Monthly Archives: August 2012


This post provides a brief update on what happened when a friend’s windscreen was hit by a stone-coloured object.  The windscreen was hit in the place where my eyes were focused. A couple of stories from the BBC and Fox News throw light on how this might have occurred.

Picture opposite: An LED attached to a prototype bullet shows its flightpath during a night-time field test –

Recap of the point from my post Seeing Through Perpetraitors

In my post ‘Seeing through perpetraitors I reported how after reading articles in the UK newspaper the Daily Mail, and adding to them information from my own experience, it occurred to me that a Targeted Individual with a camera embedded in one eye could be part of a weapons system, providing additional close up vision that could be transmitted to a drone/satellite and also to a third party, possibly but not necessarily a human with weapons capability.

Shortly afterwards I was sitting next to a friend who was driving, when something the colour of a stone seemed to come from slightly above eye level opposite us and hit the windscreen, leaving a mark in the glass.  The mark in the glass was where my eyes were focused when the windscreen got hit.



–   On 31 January 2012 the Royal United Services Institute think tank told the BBC ‘A self-guiding bullet that can steer itself towards its target is being developed for use by the US military’

–  On 28 June 2012 the BBC reported that ‘US Army scientists are developing a weapon which can fire a laser-guided lightning bolt at a target.

The Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) is designed to hit targets that conduct electricity better than the air or ground that surrounds them. The weapon went through extensive testing in January…”This plasma is located along the path of the laser beam, so we can direct it wherever we want by moving a mirror.”

Fox News also stated that ‘a U.S. Army lab is testing how lasers can create an energized plasma channel in the air — an invisible pathway for electricity to follow. The laser-guided lightning weapon could precisely hit targets such as enemy tanks or unexploded roadside bombs, because such targets represent better conductors for electricity than the ground’.  Original military report at

Reading these news stories it seemed there was a possible explanation as to how the windscreen of my friend’s car might have been targeted.  Looking at the picture of the laser travelling horizontally and then going straight down to the target, the trajectory was exactly how it appeared when the ‘stone’ was delivered, except that the laser would have to be pointing at our windscreen.  Was the laser guided to a point on the windscreen where my eyes were focused?


As stated in the BBC article on 31 January, Light-emitting diodes are used to guide lasers in military scenarios.   LEDs already have numerous peaceful applications such as aviation lighting, automotive lighting,  advertising, general lighting, and traffic signals. LEDs have enabled new text, video displays, and sensors to be developed, while their high switching rates are also useful in advanced communications technology.

Infrared LEDs are also used in  remote control units of many commercial products including televisions, DVD players, and other domestic appliances.


If LEDS can be used to guide a lightning bullet, could there be some kind of LED in the eyes of some TIs?  Recently I was taking photographs of some ancient buildings.  When I stared through the camera lens I noticed a tiny green light reflecting back at me.  This only happened if I used the eye with an embedded camera lens.  Could the light be an LED?  And if so, what could I do about it?


Since then I have been wearing dark ‘pinhole’ glasses when travelling with friends, to avoid the risk of a recurrence of such incidents.  There have been no further problems so far.

If TIs are aware that they have a nano-camera and lens implanted in one eye, then temporarily obscuring vision in that eye may be a simple way to reduce the risks that criminals could be using their eyes for some harmful

In the course of preparing this post, criminal perpetrators living in the USA, but not in any way connected with its authorised elected representatives,  intervened in the functionality of WordPress, attempting to prevent its publication.  I live in Europe, and such activity is a breach of international law.

Targeted Individuals: The Myth of ‘Non-Lethal’ Research

Targeted Individuals: The Myth of ‘Non-Lethal’ Research

This post is about:
1.  Why the number of targeted individuals may be increasing.
2.  Why targeted individuals may be used in nonconsensual research.
3.  Why such research can never be regarded as valid.
Targeted Individuals consistently report that they are being used in research experiments. These innocent people are being tortured by criminals, and such torture is a crime against humanity. It is hard to think of a more distasteful subject than cruel nonconsensual experimentation on human beings, motivated by profiteering and greed.
In an earlier post on PerpeTraitor Profiles I mentioned a petition started in 2007, calling for a ban on electronic warfare on civilians.  To date the petition has received over 1500 over signatures, mainly from those describing themselves as TIs. An analysis of those signing the petition by year up to 13 June 2012 is produced in the graph below.
The graph shows a significant increase in those signing in 2011 and a likely similar results for 2012.  Why did the numbers signing increase significantly from 2011?  There could be several reasons including:
–  More TIs finding out about the petition.
–  Increasing internet interest in the plight of targeted individuals – last time I typed in “Targeted Individuals” into a search engine, it produced over 82 million references.
–  A significant increase in the number of TIs.
Some TIs wrote in their survey responses that they had been targeted for over ten or even twenty years.  From this it appears unlikely that TIs are ever released from remote electronic torture.  According to Marshall Thomas, TIs continue to live on, despite what perpetraitors do to them. He states that TI mortality rates are ‘surprisingly low’. In a compilation of evidence for the Presidents Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments March 1995, Marshall Thomas stated:
‘One thing is very clear about the program these people are under…once it starts it never stops until they are dead.  Having said this, it should be noted that the mortality factor for TI’s is surprisingly low considering the ferocity of the torture program that they are under. Though it is difficult to be exact, only about one out of 20 or one out of 40 TI’s appear to die each year.*’
*Extracts from ‘Monarch-the-New-Phoenix-Program-II’, Page 34 onwards.
Also, nonconsensual research on TIs is a profitable criminal business, so it is in the interest of the perpetraitors to keep them alive.
Why could there be a sudden increase in the number of TIs?  If the criminals running the TI “business” operate the kind of technology used by large corporations that interact with the public – such as call centres, and back up of records in a data centre – there must be a limit to the capacity of the business to take on new TIs.  So if suddenly more individuals  are being targeted, it could be that perpetraitors recently had a major expansion of capacity. The increase in TI numbers from 2011 would suggest a capacity increase of at least 100%.
What is the implication of a capacity increase for Targeted Individuals?  From what I have seen in my interaction with perpetraitors, they now have a lot of upgraded spare capacity.  It looks as if far more Targeted Individuals than ever before are planned to be targeted.
I suspect that for the perpetraitors, expansion of capacity means larger profits. The more Targeted Individuals they have in their net, the more money they can get. The possible implications of this are that:
–  TIs are becoming a kind of ‘cash crop’ that can be farmed, with increasing reliance on automation and modern facilities.  The primary source of income is through offering TIs as subjects for nonconsensual research.
–  But there are other lucrative markets as well. According to Marshall Thomas, the illicit surveillance of TIs provides for a kind of reality TV which is sold to viewers within the criminal fraternity. See inset below:
‘The TI is both a very  expensive lab rat for the health effects of microwave  weapons, a training tool for a stalking army, a psychology experiment to perfect mind control, fodder for publishing scientific papers, and a commodity to be sold for entertainment purposes a la reality TV.
The incredible expense of gang stalking several thousand people on an enemies list is offset by selling the TI as a human guinea pig for weapons development programs, medical experiments, psychology experiments  (GSA contracts), and a “reality TV show” that might be sold on the internet, satellite TV, or satellite radio.
The audience is made up of several tiers of viewers and participants. The perspective of the drama that unfolds before the satellite TV and internet audience is the action as seen through the eyes of the TI with the targets “inner voice” typed out on the screen below.’  Extract from Page 33 of:
From 28 February to 1 March 2011, the Presidential Commission on Bioethics discussed non-consensual experiments on human beings. During this discussion, Targeted Individuals talked about their experience, and what their life was like because of the experimentation done on them. A few of the Targeted Individuals’ observations on human experimentation are included below:
Observations by Targeted Individuals
1. ‘Gang stalking and harassment was used to implement this nonconsensual biotechnology application that is being used on me… I now experience involuntary limb movements. I receive stingings. I get pains to my head, to my abdomen… I get burning on my lower legs and my ankles. I get ringing in my ears that’s pitch is like they pitch it.’
2. ‘Since 2008 and before, I have endured the following physical and psychological symptoms: extreme debilitating and chronic fatigue, weakness and dizziness for days and weeks at a time… I have an unusual dental filling of unknown origin on the side of one of my back upper right teeth and no memory of having this procedure done… And I have X-ray printouts and a signed affidavit from my dentist stating this.’
3. ‘I wanted to speak about bio-technology applications being utilized on my person. I have medical reports showing eye damage being done to my eyes, my eyes does not have a mirror image, I also have nano wiring inside my eyes, I have pictures of the actual implants from the eye doctor, once enlarging the nano implants, you will see a copy of the actual particles in my eyes. I have CAT scans in my eyes and PETs showing wiring, nano wiring in my head.’
4. ‘I am requesting that the Presidential Commission conduct an investigative hearing on non-consensual human experimentation and I do have credible evidence I’m submitting, 1158 videos and pictures that’s been occurring for the last two years. I’m also presenting 10 attachments which includes my 14-page public comment…’
5.‘For decades I have suffered the following due to these remote weapons and research…To date I have: Non age related cataracts, nodule on thyroid, nodule on adrenal gland and sudden hearing loss syndrome. These are all resulting from being subject to electromagnetic weapons.  Endless MRI’s, X-rays, test after test, specialist after specialist. Thousands of dollars in debt and the doctors cannot find a reason.  I have witnesses.’
If one of the main reasons for targeting individuals is to conduct research testing of electromagnetic microwave, laser and psychotronic weapons on various populations, presumably there are groups of people who have commissioned such research, and people who have provided funding – sometimes referred to as donors.
The groups with most interest in the outcome of this research would include the manufacturers and suppliers of these weapons. Is it likely that such groups are going to be concerned about testing weapons on human subjects?  They will, presumably, need evidence of exactly how their weapons affect human populations if they are to sell their products. But they can hardly be seen to commission nonconsensual research. So perpetraitors can profit by exploiting their slave population of targeted individuals as research guinea pigs.
One thing that perpetraitors and electronic weapons salesmen seem to have overlooked – you can’t pull the wool over the eyes of the international community when it comes to proper registration and conduct of weapons research, even if it is not ‘non-lethal’ i.e. not for battlefield use.  There are rigorous standards for all types of research, and evidence of compliance with them will be expected.
Non-consensual human experimentation is outlawed in all humane societies. The targeted individuals who had the courage to give their testimonies to the Presidential Commission on Bioethics had clearly not given their consent to being used as research subjects.  The US Office for Human Research Protections has set out guidance about the basics of obtaining informed consent:- Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) §46.116 – Informed Consent Checklist – Basic and Additional Elements.  These require that human subjects are clearly informed, amongst other things, about:
– the purpose of the research
– what the research will cover
– how long the research will last
– what tests they will be involved in
– who do contact with questions
– personal confidentiality of records
– what the risks to health are, and
– what will happen if the subject wishes to withdraw before the end of the research project.
Any research testing on humans must comply with fairly stringent standards if the results are to be recognised as valid within the international community.  Human research subjects should not have been experimented on for the same thing before, otherwise their health and mental outlook might have been affected by previous research, and conclusions about current research results could be based on invalid data, and therefore flawed. This would mean that Targeted Individuals must not automatically be transferred from one research project to a subsequent one, although criminals might well do so for financial considerations.
Here are a few of requirements that perpetrators would need to have checked before selecting individuals for targeting:
– Complete health history of research subject and close family and known health risks.
– All medical drugs, vitamins and other remedies taken by the human subject.
– Any substance abuse including alcohol and nicotine.
– Any previous mental health issues.
– Any actions taken subsequently by human subjects to counteract torture and victimisation,
  including shielding against microwaves, diet to counter cancer, maintaining a healthy ph level,
  exercise etc.
– Any medical prostheses such as pacemakers and automatic insulin dispensers, that might be at
  risk of failure because of electronic interventions.
– Previous work in a nuclear power station, which might have exposed a subject to nuclear
– Previous work in an industry involving nuclear radiation products.
– Previous work involving toxic chemicals.
– Previous work in a cell phone factory.
– Previous involvement as a human research subject in similar research projects.
In commercial research for medical drugs, the clinical records and the full testing records for each human subject must be available for scrutiny by the relevant independent standards checking authorities.  The perpetraitors would have to maintain similar research records and make them available to independent scrutiny, if their ‘research projects’ were to be recognised by the international community.
We have heard what some targeted Individuals reported to the Presidential Commission on Bioethics about their experiences.  Does this sound like research to you?  Is it likely that a bunch of criminals went about drawing on TIs’ official health records and establishing their suitability before selecting them for targeting?  And are the so-called ‘research case papers’ going to be examined by an independent research body to ensure records can be relied on?  If not, then whatever research results the criminal perpetraitors eventually come up with must be open to question, making the whole research project unviable.
Anyone having doubts about this? Read the provisions of the Belmont Report – ‘Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research’, summarised at the end of this post.
If you look at what Targeted Individuals have to say about their experiences, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that whatever is happening to them cannot be classified as research. It is also clearly nonconsensual, and therefore against the law.
Based on what appears to be the significant increase in the numbers of Targeted Individuals, major investment is being made in this criminal activity, perhaps for decades to come.  If that is being done in the mistaken view that results from targeting individuals can be used to prove that some kind of research has been conducted, then billions of dollars have already been wasted for no justifiable reason, and thousands of innocent human beings have been subject to appalling misery and torture.
In 1979, the Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, was published in the United States to provide a succinct description of the mandate for review of research involving human research participants.  Regulation and guidelines concerning the use of human research participants in the U.S., and increasingly so in other countries, are based on the following fundamental elements excerpted from the Belmont Report:
Respect for Persons – In research, respect for persons demands that participants enter into a research program voluntarily and with good information about the research goals.
Beneficence – to do no harm and to “maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms” to the individual research participant.  Investigators – or in this case perpetraitors – and their institutions have to plan to maximize benefits and minimize risks.
Informed consent – the informed consent process must allow human participants, as much as they are able, to be given opportunity to choose what will or will not happen to them.  The consent process must include information to the participant about the research; the participant must understand the information and volunteer rather then be coerced into participation.
Assessment of Risks and Benefits – Assessing risks and benefits means the researcher needs to assemble all data that explains why the research will obtain the benefits that are sought by the research project. The review committee of the researcher’s sponsoring institution, upon review of the collected data, can decide whether the risks to the subjects are justified.  Prospective participant can determine whether or not to participate.
Selection of Participants – The principle of justice—that benefits and risks of research be distributed fairly.  Researchers are not just if they only select disadvantages persons for risky research or only provide beneficial research to groups they favor.  Special classes of injustice arise when participants are drawn from vulnerable populations, like those institutionalized or incarcerated in prisons, racial minorities, economically disadvantaged or the very sick.
Sources of images for this post:
Slavery Frieze – Detail from ‘Slavery’ frieze
While drafting this post, unauthorised alterations were made to it, prior to publication.  There are those who do not want information to be made available publicly even though it is already in the public domain. They know that they have committed crimes against humanity, and they fear that the consequences of their actions will confront them.


Targeted Individuals: Seeing Through The Perpetraitors

This post is about information in the public domain, recently highlighted in the UK and   US media, about miniature lenses that can sit on an eyeball and communicate with other devices used for military purposes.  Based on reports of targeted individuals, similar  technology may already be in use to enable perpetrators to see through our eyes.

In my post on ‘Perpetraitor Profiles’ I mentioned that several Targeted Individuals recorded that perpetraitors were looking through one or both of their eyes, and that a technology called Remote Neural Monitoring could be used to do that.  But it wasn’t clear how that worked in practice.  

Since then I have done some more research and, based on the information and evidence quoted below, I have come up with a theory about how perpetrators could look through the eyes of Targeted Individuals.  So here is my argument for what technology is being used, and how it works.


In 1999 scientists proved that they could look through the eyes of a cat. BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse reported: ‘ A team of US scientists have wired a computer to a cat’s brain and created videos of what the animal was seeing… To their amazement they say they saw natural scenes with recognisable objects such as people’s faces. They had literally seen the world through cat’s eyes.’


In March 2008 Fox News reported that ‘U.S. military engineers are trying to design flying robots disguised as insects that could one day spy on enemies and conduct dangerous missions without risking lives… In essence, the research seeks to miniaturize the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle drones used in Iraq and Afghanistan for surveillance and reconnaissance.’,2933,456384,00.

In November 2008 Fox News also reported that ‘The next generation of drones, called Micro Aerial Vehicles, or MAVs, could be as tiny as bumblebees and capable of flying undetected into buildings, where they could photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.’,2933,456384,00.html#ixzz22s2VQHy3

 In July 2009 the journalist Chares Q. Choi reported that: ‘Scientists can already control the flight of real moths using implanted devices.  The military and spy world no doubt would love tiny, live camera-wielding versions of Predator drones that could fly undetected into places where no human could ever go to snoop on the enemy.’


On 3 February 2012 the UK newspaper the Daily Mail reported:

‘DARPA – the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, thought of as the American military’s ‘mad scientist’ wing – has been funding research on ‘soldier mounted displays’ for some time, but previous versions have been bulky.

The lenses, made with nano-scale engineering processes,work as a hi-tech focusing device, which allows Innovega’s glasses to be considerably less bulky than previous devices.   The lenses themselves require no power, and thus can sit safely on the eyeball.’*  *My emphasis 

DARPA Says, ‘Innovega’s  iOptiks are contact lenses that enhance normal vision by allowing a wearer to view virtual and augmented reality images without the need for bulky apparatus. ‘

‘Instead of oversized virtual reality helmets, digital images are projected onto tiny full-color displays that are very near the eye.’

These novel contact lenses allow users to focus simultaneously on objects that are close up and far away.

On 14 April 2012, the Daily Mail ran an article under the headlines:


  • Lenses can let troops see through ‘eyes’ of drones flying above.
  • Can ‘layer’ target information over view of world.
  • Contact lenses don’t impede fighter’s vision.
  • Equivalent to a 240-inch 3D television from 10 feet’.

The Daily Mail reporter, Rob Waugh, stated that:

‘The Pentagon has placed an order with Innovega for lenses which focus 3D battlefield information from drones and satellites directly into people’s eyeballs*. The tiny ‘screens’ sit directly on users’ eyeballs and work with a pair of lightweight glasses with a built-in translucent screen. *My emphasis

On Sunday 29 July 2012, the Daily Mail also reported that:

‘The system is designed to improve the awareness of a military team as a whole, allowing soldiers to see through the eyes of their team mates in real-time’.* *My emphasis


According to John St Clair Akwei, a former surveillance specialist, Remote Neural Monitoring plays a key role in the targeting of individuals:

‘Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject’s brain and show images from the subject’s brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject’s eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex, bypassing the eyes and optic nerves.’ 

From an article in Nexus Magazine April/May 96 from MindControlForums Website

John St Clair Akwei does not say how Remote Neural Monitoring is achieved.  Dr John Hall, medical anesthesiologist, author of ‘A New Breed: Satellite Terrorism in America’ and a targeted individual, states that satellite technology was used at an early stage to connect electronically with computers. Drawing on his experience in the medical profession he notes that Electroencephalograms – EEGs – are routinely used in hospitals to monitor brain wave frequency activity, and that when connected with satellite technology, a similar type of equipment will enable a perpetraitor to hear what you hear and see what you are seeing in real-time.


For Remote Neural Monitoring to work, satellite technology must have some way to connect with the targeted individual. Perpetraitors can see Targeted Individuals all the time using lasers and satellite technology. But they can also look through the eyes of a Targeted Individual. So far I have not been able to find anything that describes how this is achieved, but I think that nano-scale cameras must play a part in enabling perpetraitors to see through the eyes of targeted individuals.

The reason I think this is that:

  • The Daily Mail reported how US military battlefield methods are being upgraded with drones or satellites connected to cameras that can ‘safely sit on the eyeball’ of soldiers, allowing them to ‘see through the eyes of their team mates’.
  • If  the US military weapons described in the Daily Mail articles could connect with drones and satellites without using nano-scale eye cameras they would have done so, as it can hardly be convenient  for soldiers to be fitted with a type of contact lense attached to a camera, however small.  If the US Military didn’t need nano-scale cameras I doubt if the US army would be doing what they are doing.
  • The US military weapons system has some similarities with the Remote Neural Monitoring, and it is quite possible that RMN would need nano-scale cameras in the same way.
  • TIs report that perpetraitors only look through one of their eyes.  This is consistent with having a camera installed in one eye.

My theory is that perpetraitors can see through both our eyes, using satellite technology to track into our brains and connect with a nano-scale camera attached to or implanted on the outside of the eye.


My impression was that perpetraitors could look through one of my eyes, although I now think they can see through both eyes, even if our eyes are closed.  Something else I noticed was that in the dark I could see the nano-scale camera implant equipment shining white inside both my eyes, although it appears that only one eye has a camera.

And in daylight I saw something in one of my eyes that looked like a black comma.  At first I thought it was a floater. Then I saw a clothing advert on a bill board, and noticed that the model had a comma drawn above her cheekbone. It looked like the one in my eye.   I searched the words ‘comma symbol’  on the Internet and found that there is a computer game called Naruto which has a huge following, and that the comma symbol is known as a Sharingan.

I also found out that you can buy contact lenses that give you a whole range of Sharingans. Could it be that some perpetraitor technician is into Naruto games and is making nano-scale eye camera implants that have a Sharingan on them?

Picture opposite: Sharingans.


After reading the articles referred to above in the Daily Mail, and adding to them the information I had from my own experience, I began to realise that a TI with a camera embedded in one eye could be part of a weapons system, providing additional close up vision that could be transmitted to a drone/satellite and also to a third party, possibly but not necessarily a human with weapons capability.

But the set up could work just as well if the Targeted Individual was the third party with weapons capability, if the camera in the TI’s eye could be used as a weapon to be fired at someone or somthing. Could some Targeted Individuals be used as human handgrenades? And could the system work just as well if the Targeted Individual had a separate camera in each eye? Or could the second camera be embedded centrally somewhere else in the TIs head?

I put a patch over my eye – the one with the Sharingan in it. I could see as well with the other eye as if I had two eyes. But for the first time, I noticed a blurred patch in the middle of the other eye. Could that blurred patch be an invisible camera sight? I had already seen the placement socket shining in the dark as if reflecting ultraviolet light. Did it make any difference whether my eyes were open or closed?

At this stage, I hope I am wrong in my conclusions. Last week, I was sitting next to a friend who was driving, when something the colour of a stone seemed to come from slightly above eye level opposite us and hit the windscreen, leaving a mark in the glass. The mark in the glass was where my eyes were focused when the windscreen got hit.


Are nearby people and living things at risk when individuals are targeted electronically?

When perpetraitors target me with microwaves, birds and squirrels do not visit the food table outside. When perpetraitors stop targeting me with microwaves, birds crowd the table, as if making up for lost time.

This made me wonder how wide a space is covered when perpetraitors target individuals.  Could it affect people nearby, for example sleeping in the next room.  Could it affect neighbours sleeping in a semi-detached house.  And what effect could it have on partners of targeted individuals.


Anti-histamine cream and tablets appear to be helpful, based on my experience.  Maintaining an alkaline ph balance may also assist – for example, drinking lemon juice or cider vinegar.  Perpetraitors  get agitated by this, so it may nullify the results of some laser or microwave research testing.  Microwaves leach calcium out of bones, with results similar to osteoporosis. Taking a sufficiently strong dose of calcium citrate with vitamin D3 on a regular basis can counter the effects of this. 1000 mg of calcium with D3 a day would be the lowest suggested level.  Seeking the advice of a pharmacist is advisable.

After using aluminium protective eye shades at night for a while I could see that I had a ‘sunglass mark’.  My face was more red – except where the eye shades covered my face. One side of my face was less red than the other, probably because I sleep  on that side. I am not sure if this was caused by directed laser or microwave energy.  Sleeping in sunglasses or eye shades covered with aluminium foil may be beneficial. Attaching a cloth container such as a sunglass case to eye shades, and filling it with aluminium is another option.

NOTE: This post may not read as I would wish, owing to multiple interventions made on my Blogspot post by perpetraitors while I was trying to draft it. In recent weeks I have been subject to an onslaught of interventions and attacks by perpetrators while drafting, and I sometimes find that publishing the post as work in progress is best. Criminal encroachment in the internet operations of another country is a breach of international law.