Three years ago I heard the story of a young mother that stabbed her two children in a gas station bathroom. She only a few days before had spoken out about a neighbour stabbing her younger brothers dog to death, and then within days had stabbed her own children to death. When I heard the story at the time. I firmly felt that it was a case of Gang Stalking. I didn’t know why, I really had very little proof to go on, and very few details were forth coming in the case, well three years later, I have many more details and I feel there was a good chance she was on a Threat Assessment Hit List.
I recap with the link to hightech harassment. One of the things the site talks about is how many times parents especially it seems mothers are tricked into killing their children, via external voices.
The sonic harassment technology in addition to tricking people into believing their house is haunted can be used to trick a mother into believing that she is speaking directly to God. A mother claiming that she received instructions from God to kill her children is easily accomplished with this classified sonic harassment technology. Secret police living in a neighboring house to the targeted mother can use the technology against the mother and trick her into killing her children. The targeted mother will be carefully screened by the surveillance conducted by the agents before being selected to have the sonic technology used against her. Usually a mother with a history of mental illness is selected.
At the time I felt that there was more to the story of why she killed her kids, when she had just days before spoken out about how horrible it was for someone to kill a dog.
The story that I found is that of someone who worked for the postal service, the court trials claims that she lost her job due to problems with her co-workers and paranoid delusions about them. Where these the same time of paranoid delusions that Yvonne Hiller was having?
The court heard evidence from two psychiatrists who both agreed that Ms Hawes was suffering from schizophrenia. In early 2007 Ms Hawes began having paranoid delusions about her work colleagues which eventually led to her losing her job. She was prescribed anti-depressants in July 2007 but her paranoia increased and she began to hear voices which were controlling her actions.
In the days leading up to the double murder Ms Hawes was traveling around the country with her two children because she believed she was being pursued by something or someone. On November 29th 2007 she took a kitchen knife from her home and fled with her two children, when she reached a convenience store about a mile from her home she began to hear voices telling her to kill the children.
“I didn’t want them to have to run anymore,” Ms. Hawes told her psychiatrist. “I was trying to protect them … to stop them from being chased.
“I heard voices in the bathroom telling me to stab my kids.”
The post office is notorious for people going postal. My strong suspicion is that Hawes was placed on a Threat Assessment List for monitoring. She was likely given a level 3 or 2 threat level and thus her Gang Stalking and Electronic Harassment would have been peek. Level 2 being almost the highest level. This would have mean active monitoring, and everyone around her being alerted, it would have also meant that people would have been actively following her around, maybe even harassing her, irregardless of her having the two children in her possession.
This would corresponds with her fears of being on the run, and arming herself because she felt someone was out to do her harm. The voices might have been internal, but they could also have been very external and technology based, telling her to kill her children. This might help explain how she was able to so radically change and kill her children just a few short days later.
PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.
PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.
Can I prove this is what happened? I might someday be able to prove that she was on a Threat Assessment List and thus followed around. I don’t know if I will be able to prove that remote neural monitoring in the form of voice to target transmission was employed, which helped and encouraged her to murder her two innocent children.
In any case Hawes has been written off as another Paranoid Schizophrenic, who was hearing voices, had paranoid beliefs and killed her children. No further investigation or evidence needed.
I was on a forum recently and they were talking about mind control. One person on the forum claimed to have had something similar to what was described in the John St. Clair Akwei case happen to him.
For electronic surveillance purposes, electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject’s verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain’s auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations, characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia.
Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject’s brain and show images from the subject’s brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject’s eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex, bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject’s brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain-programming purposes.
He said that they had implanted images, and I think audio as well, but I don’t remember. What he did say was that the programing that they tried on him failed to work. He had a really strong mind, a belief in God, and he was just a really strong person at his core. He said that they had repeatedly been trying but failing, and I believe him. What I remember about the first thread is that the person who started the thread tried to imply that because governments now had this tech, that this meant that there was no God.
The poster who had this tech used on him, gave a wonderful answer, something along the lines of God being eternal, and just because man had achieved technology it did not eliminate the creator, and part of the reason the program did not work on him, or was not working, was because he had strong core.
I believe that such technology does exist as described above. I also believe that it can work on some people, but not everyone. I think if you are programed by the swill that they put out on the television set day in day out, the radio, all the popular culture images, I think if those are absorbed into the psyche of the public, then mind control could work. Where I think if you used the same technology on a monk in a religious order, who had spent years in meditation, had never watched T.V. and had a strong religious center, the technology would have a much more difficult time working.
So that brings me back to choice. No one is forcing the average America, Canadian, British, European family to submit to the programing. Owning a television, watching T.V. is a choice. Listening to the radio is a choice. Subscribing to popular culture is a choice. Remaining plugged in to a degree is a choice. I know it’s hard to unplug. I don’t think that everyone could do it overnight, but I think little by little we can try to find ways to unplug. Maybe read a book for several hours, vs several hours of T.V. programing. Maybe avoid the commercials, but even within the shows we watching, there is programing.
Strong core families. The things that make our societies more seceptable to take over are a loss of strong core family values, if we have these, we are harder to control and to be taken over. This has to be a cultural revolution as well as spiritual and self. I believe that humanity can be pulled back from the brink of what is being done, but not when we sheepishly let ourselves be controlled.
I hear of people standing in line to willing be irradiated and strip searched naked. I hear of people willing letting their under age children who’s cells have not fully finished forming and developing go through these machines, and with very little resistance. I also hear about parents willingly letting their kids be physically touched by these TSA agents. We spend years teaching kids about good touch, bad touch, how to spot a pedaphile, and then some parents willing stand still while their children are touched in ways that would be criminal if it were any other scenario. We do make choices. I am not saying that the choices are easy. There is a third option. Choose not to fly, if possible choose a time and send a message to the industry that you will not be stripped bear, that your children will not be felt up and taught to be submissive. If people do not take a stand when such things are presented before them, then they have truly become slaves. They are more bound and more controlled than slaves of old who were forced to wear chains.
Humanity can be saved but not if everyone sheepishly goes along with whatever one else is doing. Not if you line up to take your vaccinations when told like good little sheeple. Last year people had a choice of getting the H1N1 vaccine and when people choose not to let the fear get the better of them, this year they put the vaccine in with the regular flu shot and tried to take the choice away. I would like to think that people this year would either opt out of the flu shot, or see if arrangements can be made to just get the shot without the H1N1. For some reasons governments want this vaccine to be inside of the general populous.
Things can be turned around, the people have shown that they have the capacity, but they have to have the wills. People are just giving up their wills far too easily. I know it’s not easy. They keep the average person ground down day in day out. There is just enough room for getting up, going to work, coming home, enjoying a little entertainment and then starting the whole process all over again, so tired, run down and conditioned that most of us are too tried to question, all we can do is feel like we have to obey to keep surviving and that is the control trap that they have sprung on the populations of the world. Keeping them so poor, and distracted that they can not see the bars slowly closing in around them, and those of us who can are pushed to the sides into the realm of conspiracy theorists, who very few want to pay attention to or listen to, but in many cases we are the ones speaking the truth, and we are the visionaries who see the future intended outcome of these actions that are set before us.
Change can happen, but people have to want that change. McCarthyism only succeeded for as long as people were willing to submit to the lie. The truth is out there if you want it. Freedom is also there if you want it as well, but while you willingly, silently, and complacently submit to these changes, nothing will ever move forward, and nothing will ever change.
Gang Stalking and Freedom Of Information.
I put my sleuthing brain to the task and this is what I came up with. It’s a bit of a data dump right now, but I wanted to get the information out there.
4. Threat assessment files should be maintained in the law enforcement or security records of the institution rather than in the subject’s educational records or employment records.
5. Threat assessment files should be protected for security purposes as investigations of possible criminal behavior. The release of threat assessment information could jeopardize efforts to prevent an act of violence and it could disclose practices that nullify or reduce the effectiveness of threat assessments in future cases.
Because threat assessments are essentially investigations of criminal behavior, most, if not all, of the records created by a threat assessment should not be eligible for release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Reports generated by the threat assessment team may be exempt under Va. Code §§2.2-3705.2(4), 3706(F)(1)(3), and 3706(G)(1). A response by the team that includes a criminal arrest and prosecution may be exempt from release pursuant to Va. Code §2.2-3706(F)(1) and (3). This protection from disclosure applies to records generated by the threat assessment team for threat assessment purposes.
Records obtained from other sources, such as student academic reports, employee records, or medical records, should be protected under existing laws and regulations regarding redisclosure of protected information. For example, student scholastic records maintained by a university may Virginia College Threat Assessment 21
be exempt under Va. Code §2.2-3705.4. Employee personnel records may be exempt under Va. Code §2.2-3705.1.
The Office of the Virginia Attorney General has provided guidance to the Department of Criminal Justice Services on the exemptions from FOIA that apply to threat assessment records, but recommends that each threat assessment team consult with its own institutional legal authorities. It would be desirable if the General Assembly would pass legislation that specifically excluded the records of threat assessment teams from FOIA release.
6. Institutions that do not have an internal law enforcement agency may designate a particular office or school official to maintain threat assessment records. In all cases, threat assessment records should be regarded as law enforcement/security related records, even if the person in charge of maintaining the records is not a sworn law enforcement officer. The person designated as the campus safety official for the purpose of fulfilling Clery Act requirements may be appropriate.
7. The creation of a threat assessment file will not prevent use of other records according to existing practices. For example, disciplinary actions that would ordinarily be included in the subject’s educational or employment record should continue to be placed in those records. Incidents of threatening behavior that would ordinarily be recorded in an institutional file, such as an employment record, should continue to be placed in those locations.
G. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
1. According to the U.S. Department of Education, HIPAA does not apply to education records: “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a law passed by Congress intended to establish transaction, security, privacy, and other standards to address concerns about the electronic exchange of health information. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule excludes from its coverage those records that are protected by FERPA at school districts and postsecondary institutions that provide health or medical services to students. This is because Congress specifically addressed how education records should be protected under FERPA. For this reason, records that are protected by FERPA are not subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule and may be shared with parents under the circumstances described above.” (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-parents-postsecstudents.html
2. HIPAA allows disclosure of protected health information, including psychotherapy notes, concerning a patient when it is considered necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to others. This can include disclosure to law enforcement, family members, potential victims and others if the disclosure can be justified as reducing the risk of violence. See CFR §164.512(j).
2. Institutions of higher education, such as some community colleges, which do not have mental health professionals who can serve on a threat assessment team should contract with a mental health agency or independent practitioner in the community who can serve as a team member.
3. Institutions of higher education, such as some community colleges, which do not have an institution-based law enforcement staff that can serve on a threat assessment team should contract with a local law enforcement agency to obtain a team member.
D. Threat assessment records
Threat assessment teams should maintain confidential records of all cases for legal and security purposes. The records will not be part of a subject’s academic, medical, mental health, or employment records, if any exist at the institution. This policy does not alter any other policy regarding the placement of information in a subject’s academic, medical, mental health, or employment records.
§37.2-808. Emergency custody; issuance and execution of order.
A. Any magistrate may issue, upon the sworn petition of any responsible person or upon his own motion, an emergency custody order when he has probable cause to believe that any person within his judicial district (i) has mental illness, (ii) presents an imminent danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself, (iii) is in need of hospitalization or treatment, and (iv) is unwilling to volunteer or incapable of volunteering for hospitalization or treatment.
F. A law-enforcement officer who, based upon his observation or the reliable reports of others, has probable cause to believe that a person meets the criteria for emergency custody as stated in this section may take that person into custody and transport that person to an appropriate location to assess the need for hospitalization or treatment without prior authorization. Such evaluation shall be conducted immediately.
Virginia Criminal Information Network system established and maintained by the Department pursuant to Chapter 2 (§52-12 et seq.) of Title 52. Where practical, the court or magistrate may transfer information electronically to the Virginia Criminal Information Network system. A copy of an emergency protective order issued pursuant to this section shall be served upon the respondent as soon as possible, and upon service, the agency making service shall enter the date and time of service into the Virginia Criminal Information Network system.
E. Each threat assessment team shall establish relationships or utilize existing relationships with local and state law enforcement agencies as well as mental health agencies to expedite assessment and intervention with individuals whose behavior may present a threat to safety.
Under current regulations, personally identifiable information (PII) includes a student’s name and other direct personal identifiers, such as the student’s SSN or student number. PII also includes indirect identifiers, such as the name of the student’s parent or other family members; the student’s or family’s address, and personal characteristics or other information that would make the student’s identity easily traceable. The final regulations add biometric records to the list of personal identifiers that constitute PII, and add other indirect identifiers, such as date and place of birth and mother’s maiden name, as examples of identifiers that should be considered in determining whether information is personally identifiable. In response to public comments, the final regulations define “biometric record” to mean a record of one or more measurable biological
Virginia College Threat Assessment 82
or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual, including fingerprints, retina and iris patterns, voiceprints, DNA sequence, facial characteristics, and handwriting. The definition is based on National Security Presidential Directive 59 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 24.
The final regulations remove from the definition of PII the reference to “other information that would make the student’s identity easily traceable” because the phrase lacked specificity and clarity, and possibly suggested a fairly low standard for protecting education records. In its place, the regulations add that PII includes “other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.” This change brings the definition more in line with recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance to Federal agencies, with modifications tailored to the educational community. (See OMB M-07-16, “Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information” at footnote 1:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-16.pdf.) Under the final regulations, PII also includes “information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates.”
In a nut shell, these threat assessment teams take in anonymous reports that are used to assess if an individuals is dangerous, mentally ill, what have you. They also take in reports from those around the target. False information can come in, but the target does not have the access to clear false information, which is allowed under most privacy laws. This is similar to what the Fusion centers do, and this is what companies like the A.C.L.U. were essentially fighting against with the fusion centers, but then here are universities and companies getting away with hiding this information from the people who need access to it, so that they can legally clear up any misinformation on their records. Not only that, but these threat assessments are being used to slander the individual in many cases, but under these guidelines they might not have information or access to the records.
This is really wrong, and legally this has to be challenged. This is one area that targets might be able to start in with a privacy lawyer. Request the information it’s your right, but when it’s denied, then then legal challenges can begin. I don’t know if this is the case in all States, or other countries such as Canada, but it will be interesting to find out. In the U.K. the laws do allow the request and disclosure of information, but I have not yet found a similar clause that hides the information away.
Fear it’s the power that controls and consumes the lives of many people right now. As long as they are consumed by the fear they will be controlled by it. As long as they let others tell them what to be afraid of they will control the masses.
Wars on Drugs, War on Terror, Street Gangs, Global Warming, Swine Flu, etc. It can be anything, the only person or persons that can control this fear or stop it from happening is us. We the people. We have the power and they know it, thus they keep us in a constant state of fear. They put weak and pathetic leaders forwards, ones in their control, who we are then told to emulate.
You see this questionable leadership in all areas of society, but most people never question it, it’s always been like this and they don’t think that things can change, or that they will change. Also they are so comfortable, they are too lazy to put in the effort that it would take to make a change. Even if it’s slavery it’s still a routine that they know and they are willing to work with it.
Targeted Individuals know a lot about fear. We deal with fear when we are mobbed, targeted, electronically harassed, and the various other things that targets go through. Being afraid is a normal human emotion and there is nothing wrong with it, but when it overpowers and controls your life, then it’s a bad thing. That’s when it becomes a problem.
Many targets deal with fears that most people think make them look crazy. Eg. They get sensitized over time to a color, word, action, ect and finally all the negative associations, or the big event that it took to make them sensitized is not needed, any little trigger event will do, and these informants on a daily basis will use little trigger events to keep the target scared and in their control.
They will also try to anchor on other things to keep targets scared of more things, till their life becomes one big fear factor. That is the goal, then all they have to do is snap a finger, jingle a key, cough, sneeze, use the color red, patterns, snap laptops, etc, and the target reacts. Those are some of the sensitivities I have heard about since coming online. These are designed to keep the Targeted Individual in a state of anxiety or fear. Before these little events could work, they used big events to try to make the target afraid. Eg. When I first started being electronically harassed and burnt in my home, or as the informants like to call it, (electronically monitored) they use to always try to attach a noise of a drill to the torture. So there I would be getting burnt, and then at the time I knew nothing about shielding and had no defence so it was pretty raw, and painful. They consistently tried to make sure that drilling was attached to the torture, this was over several months. So when I went back out into the world, they were sure, and banking on the fact that I would be sensitized to the sound of drills and then they could just tell the informants, this person has a phobia, is very sensitize to drills, acts out is not normal, ah but they failed. For the next two years and even to today, they still attempt it once in awhile to see if I was sensitized. It just shows me that with proper knowledge, we can win out over these people in small little ways, day by day.
See I was lucky, I had one sensitivity, I had it for years. Before my torture with electronic harassment started I learnt about anchors, so I realized that they would be trying to attach another sensitivity to the one I already had. I had a working knowledge of Pavlov and the dog experiment so I was familiar with what they were trying to do.
Eg. Pavlov would ring a bell during his dog’s feeding time. The dog would start to salivate over the food. After a while he could just ring the bell and the dog would start to salivate, cause he had associated the sound with food, in our case we associate the sensitivity to negative things they have done to us over time, without in many cases even realising that they are sensitizing us till it’s too late.
The sensitivity that I had when my electronic harassment began, I spent that time at home being tortured and electronically harassed, but also getting over my sensitivity. It was not perfect, but over the next few months, it got better, and is at a normal level to what it was before the sensitivity started.
So what does this have to do with fear that the average person’s experiences? Well let’s take 9/11 a big, huge event that got everyone scared, panicked. Most people because they shared the fear understand it and agree that this was a fear worthy event, and understand and accept that people are scared and have a phobia about this event happening again.
So now several years later, you don’t need another 9/11 to keep the people scared, the occasional terrorist threat, weird plane flying over New York, and keep the citizens on high alert and they are in the grips of fear, and it works. Also if we get them scared of 9/11 then we can add in other fears, attach additional fears.
See these people try to stop us from living our lives by trying to scare us, systemically trying to destroy us, and they want to try to control us. Well 9/11 does the same for the average citizen.
When people are scared they can do silly things, behave in what to the average person seems like irrational behavior, but to them seems perfectly normal. To an outsider that did not know about 9/11, voodoo rituals of taking off belts, shoes, and allowing oneself to be scanned and shown virtually naked to some stranger, would seem bizarre if not flat out crazy, an outsider would laugh and be like what’s wrong with these people, allowing themselves to be treated like that and give up their rights? But because the fear has happened over the last several years it seems normal to the people that share this common fear. Just like our phobias are normal to us, based on our experiences.
Getting past fear, not feeding the fear factor. For my sensitivity it was a process. Each time I was home, I worked on it, I did not have the daily exposure, I knew it was irrational, I knew how it had come about, and I had a pretty good idea how to go about disassociating it with negative things, but it took time, and I had to work on it.
Fear is something that we have in many ways, it’s normal and healthy, it can even keep us safe, but there is a stage where fear becomes irrational and even hurtful. Most times fear is individually based and if your phobia is going to an extreme level, an outsider can often point this out. However fear of 9/11 was group based, and the fear is shared by such a large group that their irrational actions, and activities are not being registered. The vast majority see these crazy measures, as something sane. They see giving up their rights, privacy, dignity as something needful to keep them safe. The fear is so deep routed that they are not only willing to give up their rights as a society and individuals, but then they are like a drug addict willing to drag down those around them who don’t see things this way, those who refuse to give into this irrationality.
They want others to be scared the way they are, and those of us who just don’t function this way, they are happy to take aware our rights, our freedoms. They are happy to go to other countries and attack others to try to bring about safety and security, which only succeeds in making more enemies, but instead of seeing this for what it is, they continue on in the same vain as before. Doing more harm to their chances of having a normal safe future.
Fear can be strong, powerful and irrational. At some stage however if you want to get better as an individual, or as a society, you have to stop giving into this fear, you have to find some way to let it go. Unfortunately being scared, living in fear works for many right now, too many, and like Dr Phil says, if it’s working for you, you are not going to change. Something about this cycle of fear and stupidity is working for a large majority of people, and the rest of us are caught up in their self destructive spiral of destruction.
We can’t force them to stop being scared, I don’t believe that we have the right. But we can point out why the fear is irrational, encourage them to help them get past the fear. We can raise our own vibrational levels, refuse to live in fear in our own lives, and try to help those around us who are gripped by fear to get past it. Many never get past it, but they might be able to get to a stage where they are functioning in a rational and sane manner again. McCarthyism continued until just a few stood up and said, enough is enough, “have you no shame,” and then it fell apart from there.
Change can happen, you can stop living in fear. It’s a painful, daily emotional experience, I am not trying to pretend that it will be easy. Right now this fear is enslaving and to many the fear appears to be protecting, but it’s not, however people will only see this in their own time, when they get ready to deal with the fear. For many it will be never. Yesterday it was the Russian’s, they were the one’s to fear, they were going to drop that nuclear bomb anytime. That fear seemed logical to some, and it allowed them to do crazy things. Today it’s terrorist. Tomorrow it will likely be someone else, or something else. Whatever will get a response from the people. Just like whatever will get a response from the Targeted Individual.
Each person has to take some individual responsibility for what is happening. It’s a normal thing in today’s society to be scared, but each person has to try to move past that fear.
First realise that there is a problem. The society is being destroyed by this fear. The rights and freedoms that you claim others envy so much, where are they? Are they running around naked at airports, well not running around naked, but being scanned naked, with privates available for view? (Yes the naughty bits will be available for view, or there is no point in having the scanners.) Are they getting mind read at the airports? When do you say enough is enough?
Even if the worst thing does happen, you would pick up your lives, your psyche and continue on, that is how normal societies function, and I know you probably don’t want to hear this from the Targeted Individual, but you are no longer behaving in a rational manner.
If you are able to realise that there is a problem with what is happening, then you need to ask yourself what can you do at an individual level to fix this problem? Then take it from there.
Fear controls us as long as we let it. I have watched psycho nut jobs, some of these informants try to destroy my life for years. Jobless at times, threats of losing my roof over my head, almost daily attempts to run/drive into me in lethal ways. Plus the just being annoyed by the informants as they try to provoke. I have been there done that, it’s not a place I like, and it’s one that I want to stay away from. Like others I have to work at it.
If you can raise yourself up from the fear, then you can help others. Some of us got past the Flu Fear recently, and Global Warming fears, but they seem to always be able to pull the people back in with the terror scare. Until you the people find a way to stop being scarred, then they have us, and the terrorists real or imagined, planned or unplanned will have it and you will have lost.
Overcoming fear is not easy, it’s a daily process, but we have to try because freedom and democratic security are worth fighting for.
Voice To Skull otherwise known as V2K.
Now let me state this before I go further. I am not an expert on this topic. I have never been a target of this practice. My knowledge is limited, but I do get questions in regards to this from time to time, so I am going to try to tackle this in a small way.
This is not advise, a professional opinion, or legal feedback in anyway shape or form.
I also want to say to true targets of this practice, I think you are very brave discussing this stuff. It can not be easy, and I hope that technology can be found to counter what is happening.
Some targets legitimate targets complain about hearing voices. If you are from outside the community and someone tells you that they are hearing voices you assume that they are crazy right?
Well the more you know the better able you are to make informed choices and opinions.
Now after watching this video, do you think that everyone hearing voices is crazy?
What about after watching this clip from Real Genius? It’s a 1980’s movie staring Val Kilmeer, where they get someone to hear voices via a tooth implant.
They put the person to sleep, do a bit of drilling in his tooth, and he wakes up thinking that he is hearing the voice of God. This was a cheap 80’s trick. Actual technology has come a long way.
The clip will not be posted here, but if you really look for it you can find it. Or just rent the movie.
You can even watch the movie control factor. Where they also use technology to get people to hear voices. In an apartment not too far from where the target lives.
[quote]”The American people have been kept in the dark about the true scientific progress in this country. Technologies of mass-control exist that the public would never dream off. I know because, I helped developed them. They call it psychotronic warfare, a research program dealing with mind-control. They can control everything what a person does, voices, that is how they get ya. This is not the elected government, this is the national security empire, the dark vaders of the 21st century.” –Control Factor
This short video clip was taken from the movie “Control Factor(2003) by Universal Studios”
More Mind-Control Sources:
Mind Control The Ultimate Terror:
Mind Control with Silent Sounds & Super Computers:
Digital TV – Mind Control by sound of silence:
Now control factor is just a movie, but the concept of the technology is very real.
This silent sound technology was patented years ago. Microwave hearing, which would allow a microwave to send voices directly inside the human head.
The microwave auditory effect, also known as the microwave hearing effect or the Frey effect, consists of audible clicks induced by pulsed/modulated microwave frequencies. The clicks are generated directly inside the human head without the need of any receiving electronic device. The effect was first reported by persons working in the vicinity of radar transponders during World War II. These induced sounds are not audible to other people nearby. The microwave auditory effect was later discovered to be inducible with shorter-wavelength portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. During the Cold War era, the American neuroscientist Allan H. Frey studied this phenomenon and was the first to publish (Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 17, pages 689-692, 1962) information on the nature of the microwave auditory effect; this effect is therefore also known as the Frey effect.
Dr. Don R. Justesen published “Microwaves and Behavior” in The American Psychologist (Volume 30, March 1975, Number 3).
Research by NASA in the 1970s showed that this effect occurs as a result of thermal expansion of parts of the human ear around the cochlea, even at low power density. Later, signal modulation was found to produce sounds or words that appeared to originate intracranially. It was studied for its possible use in communications. Similar research conducted in the USSR studied its use in non-lethal weaponry.
The existence of non-lethal weaponry that exploits the microwave auditory effect appears to have been classified “Secret NOFORN” in the USA from (at the latest) 1998, until the declassification on 6 December 2006 of “Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weaponry” in response to a FOIA request.
The technology gained further public attention when a company announced in early 2008 that they were close to fielding a device called MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) based on the principle.
So if a target starts to hear voices how do they know if they are crazy or being experimented on with one of the above technologies or even something more advanced?
This is a hard question to answer. The targeting that we experience I fully believe is capable of driving a perfectly sane person, mentally unstable. However I do believe that some targets are being played with, using some of the above technologies.
If I was a target in this situation, I would use a very scientific method to investigate.
Are you hearing the voices at all times, or just in specific locations?
Does it happen under water? Is the effect increased or decreased in anyway?
Have you tried to record the voices? Remember we can not hear dog whistles, but they do work. Many sounds are outside of human hearing, but other technology might be able to pick it up.
I am not sure if a microwave would block the sounds out, but if I was a target in this situation, and thought microwave hearing was being used, I would try to see if the noise could be eliminated by testing out a microwave. Eg. Unplugged a microwave, if you place your head/skull inside for a few seconds, do the voices stop? I know this sounds extreme, but honestly it’s something that I would check, takes about 30 seconds and this may or may not be something that could be attempted.
I mentioned recently that they are working on technology to give the world an invisible cloak, should be ready in the next three years or less. Yes an honest to goodness invisibility cloak. Think Harry Potter.
The materials they are using, are designed to bounce off microwave rays and this might help targets in the future if microwaves are being used. However the materials are expensive, but for targets with money to burn, then this could be something to look into.
Underground bunkers, deprivation chambers? I don’t know if any of these would work. Climbing a high mountain? Just to test out different locations, to see if it is something high tech vs low tech, vs something that is with you 24/7.
Again the above may or may not prove or disprove anything but it’s something that I would look into if in the same situation.
Why I believe some targets who say this is happening to them? Well in part because of the above examples posted, but the targets that I do believe, they were really specific.
Ruth Goodman, said it was men that she had dated, who worked in the intelligence industry. She said it happened to her after she was drugged and put under anesthesia. She thinks some form of micro surgery was done. She says they tried to keep her off the internet and prevent her from writing. She died shortly after, so I can’t confirm this one way or another, but her example fits what others have said.
A man I think his name was Tracy said that he could hear people like they were fighting over a microphone, and he knew at least one. To me based on what he said, it sounded like they were close by where they could see him, and the stuff they said, sounded like hicks who really wanted to mess with someone.
Gloria Naylor from what I recall said that her voices prevented her from writing. Now in her case I don’t know if they were with her all the time, or just when near the computer.
I like what Naylor did in the sense that she tried the traditional method, was given medication, it did not work, so she looked around for other answers.
I think this is logical, but as a target, I know that I would do a lot of research, experimentation and troubleshooting first.
So I spent a large part of the last few days brainstorming trying to figure out what things targets have done, and what they could do.
Remember these people who are doing this to you are not God, they would like to be, but they are not.
[quote]They are trying to develop a beam of light, it would be projected onto your forehead, go a couple of milimeters into your frontal cortex, and then receptors would get the reflection of that light, and you would not know. [/quote]
They even have laser microphones.
[quote]The main type of laser microphone is a surveillance device that uses a laser beam to detect sound vibrations in a distant object. The object is typically inside a room where a conversation is taking place, and can be anything that can vibrate (for example, a picture on a wall) in response to the pressure waves created by noises present in the room. The object preferably has a smooth surface. The laser beam is directed into the room through a window, reflects off the object and returns to a receiver that converts the beam to an audio signal. The beam may also be bounced off the window itself. The minute differences in the distance traveled by the light as it reflects from the vibrating object are detected interferometrically. The interferometer converts the variations to intensity variations, and electronics are used to convert these variations to signals that can be converted back to sound.[/quote]
The world is changing at a rapid pace. If a target today goes to the doctor to complain of hearing voices, they are still automatically in most cases diagnosed as mentally unstable, but the reality is, if a psychiatrist or other health care professional is not upto date on the latest technology, or even aware of secret technologies, they run the risk of making a faulty dignosis, where someone might actually be telling the truth. The science fiction of yesterday, is science fact today.
I am really happy about this story. I did not know there was a potentially “violent person registry.” I don’t know what the names would be in Canada, U.S. or Europe, but it should not be hard to find out.
Think of this scenario in the workplace, at school, etc. You make a comment, or perform an action that might upset someone with the capacity to get you on such a list, and then an notice is sent out to several dozen places that you are a potentially violent person who should not be alone with others, and then your life changes.
Here is some really neat info from this article.
[quote]Jane Clift saw it as her public duty to report a drunk she saw trampling flowers in a park.
But her efforts led to a surreal nightmare in which she was branded potentially violent and put on a council blacklist with thugs and sex attackers.
Her details were circulated to an extraordinary range of public and private bodies, including doctors, dentists, opticians, libraries, contraceptive clinics, schools and nurseries. Their staff were advised not to see her alone.
The 43-year-old former care worker was forced to withdraw an application to become a foster parent and, eventually, to leave the town where she had lived for ten years.
Now, after a bitter four-year legal battle with Slough Council, the stain on her character has finally been removed.[/quote]
A list that put her up there with sex attackers if you can imagine that.
She was a care worker, and got denied fostering a child because of this.
Woman sues council for libel after being labelled
‘potentially violent’ for complaining about a vandalised flowerbed
[quote]Ms Clift told the court that she had to leave Slough, where she had lived for 10 years, and had initially moved to Southampton.
‘I’d like to move back some time in the near future but without this hanging over my head and my family’s head.
‘I have many connections in Slough, I like Slough, but it was impossible for me to function normally in Slough with this on my head for 18 months, and the stain will always be there.’
She said that after the council acted, she sensed that everywhere she went, there was ‘whispering, collaboration, people scurrying about’.
‘One time I went to the contraceptive clinic and I felt that there were way too many people hovering about for me than should have been there, making me feel very insecure.
‘It did serve as a reminder that everywhere I went – hospitals, GPs, libraries – anywhere at all, even if I phoned the fire service, as soon as my name went on to that system, it flagged up ‘violent person marker, only to be seen in twos, medium risk’.’
‘I’m nothing special, no qualifications, don’t have a fancy job but I don’t go getting into trouble. It cuts across class, race, everything.
‘These people have this ability to do this and they can abuse it.
Not many people know, I didn’t even know, that such a register existed.[/quote]
She sensed that everywhere she went there was a whispering and collaboration campaign, with people scurrying about. She also goes on to say more people were hovering about than should have been there, making her feel insecure. I am sure that I have another word for what they were doing, but to continue.
Woman Placed on Violent persons registry
Woman labelled violent by Slough borough council wins damages
[quote]A woman who was labelled potentially violent by a council has won £12,000 in libel damages.
Jane Clift sued Slough borough council and Patrick Kelleher, its head of public protection, over their reaction to her complaint about a three-year-old boy who vandalised a flower bed in a town park.
The authority argued that a 2005 entry about her in its violent persons register was accurate, and that Clift was obsessed with getting Slough’s antisocial behaviour co-ordinator sacked.
Mr Justice Tugendhat found in favour of Clift at the high court, but rejected her claim that Kelleher had been malicious.[/quote]
She had to move and it took four years to get her name removed from this list.
I was just pointing that out, because I am sure that the policy on these lists is not to give our information to the person being placed on the lists.
Staff Safety (Potentially Violent Persons) Database
employees and others arising from their work activities.
The purpose of this document is to alert Directorates to their statutory duties and of the corporate information system designed to enable managers to identify potential risks to employees from individuals, animals and premises. The purpose of the recording is to seek to avoid further incidents through the controlled sharing of information that will be used to undertake a better-informed risk assessment of proposed visits by employees.
The Staff safety register is a secure electronic based database recording incidents involving an employee of DMBC (or partner agency) that have caused actual or potential harm.
It is Doncaster Council policy to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees and therefore managers must utilise the staff safety database to achieve this objective.
All managers in day-to-day control of people, places etc must ensure that risk assessments are completed and are suitable and sufficient for their purpose. Managers must ensure that the significant findings arising from risk assessments are communicated to employees affected by those work activities. For the purposes of this section the work activity relates to visits by Council employees away from Council premises. See Instruction section for detailed Risk assessment.
Senior managers who, after notification of an incident to one of their employees, believe that person(s) and/ or an address now need to be included onto the staff safety register then they must notify the system manager of that decision at the earliest opportunity.
To comply with Data Protection Act 1988 if the manager decides to include a person onto the register then that person must be informed in writing of the intention to do so, the reason for their inclusion and the arrangements for review and removal. The right of appealing against that decision must also be provided.
Employees who undertake visits to non-Council premises must utilise the Staff safety register to ascertain if the location of the proposed visit is included in the register as a potential to cause harm.
Principal Safety Officer
The Principal Safety Officer as system manager has the ability to create, amend and delete data and to ensure appropriate an advisory/ training service is available to all employees with responsibilities under these instructions. The PSO must ensure that the system is managed and staffed appropriately.
System Access – Three levels of access are available and a clear level of authorisation will control the granting of each. All levels of direct access to data will be password controlled and the staff safety register itself will record details of every access, including the data viewed and the reason for access.
8.1. Level 1 Access- Basic Interrogation
An email (external email facility) based enquiry function, which tests whether a name or address is registered. Appropriate staff will be specifically authorised to use this function.
8.2. Level 2 Access- View Only
The ability to view data on the software system (software installed on individual pc’s). Only a limited number of managers will be given this access. Where a level 1 user identifies a match from the email system a Level 2 user will obtain the relevant information from the software system and carry out a risk assessment for a visit to the premises and advise accordingly.
Interesting, I bet every single little Human Resources officer knows about this list. It goes hand in hand with make a stink go see a shrink policy they have in their handbook.
The next day, the plant director of human resources invoked a Ford program for combating workplace violence to bar Crosty from the factory and ordered him to see a company-paid psychiatrist or lose his job.
A little more than fourteen months later, and 725 miles away, officials at Emory University cited a similar concern about violence to justify using armed guards to escort Dr. James Murtagh off university property when Dr. R. Wayne Alexander, chairman of the department of medicine at Emory, ordered him to see a company-selected psychiatrist or lose his job. Six weeks earlier, Murtagh, a professor of pulmonology at Emory, had filed a false claims suit against the university, alleging that it had misspent millions of dollars in federal grant money. He claimed the university diverted money from research grants in order to pay for salaries and trips for administrators and some staff. The specific allegations were sealed by order of the federal judge.
Crosty and Murtagh don’t know each other. It is unlikely their worlds would ever intersect, but they have at least one thing in common. They both are victims of an increasingly popular employer weapon against whistleblowers: the psychiatric reprisal.
Across the United States, companies have seized upon concerns about workplace violence to quash dissent. Hundreds of large corporations have hired psychiatrists and psychologists as consultants to advise them on how to weed out “threatening” employees. They say they are only responding to a 1970 directive from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that they maintain a “safe and secure work environment.” But by drawing the definition of “threatening” as broadly as possible, they are giving themselves a new club to bang over the heads of workers.
So in the workplace I am guessing this could be applied for a number of reasons, and then you end up on these little connected lists.
132 – Violent Persons Register
Referring to Minute No. 125 – Violent Persons Register, John Irving from the COPS Team had attended the meeting and gave the following advice:
To hold a register of violent or potentially violent people on computer, the information could be de-personalised by using a classification system i.e.: 1 = Potentially violent, 2 = Threatened people before, 3 = Been violent in the past, 4 = Two-man visit, 5 = Don’t Visit.
132 – Continued…
The Legal Services Administrator would compile a Violent Persons Database, which would be put on the Council’s Intranet system, and would be password protected. John Irving suggested that as a long-term goal, once the database had been established it would be useful to share the information with Liberata, District Nurses etc.
The Legal Services Administrator also needed to write a procedure to ensure that the Council didn’t fall foul of the Data Protection Act. It was agreed that addresses couldn’t be put onto the Violent Persons Register without proper clarification. It was suggested that a sub-group to this Group be set up to endorse these requests.
Minutes of the meeting from a local booby. How to really mess up someones life. I mean how to share information of violent persons.
Well just some fun food for thought. Tell me what you think, leave comments if you feel like it.
- Above top secret
- Abu Ghraib
- Active denial
- Active Denial Weapons
- as the world turns
- Asain Male
- Asian Female
- Astral Plane
- Background records checks
- bad luck
- Black female
- Black Females
- Black Male
- black women
- Brain reading device
- Britney Spears
- brown coats
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- changing vibrations
- Citizen Informants
- Civilian Spies
- Community harassment
- community mobbing
- community policing
- concentration camps
- constitutional change
- Controlled society
- Covert investigations
- Cultural diversity and multiculturalism
- david icke
- devinci code
- domestic spying
- East Germany
- electromagnetic frequency
- Electronic harassment
- Emotional Vampires
- False Prophets
- files updated
- Gang Stalking
- government corruption
- GPS tracking
- Guantanamo Bay
- Health and Safety
- Heath Ledger
- High technology
- Honey Trap
- Indigo Ribbon
- Informant System
- Intimate Infiltarations
- Jeremy Blake
- Joan of Ark
- John Lennon
- Kilmeer Gill
- Lord Of The Rings
- Marian Fisher
- Mark M Rich
- Markus Wolf
- Martin Luther King Jr
- Meat production
- mental concentration camps
- metropolitan police
- militarized police force
- Mind Control
- Mind Reading
- Minority women
- Naomi Ebersole
- National Security Letters
- Neurolinguistic programing
- New World Order
- one handed signals
- Online Stalking
- Passive Aggressive Manipulative
- Personal Identifiers
- Police Abuse
- Police Corruption
- Police State
- Production Company
- psychological harassment
- Quantum Physics
- Record keeping
- records updated
- Red Squads
- Robot Sentient Project
- Rosa Parks
- School Shooting
- sexual harassment
- sign language
- Skin Heads
- Social Control
- Spiritual Based Products
- Spy cameras
- spy satellites
- State target
- Stop snitching
- Targeted Individual
- The Matrix
- Theresa Duncan
- Third wave
- Thought Police
- Threat Assessment Teams
- time travel
- twilight zone
- violent persons registry
- Voice to skull
- walls of jericho
- whistle blower
- white female
- White Male
- workplace mobbing
- Young and the restless
- zero tollerance