"Hello God, was that you?!?"
Imagine yourself in the position of trying to explain what seems absolutely unexplainable. Now imagine the truth you're telling is about the very concerning situation of "hearing voices", when you are a sane person devoid of a mental disorder. What would you do, and what would people think of you? What would you think if someone came to you and said "I hear voices"? What would you do if that person was close to you? The first thing that pops into many a person's mind when someone else makes the claim of "hearing voices" is usually "crazy", or perhaps "delusional". If I told you I hear voices, chances are you would come to the conclusion that I was possibly mentally ill, right? Let's find out.
The use of technology on unwitting individuals to make them "hear voices" is a claim that many Gangstalking websites have made. As everyone knows that sane persons don't hear voices, and hearing voices is the ultimate discrediting factor on an individual's sanity. The claim of hearing voices makes victims stories seem not only incredible but unlikely. Just try and tell someone you hear voices and then see how they look at you, or how fast they move away from you. Go on, try it for fun, if you can keep a straight face.
I hear disembodied voices all the time all around me, that emanate from the inside of my home and car, and from sometimes other places. The voices go directly into my head, and seem to surround me, but I can pinpoint them to a location, such as my radio, overhead speakers and my cell phone. LOL!!!! I'm sure most people have had the same experiences I have just described, where sound travels to you via a receiving device that is then received by your built in receiver, the cochlea.
Most people cannot imagine that any sane person could hear disembodied voices, but I have just explained how any sane person can and does hear disembodied voices via technology everyday. Hearing voices in many cases is accepted and quite normal if we're talking about radios, cell phones and other known technologies. But what about when the source of the voice is not known, and it's origins are not clear? That's where things can get weird.
Of course, surely no one in this day and age would think twice about any device that receives or transmits sound as "magic", "not real", "supernatural" or "out of this world". Most everyone knows that sound can be sent via technology, because we don't live in the Dark Ages, or do we?
Although my personal description of hearing disembodied voices is not uncommon for most people in today's technologically advanced world, because most people use radios, cell phones and the like, but it is the basis for what I am now going to describe as a fairly uncommon occurrence some prefer to call "V2K". What is "V2K" besides another silly Gangstalking term?
"V2K" is the most common moniker given to the type of technology that is said to cause people to "hear voices" when no one else is around. How can anyone possibly hear disembodied voices and not be, well, "crazy"? The answer is easily explained with the proper technology. If no electronic receivers are being used in the homes of alleged "V2K" victims, then the technology would likely have to be ultrasound wave or microwave in nature, as both can induce sound (voices) in or around someone's head without a receiving device. Anyone who keeps up on technology knows that this is true.
Please note, I'm not talking about microwave ovens here, but instead microwaves of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even though microwave ovens use microwaves, I'm not referring to microwave ovens when I'm referring to microwaves. I just wanted to make that clear in case someone is reading this and gets concerned that their microwave oven can speak to them. Hehehe
In December of 2010, I spoke of the plausibility of people hearing voices via certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. http://janedeparting.blogspot.com/2010/12/v2k-hearing-voices.html
After all, sound is only a dispersion of energy across certain wavelengths that are audible to us. This time, I'll explain a bit more than I previously did.
Many Gangstalking websites make claims of victims hearing voices and base this experience on "V2K" technology. "V2K" is supposed to stand for "Voice To Skull", and the technology actually does exist in the form of directed ultrasound sound and directed microwave sound, which are two of the most common types. I'll go a little further on each one here as I write, without getting too technical.
"V2K" is also alleged by Gangstalking websites to be a government code name for the technology to induce sound in someone's head, but that does not change the fact that it sounds less than professional and rather silly to me, but after all isn't that the point of a code name? Code names are supposed to sound silly so that people hearing them don't know what is being referenced and people who repeat the words sound pretty stupid doing so in regular circles. If it was regular terminology it wouldn't be code, right? Still that doesn't mean it isn't a hoax term meant to hide a truth, it also doesn't mean that it isn't a truth term "cloak in dagger".
Rather than argue the validity or absurdity of "V2K" I will just refer to the actual technology itself, directed sound, that has been available for over 40 years, and can induce audible sound in or around someone's head. The technology has been used and researched by and for the military, the field of psychology, business and science. It's in everyday use as you read this even now.
Directed sound can happen in more than one way including the "Microwave Auditory Effect", but I'll come back to that later. Now how does directed sound work?
No receiver other than the human head is needed for directed sound technology to work. Directed sound works by narrowing the path in which a sound wave is set to travel. The sound wave traveling on it's isolated path can be directed with precision to a targeted area. Think of the way a laser pointer works. With a laser pointer, the wavelengths are directed into a path that cuts down dispersion so that the beam can travel in a narrow path, well sound can be made to do the same thing under the proper conditions and wavelengths.
Light waves, sound waves and microwaves are all just frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the size of the wavelengths is the key factor in directed sound, because the wavelengths must be narrow in order for the technology to be effective. Microwaves will be the first plausible explanation I'll cover here for people hearing voices absent a mental disorder.
In 1961, neuropsychologist Allan Frey was engaged in work for General Electric's Advanced Electronics Center, located at Cornell University. General Electric's Advanced Electronics Center conducted research that included many efforts to advance the defense industry. Dr. Allan Frey was a part of some experiments using microwaves at GE's Cornell research facility, and was the first to expound on the properties of microwaves that create distinct sound patterns heard by people within close proximity to devices emitting microwaves. The phenomenon was first noticed in WWII when technicians using radar technology heard distinct patterns of sounds in their heads while working with or in close proximity to radar technology, that was not audible by individuals who were not near the equipment. While conducting microwave phenomenon experiments at Cornell University, DR. Alan Frey published "Human auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy" based on the research he conducted at General Electric's Advanced Electronics Center. Dr. Frey also published his findings with the American Physiological Society in 1962. http://jap.physiology.org/content/17/4/689.abstract Dr. Frey's findings on microwaves have been cited in various publications over the past 50 years.
The results of Dr. Frey's research showed that mammals are affected by certain frequencies of microwave pulses that make the waves audible. The phenomenon is known as the "Frey Effect" or "Microwave Auditory Effect". The "Microwave Auditory Effect" causes buzzing, hissing, clicking, knocking or scratching sounds that are audible to the human ear when a person is in close proximity to microwave emissions. At the time of Dr. Frey's discovery no technology was available to send crystal clear audible words via microwaves, but the possibility was there and it was highly explored in the decades that followed.
Dr. Frey continued his research, and in 1962 published a work on the dangers of microwaves at the cellular level of humans. Dr. Frey had discovered that microwaves could also do serious damage to cells in the proper frequency and duration of intensity. Some side effects of certain microwave frequencies include nausea, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and that's on the mild side. Of the more severe side effects of exposure to microwaves are heat flushes (induced fever), cellular damage and cancer. Even though Dr. Frey's discovery was in it's infancy, and no words were yet sent via microwaves, the possibility was still there to be explored. The dangers of microwaves were documented by the military in several studies, but the true concern in the defense industry was how to use the new information and technology, because a potential "Pandora's box" had been opened. It was postulated that if sound could travel in microwaves, words could be sent as well, and if microwaves could attack cells than a new weapon could exist.
Both possibilities were highly explored and developed and are currently under use today in Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/871657.pdf
After Dr. Frey published work in the Journal of science on the dangers of microwaves to humans he was allegedly discredited for his findings, which is funny because he was only telling the truth. Oh that's right, the truth can be inconvenient to some who want it suppressed. Dr. Frey's findings prove true in many of the Directed Energy Weapons used by the military today. Which use microwaves to attack cells. Hmmmm? Actually, Dr. Frey continued to work on many government sponsored projects, so I don't believe that he was fully discredited in anyway for his findings. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD747684&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf. Oppenheimer was discredited! Documentation of research conducted by Frey can be found up throughout the 1980's!
In 1973, neuropsychologist Joseph Sharp conducted microwave experiments on himself with the assistance of Mark Grove at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The experiments used microwaves to send voice recordings of the numbers 1 to 10 directory to the craniums of Dr. Sharp and Grove. The sound was audible but not at all clear or human in sound, as reported in the 1975 published work of neuropsychologist Dr. Don Justesen In the American Psychological Journal Volume 30(3)
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/30/3/391/ The experiment did not attempt to send full sentences to either Sharp or Grove due to the high levels of radiation it would require and the hazard of exposure over safe limits. So it seems that sending audible microwaves to someone's head has a high safety risk, and the amount of energy required to send words is higher than the pitches, clicks and knocking that are usually associated with audible microwaves. Dr. Sharp later went on to do work with NASA, leaving behind his days as the Chief of the Department of Experimental Psychology and Behavioral Radiology at Walter Reed, so he obviously survived the experiment, for several decades anyhow.
The development of Microwave technology has given way to several types of directed energy weapons in the past few decades including Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Sound (MEDUSA) and the Active Denial System (ADS). Yet microwaves are not the only source of directed sound. Ultrasound is another type of directed sound technology, and the most widely used directed energy type.
The use of ultrasound technology was first used by the U.S Navy and Russian Navy for underwater sonar applications in the 1960's, what else was done early on is not widely known. Ultrasound technology was later developed by a Japanese research company in the 1980s, but was abandoned because of poor sound quality and expense. That was until inventor Elwood G. Norris figured out a way to direct ultrasound waves, and in 1996 his company American Technologies produced and began selling Hypersonic Sound (HSS). Dr. Joseph Pompei solved the problems of the earlier versions of the technology, and in 1998 while working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Pompei developed the "Audio Spotlight" a device used by many museums, shopping plazas and the Walt Disney company http://www.holosonics.com/PR_Epcot.html. The early companies that developed ultrasonic directed sound technology include American Technology Corporation (now the LRAD Corporation) http://www.lradx.com/site/content/view/38/51/ Sennheiser http://www.sennheiserusa.com/tech-spec-database_downloads_spec-sheets_EN_105793 and Mitsubishi http://www.mee.co.jp/kaisyaan/press/prs070726.html. Another company producing (HSS) is Parametric Sound. Some of the technology developed by these companies is good at over 100 meters. And then there is DARPA's Sonic Projector.
Ultrasonic technology does not need a receiver, but it does need an unobstructive path in which the sound beam can travel. Ultrasound beams have been in known use over the past two decades in military and commercial applications. Ultrasonic sound at frequencies too high can cause physical ailments such as nausea, fatigue and dizziness as well as effects on cells. So ultrasonic directed sound increases the plausibility of the claims that are made of people "hearing voices" who are absolutely sane, but that doesn't mean that it is the cause, just a highly likely source. I hope this helps to quiet many of the allegations made by Gangstalking websites as the government being the only source of advanced technology. I have written many times before that gang stalking makes money, and requires technology that ANYONE WITH ENOUGH MONEY could easily acquire.
The plausibility does exist that directed sound coming from technology sources using microwaves, ultrasound, or parabolic dishes is the source of the disembodied voices heard by people who claim to suffer from "V2K", but that doesn't mean that there aren't other logical explanations.
Given the fact that not every person is said to be as sensitive to the waves as some other individuals seem to be also gives plausibility to why some hear certain sounds while others cannot. We also live in a world on a grid of interconnected invisible networks that power our digital world. Wifi, cellular networks, radio broadcasts, infrared, satellite radio, satellite cable, cordless phones, bluetooth, car remotes, GPS, wireless controllers etc., are just a few of the devices that have created a web of invisible energy around us. We live in a world that has placed us in the midst of varying waves of the electromagnetic spectrum at almost every moment of everyday. Possibly that level of intense submersion into technology has created a higher sensitivity and adverse health effect than anyone would want us to know. Certain waves effect the body adversely, and many of those frequencies are around us all the time, and are even in use in non lethal weapons used today, this is a scientific fact. If certain frequencies did not effect humans than no weapons using frequencies would exist, and that is also fact. All wireless communications create an invisible grid of varied wavelengths and frequencies of the electromagnet spectrum. What about HAARP? The question is what is the real effect and capability that these invisible grids combined have on us? It isn't like I'll stop using my cell phone or give up wifi over it, but it would be nice to know the truth. Don't you agree?
I myself have experienced sound coming into my home that has been amplified by the acoustics in my home. Vaulted ceilings are notorious for amplifying acoustics. I can't say that for sure what I experienced was "V2K", but at the height of my stalking I was sitting in my living room with someone and we both could hear a man's voice coming into a far part of the room. We walked over to the area and deduced that we were getting noise pollution from a conversation that the recent tenant from across the street was having within his home that was somehow being amplified by those vaulted ceilings. Granted it really didn't make much sense, because the sound was localized in the same area, and was not loud outside the house. The man was usually pretty loud to begin with, and it was his voice. This happened several times over a period of a few months until the family, who were also recent renters, moved out of the neighborhood. I never felt like I heard voices because the sound was isolated, and it was clear that it was someone else having a conversation. I had bigger mysteries to solve at the time so I let that one go. I was already being gangstalked, so hearing some loud ass's voices creating noise pollution in my home, without a direct source, was too small of a concern at the time.
I have described several modern ways that could have a sane person "hearing voices", but what of the people who heard voices long before humans had the technology to harness the power of the electromagnetic spectrum? Joan of Arc heard voices and the Catholic church concurs that the voices she heard were that of Saints. Muhammad heard the voice of Allah, and that is not at all considered to be the experience of a schizophrenic, but one of a true prophet of God. Many prophets have claimed to hear voices. Many people have claimed to have heard the voice of God or saints in the past when there was no technology available to induce voices that was known to man. Is it than plausible that some other source before the technology existed was in existence that had sane humans hearing voices in the past?
The electromagnetic spectrum has been in existence long before humans came along. An ancient person or even a person of about 100 years ago, possibly less, would have been blown away by the technology we have today. People of 200 years ago probably could have been persuaded to believe that sending voices through the air was the work of angels and demons, God and the devil, or any other supernatural phenomenon that their minds could comprehend. People of 50 years ago would have been inclined to say that the voices were possibly supernatural or extraterrestrial, as the idea of Alien beings were creeping into mainstream culture. Of course people of today, depending on who you ask, might be less inclined to believe a disembodied voice is that of God, but more likely aliens, supernatural forces (ghosts), schizophrenia, or advanced government technology.
Although the technology does exist in our present day to induce voices, stories of hearing voices predate all known modern technology. I can shed light on the uses of the electromagnetic spectrum to induce voices and visions (hallucinations) with technology, but what of the time before technology? Yes, there are parts of the spectrum that can induce visual experiences, but thankfully I don't have to give a background on that because no Gangstalking victims have claimed to see things that aren't there, but instead hear what isn't actually physically present.
Hmmm, how does one define physically present? does a voice really need to be attached to a person to exhibit physical presence? Is a wavelength actually a representation of physical presence? Just thought I'd ask.
On a related note I did search for any military reference to "V2K" and "Voice to skull" technology but I found nothing. The term "V2K" may have been on a military site somewhere referring to actual voice to skull technology in existence that is actually quite different from what has been described on Gangstalking websites. Possibly there was a misunderstanding in how microwave and ultrasound technology works to induce sound, and the creators of the hoax Gangstalking websites might have run with inaccurate information. Which is somehow not surprising.
I think the term "V2K" may be derived from what is referred to as "bone induction/bone conduction" amplified sound devices used to conduct sound into the head by vibrating cranial bones. The sound is transmitted and amplified in the ears by vibrating the cranial bones of the individual via receptors attached to the persons headgear. This type of technology is currently used within the military and civilian populous to create crystal clear sound from headsets and the like. It's used in headsets for pilots, law enforcement and in other devices. If you have ever used a good Bluetooth, chances are you have been the proud user of bone conduction technology. Here are two example of civilian use http://www.umm.edu/otolaryngology/baha.htm and http://www.audioboneheadphones.com/
And here are two for military use. http://www.cjcomponents.com/category/41/Falcon_Series_Tactical_Bone_Conduction_Headsets.html
and http://www.selex-comms.com/internet/?open0=3160&open1=3194§ion=COMM&showentry=12370
I speculate that this might be where the "voice to skull" information came from, because the sound is vibrated into the cranial bones to amplify sound, but it is just my speculation. Bone induction technology is actually decades old. Much of the information on Gangstalking websites is half-baked or just plain wrong to begin with, so it's hard to figure out what most of those websites are speaking on anyway.
Now, although I maintain the plausibility of corporate and government testing of new advances in technology as sources of "V2K", I do not rest my case on any of these facts, because any tech savvy person can build a a laser that can be invisible and burn something or someone up to a couple of yards, a parabolic dish, and a laser sound system that can send sound on an invisible beam of light to a waiting receiving device, all of which can mimic serious government technology. Do some research on homemade engineering projects and see what I mean.
Plus there's always the old walkie talkie, hidden microphone, or baby monitor placed strategically, to make someone hear voices and sounds when no one is around. Still due to the sophistication of the sound being directed in a precise way, so that only one person in an area can allegedly hear it, it decreases the likely chance of some tech savvy tinker or joker being the culprit, but it doesn't close any doors of possibility of that being the case. The government does funds small research projects, and someone in your city/neighborhood could be an evil genius looking to come up with the next big thing that will entice a corporation or the government to give them millions for a working idea or further research.
So the technology is out there to induce voices in someone's head without receivers, and that is a fact that makes victim's claims plausible. I stand by my first writing on the plausibility of "V2K", and my stance that "V2K" is one of the stupidest terms I have ever heard. If this is the kind of knowledge I give away for free what else might I know?
The real question is who would go through the trouble to use microwave or ultrasound technology on unwitting subjects, and what would the full gain be considering all of the psychological, physical and property destruction associated with Gangstalking? As always that will have to wait until another time, as there is a huge reason as to why the who is doing this. This is already written long, and if I write anymore it would be the chapter of a book.
I don't promote conspiracy theories here, and I refuse to ever do that. I only present facts, that present an argument to discredit some of the half-baked and asinine claims made on Gangstalking websites. Maybe if more victims took a logical approach to explaining this crime, instead of spreading half witted information that has been passed through rumor-mills, and lost facts in the process, then maybe people would get that they were telling the truth!!!
If I had not been thrown into the world of Gangstalking by force, I would not be writing this now. Someone wanted me to be a victim (big mistake), and they planted information for me to find about what was done to me in a Professor Moriarty type way (bigger mistake), that came off more like Professor Moron (egregious mistake)! But instead of spreading disinformation I only tell the truth to the public.
Please do your own research if you have any doubts about what I've written here. I am most confident that you will find I have been amply truthful.
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1996/b3504115.arc.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDPMsEOcr8U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5imaJwfJMZ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.holosonics.com/PR_Epcot.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AMP3CxGm9I&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.parametricsound.com/
http://mblogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/02/02/my-other-ear-is-a-tooth-bone-conduction-helps-the-hard-of-hearing/
http://www.mobilefun.co.uk/blog/2010/02/review-motorola-hx1-jawbone-prime-jabra-stone/
http://www.umm.edu/otolaryngology/baha.htm
http://products.cochlearamericas.com/
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
The Gaslight Effect: The Master Of Induced Delusion In Gangstalking
Gaslighting has been called a covert form of control, which is 100% true.
In the hoax world of truth and lies that is Gangstalking the silly term Gaslighting has often come up to describe psychological harassment. Important tactics used in Gangstalkings have been called Gaslighting. But what is Gaslighting anyway, and how can someone know it when they see it, or when it happens to them?
You can search the web for the term Gaslighting, and still not find any real information on the topic, because it's a made up term that tried to get legitimized into the English lexicon by pranksters and at least one legitimate psychiatrist, Dr. T.L. Dopart. http://www.lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Dorpat%20with%20Foreword.pdf Why would a psychiatrist pick a term like Gaslighting?
In the June 2007 issue of O magazine (Oprah Winfrey's publication) "The Gaslight Effect" appears as an article that can still be found on Oprah's website, but the article misses much. A search on the Internet won't tell you much either, and will relate Gaslighting to psychological or verbal abuse found in toxic relationships or ambient sound. But how did it get started?
Gaslighting is based on a 1944 movie staring Ingrid Bergman called "Gaslight", that involves a husband attempting to drive his wife crazy so that he could get rid of her to protect a secret. The movie is named "Gaslight" because one of the husband's favorite tactics is to mess with the gas lights in the house to dim the lights while his wife is home, and when the wife asks about the lights the husband denies that anything is happening with the lights dimming as if she is delusional The husband attempts to psychologically harass his wife covertly into a mental break down. More information can be obtained from the IMDB database concerning the film if interested. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/
What the websites on toxic relationships fail to mention is a book alleged to have been written and published in 1994 called "Gaslighting" about the art of revenge to harass people into madness, so the author claims. The book is real, but the publish date might actually be different. The book "Gaslighting" was named after the movie "Gaslight" which is where the term comes from.
There is also a serious published work by Dr. Theodore Dopart published in 1996 that uses the term Gaslighting in reference to the field of psychology and covert manipulation by therapist during psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Though the work of Dr. Theodore Dopart probably has little to do with Gangstalking as a whole (?), I felt it important to mention the use of the term "Gaslighting" by a notable forensic psychiatrist and suicidologist.
Now what does an old black and white film and a revenge book have to do with Gangstalking. Well for one, it tells the age and tastes of the masterminds of Gangstalking, as well as their choices in reading materials, interest in old films and sociopathic tendencies. The movie is from 1944, and outside of film majors, people in the industry and old movie buffs, not that many young people would have seen or heard of the film. Knowledge of a sixty seven year old film staring Ingrid Bergman, without being an old movie buff, industry person or film student would give a average target age group of approximately 60-90 years old! The revenge book is not a mainstream publication, but instead the kind of book that was originally sold in the places that sell anarchist/militia/fight the system type media. Such as Paladin and Loompanics. That tells me that this is not the invention of people in their youth, but it would appeal to people in their youth. No teenager would come up with anything as antiquated as Gaslighting! Antiquated? Hmmmmm...
How Gaslighting relates to Gangstalking is in the use of using stupid and mondain everyday tactics to harass someone. In Gangstalking, people are targeted openly in legal yet immoral ways that are psychological in nature, aside from the illegal ways. Some of them alledged to be covered in the book.
Gaslighting is really a form of serious psychological conditioning. In conditioning the goal is to change behavior by introducing or removing stimuli from the subject's environment. So in the stupid world of made up terminology that is Gang Stalking, Gaslighting fills in for the term generalization by psychological conditioning, where everyday events take on a psychological agenda.
A person is targeted in ways that are meant to attack their sanity and make them doubt themselves. A targeted person might find that they are the subject of a negative gossip campaign or out right lies to their face. So what? Sure this has happened to most people at some point in their lives when they find themselves in the path of a jealous rival or jackass, but being attacked by a jealous rival or jackass is not Gangstalking! Nor is being the object of a bullies harassment necessarily Gangstalking.
Some of the psychological aspects of Gangstalking involve what would seem like routine haters, well just hating, and if that was the case it would be easy to stop, but that isn't the case. It isn't everyday people with grudges. A target might be told that they failed to do something that they were asked to do, or that something that happened around them never happened, and this is done on a repeated basis to the individual and those around the individual. The idea is to make the person doubt themselves and look foolish, delusional or incompetent in the eyes of anyone who matters or is available to watch. This is done to damage credibility.
Now of course It's not new for anyone to be a bitch or a jerk and make things difficult for a person because they don't like them or want what they have, and I think that's what most people think Gangstalking is. However, Gangstalking is not the average everyday office jerk, retched neighbor, or jealous individual acting alone or in a small group to make someone's life a living hell. The cooperation from law enforcement alone is beyond the everyday person, let alone the other things that can occur.
But in order to truly drive someone crazy, undermining their credibility with others is not enough, the target's credibility must be undermined with that individual against themselves as well, which is why psychological conditioning takes place on the broader scale to induce delusion.
A target may always see a certain thing, hear a certain noise, or phrase that in turn is meant to create an association. For example, a victim of Gangstalking tactics might find that certain types of people, events, cars, sounds, or smells are always occurring in their vicinity when in the act of routinely going about their lives without realizing their in the presence of their stalkers. This is done in order to create a psychological association to the object, smell, event, type of person, or sound in the target's mind. The key is that the stimuli that is introduced into the subject's environment must be common, so that after the initial stalking has subsided the target has become sensitized to the stimulus and will continue to be psychologically tormented, because the stimulus is still in their everyday environment, thus creating the generalization.
For more information on conditioning anyone interested can look up John Watson, the father of Behaviorism, and B. F. Skinner. I'm not here to try to teach anyone psychology by going in depth, I'll leave that up to the interested, because nobody wants to read technical stuff, and that is exactly why Ikea has the world's easiest directions for assembly :)
I do want to mention an example of conditioning here though. Now take for example the case of Classical Conditioning and "Little Albert", who was a baby subjected to ridiculous and traumatizing harassment at the hands of psychologist John Watson, in order to prove the point that fear is a learned response. The young baby was introduced to animals that he initially liked, and than the animals were reintroduced with the bang of loud noises in order to create an association between the animals and the startling noise. "Little Albert" was conditioned to expect an adverse reaction from any exposure to the animals that was so ingrained, that he even felt anxiety when a fur coat was given to him, well after the loud banging noise was no longer used to condition him. "Little Albert's" association was based on sensitizing him to the stimulus. "Little Albert" now had a rational but irrational learned response to all things furry (generalization), because he had been frightened so dramatically whenever something furry had been introduced that he expected it to continue.
Allegedly, Little Albert was desensitized to the association between furry animals and the learned anxiety of the expected loud noise. The point of mentioning "Little Albert" here is to show that everyday stimuli can be introduced into a normal healthy person's environment to condition that individual through generalization. That is why targets are so vulnerable to attack. Any person can become a victim of Gangstalking (seriously any person), because the stimuli are present in the everyday environment and presented only to that individual, just as "Little Albert" was the only one affected by the conditioning tailored for him without ever knowing it. That is unless a person is lucky enough to know psychological conditioning when observing it, or being subjected to it
The initial conditioned response is learned by exposure without the subject noticing that it's taking place. The unconscious mind recognizes the correlation between the stimuli and the occurrence, but the conscious mind only recognizes the anxiety or other emotion that is associated with the stimuli, without understanding the direct cause. At least ideally that is how it is suppose to work. A learned response without someone knowing that the learning is taking place or that they have learned to make the association is basically what Gaslighting is. But most people do notice that something is taking place, but the beauty is that only the individual is meant to see it. And since the events take place on a basis regular enough to draw attention to them by the subject, but rare enough to cause attention by others, it makes a person appear to be perceiving events that are not occurring because others miss it. However, the person is not delusional in any way, but overtime the victim is supposed to wonder is it all really happening, and to be driven mad by self doubt, alienation and the ingrained sensitization to stimulus through generalization. Making someone doubt themselves and their sanity is what the goal of the term Gaslighting is all about. Gaslighting is meant to trick the victim into believing a state of Induced delusion. It's the mind game of all mind games. It takes at least 100 people and law enforcement cooperation to pull off a true Gangstalking.
I think it was very stupid and cruel for Dr. Watson to choose a baby, had he really wanted to prove a point he would have got a consenting adult, not an impressionable child. I guess we should all be grateful to the horrific anxiety that was imposed upon "Little Albert" in the name of science, because behaviorism sprang from it. Still we would consider what Watson did in today's world child abuse, psychological harassment and just plain mean. Yet thanks to Noam Chomsky, behaviorism's ideas were scrutinized for neglecting certain aspects of behavior in cognition. If it weren't for the unwitting subject where would most of the advancements in psychology and medicine be? I guess there always has to be a guinea pig, even baby guinea pigs. I'm sure "Little Albert" never had an adverse episode in his life that could be traced to that traumatic time in his infancy (sarcasm). Of course Freud and Piaget might have argue that "Little Albert" had been affected.
Gaslighting is real even if it is based on a silly made up term someone decided to use for the purpose of describing Classical and Operant Conditioning to psychologically harass a person. The tactics used to target people show that the individuals who decided to form Gangstalking are not only very sick but knowledgeable and stupid, and in need of serious mental help. They clearly have certain knowledge that helped create this, and they know somewhat how to use it, and need to be stopped. The use of covert psychological conditioning raises a lot of questions about the individuals behind behind this.
Funny, I came across another old movie once that was suggested on a Gangstalking websites called "Carnival of Souls", which is another very old Black and white film about a woman being followed across the country only to find out it was death that was pursuing her. Hmmm, does the love of using old films as a MO lead to that Hollywood connection I keep mentioning or simply something more personal about the perpetrators? I can only cover one thing at a time and today it is Gaslighting, for the second and last time. I still need to go over all the other fantastic allegations made by the stupid conspiracy sites concerning Gangstalking.
I want to discredit the stupidity of Gangstalking and all it's many forms of propaganda spread out across the Internet as best I can, while I'm around. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I have no intentions of becoming one anytime soon. I just want to discredit the hoax's lies so that people can know the truth that the hoax is hiding what is true, so that anyone who participates in this sick crime can be charged for breaking state and federal laws.
On a side note I want to mention that college students are often recruited to participate in Gangstalking and Gaslighting. These students are recruited through different means including adds and word of mouth, and in rare cases by professors. In many cases, the students have no idea what the real reason is behind what they have being asked to do, but that is not always the case. I'll cover that later when I start naming names, as some college professors are notorious for using there students so that they can collect data that can be used professionally by themselves or colleagues.
In the hoax world of truth and lies that is Gangstalking the silly term Gaslighting has often come up to describe psychological harassment. Important tactics used in Gangstalkings have been called Gaslighting. But what is Gaslighting anyway, and how can someone know it when they see it, or when it happens to them?
You can search the web for the term Gaslighting, and still not find any real information on the topic, because it's a made up term that tried to get legitimized into the English lexicon by pranksters and at least one legitimate psychiatrist, Dr. T.L. Dopart. http://www.lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Dorpat%20with%20Foreword.pdf Why would a psychiatrist pick a term like Gaslighting?
In the June 2007 issue of O magazine (Oprah Winfrey's publication) "The Gaslight Effect" appears as an article that can still be found on Oprah's website, but the article misses much. A search on the Internet won't tell you much either, and will relate Gaslighting to psychological or verbal abuse found in toxic relationships or ambient sound. But how did it get started?
Gaslighting is based on a 1944 movie staring Ingrid Bergman called "Gaslight", that involves a husband attempting to drive his wife crazy so that he could get rid of her to protect a secret. The movie is named "Gaslight" because one of the husband's favorite tactics is to mess with the gas lights in the house to dim the lights while his wife is home, and when the wife asks about the lights the husband denies that anything is happening with the lights dimming as if she is delusional The husband attempts to psychologically harass his wife covertly into a mental break down. More information can be obtained from the IMDB database concerning the film if interested. http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/
What the websites on toxic relationships fail to mention is a book alleged to have been written and published in 1994 called "Gaslighting" about the art of revenge to harass people into madness, so the author claims. The book is real, but the publish date might actually be different. The book "Gaslighting" was named after the movie "Gaslight" which is where the term comes from.
There is also a serious published work by Dr. Theodore Dopart published in 1996 that uses the term Gaslighting in reference to the field of psychology and covert manipulation by therapist during psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Though the work of Dr. Theodore Dopart probably has little to do with Gangstalking as a whole (?), I felt it important to mention the use of the term "Gaslighting" by a notable forensic psychiatrist and suicidologist.
Now what does an old black and white film and a revenge book have to do with Gangstalking. Well for one, it tells the age and tastes of the masterminds of Gangstalking, as well as their choices in reading materials, interest in old films and sociopathic tendencies. The movie is from 1944, and outside of film majors, people in the industry and old movie buffs, not that many young people would have seen or heard of the film. Knowledge of a sixty seven year old film staring Ingrid Bergman, without being an old movie buff, industry person or film student would give a average target age group of approximately 60-90 years old! The revenge book is not a mainstream publication, but instead the kind of book that was originally sold in the places that sell anarchist/militia/fight the system type media. Such as Paladin and Loompanics. That tells me that this is not the invention of people in their youth, but it would appeal to people in their youth. No teenager would come up with anything as antiquated as Gaslighting! Antiquated? Hmmmmm...
How Gaslighting relates to Gangstalking is in the use of using stupid and mondain everyday tactics to harass someone. In Gangstalking, people are targeted openly in legal yet immoral ways that are psychological in nature, aside from the illegal ways. Some of them alledged to be covered in the book.
Gaslighting is really a form of serious psychological conditioning. In conditioning the goal is to change behavior by introducing or removing stimuli from the subject's environment. So in the stupid world of made up terminology that is Gang Stalking, Gaslighting fills in for the term generalization by psychological conditioning, where everyday events take on a psychological agenda.
A person is targeted in ways that are meant to attack their sanity and make them doubt themselves. A targeted person might find that they are the subject of a negative gossip campaign or out right lies to their face. So what? Sure this has happened to most people at some point in their lives when they find themselves in the path of a jealous rival or jackass, but being attacked by a jealous rival or jackass is not Gangstalking! Nor is being the object of a bullies harassment necessarily Gangstalking.
Some of the psychological aspects of Gangstalking involve what would seem like routine haters, well just hating, and if that was the case it would be easy to stop, but that isn't the case. It isn't everyday people with grudges. A target might be told that they failed to do something that they were asked to do, or that something that happened around them never happened, and this is done on a repeated basis to the individual and those around the individual. The idea is to make the person doubt themselves and look foolish, delusional or incompetent in the eyes of anyone who matters or is available to watch. This is done to damage credibility.
Now of course It's not new for anyone to be a bitch or a jerk and make things difficult for a person because they don't like them or want what they have, and I think that's what most people think Gangstalking is. However, Gangstalking is not the average everyday office jerk, retched neighbor, or jealous individual acting alone or in a small group to make someone's life a living hell. The cooperation from law enforcement alone is beyond the everyday person, let alone the other things that can occur.
But in order to truly drive someone crazy, undermining their credibility with others is not enough, the target's credibility must be undermined with that individual against themselves as well, which is why psychological conditioning takes place on the broader scale to induce delusion.
A target may always see a certain thing, hear a certain noise, or phrase that in turn is meant to create an association. For example, a victim of Gangstalking tactics might find that certain types of people, events, cars, sounds, or smells are always occurring in their vicinity when in the act of routinely going about their lives without realizing their in the presence of their stalkers. This is done in order to create a psychological association to the object, smell, event, type of person, or sound in the target's mind. The key is that the stimuli that is introduced into the subject's environment must be common, so that after the initial stalking has subsided the target has become sensitized to the stimulus and will continue to be psychologically tormented, because the stimulus is still in their everyday environment, thus creating the generalization.
For more information on conditioning anyone interested can look up John Watson, the father of Behaviorism, and B. F. Skinner. I'm not here to try to teach anyone psychology by going in depth, I'll leave that up to the interested, because nobody wants to read technical stuff, and that is exactly why Ikea has the world's easiest directions for assembly :)
I do want to mention an example of conditioning here though. Now take for example the case of Classical Conditioning and "Little Albert", who was a baby subjected to ridiculous and traumatizing harassment at the hands of psychologist John Watson, in order to prove the point that fear is a learned response. The young baby was introduced to animals that he initially liked, and than the animals were reintroduced with the bang of loud noises in order to create an association between the animals and the startling noise. "Little Albert" was conditioned to expect an adverse reaction from any exposure to the animals that was so ingrained, that he even felt anxiety when a fur coat was given to him, well after the loud banging noise was no longer used to condition him. "Little Albert's" association was based on sensitizing him to the stimulus. "Little Albert" now had a rational but irrational learned response to all things furry (generalization), because he had been frightened so dramatically whenever something furry had been introduced that he expected it to continue.
Allegedly, Little Albert was desensitized to the association between furry animals and the learned anxiety of the expected loud noise. The point of mentioning "Little Albert" here is to show that everyday stimuli can be introduced into a normal healthy person's environment to condition that individual through generalization. That is why targets are so vulnerable to attack. Any person can become a victim of Gangstalking (seriously any person), because the stimuli are present in the everyday environment and presented only to that individual, just as "Little Albert" was the only one affected by the conditioning tailored for him without ever knowing it. That is unless a person is lucky enough to know psychological conditioning when observing it, or being subjected to it
The initial conditioned response is learned by exposure without the subject noticing that it's taking place. The unconscious mind recognizes the correlation between the stimuli and the occurrence, but the conscious mind only recognizes the anxiety or other emotion that is associated with the stimuli, without understanding the direct cause. At least ideally that is how it is suppose to work. A learned response without someone knowing that the learning is taking place or that they have learned to make the association is basically what Gaslighting is. But most people do notice that something is taking place, but the beauty is that only the individual is meant to see it. And since the events take place on a basis regular enough to draw attention to them by the subject, but rare enough to cause attention by others, it makes a person appear to be perceiving events that are not occurring because others miss it. However, the person is not delusional in any way, but overtime the victim is supposed to wonder is it all really happening, and to be driven mad by self doubt, alienation and the ingrained sensitization to stimulus through generalization. Making someone doubt themselves and their sanity is what the goal of the term Gaslighting is all about. Gaslighting is meant to trick the victim into believing a state of Induced delusion. It's the mind game of all mind games. It takes at least 100 people and law enforcement cooperation to pull off a true Gangstalking.
I think it was very stupid and cruel for Dr. Watson to choose a baby, had he really wanted to prove a point he would have got a consenting adult, not an impressionable child. I guess we should all be grateful to the horrific anxiety that was imposed upon "Little Albert" in the name of science, because behaviorism sprang from it. Still we would consider what Watson did in today's world child abuse, psychological harassment and just plain mean. Yet thanks to Noam Chomsky, behaviorism's ideas were scrutinized for neglecting certain aspects of behavior in cognition. If it weren't for the unwitting subject where would most of the advancements in psychology and medicine be? I guess there always has to be a guinea pig, even baby guinea pigs. I'm sure "Little Albert" never had an adverse episode in his life that could be traced to that traumatic time in his infancy (sarcasm). Of course Freud and Piaget might have argue that "Little Albert" had been affected.
Gaslighting is real even if it is based on a silly made up term someone decided to use for the purpose of describing Classical and Operant Conditioning to psychologically harass a person. The tactics used to target people show that the individuals who decided to form Gangstalking are not only very sick but knowledgeable and stupid, and in need of serious mental help. They clearly have certain knowledge that helped create this, and they know somewhat how to use it, and need to be stopped. The use of covert psychological conditioning raises a lot of questions about the individuals behind behind this.
Funny, I came across another old movie once that was suggested on a Gangstalking websites called "Carnival of Souls", which is another very old Black and white film about a woman being followed across the country only to find out it was death that was pursuing her. Hmmm, does the love of using old films as a MO lead to that Hollywood connection I keep mentioning or simply something more personal about the perpetrators? I can only cover one thing at a time and today it is Gaslighting, for the second and last time. I still need to go over all the other fantastic allegations made by the stupid conspiracy sites concerning Gangstalking.
I want to discredit the stupidity of Gangstalking and all it's many forms of propaganda spread out across the Internet as best I can, while I'm around. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I have no intentions of becoming one anytime soon. I just want to discredit the hoax's lies so that people can know the truth that the hoax is hiding what is true, so that anyone who participates in this sick crime can be charged for breaking state and federal laws.
On a side note I want to mention that college students are often recruited to participate in Gangstalking and Gaslighting. These students are recruited through different means including adds and word of mouth, and in rare cases by professors. In many cases, the students have no idea what the real reason is behind what they have being asked to do, but that is not always the case. I'll cover that later when I start naming names, as some college professors are notorious for using there students so that they can collect data that can be used professionally by themselves or colleagues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
