MindNet is no longer active.

Back to MindNet Index

     MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 32
     V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"


The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
the author/publisher.

Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unedited.

The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
otherwise noted.

Editor: Mike Coyle 

Associate Editors: Walter Bowart
                   Alex Constantine
                   Martin Cannon

Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler

Research: Darrell Bross



Newsletter of the Bioelectromagnetics Special Interest Group

Judy Wall, Editor, 684 C.R. 535, Sumterville, FL 33585 USA

Sample of Newsletter $4.00, Subscription (4 per year) $15.00.

Number 28, May 1995

Pages 17 to 26.


                       SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY

                          by Judy Wall


   Synthetic telepathy is a term used to describe the beaming of
words, thoughts, or ideas into a person's mind by mechanical
means, specifically, some type of electromagnetic transmitter,
similar to a radio or television broadcast, operating in the
microwave frequency band.

   Humans have been hearing voices in their heads since the
beginning of time. Everyone hears their own voice, of course, in
everyday thought patterns. We hear other people's voices in our
imagination and in our dreams. But to hear voices originating
from outside the head when there is no other person present is to
cause a dilemma. Is it our imagination? Is it the wind or some
other natural sound that we are misinterpreting? (The calls of
many animals can sound amazingly human-like. Bird calls, such as
that made by a peacock can sound like a human in distress. Some
sound like the wail of a baby.)

   But suppose the sound heard is definitely a human speech
pattern? The Bible records the story of young Samuel, under the
tutelage of Eli. One night Samuel is awakened from his sleep by a
voice calling his name. He runs to Eli, saying, "Here I am."  The
priest dismisses the boy. It happens again. It happens a third
time. This time Eli says to Samuel, "Go lie down; and it shall
be, if he call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak Lord, for thy
servant heareth."  The voice called to Samuel again, and he
answered as he had been directed. And the Lord spoke to Samuel.

   This is not the only case recorded. The Bible is replete with
accounts of humans hearing and responding to voices in the air.
But identifying the source of the voice is of major importance.
Is it the voice of God, and angel, a devil, an animal (recall the
story of Balaam being rebuked by his ass), or other humans
playing tricks on that person?

   Persons who claim regularly to communicate with unseen beings
have been treated as saints and seers to be revered; witches or
warlocks to be burnt at the stake; or just plain crazy to be
ignored, locked up, or perhaps subjected to electroshock therapy,
a kind of torture used to convince the patient that it is better
to discontinue such claims. The latter attitude is the one
currently held by medical authorities in today's world.


   The first, and perhaps only, officially reported scientific
experiment documenting a case of synthetic telepathy - the one
that everyone makes reference to - cannot be found in the
literature. Here's what happened.

   In 1961 Allen Frey, a free-lance biophysicist and engineering
psychologist, reported that human can hear microwaves (1). This
discovery was dismissed by most United States scientists as being
the result of artifact (outside noise). In 1976 the Defense
Intelligence Agency attributed the discovery to Soviet
researchers. (See Keeler article, Resonance #23, page 7 under

   The more technical description of the experiment is described
by James C. Linn (2). "Frey...found that human subjects exposed
to 1310 MHz and 2982 MHz microwaves at average power densities of
0.4 to 2 mW/cm2 perceived auditory sensations described as
buzzing or knocking sounds."  (also described as clicks or
chirps.)  "The peak power densities were on the order of 200 to
300 mW/cm2 and the pulse repetition frequencies varied from 200
to 400 Hz...Frey referred to this auditory phenomenon as the RF
(radio frequency) sound. The sensation occurred instantaneously
at average incident power densities well below that necessary for
known biological damage and appeared to originate from within or
near the back of the head."

   Further testing revealed that two requirements were necessary
for the subject to hear the microwave induced sound: good bone
conduction and the ability to hear acoustic energy above 5
kHz..."  Don Justesen (3) reports that there is a sizeable
minority of people, including himself, who cannot hear microwaves
under direct radiation. Lin also noted, "Additional data
indicated that perception of microwave induced sound was
primarily a function of the peak power density and secondarily
dependent on pulse width."

   Skeptics were finally convinced by a study of behavioral
sensitivity to low-level microwave radiation in rats by Nancy
King in 1971. (4)

   By 1975 the introduction to a paper by A.W. Guy and others
begins "One of the most widely observed and accepted biologic
effects of low average power electromagnetic (EM) energy is the
auditory sensation evoked in man when exposed to pulsed
microwaves." (5)

   That paper's aim was to determine the threshold of the sound-
inducing phenomenon as 1) a function of pulse power or energy,
pulse shape, and carrier frequency 2) the locus of the action,
that is, whether it is initiated at a central or peripheral site,
and 3) whether it is caused by direct action of the EM field on
the nervous system or if it activates the auditory system (the
ear and related parts that normally conduct sound to the brain).

   After a battery of tests the following conclusions were made:

          *  the threshold for microwave pulse-evoked auditory
sensations or responses in both humans and cats is related to the
incident energy per pulse, with values of approximately 20 uJ/cm2
for cats to 40 uJ/cm2 for humans for pulses less than 30 usec

          *  the microwaves seem to interact more with the high-
frequency portion of the auditory system,

          *  cochlear destruction resulted in total loss of all
evoked potentials due to microwave and acoustic stimuli,
indicating the microwave auditory effect is exerted in the same
manner as conventional acoustic stimuli,

          *  the most likely mechanism of EM field interaction
appears to be conversion of EM energy to acoustic energy due to
thermal expansion,

          *  a prerequisite for interaction with the material is
that the conductivity be sufficiently high and the frequency
proper to permit a penetration of energy and loss over an
appreciable fraction of the volume when the object is exposed to
a microwave pulse.

   Another study conducted by C.K. Chou and others (6)
investigated the possibility of the acoustic systems as the site
of interaction between electromagnetic waves and biological
tissue in producing the microwave hearing phenomenon.
Demonstration of microwave- induced cochlear microphonics (the
mechanical movement of cochlear hair cells) in laboratory animals
confirmed this.

   But scientists wanted to know exactly HOW the microwaves
induced the reaction. Guy and others showed that at frequencies
where the auditory effect can easily be detected, microwaves
penetrate deeply into the tissues of the head. Absorbed energy
causes rapid thermal expansion (at the microscopic level) which
produces strains in the tissue. This produces an acoustic stress
wave that is conducted through the bone to the cochlea. From
there it proceeds in the same manner as in conventional hearing.

   Simple or slow heating of the tissue by microwaves does not
give rise to the auditory effect. Only microwaves that have a
short rise time, that is, square waves that cause a rapid rise in
the microenvironment's temperature will produce the stress wave.

   Several other mechanisms to describe this EM-biological
interaction have been advanced, but the above theory, called the
thermoelastic theory, is thought to be the most probable because
calculations for acoustic pressure are much higher for this
method than for the others. Do you really want me to describe the
other theories too? No, I didn't think so.


   Justesen reports that A.W. Guy had his father, a skilled
telegrapher, send messages in Morse code via the microwave
auditory method. This might be useful in certain situations.
Still, it is a far cry from "hearing voices".

   The credit for performing an actual experiment in which
audible voices were communicated via microwaves is given to
Joseph Sharp and Mark Grove. Justesen reports that they recorded
on tape the spoken words for the single syllable numbers one
through ten. "The electrical sine wave analogs of each word was
then processed so that each time a sine wave crossed zero
reference in the negative direction, a brief pulse of microwave
energy was triggered. By radiating themselves with these
voice-modulated microwaves, Sharp and Grove were readily able to
hear, identify, and distinguish among the nine words. The sounds
heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with artificial
larynxes. Communication of more complex words and of sentences
was not attempted because the averaged densities of energy
required would approach the current 10 mW/cm2 limit of safe

   The 1976 Defense Intelligence Agency report mentioned
previously (under Keeler, "Disinformation") also credited the
Soviet scientists with making the Sharp-Grove discovery. Keeler
says that this item "found its way into at least one
Congressional report and was printed in a number of newspapers
and professional journals". Motivation for such a disinformation
campaign was to coerce Congress and the American public into
authorizing and allocating money for projects to "catch up" with
the Russians.

   References in the literature citing Sharp and Grove refer to a
paper, "Generation of Acoustic Signals by Pulsed Microwave
Energy" (7) that, from the title, would indicate that this is the
above mentioned classic experiment. But it is not. It is
apparently a next-step type experiment, in which sounds are
generated by microwave pulses when aimed at absorbers
(carbon-impregnated polyurethane microwave absorbers, and
aluminum foil is used). They do not make reference in this paper
to the above experiment, not even citing it in their references,
as would be usual in referring to a previous work.

   Why, we might ask, did they NOT publish such a startling
discovery? How did Justesen come by the information to relate it
in his paper? Is it a reliable piece of information?

   Justesen references it in his notes as received by "personal
communication, September 28, 1973".

  The answer to the question, why did they NOT publish their
discovery, is contained within Justesen's paper, although in an
oblique way. Remember that after the U.S. discovered the
microwave beam directed at the American embassy in Moscow, Milton
Zaret was brought in to evaluate the situation. But, Justesen
says about the incident, "American intelligence agents were
understandably curious, but they did not want their Soviet
counterparts to know that the microwave bombardment had been
detected. Enter the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), an
arm of the Executive Office that specializes in getting fast
answers to far-out questions that may bear on national security.
Agents for ARPA contacted Joseph C. Sharp, former director of
research in experimental psychology at the Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research, and an electronic engineer, Mark Grove,
who began to put together at Walter Reed what is now one of the
best equipped laboratories in the United States for studying
biopsychological effects of microwave radiations."

   Sharp and Grove were in the employ of the U.S. Government,
which undoubtably told them to keep their mouths shut about the
experiment. But, perhaps they had already communicated their
findings to Justesen before the order to be quiet. Justesen
merely calls his source a "personal communication". That could
mean verbal or written. It is my guess that it was a written (or
possibly tape-recorded) message that the two could not later deny
having made (as in the case of Dr. Narut, who was forced to
recant his remarks that the U.S. Navy was conditioning men to
become assassins). At any rate, Justesen, published the incident,
and it is repeated in Lin's book. (Some cite Lin as the

   Lin discusses three potential medical applications of the
microwave-induced hearing phenomenon (including use of the more
mundane examples of clicks, chirps, and buzzes, not just the
exotic "voice communication"):

          *  one is for distinguishing in cases of hearing loss
between types of deafness, whether air or bone conduction.

          *  another is for eliciting sensory evoked potentials.
He cites work by Rapin (8) in detecting residual hearing in
multiply-handicapped infants, and the prescribing of hearing aids
for them when they might have been assumed to be completely deaf.

          *  In the same category, Sohmer (9) used this method to
locate tumors which exert pressure on or near the junction of the
auditory nerve and the brain stem.

          *  the last being the application of transmitted
digital codes or use of the Sharp-Grove experimental discovery in
communications. He adds, "The capability of communicating
directly with humans by pulsed microwaves is obviously not
limited to the field of therapeutic medicine."  Perhaps he had
already heard of the government's interest in developing this
discovery. The question is, Why HAVEN'T we heard of research in
this area, research with bona-fide medical applications?


   There is a common cry among people who claim to be victims of
government conducted "mind control" operations - that no one will
believe them, that there is no way to prove the voices they hear
come from the outside.

   Groups which are organized to be victim's advocates need a way
to sort out the victims of genuine mind control experiments from
others who claim to be harassed, but who, in fact, may be victims
merely of their own distorted personalities (paranoia,
schizophrenia, whatever). Perhaps only one in ten of claimed
government harassment victims is truly such; perhaps only one in
fifty, or one in a hundred. Who knows? But if only a single claim
be true, it needs to be documented.

   Not only is it important to sort out the "true victims" from
others for the sake of evaluating and combatting the situation,
it is necessary to be able to provide objective proof of the fact
to third parties in order to elicit help, awareness of the
problem, and legislative action against it.

   The above reported research offers some options along these
lines. I respectfully submit the following measures be used in
evaluation and identifying causes of illegal mind control
experiments and harassment:

          1. Victim's advocate groups should hire a medical
doctor or scientist sympathetic to the cause to evaluate cases.
Individuals claiming abuse should be referred to this person.

          2. How does the victim describe the voice he/she hears?
 Is it like the artificial voice described in the Sharp and Grove
experiment? An indication that there is an unreal or unnatural
sound connected to the voice would be a very strong response to
indicate an artificial mechanism involved.

   Of course, there will be those who say, "It sounds like a
normal voice," or "It sounds like my own thoughts, but I know it
isn't. Isn't it possible that advances have been made in the past
twenty years to update the technology to make it sound more like
a normal, human voice?"  Yes, of course, it is possible. Still, a
computer- like voice would certainly put an evil or fearful
connotation to the thought messages. But the government may have
decided to try to simulate more natural sounds, for its own
purposes. Whether they would be successful is unknown. Don't
forget, that for most practical purposes, a specific word message
is unnecessary. The easier-to-achieve objective of manipulating
EMOTIONS (feelings of fear or panic) or PHYSICAL BODY FUNCTIONS
(nausea, diarrhea weakness, headache) could very well serve their
purposes in the majority of cases, especially crowd control.

          3. The sensory evoked potential test is a strong
candidate for absolute proof/disproof of a claim. (Refer to the
Rapin work above.)  A victim may not be hearing clicks or buzzes,
but if he is hearing a voice, noises, ANYTHING AT ALL, it will
automatically evoke a neurological response that CAN be detected
and CANNOT be bypassed. If someone is hearing microwave induced
sounds or voices, it WILL show up on this EEG test.

   One may protest that the Voices can hear and see what is
happening; that they are aware of the subject's behavior and
conversations, and consequently will cease whenever someone tries
to detect them. I doubt that they can see what is happening at
all times; an electronic camera/eye might be installed in his
house or on the car, but hardly on his person. Or perhaps the
victim only is harassed while at home, the microwave being beamed
at his house. Therefore, testing in an office or hospital setting
would show no unusual results. (This situation is common to many
ailments. Two options are available here. Set up a stress test to
induce the condition, or take the test equipment on site when the
problem occurs. The second option is the one that could be used
here.)  There are portable electroencephalograph (EEG) machines.

          (a)  The above objection could be overcome by arranging
for "house calls". The doctor could have a system worked out for
situations of this type. The office visit might include a moment
when the doctor excuses himself for some reason, hands the victim
a paper with the words DO NOT READ ALOUD, DO NOT DISCUSS THIS
include instructions as to how to secretly contact the doctor
when the voices are strong in order that an EEG recording might
be taken at the victim's house.

          (b)  Or the Victim might be fitted with a telemetry
apparatus to relay the EEG recordings via radio transmission back
to the clinic.

   Cesar Caceres (10) describes several such medical telemetry
devices. The first transmission of heart sounds was accomplished
in 1921 by the U.S. Army Signal Corps from ships to shore.

   C.C. Breaksell and C.S. Parker in England, 1949, used
frequency modulation (FM) for the radio transmission of a human
electroencephalogram (EEG) (11).

   Although the EEG is usually described as more difficult to
record than the electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) due to its lower
voltage output, thereby necessitating more sensitive
instrumentation and greater amplification, its transmission in
the form of radio waves is apparently simpler. "H.W. Shipton (12)
described a system that had a frequency response of 2 to 100 cps.
 Although this is not sufficient to transmit the clinical ECG
which requires equipment with a frequency response to DC (0 cps),
the system was satisfactory for such phenomenon as the EEG. It
used a transmitter fashioned after the design of Thomas and Klein
in their article, "How to Construct a Miniature FM Transmitter"
(13). The receiver could be any domestic commercial set..."

   Readers might find a more recent article in the February
Popular Electronics, "Build an FM Stereo Transmitter" easier to
obtain. This Fred Blechman article (14) refers to a kit offered
by Ramsey Electronics and is obtainable for a cost of about $55.
Easy to build, it is designed for amateur or advanced electronics
enthusiasts. (I have one.)

   "A. Kemp and W. Storm van Leeuwen developed a two-channel EEG
radiotelemetry system which has been the basis for development
work by others. Instead of FM, it uses a different system of
coding the signal, PWM."(16)

   The need for radiotelemetry of ECGs during exercise inspired
N.J. Holter in 1957 to design an elaborate system. His 80 pound
transmitter was strapped to the subject's back (enough to cause
stress right there!). He later developed a tiny transmitter that
the patient could carry in his pocket. (The Ramsey transmitter,
mentioned above, is 5" X 5" X 1" and weighs less than one pound.)
 The patient's ECG was transmitted to a nearby briefcase that
contained a receiver and a tape recorder. The tape could be read
later. Holter also developed a method for rapidly scanning
several hours of tape-recorded tracings. The tape could be played
to an oscilloscope or paper write-out. If adapted for a simple
single or dual channel EEG, this would be an ideal set-up for a
Victim to use in recording auditory evoked potentials induced
during sessions of mind control "voice" harassments.

   These systems were designed mainly for short distance
telemetry, perhaps within a thousand yards of the transmitter.
But long distance telemetry devices have been developed as well,
even to the point of transmitting to Earth from space. This was
first recorded in 1958 by A.G. Kousnetzow (17).

   In all of these examples, the transmitter would be fixed or
attached to the subject's scalp. But there is another method for
placement of the electrodes: intracerebral, that is, the
electrodes are embedded within the skull. This system is reported
by Jose Delgado (18). He follows the method of Mark and Ervin
(19), and incidentally, one of the patients monitored was "L.K.,
a 35 year old white male design engineer..."  Non other than
Leonard Kille, and you know how he felt about this method of
brain monitoring. (See Resonance #27, p.13-17, "Terminal Man" by
Paul Bartch.)  Best we should pass up this method.

   Undoubtedly there have been many advances made in perfecting
the radio-frequency systems. The references used here are given
so that you can see how they developed and the fact that they
evolved from simple, basic circuits to more advanced technology
(present systems use computers to help read the results).

          4. Victim claims he has a receiver implanted in his
body. Conventional X-rays should detect any metal parts. If
negative, the CAT SCAN or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) could
be used for further search for plastic parts. MRI cannot be used
on patients with metal implants. Cost of MRI is about $450.

   There you have it folks. A review of how synthetic telepathy
was discovered, how it works, ways to detect it and objectively
record it. Not a perfect solution, but hopefully a start towards
monitoring, validating, and correcting the problem of involuntary
mind control experimentation and harassment of innocent Victims.


(1)  Frey, A.H. "Auditory System Response to Radio Frequency
Energy", _Aerospace Med._ 32:1140-1142, 1961.

(2)  Lin, James C., _Microwave Auditory Effects and
Applications_, Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL, USA,

(3)  Justesen, Don R., "Microwaves and Behavior", _Am.
Psychologist_, 30:391-401, 1975.

(4)  King, N.W. "The Effects of Low-Level Microwave Irradiation
Upon Reflexive, Operant, and Discriminative Behaviors of the
Rat", unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas,

         King, N.W., Justesen, D.R., and Clarke, R.L.,
"Behavioral Sensitivity to Microwave Radiation", _Science_,
172:398-401, 1971.

(5)  Guy, Arthur W., Chou, C.K., Lin, James C., and Christensen,
D., "Microwaved-Induced Acoustic Effects in Mammalian Auditory
Systems and Physical Materials", _Ann. NY Acad. Sci._,
247:194-218, 1975.

(6)  Chou, C.K., Galambos, R., Guy, A.W., and Lovely, R.H.,
"Cochlear Microphonics Generated by Microwave Pulses", _J.
Microwave Power_, 10:361-367, 1975.

(7)  Sharp, Joseph C., Grove, H. Mark, and Gandhi, Om P.,
"Generation of Acoustic Signals by Pulsed Microwave Energy",
_IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech._, Vol. MTT-22, pp.583-584,

(8)  Rapin, Isabella and Graziana, Leonard J., "Auditory Evoked
Responses in Normal, Brain Damaged and Deaf Infants",
_Neurology_ (Minn,), 17:881- 894, 1967.

(9)  Sohmer, H., Feinmessen, M., and Szabo, G., "Sources of
Electrocochleographic Responses as Studied in Patients With Brain
Damage", _Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol._ 37:663-669, 1974.

(10) Caceres, Cesar A., ed., _Biomedical Telemetry_, Academic
Press, New York, London, 1965.

(11) Breaksell, C.C., and Parker, C.S., "Radio Transmission of
the Human Electroencephalogram and Other Electrophysiological
Data",  _Electroencephalog. Clin. Neurophysiol._ 2, 243, 1949.

(12) Shipton, H.W., "A Simple Telemetering System for
Electrophysiological Data", _Electroencephlog. Clin.
Neurophysiol._ 12, 922, 1960.

(13) Thomas, D.E. and Klein J.M., "How to Construct a Miniature
FM Transmitter", _Electronics_, 32, 80, 1959.

(14) Blechman, Fred, "Build an FM Stereo Transmitter", _Popular
Electronics_, February 1995, pp. 33-36, 91.

(15) Holter, N.J. and Gengerelli, J.A., "Remote Recording of
Physiological Data by Radio", _Rocky Mt. Med. J._, 46, 749, 1949.

(16) Kamp, A. and Storm van Leeuwen, W., "A Two Channel EEG Radio
Telemetering System", _Electroencephalog. Clin. Neurophysiol._,
13,803, 1961.

(17) Kousnetzov, A.G., "Some Results of Biological Experiments in
Rockets and Sputnik II", _J. Activation Med._, 29, 781, 1958.

(18)  Delgado, Jose M.R., "Intracerebral Radio Stimulation and
Recording in Completely Free Patients", _Psychotechnology,
Electronic Control of Mind and Behavior_, Schweitzgebel, Robert
L. and Schweitzgebel, Ralph K., eds., Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc. NY, 1973, pp. 184-198.

          Reprint from _The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease_, The Williams and Wilkins Company, Vol. 147, 34, 1968.

(19) Mark, V.H. and Ervin F. "The Relief of Chronic Severe Pain
by Stereotactic Surgery," _Pain and the Neurosurgeon: A Forty
Years' Experience_, Springfield, IL, Charles C. Thomas, 1969, pp.
not given.

MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn132.txt]

To subscribe to the MindNet Journal:

Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

To unsubscribe:

Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
FTP Archive site:


MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]

Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
reject for publication. Send articles for submission to:

, or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
, VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
94604-2314 USA.

The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

Please visit the Freedom Of Thought Foundation home-page at:



    ||  ||||  |      |       |  |      |      |   |   |   |   ||
    |||  ||  ||  |||||  |||  |  |  |||||  ||  |  | |  |  | |  ||
    ||||    |||  ,,,,|      ||  |  |||||  ||  |  |||  |  |||  ||
    |||||  ||||      |  |||  |  |      |      |  |||  |  |||  SM
    ||  VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303 / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org  ||