnetic emissions, the source of such remains unidentifiable and is therefore completely dismissed by the legal authorities as no concern of theirs (alternatively, consider the statement made by local police in New York State in response to a complaint by one of the targets, an inventor named John Mecca with seven US patents to his credit [4,690,140, 4,742,680, 4,791,011, 4,793,572, 4,829,767, 4,880,186, and 7,158,377], that “it’s the military and we will get into trouble if we do anything to stop it”). Additionally, explicit laws against harmful use of electromagnetic devices are rare, and with the absence of a “smoking gun” pointing to the identities of those ultimately responsible (essentially impossible given limitations of technology and/or expense), there typically exists no conventional method by which a lawsuit could possibly succeed (previous attempts have failed, nevetheless, a few are currently in progress such as this one).
Finally, although it may seem less serious, the “organized stalking” engaged in is simultaneously damaging psychologically and nearly impossible to prosecute because of the extremely sophisticated manner with which it is orchestrated: noise campaigns, insults, crowding (both as a pedestrian and as a driver), and sometimes more vicious acts that are more threatening physiologically (with their inevitable psychological correlates) such as surreptitious poisoning or driving the victim off the road. For an example of how such acts can be conducted in public with legal impunity, see http://www.multistalkervictims.org/hidemulti.htm. Concerning the effectiveness of “no-touch” torture see The Trauma of Psychological Torture by Almerindo Ojeda (Praeger, 2008).
In spite of all of these difficulties and others (such as purloined or destroyed evidence), a few targets have been successful in demonstrating to the police the reality of some conventional acts such as theft or the overt execution of pets, but such acts are treated in isolation from the larger phenomenon, thus ensuring the secrecy of the overall program as well as the exact identity of its directors.
(1) Basic human sympathy and empathy should be apparent in even a non-victim of average morality. If not, then our society perhaps deserves to fall into ever greater peril from not only a democratic standpoint, but an existential one.
(2) The distinct possibility that the experimental program will transmogrify into a more widely implemented program, at least in terms of subliminal control, should be disconcerting to anyone who might be blithely tempted to dismiss the phenomenon as none of his/her concern.
(1) Become more educated about the technologies of control by reading about them at reliable sources (US Patent and Trademark Office website, technical journals, mainstream media, etc.).
(2) After becoming literate about the phenomenon, start to mention indisputable facts about the technology to people you know and trust.
(3) If you really want to help and have a little time after educating yourself about the phenomenon, consider the possibility of contacting various human rights organizations and mainstream media telling them that, even though you are NOT a victim, you have read enough about the phenomenon in reliable sources to be convinced that this may very well be happening, and then asking them what they plan to do about investigating, exposing, and/or correcting the problem through hearings, laws, and sufficient public recognition of the technologies such that persons are not involuntarily committed to mental wards for raising the issue. For example, despite the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in 1975 in O’Connor vs. Donaldson (note that the preceding link to findlaw.com was necessary, because the US Supreme Court’s website did not include opinions before 2005 at the time that this webpage was written) that a person in the US cannot be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital if he/she does not present an imminent danger to him/herself or others and is able to survive on his/her own even to a minimal degree, many persons have been so confined for having claimed that they are being experimented on nonconsensually and/or that they are under attack by directed energy weapons, etc., even if they posed no such danger to themselves or others and were able to survive on their own.
(4) Consider also the possibility of contacting your US Congressperson or Senator and mentioning the same sorts of things above in (3) from a legal standpoint; i.e., mention your fact-based concern despite your NOT being a victim, and request that a law unequivocally prohibiting any nonconsensual human experimentation under all circumstances be proposed and approved.