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.

 

Hack Your Nervous System?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Any conspiracy Theorist worth his salt knows that the Soviet Union and the US have been tinkering around with electromagnetic 'crowd control' technology since at least the 30's. Now apparently the technology has crossed over from lunatic fringe right into funding and research in the USAF. Maybe those tin foil hats aren't such a bad idea after all.


Source
Hack Your Nervous System
The brain has always been a battlefield. New weapons might be able to hack directly into your nervous system.

"Controlled Effects" (see image, right) is one of the Air Force’s ambitious long-term challenges. It starts with better and more accurate bombs, but moves on to discuss devices that "make selected adversaries think or act according to our needs... By studying and modeling the human brain and nervous system, the ability to mentally influence or confuse personnel is also possible."

Creepy enough in itself, but creepier still is that they can even single you out apparently, the piece goes on to say...


Source
Details of this emerged in a heavily-censored document released to Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project under the Freedom if Information Act. Called “Sensory consequence of electromagnetic pulsed emitted by laser induced plasmas,” it described research on activating the nerve cells responsible for sensing unpleasant stimuli: heat, damage, pressure, cold. By selectively stimulating a particular nociceptor, a finely tuned PEP might sensations of say, being burned, frozen or dipped in acid -- all without doing the slightest actual harm.

The skin is the easiest target for such stimulation. But, in principle, any sensory nerves could be triggered. The Controlled Effects document suggests “it may be possible to create synthetic images…to confuse an individual' s visual sense or, in a similar manner, confuse his senses of sound, taste, touch, or smell.”

In other words, it may be possible to use electromagnetic means to create overwhelming 'sound' or 'light', or indeed 'intolerable smell' which would exist only in the brain of the person perceiving them.

Big Brother is not only watching you, he is apparently also developing the ability to make you dance around like a marionette with a bad taste in your mouth and hallucinate individually if he likes. Creepy Stuff man.

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)

[edit on 1-3-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I dont think it is all bad. Say if you were trying to break up a riot or a large group of people, if everyone felt really cold or hot, they would say "this sucks" and go home.

Obviously, as with any technology is could be abused, but this is better than filling the streets with tear gas and pepperspray.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Why is it better than tear gas or pepper spray? I think, therefore I am.

Perceptual effects can be the same as actual physical effects. But this is scarier, because it really is all in the mind, and someone is placing it there.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
It is pretty creepy stuff.

Obviously this is being advanced under the auspice of riot control. But the real usefullness of such technology has nothing to do with stopping riots, and everything to do with starting them. It's 'problem' in a box, for those aching to release some sort of 'solution', final as it were.

It's the perfect tool for owning international politics, if you think about it.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   


~a finely tuned PEP might sensations of say, being burned, frozen or dipped in acid -- all without doing the slightest actual harm.


This is a scary tool. Talk about mass control, you would need a fraction of the people it takes to control any situation. The abuse in torture situations, who would know? For crowd control? Come on, how many people are gonna die of fright when they suddenly feel like they are covered in acid?

Oh wait, its for our own good...



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Uni_Brow,

>>
I dont think it is all bad. Say if you were trying to break up a riot or a large group of people, if everyone felt really cold or hot, they would say "this sucks" and go home.
>>

It is and it isn't.

You've heard the stories about the circus animals which are beaten, burned, tortured and /damaged/ as both stimulus to and results of being asked to do unnatural acts (an Elephant on it's hind legs etc.)? It's true. What is also true is that the very act of driving something to be what it is 'not wired as much as wanting to' can cause permanent insanity. Which is why circus animals don't do well in zoos or reserves after they are done being exploited.

Now. Imagine a similar sense of /utter helplessness/ by which you are effectively driven to NOT ACT the way you intended to. Human conscience is a time-space worm. You /experience/ therefore you are. Thought is a part of that. Yet thought is only the precursor like getting naked before sex. The arousal not the stimulus.

If the experiential interruptus is prolonged, you WILL FIND that the very act of being inhibited drives a "Yeah, you think this is so /fun/ being 'merciful' by denying me control of MY life? I'll MAKE YOU acknowledge me as an effector in YOUR experience!" countermodeal behavior. Which makes the hatred and vindication all the more excessive when it finally breaks loose along an unforeseen channel of socialized behavior.

Such is the source of events like Columbine.

>>
Obviously, as with any technology is could be abused, but this is better than filling the streets with tear gas and pepperspray.
>>

Overt acts are overt acts. The problem is that while a rifle volley on Kent State is indeed an abhorrent excess of the use of force granted by 'authority'; the use of gas and watercannon in Watts or LA might be seen as 'protecting the social body from the infection of riot'. Even though you know that the people living in those terrible conditions are not /really/ a partaker in all that is socially grande.

And thus the government plays a feedback loop called "How much can we get away with?"

As everytime they do something overt and seemingly oppressive, the very 'liberalist' interpretation of what may indeed be a natural and necessary _confrontational awareness adjustment_ of who is right or wrong, becomes ever more wussy in wht it will take.

THAT being the ultimate danger of 'control vs. kill' mechanisms in an inventive animal. For by saying you won't put up with real bullets, you progress to rubber. When a woman dies from a gas bomb or a man has his ribs crushed by a water cannon, you turn to DEW sytems.

And when you say that no, it is wrong for the government to use 'death ray' tech to herd as much as hurt...

The next step is not overt at all.

The next step is holographic imaging and sound by which 'generation after next' (it's already in the labs people) has literal imagery and audibles being broadcast _covertly_.

CONCLUSION:
There is something simply noble but necessary inherent to the 'One Ranger, One Riot' scenario. Because one man may kill or cripple another as a function of _having no choice_ (no backup plan or team or area weapons effect) but to defend himself.

And thus the screaming mob is quieted as they SEE the bravery inherent to ONE MAN. Passing the ulimate judgment on another. For the simplest of all wrongs: attacking a fellow human being.

And they are either impressed with the romanticism. Or asking themselves a variant of the "Did he fire six shots or only five..." As rationalization takes over and they realize _Anarchic Chaos ain't worth the dice toss on a social hangover or an embalmers goo-gun to the chest_.

At which point most people assume the 'right triumphs' illustration is complete. And the riot had no just cause to begin with.

And THAT is where the mistake is really made. For people will only be impressed with One Ranger's willingness to lay it all out so many times. And then they will become bored and start to craft scenarios (lay bets) on how the hero may be brought low.

If you don't understand and remove the causal justification, you don't 'get' what conflict resolution is really all about.

At it's simplest level, conflict is about overpopulation and limited resource angst. At a more enlightened one it is the primal-scream for more experience through options for change and renewal.

BOTH the rich and the poor suffer from it.

And government, as a staticist organization trying to maintain the social bonds of civilization, inhibits the interface of that fluid boundary exchange (energy for entropy) by trying to impose order on the ACT of chaos which has a point to it's own existence.

Beyond the momentary disruption.

Since governments are composed of control freaks and power schemers (not the same) they seldom understand how far reaching and ill-fated their often actions are, from intent to consequence.

Myself, I like to keep things simple: Don't pay a man to keep you 'safe' more freedom and wages than you would lose holding your own in a desparing as much as desperate world.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Great work twitchy.


A topic dear to me own heart: Neuro-Marketing: Straight to the Brain

IMO the technology -and practice- is WAAAYYY further along than we are being told.





Researchers scan for insight into how marketing may brand the brain's preference for products and politicians. ...They seek to understand the cellular sweetness of rewards and the biology of brand consciousness. In the process, they are gleaning hints as to how our synapses might be manipulated to boost sales, generate fads or even win votes for political candidates.

Searching for the Why of Buy
Note sidebar: Wired for Voting




The technology to play with the brain has existed for decades - what's been missing is a reliable mass media delivery system. Most of the techniques seem to rely on some kind of calibrated flickering, which was easily lost in airway broadcasts.

Lookjs like digital technology took care of that problem, quite neatly. Here is an old patent, granted in 1976:

Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Has anyone read "Weapons Grade" which this is linked to?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Time to don the lead hats and face plates people. This stuff sucks big time if it is real. The UK have a test crowd control weapon that shoots ultrasound pulses at you - and that smarts big time, but seeing / hearing / feeling stuff thats not there? thats down right nasty in my opinion, and has got to be a risk of causing permanent damage?

We live in interesting times.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
So then what do you do with this technology? The genie is out of the bottle so to speak. After reading your posts I do have to agree that going into people's mind is wrong, but now that we have this technology what is to stop anyone from using it? A government is going to say that riots are expensive and that paying for people who are blasted by water cannons or beat down by police is also expensive. So they are going to take the "control" route simply becuse everyone gives up and goes home because they "imagine" that this rioting stuff sucks.

An example of this is the taser. A taser is obviously less lethal than a gun but where do you draw the line of when it is ok to tase. Someone resisting arrest, running, or just being uncooperative. A taser literaly locks you out of control of your body, not unlike the "mind control" device.

Just some thoughts.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I cannot believe some people are defending the potential use of this technology to control people.

I cannot believe some people justify controlling other people.

Apparently, I am an anachronism. Born in the wrong place at the wrong time. I actually believe in freedom.

Wha hoppened?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Apparently, I am an anachronism. Born in the wrong place at the wrong time. I actually believe in freedom.


Since when did we get the right to riot?

Also forget riots, those are just a nuisance, imagine making some third world soldier think he’s being burned alive from just pressing a button. Can you image how that would effect the cost of war?
And your saving lives too, instead of shooting the bastard you're just messing with him, momentarily.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Apparently, I am an anachronism. Born in the wrong place at the wrong time. I actually believe in freedom.



Also forget riots, those are just a nuisance, imagine making some third world soldier think he’s being burned alive from just pressing a button. Can you image how that would effect the cost of war?
And your saving lives too, instead of shooting the bastard you're just messing with him, momentarily.



See though....the thing is HE CAN STILL SHOOT BACK. Perhaps he's strong enough to resist the effects of the tampering. Sine there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule.

Just gotta wait for the effect to wear off. If it's temporary at least.

Why, for lack of a better term, piss him off and let him still fight, when you can just kill him and have one less person to deal with, guaranteed.

[edit on 28/2/06 by SFRemmy]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
As part II of the piece, on 'remote control heart attacks' makes clear, you can also use this technology to kill people - at the speed of light...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Ahh, sorry, must've skipped over that part 2.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

As part II of the piece, on 'remote control heart attacks' makes clear, you can also use this technology to kill people - at the speed of light...





I missed that part too. Just skimmed.

So much for "natural causes." How will anyone ever know?

Kinda like global warming. ...Heart attacks are natural, part of the natural life cycle of birth, life and death. Heart attacks are not caused by human intervention. And even if there was any human intervention, at most, the natural cycle may have been accelerated. But there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship and therefore, there is neither culpability nor liability.

[satire]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Remote heart attacks???

I beleive it. I also think they do "remote strokes" or one leads to the other.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Another recent thread which is related and interesting....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Yeah you can just drop dead now and all they will ever know about it is that you dropped dead. Might be a good time to buy an electromagnetic field meter and leave it plugged in like a baby monitor, crazy as that sounds. Jesus what if the advertisers get ahold of this technology as well. I can hear the new commercials, Drink A Coke Now, Or Die... Seriously... Yeah You...



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uni_Brow
I dont think it is all bad. Say if you were trying to break up a riot or a large group of people, if everyone felt really cold or hot, they would say "this sucks" and go home.


How is it safe to allow a government to have that technology that they could use against US anytime anywhere? Do they really have enough credit to allow them to have all of that?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SFRemmy

See though....the thing is HE CAN STILL SHOOT BACK. Perhaps he's strong enough to resist the effects of the tampering. Sine there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule.

Just gotta wait for the effect to wear off. If it's temporary at least.

Why, for lack of a better term, piss him off and let him still fight, when you can just kill him and have one less person to deal with, guaranteed.

[edit on 28/2/06 by SFRemmy]


or you can make it easier to shot him while he is under the effects of the weapon, non-lethal in addition to lethal weapons are a great and very dangerous combination. something like a tazer, dazzler, stun grenade just give you a temporary sitting duck that is physically un-able accurately (aim that is) shoot back at you.

this technology has good uses to riot control and peacekeeping applications, but the real fear is just when to used such an effective weapon. But when u don’t tend to see the physical damage of a weapons it is a lot easier to use and abuse. Imagine it being activated in congress frightening the members into not speaking out and just going along with whatever is put in front of them, (the ultimate dictatorship) or having it mounted much like the surveillance system of London where virtually every city block is cover with cameras with these devices so u can have complete control of the population through fear being beam directly into the "sheep" it has been done through out history with less decisive(edit) and archaic means (propaganda, secret police, religion, patriotism/nationalism, sectarianism ect..)


[edit on 4/28/2006 by Oblivions void]

[edit on 4/29/2006 by Oblivions void]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join