schizophrenia or electronic harrasment?

It might just be a coincidence, but it's interesting that the most interesting thing about most people claiming to be targeted by shadowy organisations is that they are allegedly being targeted by shadowy organisations. None of the people I've seen writing about such topics seems to have any good reason for why they would be of such interest to anyone, never mind secret govt units dedicated to such endeavours.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

I think it's hasty to assume that because these people are ordinary or uninteresting that something hasn't been or isn't being done to them. How would you prove that a large organization is doing something unethical and illegal to you when you are one person against many and no one believes you? Isn't that the best reason to go after an "uninteresting" person as opposed to someone famous or important?

a reply to: Darksea13

Why even go after anybody out in the wild to experiment on, if there are plenty of ways of acquiring humans who wont be missed to experiment on? It just makes no sense from an operational pov to target nonentities in such a manner. If I regularly hear the sound of stampeding hooves while I'm in my living room in an urban environment, I'm going with schizophrenia rather than a herd of zebras as the likely explanation.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

I don't follow you. Are you saying that the subjects should be abducted? To make that point I think we would have to know the purpose of the experiments. What is to be gained? From what I've read from others everyone seems to have their own explanation as to why they are targeted or by whom. I don't believe all of them or all of the claims by the ones who do seem believable. My belief is that whoever or whatever is behind this doesn't give explanations and is so well organized and hidden that it would be almost impossible to find out the "why" behind it all. There must be a reason that the targeted people are allowed to live amongst everyone else and share their bizarre claims without consequence. Either it truly is a study, an unethical and illegal one, to see how they respond to the harassment or it is simply malevolent and meant to destroy that person's life.

a reply to: Darksea13

I'm saying that if such tests were to be carried out in order to perfect such technology, it'd first be done on subjects who were in no position to ever complain about their treatment, not on random nobodies just for #s and giggles and to see how quick they could drive them mad, or if they could detect what was being done to them. The idea that such technology would be wasted electronically harrassing ordinary citizens, and thus potentially exposing their devious plans and technological capabilities, only makes sense to someone bordering on being insane.

originally posted by: IvanAstikov
Why even go after anybody out in the wild to experiment on, if there are plenty of ways of acquiring humans who wont be missed to experiment on?

You don't even have to go to such lengths, the "God helmet" was used in a study done in a Canadian university and Transcranial magnetic stimulation has FDA approval.

a reply to: IvanAstikov

You say this, but the government has carried out experiments on ordinary people in the past. Maybe the purposes of these tests is to perfect the technology to the point where the subject doesn't gain awareness of the thoughts not being their own? Like I said, to try to explain it is a waste of effort and probably impossible. Auditory hallucinations do happen to schizophrenics, but that doesn't mean that all of these people are schizophrenic. It's a convenient explanation for people who don't want to consider the possibility that mind control experiments are being conducted.

originally posted by: Darksea13
It's a convenient explanation for people who don't want to consider the possibility that mind control experiments are being conducted.

I think that it is the other way around.

a reply to: daskakik

How so? Anytime someone suggests mind control the first argument back is "paranoid schizophrenic." There is never a serious discussion about the possibility, just shutting someone down and accusing them of having a mental illness.

here is a video i took of the highway near me. You mayor may not hear vocal like inflections from the sounds. between 50 seconds and a minute, the tone of the noise is the same volume and tone/tambre i heard since it started.

originally posted by: Darksea13
There is never a serious discussion about the possibility, just shutting someone down and accusing them of having a mental illness.

Occam's razor.

a reply to: daskakik

People keep referencing that as if it's the only way to reach a conclusion. There isn't enough evidence for either explanation for one to win over the other. We have no documentation or proof from psychiatrists that any of the people who have posted here are schizophrenic. That explanation is just as simple as a mind control technology being used against them. It's sickening how many people here, at a conspiracy theory forum of all places, attack other members and assume that they are mentally ill.

originally posted by: Darksea13
We have no documentation or proof from psychiatrists that any of the people who have posted here are schizophrenic.

Occam's razor states that the theory with the least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one.

Right off the bat you assume the people posted here have not been diagnosed. Then you assume that the gov has such tech, then you have to assume that it needs testing, then you assume that they are willing to test on anyone, then you assume that the testing takes years and even decades.

Then again someone might be mentally ill.

That explanation is just as simple as a mind control technology being used against them. It's sickening how many people here, at a conspiracy theory forum of all places, attack other members and assume that they are mentally ill.

Nobody is attacking them, we are questioning their proof.

a reply to: daskakik

Just because someone can't produce evidence doesn't mean they are liars or crazy. They are sharing their experiences. I don't apply Occam's Razor to everything in life because it does not always lead to the correct conclusion. I'm not assuming any of these people have no been diagnosed, but none of them have stated so. You, on the other hand, are assuming that they are schizo because their claims are too complex so any other possibility is off the table.

originally posted by: Darksea13
Just because someone can't produce evidence doesn't mean they are liars or crazy. They are sharing their experiences. I don't apply Occam's Razor to everything in life because it does not always lead to the correct conclusion.

It's an internet forum, nothing more nothing less.

I'm not assuming any of these people have no been diagnosed, but none of them have stated so.

You have to if you are going to believe them.

You, on the other hand, are assuming that they are schizo because their claims are too complex so any other possibility is off the table.

In the OPs own words:

I'll make this plain to understand, I am being treated, a neuraleptic helped a lot.

Why don't you go feign outrage somewhere appropriate?

a reply to: Darksea13

Occam's Razor is a cheap and easy tool to slice any extraordinary claims to ribbons.

Personally, I prefer using it to shave.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not feigning outrage. I just don't understand why people take such pleasure in diagnosing strangers on the Internet. I would rather consider all possibilities than shut someone down because I think reading WebMD makes me an expert on mental illness.

originally posted by: Darksea13
I'm not feigning outrage.

You said it was sickening that we would assume someone was mentally ill when the OP had already admitted to being under treatment.

I just don't understand why people take such pleasure in diagnosing strangers on the Internet. I would rather consider all possibilities than shut someone down because I think reading WebMD makes me an expert on mental illness.

I'm not diagnosing anyone, I am neither qualified nor do I believe that internet forums are the appropriate medium for diagnosing anyone.

Also, who says I don't consider all the possibilities? In this particular thread the OP said he had recorded voices. I don't hear them. What do you want me to do say that I do so that the OP can feel like he's getting a fair shake?

a reply to: daskakik

You do realize that John Forbes Nash, Jr suffered from schizophrenia....and won a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Just one example of higher-functioning individuals who deal with madness in some form or another.

Your point again?

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
You do realize that John Forbes Nash, Jr suffered from schizophrenia....and won a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Just one example of higher-functioning individuals who deal with madness in some form or another.

I agree, great story.

Your point again?

I'm not really sure what your point is or why you brought up Nash. Was Nash targeted with EM waves or nano-bots?

Seems to me that you are arguing my point, someone like the OP can take it upon himself to try to explain what is happening but that doesnt mean that his concusions are unbiased.

A scene from the movie A Brilliant Mind keeps coming to mind, I believe it is when someone is there to inform him about the Nobel, he stops one of his students and asks him if he could see the gentleman. The student says yes so Nash talks with him.

What would have happened if the student had said no, meaning it was a hallucination, and Nash dismissed the word of this, and every student that said no, until he found one that said that the person was real?