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.
Here are a couple examples of nonsense in the video, which you should have heard (The video is on youtube also if you had trouble with that player):
Originally posted by Pilot
I didn't think there was anything woo about the film at all, at least the part I was able to watch. I don't understand why this thread devolved into chaos.
"The frequency of a wave is measured in Hertz. This refers to the number of oscillations the wave makes each second. Frequencies range from a billionth the size of an atom, to the length of the universe itself."
The part of the text they highlight also adds that "Electromagnetic fields of extremely low frequency have been shown at a high statistical level to influence circadian rhythms".
"(Weaver) discovered that when Schumann Resonance was filtered out of the bunker, the student's physical and mental health would suffer"
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Bedlam
You have it really easy, sitting back in your chair and saying, "Oh, they're schizophrenic" or "Oh, they're faking it," without any need to actually look into the research done on the subjects and the personal accounts given by the psychologists, scientists, military officers, and other highly trained personnel who give testimony to the validity of astral projection and other psychic phenomena.
At the very least, they've seen things they can't explain - things they are PAID to explain, but cannot. Are you able to give answers that they would be satisfied with, when they themselves could not?
Oh, well, yeah, I have looked into it. Actually, I've been tested for it, can't do it at all. I can juggle the brainwave indicators into position, but then...nothing. Total muggle. I think I've met two, maybe three people who seemed to be any good at RV and weren't also whack jobs, and only one uses the "astral projection" trick. You can get lessons from him as a civilian, though. He even promises to give you Agency-like training, but from what I've seen, it's not exactly true. I do, however, recommend going and visiting Jack Houck, that's always fun if not always useful.
That's actually why the Army eventually dropped the whole program. Seeing things you can't explain - and that's a hallmark of both RV and "astral projection" , it's not exactly congruent to the real world - wasn't very useful to the military. I heard a fairly highly placed guy once say it tells you something, but it's likely to be the number of nubs on the toilet paper roll holder instead of something you care about. Take the "he's in a tent" fiasco, for example.
So yes they were shielded from external EM, but Weaver was zapping them with ELF waves many times stronger than Schumann resonance.
The video doesn't discuss the amplitude and that's part of the reason it's woo. Do some research on the Schumann resonance amplitude, then look up the amplitude used by Weaver in his experiments.
Originally posted by Pilot
You said:
So yes they were shielded from external EM, but Weaver was zapping them with ELF waves many times stronger than Schumann resonance.
I'm sorry where did you get that from the video? I'd appreciate it.
Nature Communications | Article Open
Human cryptochrome exhibits light-dependent magnetosensitivity
Lauren E. Foley, Robert J. Gegear & Steven M. Reppert
Nature Communications 2, Article number: 356 | doi:10.1038/ncomms1364
Received 06 April 2011 | Accepted 24 May 2011 | Published 21 June 2011
Abstract
Humans are not believed to have a magnetic sense, even though many animals use the Earth's magnetic field for orientation and navigation. One model of magnetosensing in animals proposes that geomagnetic fields are perceived by light-sensitive chemical reactions involving the flavoprotein cryptochrome (CRY). Here we show using a transgenic approach that human CRY2, which is heavily expressed in the retina, can function as a magnetosensor in the magnetoreception system of Drosophila and that it does so in a light-dependent manner. The results show that human CRY2 has the molecular capability to function as a light-sensitive magnetosensor and reopen an area of sensory biology that is ready for further exploration in humans.
Affiliations
Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605, USA.
Lauren E. Foley,
Robert J. Gegear &
Steven M. Reppert
Present address: Department of Biology and Biotechnology, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609, USA.
Robert J. Gegear
Research Article
Human Cryptochrome-1 Confers Light Independent Biological Activity in Transgenic Drosophila Correlated with Flavin Radical Stability
Jacqueline Vieira 1, Alex R. Jones 2, Antoine Danon 1, Michiyo Sakuma 2, Nathalie Hoang 1, David Robles 1, Shirley Tait 2, Derren J. Heyes 2, Marie Picot 3, Taishi Yoshii 4, Charlotte Helfrich-Förster 5, Guillaume Soubigou 6, Jean-Yves Coppee 6, André Klarsfeld 3, Francois Rouyer 3, Nigel S. Scrutton 2, Margaret Ahmad 1,7*
1 Université Paris VI, Paris, France, 2 Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre and Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 3 Institut de Neurobiologie Alfred Fessard, CNRS UPR 2216 (NGI), Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 4 Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan, 5 University of Würzburg, Biocentre, Neurobiology and Genetics, Würzburg, Germany, 6 Institut Pasteur, Transcriptome and Epigenome Platform, Genomes and Genetics Department, Paris, France, 7 Penn State University, Media, Pennsylvania, United States of America
Abstract
Cryptochromes are conserved flavoprotein receptors found throughout the biological kingdom with diversified roles in plant development and entrainment of the circadian clock in animals. Light perception is proposed to occur through flavin radical formation that correlates with biological activity in vivo in both plants and Drosophila. By contrast, mammalian (Type II) cryptochromes regulate the circadian clock independently of light, raising the fundamental question of whether mammalian cryptochromes have evolved entirely distinct signaling mechanisms. Here we show by developmental and transcriptome analysis that Homo sapiens cryptochrome - 1 (HsCRY1) confers biological activity in transgenic expressing Drosophila in darkness, that can in some cases be further stimulated by light. In contrast to all other cryptochromes, purified recombinant HsCRY1 protein was stably isolated in the anionic radical flavin state, containing only a small proportion of oxidized flavin which could be reduced by illumination. We conclude that animal Type I and Type II cryptochromes may both have signaling mechanisms involving formation of a flavin radical signaling state, and that light independent activity of Type II cryptochromes is a consequence of dark accumulation of this redox form in vivo rather than of a fundamental difference in signaling mechanism.
Received: October 3, 2011; Accepted: January 13, 2012; Published: March 12, 2012
Citation: Vieira J, Jones AR, Danon A, Sakuma M, Hoang N, et al. (2012) Human Cryptochrome-1 Confers Light Independent Biological Activity in Transgenic Drosophila Correlated with Flavin Radical Stability. PLoS ONE 7(3): e31867. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031867
So why was he testing at 10 Hz when that's not even a Schumann resonance frequency?
Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum[1] beginning at 3 Hz and extend to 60 Hz,[2] and appear as distinct peaks at extremely low frequencies (ELF) around 7.83 (fundamental),[3] 14.3, 20.8, 27.3 and 33.8 Hz....
The ninth partial lies at approximately 59.9 Hz.
Because you're not going to do it, right? You're just here having fun and not taking anything seriously, and intentionally posting wrong stuff just to get reactions out of people.
Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by Arbitrageur
So you are saying the film was intentionally misleading and the filmmakers misrepresented the study? That seems odd that they would make such an easily traceable mistake.
The film is targeting woo-woos. These aren't exactly known for adherence to critical thinking.
DNA waves and water
L. Montagnier, J. Aissa, E. Del Giudice, C. Lavallee, A. Tedeschi, G. Vitiello
(Submitted on 23 Dec 2010)
Some bacterial and viral DNA sequences have been found to induce low frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous dilutions. This phenomenon appears to be triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency. We discuss this phenomenon in the framework of quantum field theory. A scheme able to account for the observations is proposed. The reported phenomenon could allow to develop highly sensitive detection systems for chronic bacterial and viral infections.
Comments: Invited talk at the DICE2010 Conference, Castiglioncello, Italy September 2010
Subjects: Other Quantitative Biology (q-bio.OT); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1012.5166 [q-bio.OT]
(or arXiv:1012.5166v1 [q-bio.OT] for this version)
(...)
The technical
conditions for EMS induction is summarized by the following list:
- Filtration: 450/100 nm for bacterial DNA, 450/20 nm for viral DNA
- High dilutions in water
- Mechanical agitation (Vortex) between each dilution
- Excitation by the electromagnetic background of extremely low frequency (ELF), starting
very low at 7 Hz. The excitation is not induced when the system is shielded by a mu-metal cage
The stimulation by the electromagnetic background of very low frequency is essential. The background is either produced from natural sources (the Schumann resonances [4] which start at 7.83 Hz) or from artificial sources.
(...)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. They said frequency is measured in Hertz and in the same breath they said frequency can be as large as the universe, when they probably meant wavelength or something. It doesn't get more easily traceable than that. The size of the universe is not measured in Hertz.
Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by Arbitrageur
So you are saying the film was intentionally misleading and the filmmakers misrepresented the study? That seems odd that they would make such an easily traceable mistake.
Here's a real fact. It turns out that according to the inverse square law, mashing your cell phone up against the side of your head when you talk elevates the signal strength going into your head compared to keeping the phone a short distance away from your head...and guess what? Many cell phone owners manuals actually specify what this minimum distance from your ear to your cell phone should be, so you should look it up for your phone. Personally, if not using a headset for short calls, I try to keep maybe two centimeters (~0.8 inch) distance from my ear to the cell phone, which meets and exceeds the owner's manual minimum distance recommendations. For longer calls, the headset is more comfortable anyway, and I don't have to worry about the 2cm distance, so I often use a headset for those.
Really I'm more interested in the potential danger of cell towers and cell phones. All this resonance/frequency talk is beside the point. Are you not cautious with your own cell usage and that of younger loved ones?
I think it's a good idea to follow the owners manual and hold the phone at least the specified distance from your head. (I see countless people not doing this by the way. They either didn't even read the owners manual, or if they did, they ignored the advice about pushing the phone against the ear, something I might even do briefly if trying to hear in a noisy location). I agree with this faq that either version of headset is probably better than holding the phone close to your head without a headset, though even that probably isn't too risky for occasional cell phone users. From what I've seen, the few studies that do show increased risk associate it with "heavy users"; you know, the people who walk around with phones glued to their heads for hours and hours each day. While I acknowledge the possibility these folks may *possibly* face some risk, it really doesn't deter me from casual cell phone use. But the heavier your cell phone use, the more concerned you should be about measures to mitigate risk like using a headset.
9. What are the best ways to reduce my exposure to cell phone radiation?
EWG's researchers have developed six simple safety tips to help you reduce your exposure to cell phone radiation. Among the most important — use your phone in speaker mode or with a headset, hold the phone away from your body when you're using it, and make phone calls only when the connection is good.
...
11. Are wireless or wired headsets better for reducing cell phone radiation exposures?
The jury is out — but either type of headset is preferable to a phone held to the ear.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
And obviously, your limited experiences can answer for the entirety of the test subjects who have successfully completed multiple remote viewing and telekinesis experiments over the course of the last 50 years.
Just because you can't control it to the point that it can be used against other people, doesn't mean it's bunk. Generally, those type of talents operate on a more central basis - stuff that your subconscious is concerned with, something you're actually interested in instead of some drug lord hiding in the Amazon.
Yeah, I agree with you. It's very tricky, especially since you can't force art.
There's a certain degree of selflessness and balanced motion required for the efficacy of these practices.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Arb, apple seeds contain cyanide, not arsenic. Just saying this in the interest of accuracy, it doesn't matter much.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
The film is targeting woo-woos. These aren't exactly known for adherence to critical thinking.
Critical thinking is hindered by subjective experience. No matter how many times you look at it, there's always someone who sees it differently. And their point can be just as valid as yours.
Preliminary Communication | February 23, 2011
Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism
Nora D. Volkow, MD; Dardo Tomasi, PhD; Gene-Jack Wang, MD; Paul Vaska, PhD; Joanna S. Fowler, PhD; Frank Telang, MD; Dave Alexoff, BSE; Jean Logan, PhD; Christopher Wong, MS
Author Affiliations: National Institute on Drug Abuse, Bethesda, Maryland (Dr Volkow); National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda (Drs Volkow, Tomasi, and Telang and Mr Wong); and Medical Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York (Drs Wang, Vaska, Fowler, and Logan and Mr Alexoff).
JAMA. 2011;305(8):808-813. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.186.
Context The dramatic increase in use of cellular telephones has generated concern about possible negative effects of radiofrequency signals delivered to the brain. However, whether acute cell phone exposure affects the human brain is unclear.
Objective To evaluate if acute cell phone exposure affects brain glucose metabolism, a marker of brain activity.
Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized crossover study conducted between January 1 and December 31, 2009, at a single US laboratory among 47 healthy participants recruited from the community. Cell phones were placed on the left and right ears and positron emission tomography with (18F)fluorodeoxyglucose injection was used to measure brain glucose metabolism twice, once with the right cell phone activated (sound muted) for 50 minutes (“on” condition) and once with both cell phones deactivated (“off” condition). Statistical parametric mapping was used to compare metabolism between on and off conditions using paired t tests, and Pearson linear correlations were used to verify the association of metabolism and estimated amplitude of radiofrequency-modulated electromagnetic waves emitted by the cell phone. Clusters with at least 1000 voxels (volume >8 cm3) and P < .05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) were considered significant.
Main Outcome Measure Brain glucose metabolism computed as absolute metabolism (μmol/100 g per minute) and as normalized metabolism (region/whole brain).
Results Whole-brain metabolism did not differ between on and off conditions. In contrast, metabolism in the region closest to the antenna (orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole) was significantly higher for on than off conditions (35.7 vs 33.3 μmol/100 g per minute; mean difference, 2.4 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-4.2]; P = .004). The increases were significantly correlated with the estimated electromagnetic field amplitudes both for absolute metabolism (R = 0.95, P < .001) and normalized metabolism (R = 0.89; P < .001).
Conclusions In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna. This finding is of unknown clinical significance.