It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hendricus G Loos, Master of Mind Control

page: 8
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
and I don't think the detection has to do with the Delta in temperature but rather the photons maybe touching off a reaction in the nerve endings where the potassium channels have enough energy to make thenerves spike.


Perhaps you can find, while you're looking, some way in which photons can stimulate that sort of nerve. Or any touch receptor. Good luck.




posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen

And the wavelength of photon it would require to ionize sodium or potassium is...?

Do you get that from a monitor? Hint...they don't call visible light "non ionizing" for nothing.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Multiple photon absorption and ionization is indeed possible without highly energetic wavelengths apparently



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

You mean besided in the ir range?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

And theres this abstract on Animal experiments



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

sodium is ionized by visible light



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

I think you missed the part where that's in a laser.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Relevant citation needed.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Not really.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Which isn't applicable here. We call that a non sequitur.

Or as I would put it, changes to nervous tissue can be effected with a ball bat as well. But neither example relates to your monitor theory.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Multiple photon absorption and ionization is indeed possible without highly energetic wavelengths apparently
That shows 2 or 3 photons, but as I said you'd need more than 9 times as much energy to eject a second electron from sodium as the first electron and you won't get that much from two or three photons. Statistically it might happen very rarely but probably not enough to ever measure.

You can't find a link showing any significant photoelectric effect of sodium ions with visible light because it's not going to happen.


originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

sodium is ionized by visible light
I think that's debatable. The photoelectric effect can eject electrons from metallic sodium with visible light, that much is true. If it was ejecting electrons from individual sodium atoms then you'd have a Na+ ion, but that's not what the experiments are doing, at least not the ones I've seen. If you can find an experiment like that I'd like to see it.

The experiments I've seen use metallic sodium. The electron arrangement in metals is such that you would probably have difficulty pointing to a sodium atom and saying that's the one that's ionized.

farside.ph.utexas.edu...

The conduction electrons in a metal are non-localized (i.e., they are not tied to any particular atoms).

Those non-localized electrons are ejected from metallic sodium by the photoelectric effect and since they are non-localized I think it's a stretch to claim you've got ionized sodium. What you have is a metal with a slight electric charge. I wouldn't call it an ion.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

THAT's what he's talking about. I thought he was talking about sodium ions in solution.

Dashen, you realize you won't have metallic sodium in your body, right?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



I incline to think Dr Loos is a real person.


Hey, sorry I'm a little late but I wanted you to know that I agree with you; HGL certainly seems to be a real guy that, as the OP has pointed out, has been super-busy, and the work he did and published in '67, as you have pointed out, has been highly influential.

I think I tried to have my bull# meter turned up to 11 and let it get in the way of my ability to see things clearly. He just seems. after all, to be an 89 year-old dude that lives near the beach; I imagined to myself that he must be recently retired when I found that he had just been issued a ham radio license in 2014. He must be kicking back and getting down to fun projects that he had back-burner'd while he was busy with other stuff.

I thought that it was interesting that Gary Stix, the author of the Scientific American article You can Patent That? made sure to include in his story this quote from Loos' patent...



Sometimes the pulses cannot be seen on the monitor. "This is unfortunate," the patent notes, "since it opens a way for mischievous application of the invention, where by people are exposed unknowingly to manipulation of their nervous systems for someone else's purposes.

Such application would be unethical and is of course not advocated. It is mentioned here in order to alert the public to the possibility of covert abuse that may occur while being online...."



It caused me to come to believe that Loos was trying to patent an idea for extending the capabilities of television and streaming internet in to a sort of true Sensurround rather than some sort of mind-control device.

Also, I wanted to mention to you and anyone else reading that it sure is fun to plug "Hendricus G Loos" in to Google Images. I like to use GI as my personal sort of data-analysis tool; dorky, I know, but it's fun when drinking.

And so as it stands right now, best I can tell, it's one of those "Does life imitate Philip K. Dick?" moments. It's embarrassing, but I have no power over that sort of thing.




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Hey Bedlam?

If you don't mind? Aside from all this dermal stuff: could the em field from a good monitor be coupled with when illuminated by a high-energy portable RF unit?



P.S. Oh Jaysus, Faraday's Law, listen: I know nothing about this stuff, I just stumble in to it till it cracks my head. I suppose I need a course in energetics as well.

Nevertheless: Monitors? Coupling?


edit on 23-10-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

In general, two RF fields ignore each other. They can add or subtract, although you generally won't notice that sort of behavior in real life unless you're using a temporally coherent source as you might in a phased array or some types of EW equipment. But they won't generally do what I would consider coupling unless they were in a non linear medium.

What did you have in mind there?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Arbitrageur

THAT's what he's talking about. I thought he was talking about sodium ions in solution.

Dashen, you realize you won't have metallic sodium in your body, right?
He was talking about both as far as I can tell, which is why I said he had them confused. He was trying to use experiments with sodium metal to make inferences about what would happen with sodium ions in solution, which of course were non-sequitur inferences for reasons I tried to explain.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

i know, if we had metallic sodium in our bodies we would burst into flames, but im tryin here.
But the link i posted about the animal trials indicate a cause and effect relationship between low frequency em fields and the nervous system



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


I am not saying that the photon would have to knock an electron off a sodium atom.
I am saying it would deionize the sodium ions briefly, on the nerves and cause it to fire.
Would that work?

edit on 23-10-2015 by dashen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam



What did you have in mind there?


Trying to understand any usefulness at all that the EM field emanating from a CRT could be put to. Trying to understand that caused me to look more deeply in to the EM navigation systems that we have at work that utilize a "location mat".

The question came up for me because I was imagining, "What if the monitor were used as a sort of "location mat"?




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Eventually we will all wag our tails when they flip the main switch on the user control if we own any electronics or vehicles.




The latest comes from Boston where a Harvard Medical School research team has whipped up a way for a human brain to control a rat's brain. This so-called brain-to-brain interface enables a human subject to move a rat's tail without getting wires plugged into her head.

That doesn't mean it's a simple process. The process starts with a strobe light, of all things. The strobe stimulates the human subject's brain which then puts out brainwave signals that are picked up by an EEG. The EEG data is then translated into an ultrasonic frequency that's blasted into the rat's head. Equipment aside, it's akin to a kind of telepathy, as it's fairly non-invasive.

motherboard.vice.com...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join