Home » Uncategorized » Targeted Individuals (Again)

Targeted Individuals (Again)

Follow World Hum Map and Database Project on WordPress.com
Follow World Hum Map and Database Project on WordPress.com

A few serious readers of this blog have opined that my efforts to avoid any appearance of censorship have resulted in some very weak and ridiculous commentary to appear in the comments sections. I hope it’s clear that in no way do I endorse everything that people write here. In fact, I spend little time with the comments unless I feel the need to correct the record on something or if somebody asks me a direct question.

I’ve allowed the so-called Targeted Individuals (TIs) to have their say, and I think there is overwhelming evidence that their claims surrounding electronic persecution are complete nonsense. In genuine scientific inquiry, we adjust our theories and approaches when we are faced with repeatable and established experimental results that contradict what we think might be true. But not the TIs – nothing can make a dent in their conclusions (or personally received wisdom). When specific elements of their belief system are demonstrably refuted, they either change the subject or reply with more false science and non-sequiturs.

So I’m done with the topic, and may I respectfully suggest that those who are interested in pursuing the matter do so in forums that are better suited for that purpose. I won’t be approving any further posts relating to this issue.



  1. George G. says:

    Hooray! Let’s keep the project rolling.

    Hey Charlie,

    Have you started compiling your Hum V Barometric Pressure data yet?

    I have heard several people in Vic. declare Hum intensity increases just before the onset of inclement weather.

    People have also noticed an increase in Hum volume during prolonged northerly winds. This implies falling barometric pressure.

    Let me know if you still intend to carry out this study please. I would like to arrange an identical project here in Vic. synchronized with N.S.W.

    Very rough and patchy data here already suggests Hum levels increase with falling or rising barometric pressure, and conversely, Hum levels diminish when barometric pressure is stable. More data needed.



    • Charlie says:

      No I haven’t, I’ve been messing around with the tone generator (I think I’ve noticed a slightly odd effect it has on my perception of the Hum, but I need to look at it more). So I got side tracked by that!

      Anyway, most of the variation I notice in the Hum occurs fairly quickly – by that I mean possibly several changes within the space of an hour. Which I would have thought was too rapid to be connected to changes in barometric pressure.

      But on the other hand I have noticed some longer term variations as well eg. the Hum was unusually quiet (for a few hours) a couple of days ago. This could be more in the ballpark timewise if meteorological events are involved.

      I figure that a few days would be needed to study the Hum in this way. Depends on how variable the weather’s being at the time I suppose.

      Just for a preliminary tryout I’d have to get the meteorological data off the BOM. The nearest weather station is about 50 k’s away (Coffs Hbr.), they keep half hourly (Ithink) records of their observations. But it should be close enough for the barometric data.

      Observing the Hum in this way could be a bit more tricky. Partly because the short term variations I have noticed can tend to obscure any longer term variation.

      But I’m happy to give it a go. If you have a prefered time frame or any ideas let me know!


      • George G. says:


        The BOM home site provides excellent information updated continuously. Select synoptic chart (weather maps) from their home page menu and you will see barometric pressure updated every four hours.

        Two barometric readings daily (say early AM late PM) would be a good start.

        Not really interested in short term Hum variations, they will happen randomly.

        It’s the high, moderate and low intensity Hum of prolonged duration that needs to be checked against slower/longer trends, i.e. barometric pressure changes.

        Most importantly, those rare “no Hum” hours. Preliminary data here suggests “no pressure change = no Hum.”

        The weather systems between us move on a NW to SE track.
        Information from your location will provide a basic timing factor which can be checked against BOM maps.

        It’s worth a go, nothing to lose, and we may just learn something.

      • Charlie says:

        Hi George

        I just had a look at the BOM. If you go to the “Latest Observations ” section there’s records of the meteorological conditions for many centres over the last 4 days. Its updated half hourly. Eg. this is the one for Coffs airport http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60801/IDN60801.95729.shtm.

        So this’ll give me a record of the pressure (half hourly) over the last 4 days – which sounds pretty good to me.

        Maybe I’m over complicating things, but recording my obs of the Hum seems a bit trickier.

        I could perhaps have a couple of set times during the day when I sat down and listened to the Hum for say 30 mins and noted what I heard over that time period. The problem with this is that the short term variations could muddy the waters. Its not unusual for the Hum to ramp up for 10 – 30 mins or so and then go back down (at least that’s been my experience).

        Or maybe I could be less methodical and just note that the Hum generally seemed quieter/louder today or over the last few hours or so.


      • Charlie says:

        Hi George

        I wrote a reply yesterday but it’s not here, I probably forgot to push the send button – I have a bad habit of doing things like that.

        Anyway I just wanted to say that if you look at the ‘Latest Observations’ section of the BOM, there are records of the meteorological conditions over the last 4 days. Its updated every half hour. This is the Coffs one – http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60801/IDN60801.95729.shtml


      • Charlie – you said:

        “Anyway, most of the variation I notice in the Hum occurs fairly quickly – by that I mean possibly several changes within the space of an hour. Which I would have thought was too rapid to be connected to changes in barometric pressure.”

        Quite likely you are right. Things like “ear popping” (as suggested by George) are sudden and can (for some) result in changes of hum level. One might assume this was due to air pressure adjustments in the middle ear.

        I had always supposed that the equalization of middle ear pressure through the Eustachian tubes was two-way. However, it appears:


        that the tubes “bubble IN” air in response to under-pressure. At the same time, air is constantly REMOVED by absorption of the membranous lining of the middle ear. It’s a pump.

        Likely the absorption would be slow (relative to popping at least) in progressing to balance. Accordingly, wouldn’t a response to an external high-pressure be sudden (added air) as opposed to an external low-pressure (absorb air).

        I am supposing! Like with many items of information, basic ideas are easy to find, advanced material (esoteric papers) are abundant, but “intermediate” presentations are scarce.

      • Charlie says:

        Hi Bernie

        The trouble for me, is that ear popping doesn’t seem to have an effect on the Hum.

        If small pressure changes within my ear are responsible for my perception of variations to the Hum, I would have expected that the more rapid and dramatic change caused by ear popping would also have an effect. But it doesn’t.


  2. TINMA says:

    I personally do not believe in TI’s , so that topic wont be missed. If there is better proof of such a thing in the future…great lets discuss it.

    As for the hum I hear…it has returned as I predicted. I started hearing it about a week ago. I had to listen hard for it, but it was there. The hum has gotten a bit stronger in the last week , I do not need to listen as hard, if its quiet, it is easy to hear. Not as strong as it was last winter just yet though.

    I had a hunch it came with cooler weather…for me at least. Its been 50s during day, 40’s at night.

    I have a theory, but not ready to discuss it yet and I have some investigating to do .

    It will be warmer this weekend (70′ and 60’s) so will see what comes.

    Thanks to all working on this Hum……….

    • George G. says:

      Hi Tinma,

      If you have successfully predicted the return of the Hum, keep applying whatever method you are experimenting with.

      If your results continue to provide reasonably accurate predictions then please compile a brief description and post it here so others can verify it.

      Many thanks,


    • alijpeters says:

      Where do you live? I first started hearing the hum several years ago and it was always in the summer time. It would last for several weeks to a couple of months then stop. This past year I hadn’t heard it until about a month ago, and then only for about a week, and no more. Always at night.

      I’m curious to know when people first started hearing it. I first heard it about 5 years ago….

  3. Simon says:

    Tinma, this observation definitely agrees with my own experience here in the UK. The hum had, up until a couple of days ago, been fairly faint and quite easy to ignore, with periods of total silence lasting several hours in fact, With a bit of willpower I even stopped think about it for a few days, but since the temperature suddenly dropped, it got very intense and overpowering. Oddly, I can still stop it for up to a few minutes at a time by exhaling hard through the nose, but this gets less effective as the intensity (I hesitate to call it volume, it is not quite that simple..) increases.
    I await your revelations with great interest.

  4. Eva Fishman says:

    Thank you Glen! The whole TI “theory” has been a distraction (and detraction from actual scientific thought) for too long. There is a point at which trying to be politically correct becomes a problem for the serious scientist who is using scientific processes. Having an open mind doesn’t mean having holes in your head that allow anyone/anything to pour in… What if Columbus had given equal weight to the “Flat Earth” believers as he did to his own theories and that of scientists of the day?

    Anyway, I haven’t commented for some time, which doesn’t mean I haven’t been thinking about the HUM. After a quiet summer, it came back with a vengeance in September, sometimes several days in a row, then a respite for a day or 2, then maybe back for a couple of days, then gone or diminished, etc. The last 3 weeks it has been constant, but actually has been diminishing at night until around 4am when it suddenly is so horrible it wakes me, and lasts the whole day. I’ve stopped trying to tie it to some local phenomenon (like weather), because the “cause” may be thousands of miles away. An example would be the earthquakes of recent weeks.

    I have wondered, as I’ve posted before, if there isn’t more than one “cause”, a confluence of phenomena, that together cause the HUM, and if one or more of the factors isn’t active at any point in time, the HUM isn’t perceived or seems diminished, etc. Thinking about why some of us perceive it and others don’t, I wonder what the data would be like if we could get twins or triplets into the mix. Since they are genetically the same (eliminating variances encountered with “regular”siblings), and one heard it but the other didn’t, what would that mean? If both (or all 3) hear it, what would THAT mean?

    Also, if Glen could be transported (“beam me up, Scotty” – sorry, I’m a nerdy Star Trek fan…) to different places where people hear it, going so far as to stand in their living room or whatever, would he hear it as they do: What would it mean if he didn’t hear it? A team of “Glens” would be needed – and a lot of money – to make it scientifically sound, but hey, a gal can dream, can’t she? The acquired data would have to be linked to existing data about weather, atmospheric conditions, geological factors, etc. to see if there is any validity. Criteria would have to be strict and well delineated.

    Has there been any more discussion about possible ancient historic hearers of the HUM? I still wonder if the recent (last 70 years) reports aren’t due to technology and communications that have made it possible for people to report the HUM rather a new phenomenon caused by technology etc. I think of the many ancient civilizations that had a cosmic hum as part of their belief system; North American Indians, South American peoples, African Tribes, refer to the earth’s song or hum.

    Enough of my prattle, it’s 5:20pm and the only song I hear is the rumbling of my hungry stomach.


    • Charlie says:

      I think it would be very interesting to get two or more hearers into the same place and compare their experiences. Particularly if they reported different experiences from their home locations. Eg. I hear predominately 126 Hz, whereas people in other places often report a much lower frequency ( 50- 60 Hz).

      Also I (and others) have noticed short term variations in the Hum. In principle it should be easy to get another hearer to see if they heard these changes at the same time (or at all). Unfortunately the nearest Hum hearer that I know about at the moment lives 100’s of kms away.

      I was intrigued by your suggestion that ancient people may have experienced the Hum and then wound it into their mythology. Years ago I went to a couple of yoga classes. Right at the end they say ‘Om’ in a long drawn out way – Ommmmmmm! They say that its the ‘sound of the universe’. And as i understand it yoga is based in Hinduism which is one of the oldest religions in the world.

      Admittedly my yoga class experiences aren’t much to go by, but I think that in general the idea’s worth looking at. Some time ago I studied a fair bit of archaeology as part of a science degree. So I have an interest in that sort of stuff and a little bit of background. I’ll do some research and see what i can dig up.


      • Ian says:

        Hi Charlie, You said “I think it would be very interesting to get two or more hearers into the same place and compare their experiences.” – I also have said this a number of times.
        A while ago I started thinking about paying for a leaflet drop covering say a mile or half a mile radius of where I live. Something simple and concise that basically encourages any who hear to visit the site and update the database. And if we could also persuade those who do to then visit regularly, once enough entries are concentrated in a location it might be possible to coordinate something?

      • Jane says:

        3 of us here in Scotland have met up 3 times and we now keep a regular diary to compare our experiences. We are in the early stages of experimenting with how to standardise our observations but as yet we have found some similarities but not as much as I expected. We live approximately 50 miles apart. One in Edinburgh, one in Glasgow and the other in Stirling.

      • alijpeters says:

        I posted elsewhere on this site that when I started hearing the hum again about a month ago – louder than I’ve heard it in the past – I posted it to my a neighborhood website (nextdoor.com) to find out if any of my neighbors heard it. Several responded saying they had and wondered what it was; others who said they live just a few blocks from me said they didn’t hear it. It lasted for about 3 nights, then stopped. I live in Portland, OR in a neighborhood where houses are close. I used to hear the hum several years ago more frequently, but in the past year or so not as much.

  5. Charlie says:

    Hi Ian – A leaflet drop might work well for an intensive coverage of a small area. I think that directing them to this site is a good idea, I’m not sure that I would want to include personal contact details.

    Hi Jane – I’m very curious about what you might have already noticed, even if it’s just a few untidy early observations. Is it too soon to reveal any early findings? Either way I’m looking forward to finding out about whatever it is you discover.


  6. Ian says:

    Hi Jane/Charlie, I too am curious. And Charlie, no no personal identification, all would go through the forum/website. Do any out there have any direct marketing experience? Suggestions would be welcome

  7. jempson says:

    So I’m jumping in late to the game and am here more with interest then as someone who can hear the hum. I believe wholly that you do hear a hum as I have experienced “sub audible” frequencies in the past, but my experience was vastly different from what I understand the hum experience.

    My experience lasted about 1 week until I identified the source of the “thrum” I was feeling/hearing. It started shortly after a major flood in our area. We returned to our home, which we needed to evacuate the day before, as the water began to recede. I had just put my kids to bed and was attempting to relax in the living room when I started to sense a thrum. A very low frequency vibration that I could feel in my chest. After sometime I finally got up to investigate the thrum. I walked through my house and out on the deck. The thrum was loudest, yes I could hear it here, in the center of the first floor and was in audible on the deck.

    After a week of research I finally found the source as an exposed waterline in the river some 100 feet from my house. The exposed water line was vibrating under water and that vibration was resonating with in my house.

    Where I’m going with this story is that this could be a resonance vibration with in buildings. The source of which could be any number of features of the earths crust. The fact that you can hear it is phenomenal to me and I look forward to reading back through this blog to hear some of what you have already discussed and discovered.

    • Charlie says:

      Hi jempson,

      That’s an interesting theory about resonating houses but I’m not sure that it holds up in view of many people’s experience of the Hum. The thing is that a lot of people can ‘hear’ the Hum outside. I live in the country and I can hear the Hum in the middle of a paddock 100s of meters away from the house or any other structure.


    • Hi Jempson and Charlie –

      Certainly structural resonances MAY play a role in hearing one-off, hum-like sounds that are NOT the typical world-wide Hum.

      Two evenings ago I was working, for several minutes restocking the shipping area in my cellar: a small area about 3 feet wide with floor-to-ceiling shelving on the sides. Seldom am I there more than just in-and-out. That evening I heard a vibration, louder than the Hum but similar. It did not interrupt when I shook my head as the Hum always does. And it was not the fridge upstairs, or the heating. In fact, if I backed away even 5 feet it virtually disappeared. Weird.

      I went upstairs directly above, and I could barely hear it. I was staring out the large living-room picture window and I noticed a light shining from the house onto the bushes outside. I had of course left the cellar light on, and there WAS a basement window overhead when I was standing down there hearing the new hum. Now I was standing upstairs in front of a much larger window. Why did that not make the new hum not only audible, but even louder?

      Ducking outside, I now heard the new hum loud and coming from the Golf Club across the street. Apparently a large fan? It was after hours and too cool for air conditioning. Perhaps accidental, or airing out a new paint job? That was where the new hum was coming from. Mystery solved? Yes and No!

      The downstairs hum was through the (closed) basement window, apparently coupled to the small shipping space. Apparently a resonance. The upstairs had a much larger and more exposed (closed) window, but much less sound. Apparently the living room was too large for an appropriate resonator. Last evening and this evening, no hum inside or out.

      So – sometimes a truck really is a truck (or a fan or a pump or a water line). And structural resonances do matter with real acoustic hums, and may vary within a building. (We have all heard certain windows and sides rattle on occasion in response to road trucks.)

      Very interesting and even fun – but unrelated, I believe, to the world-wide Hum.

  8. Kal Wayne says:

    Zersetzung is a topic which, even now years later, sends my friends who hail from Warsaw pact nations into a panic. Meanwhile, children of the west have little language to describe and understand such history.

    In my personal view, this newspeak of “targeted individuals” associates the idea of political surveillance & Zersetzung with mental illness. In short, it creates new language which becomes parasitic in nature, obfuscating history, and discredits by association. COINTELPRO is a distant memory, most taken seriously by an aging group of civil-rights activists who suffered under it.

    Such devolution of language is especially worrisome due to the inevitable political abuses of psychiatry (and other existing governing structures,) that are found contemporaneously with surveillance and carceral states.

    • An interesting comment, because although it’s quite well written, I’m not sure I understand the overall point(s) being made. My points are simple: 1. The government targeting of individuals and groups is not fantastical; there are many historical precedents, with COINTELPRO as one very sharp and important example. 2. The suggested mechanisms of targeting and control of so-called “Targeted Individuals” is fantastical and beyond the realms of science. 3. There are few clear tests for reality when it comes to self-reported phenomena, which is why doctors believe you when you tell them you have tinnitus. Your post takes me back to graduate school, and reminds me of some post-modernism that I struggled with once. In that case, I think the obfuscation was deliberate, but I don’t that’s happening here. If I may be so bold, may I ask you to take up Noam Chomsky on his challenge, which is that if a point cannot be made with common words, there is no point being made. Would you be able to restate your point in a way that is more accessible to the average reader, or at least to me?

      • Glen – thanks for relaying that superb Chomsky’s rule – never heard that.

        Here is my favorite of his in a similar spirit:

        “Compare mathematics and the political sciences… it’s quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.”


      • Kal Wayne says:

        Simplifying third grade writing isn’t a usual request. Another man said things ought not be simplified any further than they need be.

        “These ‘TI’ types are damaging.”

        There you go, simplified, sterilized, in brief the desertification of the modern mind.

      • Eva Fishman says:

        Don’t know about Glen and Bernie, but the “simplifying third grade writing isn’t a usual request” comment seems an attempt by someone who believes they are superior to everyone else on the planet, and this “proves” it.

        Sorry, I don’t have to be politically correct – the comments of a couple days ago by you are nonsense, “gobbledy-gook” – and using vocabulary that you somehow think shows your intellect and erudition, and throwing in the occasional fact, doesn’t make me pay attention, but rather causes me to dismiss your ideas. Glen’s measured response and request for clarification, Bernie weighing in with his thoughts, (I had the same sense of confusion as they did), allowed me to sit back and see how you explained it. You had an opportunity (and an audience) to inform and educate us, but instead chose to insult. Show me ONE third grader who would understand your comments. The sign of a true intellect is someone who can articulate their thoughts in ways that are understood by us peons….


      • I’m good to let this drop. But I do agree with your point about basic writing. When I am writing in my professional field, I use the vocabulary and style that is expected. When writing about the Hum, I decided a long time ago that the majority of what I write would be directed to people who generally do not have a deep background in science. Anyway, I hope to refocus and get on with a new physical experiment. Stay tuned!

  9. Kal Wayne says:

    Honestly, I didn’t mean to offend.

    Dr. MacPherson, have you made any inroads regarding sound localization?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: