Shaun Saunders finds some chilling research done by the Department of Defense in New Scientist. It seems amongst some declassified documents detailing the US Army report on the biological effects of non-lethal weapons reveals plans for "ray gun" devices, which would cause artificial fevers or beam voices into people's heads. The report titled "Bioeffects Of Selected Nonlethal Weapons" which detail five different "maturing non-lethal technologies" using microwaves, lasers and sound. One bizzare device detailed a microwave gun to "beam" words directly into people's ears, have been tested. It is claimed that the so-called "Frey Effect" – using close-range microwaves to produce audible sounds in a person's ears produced documented results.
As a psychologist, Shaun had these comments
This technology is described in my forthcoming Mallcity sequel 'Return To Mallcity'...it is insidious, unethical, and has profound implications. For example, as a psychologist, how would a clinician seeing a client complaining of or referring to hearing voices in their head distinguish between schizophrenia, for eg, or external, covert influence such as described in this link? I think that most would naturally opt for the former, and relegate any claims of persecution by authorities or covert agencies to another box labelled 'paranoia'... Also, I would tend to think that such technology has most likely been around for some time (and would be an excellent means for descrediting someone, like a dissident, for example....)
As a psychologist, Shaun had these comments
This technology is described in my forthcoming Mallcity sequel 'Return To Mallcity'...it is insidious, unethical, and has profound implications. For example, as a psychologist, how would a clinician seeing a client complaining of or referring to hearing voices in their head distinguish between schizophrenia, for eg, or external, covert influence such as described in this link? I think that most would naturally opt for the former, and relegate any claims of persecution by authorities or covert agencies to another box labelled 'paranoia'... Also, I would tend to think that such technology has most likely been around for some time (and would be an excellent means for descrediting someone, like a dissident, for example....)
1 comment:
I should add that the term 'dissident' can be defined broadly indeed...when citizens vote for a govt - or a president in the forthcoming US elections - are they voting for this sort of research (and its implications) as well?
Post a Comment