It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Bedlam
Do this. Ignore the hocus-pocus technobabble of the patent. Now, sitting there, what sort of evil subliminal mind control do you think I can cause by, say, tapping you with a warm water balloon? Think I can make you into a godless commie, or go kill someone, or see visions? I don't.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'm not a neuroscientist, but I know that a single photon isn't enough to trigger a visual response in the human eye or nervous system,
A patent doesn't have any requirement to be peer reviewed and some of them make very unreliable claims.
A NEW ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY ARCHITECTURE HAS BEEN CONCEIVED, WHICH GIVES A LARGE INCREASE IN MEMORY CAPACITY OVER THE HOPFIELD MEMORY, AND PROVIDES IMPROVED ASSOCIATIVE RECALL AS WELL. FURTHERMORE, THE NEW MEMORY SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF OVERLEARNING IN UNSUPERVISED ADAPTIVE OPERATION. THE NEW ARCHITECTURE MAY BE DESCRIBED AS A REFLEXIVE HETERO-ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY WITHORTHONORMAL LABELS THAT ARE PROCESSED IN A CERTAIN NONLINEAR MANNER. THE OPERATION INVOLVES SIGNAL FLOW IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, AS IN A RESONATOR. IN EACH ITERATIVE CYCLE, DATA ARE CONVERTED INTO LABELS, WHICH THEN ARE TURNED BACK AGAIN INTO DATA. THE PHASE II OBJECTIVE IS THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THIS ARCHITECTURE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A RIG SUCH AS TO PROVIDE PROOF OF CONCEPT, AND THE CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENTS TO INVESTIGATE A NUMBER OF LOCAL ADAPTIVE MECHANISMS, AS WELL AS STOCHASTIC EFFECTS.
In the landmark 1942 study it took about 9 single photons but I don't know about a "carefully chosen pattern".
originally posted by: lostgirl
What about a whole lot of "single" photons firing in carefully chosen patterns?
The subjects were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to say whether or not they thought they had seen a flash. The light was gradually reduced in intensity until the subjects could only guess the answer.
They found that about 90 photons had to enter the eye for a 60% success rate in responding. Since only about 10% of photons arriving at the eye actually reach the retina, this means that about 9 photons were actually required at the receptors. Since the photons would have been spread over about 350 rods, the experimenters were able to conclude statistically that the rods must be responding to single photons, even if the subjects were not able to see such photons when they arrived too infrequently.
I don't know how credible that is but it might be more credible than taking some of the claims at face value when they don't really add up very well. I think there are mind control techniques, I just don't see them in the Hendricus G Loos patents. But they aren't very subtle, for example when Derren Brown created an experiment along the lines of the conspiracy theory about a CIA programmed assasin executing Robert Kennedy:
Maybe this is the point - maybe some of the patent info is bogus...maybe on purpose?
originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: Bedlam
Hence, my theory that the 'device' (or method or what have you) isn't even intended to affect the skin, they just put that in the patent to throw people off...
...but when you consider how intently our minds focus on TV or computer screens, we're practically in a hypnotic state at times -
- then add some specifically designed "pulsing" of images generated by a special 'device'/'method', and how suggestible might a person become?
If nothing else, you could certainly affect their nervous system