Secret DARPA Mind Control Project Is Real: Leaked Document - Narrative Disruptors And Inductors

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Well, maybe they have found a way to do this to a large section of the population at a time instead of strapping something to the head. Powerful magnetic fields? Hm...what is capable of producing high powered, directed signals?

HAARP.

Maybe those nut jobs were onto something? Perhaps as an unintended side-effect of the actual aurora research they discovered it disrupts the brain?

Maybe that is where those scary, horrible thoughts from time to time come from?

There also could be a boost to Harp when the time comes by turning all items to one frequency...smart meters, phones, car chips, computers, TV, radio,and others to numerous to name.

Someday entire armies may drop their weapons and give themselves up. we are surrounded already by tech that transmits a great preparation.

reply to post by Phage


Yeah. Also makes me wonder what was different with the brains on the two that didn't get affected since the majority did. Brain research is my guilty pleasure because on one hand, it's so darn fascinating but, on the other, the little ethicist on my shoulder starts screaming at possible issues. It's like having a split personality really.

Yep, once they ban hardback books due to the "environmental" benefit, history will be written on an as needed basis. Stock up on journals people and keep them hidden well...

I foresee a really cool sci-fi movie coming out soon.

MIT neuroscientist Steve Ramirez is doing an AMA on Reddit right now.

Scientists create mice that automatically label new memories for easy reactivation

Finding a specific memory in your brain is not easy. Is it held within a particular group of neurons? If so, which ones? Are they clustered together, or spread throughout the brain? In science-fiction, a goofy helmet and a fancy operating system is all it takes. In real life, we need a subtler and cleverer technique.

Two independent groups of scientists have devised just such a method, and used it to awaken specific memories in mice. One group even planted a slightly artificial memory. These techniques have great promise. They will allow us to study how memories are formed, how our existing memories affect the creation of new ones, and what happens during the simple act of remembering.

Originally posted by Phage
Not exactly "leaked" when the request for proposals was posted in 2011.
www.fbo.gov...

Why would you eschew such direct and documentable information for that reason? Seems rather silly unless you're all for such manipulations. Apparently you don't just deny "un-scientific" ignorance, but have no problem poo-pooing actual documentation as well.

Btw, can we have the old Phage back? The first one that is. He/she was quite a bit more intelligent. Either that or you came into contact with some black mold or some such and lost a few IQ points. This one seems like the last dregs of a project losing funding or a campus project in its dying gasp.

On a more positive note: News like this is breaking out all over. Looks like the gig is about up...unless we just lay down and take it like the manipulated dweebs they take us for.

reply to post by The GUT

Why would you eschew such direct and documentable information for that reason?

I eschew sensationalism.

Originally posted by Phage
Do you consider persuasion to be mind control? Do you never try to persuade someone that you are right about something?

It depends on "intent" and who has the better toys/techniques I'd say, silly Phage.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by The GUT

 

Why would you eschew such direct and documentable information for that reason?

I eschew sensationalism.

You and Spock. Do you eschew documentation and intent?

reply to post by The GUT

No.

I find documentation from original sources useful in filtering out sensationalist nonsense.
Intent I find to often be in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by Phage
...Intent I find to often be in the eye of the beholder.

You got that right, brother.

You should, should you care about the bigger picture, add sociology and psychology to your scholarly knowledge. Along with intelligence history and its subset of psyops. Really.

If you are straight up, and up until now I thought you were, take a lil' look at those suggestions. I hate sensationalism, too, but I'm also willing to look at the bigger documented picture before I leave "one offs." I'll be back to elaborate.

Having said that: This thread is only the tip of the documentable iceberg.

reply to post by ATSmediaPRO


Eh, I'm definitely not a fan of that one. Kid is going on and on about utilizing it to alter or suppress traumatic memories in the treatment of PTSD. Memory tampering, even with the best of intentions, is absolutely noxious. Eradication or manipulation of memory does not help someone with PTSD. Can pretty safely say that as I have dissociative amnesia and long standing PTSD. From personal experience, the loss of memory does not improve the PTSD symptoms and does nothing to eradicate body memory. Additionally, the loss of the traumatic event memory is kind of like that scene in Inception where the subconscious detects an interloper in that incongruent information will begin to stick out like a sore thumb plus could still leave the individual open to re-victimization. The mind develops these kind of things in response to severe traumas for a reason.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Also, the mice were genetically modified to produce tracer proteins to mark the memory locations.
I think this sort of experiment has more to do with discovering how memory works than mind control.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice
reply to post by ATSmediaPRO

 

Additionally, the loss of the traumatic event memory is kind of like that scene in Inception where the subconscious detects an interloper in that incongruent information will begin to stick out like a sore thumb plus could still leave the individual open to re-victimization. The mind develops these kind of things in response to severe traumas for a reason.

Absolutely agree with you there. Not only re-victimization and more trauma, but nullifying any previous wrong doing in a criminal situation......Forget your rapist, say, and someone re-introduces him as a "blind date," and suddenly it wasn't rape anymore, or doesn't seem like it was, does it? Just one example.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Also, the mice were genetically modified to produce tracer proteins to mark the memory locations.
I think this sort of experiment has more to do with discovering how memory works than mind control.

Wasn't associating it with mind control/governmental abuse or anything like that but basing it off of the kid's commentary on reddit about using it for the treatment of PTSD. Reading his comments about that, as somebody with amnesia and PTSD, was (is) actually giving me a bit of an anxiety attack, lol. I truly think he means well and has good intentions. It's just tampering with such things does not always work out the way that one intends and can have some pretty unexpected outcomes even with the best of intentions. I know that one all too well and deeply.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Meh.
www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by elouina

 

Since when did attempting to adjust someone's attitude about something become so horribly heinous? People have been doing it for a long time. Smooth talking, drugs, alcohol, money (maybe even a little magnetic tickle). Changing someone's mind does not make them into a robot even when it does work.

Did you actually read the "leaked" document?

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Has anyone ever done a study to determine what percentage of scientists are either sociopathic, psychotic or downright insane? With the exception of one nice teacher I had who was a scientist (he turned down prestigious job offers because he loved to teach,) every single scientist that I have spoken with (mostly online) or observed speaking with others seems to fit the label 'mad scientist' pretty well. How many scientists online will batter Christians and call religion 'the root of all evil,' while they themselves are either a part of, or are otherwise endorsing harmful medicines, warfare technology, mind control methods, etc? How many scientists have we heard call religious people "hypocrites," from a moral position of judgement of their own, while they promote lies and harmful science against the human race?

I know a couple scientists on YouTube who are fairly well-respected scientists and popular Atheists who jumped on board the H2N1 fear hype bandwagon. I contacted one of them by PM and asked, in a very respectful manner, why they were aiding the mainstream fear propaganda that the virus was so deadly that everyone should get their shots (when in fact less people died from the swine flu than the average flu season virus) and why they would promote the fear that it might mutate in something worse (with no scientific basis for this.) I guess I was so polite that he mistook me for one of his followers and gave me a nice reply, reassuring me that they had "inside information" for this. Oh, I see...no scientific evidence to present us, but someone on the "inside" wanted them on this bandwagon. And we all know how that "emerging epidemic" went.

They were just playing the money/politics game, like politicians, like business leaders, like media figures, like every other player who only gives a crap about Number 1. But the thing is, scientists invent and design these guns, rockets, nuclear bombs, drones, killbots, bio-warfare, weather warfare, mind control methods, etc., and then they either deny it or they defend it. They so often present themselves as civilized, enlightened gentlemen, and yet they participate directly and deliberately in the most heinous evils imaginable.

And no, I'm not religious. I'm just someone with an open mind who cares and is bothered by intelligent people with dangerous mindsets. Could anything be more harmful to this world?

reply to post by elouina


We know mind-control is a topic the government believes in enough to put millions of dollars into. We know Central Intelligence was interested in meta-sciences, so it makes sense other alphabet government agencies more than likely put money into the types of programs. We have evidence from CIA that opponent(s) were killed because they had opposition to certain meta-programs. Hell, CIA wasted millions of dollars in remote viewing black projects. I think DARPA is just the type of agency, along with the Defense Intelligence Agency that would be interested in such a topic.

Cool thread!

reply to post by LoneCloudHopper2

Has anyone ever done a study to determine what percentage of scientists are either sociopathic, psychotic or downright insane?

Not that I know of. My guess would be not much different than the general population though. But what's the difference between psychotic and insane?

every single scientist that I have spoken with (mostly online) or observed speaking with others seems to fit the label 'mad scientist' pretty well.

That has not been my experience.

They so often present themselves as civilized, enlightened gentlemen, and yet they participate directly and deliberately in the most heinous evils imaginable.

Right, nothing but evil comes of science.

And no, I'm not religious.

Could have fooled me. You seem to be overly concerned with what scientists may say about Christians.

How many scientists online will batter Christians and call religion 'the root of all evil,'

How many scientists have we heard call religious people "hypocrites," from a moral position of judgement of their own, while they promote lies and harmful science against the human race?

I know a couple scientists on YouTube who are fairly well-respected scientists and popular Atheists

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Meh.
www.imdb.com...

Is just a movie! Reality frequently differs substantially from movies and, for most, does not feature Jim Carrey in an active and dominant role in their life (subjective on whether that's a good or bad thing). I'm thinking more along the line of tetra's remark considering the short term sentences associated with sexual assault of which the perpetrators of such crimes tend to be repeat offenders. They aren't suggesting the use of such a thing for people to get over a romantic breakup but those who have actually been traumatized, which frequently happens at the hands of another. War, severe physical assault, sexual assault--all those things induce PTSD but it'd be a rare case where a break up would induce it unless one of those things (probably not war but hey, Helen of Troy) occurred along with it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LoneCloudHopper2

 

Has anyone ever done a study to determine what percentage of scientists are either sociopathic, psychotic or downright insane?

Not that I know of. My guess would be not much different than the general population though. But what's the difference between psychotic and insane?

every single scientist that I have spoken with (mostly online) or observed speaking with others seems to fit the label 'mad scientist' pretty well.

That has not been my experience.

 

They so often present themselves as civilized, enlightened gentlemen, and yet they participate directly and deliberately in the most heinous evils imaginable.

Right, nothing but evil comes of science.

 

And no, I'm not religious.

Could have fooled me. You seem to be overly concerned with what scientists may say about Christians.

How many scientists online will batter Christians and call religion 'the root of all evil,'

How many scientists have we heard call religious people "hypocrites," from a moral position of judgement of their own, while they promote lies and harmful science against the human race?

I know a couple scientists on YouTube who are fairly well-respected scientists and popular Atheists

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

You sound a lot different than a normal, healthy person. That was my point.

I'm not sure how well-suited you'd be to judge the health of other scientists.

I never said "nothing but evil comes of science." I'm enjoying my computer with Internet access right now.

I mentioned that I wasn't Christian because I knew (based on experience) that that's exactly what you'd assume of me. Only a Christian would defend one? I'm just tired of scientists' high moral pose while they involve themselves in immoral acts with severe consequences for the innocent, and no shame in it at all.