Home » Uncategorized » Microwaves or Satellites as the Source of the Hum

Microwaves or Satellites as the Source of the Hum

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


26 Comments

  1. J.O. says:

    So Glen,
    You said in an earlier post that you do not think it’s possible to relocate to a place “…where the hum does not exist… ” That would imply that you either believe the hum is internal, or that it exists everywhere globally. Do you mostly lean towards an internal cause?

    • That’s the direction I’ve been leaning toward for a while.

      • J.O. says:

        Years ago in “another life” I lived on a small lake in rural Northern Idaho. I worked as a forester so was acclimated to being outside year round. I could get uncomfortably hot inside a house where others found the temperature pleasant. So I slept with the window above my head cracked open year round unless it was single digit temp’s. And I noticed that in the winter time, I could hear the low rumble of a freight train and its whistle at a road crossing miles away at night. But I never could hear it in the summer. Knowing that colder air is more dense, I assumed colder air was a “better” transmitter of sound. And what I found out was that sound actually moves faster through warmer air, but may move further through colder air especially in a temperature inversion situation. Cold air does slow the sound down.
        I have heard the hum very well through the last 3 winters, but have not heard it now in over 3 weeks and the last time I heard it, I had to focus on it. If the hum was internal, why do I not hear it year around? Others have also noted the hum is louder on cloudy days. Therefore I will be surprised if some day the hum is attributed to some internal source. (But I get surprised often!)

      • J.O. at JUNE 7, 2018 AT 9:48 AM wrote: “Therefore I will be surprised if some day the hum is attributed to some internal source.”

        I assume you are speaking here with reference to YOUR own version of the Hum – not insisting that if yours REALLY is a transformer (or pump or similar external cause) that others may not instead have internal generation. There is GOOD evidence that BOTH cases occur (largely for different individuals), as I hope you would acknowledge. The evidence with such options is NOT supposed to agree.

        I do recall your suggesting that your hum is seasonal, but not if the “head shake test” interrupts your hum for 1/2 second or not?

        I am familiar with your train sounds! I live on the hillside of the glacially-carved valley with a train (infrequent) through Ithaca 500 feet below, two miles away, and the sound occasionally diffuses over the rim, when meteorological conditions are right. The effect is as old as trains, and unrelated to any sustained hum sounds.

  2. Glen –

    Of course, the notion of microwave pulses becoming audible in the sense of a wide-ranging worldwide Hum is of course ruled out by the extraordinary amount of energy required, even if pumped into a transmitter right on earth. Broadcasting from a satellite would have the additional problem of getting enough power to the orbiting transmitter.

    * * * * * * *
    Incidenally, a fairly short and easy-to-read discussion of Frey’s findings is:

    “Human Perception of Illumination with Pulsed Ultrahigh-Frequency Electromagnetic Energy”
    Author(s): Allan H. Frey, Rodman Messenger
    Science, Vol. 181, No. 4097 (Jul. 27, 1973), pp. 356-358
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1736624

  3. SGVH says:

    Sorry, I didn’t watch the video, prefer reading, it’s faster, but we already know you guys are anti-satellites, anti-power-grid, anti-microwave-grid, anti-technology as the sources of your “hums.” If you had anything different to update re that, I’m sure your headline would reflect that but it doesn’t.

    For those who believe it is internally-generated, who’s to say it is not internally-generated due to EXTERNAL forces affecting your “INTERNALS” which then REACT to the EXTERNALS?

    In the nicest way I can say this: I think you guys are nuts or in denial of the “White Elephant of Technology Growing Fatter & Fatter” in the Room even from before the Bristol UK Hum timeframe.

    Here’s a “test” everyone could do with little effort: Watch for any changes in their “internally-generated hum symptoms” &/or any increased activity to your Hum sites, YouTubes, Twitter, YahooGroup, etc., when the already-approved &/or waiting-for-approval (20,000 total so far) 5G satellites begin being launched sometime later this year 2018, some with 8,800 watts (lower constellation) & up to 5-million watts per beam (upper constellation) & modulations/demodulations with ELF/VLF.

    • I’ve edited out your links because I would prefer not to give free publicity to such stuff. I’m sure that you can do that quite well on your own. But you seem confused about what our intent is here. Nobody here – at least that I’ve seen – thinks that electrosmog, satellites, microwaves, VLF, or noise from the electric grid are good things. We are talking about the source(s) of the Worldwide Hum here. That’s the distinction you seem incapable of making. I can’t make it any clearer than that. I wish you the best in pursuing good science and whatever else you are trying to do, but I think you’ve had your say here.

    • George G. says:

      “—-5-million watts per beam–”

      HUH???

    • GS Handley says:

      I agree that dismissing the hyper evolving technological area as a source is rather self defeating, and lacks an appropriate amount of imagination Necessary. This present “position” (internal) assumes it understands all that currently exists including top secret military adventures that have consistently shown over decades to have no concern whatsoever for the populous. We live in an age where the elephants in the room are commonly ignored, with nothing other than PC concerns or plain stupidity for a “reason”. Am I impressed? No.
      There are technologies currently existing that are EXPONENTIALLY different from what most “physics know it alls” could comprehend. So limiting theories to within the boundaries of outdated physics is just fruitless, as has been shown so far. Any arguments?

      • This is getting tiresome, but I’ll give it another go; others are welcome to chime in as well. If you think you know some physics that is new, then please, present it so we can examine it. But note well that I am not interested in poetry, nor am I interested in received wisdom. Neither one of those is science. Please present some serious evidence. I’ve spent enough time on this line of discussion. I’ll be closing it down shortly.

  4. J.O. says:

    Apparently there is an area in W. Virginia called the “National Radio Quiet Zone” where there is no cell phone coverage and other types of radio signals are not allowed. The area is some 13,000 sq. miles. It would be interesting to see if those who sense the hum and are close to this location could visit it and see if they still hear it in this area. Below is a link to the Wa. Post article.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/06/22/inside-the-u-s-s-national-radio-quiet-zone-where-theres-no-wifi-or-cellphone-service/?utm_term=.be3b33c9c2e0

  5. Lisa M. Allen says:

    J.O., this article shows exactly where that area is. On the hum map, it looks like there are two entries from a nearby town, Green Bank, but I would still love to take a ride up there sometime and check it out for myself.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/10/08/218976699/enter-the-quiet-zone-where-cell-service-wi-fi-are-banned

  6. J.O. says:

    I may have missed something here, but if I understand correctly some are suggesting that there may be some technology at use that is currently not known or well understood by John Q. Public. This does not seem too far fetched for me considering we have recently had US (& Canadian) Diplomats in Cuba that have experienced some severe medical symptoms from a hypothesized “audio-assault”. We really have no idea what the various Gov’t agencies might be working on for new weapons or technologies. It would obviously be hard to gather any proof of this, but I don’t believe it should be dismissed as impossible.
    Sometimes just “free-flowing” conversations can lead to discoveries. If the site administrator is unwilling to allow these sorts of conversations to continue, he might just as well shut the whole thing down as his mind is obviously made up. From my observations, the HUM is not an internally generated phenomena so I remain curious about other possible causes.

    • My mind is not made up. I’m simply pursuing what seems most reasonable and testable. You see, I think we should start with what we do know as opposed to what we might want to speculate about. Both BuzzFeed and MacLeans interviewed me about the reports you mentioned, and I gave them five or six reasonable ideas to think about. What I find annoying is that some people think that because I can’t prove something is false, that therefore implies that their theory is serious. And that’s nonsense. Unless I’m presented with something testable, I’ll stick with what is. Some people think aliens are responsible for the Hum. Fine, they can go somewhere else and play with that idea, and they can post here when they have evidence. Speculation is fine, but man hours and energy are in short supply. To wit, I write this from Russia, where I am tracking down older Soviet writing that might be related to the Hum. So I need to go now.

    • J.O. said: “Sometimes just “free-flowing” conversations can lead to discoveries.”
      Really? Can you name even ONE such instance? (We need an example please). Or does your comment just sound as though it should be true?

      • Sandy carr says:

        Free speech is the point of public forums
        If your ideas are not robust enough to allow for free speech
        What is the point of having a public forum on the subject in the first place?

      • This is a moderated forum, but if you look through its history, you’ll see that there is a broad spectrum of commentary and theories. What I will not allow is a narrow but vocal viewpoint to skew things. Also, there is such a thing as junk science and in some cases, outright ignorance. If there is transparent and repeatable evidence out there, then I want to see it. But if somebody’s claims only consist of loudly repeating the claims of others, then I have no interest in it. You of course have free speech, on your own forum.

  7. J.O. says:

    I just became aware of Bernie’s comment to me from July. 17th. And in answer, we use this technique often at the company I manage. Sometimes just group talking about a certain problem leads to a very nice solution…and sometimes the solution is a combination of people’s ideas. So I’ve posted a link for Bernie on “Brainstorming”. And then I would ask Bernie, Why are you so hostile?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming

    • From what I’ve seen, Bernie is an expert at brainstorming. But you see, in the academic environment – especially in the physical sciences – brainstorming can be a rough and ready arena. Science is never settled until transparent and repeatable experiments match the outcomes that follow logically from theory. If anybody wants to lay a trump card on the table, present the results of an experiment so we can evaluate it. Until then, as long as commentary doesn’t get personal or disrespectful, I want there to be sharp and on-topic discussions of topics here. And keep in mind that there is such a thing as established science, and Bernie’s expertise in his field is a valuable asset to this forum.

    • I said: Bernie Hutchins JULY 17, 2018 AT 12:43 PM
      J.O. said: “Sometimes just “free-flowing” conversations can lead to discoveries.”
      Really? Can you name even ONE such instance? (We need an example please). Or does your comment just sound as though it should be true?
      J.O. AUGUST 7, 2018 AT 2:15 PM SAID IN PART: “ . . . . I just felt like his response was on the rude side. . . . . “
      I did not intend any offense. It was a sincere question (I even said “please”) intended to get a better idea of what you meant by “free-flowing” conversations”. If you had in mind, perhaps, Einstein, Godel, and Dyson standing around a blackboard, that would be one view (valid). If you were subscribing to a view of science AS DEMOCRACY that would be something else (invalid). Do we disagree?

      • J.O. says:

        Hey Bernie,
        I believe I explained yesterday what I was referring to with “free flowing” conversations. And I stated that because it appeared to me that a few people’s ideas were being shot down largely because Glen didn’t like or agree with them…but this is his site and he can do as he wishes here. And I most certainly understand his desire to keep the conspiracy theories at bay.
        And for your direct question about naming “one” instance…I would argue that the days of lone scientists like Newton, Einstein or even Gregor Mendel making discoveries alone is long past. Those folks didn’t have much in the way of previous data or work to draw from whereas today there is a rich library of data on every subject that provides an advanced starting point.
        As for the “one such instance” I’ve pasted one below where discussions and conglomeration in an English pub lead to an outstanding discovery.
        And this my friend, is the last time I’ll chime in on this particular post as it has become a distraction I think.

        “One of the most significant discoveries of the 20th century is the code of life residing in the DNA double helix. In this case, the discovery was undoubtedly not linked to a lone brain puzzling things out in solitude. Instead, as James Watson so memorably described in the book The Double Helix, he and Francis Crick tossed ideas around in a Cambridge pub and constructed physical models in the lab. These models helped them visualise ways in which the molecules making up DNA might pack in order to fit with the high quality X-ray patterns they’d been secretly shown by Maurice Wilkins. These had been obtained by the fourth crucial player in the discovery, Rosalind Franklin.

        So, the work was carried out in essence, even if not in any formal sense, by an interdisciplinary team of four: two crystallographers (Wilkins and Franklin), a biologist (Crick) and a physicist (Watson). Linus Pauling, the Nobel Prize-winning American chemist, did try to solve the same problem earlier, but failed, publishing a paper with a fundamental error (in bond angles) which might well have been spotted by a collaborator.

        There is strength in a diversity of approaches and trying to tackle a problem from a single viewpoint, or discipline, today may well be insufficient to achieve the necessary breakthrough. I believe the age of the lone hero(ine) scientist is past. The challenges we face are so multi-faceted and vast that no single mind can encompass all that is needed.”

  8. J.O. says:

    Glen,
    I readily agree to everything you just said. But the first step in science is forming an intelligent question, followed by a hypothesis that seeks to answer the question and then experiments to hopefully prove the validity of the hypothesis…or disprove it. When I mentioned “free-flowing” conversations on July 17th it was directly targeted at step 1, asking the important questions and also not arbitrarily dismissing an idea because one already has an unproven preconceived opinion.
    I’m not taking anything away from Bernie, we can all see he has deep knowledge of his field. I just felt like his response was on the rude side. Do we think the Wright Bro’s just set about building a flying machine quietly working on different parts without having some “free-flowing” discussions first? A conglomeration of ideas from different viewpoints should and does often lead to better ideas. And better questions perhaps.

    BTW Glen, I was surprised to see you in a Youtube “Anonymous” video talking about the Hum. The video sought to draw multiple unrelated phenomena occurring around the globe into a “something’s happening” (you should be afraid) video. Pretty much a garbage video in my opinion and perhaps worth the threat of a lawsuit if you didn’t give your permission for this.

    • I’m afraid I don’t know the video you are referring to. Perhaps post a link to it.

      • J.O. says:

        Glen comes in at 10:37

        There is very little point in this video,,,however at the beginning it details other supposed strange noises

      • A few people here all but begged me to not participate in the Inside Edition interview. It was a calculated risk on my part. Of the 50-plus media appearances I’ve agreed to, this was one of the very few I would – knowing what I know now – not have done. The film crew came up to the Sunshine Coast and spend six hours filming in three locations and, in the final production, I earned about 90 seconds footage squeezed in between the paranoid dreamers and the apocalypse crowd. My thinking then, which hasn’t changed, was that no serious scientist would bother watching it, but that among the five million viewers there might be a number of capable and educated people who would want to learn more. Having just rewatched portions of the Inside Edition show, I can say that I do indeed regret being lumped in with the others, but at least in comparison, if I may say so, I appear sober and conservative; I hope I didn’t damage the project by appearing. Alas, the comments section in the YouTube posting on the original Inside Edition piece were absolutely dreadful and trivial, but I went into this with eyes wide open, publicly using my full name, email address, profession, and place of residence. And I’m glad to report that, apart from one death threat on YouTube, and two attempts at identity theft on Facebook and Freelancer.com respectively, I am largely unscathed. So, the project continues. Let’s get to it.

      • J.O. says:

        Well Glen, you appeared fine and professional as always, but context is always important. And I was pretty sure you had not given your explicit permission for footage of you in this BS type video. Did you watch the first part with “trumpet” / “angry beast” sounds?
        Anyone here heard anything like that?

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: