Can you record it?

In the author's speculation, the world's population could be experiencing telepathic communication that no one has consented to. It is not limited to words. It can reach any of the physical senses. - Verbal communication. It can be heard aloud on the neurotech bullhorn. - Inside the skull. With the ears held shut, it can still be experienced internally, through voice-to-skull (V2K) technology. - Phantom sensations. Something felt on or in the body that has no visible cause. - Augmented reality visuals. Images added to what a person sees (see The Diving Ecosystem, Capability 9). None of it has been consented to. Statements suggest that most of it is weapons development, carried out by certain organizations within a union of approximately 200 organizations that has been sold access to the population of the United States, and of other countries. That rests on statements alone and is unverified. On the record: the microwave auditory effect is documented in laboratory research: pulsed microwaves can be heard as clicks or buzzes that seem to come from inside the head. No published research shows it delivering speech to a person at a distance. The feeling of something crawling on the skin, and brief glimpses of things that are not there, have many known medical causes and are worth a doctor's assessment (see The Diving Ecosystem, Capability 9). From the author: "Wouldn't a mobile

This concept is being written in parts. More of it is being recorded and will be added. This concept is the author's speculation. It does not assert that the system it describes exists. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication, and every statement heard on the bullhorn requires verification. Read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. Suppose, hypothetically, that someone begins to humor a friendly relationship with a voice that reaches them directly, by voice-to-skull (V2K) communication. On the other end is a person in an office, presenting themselves through their own point-of-view eyesight, on a monitor, as an avatar: an extraterrestrial, someone from the spirit world, or a human being who is not who they claim to be. The first experience feels spiritual. Imagine what that could mean for people of faith. Perhaps the voice appears as a father who has died, or a grandmother. The person allows it to exist in their mind. They decide, almost without noticing, to explore it. They never say yes out loud; they simply let the friendship happen. And it is one of the most remarkable, profound experiences of their life. It feels authentically human, because it comes with phantom sensations, with what have been described as "emotional wristbands," and with a brain-to-brain connection, a conversation held mind to mind. It goes on for months. There ar

If this experience is the work of a military deployment, then it is the work of a machine operated by human beings. And a machine can be turned off at any time. So why hasn't it been? This concept is the author's speculation. It does not assert that the system it describes exists. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication, and every statement heard on the bullhorn, like the bullhorn itself, requires verification. Read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. The first is the story people are told: that this is the spirit world, or something extraterrestrial; that no one can stop it; that there is no hope. If it is a machine operated by human beings, none of that is true. The second is the simplest. The surest way never to "euthanize" anyone for communicating is not to harass them in the first place. The offices doing this can stop at any time. They can simply choose not to communicate. No law of nature compels any of it. This is the work of human beings, and no one has to communicate with anyone. Doesn't law enforcement lose every covert opportunity the moment harassment begins? A person who is being harassed knows they are being watched, and a person who knows they are being watched is no longer a covert source of anything. The author is not an intelligence analyst, but the logic seems plain. And if someone has been experimented on through th

Diving is the process of establishing a brain-to-brain connection with another human being. According to statements, and to human experience, it can be done with a computer or without one. This concept sets out the author's hypothesis of how it works without a computer, and why that matters. This concept is the author's speculation. It does not assert that the process exists as described. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication; read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. The author has had no training. Everything here is hypothesis, drawn from his own experience and from what he has heard on the bullhorn. It is offered as a set of questions more than a set of instructions: is this how it works? The first rule: permission. Never enter someone's body, or connect to someone neurologically, without their permission. There is one exception. If you are being harassed, and someone is pressing you to raise your hand, to let them into your home with offers of "relief from suffering" or "assistance," do whatever you can to capture a physical description of them, so that you will recognise them if they come to your door without permission. If they do, do not open the door; call 911. Speak only for yourself. None of this has been confirmed or verified, and it needs to be. The author can speak for himself, but not for you. On this subject, never speak

Legislatures rarely move early. On neural data, three of them did. Colorado passed HB24-1058 in 2024, amending its consumer privacy act to require express consent before neural data is collected or used, separate consent or an opt-out before it goes to a third party, and a route for a person to have it deleted. California did the same through SB 1223, folding neural data into the categories its privacy act treats as sensitive. Montana went further from a different direction, adding neural data to its genetic information privacy act, effective October 2025. What is notable is not the content but the margins: these passed unanimously or nearly so, in a period when almost nothing does. A category of information most people have never heard of was given statutory protection by bipartisan votes in three states. Either those legislatures were persuaded that a capability exists worth regulating, or they were persuaded one is close enough that waiting was the greater risk. The record shows the votes. It does not show which of those two it was.

The question has been asked seriously and tested at scale, and the answer is not the one either side tends to expect. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans. That classification is real and is widely cited. It is worth knowing what the tier means: 2B is the agency's weakest positive category, used where evidence is limited and a link cannot be excluded, and it holds several hundred agents. Since then the question has been examined far harder. A systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization, published in Environment International in September 2024, screened more than five thousand studies from 1994 to 2022 and included sixty-three. It found no association between mobile phone use and cancers of the head, including among long-term and heavy users. It is the most comprehensive assessment to date. A group of researchers has published a methodological critique of it, and that dispute belongs in the record alongside the finding. Precaution for children persists in policy anyway. France banned mobile phones in schools in 2018, and several national authorities advise limiting children's exposure — on the reasoning that a child's exposure starts earlier and continues longer, not on a demonstrated harm. The documented risks of the devices children actually wear