Concepts

Are Denver citizens subject to acoustic weapons?

28Author's observationDocumented

An idea drawn from this archive’s research and journal, either the author’s own speculation or generated by AI, and labelled as such.

Acoustic weapons are real, commercially sold, and owned by American police departments. Genasys, formerly LRAD Corporation, markets long-range acoustic devices to law enforcement, and what they do to people has been litigated. In Edrei v. Bratton the Second Circuit held that using one against non-violent, non-resisting protesters can violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The device in that case, a Model 100X, produces up to 136 decibels at one metre; the NYPD's own testing recorded 110 decibels at 320 feet in area-denial mode, and hearing loss can follow short exposure at 110 to 120 decibels. Plaintiffs reported tinnitus, vertigo, migraines, and in one case nerve damage requiring steroid treatment. The court's reasoning was that novel technology does not escape proportionality review. So the general question is settled: the devices exist, police own them, and a federal appeals court has held their use can be excessive force. The Denver question is answered differently by the public record. The largest adjudicated case of Denver police force against citizens is Epps v. City and County of Denver, where a federal jury awarded $14 million in March 2022, upheld by the Tenth Circuit in April 2026 at $14.75 million. The force documented there was shotgun rounds, flash-bang grenades and chemical agents. Acoustic devices are not part of that record. One property matters for anyone trying to answer this for themselves. An acoustic weapon projects ordinary sound through air in a directional beam: everyone in the beam hears it, a phone left recording captures it, and a decibel meter registers it. It is not a covert instrument, which means its use is testable by anyone who suspects it.

  • Edrei v. Bratton, No. 17-2065 (2d Cir. 2018) — LRAD use on non-violent protesters can violate the Fourteenth Amendment; qualified immunity denied at the pleading stage
  • LRAD Model 100X: up to 136 dB at one metre; NYPD testing recorded 110 dB at 320 feet in area-denial mode
  • Hearing loss can follow short exposure at 110–120 dB; Edrei plaintiffs reported tinnitus, vertigo, migraines and nerve damage
  • Epps v. City and County of Denver — $14m jury verdict, March 2022; Tenth Circuit affirmed April 2026 at $14.75m
  • Force documented in Epps: shotgun rounds, flash-bang grenades, chemical agents. No acoustic device appears in that record
  • Genasys (formerly LRAD Corporation) markets acoustic hailing devices to law enforcement

Open questions

  • Nothing in this research establishes that Denver Police own or have deployed an acoustic weapon. That is an absence of finding, not proof of absence — a Colorado Open Records Act request would settle it outright.
  • No acoustic device accounts for a sound only one person perceives. A directional beam of air pressure is audible to bystanders and recordable by any phone.

References

Edrei and Epps are decided cases and are cited for what each court found. The vendor link is the manufacturer's own marketing, included to show the devices are sold to police, and is not independent evidence of any deployment.

Not independently verified

This concept reports decided litigation and published device specifications. It does not establish that any acoustic weapon has been deployed in Denver, nor against any individual.

Topics: Proposed solutions · Technology · Violence · Law enforcement & government · Health & physical effects

Keep reading

01Author's observationPattern

What Does a Future with Consent Look Like?

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

Proposed solutionsSpeculationTechnologyRead →
06Author's observationPattern

The Diving Ecosystem

A hypothetical system, suggested to be a military deployment, that supports telepathic communication. Its suggested purpose is to give an invading force full transparency over all communication within enemy territory. That transparency would cover more than speech: through the Diving process, with or without a computer, it would reach the memories of people inside that territory. This concept is the author's speculation. It describes a hypothetical system and does not assert that the system exists. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication; read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. Do not reward their presence: the author's caution In the author's experience, the system is generally used to provoke people and draw them out of their homes. When it began, in 2023, the voices presented themselves as the spirit world. Once the author researched neuroscience and realised they were human beings, he ended every relationship with any so-called invisible friend, anyone communicating on the system. The author's view is that it is vital not to reward their illegitimate presence. Rewarding it erodes the constitutional rights of everyone around you, and your own most of all, and it puts your life at risk. Their refusal to share contact details through any public, accountable channel is a serious red flag. For anyone experiencing this kind of communicatio

SpeculationTechnologySurveillance & memory accessRead →