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.

 

NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

page: 16
99
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
The Bride Groom had been Chosen already. I'm waiting for his return.




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
Oh and by the way, this is a very important topic to me, and for all of us. Get over yourself. There is much information out there other than what you have presented, and just as important. If you wish to inform and protect, you are doing a very poor job.


Not really. Every other described technology does not work in practical scenarios. From drilling holes in people, right through to fatal levels of radiation, each system is just not feasible in a clandestine role.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by somerandomuser
 


Ok, so now that we have all of that out of the way... what are your thoughts on a tailor made Faraday cage, insulated to high voltages, form fitted to the head, and stitched into a hat?

(Second Line)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Did you just realize this?

The 9/11 Commision is brain washed, no joke.

Did you know about the Police officers?

They have a mind control device that makes them have tons of power against me and you.


But this is a nice article.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Ok, so now that we have all of that out of the way... what are your thoughts on a tailor made Faraday cage, insulated to high voltages, form fitted to the head, and stitched into a hat?


Nuts to say the least. The only defense is a low frequency shielded room. Something like this:

www.ets-lindgren.com...

...but with more attenuation in the sub 1KHz region...so, much thicker than this.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
Interesting, perhaps you could enlighten us all with your "technical knowledge" then?


I don't think I can fit it all in 5000 characters.

The huge list-o'-links is one of those giant cut and paste things that's a pain in the butt to refute point by point. I know that's an ATS favorite (Here - 45 pages of dreck, reply to every point or you're WRONG!!) but seriously, which one do you like the best? How about 'physics revealed part one' - it seems to be the basis of the rest of his screed, and it's as wrong as can be on the major points.

Just off the cuff - the part about neurons isn't quite right. You don't get a longitudinal current flow like a metallic conductor. There's not really an electron flow at all, except between nodes of Ranvier on myelinated neurons, then you get saltation between nodes which does involve electrons. But his base concept - that neurons generate electron flow which results in radio emissions from each neuronal trigger is just wrong.

You get ion flow through pores on the neuron, laterally through the membrane, not electron flow down the axon.

Second, while ionic charge motion does produce a magnetic field, it takes more than that to produce propagating radio waves. In order to detect even the magnetic fields from neurons firing, you have to generally use a SQUID in direct contact with the head. But in order to generate a propagating radio wave, you've got to also have e-field changes, an efficient radiator (you don't have it),and a near field environment that's not dissipative (missing that one too). It's not straightforward to get the e and h fields coupled to radiate well, in this case your ionic charge motion is across the membrane of a cell - that's all the length you've really got - and that's not going to suffice as an efficient radiator of RF.

Next, detecting that a neuron fired doesn't really tell you squat, any more than knowing some random transistor in your CPU just turned on or off can tell you that the user is playing WoW. All you know is that some transistor fired. Your brain is way more complex. So a neuron fired. What does that tell you? Do you think that you can localize that, tell how that neuron is interconnected to any other, and what that firing means? Hell, you can't even tell with a SQUID in a magnetically shielded room if fewer than 50,000 or so neurons are firing that are lined up in one direction so they reinforce each other.

Imagine a billion more or less randomly aligned neurons firing, generating some yoctoWatt level of randomly polarized impulse noise that is then absorbed by the conductive saline solution they're immersed in. What do you do with that? Even if you could 'receive it'?

His premise requires that neurons generate RF efficiently enough to produce greater-than-background-noise emissions - they don't - and that the resultant signal be separable in space to each individual neuron - it isn't - and that the receiver be able to correlate this activity with "thought".

But he chunks in some really nice sciencey words, so it's got to be true.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Just off the cuff - the part about neurons isn't quite right. You don't get a longitudinal current flow like a metallic conductor. There's not really an electron flow at all, except between nodes of Ranvier on myelinated neurons, then you get saltation between nodes which does involve electrons. But his base concept - that neurons generate electron flow which results in radio emissions from each neuronal trigger is just wrong.
...


Well, that was interesting. You did read the material, didn't you? I think you missed the scientific articles that demonstrate control of a neural firing pattern using ELF.

This is established science.


Originally posted by Bedlam
Next, detecting that a neuron fired doesn't really tell you squat, any more than knowing some random transistor in your CPU just turned on or off can tell you that the user is playing WoW. All you know is that some transistor fired. Your brain is way more complex. So a neuron fired. What does that tell you? Do you think that you can localize that, tell how that neuron is interconnected to any other, and what that firing means? Hell, you can't even tell with a SQUID in a magnetically shielded room if fewer than 50,000 or so neurons are firing that are lined up in one direction so they reinforce each other.
...


Again, interesting, but detection works upon pattern analysis, just like any form of BCI. ELF waves are not attenuated by brain matter, not even several hundred meters of rock will attenuate it.

As for not generating ELF waves because, as you put it, "it takes more than that to produce propagating radio waves". I would refer you Maxwell's equations and the scientific article referenced in Deepthought's work showing the detection of ELF waves emanating from a human.

Further, there is a massive difference between lab equipment and high-end detection equipment employed by espionage groups. This technology can detect single photons.


Originally posted by Bedlam
His premise requires that neurons generate RF efficiently enough to produce greater-than-background-noise emissions - they don't - and that the resultant signal be separable in space to each individual neuron - it isn't - and that the receiver be able to correlate this activity with "thought".


Yes, they do and he presented a scientific article showing that this is the case.


Originally posted by Bedlam
But he chunks in some really nice sciencey words, so it's got to be true.


Thanks for the reply, but you either failed to read the material, or you failed to understand it. Either way, not a single comment you have made has been factual.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by somerandomuser
 



The only defense is a low frequency shielded room. Something like this:

...but with more attenuation in the sub 1KHz region...so, much thicker than this.


Ok, fair enough, what do you think about a room like that, except an interior and exterior metal cage, separated by an insulator, and connected through a small induction coil of the proper size?

Essentially making it a giant LC damper.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
This is established science.


RF communication IS an established science. One I've got degrees in. I design this sort of thing. A neuron isn't going to be a real great radiator of ELF due to it not being about 200 miles long. The efficiency of an RF antenna is very much related to how it matches the wavelength of the RF being detected or radiated. In this case, the length you've got to work with is the length of an ion channel in a cell membrane. Pretty short, compared to a radio wave that's going to be thousands of km long. As in, ain't happening.

Point me to the scientific articles - I read his magnum opus and stopped when I saw that he didn't have a clue about what he was writing about. However, you're going to have a number of things to contend with here that are just basic physics. One, a cell isn't going to be a really great receiver or radiator of ELF radio waves, just due to size discrepancy. Two, an ELF radio wave is really really BIG, mushy, and low energy. You can't "focus" one, and it can't carry much in the way of data due to Nyquist limits. This makes it sort of painful to use in terms of "mind control" or "mind reading".



Originally posted by Bedlam

Again, interesting, but detection works upon pattern analysis, just like any form of BCI. ELF waves are not attenuated by brain matter, not even several hundred meters of rock will attenuate it.

As for not generating ELF waves because, as you put it, "it takes more than that to produce propagating radio waves". I would refer you Maxwell's equations and the scientific article referenced in Deepthought's work showing the detection of ELF waves emanating from a human.


Being a comm system designer, I'm pretty sure I know old Maxwell pretty well. Again, you're familiar with the copious amount of linkage you generated, and having read "physics part 1", I didn't have the heart (or stomach) to go farther. Point me to the link containing his ELF wave detector and I'll peruse it - but I'm not reading all of that, mainly because I'm pretty sure what I'll find. He's going to show that he's come up with some barely functional means of detecting either the e field or h field, and then he's going to hand wave it with some obfuscatory terms and say 'presto, and thus you can detect it from a satellite'. Only it doesn't work that way.




Yes, they do and he presented a scientific article showing that this is the case.


Not if he's calling in ELF as his magic cureall. Again, ELF is a really scaaary bugaboo, but it has no real capacity for carrying info due to Nyquist limits, and it can't be targeted, due to the size of the wave.



Thanks for the reply, but you either failed to read the material, or you failed to understand it. Either way, not a single comment you have made has been factual.


Well, actually they all have. Point out the non-factual one. I'll wait.

Seriously, too, you should cite your counter-examples. No one, well, certainly not me, wants to read all that to ferret out the point you want to make. I know that it's typical ATS to post a few dozen links and say "voila, go read all of this if you dare, meanwhile I'll make some posts that vaguely refer to some information in there and you've got to dig through it all to discuss it" - it's a way of discouraging commentary. If I do go read it all (blech) then your next move will be to say "No, I meant the OTHER reference he made" still without pointing out which specific one you want to use as your exemplar.

In the meantime, I leave you with some specifics:

1) Nyquist criteria, in which you will discover that the bandwidth limit for conveying data over a radio wave is limited to less than 1/2 that of the carrier, if you're using simple AM modulation, and really not much better if you're using multiple states per symbol such as QUAM. In the case of ELF, which is going to be only a few dozen Hz to begin with, this is going to pretty much eliminate "thought transference" or whatnot.

2) Shannon's theorem, which tells you that Nyquist was being optimistic. If the channel's not perfect, it's more like 1/10 the carrier, which is what Navy used to use for ELF data.

3) Resolution limits - in general you can't focus EM (including ELF) to less than a wavelength, and in reality it's worse due to diffraction effects. Even if you had a parabolic dish a few tens of thousands of kilometers in diameter to focus your ELF, it's going to be a spot size in the thousands of kilometers. Not neuron sized.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by somerandomuser
 



The only defense is a low frequency shielded room. Something like this:

...but with more attenuation in the sub 1KHz region...so, much thicker than this.


Ok, fair enough, what do you think about a room like that, except an interior and exterior metal cage, separated by an insulator, and connected through a small induction coil of the proper size?

Essentially making it a giant LC damper.



A tuned circuit? There is limited damping in that type of circuit at it resonant frequency. Also, you are only blocking the DC component of the signal and you need to be careful that the capacitor doesn't discharge into you.

Are you suggesting using it like a band pass filter to reject signals outside of the resonant frequency?

ELF would pass through it like it was nothing.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Point me to the scientific articles - I read his magnum opus and stopped when I saw that he didn't have a clue about what he was writing about.


Don't waste my time. If you are not even going to bother to read the material and supporting evidence, then I will not waste my time replying to you.

It is clear that you do not understand this technology, nor the associated physics. As such, your comments are worthless.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Originally posted by Bedlam
Point me to the scientific articles - I read his magnum opus and stopped when I saw that he didn't have a clue about what he was writing about.


Don't waste my time. If you are not even going to bother to read the material and supporting evidence, then I will not waste my time replying to you.

It is clear that you do not understand this technology, nor the associated physics. As such, your comments are worthless.


How did I KNOW you wouldn't read your own stuff and point out the points you're basing your beliefs on. Ok, ok, here's the next thing you'll do - I'll read it, and pick it to pieces, and you will either say "no that's not the point I was referring to", but you won't state which it is, or you'll ring in secret unknown technology - you've already alluded to it - which can't be documented or detailed but which you are sure exists.

As for understanding physics - well, so far you haven't been making many statements here other than 'look, here's a bunch of links that can't be refuted because they're COOL'. And so far, I've started picking them apart and all you say, and you've done it more than once, is "it's OBVIOUS you don't understand it because you disagree". Puh-leeze.

I'm reading through the stuff - and my IQ is dropping steadily - do you know he cites Begich as proof of some of his points? Geez. Anyways, it doesn't stand up to much so far. He's really good at the non-sequitur, though, much better than Begich is. For example - his "scientific proof" here:



To answer this we must turn to this scientific paper. From this paper, we can observe the charge per square centimeter which is around 22-29 microamperes. We can perform some rough math on these figures that will reveal the answer to our question. The equations are rough and leave out a lot of additional factors, that said, the final figures will not be far from the truth and will probably under-estimate the capabilities of current classified technology.

So, using the formula Watts = Voltage x Amperage, we get the following peak power:

0.003 V x 0.0000029 A = 0.0000000087 Watts/cm2


HAHAHAHAHA. Ok - I took a quick look at the scientific paper - and it's a non-sequitur as is most of his stuff. See if you can spot the several errors, misdirections and shaggy dog story in just this one paragraph. Bonus points if you can pick out what he got from the "scientific paper", if it's applicable, and why.

ps: off to dinner - see ya when I get back. See if you can spot at least ONE of the mistakes.
edit on 18-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   


A team of researchers from Berkley, University of California, claim to have developed a new brain imaging technology that will map human minds and recreate dreams and memories. Utilizing the new technology, the researchers were able to map brain patterns of subjects when they were watching videos from YouTube. The team then created another YouTube video based on the imaging and activity of the subjects' brain while they were watching the first video. The research was published on Sept. 22, in the journal Current Biology. For the purposes of this research, the scientists combined functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and computational models which decoded and reconstructed a person's dynamic visual experience. The researchers, who were themselves the subjects, spent hours lying inside an MRI machine and watched two sets of movie trailers while the machine recorded blood flow through the visual cortex, which processes visual information in the brain. While watching the first trailer, a computer program recorded the brain activities of the subjects and created an algorithm against the video's visual patterns. Then the second trailer tests the computer's movie reconstruction algorithm. The reconstruction algorithm resulted in a blurry but continuous 100-clip recreation of the original movie. The technology can, potentially, help scientists to read human minds, dreams and memories; all of which, to date, lie beyond human comprehension. In addition to mapping the human mind, the technology could also improve the lives of people with neurological diseases and will "allow people with no motor skills to go into the MRI for two hours every day and communicate with their families," said Jack Gallant, Professor of Psychology at Berkeley and co-author of the study. However, as the computational models are still in development, the date of implementation of the technology is still uncertain. "The technology will definitely get there, the question is just when," said Gallant.


This stuff regardless of how its done is VERY real!
edit on 18-2-2012 by EzenSurreal888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
As a observer of this thread i think it's clear that somerandomuser is tech savvy and has brought up some compelling information, i'm sure four hundred years ago when a scientist of that day pointed out that the earth was round there were other scientists who refuted this theory with scientific observations that seem to back the theory that the earth was flat, what at the time wasen't known is how the earth could be round.


In another words i think somerandomuser and Bedlam are both very knowledgeable when it comes to the scientific aspects of new types of technology but it's clear that somerandomuser has took the time to read all the articles he posted so to try and dismiss it that he hasen't i think is the wrong angle of this debate.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
How did I KNOW you wouldn't read your own stuff and point out the points you're basing your beliefs on. ...And so far, I've started picking them apart and all you say, and you've done it more than once, is "it's OBVIOUS you don't understand it because you disagree". Puh-leeze.


You haven't picked anything apart. I am well aware that your posts until this point have been nonsense. Let's see if you do any better with the rest of the material.


Originally posted by Bedlam
HAHAHAHAHA. Ok - I took a quick look at the scientific paper - and it's a non-sequitur as is most of his stuff. See if you can spot the several errors, misdirections and shaggy dog story in just this one paragraph. Bonus points if you can pick out what he got from the "scientific paper", if it's applicable, and why.


There is nothing wrong with it, it is a ballpark figure to establish some numbers quickly. If you think the intended function is to provide accurate figures for radiated power, then you are quite wrong. If you had read the comments, then you know this.

There is nothing wrong with the source article and is highly applicable.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mattodlum
The Bride Groom had been Chosen already. I'm waiting for his return.


Here I am! Past, Present, Future.

Freelance M.I.B - 777 When it is time, it is time for his return. He shall play with the A.I. once again to save the world.





(BY the way the book they gave me when I was a child - leviathan by Hobbs, is a joke.)
edit on 18-2-2012 by EzenSurreal888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by somerandomuser
 



A tuned circuit?


Essentially, yes... it's an idea ive been kicking around for awhile now.


There is limited damping in that type of circuit at it resonant frequency. Also, you are only blocking the DC component of the signal and you need to be careful that the capacitor doesn't discharge into you.


Well, considering that the overall capacitance of the two cage layers are connected by the induction coil, I don't really see them building up a significant charge, overall.


Are you suggesting using it like a band pass filter to reject signals outside of the resonant frequency?

ELF would pass through it like it was nothing.


Yes, I was.... But since faraday cages work best at higher frequencies (the mesh size notwithstanding) I was figuring that you would construct the Cage/Inductor assembly to be resonant to extremely low frequency EM radiation, that would give you at least a measure of protection beyond JUST the grounding properties of the cage itself.

Oh, and tell me more about the DC component of the wave, vs the AC component?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Yes, I was.... But since faraday cages work best at higher frequencies (the mesh size notwithstanding) I was figuring that you would construct the Cage/Inductor assembly to be resonant to extremely low frequency EM radiation, that would give you at least a measure of protection beyond JUST the grounding properties of the cage itself.

Oh, and tell me more about the DC component of the wave, vs the AC component?


Well, I'm no expert on shielding, but a resonant cicuit re-radiates the incoming signal. The circuit is like a tuning fork in that regard. So, rather than capturing the signal, it would act as an echo chamber.

As for the DC component, I was just pointing out that an LC circuit only passes AC.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

You haven't picked anything apart. I am well aware that your posts until this point have been nonsense. Let's see if you do any better with the rest of the material.


Then no doubt you can point out specific examples of the nonsense. I'll wait.



There is nothing wrong with the source article and is highly applicable.


There's not much RIGHT with it - any of it. My starting point for the evening is that it's not even a valid ballpark. You can't see the ballpark from where he's at. Ok. You didn't want to (or weren't able to) spot any of the problems in that one small section. Let's start whittling at it.

First - the "scientific paper". It certainly was one. It had no bearing on the premise, but it certainly was a scientific paper. What he was looking for was, apparently, the current in an axon. He chose the Ca++ ionic current to use, probably because the author of that paper didn't spend a lot of time on the sodium or potassium ion currents. But let's go with it, even though I'm not at all sure the Ca++ ion current is predominant. Deepthought's statement was "From this paper, we can observe the charge per square centimeter which is around 22-29 microamperes." Ok, here's the first cluster of mistakes. One, microamperes is not a unit of charge - sloppy at best. Two, it really really should have bothered him (assuming that deepthought IS a him) that the paper was using uA/cm^2 for current, because that's not a current, it's a current density. There is a BIG difference. And it's one he didn't catch - he even tried to USE it to get his units to come out right, which is a major failure.

The paper is using current densities because it simplifies their math - the paper is discussing a multi-compartment model of a neuron. The simulation math comes out easier if you stick with current densities and distributed capacitance - see Pinsky and Rinzel 1994 as referenced by the "scientific paper" if you're into 24 compartment neuron modeling. But the upshot is that the 29 microamperes referenced is per square centimeter of axonal cross section. Not per square centimeter of brain tissue. That's stated over and over in the 'scientific paper'. The problem here is that axon cross sections are spectacularly SMALL. You have to multiply the 29 microamperes per square centimeter of axonal cross section by the actual cross section of an axon in square cm to get the current. Here is a nice cartoony bit of calculation that states that axonal currents are somewhere in the 4.4E-10 Ampere range, or .00044 microamperes, per axon. That's about four orders of magnitude short of what he was using for calculation - an extremely bad goof, caused by deepthought not actually understanding what he was reading. Sloppy work. If he wanted to get a decent number for the average axonal current in a cm^3 of brain matter, he'd need to know how many axons that IS,not easy to do. Brain's not all neurons by any stretch.

Next, you'll notice that he screws up the next step as well - he takes a power density (he even carries the 1/m^2 term along) and tries to calculate a spherical power density - multiplying two terms, both with 1/m^2 terms in them, he would have gotten a 1/m^4th if done right, he just handwaves it and keeps 1/m^2 - the error should have told him something was wrong but he blows smoke and hopes you won't notice the mistake.

Finally, the biggest shaggy dog of all, and you didn't get it. Skipping all the other mistakes he's made in just one or two paragraphs here, the biggest false leap of all yawns before you. He's telling you that every bit of dissipated electrical energy in that neuron is converted to RF. Think about that one. Even if he'd got the current right, you can't just say P = IV -> all emitted RF. No no no. That's not how that works. At all. Not nearly. Let's take his "scientific paper" - they're saying that the firing frequency of their model is something like 270Hz (see page 1552). You've got an axon maybe 1cm in length, its behavior is dominated by straight ohmic resistance (on the order of 2.5E8 ohms for a 1cm length - op cit). So what you're going to have happen to that I*V product is that it's going to be dissipated as straight I2R heat loss. Tomorrow - why that's so. First step is to understand that when you're putting a few nanoamps in a 2500 megohm path, that resistance is going to dominate the radiative impedance of the thing viewed as an antenna. Also the thing is a few hundred kilometers too short - it's the same reason your speaker wires don't radiate all your sound away as ELF/SLF. The speaker wire seen as an antenna for radiating it is so very very short, it's all e-field and nothing radiates as RF at all. A radio engineer would say it's totally capacitive as an antenna.


edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Oh, by the way, checking his numbers just to see if he'd muffed something else, he puts down 30mv as .003V (wrong) and 29 microamps as .0000029 Amps, also wrong. He did do the cm^2 to m^2 conversion correctly, so he can at least multiply by 10000, even though he next missed that he was multiplying two areas to get an area - also wrong.




top topics



 
99
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join