The numbers under the numbers

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

A sound that one person hears and the person beside them does not is often treated — by the person experiencing it, and by whoever they tell — as the strangest part of the account, and therefore as the part that demands an exotic explanation. It is the opposite. High-frequency hearing declines with age, steadily and in everyone, and the highest frequencies go first. A tone can sit precisely where one person hears it easily and another, ten years older, hears nothing at all. This is ordinary biology with a name, and it has been built into a commercial product deployed on public streets for two decades. None of this establishes what any particular person has heard. It establishes something narrower and more useful: that this specific feature of an account — that others did not hear it — carries far less weight as evidence than it seems to, and should not be the thing that convinces anyone, in either direction.

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

This research can describe who sells the technology, who buys it, what they paid, when the contract renews, which law applies and how mature each rollout is. Across eleven tables and 1,922 records, the person a system is used on appears in exactly one place: as someone who sued. Rollout maturity is even measured on a scale that runs from innovator to laggard — the buyer's vocabulary, end to end.

Add up every value in this dataset and you get about $102.8 billion. Roughly a third of that is not government money at all — it is companies announcing their own investments: a data-centre expansion in Saudi Arabia, a stake bought in another firm. And one $9 billion US defence contract is counted four separate times, once for each supplier on it. We are pointing this out about our own dataset because anyone quoting the total as government spending would be wrong.

The timeline shows laws and deployments together, and it is tempting to read cause into the order they appear. The data does not support that reading. The fields built to link one event to another were never filled in, and the deployment records carry no date at all. Thirty-two events are tagged with labels like “law follows capability”, but those tags point at nothing. Treat the timeline as two stories shown side by side, not as one causing the other.