[The description below is from Igor Smirnov’s Psychotechnology Research Institute site.]
The potential for abuses, including harassment and attempts at the covert direction of nonconsensual subjects, is obvious.
Technologically it is not all that surprising, but of course the details are not published as a study in an open scientific journal.
If Smirnov’s encoding methods don’t work (and I very strongly suspect they do) some similar methods would work. It then breaks down to what proportion of the population perceives what effects, e.g., no effect, pure subliminal effect, voice noticed but not the source, voice and source noticed. Various volume factors and algorithmic parameter settings would be important variables to consider in a real study. Levels of influencing are also something to consider (and would require careful experimental design).
It is certain that studies like this *have* been carried out in secret, but of course we are not allowed to access such data or to obtain it in discovery motions. It’s officially denied, and so applications of the technology even against nonconsensual domestic citizens are deniable, too.
Note that this is basically a method for hiding audio signals in/as other, innocuous-sounding audio signals. So such signals could be delivered by *any* audio-delivery technology. For example, you could send such encoded audio via an HSS or Audio Spotlight type of device (perhaps in an attempt to keep the influencing subliminal rather than having it perceived as voice-to-skull harassment).]
Acoustic psychological correction, or audiopsychocorrection, is a method whereby coded words and whole phrases are put into an audio stream to be heard by the patient. Research in the field of unconscious psychocorrection began as far back as the 1980s. The results of that research led to developing means for encoding acoustic information. This was the origin of what is now known as
psychocorrection. Years passed before it really started working. For a long time our scientists tried to camouflage a verbal message in such a way that it could be perceived but not recognized. Many methods were tried, such as music, voice compression and others, but the results were still far from optimum.
Eventually, an algorithm was developed, realised as a program for IBM PC, which made it possible to input unrecognizable acoustic information with maximum efficiency. This algorithm, as a matter of fact, was the culmination of an entire phase of scientific studies. The technology of verbal message encoding and decoding was finally developed.
We had acquired a verbal message encoding tool, which, using certain mathematical operations, turned an original verbal signal into a noise-like signal which, when listened to, not only cannot be recognized in terms of meaning but also, the very fact of its presence cannot be established. On the other hand, this is accomplished by “noise” decoding, using specially developed software. There were no other ways of extracting the message.
In addition, during experimental tests, it was discovered that the human brain is also capable of decoding this information – and, while perceiving the information, does not recognize the source. To be truthful, several exceptions to this rule were observed: a number of the people who had undergone the test, while sleeping, dreamed they saw and heard a person, whose encoded verbal message was recorded on the audio cassette used in their research procedure, speak words whose meaning was the same as the encoded suggestion.
When recorded on a high-quality audio media, the encoded suggestions excelled, in terms of efficiency, all methods studied before. Persons being tested listened to a cassette (or a CD) for several hours a day. The program material could easily have been
background music or sound normal to his routine work environment, causing no serious disturbance, distraction or irritation, while the effect was far higher than expected.
Suggestion administered is this way achieves results within a short time. One test subject started forming his behaviour on the basis of the encoded suggestion, thinking that he was making decisions on his own. Such an effect was only possible when the psychocorrecting plot was properly selected (for further information on this subject click here).
By now, we have considerable experience in administering psychocorrection. Our research has shown that against the background
of using unconscious psychocorrection there have been no negative effects encountered. The most noticeable negative effect could be the absence of any reaction to the procedure undergone.
We have noticed that approximately 10-15% of those who have undergone the test do not perceive the information, i.e. their brain is incapable of decoding voice processed using the above described algorithm. However, even in these cases the encoding module can be tuned to “get through” the immunity. This only requires more time to
adjust the mode.
Leave a comment
No comments yet.