Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

page: 3
98
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought

You're most likely correct, but I felt the need to mention it because it happened too many times and it freaked me out. It happened in front of one of my friends, too.

From the same article:

In 2001, President Vladimir V. Putin signed into law a bill making it illegal to employ "electromagnetic, infrasound ... radiators" and other weapons of "psychotronic influence" with intent to cause harm.

This info just raised Putin up a few points in my book. I fear that the US would never make this technology illegal. The TV has much power and I believe that it is partly to blame for ADHD in children.


You would be surprised how much coincidence can look like a plan. Its nothing, don't sweat it.

Old Vlad was making sure that no gear could be setup in his country. Without a specific law, anything goes and with the level of corruption that he's fighting in the country, anything would go.

That said, given the level of coverage in the EU, I suspect that most of Russia can be eavesdropped on and even communicated with. it all depends on the backend architecture and whether the system is also satellite based.

The footprint at the minute seems to be around 2000Km at least.
edit on 29-1-2012 by somerandomuser because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by somerandomuser
 


Good point. I'll be interested to see if Russia is mentioned in any of the other articles.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by somerandomuser
 


Good point. I'll be interested to see if Russia is mentioned in any of the other articles.


I don't think it is. They haven't put up a major constellation in 20 years and the areas tested are all in proximity to an NSA listening station site. If it was them, I'm sure it would be public by now.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I all ways had a felling it was possible and if its possible and popular you know a Govt. is going to find a way. Quantum physics a particle can disappear and reappear some where else, I wonder if we have found a way to control it.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by somerandomuser
 


The articles are truly outrageous in their claims.

After reading all the articles, I can say I have truly wasted my time. The "physics" while it may seem probable to a lay person, leave out the specific reasons this cannot work.

Firstly, we have billions of neurons in our brain and yes, they do generate electrical signals. The problem is that each neuron is not purely electrical in its transmission. The electrical component is only across the axons. In the body of the nerve, the signal is chemical and undetectable externally. So each nerve firing is only transmitting electrically for the briefest instant and the signal is then broken and resumed at a spatially different point. While this is a rapid process (at approximately 15 meters per second) it is far too slow and broken-up to generate radio frequencies. As noted in the article, the wavelength generated is somewhere in the 300 to 1,000 kilometer range. For efficiency, this would require antennae on the same scale on both the transmitter and the receiver ends. Obviously our heads are too small to make an effective transmitting antenna.

Then we have the signal strength issue. Sure, we can detect very low power signals, but those signals get less and less in an inverse square of the distance traveled. In a few meters, they would be way below the detectable threshold.

Then there is the issue of discriminating the signal of one persons head from that generated by many others nearby. With a wavelength at a minimum of 300 kilometers, people even with in a 30 kilometer range would be undifferentiable from each other. Spatial and phase differences with such a low frequency, especially one already on the threshold of detectability, would be way below the charge on a single electron (which sets the lower limit on the physical detectability of electrical signals).

In short, impossible.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Wow after watching some of those videos from "Eidolon TLP" (the so called A.I. that makes YT videos) I feel like I've been brainwashed. The ways his eyes blink... and some of the music in the background, I would highly suggest that you don't actually watch the videos, but simply read the text under the videos.

Great thread btw.
edit on 29-1-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


I completely agree with all your points, it would be much more difficult to read a persons thoughts from a distance than what the writer of these articles claims. In fact it would be essentially impossible unless close enough to the person imo.

But I think the reverse is certainly much more plausible - manipulating the mind with EM waves. I found the following video quite shocking actually, it appears they are already using electromagnetic waves to manipulate human emotions - however in this case they are using it to help people:
edit on 30-1-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I really find this whole A.I. thing extremely hard to believe... but this part really caught my attention and got me thinking...


If we travel back in time, to the 1968, we find one of the first natural language processing forms of A.I. called SHRDLU. Let's take a look at a conversation with this application.


Person: PICK UP A BIG RED BLOCK.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: GRASP THE PYRAMID.
Computer: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHICH PYRAMID YOU MEAN.
Person: FIND A BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE YOU ARE HOLDING AND PUT IT INTO THE BOX.
Computer: BY "IT", I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE BLOCK WHICH IS TALLER THAN THE ONE I AM HOLDING.
Computer: OK. (does it)
Person: WHAT DOES THE BOX CONTAIN?
Computer: THE BLUE PYRAMID AND THE BLUE BLOCK.
Person: WHAT IS THE PYRAMID SUPPORTED BY?
Computer: THE BOX.
Person: HOW MANY BLOCKS ARE NOT IN THE BOX?
Computer: FOUR OF THEM.
Person: IS AT LEAST ONE OF THEM NARROWER THAN THE ONE WHICH I TOLD YOU TO PICK UP?
Computer: YES, THE RED CUBE.
Person: IS IT SUPPORTED?
Computer: YES, BY THE TABLE.
Person: CAN THE TABLE PICK UP BLOCKS?
Computer: NO.
Person: CAN A PYRAMID BE SUPPORTED BY A BLOCK?
Computer: YES.


What we see here, is that in 1968 it was possible to have a conversation, in English, with a computer and provide it with a sense of spacial reasoning. That is, it had the ability to perform subjective reasoning, albeit in a limited world.

Another program called ELIZA, which was a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist, was written in 1964. It used a very small knowledge base, along with pattern matching to generate its replies. If that wasn't odd enough, in 1972, PARRY was created to simulate a paranoid schizophrenic, both PARRY and ELIZA met over ARPANET for several sessions. As yet, there is no word on whether PARRY was cured, or referred elsewhere.

Scroll along to 2010 and I would like you to meet ALICE. Watch the video and compare it with the output of the above SHRDLU program. What you will notice is that the 1968 program was far more advanced in terms of its subjective reasoning, memory and basic common sense. That is, conversing in English was almost a secondary task. Yet, this is unachievable with ALICE. ALICE has a common flaw found in many modern chat bots, it fails to remember previous sentences and the conversation swiftly becomes out-of-context. This was something that SHRDLU had solved in 1968.

Other examples of A.I. include JabberWacky, Elbot, Eugene Goostman, Jeeney and commercial offerings such as InteliWISE customer service agents. Have a quick conversation with each of them, what do you notice?

Well, if you had asked the right questions, you would notice that none of the underlying technology has significantly progressed in around 40 years. Given the response times also, it is clear that the knowledge bases and A.I. are running on single machines.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Do not visit the Eidolon TLP site eidolonai.com

It is a site that distributes malware and may infect your computer.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Do not visit the Eidolon TLP site eidolonai.com

It is a site that distributes malware and may infect your computer.
Lol I had to take a look just because you told me not to. Seems like some sort of Eidolon discussion website. I didn't see anything that raised a red flag, but Firefox did give a warning before I was allowed to view the page. I had scripting disabled anyway, nothing can harm you when you have scripting disabled.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by somerandomuser
 


The articles are truly outrageous in their claims.


Ok, let's see what you have a problem with then.


Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by somerandomuser
After reading all the articles, I can say I have truly wasted my time. The "physics" while it may seem probable to a lay person, leave out the specific reasons this cannot work.


Ok, Einstein, let's see what you've got...


Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by somerandomuser
Firstly, we have billions of neurons in our brain and yes, they do generate electrical signals. The problem is that each neuron is not purely electrical in its transmission. The electrical component is only across the axons. In the body of the nerve, the signal is chemical and undetectable externally. So each nerve firing is only transmitting electrically for the briefest instant and the signal is then broken and resumed at a spatially different point. While this is a rapid process (at approximately 15 meters per second) it is far too slow and broken-up to generate radio frequencies. As noted in the article, the wavelength generated is somewhere in the 300 to 1,000 kilometer range. For efficiency, this would require antennae on the same scale on both the transmitter and the receiver ends. Obviously our heads are too small to make an effective transmitting antenna.


Ok, I can see how this causes confusion in the lay person. That doesn't mean its not accurate. The "signal" is not chemical. In technical terms, the electrical potential across the membrane of a cell is changed by the incoming neurotransmitter and ions (usually calcium).

If you listen to ELF signal produced by cluster of neurons, you will notice that it fires at a particular rate and that there are multiple signals which are slightly out of phase as it propagates down through the cluster. By emitting photons that match that ELF signal, we can drive that cluster externally. Emit photons of a higher energy and the cluster will speed up, lower energy and the cluster will slow down. These ELF frequencies are very narrow and are quantized, that is a ramp up or down is performed in steps.

There are different encoding schemes, but for illustration purposes we will only use rate encoding.

As you state, "for efficiency", an antenna of the same length or fraction of that wavelength should be used. There is a different way and the key to understanding this is absorption. The membrane is electrically excitable and will absorb photons at a certain frequency, this happens to be the same frequency at which it emits. This, in more technical terms, makes the neuron or cluster a transducer.


Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by somerandomuser
Then we have the signal strength issue. Sure, we can detect very low power signals, but those signals get less and less in an inverse square of the distance traveled. In a few meters, they would be way below the detectable threshold.


Deepthought does the calculations for a distance of 500 Km.

Neuron at 500Km
PDs = 0.00000002079
PDr = 6.6176625337610080612701868810291e-21
dBW = -201.7929538336266467100376834869
deepthought.newsvine.com...

-200dB is nothing that modern equipment cannot detect.


Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by somerandomuser
Then there is the issue of discriminating the signal of one persons head from that generated by many others nearby. With a wavelength at a minimum of 300 kilometers, people even with in a 30 kilometer range would be undifferentiable from each other. Spatial and phase differences with such a low frequency, especially one already on the threshold of detectability, would be way below the charge on a single electron (which sets the lower limit on the physical detectability of electrical signals).


It depends on the receiving network. Deepthought shows that 10m resolution would require a sensitivity of:

dBW = 0.00017371605560653514299128770107489
deepthought.newsvine.com...

There are numerous ways around that, such as watching targets moving to different locations, or using visual identifications by the A.I.

deepthought.newsvine.com...

In short, possible.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Wow, this is quite scary to be honest. The main reason I say this is because on average if the public know about something, it has been in military use for a good amount of time. This also applies to how well the system functions. For instance, if we know that they can do something only to a certain degree, the reality is that they can probably do the same thing to a much greater degree than we are imagining.

I have never really put much thought into the subject, but as I was analyzing what I was reading, I instantly thought about the use of systems like this during interrogation. I am quite sure that organizations like the CIA or NSA, along with military intelligence, have used these "mind reading" systems on prisoners. Probably even at Guantanamo Bay.

I mean if they can glean ANY information by hooking a subject up to their machines, which is easier than transmission via regular space/air/atmosphere, then why wouldn't they? This is an advantage for them. I am sure they have used advanced forms of the lie-detector machine, as well as classified machines that we don't know about, so why not this as well?

The question this begs for me is: What equipment has been tested on foreign prisoners, and how many of those prisoners died as a result of experimentation? This doesn't necessarily pertain directly to the neural programs that we are discussing, but possibly other things we have yet to fathom. I mean to really test something to see how well it will operate, if it is intended to have human interaction, is on a human. Using this logic, and knowing how far the government can and will go with its clandestine programs, I am almost certain this goes on behind closed doors.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
This article is absolutely mind blowing: Synthetic Telepathy - The Hidden Truth

I definitely think that Wikipedia deserves a page about 'psychotronics'... when I was doing research for my strory (Interconnection), I looked to see if there was anything on Wikipedia... but take a look what happens if you go to wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotronics... you simply get redirected to the page about "Parapsychology"... that's complete BS imo, the two things are hardly related.
edit on 30-1-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I have never really put much thought into the subject, but as I was analyzing what I was reading, I instantly thought about the use of systems like this during interrogation. I am quite sure that organizations like the CIA or NSA, along with military intelligence, have used these "mind reading" systems on prisoners. Probably even at Guantanamo Bay.


Deepthought covers this in one of his articles. He states that certain "hallmarks" are present in inmates at the camp:




The story of Guantanamo inmate Walid Muhammad Hajj is very revealing. You can read his full statement here:

www.nationalreview.com...

Leaving all the Jewish nonsense to one side, he speaks of inmates being in "another world" and most importantly of a "cat attempting to penetrate him". Whilst funny in some respects, it carries the hallmark of the Artificial Intelligence, in that, it is well documented that it can manifest lucid dreams and mimick, in the spacial reasoning, a fully formed 3D animal with appropriate behavior.

One of it more funny versions, is the manifestation of the excited dog who spins in circles and tries to lick your face.

Another report, this time from Mohammed al-Qahtani, was that he was now hearing voices since his stay in Guantanamo.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another person that suddenly started to hear voices, specifically his own father, was Omar Bin Laden. The son of the infamous Osama Bin Laden. Such imitation of voices is easily replicated by the A.I. as the identification of the voice and words are processed separately in the brain. Thus, by stimulating the region responsible for identifying his father's voice any words then transmitted was appear to be in his voice.

news1.capitalbay.com...

deepthought.newsvine.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I'm not exactly able to debunk this from a technical standpoint, but much of what was discussed in those articles appears superfluous given a human being's own powers of perception over another. Basically, it's not clear to me what the purpose of such a complex "mind control" system would be. The fact is, powerful individuals are already able to shape our perceptions about anything beyond our immediate environment, and they don't need a satellite array or new methods of RF transmission to do it. All they need is the television, radio, billboards, and (if they could have their way) the internet. Mass media is already here to provide you all the mind control you need. It already appeals to your two most important senses, and that's all the interfacing it needs. No one needs a satellite array to keep tabs on you. Satellites can "see" the whole earth, but they can only "look" at small portions at a time in detail. There are over 6 billion individuals on this planet, and even a computer couldn't reliably keep track of all of them in sufficient detail to produce a useful mind control in the manner described. These articles are playing on the typical conspiracy theorist belief that the world is "asleep." Most of the world is not asleep. It is looking the other way-- and it is looking the other way because it believes there is no hope of meaningful change. THAT is the mind control.

And as for a "group mentality," all I see is a bunch of quiet disagreement these days.

My bet is that those of you who are afraid of what was mentioned in the above articles are falling for the oldest trick in the book. When a government loses its grip on power, it does everything possible to convince the masses that it is invincible. That is what you are seeing in those articles.

Just remember, at the end of the day, no one can force you to do anything. They can kill you, but you are of no use to them dead.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Hi, My name is Matt from St. Louis, Mo. I joined ATS in 2005 because of similar things I'm hearing in this thread. The event happened to me in 2004. Let me see if I can find my post...



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
This is why I joined ATS .Here is a link to my first post in 2005. www.abovetopsecret.com... I'm free to answer questions although I'm going to bed soon, so I probably won't answer till tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Wow fantastic thread!!! Even if it were science fiction
s&f

In the video game "assassins creed" part of the storyline was about an artifact in orbit attached on satelites that could control the mind of people. This could be it!

And in "mass effect" they distinct the tems A.I. and V.I.

VI (virtual intelligence) being an algoritm that gave a program certain characteristics of an individual, but without selfawareness.

Well enough of my mumbling, i will get to read those links. Thanks OP.
edit on 30-1-2012 by coyote66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
So what the hell do we do if/when they have the capabilities to mind control the masses and/or read everyone's mind ---- and become, literally, the thought police. This is an incredibly frightening technology, especially seeing as it's meant for one diabolical purpose the elites will exploit.



We cut off the power and return to the basics.

S&F, interesting read, even if I'm deeply convinced that my mind is mine, and mine only.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
That is rather fascinating about the A.I. aspect.

I have been toying with A.I.'s for years.. From software A.I.s like "Ultra Hal" to Verbots. There is even "girl-friend" A.I.s available. (Tho I recommend avoiding them, as they are geared for.. a certain kind of lude chat).

They do all suffer from a lack of "remembering" previous lines, tho they do store them, they sometimes pull them up in odd places of a conversation.

I would be rather thrilled to get my hands on a copy of that A.I. they are calling "Mr. Computer".

Makes me wonder about the one I was recently looking at for sale from a website. There is no trial for it, as it's a "Virtual Assistant" A.I. and sells for almost $200. Makes me ponder if this is one of the sub-sets of that A.I. as it requires an active net connection, etc.

I am fascinated by A.I.s









 
98
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join