Part I - Models of Synthetic Telepathy | Part
II - Acoustic Signal Modulation | Part
III - Working Models
Part IV - Bayesian Stopping Criterion
Part I: Models of Synthetic Telepathy
Allen Barker, July 31, 2002
This article, the first of a series, deals with models of the mind
control network. It is an elaboration and summary of some of the ideas
expressed in my earlier essay "The Autopig."
See also "Mental Firewalls" and "Special Powers and ESP.".
For a list of some of the basic abbreviations used in the current series, see the document outlining abbreviations used in the essays.
The later articles in this current series are listed at the end.
Please bear with the intro, even if the ideas seem unfamiliar at
first. The sections near the end should make sense even without a
complete grasp of the early sections, and will tend to clarify the ideas and
make them more concrete. I do not cover the mental illness possibility
and cover lie here because I have discussed it elsewhere, but remember that
torture is not called torture because it is a picnic in the park. It
leaves scars and sequelae.
Model independent reasoning
In the context we are working in, a
model is an assumed framework for what facts hold. There are various
possible models. Multiple model reasoning involves considering
various models simultaneously. Model independent reasoning involves
making decisions or coming to conclusions that hold in all models -- or at
least in all tangibly likely models or in some collection of models. As
a brief example, consider this binary tree split: Either the government
is involved directly (CIA, etc.) or it is not (and non-government people are
the perpetrators, with government at most indirectly involved). These
are two models (or classes of models). It can be useful to evaluate the
facts and the data with respect to each of these models. In some cases
the government is directly involved and in others it is not, so this is
an individual, victim-based model system. What model independent
conclusion can be drawn?
The government is culpable and is the responsible party to petition for
redress in both cases. So this conclusion is model independent with
respect to those models. In the first case the culpability is
obvious. In the second, it is clear that one of the main functions of
government is to protect the citizens, especially their fundamental
rights. The most fundamental right, underlying all others, is the
freedom of thought. By refusing to fairly consider victims' claims and
implicitly supporting such repression the government is also indirectly at
best supporting a system of repression. These "psychic lynchings," --
under any model -- are very much in line with the long US history of civil
rights abuses which the government has long turned a blind eye to. Note
also that most victims still undergo criminal stalking and harassment in
addition to the mind violations -- whatever the model.
The standard model
I refer to the assumption that technological
mind control techniques are the underlying mechanism for most mind control
abuses as the standard model. This model also includes techniques
such as drugging and hypnosis -- which are known to have been applied in
projects like MKULTRA and Bluebird -- as well as the combinations of these
techniques with recent technology like voice-to-skull transmission devices.
As an example of an alternative model, consider what I call the natural
model. This model assumes that what is occurring with many mind
control victims is the abuse of natural psychic abilities. For example,
it might be originating from a hostile remote viewing/harassment unit.
Or it may be some other group of evil people with assumed real "psychic
powers" sufficiently strong to cause the reported effects. I call the
model where both technological methods and natural psychic methods are
employed the mixed model because it is a mixture of both the standard
model and the natural model.
This brings up the main split that will be considered as an example in this
article. Is it technology or some natural psychic phenomenon? As I
have pointed out in the above links, for many purposes it does not matter and
the conclusions are model independent. The standard model is pure
technology. We know that it exists. Psychic phenomena strong enough for
the voice-to-skull phenomena reported by victims, if it exists, must have been
kept secret by a conspiracy lasting millennia. There are various other
incongruities with the natural model, including "facts" which are missing
their logical consequences and thus are suspect. (This is especially
true where those consequences are subject to arbitrage or profit -- though
that can also be a motive for secrecy.) The natural psychic model would
require a "psychic mafia" holding for generations, including for children,
adolescents, and old people on deathbeds. It would require some
enforcement mechanism so that even the disaffected members would not reveal a
conspiracy that was not there to help them at all.
As I have also pointed out, though, the standard model of pure technology
exists right now. Thus, in the current world, the pure natural
model is obsolete (if it ever held). Could you tell the
difference? So we have either the standard model or a mixed model with
both natural psychic effects and technological ones.
Exposing the technology helps to bring out the the concepts and the
violations even in the unlikely case that the natural model holds and a
weaponized "psychic space" is the source of some people's harassment.
Thus the decision or conclusion to bring out the existence of the technology
and its known history of abuses follows in both the standard model (directly)
and the natural model (indirectly). [And is the right thing to do
regardless, because of the victims still suffering and denied redress.
Human rights are axiomatically model independent with regard to any model.]
Why consider the natural model?
Although it provides a very
good example of multiple model reasoning, there are some good reasons for
victims to avoid the psychic model altogether. It may be used as a psyop
to distract from the technology -- even that which is known openly to
exist. It may be used to deceive technology victims into thinking they
are "just psychic" and that the torture is "natural" (which it is not in
either model). It is hard to take a natural psychic model to
court, and so justice would have to proceed on other channels. The very
association may be (and at times has been) used to connotationally tar mind
control victims and their human rights plight with the "kookiness" that
psychic phenomena tend to be regarded with in our society.
The reasons I consider the natural model -- even though I think the
evidence supports the standard model -- are as follows:
It is how the technology would seem to unwitting victims.
There could well be a standard model with a psyop of a natural psychic model
built on top of it. That is, many people with MC technology
used on them unwittingly may be fooled into thinking they are psychic and
know nothing of "the man in the middle" or the technology.
Please do not forget that
the technology does exist and whatever the status of the "natural
model" there are technological MC victims. Finally, there is
something I call algorithm generica. This algorithm allows you to
generalize or reason by analogy across models. It is amazing how much
reasoning -- if you do the real, hard reasoning -- carries over to other
models from thinking about a particular model. Whole subtrees remain
essentially intact, to use the tree analogy. Generica is a bitch, as I say.
The concepts of "telepathy," etc., are very familiar to many people from
books and movies. Many people are even familiar with thinking about
things like nonconsensual psychic attacks on their minds. In
this sense it provides a natural introduction to some elements of the
subjective mind control experience, i.e., how it feels to a
victim. (This empathy may then extend to real, technological victims
of similar horrors.) Of course the differences also need to be sharply
If we assume the natural model is not "magic," then there is a physics
and a brain mechanism involved. If so, then this biological system can
be and almost surely has been reverse engineered. This actually
increases the likelihood of the standard model (or mixed model under
this assumption) in many ways.
Taking a multiple model approach generally minimizes the chances of
being surprised should things turn out differently than you supposed
Many people believe the natural model already, whether it corresponds to
ground truth or not. Such people are potentially attractive victims to those
testing the technology, so they should be alerted to that
Some people may psychologically prefer the natural model and be unable
to cope with the standard model because they cannot deal with the idea that
other humans would essentially put them in a technological cow pasture to
exploit and manipulate them.
Reasoning around uncertainties
In reasoning it is important to
know as much as you can, but also to keep in mind what you do not know.
Many people know a little that some others do not, but think they know much
more than they actually do. Model independent reasoning allows you to
take uncertainties into account and find that, for some conclusions, what you
do not know does not matter. What you know is enough. Of course
this depends on your choosing the models correctly and covering all the
possibilities. Bad data or deceptive data can be worse than no data: set
a reasonable threshold and toss the garbage.
This ends the introductory part of the article. The remainder is a
less structured collection of ideas and questions. If fully developed
the above ideas would lead to a whole book, at least. These paragraphs
hint at what that might look like. Victims in such situations probably
do not need it all spelled out. And as the saying goes also, some horses
start at the shadow of a whip. The main purpose of this article is to get the
information out to those it may help. I mainly deal with "telepathy,"
natural or synthetic, by which voices and other audio productions are sent to
victims in a voice-to-skull manner and whereby the victims' inner subvocal
speech is transmitted out to others.
General Concepts in Synthetic Telepathy Models
Recall that an RTI is a realtime idiot, and is like a DJ at a radio
station you are forced to listen to constantly and cannot turn down.
They can access your private thoughts and harass you with this fact in their
"broadcast." An AP is an autopig, which is an AI-like machine or expert
system doing the job of an RTI. The combination is similar to a DJ
playing taped segments between live segments.
Model neutral decisions. Rather than being completely model
independent, some decisions are model neutral. This means that they hold
in some models but for the other models they do not make any difference one
way or another.
The third ear. This is a useful way of considering auditory
phenomena not coming from the ears (or coming to the ears in a disguised way,
where such a send is not apparent; certain known devices are capable of doing
this). It is nothing but a sixth sense, whether it is natural or
artificial. Even if it is a brain implant, it is essentially just like
an additional sense organ. If you would not believe something sent to your
real ears, why would you believe it if it were sent to your third ear without
your consent? Partly this is because of denial of the phenomenon and the
fact that people tend to confuse such signals with their own inner verbal
thought processes. The modulation of such speech signals is typically
pathological lies meant to harass, distract, and manipulate victims.
Some such applications are subtle, while others are the blunt Chinese water
torture of constant harassment. In the nonconsensual case, it is just like if
Ewen Cameron forcibly strapped headphones onto your real ears and forced you
to listen to harassing or manipulating audio 24 hours a day.
New term. The Cameron number of an autopig phrase (or RTI
phrase) is the number of times it has been repeated. When a phrase has a
large Cameron number it tends to become a strongly conditioned phrase
(SCP). This essentially causes a form of brain damage to the
victim. There is a tendency to hear such a phrase even when only vaguely
similar phrases are heard, both on the third ear and through the actual ears.
Network structure of the communications channel. What we are
dealing with in an abstract sense is a communications channel. The fact that
it is often nonconsensual does not change this. The nodes of such a network
are people, both perpetrators and victims. Some nodes might also be
machines with AI-types of monitoring or harassment software. There is
such a network structure in all models, though the exact details will vary.
Considering questions of network details helps in fitting the data you gather
to a particular model, though beware that psyops are intended to purposely
conceal the real, underlying structure. These are some things to
Local vs. regional vs. global. Is there a spatial
component? I.e. do people nearby tend to send or receive more strongly
than those far away? Note that local interactions tend to be more
noticeable than larger-scale ones because you have more direct feedback from
individuals. More distant realtime spatial feedback might come from
live radio or TV, for example, or a long-distance phone call. I have
noticed a strong non-local component in my situation, but there may be a
local component also that is partially masked by this. Of course a
global or regional effect also tends to be local.
On the notion of subnetworks,
there are several ways such can arise. Note that they need not be completely
isolated from each other, just clusters of higher connectivity. As an
example, if the effect had a spatial component then spatial subnetworks would
arise. They might also arise even within a spatial region. For
example, if a frequency-specific nonthermal EM effect were responsible and
people varied with respect to what frequencies they "sent" and responded to
most strongly (according to their physiology and perhaps learning effects).
Send power vs. receive power. Do some on the network send
more strongly than they receive (i.e. more volume)? Do some receive
more strongly than they send (i.e. more sensitive to weak signals)?
"Control" or "consent" status. Do some nodes on the network
have more control over the data they send or receive than others, such as an
on-off switch or volume control? Are some witting versus others that
Spatial distribution of senders and receivers. If there is
a spatial component, what is the geographic distribution of people with the
various send vs. receive parameters?
Audience model. Is there a silent "audience" larger than
the direct participants, the equivalent of Usenet lurkers? In the case
of harassment, do they enjoy the "rape show," just tolerate it, or work to
help the victims?
Subnetworks. If there are localized subnetworks (or spatial
regions, assuming a spatial component), are there different "cultures"
within such subnetworks? Might harassment occur on one subnetwork,
silent monitoring occur on another, and maybe even something useful and
consensual on another?
Psychic suppression units. If you assume a mixed model -- or
even a weaponized pure natural model -- might there be the psychic equivalent
of cointelpro? Control freaks seek out any channel for control and
manipulation of individuals and groups. How might a "groupmind" be
affected by manipulating or torturing a few select individuals? How
might political murders or discrediting campaigns be carried out? What
sort of economic exploitation would be possible?
Ground truth is the correct model. Keep in mind that the real
"audience" and "perpetrators" are only those specified by the correct
model (which is unknown). In conditionally evaluating any model,
keep in mind what assumptions are assumed true within the model. This
can avoid some fuzzy confusions across models which can tend to occur.
Ultimately internal, though also work on the external. Your
reactions and response to mind control of this sort is ultimately internal. In
some models you cannot ever "turn off" the signal without externally turning
off or blowing up the machine responsible. (Shielding is another
possibility, but there has been no reported long-term success in blocking the
signals.) This is like if Ewen Cameron forcibly put earphones on your
real ears that you could not remove. You would have to hear the
sound. In other models such as certain EM models you might be able to modify
your brain's response to "tune out" the sounds. In either case, you need
to internally adjust your own response to understand and either tune out or
ignore the incoming assault. With the Cameron earphone sorts of models
this is difficult, and the conditioning will take its toll, but that is what
you have to work with until external actions can change the external
situation. It may help some victims to work on their ability to focus
their attention on two or more places at once, though of course such divided
attention tends to cause performance degradation.
Psychosexual torture. Torturers very often tend to focus on
sex. This is the equivalent of torturers in a Central American country
attaching electrodes to victims' genitals and shocking them. This is a
very common sort of thing among torturers. Why is that? Here are a
few possible reasons:
Violating the victims' sexual organs is intended to demean the
victims. The torturer displays the power to strip the victim of the
ordinary sorts of societal expectations of privacy. Because the
genitals are typically private, exposing and assaulting them may cause a
real (though undeserved) sense of shame in the victims. The torturer
makes clear that the victim is a 2nd class citizen at best, not deserving of
the cultural norms, social mores, and social compact of "real"
citizens. The sadistic violator wants to also be a prude, and exploit
such societal expectations while violating them at an almost unthinkable
level. They'll harass people until they destroy their private sex
lives, while the culture peddles Viagra to the public to sell people a sex
Similar sorts of reasoning hold for
other sorts of privacy violations flaunted to the victim, including the
violation of the privacy of the victim's mind (which also is the primary
sexual organ, or so sex therapists would tell us).
Torturers, at least the lowest-level lackey torturers who carry out the
actual physical deeds, tend to be sadists. (Those at higher levels
tend to be amoral and conscienceless, treating people as worthless fodder,
but tend not to want to get their hands dirty or have anything to do with
the victims directly.) Sadists focus on genitals because it increases
the terror and trauma to the victim, but also because it increases their
thrill with the act of torture.
People are infatuated with sex, and love to titter and gossip about
it. Thus sexual gossip and smears put out in a whispering campaign
will tend to spread.
In all models: Adult torturers teach children or
young adults how to torture and thus perpetuate the cycle of atrocities and
The following are more of my observations of the
techniques that certain mind control torturers employ.
As I wrote in my essay "Excuses and
Manipulations in Mind Control," torturers will first torture a victim for
whatever reason. Usually because they thought a victim was vulnerable or
they could get away with it. They will later concoct various "reasons" and
"rationalizations" for why they did it. These often tend not to be even
sensical on the surface level, but are employed in the subtext and on the
trigger level. This both keeps the conspiracy informed of how to "rationalize"
the atrocities and keeps the victims traumatized and in "dismay fatigue."
It is systematic, brutal as hell, and organized. There are large
numbers of people who run the operations in what can only be described as a
supremacist sense. A bunch of lilliputians who conspire and use their
secret torture conspiracy to keep others down. Something like the
conspiracy that tried to keep men like Paul Robeson down even though the
people involved were several orders of magnitude his lessers.
How large a population is conditioned and propagandized unwittingly
by the same people involved in the mind control operations? Either by
widespread or wide-field mind control methods or by the standard propaganda
and cointelpro methods?
In the space of the third ear there may be multiple voices. These
might all be one machine programmed to distract and manipulate. They may be
some bunker RTIs, often "enhanced" with autopig machines like radio DJs
running taped announcements between live segments. In a model containing
the natural psychic model as a submodel, or in a standard model with
interconnected groups (perhaps deceived by a psychic psyop), these voices may
represent individual, real people. Some are overtly machinelike,
repeating Cameron phrases with numbing, annoying, and damaging regularity.
Others actually say new things from time to time -- though one that can string
together two sentences in succession is rare. Occasionally you even get
one that can "converse." Thus far they invariably refuse to respond to
the protocol authentication challenge of "what is the cosine of xxxx in
radians to six digits after the decimal." (That allows a hard confirm of
a true external and a rough authentication.) Note that even in the
standard model there can be different groups -- perhaps different intelligence
agencies -- on the same channel and accessing the same victims. Whatever the
ground truth, the voices are not all pushing the same agenda and some argue
with others. How to interpret this is model-dependent, but in a mixed
model or certain "psychic psyop" standard models there may be some halfway
semi-decent people on the channel (who still maintain the conspiracy used to
torture). Or it may all be a good Nazi, bad Nazi act.
One game that voices in collusion play is the "false defender" game, a
variant of good Nazi, bad Nazi. The bad Nazi will harass and goad and a
good Nazi will seem to defend the victim. But the "defense" assumes all
the phony premises of the bad Nazi and treats an illogical, harassing pig as a
regular "person" whose idiotic babble is worth serious consideration.
In the space of autopigs and RTIs there are several sorts of processes I
have not listed before. They are:
Distraction autopig. Like a cointelpro agent they want to
distract from any thought they deem "subversive." They also just
generally distract like a Bergeron pulse, interfering with anyone trying to
seriously think. They often tend to use sex-type distractions such as
"sex with an underage girlfriend" or the more graphically repugnant
"sex with a 10 year old." These distractions seem to occur more
frequently if the voice-space "conversation" tends toward any
dissent... They mainly just distract victims trying to think or get
any work done.
The ugly distorting mirror. You
think a fraction of some thought. Before you can even finish the thought
train, it is telemetered out to some filthy rapist. This rapist first
interprets your half-thought in terms of his or her own idiot awareness.
This distorted, ugly reflection is then sent back at you as if it somehow
represents your whole thought. Besides the basic miscomprehension of the
raped thought, the return signal also reflects the purposeful, sadistic
intention to harm you and cause trauma. This external kneejerk can
derail your normal thought train easily if you let it. If you think like a
moron you'll be a moron. (Your internal kneejerks and conditioned
thought habits can be hard enough to deal with without some external idiot's
hateful reflection also imposed on you.)
Platitude boy is a new named AP-RTI which repeatedly spews some
common cliche or platitude.
Logical negation boy just parrots the logical negation of
anything you think. Sort of like a 5-year old: "It is x," "No,
it is not x."
The echo repeats your thoughts, for whatever reason or motive or
Timid boy always tries to induce anxiety or doubt in something
you think or say. "You made a big mistake." "I warned
Beavis and Butthead are two babbling morons who think they are
the Marv Alberts of the rape show. They provide their running
commentary of anything you think (or even dream) as filtered through their
idiotic awareness. They were actually named by some other "voices" who
also seemed annoyed by their incessant babble. They constantly harass
and attempt to demean. If any of the "underground bunker" sorts of
models hold, these two sound like they are sitting in a booth down there
with microphones and headsets, harassing.
A babbler is a process that just babbles seemingly random,
non-connected words -- usually at a level just perceptible. It may be
part of a trigger search algorithm, looking for what you react to. It
is similar to the techniques used in technologies like the Russian acoustic
psycho-correction devices now owned by a Richmond company.
The usual tiresome processes "listen" to whatever you are thinking about
and babble about them. If your thought included the word "Volkswagen,"
for example, the AP-RTI would then essentially let x="Volkswagen" and plug
that value into several of the AP phrases of one variable. It is
really syntax-level stuff, often not even making sense. They also
repeat the AP phrases without variables
Garbage in. If you have a filth channel coming in, you will
have some filth associations. That is just the nature of the
brain. That specifically refers to the third ear, but also applies to
newspapers, TV, etc. Understand how the thought arises.
Observe. It does not reflect on you. The best and most useful
brain circuits, when fed trash and filth, will tend to produce trash and
filth. Don't spin your wheels on worrying about this crap. Observe
and stay aware and unperturbed. The pigs, if they are real people, are
revealing their own filthy selves and minds. Point that out to any
"audience" in whatever model you are assuming. I change models like I
change a pair of pants. You do not have to explain. I am wearing
blue jeans now.
Kick you in the leg till you limp, then blame you for limping.
They'll torture you for a year and then "blame" you for thinking like a
torture victim. Similarly for all years thereafter. They'll
autopig you with a phrase 100,000 times and then blame you for tending to
think that phrase. They also rush to both reinforce and ridicule any
such tendencies. After a phrase becomes strongly conditioned, even a
snippet of it or a similar rhythm can tend to set it off. The victim
will anticipate hearing it, because he or she has been conditioned to
expect it after so many occurrences.
One common thought occurrence is for a random noise on any ear to trigger a
strongly conditioned phrase (SCP). Even just the anticipation of such an
event is seized upon by an RTI-AP to mock, goad, and reinforce the SCP.
The mind rapists also seem to be able to access the "pre-subvocal area" and
see you forming an idea there. Even if you choose not to subvocalize it,
they will often pick up pieces of it for their harassment. You can test
this by barely thinking something but not even subvocalizing it, and quietly
observe what happens. You can sometimes even "lead" the voices that
way. Triggers and SCPs tend to work two ways even between torturer and
torture victim, and barely thinking an SCP is more likely to set off the
particular RTI or AP whose phrase it is. In an AI sense it seems
something like a blackboard system running off of your brain data. (Keep
in mind the effect of conditioned internals here, though.)
Stockholm syndrome is induced by forced intimacy plus abuse and
torture. With third ear Cameron harassment directly into the brain
this can happen if you are not careful. After years of abuse, they'll
pretend to be your "friends." Like the bait and babble and bait and
trigger, this is only to get you to pay attention and open up to the next
traumatic brain insult.
The trigger search algorithm. This algorithm repeats with mind
numbing regularity. The RTI-APs are not called idiots for nothing, but
one thing they are good at is spotting any sort of reaction to their goading
and babbling. This is especially true of any sort of trauma or distress
reaction. They notice this like a pack of jackals sensing a wounded
animal. They home in on it instantly. Any sort of perceived
weakness quickly draws their attentions. Anything they notice you
responding to is likely to be sent to the trigger search algorithm for
"testing." They also repeat the trigger search algorithm at periods of,
say, 30 minutes, 1 hour, and often 1 day and several days later. If the
test "succeeds" then you get a new autopig phrase goading you long-term.
They also watch as you read things and go about your daily life for anything
that might get a reaction or be associated with a traumatic situation.
Some of these paths like newspapers and radio are also employed deliberately
as feedback pathways in trying to trigger or goad the victim.
Professional triggerers. The RTIs and their AP machines are
the lowest-level sorts of Brownshirt harassers and goaders. They are the
useful idiots for others behind the scenes. They constantly harass to
annoy and weaken the victim. They drip, drip, drip, like water
torture. In the background there are also what I call professional
triggerers. They will lurk in the background or be called up when the
victim needs extra suppressing. They trigger based on a long history and
profile of the victim, and quite pointedly. You can even sometimes hear
them directing the lower-level harassers as to the "theme" of the next
harassment skit. I call one of these "Major Mengele Psych Degree."
Why are spies called spooks? They are called spooks because
they are spooky, or at least try to be. That is their first line of
operation. They want to intimidate with a bare, deniable hint of
blackmail, for example. They want to scare you, intimidate you, or
confuse you in a way they can deny and that others will not pick up on -- "you
must be crazy." They also bluff and lie constantly, and create various
deceptions which they then try to market to their targets. They want to
induce anxiety and uncertainty in their targets, and alter their courses of
action from what the spooks at least imagined it would otherwise be.
In anything you read there tends to be the text, the subtext, and the
subsubtext. Like with harassing audio, harassing and smearing subtext
tends toward playground level stuff -- though applied and implied by supposed
adults. The subsubtext represents the underlying intention of the
subtext and the deeper implied message. It tends to be picked up by those used
to "reading the tea leaves" as opposed to only picking up bits of the basic
smears directly between the lines. Keep in mind that all the subtexts
tend to be BS; people can lie between the lines more deniably than on them.
An Example Model
The remainder of this article presents a particular
hypothetical model scenario as an extended example.
As an exercise, assume the unlikely case of the purely natural
model. Assume that some subset of people are born with some natural
ability as "hearers." Assume they have managed to keep this situation
secret for centuries via a strong taboo and mafia-like omerta. Assume
that even children with such abilities somehow know not to talk about it, and
that attempts to write about it or tell people meet with suppression.
Assume also that there are some people who are naturally strong
"senders." Assume that strong "senders" in many cases do not even know
that they have this somewhat rarer gift/curse. How would they know, if
they do not "hear" and the hearers keep it a secret? The "hearers"
participate in a conspiracy which is used to keep the unwitting "senders"
vulnerable and exploitable. Suppose that, besides just listening,
exploiting, raping, and peeping at these "senders," some of the "hearers"
decide to have sadistic fun with them. These "senders" are harassed and
driven crazy if even a few "hearers" decide for whatever reason they do not
like them or just want to. They may be driven to suicide or may be
driven to the waiting arms of psychiatry where they are drugged into being
Perhaps these "senders" are even just like the "hearers" except that they
are the equivalent of deaf people exploited worse than any freak show
"entertainers." Suppose this mafia-like conspiracy is widespread and
uses triggers and other such techniques to maintain control of those not in on
the secret -- as well as to police its own members. These triggers would
develop over the years until they were almost stylized caricatures of the
"best" triggers that the harassing jackals finally homed in on. Like a
pathetic word or symbol representing how to put down any particular person and
which even children could use -- never mind if it is stupid or reveals
atrocities on actual inspection. The victims tend to be dismayed at the
stupidity and the evidence of widespread conspiracy against them, more than
the actual pathetic triggers. Not all such "hearers" would actually be
Nazis in this model -- though collaborator is close. In fact the majority
might even be like the "good people" who did nothing even as they heard the
cries from the death camp down the street.
If a "sender" also had some "hearing" ability, or developed it over the
course of time, he or she might not know how to interpret it. If
harassment had already started, this would be just one more harassment
feedback path to the victim. A way to manipulate and goad the
victim. The victim might think it was technology because such technology
does indeed exist. Alternately, technology might be used for a "send"
to the victim, while the victim's natural "send" ability would be used
for the return "hearing" feedback path from the victim. The
victim would be traumatized, angry, suspicious, and confused, not knowing what
How does this model meet with the facts? What inconsistencies and
unlikelihoods does it have? How well does it explain what mind control
victims report experiencing, such as going into a library and having people
snickering at them and goading them with their own "private" thoughts?
If the "senders" knew that they tended to send more strongly, wouldn't
they be in an interesting position. How could "senders" ever learn to
control and use their abilities if they never got any feedback but
harassment? What psyops could create the illusion that this model
holds? What "experiments" could a victim or other person conduct to
support this model over another one, in the face of psyops and deception
ops? What if a "sender" gradually became a "hearer" too, even under
harassment? Could it be distinguished from a technological "send" to the
victim? Assuming this model holds, how could a victim knowing
this ground truth best deal with the harassment and come to uncondition
himself or herself from the pathetic triggers and ongoing harassment?
If the natural model is not magic, how does the advance of technology play
into things? Are there any curves crossing or about to cross? How
does the new mixed model, with the standard model thrown in, change
things? Everyone has a cell phone these days, and soon they'll be so
tiny people will mount them on their heads or affix them to their bodies
(neurophone-phone?). That is a consensual sort of network essentially
like the ones discussed in this article. Even the open, non-secret technology
related to synthetic telepathy is advancing rapidly.
Consider the above model, in both its strong points and weak points.
Think about the supporting data and possible experimental design. This
is a useful exercise in any case, both to practice thinking in terms of
conditional models and because parts will generalize to the mixed models and
standard models. Generica is a bitch.
Part I - Models of Synthetic Telepathy | Part
II - Acoustic Signal Modulation | Part
III - Working Models | Part IV - Bayesian Stopping Criterion