What would you do: advice sought on a controversial topic

reply to post by Dantose


In reply to Dantose and King Seesar:

My replies to the OP are not about electronic harassment* or gang stalking*. I believe those to be specious clues that he* has adopted while trying to understand technological thought propagation.

I have focused on what I believe to be the real issue, and not what has been fed back into his thoughts, byway of dwelling on the thought propagation that everyone is subjected to.




* implies thread references needed:
"Real group stalking", "real electronic harassment", and "he is speaking for other sufferers not just himself".

reply to post by daskakik

This may seem like a good enough answer for you but it doesn't cut it for me because I am aware of experiments like the God Helmet, that works along these same lines or Robert Monroe's work with binaural beats and OBEs, both of which used volunteers so, no, you don't need to randomly target people out of the general populace to accomplish the refining of the technology. You even posted a link to a thread about a human connected and controlling a rat. It is out in the open. There is no need for the clandestine type projects that some propose.

The only possible reason to believe such a thing is to feed a dilusion, which, contrary to the intent of this thread, really doesn't help the segment of the "victims" who are not really being targeted.

Ah, yes, the "God helmet." And many other experiments, using "volunteers," which you have alluded to with the mention of this one. Has it occurred to you that the point of such experiments were to define, delineate, and isolate what areas of the brain control what, and how they may be influenced by those who are not volunteers?
And also, that whole issue of volunteering......I think there may be quite a bit of evidence that participants may not always be volunteers, exactly. For instance, think age and consent. Certainly, if you believe in such a thing as Monarch programming, it begins in childhood. Children, if we accept the idea or reality of Monarch programming, are hardly of an age of consent to "volunteer" for such activities.
But I digress, as though I believe there are many tangential "projects" involved that all seek to accomplish much of the same, the change or control of behavior of human beings, perhaps even on cue for particular situations, again, my op was not really about gang stalking, a whole other topic.

I understand and take your point that such discussion may very welll do more harm than good, in that it provides an "excuse," in a way, or explanation or even justification for those who are suffering from true illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia, originating in their own mind. However, I think it also possible to make it appear that someone falls into this category by what I have described.

I think you and I will never reach any agreement here, although you seem to accept to some degree that such does happen from your referencing certain "experiments." I do, however, call into question your use of the word, "volunteer," for I think, often, people get involved in things through deception and trickery, or the use of flattery that their help is needed by those conducting such "research," when they never would have "volunteered," had they known what it was really about.

And yes, I admitted being that my discourse with you via this thread was draining. But I object that you twisted this into a characterization of my "admitting" I was a victim of being "drained." What this proved is the way that you couched it, I don't know. Although, my best guess is that it's just another attempt to personalize this issue.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tetra50

 

I read everything you wrote, and the entire time I tried to help you see by not only giving you the source of the problem, but also by trying to get you to have faith in what I was saying.

Without faith in what someone is saying you will not be able to understand it. That is to say, lack of faith and open-mindedness will create denial that blinds you. i.e. I was trying to help you see through that denial.

In so many words, what is happening, is "they" are putting ideas in everyone's head. You, unlike most everyone else, can sense that not all the ideas are yours, and it is not good for you to recognize this.

When you recognize that not all the thoughts are yours, you will start separate all the bad thoughts from the good thoughts, and it will create another persona in your mind that will torment you, more so than the thought propagation from "they".

Although, some of the "gang stalkers" might actually be the neighborhood bully types, most are nothing but a figment of your imagination, that spurs from "they" or the negative persona you created in your mind.

When you dwell and/or focus on the thought propagation from "they" or the negative persona's thoughts, it will only make it worse; so much worse, in fact, that it will force you into becoming schizophrenic or into having multiple personality disorder. Schizophrenia is like a disease of the mind, and multiple personal disorder is a coping mechanism - neither of which you want.

The solution is like I said, do not dwell on the negative thoughts. Allow your mind to piece the personae back together so you can function normally. It is the only way to stop the impending havoc you are enabling [by dwelling on the thoughts.]

edit on 4/5/2013 by Bleeeeep because: typo

First, I think I responded to you that once you expounded upon your language and what you meant by it, I fully understood your position. Unfortunately, I still am not sure you have understood mine, nor kept an open mind to what I was saying.
I, too, have studied extensively, and have some prior knowledge from quite a young age that I am unwilling to discuss here to provide faith for you in what I am saying.
In that response to you, which perhaps you may have missed, I allowed for the possibility that your stance on this was certainly possible, and quite likely, on a certain level. Again, it is as if we are comparing science and technology as mechanisms to affect something less tangible, perhaps, which is spirituality. I have an abundance of faith, in fact, in what you are saying. However, I do not believe defeating the science and technology aspect of it so that it has little effect on your emotional and spiritual state is as simple as having faith in the idea of not giving it your attention or energy. And I think that those who truly have suffered this intrusion exteriorly or remotely, on a 24/7 basis, survive exactly by the mechanism you describe: deflection, distraction, and refusal to let such take over their personalities, minds and psyches, repeating to themselves and thereby holding on to their spirituality as they truly know it, from within, and the most authentic place within them possible, their hearts and minds. Please do sell those of us short who may have suffered what I describe.
And, I would add here that I am, in fact, a woman, as my gender has been brought up now several times, as a "he." Not that this matters in the least.
I suppose I have a difficult time with some of your responses, for though I have explained to you in several posts that I now understand your first responses to me, I find that you continue along the same vein, and treat me as someone uninformed and lacking in faith and personal fortitude. Your points are valid, but I find your mind closed to mine.
I have not been "turned into a schizophrenic", and know many others who may have suffered the same who were not put into some place of mental illness simply because they entertained, listened, or let in that which I speak of.
Thank you for your responses, regardless, and I hope that you would reread some of my posts to you, because I think you have misjudged or not understood that in many ways I happen to agree with you. One thing I agree with completely that you said, if one does not have faith, then they will continue on with a closed mind.
We can all be guilty of this, so sure are we of our stance. Sadly, we then miss the places our thoughts conjoin, and reaffirm the others.

My replies to the OP are not about electronic harassment* or gang stalking*. I believe those to be specious clues that he* has adopted while trying to understand technological thought propagation.

I have focused on what I believe to be the real issue, and not what has been fed back into his thoughts, byway of dwelling on the thought propagation that everyone is subjected to.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Electronic harrassment is really what the thread was intended to address. I regret now ever having used the term gang stalking, as it became a way to deny the first.

But "specious clues," hmmmm. And you address me as one of little faith. I have no need to understand technological thought propogation. I know that it exists. There is a plethora of evidence to it. As for "dwelling" upon it, what choice would one have when they may find it ever present in their mind, no matter what activity, meditation or holding on to themselves they immerse themselves in to NOT dwell upon it.

Again, I think you sell these folks short. And while I agree that all of us are under some kind of such propogation, though we may disagree about the source or sources of it, the source may make quite a difference, really, and effect the ability to tune it out. But I find this labelling of the technology as "specious," to be quite lacking in understanding, as though you are gently trying to tell someone that no such thing really exists, we all suffer from negativity we must fight, and you who see it this way are simply weaker and looking for excuses, when what you lack is mental fortitude, or understanding of the lack of attention you are giving to your spirituality.

I read everything you wrote, and the entire time I tried to help you see by not only giving you the source of the problem, but also by trying to get you to have faith in what I was saying.

Without faith in what someone is saying you will not be able to understand it. That is to say, lack of faith and open-mindedness will create denial that blinds you. i.e. I was trying to help you see through that denial.

In so many words, what is happening, is "they" are putting ideas in everyone's head. You, unlike most everyone else, can sense that not all the ideas are yours, and it is not good for you to recognize this.

When you recognize that not all the thoughts are yours, you will start separate all the bad thoughts from the good thoughts, and it will create another persona in your mind that will torment you, more so than the thought propagation from "they".

reply to post by Bleeeeep


And I, too, read everything you wrote. And found you to be quite like you describe me, l lacking in faith and open mindedness, as I gave a nod to precisely what you explained, and likened it to a surface discrepancy, on both sides, with my analogy of the mechanics employed through technology, and the means of fighting and effect or non-effect of sppirituality and individuality.

I do not separate, as you say, the good thoughts from the bad ones. This I find to be a real over simplification from one who is not quite getting what I am saying. Of course, my own mind as a human, has its own original bad thoughts. I know when they are mine. Therefore, I have not created some "alter persona" in my mind. I think if you read more about people who assert this mechanical intrusion, you would find that they are aware of their own "bad thoughts," original to them, as all humanity have them. The "thought propogation," from "they," doesn't exactly describe it. There is no "propogation." It is an actual thing, not being propogated, but spoken, given a voice, which even from language used, you recognize not to be your own. The reason it is tormenting is because it is an interruption of your own intellect and persona, which you know does not belong to, nor come from you.

Without faith in what someone is saying you will not be able to understand it. That is to say, lack of faith and open-mindedness will create denial that blinds you. i.e. I was trying to help you see through that denial.

You may not agree. And that is your right. However, what you say here I could apply to you, as well.

reply to post by tetra50

I was mistaken on the term "electronic harassment". I thought it was meant to describe internet stalking, credit manipulation, that kid who had swat called on him through the internets, etc. After looking up the term, I have found that it is not to be confused with cyberstalking, as I have done.

...and the mention of speciousness was not meant to say gangstalking and cyberstalking doesn't exist, it was meant to assert that you had probably went looking for information, and found something that seemed so very much like what you have been experiencing, that it gave you a false impression.

More, you say that what you are experiencing is similar to what I've described, yet it is not the same thing; but then, and in the same paragraph, you say you cannot tell me what your experiences have been??

How can we give advice on something we have no information on? Were we meant to immediately know what you were vaguely referencing? Can you not explain some of the things you have had happen to you? If not, can you at least tell us why you can't?

I know you're convinced that what is happening to you is "mechanical", but I also know "they" can convince you of anything, if you do not recognize them for what they are. Just saying.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tetra50

 

I was mistaken on the term "electronic harassment". I thought it was meant to describe internet stalking, credit manipulation, that kid who had swat called on him through the internets, etc. After looking up the term, I have found that it is not to be confused with cyberstalking, as I have done.

...and the mention of speciousness was not meant to say gangstalking and cyberstalking doesn't exist, it was meant to assert that you had probably went looking for information, and found something that seemed so very much like what you have been experiencing, that it gave you a false impression.

More, you say that what you are experiencing is similar to what I've described, yet it is not the same thing; but then, and in the same paragraph, you say you cannot tell me what your experiences have been??

How can we give advice on something we have no information on? Were we meant to immediately know what you were vaguely referencing? Can you not explain some of the things you have had happen to you? If not, can you at least tell us why you can't?

I know you're convinced that what is happening to you is "mechanical", but I also know "they" can convince you of anything, if you do not recognize them for what they are. Just saying.

Ahhh, thank you, (bow my head in gratitude.) It seems much of what has transpired between you and me, is a matter of cross communication. And, as it is, after alll, my writing, that inspired such confusion, then it is me who must take the blame and apologize for not being clear in a manner which might reach you.

This is the thing about that: any approaching of said subject manner can be viewed in a variety of ways---because of the way it is played out, so to speak, it touches people wherever they are most likely to be touched by it---meaning, the belief they invest in what may be happening to individuals can run a whole gamet of philosophies. This is what makes disbelief so difficult to fight, for those suffering.

The inception by which to do this to people is truly ingenuous, as it is built to provide "plausible debiability," for the hard core logistics people, and then on many other levels, either their belief systems that they live by either reject it as probable, and/or see it in a variety of terms, with t he result being the same:

Those suffering cannot break through this wall made of many different "bricks," (i.e. beliefs being each brick) in order to fully understand, and those resisting, have a variety of patterns in which to respond, all induced, as well...This structure presents a walll a sufferer cannot breech, as there are many fronts and philosphical objections from all angles applied.....after all, we live in an environment where we are also inculcated to believe in the concept only "we" are responsible for our own plight, or even success.....and this is the basis of our believing in the concept of "freedom." for the first is necessary in order to provide for the latter.

But how does it go: the perfect slave is the man who believes himself to be free," and my own add: the man who also may even realize his slavery, but freedom is the carrot, then, we lure him with, while using him as a mule......"

I know you're convinced that what is happening to you is "mechanical", but I also know "they" can convince you of anything, if you do not recognize them for what they are. Just saying.

reply to post by tetra50


Absolutely, how dead on right you are. This is the whole mind bending aspect of it, especially if you consider what that really means, today, to all of us. In this simple realization, you have realized and expressed what we all should be thinking about, in terms of what of our energies are invested in and what we believe to be true.
We live in a certain construct, a paradigm. It would behoove us to know what it really is, means, and how it functions......because the very use of that concept, a certain paradigm, we then understand how very controlled it is, and our beliefs as well, and us by our beliefs.

reply to post by tetra50


It is like you're someone else now. The whole tone of your written style has changed and is more clear for some reason.

Anyways, you dropped a few clues. Are you on about this sort of thing?

If not, can you give me some more clues?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tetra50

 

It is like you're someone else now. The whole tone of your written style has changed and is more clear for some reason.

Anyways, you dropped a few clues. Are you on about this sort of thing?

If not, can you give me some more clues?

Electronic harrassment

Perhaps this is a starting point. I really should have sourced, I now see, specifically what I was speaking of. No, I am not a "diferent" person at all from the one who wrote the original OP. And here, is one of the dangers of discussing any such thing in an internet forum: How you have assessed me and assume you know me enough from the first OP, to even think you see some kind of "change." And what would be the purpose of communicating something like that, anyhow. What does it add to what I assume is an exchange of information?

Two more links for your perusal:

Link
and this, too. I could go on and on.....
more

I would like to provide an edit after time allowed to something I wrote before. It is a simple matter of grammar, however it places a participle in a place that defines another concept, and therefore, misleads what I am saying.

The "thought propogation," from "they," doesn't exactly describe it. There is no "propogation." It is an actual thing, not being propogated, but spoken, given a voice, which even from language used, you recognize not to be your own. The reason it is tormenting is because it is an interruption of your own intellect and persona, which you know does not belong to, nor come from you.

What I mean to say here is: The reason it is tormenting is because it is an interruption of your own intellect and persona, reactions and responses, conclusions and thoughts, and you know said intrision does not belong to, nor come from you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...reply to post by Bleeeeep


This is an interesting read, this thread. Never fall victim to projection, etiher, out of lack of understanding.
This thread delineates, why, for instance, agencies or "research groups," ahem, for want of a better term may, in fact, have interest in as many individuals as possible.

No, sorry, I won't give any more "clues." I've said my piece, and suspect that there are those who know particularly what I am speaking of. Those are the ones, primarily I was talking to, which was why the beginning of the thread was about steering away from the typical dissension in these matters, seeking reasons, proof, etc.

There are many who have suffered severe repercussions, already, from out speaking out, warning. Those who will have ears to listen, will hear. Those who have eyes to see, will see.....so to speak.

There is a sacredness to life, as it exists and was made to, without interference. We are living through times where engineering it in various forms is being made to "appear," necessary, the "betterment, so to speak, of what exists. I do not happen to agree, and have very personal reasons for stating that.
And if, in fact, we have the technology to control the whole thing, well, then, a very few are making the choices for the rest of us of where the future will lead us. And there must be caution, as we are so close, always , to losing our souls for the temptation of "control," thinking you will get relief from what life has been sculpted to be for so many, to assert domination over all of us, eventually, so that you will no longer be able to recognize, nor prove, if necessary, "you" really are.....for you have already been defined.

reply to post by tetra50

Sorry if I upset you, I wasn't trying to. Thinking back on it, I realize the change in your text was probably due to the confirmation you got from my earlier post; and then the following post, that upset you, was due to my own confirmation bias. Something told me not to post it - but I didn't listen.

Since you are so unwavering in your views of EH, I have to assume you know something I don't, so I'll concede to your view, and leave you be.

Good luck, ma'am. I hope you find the answers you need.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Thank you. I, once more, thank you for reading, your attention and interaction in the thread.

Originally posted by tetra50
Ah, yes, the "God helmet." And many other experiments, using "volunteers," which you have alluded to with the mention of this one. Has it occurred to you that the point of such experiments were to define, delineate, and isolate what areas of the brain control what, and how they may be influenced by those who are not volunteers?

But, wouldn't this be the refining of the technology so that they wouldn't have to target random people?

And also, that whole issue of volunteering......I think there may be quite a bit of evidence that participants may not always be volunteers, exactly. For instance, think age and consent. Certainly, if you believe in such a thing as Monarch programming, it begins in childhood. Children, if we accept the idea or reality of Monarch programming, are hardly of an age of consent to "volunteer" for such activities.

It doesn't change my point that it is out in the open, so that shadow experiments involving random people are not needed.

I understand and take your point that such discussion may very welll do more harm than good, in that it provides an "excuse," in a way, or explanation or even justification for those who are suffering from true illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia, originating in their own mind. However, I think it also possible to make it appear that someone falls into this category by what I have described.

But you have yet to give a good reason as to what is gained by making a common person appear to fall into that catagory. I mean, the main purpose of population control is actual control, not just labeling people nuts.

I think you and I will never reach any agreement here, although you seem to accept to some degree that such does happen from your referencing certain "experiments." I do, however, call into question your use of the word, "volunteer," for I think, often, people get involved in things through deception and trickery, or the use of flattery that their help is needed by those conducting such "research," when they never would have "volunteered," had they known what it was really about.

Again, if people can be tricked into participating in lab "experiments" then why mess around with targeting individuals?

Until somebody can offer a good reason why, the whole phenomenon seems like a popular mass delusion.

reply to post by daskakik


Ah, yes, some of us never tire of the back and forth, despite the fact the OP clearly states that this was precisely what I asked us all to avoid, if you desired to participate and come up with strategies. And I think the intent was clear for strategies which did NOT include just proving it to be a function of imagination, and therefore a non-issue. You have picked upon one paragraph in a quite lengthy OP, which seeks to make many points beyond. But I will try, one more time, here:

And also, that whole issue of volunteering......I think there may be quite a bit of evidence that participants may not always be volunteers, exactly. For instance, think age and consent. Certainly, if you believe in such a thing as Monarch programming, it begins in childhood. Children, if we accept the idea or reality of Monarch programming, are hardly of an age of consent to "volunteer" for such activities.

It doesn't change my point that it is out in the open, so that shadow experiments involving random people are not needed.

Originally posted by tetra50
Ah, yes, the "God helmet." And many other experiments, using "volunteers," which you have alluded to with the mention of this one. Has it occurred to you that the point of such experiments were to define, delineate, and isolate what areas of the brain control what, and how they may be influenced by those who are not volunteers?
YOU:
But, wouldn't this be the refining of the technology so that they wouldn't have to target random people?

No. Because in its infancy, such tech would be revealing an incredible amount of information about the human brain physiologically, and then about the responses and causative factors involved which would be different for each individual, to a degree. So learning the mechanics of how we operate would be the first order of business.
The next, would be to deduce what trips everyone's trigger, and "each," of us would vary a bit along those lines.
Learning how something works, as complexly layered as emotions, reactions, and all the myriad responses from myriad stimuli, would only be one step along the way of learning how to manipulate the human mind......

And also, that whole issue of volunteering......I think there may be quite a bit of evidence that participants may not always be volunteers, exactly. For instance, think age and consent. Certainly, if you believe in such a thing as Monarch programming, it begins in childhood. Children, if we accept the idea or reality of Monarch programming, are hardly of an age of consent to "volunteer" for such activities.
YOU:
It doesn't change my point that it is out in the open, so that shadow experiments involving random people are not needed.

Out in the open, really? You think Monarch programming has or is "out in the open?" Do you really think that there are parents in support groups, or social circles, openly admitting or giving interviews in the press that they have allowed or "provided" their children for Monarch programming?

And while there may have been "volunteers," and in case you didn't notice I'm being sarcastic with the use of that word, there is evidence this goes back, at least to the fifties. And in military applications (seeking to build a a "better soldier") such "research" was highly classified. To this day, most agree that the declassified information in regards to just MK Ultra has only had the tip of the iceberg revealed, and much of that redacted, much of it shredded upon the eve of an order for congressional hearings regarding the same.

Do you realize you are living in a world that wishes to get a DNA sample of every living thing? Do you not wonder how every scientific venture studying whales or creatures that live in remote, not easily observable environments, are almost always, if not always chipped, tracked?
And it's not really about "shadow experiments." It is about world domination, individual by individual, so that there is no individual any longer, only archetypes. Categorized in this fashion, controlling en masse becomes much more simplified.

con't

I understand and take your point that such discussion may very welll do more harm than good, in that it provides an "excuse," in a way, or explanation or even justification for those who are suffering from true illnesses such as paranoid schizophrenia, originating in their own mind. However, I think it also possible to make it appear that someone falls into this category by what I have described.
YOU:
But you have yet to give a good reason as to what is gained by making a common person appear to fall into that catagory. I mean, the main purpose of population control is actual control, not just labeling people nuts.

Again, a tremendous over simplification. Controlling a bunch of whackjobs for a populus doesn't do anyone any good, for whackjobs do not make an efficient slave population. I think that it is preferred the control is so subtle, the better it is. But we also live in times where depopulation is a real endeavor. It would be desired that those left could bear up under such conditions, or required the subtlest, simplest "cues," for want of a better word, to be malleable and not only open to suggestion, but follow without question.
The goals are not to drive a whole common population bonkers. That serves no purpose. The goal, rather, is to neutralize those that see what is happening. Let me explain something about widespread control of a populus, along the lines of they came for my neighbor.......and when I did not speak, no one was left to speak when they came for me.
In the military, boot camp, young, impressionable, not quite set in their ethical standards are most desired. Their "foundation, morally" is then torn down, ego dispatched, while building a group bond and mentality. This is necessary on the battlefield. It also reinforces respect for the chain of command, and many other things which prove necessary for survival, but also for control of said group, i.e. platoon. Then a weak link is identified, and often picked apart more stringently. That one's mistakes and missteps and failures are used to punish the whole group. This one is used to create even more unity within the group, as they coalesce against the weaker link, either assisting him, or equally ostrasizing him.
In society, those who would speak out, inconveniently get in the way of the plan because it is their makeup to resist and be rebellious, those who take an ethical code seriously and apply it to their lives and would die for it, sometimes even if it didn't personally or directly involve them, and those who are potential leaders of subversion, who have the possible gift of making themselves heard, coalescing support and creating movements, and those who have too much information that those in power do not want known, or want outed by someone on their own team to present it in a "controlled burn", planned fashion, at a specific time and place to achieve a goal which in fact bolsters this domination, are effectively silenced in this manner, once their psyche, credibility and social standing are destroyed.

I think you and I will never reach any agreement here, although you seem to accept to some degree that such does happen from your referencing certain "experiments." I do, however, call into question your use of the word, "volunteer," for I think, often, people get involved in things through deception and trickery, or the use of flattery that their help is needed by those conducting such "research," when they never would have "volunteered," had they known what it was really about.

Again, if people can be tricked into participating in lab "experiments" then why mess around with targeting individuals?

Until somebody can offer a good reason why, the whole phenomenon seems like a popular mass delusion.

That's just one possible scenario of participation. Really, the ones who resist, and are not part of the program are likely the most desireable as test subjects. Leaders and rebellious leaders do not volunteer nor are easily tricked into such. Those with this kind of bent and fortitude, to stick by what is true to them over anything else, to speak when they know and see something wrong with long consideration, these would be the most desirable to convert to any way of thinking those in power would want to perpetrate.

There are many possible reasons why. Has it occurred to you that by percentage the most successful these days are sociopaths, who regard others as subjects by which to achieve their pleasure and goals, not as equal living beings, and who crave and pursue power over others. It reaffirms their belief they are superior. If they can control you, then it must be right they do so, by the very virtue that the can, and do it with plausible deniability allowing they are never caught. This is the ultimate goal of a sociopath: committing whatever he/she wishes and never being caught.

Sociopaths will behave toward others in any way it pleases them to; their only control mechanism is the risk of being caught.

In mass domination, looking for a mallleable population, worldly, it would be necessary to have everyone's information, from their DNA to their electromagnetic signature, to the way the think, behave and react to stimilus. A couple of volunteers in control groups, etc., is not an answer to this in terms of providing a totally malleable population. The whole goal of nanotechnology, really, for instance, is to control the environment completely. Let's call that the stimuli, for a moment. That is controlling the environment. Now, this is about controlling what lives, or who, in that environment. Cause and effect. How much or how little it takes to get a desired response, and what effects the environmental concerns or surrounding stimuli produce, as well.

reply to post by tetra50

Well it's the big glearing hole in the theory and asking to avoid discussing it is like OZ asking for Dorothy and company to ignore the guy behind the curtain.

Despite writing a whole lot, you don't really answer the question. "A couple of volunteers in control groups" is not the answer but a couple of random people off the street are?

Now, the idea of the thread is to help people experiencing this but how do you help those who are delusional? I don't think playing along is going to help them.