Are you targeted?

That depends. Who's asking?

Sleight of mind

  • New tools have added a new dimension to an old game.
  • The game: provocation, misdirection, disinformation.
  • Numerous "fake" events can be anchored to real events, amplifying the perceived threat and getting the witness to report outlandish stories.
  • Individuals whose brain centers are electrically stimulated believe their evoked actions are their own ideas; their conscious mind rationalizes the evoked actions away. People experiencing this electrical stimulation aren't consciously aware of an external influence. (José Delgado, Physical control of the mind: toward a psychocivilized society; p. 116.)


  • It costs them little to disseminate disinformation, but you'll find it very costly.
  • Disinformation spreads because it gives the recipients what they want. What you want is vindication, validation, and public acceptance. Beware information that plays on these desires.
  • Are you experimenting on them and testing the boundaries of your prison? Or are they toying with you?

A skeptical look at skepticism

  • Real skepticism is great.
  • A select group of public relations specialists - and a community of online bullies - have adopted the language of skepticism to get what they want. They're not sincere. Recognize them for what they are.
  • Distraction and misdirection are the tools of magicians as well as intelligence agencies. The skeptic community has been put to work attacking corporate- and government- created straw men, discrediting the real issues by association; they've been played.

Group efforts; infiltrators; disruption

  • Group interaction is part of the design. They want it to happen, but to be ineffective or even counter-productive.
  • The people you associate with are like pawns on a chess board.
  • Think of your activity as being part of a virtuous conspiracy.

"The program", explained

  • It's a brainwashing program. Brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed.
  • The disturbing things you experience are real. The narrative is in your mind. Your imagination has been primed by a single source, disguising itself as multiple sources.
  • Treat this explanation as a hypothesis. Do all the strange happenings around you seem less disturbing when you assume all the suggestive performances, loaded conversations, and veiled references to your personal life are coming from people who have no idea what they're doing?

    Look at things a different way. Does it make you feel better?
  • There is no authoritative source of information about this program or the underlying tools. Think otherwise? Listen to the podcast.


  • A very cheap and harmless countermeasure: listening to binaural beats (alpha, theta, delta waves) on a portable music player with stereo headphones. Reports indicate this works well with beating sleep deprivation as well as auditory disturbances. The probable cause is binaural entrainment. Search YouTube for binaural beat sound tracks.
  • Whether or not they're interested in poisoning you; whether or not they're interested in breaking in at night; you can take some simple steps to earn peace of mind and help the fear recede. Try barricading your door at night (if you think "they" are still getting in, check out the podcast explaining "the program", above). Hang on to food receipts - toss them in a waste basket in a corner.
  • Shielding integrity: It's pretty easy to verify the integrity of shielding with cheap equipment. If you can reduce your cell phone to zero bars, or block reception for a portable radio, you're off to a great start.

    Ordinary window screens can let air pass into a shielded enclosure without compromising its integrity.
  • If your enclosure is blocking cell phones / radio transmissions, but it's not shielding you, you're probably bringing the source of your problems inside the enclosure with you.
  • Don't use metal foil. It's a stereotype, and besides, unless you know exactly what you're doing, it's probably not going to work. You can mix iron filings (or iron oxide, for a smoother finish) with ordinary paint and coat your walls with it - the recommended ratio is 4:1 paint-to-iron. Please note that this may not block broadcast EMF - see the shielding integrity advice, above.

EMF remarks

  • Passive shielding is basically a solved problem, but it might not be practical. You can't spend your life in a steel coffin. Plus, you don't know exactly what you're shielding against (but you can rule out a lot of possibilities using brute force).
  • 60+ Ghz EMF is quickly attenuated (blocked) by ordinary obstacles, including wood and brick. Here's a CBS News video showing a reporter blocking the 95 Ghz Active Denial System with a board of plywood, as well as a mattress.
  • Starting points to investigate shielding advice (Wikipedia): Electromagnetic shielding; Skin effect; Dielectric heating.

Bad science / disinformation

  • A frequently-cited article, Mind Fields (Omni Magazine, 1985) doesn't say what Nick Begich has led his readers to believe what it says. In the article, Delgado scoffs at the notion of long-distance EMF attacks, but Begich doesn't quote that part of the article.
  • A patent doesn't mean anything without a working model. Bad patents do slip past USPTO examiners. Besides, a sensitive technology (as defined by the NSA, NASA, the DOE, or the US military) wouldn't be patentable due to the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.
  • Anybody can claim anything in a lawsuit. A lawsuit filing isn't proof of anything.
  • Reputable scientific journals generally don't have to announce that they're "peer reviewed"; it's a given.
  • Manufacturers, even defense contractors, may make false claims about the efficacy and safety of their products.
  • Electrical pollution: look a lot more closely at the existing studies. You're going to find flaws, even in "peer reviewed" studies. Magda Havas' infamous double-blind heart rate experiment, for example, doesn't allow for electrical interference with the measurements of the subjects' heart rates.
  • Studies that show correlation - without leading researchers to underlying causes - have to be dismissed. Results from these studies aren't trustworthy.

"Energy weapons", or something else?

People going through The Program are frequently led to believe they are being attacked with energy weapons, when they really aren't.

How the DEW delusion is created and supported

  • In later phases of the program, the target is treated to mind control theater suggesting that the sensations he feels are coming from energy weapons. The target will be led to believe, through very convincing feedback, that his neighbors are using devices against him, or that certain objects nearby are emitting rays that cause his problems, or that he's immersed in powerful magnetic fields, or that the sensations are like directed weapons that can be "dodged" or "blocked".
  • The target may get an MRI or CAT scan, and not find anything.
  • Coming into contact with other targets is an important step in cementing the DEW delusion. One of the first fellow targets the newly-aware target will meet - this is someone he was intended to meet - will provide persuasive testimony seemingly proving that, indeed, energy weapons are responsible.
  • Other contacts will testify, in phone calls and online, that they are being attacked with energy weapons. Note: my last survey indicated that most targets decide they are being attacked by energy weapons because that's what they were told by other people they trusted (alleged targets with similar stories).
  • A couple dozen authority figures - "engineers", "doctors", and the like - are out there to reinforce the idea that energy weapons are the only sensible explanation.

Why are the sources talking about implants more believable than the sources that talk about energy weapons?

  • There's really no question that Jose Delgado did some amazing things with implanted electrodes (which he called "stimoceivers"). There were many witnesses, and even videos. What's more, there's no new physics; experimentation with electrical stimulation of the brain and muscles goes back as far as the 18th century.
  • Energy weapons have the effect they do on human senses through dielectric heating (the Microwave Auditory Effect can be thought of as a special case) - or through induced current by way of rapidly changing and powerful magnetic fields (cf. transcranial magnetic stimulation). The kinds of highly precise, controlled effects targets are complaining about seem to be out of the question with radio waves, microwaves, or magnetic fields.
  • Delgado later claimed, in a Cabinet Magazine interview, that he could do the same things he'd done with implants using energy fields alone. Problem: we only have his word. He didn't publish any scientific studies, and there are no witnesses. Unless the results he claimed to have could be replicated, we're going to have to write off those claims as sensationalism.
  • Using directed or broadcast energy in real-world settings leads to all kinds of problems with reflection and attenuation. Radio signals to receivers have those problems, too, but a radio receiver can amplify incoming signals by tens of dB due to signal resonance. Attenuation is a problem for receivers, but a much smaller problem than it is for energy weapons. Even for simple effects like you'd see with the Microwave Auditory Effect, the physical facts are very much in favor of implants.

A ray of truth in 1985, or something else?

  • Two stories which hit the airwaves/news stands that year are frequently cited in support in the DEW Delusion. One is an Omni Magazine interview with Jose Delgado ("The Mind Fields"), Feb 1985 (available here), and the other is a series of highly suggestive reports about mind control that aired on CNN.
  • It's no secret that CNN will air any news segment you provide it with, provided it has decent production values, for a modest fee (in the tens of thousands of dollars).
  • Two sources - one from a news network that will broadcast anything for a fee, and the other from a magazine that specializes in "science fiction and the paranormal" - are supposed to be solid evidence supporting certain peoples' beliefs their minds are being controlled via energy weapons.
  • The Omni magazine writer led off her article with a look at one questionable demonstration (for example, did the camera crew learn which field each animal was being exposed to before or after the effects were demonstrated?) with feeble results, and proceeded to take it as a given that Delgado's lab could accomplish miracles with electromagnetic fields. And also note: in that very same article, Delgado scoffed at the notion of long distance control via EMF... people citing the article as evidence like to overlook that part.
  • The Delgado piece that aired on CNN said the mind-controlling electronics being demonstrated were assembled from off-the-shelf electronics devices (in 1985!) - yet three decades later, researchers can't do anything like what was supposedly achieved in that news segment.
  • Five minutes of broadcast footage is costly. Someone spent a lot of money getting this story - which realistically couldn't have happened as depicted in the segment - in front of millions of viewers. Who?

Appeals to authority

  • Delgado's experiments with implanted electrodes are notable because those experiments definitely happened. Everything else attributed to Delgado is an appeal to authority (including his Physical control of the mind quote elsewhere on this page - don't treat it as the Gospel; treat it as a working hypothesis).
  • Reactions to the 1985 CNN mind control segments are an interesting case study in wishful thinking; a highly skeptical audience (who says the mainstream media can't be trusted) suddenly considers the mainstream media a trustworthy source when it's saying what they want to hear.
  • Nick Begich's books are a gold mine of misleading one-liners taken from apparent authorities - military sources, Delgado, and the like; they're an example of the Gish Gallop, and not worth the trouble to debunk. Begich, by the way, is usually introduced as "Dr." Nick Begich (another appeal to authority); his PhD is in traditional medicine and is from a suspected diploma mill.
  • "Dr." Robert Duncan has "advanced degrees in science and business" (his words). We only have his word that he testified before Congress, and that he worked on all kinds of secret government projects.
  • "Dr." John Hall is a medical doctor.
  • There are several sites that (at first glance) look like they should be trustworthy, and get cited because they go where other sites won't, but are notorious for publishing misinformation or overly sensationalized stories. (which hosts several blogs) and The Daily Mail are two of them.
  • Patents, court filings, and statements from manufacturers may also be used as appeals to authority.
  • The unreliability of the above sources will be overlooked because the person citing them wants them to be true.
  • Don't cease critical thought just because you like what you hear.

Better terminology

  • Where does the terminology you use come from? Do you know? Are you being misled by it?
  • Consider using Neurotechnology instead of electronic mind control (sounds fringe), psychotronics (contaminated by association with pseudoscience) or mind control (ambiguous).
  • Stop labeling everyone you're bothered by as a perpetrator; do you like being labeled? But there are going to be players who are "in on it", such as assets, operatives, and handlers.
  • High-tech stalking by proxy instead of organized stalking (which implies agency). Gang-stalking is okay as slang, but never say gang stalkers.
  • Augmented reality instead of holograms.
  • Evoked actions or inner voice cloning instead of subliminals.
  • Consider describing yourself and those around you as subjects of experimentation or assets instead of targeted individuals.
  • Auditory disturbance(s) instead of v2k, which implies a particular technology is being used. V2K is convenient as slang, though, and it's not going away.

The company you keep (and other tools of coercive persuasion)

  • You're being coerced into interacting with certain people.
  • You pick up misconceptions from the company you keep: bad science, misleading framing, unreliable testimony. If you act on those misconceptions, your actions are the product of coercion.
  • In your search for allies, you've lowered your standards. You need to restore them.


Last update: 5/13/13.