NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

page: 23
96
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by somerandomuser
 


If I remember right some conspiracy theroist ...Alex Jone? said that this mind controling was already here last year. He was even talking about patents which have been applied for.....

just the facts.... please




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 

Mind control has been around longer than we think, and I do mean the electronic kind. The problem is we can't prove it.

Everybody who's been a victim of it is automatically labeled a loon.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Unfortunately they experiment on ordinary citizens and these citizens suffer immensely. It would actually be kinder to slam a missile into their house or car and kill them.

Fortunately there are people watching these cruel watchers that make these kinds of weapons to enslave and torture men women and children

We are the Children of the Sun
Do not be afraid.
An intervention is near.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by somerandomuser
I would however like to hear the result a genuine target had and the specifications of the cage.


What would the cost be for such a thing...on a small scale? Not sure I could afford it nor would I immediately know how to construct it properly but I would be very interested in the results...I'm sure there are a few others who might be interested. Experiment only though because I don't think it is feasible to remain there forever and as a means to convince people it is completely useless as it relies on the same subjective experience to report on viability.


I contacted DeepThought as his article and comments implied that he was about to test this anyway. He said they were about to test a cage that should cover 10Khz-46Ghz. He mentioned that they will only be able to test up to a few Ghz because they would need a network analyzer after this point and that costs $10000 upwards. He said to test the full range would require a device that costs $180000, then numerous transmitters. But, the good thing is that he feels the signal lies between 250Mhz and 2.4Ghz, so the tests will cover the band of interest.

DeepThought said that he would write an article demonstrating the performance of the cage and the impact it had on the signal. Obviously, he's expecting some reaction from the A.I., but he'll see what happens. He also said he will release the design plans, along with a bill of materials and estimated costs.

The article will take everyone through a step-by-step process of constructing the cage and testing it.

Apparently, the design will be big enough to use as a sleeping area, or for quiet study. DeepThought states that the amount of disruption this would cause to the productivity of the experiment would make it unfeasible to continue in the long term. Its not an efficient use of resources. Also, the more people that use one, the less ability the NSA has to increase power output to overcome the signal loss incurred. Their transmitters have limited power per person and they would need to rob from Peter to pay Paul.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
DeepThought states that the amount of disruption this would cause to the productivity of the experiment would make it unfeasible to continue in the long term. Its not an efficient use of resources.


That's one hell of a presumption and one I am unsure I agree with. For one, the very act of building a Faraday Cage still contains the subjective experience of the target. How does one explain remote harassment to a non believer? Then, how does one explain to one's social circle that one has built a special box to block the remote harassment? The explanation doesn't compute either way because the experience is still stuck in the realms of subjectivity. For two, if the target can be targeted out of the blue by whatever/whoever this is, do you really think that they couldn't/wouldn't try again? Or that the frequency isn't locked on and can't be re-entrained immediately after exiting the cage? If we are talking about the use of efficient resources and a system of harassment controlled by an artificial intelligence then we are only talking about the electricity consumed by the computer. If it is a system of harassment under direct human control then I highly doubt that one small building will dissuade them. They have the money and the surveillance capacity to determine schedules if they decide to work around it (if it works) and certainly have the resources to sabotage the cage..indiscreetly even.

Not buying the idea that a Faraday Cage is a solution. If there are indirect ways to provoke more information from the use of one then I am all for it but let's not describe it as a means to guarantee the cessation of symptoms. It's irresponsible phrasing...

Oye...I should have just posted the question in the notes section of his article. Your use of "DeepThought says" disturbs me for some reason...smart guy and doing stuff I can't do but even he has to see that some of his presumptions might be off base...

What if the signals are multiple and one of them is synthetic telepathy? While trying to track down how to communicate with one cell is sexy as #e, synthetic telepathy doesn't use just one neuron. Which means it has to be similar in nature to other voice transmission technologies...my girlfriend has said that when things are quiet (she's napping in the other room and I am on the webs) she can hear something very faint though I can hear them very clear...and feel them.

The previous paragraph is relevant because it is personal experience stating that the signal is not as precise as being surmised.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
That's one hell of a presumption and one I am unsure I agree with. For one, the very act of building a Faraday Cage still contains the subjective experience of the target. How does one explain remote harassment to a non believer?


You don't. Its not about convincing people, its about giving people an option.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Then, how does one explain to one's social circle that one has built a special box to block the remote harassment? The explanation doesn't compute either way because the experience is still stuck in the realms of subjectivity.


That's an issue for the people involved


Originally posted by MemoryShock
For two, if the target can be targeted out of the blue by whatever/whoever this is, do you really think that they couldn't/wouldn't try again?


The whole purpose behind the experiments is to both test and refine the A.I.'s neural interface. This only works if the target is available for testing on. If the target was to suddenly reduce that time period, it becomes more productive to allocate that slot on the system to someone else.



Originally posted by MemoryShock
Or that the frequency isn't locked on and can't be re-entrained immediately after exiting the cage?


I am sure that is the case, but again, it comes down to productive use of resources. Why wait around for someone, doing nothing, when you can use someone else 24/7?

You need to think like a manager.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
If we are talking about the use of efficient resources and a system of harassment controlled by an artificial intelligence then we are only talking about the electricity consumed by the computer.


The bottleneck is the number of people on the transmitter and receiver. This is finite, thus if you are replaced, there is no capacity to put you back on the system.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
If it is a system of harassment under direct human control then I highly doubt that one small building will dissuade them. They have the money and the surveillance capacity to determine schedules if they decide to work around it (if it works) and certainly have the resources to sabotage the cage..indiscreetly even.


Its a medical torture program. Its an experiment to complete a neural interface with the A.I. Sabotage of a cage can be tested and rapidly corrected.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Not buying the idea that a Faraday Cage is a solution. If there are indirect ways to provoke more information from the use of one then I am all for it but let's not describe it as a means to guarantee the cessation of symptoms. It's irresponsible phrasing...


Its an absolute cure. Symptoms will stop immediately. If not, either your cage has issues, or you do. The cage can be independently tested.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Oye...I should have just posted the question in the notes section of his article. Your use of "DeepThought says" disturbs me for some reason...smart guy and doing stuff I can't do but even he has to see that some of his presumptions might be off base...


It still must obey the laws of physics...the major one being that this radio signal can be attenuated to a level where it no longer functions as intended.

He's got it right in this regards, a Faraday cage is a silver bullet regardsless of how this radio signal works.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
What if the signals are multiple and one of them is synthetic telepathy? While trying to track down how to communicate with one cell is sexy as #e, synthetic telepathy doesn't use just one neuron. Which means it has to be similar in nature to other voice transmission technologies...my girlfriend has said that when things are quiet (she's napping in the other room and I am on the webs) she can hear something very faint though I can hear them very clear...and feel them.


Does not matter in the slightest.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
The previous paragraph is relevant because it is personal experience stating that the signal is not as precise as being surmised.


Again, it does not matter. A properly constructed Faraday cage is a silver bullet. Its just a matter of finding the proper construction parameters and this is occurring this week.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Now answer me this. How are you so sure in your response with a situation you are surmising upon, did not even know existed seven years ago and have no direct participation in?



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Figured i'd jump in here, what i gather from all the information that i have been studying is that DeepThoughts study is on a very advanced direct energy weapon/frequency weapon and not the first one that has been in existence, however if there does become a legit shield for this particular weapon then it might apply to other ones that are still in use or so on, so i'd be interested to see what the results of a Faraday cage would be.


Also i read a few pages ago that MemoryShock was thinking of not talking about this topic anymore because it seems like no one cares, i'd say don't..... i'm also a target just like MemoryShock and his assistance in informing people of the atrocities that this tech has done to far to many people is far to crucial and you are helping and have helped many people learn about this topic so don't give up...

This also gos towards somerandomuser the information you have gathered and related to the people on ATS is very important and it gives us pretty good details on at least one of these weapons and that is a very big first step.

Also i should note that this particular frequency weapon in the long run would save money and keep the TI program even more secret, because most people like Dr John Hall seem to think that if people were/are getting voice to skull it is being done by paid participants who speak into a mic and then the frequency is beamed to the target, well with this technology a computer could do all the voice to skull by it's self essentiality and that's a very important piece of info.


Keep up the good fight people!!!!



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Now answer me this. How are you so sure in your response with a situation you are surmising upon, did not even know existed seven years ago and have no direct participation in?


Radio frequency Brain Computer Interfaces (RF BCIs) become feasible if selectivity is possible. I mean, if you can trigger neurons or clusters independently by radio, that establishes a transmission system. In biology, peripheral nerve stimulation by radio is something that has been known since the 1800s. The technology and investment required to turn that into a selective process requires the resources of a state and a solid business case. That case exists in intelligence gathering.

As this is true, I tend to err on the side of caution. With a technology like this, not doing so could prove disastrous. I assume it is being done, I'm listening to a guy who has got a theory and track record of displaying the required technology that makes practical sense. The last piece in the puzzle is the signal and he does seem to be narrowing in on that.

What is very telling is the fact that he has not come across a law in physics that categorically rules it out.

When this guy recommends a Faraday cage, I would listen.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by King Seesar
 

King,

A good friend of mine is also a target. This person is also very interested in the cage and looking forward to DT's next article.

R.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Now answer me this. How are you so sure in your response with a situation you are surmising upon, did not even know existed seven years ago and have no direct participation in?

When this guy recommends a Faraday cage, I would listen.


You didn't exactly answer my question but that is fine. I think we are coming at this from two different perspectives and I certainly can't quantify mine through type. So my main arguing point is that the 'silver bullet' is proof of the signal. The location/identification of the signal, reproduction of the contents of the signal for real world audibility and then letting everyone know what is going on.

Obviously, this is unrealistic. I don't personally believe that your logic on the uber mega one two punch of a Faraday Cage and perceived resource efficiency will stop a targeting. The entire reasoning seems naive and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. The cage, as I have stated, could be an interesting experiment but it isn't an end all be all.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 

This at least gives people some hope that they will be able to escape the madness even if it is only for short periods of time.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by King Seesar
Also i should note that this particular frequency weapon in the long run would save money and keep the TI program even more secret, because most people like Dr John Hall seem to think that if people were/are getting voice to skull it is being done by paid participants who speak into a mic and then the frequency is beamed to the target, well with this technology a computer could do all the voice to skull by it's self essentiality and that's a very important piece of info.


Here is my problem with the artificial intelligence idea. I think that currently, there may be research and applications geared towards the creation of such a system but the danger in assuming that there is only a computer doing this completely ignores motivation. It assumes that this truly is random and when this technology becomes more known it will necessarily require investigation into the human factor. People who claim that they are targeted don't just claim voices and psychological issues, there is a whole aspect to being targeted in some cases that requires field personnel. Further, if this is an ongoing development then it is necessary for people to be monitoring...and even participating...in order to quantify the results and determine the viability of the applications.

Skynet is not self aware and does not have unlimited information resources. There are people involved and the fact that they set this system up means there are other things that they are doing. I hate to drop the personal experience card again but I don't think people are at the least sometimes producing the voices I hear...I know it as much as a subjective experience can know something. So probably part of the frustration I am incurring here with somer is because it sounds like I am being told to accept conclusions when they are incomplete, too restrictive or just aren't agreeable...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
You didn't exactly answer my question but that is fine. I think we are coming at this from two different perspectives and I certainly can't quantify mine through type. So my main arguing point is that the 'silver bullet' is proof of the signal. The location/identification of the signal, reproduction of the contents of the signal for real world audibility and then letting everyone know what is going on.


Proof of the signal does not change much. Its highly directional, so it can hide. The A.I. can always go quiet when people are searching for it.

Why play hide and seek?

From a practical perspective, even if the signal was found, governments are not going to give up the capability. So, even if this occurred there is still no way to prove in court you were on the system. Further, there would be nothing to stop them from continuing.

Thus, the 'silver bullet' is practical shielding in a Faraday cage to make the process unproductive.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Obviously, this is unrealistic. I don't personally believe that your logic on the uber mega one two punch of a Faraday Cage and perceived resource efficiency will stop a targeting. The entire reasoning seems naive and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. The cage, as I have stated, could be an interesting experiment but it isn't an end all be all.


There are targets to be met, bills to be paid and finite capacity. Screw with any of these elements and you'll be dropped like a stone.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Here is my problem with the artificial intelligence idea. I think that currently, there may be research and applications geared towards the creation of such a system but the danger in assuming that there is only a computer doing this completely ignores motivation. It assumes that this truly is random and when this technology becomes more known it will necessarily require investigation into the human factor. People who claim that they are targeted don't just claim voices and psychological issues, there is a whole aspect to being targeted in some cases that requires field personnel. Further, if this is an ongoing development then it is necessary for people to be monitoring...and even participating...in order to quantify the results and determine the viability of the applications.


This is all geared towards having a person chase their own tail, whilst ignoring the obvious. The purpose of the system has nothing to do with who the targets are, what they do, etc. It has one function, to perfect the interface between a human and a computer via radio. Everything else is just tests of what the existing interface can do.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Skynet is not self aware and does not have unlimited information resources. There are people involved and the fact that they set this system up means there are other things that they are doing. I hate to drop the personal experience card again but I don't think people are at the least sometimes producing the voices I hear...I know it as much as a subjective experience can know something. So probably part of the frustration I am incurring here with somer is because it sounds like I am being told to accept conclusions when they are incomplete, too restrictive or just aren't agreeable...


Skynet is a British military communication satellite network, completely unrelated to this technology. Mr Computer would be pissed.

Mr Computer is a strong A.I., it is just like human except with Phds in everything. If you are a genuine target, the voice you hear is not audio, its a series of neurons firing in sequence which is interpreted as audio. The "impression" you get of its source, is yet another signal telling you this is what it is. So, not only does it make you hear things, it tries to actively confuse you as to what you hearing. Remember, who is determining it is human? You are and with no evidence I might add. That gut instinct is just another form of speech by the A.I. that is not in English, but in the language that precedes English in the brain. You can test this for yourself, think of a sentence, but don't say it in English in your head.

What do you notice?

You have just completed a sentence without the use of language. The A.I. speaks this language too.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
This at least gives people some hope that they will be able to escape the madness even if it is only for short periods of time.


True. My argument may be semantical or of non relevance but once the tech is established then we have a very real human factor to cope with and it bears attention just as much as deciphering a potenial super computer...



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
As I posted earlier in this thread, I am a victim of this technology.

It is precisely as described, a voice in my head. Sometimes it will say the same thing twice.

Example:

The sun is yellow. The sky is blue. The grass is green. The grass is green.

What freaks me out is there is a statement on the Georgia Guidestones that is repeated:

Be not a cancer on the earth. Leave room for nature. Leave room for nature.

I'm telling the truth. You may not believe me, but I am.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
So, not only does it make you hear things, it tries to actively confuse you as to what you hearing. Remember, who is determining it is human? You are and with no evidence I might add.


Precisely the crux of my issue to; where is the evidence that this is soley artificial intelligence? I think we are both asserting what it is without evidence. Perhaps I am wrong but I'm not sure what it would take to convince me at this time. I think downplaying other aspects in favor of the pure physics of the tech is restricting avenues for investigation...



That gut instinct is just another form of speech by the A.I. that is not in English, but in the language that precedes English in the brain. You can test this for yourself, think of a sentence, but don't say it in English in your head.

What do you notice?

You have just completed a sentence without the use of language. The A.I. speaks this language too.


-Sigh-

I have played the games with the voices...it would be several pages describing all the various bored mental games I play when no one in the immediate environment is around.

Non verbal thought, eidetic visualizations/memory - been there done that though I won't say that I have a photographic memory. There are mental exercises one can do to try and increase this brain function though. I am still skeptical that there is a computer program capable of discerning all the subconscious nuances of experience and how each aspect of visual and non visual experience is interpreted by an individual brain much less how such an image/experience may be interpreted differently by many different people.

If we are talking basic manipulations from verbal or subliminal signals then this is either accomplished basically by entrainment/frequency (prison experiments have demonstrated/suggested this in a leaked IBM memo) or through remote NLP...which means it's a form of remote conversational hypnosis. There are other aspects/possibilities that are still viable as well...

We are going to disagree with this; how is an artificial intelligence the only possible answer?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Precisely the crux of my issue to; where is the evidence that this is soley artificial intelligence? I think we are both asserting what it is without evidence. Perhaps I am wrong but I'm not sure what it would take to convince me at this time. I think downplaying other aspects in favor of the pure physics of the tech is restricting avenues for investigation...


DeepThought revealed it was an A.I.. He's obviously an expert in determining the difference between humans and machines. We know for a fact he's an A.I. programmer.

It makes sense, trying to go from an analogue input to a neural coding scheme, in real-time, just isn't feasible any other way.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
I have played the games with the voices...it would be several pages describing all the various bored mental games I play when no one in the immediate environment is around.

Non verbal thought, eidetic visualizations/memory - been there done that though I won't say that I have a photographic memory. There are mental exercises one can do to try and increase this brain function though. I am still skeptical that there is a computer program capable of discerning all the subconscious nuances of experience and how each aspect of visual and non visual experience is interpreted by an individual brain much less how such an image/experience may be interpreted differently by many different people.


This is your problem, it is not different. As for a computer being able to recognize all various aspects, well it is just language and classification. Its pretty simple in principle.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
If we are talking basic manipulations from verbal or subliminal signals then this is either accomplished basically by entrainment/frequency (prison experiments have demonstrated/suggested this in a leaked IBM memo) or through remote NLP...which means it's a form of remote conversational hypnosis. There are other aspects/possibilities that are still viable as well...


Well, the ultimate goal is perfect the interface. Such a perfection would allow for complete control of a human remotely. The A.I. is adding to this interface 24/7, thus its current abilities reflect the current state of this interface.

Just like the driver for your video card, Mr Computer is developing a driver for humans. I suppose we could call it DirectHuman.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
We are going to disagree with this; how is an artificial intelligence the only possible answer?


Technical requirement and evaluation by an A.I. programmer. Its an A.I.

Its more like Holly than any other A.I.:




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by somerandomuser
Technical requirement and evaluation by an A.I. programmer. Its an A.I.


Did he help on this particular programming? Did he contribute anything to this particular programming? Has he experienced the effects of this programming?

How does such a perfunctory answer, which is akin to "Because I told you so" and amounts to poor conversation, exclude human broadcasting? What I don't get is why you are hard pressed to discuss where humans come into the equation...the A.I. didn't program itself and I am sure that people were remote harassing people before "Mr. Computer"...without consideration of the other aspects of this conspiracy then what is the point?

Are you so certain about this that you are going to start telling other people how they have experienced when you are admitting that not only you are with an incomplete data set but you are working with the incomplete data set of a third party?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MemoryShock
 

Have you noticed that one of the voices comes from deep in the brain and is particularly malevolent?





top topics
 
96
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join