Monday, August 13, 2007

Telepathy And Technology

Telepathy, remote viewing, movies projected against the sky, and specifically targeted auditory messages are only some of the events that occur in Maxie Time, a diary of a purported involuntary experiment on a human subject.

If one were to report seeing holographic movies projected against the day sky in 1997, the common person on the street would not think it possible. The professed medical professional would deem one ‘crazy’ and that would be the end of the discussion. Yet, since 2003 a San Francisco-based company IO2Technology patented just such a process by which images from a number of sources, including televisions or computers, may be projected into thin air. Granted this is a small scale version of the sky movie, but the device is currently in the market—called Heliodisplay it retails for about $20,000.

By the same token, back in 1996 or 1997, if one were to ‘hear’ voices that seem to be targeting them and no one nearby is privy to these ‘voices’, the unfortunate observer would be marginalized as schizophrenic, manic or suffering from some other mental instability. Yet, again, since the early 2000’s, any kid with some savvy can download these ‘invisible’ auditory ‘hallucinations’ as ringtones specifically targeting certain age groups, because it turns out, hearing range varies based on a person’s age. Suddenly, it doesn’t seem so improbable to narrow the sound wave and precisely hone its direction to pinpoint a target as well. While this misunderstanding may appear comical, it is very tragic to the subject being marginalized as crazy just for having the misfortune of detecting such a specific sound at a time when the technology was not common knowledge.

If by now there are reasonable explanations for the extraordinary experiences described in Maxie Time, then can the assertion the author makes, that the government is actively conducting synthetic telepathy and remote viewing involuntary human experiments on the general population, be too far fetched? The book is written as a diary and carefully avoids common conspiracy theory pitfalls because the parties involved in this undertaking appear to be operating without subterfuge and with no fear of the law. It seems even the doctors are in on it.

What about the law? Since 1993 there have been several attempts made by the US Senate to propose legislation to prevent conducting involuntary human experiments without the subject’s informed consent, none of which have been ratified. This begs the question, if such involuntary experiments are not ongoing, why the need for such legislation? And is it ever likely such protections can be put into place considering the fallout this would have by giving past victims the legal standing to pursue restitution?

No comments: