The question is, for the third time;
"It is plausible that covert radio signals are presently being used to exert influence on the emotional state and behavior of civilian populations in
"Being used to." I simply do not see what about that phrase is so complicated that my opponent cannot understand it. A needle can be used
administer a sedative. The needle does not "knock you out." The sedative does. A gun can be "used to" shoot someone. The gun never
touches the person. The bullet does. There is no, none, nada, zip, requirement implicit in the phrase "used to exert influence" that the radio
wave itself act directly upon the mind without some translating device, a receiver. That statement does not preclude it being a direct action, but it
does not require it. And if you feel that it does, feel free as part of actually constructing an argument of your own, to clarify why "used to"
means "must act directly upon." Simply wishing it to be so, and acting certain of it, and insisting it loudly and often, does not make it so.
And if it is so ridiculous to consider the message as part of the "causation" of this change in emotional state or behaviour, as my opponent huffily
suggests, if the "message" is utterly inadmissible as part of a causal sequnce, and of no consequence to the argument whatsoever, why then post a
definition of a radio signal as;
"noun; a radio wave used to transmit and receive messages."
Surely you are not suggesting that the topic itself is rigged in such a way that its author would intend me to have to prove something, "a radio
signal," acts in a way other than that which, by your own definition, it is designed to.
And since by definition, your definition,
the nature of a radio wave is to transmit messages, which are then received and translated (decoded)
into sound waves in some cases, why would that make the use of acoustic weapons irrelevant to this argument? The radio signal is still USED TO carry
the message that is translated at some geographic location as, yes, a sound wave, which then influences the behaviours and emotional states of the
human end recipient. It isnt that I didnt understand sound waves and radio signals, it is that I mistakenly assumed it was obvious. And I am indebted
to you for pointing out to me that it wasnt. For if it wasnt obvious to you, then perhaps that fact was also not obvious to the reader.
You then go on to add;
"Again - it is NOT the RADIO SIGNALS that were covert - it was the message."
If you want to be just ridiculous about the definition of covert, and which part of what is the covert part, I will ask you "Have you ever seen a
radio signal? Know what one looks like at all? Heard one whizzing by you on its way to a cell phone or TV?" Then they are all covert. In that
example I provided, with the intent that it be a clear example, both the radio signal and the message were covert. Although, if you insist that the
radio signal alone need be covert, and they all are, it only makes my burden of proof lighter as it will allow me to use radio and television messages
and programming that are OVERT after translation as evidence. However, though you are the one defining these terms in this way in this post, judging
from your argument thus far, you would only be complaining about the terms you set in this post in the next one.
"You see? It's a good thing I cleared that up."
MMmmmm hmmm. Sure is. If beating a mistaken dead horse can be construed as clearing something up.
I asked you, in question 3, "Does the use of alcohol disrupt or debilitate the mind?" You answered "In certain quantities, Yes." I asked this
question because, much like your sound wave, radio signal argument, you decided there was no need to actually use reason or logic when asserting,
"ANY electromagnetic wave in high enough frequency can disturb or debilitate the human mind. This is not to say that it can affect the behavior or
emotional state of an ENTIRE population - or even a single person. Again - debilitating someone is not influencing OR controlling them."
I will not repost all of the cases where you insist that debilitating and disturbing, disrupting, etc, is not influencing or controlling someone, out
of sheer weariness. I ask you then, if this is the case, and you agree that in certain quantities alcohol debilitates the mind, why we frequently and
customarily call drunkeness "being under the influence of alcohol?"
I think you DO understand that what debilitates a mind also influences it, and, as you yourself say "influence" is a synonym for control, a word
with the same or nearly the same meaning, so what debilitates a mind to some degree controls it. I think spinning, twisting, deliberately distorting
definitions to suit yourself, and when all else fails, USING BIG PRINT,
is what you have decided passes for a logically sound, consistent
And when I asked if you could point out where, as you had been asserting, there was some requirement that an ENTIRE population must be affected for
someone to show that radio signals were being used to exert influence over peoples emotions and behaviours you say;
"I was using it for contrast. People do that in debates. I was illustrating there is no way to influence one person or an entire population.
Thought that was pretty clear. Is this an important point of contention?
Only when it suits you is it an important point of contention. Surely you are not suggesting that the topic itself is set up in such a way that my
position is indefensible by virtue of the question alone. That would not be a debate.
One part of the original argument that you left out when beating the sound wave -vs- the radio wave issue to death, was this; from the Washington Post
article located here;
By Sharon Weinberger
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page W22
"But there are hints of ongoing research: An academic paper written for the Air Force in the mid-1990s mentions the idea of a weapon that would use
sound waves to send words into a person's head. "The signal can be a 'message from God' that can warn the enemy of impending doom, or encourage
the enemy to surrender," the author concluded.
In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone's head. "
And before we have to listen to yet another inaccurate lecture on the nature of "waves" of various sorts; here is an explanation of why a microwave
qualifies, from the website "Windows to the Universe,"
"Microwaves, which we use for cooking and for communication, are short wavelength radio waves with wavelengths between a few and a few
hundred millimeters (tenths of inches to tens of inches)."
And so that I personally do not have to explain it in detail in my closing argument, please take the time to read the rest of the article if you are
unclear as to how that all works here, it is designed to be a simple explanation;
If you desire a more technical one, you can find one here;
The requirements for getting a patent include that a thing be "useful." And so, even though we cannot get our hands on the actual device that was
patented by the Air Force, or see it in operation, because it is classified, we know that it had to meet this "useful" requirement simply by virtue
of the fact that a patent was granted.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject
matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be
called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent. "
This makes it plausible. Which is another requirement of the question. Not, as my opponent has, and surely will again claim, "verified proof."
Again, if the framer of the original question intended that "verified proof" was a requirement, why say "plausible?"