Hearing voices or electronic harassment?

I wonder, if you are a therapist and you evaluate a voice hearer, then have you ever considered the possibility that it's electronic harassment? If you didn't, why not?

There are several websites about electronic harassment, where they describe how it has become possible to project voices into someone's head. The sound goes straight to the auditory cortex bypassing the ears. It's explained with patents and diagrams. And it's not difficult. In fact, every good student in electronics could do it. The existence of the technology does however not prove that it has been used.

But the medical science keeps on treating it as a delusion, although I never read a plausible explanation why someone would hear voices that are not there.

I read several times in the newspaper that someone committed a crime because this was ordered by "voices". Such complaints about hearing voices are never treated as serious.

For example, when the baby killer Kim De Gelder attacked a nursery in my village Sint-Gillis-bij-Dendermonde, 4 streets from where I live, he claimed that he did it because voices ordered him to do that. 5 psychiatrists who were ordered by the court to evaluate him concluded that he didn't hear voices, that he made it all up. But he had followed treatment for several years for hearing voices and he was evaluated by a counter-expert who concluded that he has schizophrenia.

I'm not defending what Kim De Gelder has done, but I'm convinced that before he committed these crimes, he was just a typical targeted individual, and if he wasn't harassed this way, then he would probably not have committed these crimes.

So you see that these 5 psychiatrists conclude in concert that nothing has to be said about his claim that he heared voices.

I think that the possibility of electronic harassment is too easily discarded. I think that it's discarded because if they have to take this possibility into account, then the law as well as psychiatry have to be reviewed considerably, while the criminals behind electronic harassment prefer to further profit from the situation.

I find that psychiatry is a criminal business because they don't want to deal with this problem.

First consider the possibility that you are wrong.

It seems far more likely that someone actually is faking it. Next comes the possibility that they aren't faking but people just don't care.

And even if you are right (and you are probably not) so what? How do you know that things aren't already working for the best that way? If you are just projecting your personal worldview then get in line, because there are a lot ahead of you.

gwilly wrote:First consider the possibility that you are wrong.

If you are attacked with electronic harassment, and you try to forget or deny it, then they will just behave in a way that it can't be ignored. Many people have tried it in vain.

gwilly wrote:It seems far more likely that someone actually is faking it. Next comes the possibility that they aren't faking but people just don't care.

Kim De Gelder was not faking that he heared voices. He actually went to a shrink for a treatment of his voices. I never heared that someone invented a story about hearing voices and then he went to a shrink for a treatment.

gwilly wrote:And even if you are right (and you are probably not) so what? How do you know that things aren't already working for the best that way? If you are just projecting your personal worldview then get in line, because there are a lot ahead of you.

It's not my personal view. There are already 2000 people who outed themselves as a targeted individual, who are in touch with a non-profit organization against organized stalking, who share the same "worldview" as you call it.

You discard my theory without answering my arguments. Is that how psychiatry works? I thought that is was a science.

Now look at the facts:

1. There's no medical explanation why someone would hear voices.
2. There's an explanation that we call microwave hearing, voice to skull and silent sound.
3. Technology to cause microwave hearing has been demonstrated.
4. An electronics engineer has succeeded in recording the voices that someone heared. If these voices originated in the brain, then it shouldn't have been possible to record them, so they must be electronic.

It's all documented on http://www.raven1.net

Kim De Gelder was not faking that he heared voices. He actually went to a shrink for a treatment of his voices. I never heared that someone invented a story about hearing voices and then he went to a shrink for a treatment.

One person does not make a trend. Also it seems logical that an unscrupulous person in trouble will look for an excuse to get out of it or lessen their punishment. It would be made even more credible if they can trick a professional into agreeing with them. Also I didn't say he was faking, I said it is possible to fake, meaning that when examiners believe someone is not hearing voices there could be a chance that they are actually right, you know?

It's not my personal view. There are already 2000 people who outed themselves as a targeted individual, who are in touch with a non-profit organization against organized stalking, who share the same "worldview" as you call it.

It isn't your view yet you are promoting it. Right.

You discard my theory without answering my arguments. Is that how psychiatry works? I thought that is was a science.

I didn't discard it. I'm testing you. I'm also not defending psychiatry. There are plenty of alternative answers and theories, I want to know why you picked this one.

There's no medical explanation why someone would hear voices.

So that must mean they don't, huh?

There's an explanation that we call microwave hearing, voice to skull and silent sound.

Wow, I guess that must be the only cause ever.

Technology to cause microwave hearing has been demonstrated.

Why haven't we heard of this more often? Let me guess, there's a coverup conspiracy too.

An electronics engineer has succeeded in recording the voices that someone heared. If these voices originated in the brain, then it shouldn't have been possible to record them, so they must be electronic.

So I guess that if this is true then it must be true in all cases. Right.

Honestly, if you are so concerned about this, then work on a device to intercept the signal. Even if there is truth to this, it doesn't matter whether anyone considers it or not if they cannot prove that it is happening in a given case.

Also it doesn't seem like it is up to psychiatry to deal with the problem since it is not psychiatric to begin with, according to you.

gwilly wrote:

Kim De Gelder was not faking that he heared voices. He actually went to a shrink for a treatment of his voices. I never heared that someone invented a story about hearing voices and then he went to a shrink for a treatment.

One person does not make a trend. Also it seems logical that an unscrupulous person in trouble will look for an excuse to get out of it or lessen their punishment. It would be made even more credible if they can trick a professional into agreeing with them. Also I didn't say he was faking, I said it is possible to fake, meaning that when examiners believe someone is not hearing voices there could be a chance that they are actually right, you know?

That's nonsense. No one would ever invent a story about hearing voices, see a shrink, follow a treatment for several years and then commit murders.

gwilly wrote:

It's not my personal view. There are already 2000 people who outed themselves as a targeted individual, who are in touch with a non-profit organization against organized stalking, who share the same "worldview" as you call it.

It isn't your view yet you are promoting it. Right.

I mean that it's not the view of me alone. It's the view of me and many others.

gwilly wrote:

You discard my theory without answering my arguments. Is that how psychiatry works? I thought that is was a science.

I didn't discard it. I'm testing you. I'm also not defending psychiatry. There are plenty of alternative answers and theories, I want to know why you picked this one.

I picked this theory because it's based on something that has been proven: microwave hearing was demonstrated in the seventies. Of all that I read about hearing voices, only this theory was credible.

gwilly wrote:

There's no medical explanation why someone would hear voices.

So that must mean they don't, huh?

I mean that medical science has never given a plausible explanation why people would hear voices. I didn't say that it means that they don't hear voices.

gwilly wrote:

There's an explanation that we call microwave hearing, voice to skull and silent sound.

Wow, I guess that must be the only cause ever.

It's the only cause that we could ever prove. So I would rather concentrate on this instead of a questionable medical theory. And the patents that have been published suggest that this technology has been improved significantly since it was demonstrated. The quality of the broadcasts has to be much higher now.

gwilly wrote:

Technology to cause microwave hearing has been demonstrated.

Why haven't we heard of this more often? Let me guess, there's a coverup conspiracy too.

When technology has been demonstrated it can become in the interest of the government that the techology becomes classified. This means that the researchers have lost control over their research. Then the government controls that research. Everyone who is involved in the research has then to sign a secret law that binds them to secrecy. That's why no one talks about this technology.