Electromagnetic Signals Influencing Human Thought?
Keith P Walsh
scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
engineered by others?"
It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
Keith P Walsh
* I'd say at least 75 years.
Sue...
> For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> engineered by others?"
Absolutely! There have been thousand of
high power radar and television technicans that don't seem
to act quite right. They don't live long an frequently die of
lukemia.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1997/Suppl-6/goldsmith.html
Sue...
PD
Just a couple of observations:
1. I'm sure it's been tried. Experimental failure does not mean that
it is impossible, any more than our inability to generate sustained
thermonuclear fusion means that sustained thermonuclear fusion is
impossible.
2. If it's been tried, I'll bet the bulk of the research has been
sponsored by the Department of Defense and is therefore classified.
3. There doesn't seem to be much call for doing this research outside
of military applications, for the same reason that there doesn't seem
to be much call for doing human cloning or genetic manipulation of
human characteristics -- such as giving your children beautiful,
spotted fur or purple eyes with slitted pupils.
4. It HAS been demonstrated that electromagnetic signals can affect
behavior -- it's known as electroshock therapy.
PD
Richard Herring
<e6eb5ac3-72c8-4859...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Keith P Walsh <keith....@btinternet.com> writes
>For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
>scientific
One.
>to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
>processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
>engineered by others?"
>
>It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific
Two.
>answer
>to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
Maybe. Have you looked for any?
>Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific
Three. You're starting to sound like Tom Potter.
>explanation
>as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
Only "appears" to you. Your question is so broad that the answer is
trivially "yes". What are you _really_ asking about?
--
Richard Herring
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> One.
> Two.
> --
> Richard Herring
Walsh is a kook who for years was crying we have to save the
children from the electricity generated in amalgam fillings.
It seems he finally got the message amalgam fell out of favor decades
ago and has a new crusade.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Uncle Al
>
> For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> engineered by others?"
PROJECT HAARP
> It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
> to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
Gee - an empiricist. If you want the necessary answer, misinterpret a
bible.
> Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
> as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
The Pentagon is using Mexican-powered Wimshurst generators for their
smaller carbon footprint.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Keith P Walsh
>
> Only "appears" to you. Your question is so broad that the answer is
> trivially "yes". What are you _really_ asking about?
>
I think that a more insightful respondent to my enquiry might have
been able to discard any trivial interpretations allowed by its
generality and quite easily have identified those possibilities for
which the accurate answer is not trivial at all.
Of course I understand that the proven influence of, for example, tv
pictures on the human psyche falls within the broadest scope of my
question.
However, to use this as an excuse for simply ignoring other less
obvious possibilities implicit in the same question is not really what
I was looking for; i.e. neither intelligent, rational nor scientific
(is that Four?).
In the simplest terms, it appears that the electromagnetic field can
be manipulated in order to induce electrical currents in electrical
conductors. And human neurological tissue is a particular type of
electrical conductor.
And so, if it can be agreed that, according to the established
principles of scientific understanding, only way to establish the
extent to which the human neurological system might be manipulated
remotely using electromagnetic signals is by carrying out the
experimental investigations necessary to find out, then would you be
able to tell me if you know of any such investigations ever having
been carried out?
Remember I'm not asking whether or not it has been proved that people
can see tv pictures. I'm asking if anyone knows whether experiments
have ever been carried out to determine whether electromagnetic
signals, and particularly those using wavelengths outside the range of
visible light, can be used to influence the thought processes of
individuals, perhaps without their realising it?
And if not, why not?
(It might help if you try to imagine what you would have to do to
demonstrate that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, it is NOT
possible to achieve such a thing.)
Keith P Walsh
Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds
4859-b571-2...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
Because it doesn't involve amalgams?
Puppet_Sock
Of course. It requires some very special equipment.
http://yahoo.shoptoit.ca/shop/category--catId_1000007__locale_en.html
Socks
Benj
> Keith P Walsh wrote:
>
> > For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> > scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> > processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> > engineered by others?"
>
> PROJECT HAARP
Gosh Unc Al, it sounds like you know something the rest of us don't.
Please elaborate...
> > It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
> > to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
>
> Gee - an empiricist. If you want the necessary answer, misinterpret a
> bible.
We take this as your intention to never recognize an "intelligent,
rational, scientific" answer. If you'd like to quote the bible to
prove your points, feel free.
> > Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
> > as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
Who says no such answer has ever been established? See Uncle Al's
remarks on HAARP above. The only problem is that whenever a scientific
phenomena appears to have valuable applications in politics, all such
data and references somehow never see the light of public scrutiny.
The data is there, it's just restricted to those with the authority to
view it. So what else is new?
Edward Green
It sounds like you want to argue from lack of evidence to a positive
assertion.
Part of the problem is "engineered". If you don't know how to
engineer it, how do you know what to test? Then there are some ethical
problems: you might try the shotgun approach, irradiating a large
group of randomly assigned subjects under various signal regimens
while testing their responses and looking for a statistically
significant variation from a control group, but such an experiment is
probably best carried out on a large body of non-consenting prisoners
undergoing concurrent research on the consequences of untreated
syphilis.
Such things are frowned on now in the US, though you still might be
able to arrange it in the jurisdiction of one of our current or former
superpower foes, not to name any names.
I also get the feeling you want to demonstrate not just vague, general
effects, but the ability to inject or monitor specific thoughts, which
operation you possibly feel yourself subject to. It's interesting
that the CIA has the technology to do this, but has not thus far been
able to control the concurrent thoughts that the CIA is manipulating
or reading the subject's thoughts! The imperfect results of
trainees?
Just sitting upright waiting for the coffee to kick in.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> engineered by others?"
Sure!
The technology primarily employed for this purpose is called
"Television".
Harrry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 7, 7:03 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> > scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> > processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> > engineered by others?"
>
> Absolutely! There have been thousand of
> high power radar and television technicans that don't seem
> to act quite right. They don't live long an frequently die of
> lukemia.
I suppose that would include me, since I worked my way through college
operating high-powered radio, radar, and TV transmitters. The funny
thing is that after many years of exposure to high-powered
electromagnetic radiation, but still am alive an kicking at over 70.
Go figure!
Now there is one small fact that the statistics don't take into
consideration. That is, exposure to x-ray radiation from unshielded
power klystron tubes, and they do emit an enourmous amount of ionizing
radiation. That why very heavy metal shields are employed, but they
slow tube replacement. Hence, some technicians simply did not replace
them after tube changes simply because it was too much work.
The end result was that after working an 8-hour shift, each day they
received a total Rem dosage about equivalent to a few thousand chest x-
rays! Each day!!!!
Consequently, it is no great surprise that some died from lukemia,
This was, however, was extremely rare. I knew one person that
suffered this fate, but even then his family had a history of
lukemia. Actually, in over 50 years of work in related fields, 2 guys
died from electrocution, and 4 died as the result of falls.
Sue, blind statistics and often lead to the wrong conslusions.
Everyone knows that it is not good for one's health to live close to
high voltage transmission lines, but that has absolutely nothing to do
with electromagnetic field. Recent studies that it is related to the
use of carcinogenic herbicides employed to cut back on shrub and weed
growth along the line's path.
So, if you purchase property adjacient to a high voltage transmission
line becasue these properties are inexpensive, the electromagnetic
energy radiated is likely harmless, but the carcinogenic herbicides
spread by the power company are deadly when absorbed over a long
period.
Just thought you might like to know what the real facts are.
Harry C.
hanson
news:489B1C49...@hate.spam.net...
>
Keith P Walsh wrote:
Electromagnetic Signals Influencing Human Thought?
For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
engineered by others?"
>
PROJECT HAARP
>
Keith P Walsh wrote:
It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
>
Gee - an empiricist. If you want the necessary answer, misinterpret a
bible.
>
Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
>
The Pentagon is using Mexican-powered Wimshurst generators for their
smaller carbon footprint.
>
Uncle rect-Al is acting out another one of his yiddishe
street corner performances here ... that ranges from
HAARP to the bible to the Pentagon where he thought
to have seen someone that looked like Al Gore.
>
rect-Al's thought processes are clearly influenced by
EM sigs which he received ever since they gave him
electro-shock therapy... ... BUT it is not quite clear
whether his thoughts are still human or simply rect-Al
based on his own follow-up therapy which he has
invented & demonstrated here on his own web-site:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
... ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
Salmon Egg
<e6eb5ac3-72c8-4859...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
It happens to me all the time. Typically, I listen to NPR via
electromagnetic radiation as detected by my FM radio. Sometimes it
affects me more than other times.
Bill
Benj
> For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> engineered by others?"
Yes it is intelligent, rational and scientific to pose the question.
Indeed that question HAS been posed in that manner over and over "for
a long time now". The question is easily found in the "scientific
literature" as well as in literature in general.
> It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
> to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
Yes, but the question would be what is "allowed" as "experimental
evidence". Even if the topic were not "off-limits" establishment
science ONLY accepts as "experimental evidence" results that are
linear, not recursive, not transient, repeatable at will, and
statistically significant, the latter also having considerable
restrictions as to what is "acceptable". All of this severely limits
what will appear through the restrictive filters of "peer
review" (means censorship) into the mainstream "acceptable" scientific
record. For example ESP studies are rejected because the effects are
transient and not repeatable at will. It makes no difference how
stratospherically beyond any possibility of "chance" a given "hit" may
rise, the non-repeatability at will causes the whole subject to be
rejected.
> Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
> as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
I have supplied PART of the answer to your question above. The other
part has to do with the utility of such phenomena for political
purposes. Any scientific topic that drifts too far into areas where
clear political advantages would arise from the practical employment
of it, are roped off as "off limits" and any researcher who strays
there is either recruited to the secret research "cause" or if that is
not possible they are stopped by whatever means necessary. POLITICAL
POWER is a topic FAR too important to be left to dizzy scientists and
engineers! In the latter case there are many mechanisms in place from
loss of employment to the host of name-calling propagandists on Usenet
who stand ready to steer any and all conversations AWAY from crucial
topics and to ridicule and insult the questioner with accusations of
being "ignorant", "uneducated", and "insane". The obvious purpose of
these libels is to both warn the public that this is an "off-limits"
subject and to try to convince uncritical thinkers that since the
person (or anyone who takes the given topic seriously) is ignorant,
uneducated, and insane, it is perfectly logical to totally dismiss
ANYTHING that person has to say without even thinking about it or
testing it against reality first. The myriad remarks in this thread so
far provide ready demonstration of these principles.
So the bottom line is that to better understand what you are asking,
you should rephrase your question this way: "Why is it that we never
see exposes in Newspapers of the crimes and illegalities committed by
it's editor?" OK?
I now return you to your regularly scheduled chaff, noise and
disinformation...
Benj
> In article
> <e6eb5ac3-72c8-4859-b571-2a78134cf...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> > scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> > processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> > engineered by others?"
> It happens to me all the time. Typically, I listen to NPR via
> electromagnetic radiation as detected by my FM radio. Sometimes it
> affects me more than other times.
>
> Bill
It is interesting that Bill in playing word games with you implies
that radio is an "influence" to the mind but he fails to mention (of
course) that subliminal influences (known as "subs" in the ad biz)
can also fall under the exact wording of your statement above.
Subs are an EXCELLENT example. They are widely dismissed as "not
working" as "nonsense" as "debunked" as "ineffective" but it takes
next to NO research to find that they have been widely used for a LONG
time.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0006/ai_2699000639
They CONTINUE to be heavily used to this day and ENORMOUS amounts of
money have been spent in researching them by both government and
commercial interests. Their utility both commercially and politically
are undeniable.
So if everybody paying large sums to use this "technology" is
convinced that subs are real (just check the ice cubes in any liquor
advertisement!) and since there has been HUGE amounts of research done
on the subject of such "mind control", then where is it? Why do
"establishment" authorities continue to even deny it's existence and
when pressed only refer to work way back at the dawn of research into
the subject as if the huge body of research done since did not exist?
The answer is obvious. Go refer to my other post if you can't figure
it out for yourself.
Richard Herring
<18212b3b-161c-40c4...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Only "appears" to you. Your question is so broad that the answer is
>> trivially "yes". What are you _really_ asking about?
>>
>
>I think that a more insightful respondent to my enquiry might have
>been able to discard any trivial interpretations allowed by its
>generality and quite easily have identified those possibilities for
>which the accurate answer is not trivial at all.
What, all of them? It's a potentially infinite set.
On the one hand, a whole bunch of other people do the work of
identifying which of these possibilities would interest you, for no
better reason than to satisfy your whim. On the other, you could state
them yourself. Which do you think is more likely to work?
>
>Of course I understand that the proven influence of, for example, tv
>pictures on the human psyche falls within the broadest scope of my
>question.
>
>However, to use this as an excuse for simply ignoring other less
>obvious possibilities implicit in the same question is
You mean "would be", not "is".
>not really what
>I was looking for; i.e. neither intelligent, rational nor scientific
>(is that Four?).
>
>In the simplest terms, it appears that the electromagnetic field can
>be manipulated in order to induce electrical currents in electrical
>conductors. And human neurological tissue is a particular type of
>electrical conductor.
Only in a very specialised sense. Nerves are not wires.
>
>And so, if it can be agreed that, according to the established
>principles of scientific understanding, only way to establish the
>extent to which the human neurological system might be manipulated
>remotely using electromagnetic signals is by carrying out the
>experimental investigations necessary to find out, then would you be
>able to tell me if you know of any such investigations ever having
>been carried out?
Probably not. Does the phrase "non-disclosure agreement" mean anything
to you?
>
>Remember I'm not asking whether or not it has been proved that people
>can see tv pictures. I'm asking if anyone knows whether experiments
>have ever been carried out to determine whether electromagnetic
>signals, and particularly those using wavelengths outside the range of
>visible light, can be used to influence the thought processes of
>individuals, perhaps without their realising it?
Some government, somewhere, has almost certainly funded this kind of
research.
>
>And if not, why not?
See above.
>
>(It might help if you try to imagine what you would have to do to
>demonstrate that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, it is NOT
>possible to achieve such a thing.)
You can't. Like all conspiracy theories, your hypothesis is
unfalsifiable.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<86a77c51-caed-44ec...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>On Aug 7, 12:01 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> Keith P Walsh wrote:
>>
>> > For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
>> > scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
>> > processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
>> > engineered by others?"
>>
>> PROJECT HAARP
>
>Gosh Unc Al, it sounds like you know something the rest of us don't.
>Please elaborate...
This should be fun...
>
>> > It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
>> > to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
>>
>> Gee - an empiricist. If you want the necessary answer, misinterpret a
>> bible.
>
>We take this as your intention to never recognize an "intelligent,
>rational, scientific" answer. If you'd like to quote the bible to
>prove your points, feel free.
>
>
>> > Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
>> > as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
>
>Who says no such answer has ever been established? See Uncle Al's
>remarks on HAARP above.
10 points to Uncle Al. Fish in a barrel.
>The only problem is that whenever a scientific
>phenomena appears to have valuable applications in politics, all such
>data and references somehow never see the light of public scrutiny.
>The data is there, it's just restricted to those with the authority to
>view it. So what else is new?
You have evidence to support this theory?
--
Richard Herring
Benj
> >The only problem is that whenever a scientific
> >phenomena appears to have valuable applications in politics, all such
> >data and references somehow never see the light of public scrutiny.
> >The data is there, it's just restricted to those with the authority to
> >view it. So what else is new?
>
> You have evidence to support this theory?
Sure. But if I showed it to you, I'd have to kill you.
Keith P Walsh
>
> >(It might help if you try to imagine what you would have to do to
> >demonstrate that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, it is NOT
> >possible to achieve such a thing.)
>
> You can't. Like all conspiracy theories, your hypothesis is
> unfalsifiable.
>
I don't have a conspiracy theory.
What I have is a question.
And the question is this - "Has anyone ever carried out experimental
investigations to demonstrate whether or not it is possible to
directly influence the human thought process using electromagnetic
signals?"
(And this of course excludes those signals normally referred to as tv
and radio signals. People are not normally able to pick up broadcast
signals such as these without the aid of familiar items of receiver
equipment - although having said that, people with metal dental
fillings in their teeth have reported doing so, and metal dental
fillings are not normally recognised as items of radio/tv receiver
equipment - however I suppose that such people might easily be
dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" simply for having made such
reports.)
I think it is quite easy to imagine how you would test whether or not
an electromagnetic signal with a wavelength outside the range of
visible light could influence the behavior of an individual subjected
to the signal. In fact, what am I talking about?, I don't have to
imagine it, I saw the very same thing happen on a bbc tv program last
night. The world-famous violinist Vanessa Mae was subjected to an
experiment whereby a contraption which produced a strong local
electromagnetic field was activated in close proximity to her head,
and all of a sudden she couldn't even sign her own name! But of course
she knew what was going on - would it be possible to do this sort of
thing remotely WITHOUT the subject being aware of the cause of the
effect?
Anyway, back to your statement above. Only by carrying out experiments
is it possible to find out what works and what doesn't. The more
frequencies you try without gaining a positive result then the wider
the range of possibilities eliminated.
What I'm asking is, has anyone ever tried any?
And if so, Who?
And when?
And what happened?
And if not, why not?
I think that for emotional reasons many people find it intolerable to
be placed in a position of ignorance - especially regarding a matter
which is potentially very important.
And in order to maintain some degree of emotional security such people
may have a tendency to presume that any question which they can't
answer must be unimportant.
And in so doing they are failing to be scientific.
I wonder if that could that be you.
Keith P Walsh
PS. that Vanessa Mae program is at:
PD
wrote:
I believe the answer is YES. Electromagnetic signals have been used in
many studies to try to control, treat, or modify the symptoms of:
Parkinson's disease
Cerebral palsy
Epilepsy
and the medical literature is rife with that, if you have access to
it.
If you don't have access to a good medical research library, I know
there have been articles in popular trade magazines like Scientific
American and Wired that would be good starting points.
The electromagnetic signals have been conveyed by implant, by surface
induction, and by a helmet.
PD
Richard Herring
<0a655f71-2687-495c...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, PD
<TheDrap...@gmail.com> writes
Nooooo! Don't mention Rife!
>with that, if you have access to
>it.
>If you don't have access to a good medical research library, I know
>there have been articles in popular trade magazines like Scientific
>American and Wired that would be good starting points.
>
>The electromagnetic signals have been conveyed by implant, by surface
>induction, and by a helmet.
>
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<ed9edae5-794b-4822...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >(It might help if you try to imagine what you would have to do to
>> >demonstrate that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, it is NOT
>> >possible to achieve such a thing.)
>>
>> You can't. Like all conspiracy theories, your hypothesis is
>> unfalsifiable.
>>
>
>I don't have a conspiracy theory.
I didn't say that you do. I said that your hypothesis (the one implicit
in "demonstrate .. NOT possible") is unfalsifiable. In that respect it
resembles a conspiracy theory.
True.
>
>What I'm asking is, has anyone ever tried any?
Almost certainly.
>
>And if so, Who?
Well, it's unlikely that some of the three-letter agencies haven't had a
go.
>
>And when?
>
>And what happened?
They're not telling. National security.
>
>And if not, why not?
>
>I think that for emotional reasons many people find it intolerable to
>be placed in a position of ignorance
Indeed. No wonder psychics are so popular.
>- especially regarding a matter
>which is potentially very important.
That "potentially" is begging the question.
>
>And in order to maintain some degree of emotional security such people
>may have a tendency to presume that any question which they can't
>answer must be unimportant.
Or they "may" do any number of other things about it. You don't know.
>
>And in so doing they are failing to be scientific.
Such a presumption would be irrational, but no more so than its
converse.
>
>I wonder if that could that be you.
Wonder all you like. There are plenty of other possibilities.
--
Richard Herring
mike
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, keith....@btinternet.com says...
> On 7 Aug, 15:08, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >
> > Only "appears" to you. Your question is so broad that the answer is
> > trivially "yes". What are you _really_ asking about?
> >
>
> I think that a more insightful respondent to my enquiry might have
> been able to discard any trivial interpretations allowed by its
> generality and quite easily have identified those possibilities for
> which the accurate answer is not trivial at all.
>
> Of course I understand that the proven influence of, for example, tv
> pictures on the human psyche falls within the broadest scope of my
> question.
>
> However, to use this as an excuse for simply ignoring other less
> obvious possibilities implicit in the same question is not really what
> I was looking for; i.e. neither intelligent, rational nor scientific
> (is that Four?).
>
> In the simplest terms, it appears that the electromagnetic field can
> be manipulated in order to induce electrical currents in electrical
> conductors. And human neurological tissue is a particular type of
> electrical conductor.
>
magnets it should be possible to induce currents local to certain
regions of the brain. Of course, to do this with any precision would
probably require the array to be pretty close to the surface of the
patient/client/victim's skull. Think of it as a big tin hat applied
directly to the head rather than some mysterious electormagnetic ray
projector situated in th eblack van parked down the street.
Also, in the simplest terms, it is true that local stimulation of the
brain (usually via fine metal electrodes inserted directly into the
brain) can affect behaviour. With humans, I believe that it has to date
been limited to inducing certain sensory perceptions and emotional
changes - and is usually carried out as part of brain surgery - but it
is a fairly 'blunt weapon'. Even with accurately positioned electrodes,
positioned and re-positioned, with current
technology/understanding/experience it may be possible to make someone
feel hungry, but you can't _choose_ to make them feel like they want a
large chunk of Wendsleydale cheese (for example).
> And so, if it can be agreed that, according to the established
> principles of scientific understanding, only way to establish the
> extent to which the human neurological system might be manipulated
> remotely using electromagnetic signals is by carrying out the
> experimental investigations necessary to find out, then would you be
> able to tell me if you know of any such investigations ever having
> been carried out?
From my experience in the world of research physics, I feel sure that at
more than one time in the past (or present), more than one researcher
has had government funding to attempt this sort of research. Of course,
people have also been giuven significant funding to research star-wars,
exploding (or was it poisonous) cigars for undesired presidents,
incendary-bats (trained to hide under the "enemy's" vehicles), and
wierdnesses including para-psychology, telekinesis, and time travel.
The point being, that a number of governments have large amounts of
money for nefarious research projects; teh people holing the purse-
strings often have very little understanding of even the most well-known
laws of nature; and researchers are sometimes willing to accept a grant
to research almost any ridiculous thing (after all - there are bills to
pay).
>
> Remember I'm not asking whether or not it has been proved that people
> can see tv pictures. I'm asking if anyone knows whether experiments
> have ever been carried out to determine whether electromagnetic
> signals, and particularly those using wavelengths outside the range of
> visible light, can be used to influence the thought processes of
> individuals, perhaps without their realising it?
>
Well - I guess this would be the ultimate payback for such research. So
it probably has been looked at at some stage. However, the chance that
it would ever succeed appears very small to me, the chance that the
technology exists at present seems vastly more unlikely. I think you
woud notice the big tin hat with the array of superconducting magnets as
soon as it got close to your head!
> And if not, why not?
>
> (It might help if you try to imagine what you would have to do to
> demonstrate that, to the best of our knowledge and ability, it is NOT
> possible to achieve such a thing.)
OK - 4 reasons why I believe it is not possible...
1) Any sort of remote brain stimulation would appear to require
accurately placed locally induced currents. The induced currents
required to affect the brain would be small, but the magnetic field
array to produce them would be large and would need to be situated very
near to the brain. If you tried to operate an array further from the
brain it would have to be correspondingly bigger (it is a bit like
optical resolution in this sense), and you would also have to take into
account all magnetic and electrically conducting materials in the
vicinity of the subject. In other words - the tin-foil hat really would
protect you.
2) Even if the technology and practical ability to construct such a
device existed (and I doubt it as in [1] above), to date, only a very
limited range of behavioural changes have been demonstrated - even by
direct brain stimulation. We still don't know how the brain functions in
any detail, so the ability to tune into someones brain and zap them to
"love the chairman", or "take the next left turn off the highway" or
"choose Pepsi over Coke" appears very unlikely.
3) I have doubts that any such research could be carried out in secret.
It wiould require significant development in a range of areas:
superconductivity, brain physiology, psychology, engineering and
computer control, to name just a few. The 'secret' research
establishments don't run in a vaccuum - so while developing an advanced
material, or a new guidance system independantly of universities, public
government, and private research establishments is possible - I doubt
that the vast amount of work needed for brain manipulation (even if
possible) could be carried out in secret. Unless, of course, they found
the device already built at Roswell!
4) If we had brain control, I wouldn't have to write this - I could just
flick a switch and convince you that we dont exist (bwa-ha-haa).
But in all seriousness - I think it is as likely as anti-gravity and
zero-point energy generators.
Cheers
Mike
Keith P Walsh
>
> 4) If we had brain control, I wouldn't have to write this - I could just
> flick a switch and convince you that we dont exist (bwa-ha-haa).
>
Mike,
Thank you for your contribution.
You appear to have "answers" for just about everything - except
perhaps for the point about people claiming to have picked up radio
signals via their metal dental fillings, a point which I raised in my
previous posting dated 8 August.
Are you familiar with these reports?
I believe that it should be neither possible nor necessary to accept
such claims based simply upon the testimony of the people who make
them.
And I also believe that it should be neither possible nor necessary to
reject their claims out of hand simply because we don't like the sound
of them.
I believe that it should be both possible and necessary to demonstrate
scientifically (i.e. experimentally) whether or not such claims are
valid.
Do you know if experimental investigations have ever been carried out
to demonstrate whether or not radio signals can be picked up by metal
dental fillings?
And if so, by whom.., etc., etc.?
Best regards,
Keith P Walsh
Herbert Brandt
HERE IS MY LAST LETTER TO PROF.D�ZMURA :
> Dear Prof. D�Zmura,
>
> I�m a retired Engineer (MSc.in Chemical Engin.), living in Germany, and I�m very interested in Mind Reading and affecting the human brain
> by physical devices.
> Therefore I�m tracking the international reports on recent research in Brain Computer Interface, including the works like you do.
>
> But now I�m very astonished about your sparing expectations for your project-aims.
>
> Emulating the US-Patent 4877027 "Hearing system" from 1989 , I encountered the US-Patent 3951134 from RG Malech
> "Appar.and method for retemotely monitoring and altering brain waves".
> This patent describes all the aims - AS ACHIEVED - which could be of interest for your project.
>
> Do you know this patent ?
> If no : What do you think about after reading it ?
> Can you imagine that this patent is true ?
> If yes : Can you imagin that the results have been vanished ( like the results of the project MK ULTRA)
> and that especially the utilization was reserved only for secret government-use ?
>
> In this case, all the contemporary public projects in Mind Reading worldwide would be a "new-invention of the wheel".
>
> Appreciating your reply
> with kindest regards
>
>
To get a general overview you should google the relevant items,
especially "MINDCONTROL" too.
Herbert
Herbert Brandt
Hello, Mike
unfortunately you are not right.
It is useful to investigate the MINDCONTROL-patents.
Especially US-PATENT 3951134 from RG Malech
"Appar.and method for retemotely monitoring and altering brain waves".
And the complaint of Dr.John St.Clair AKWEI versus NSA. (To google !)
Think over!
Cheers
Herbert
Herbert Brandt
Hello, Mike
Herbert Brandt
tadchem
> mike schrieb:
>
> > In article <18212b3b-161c-40c4-861b-8d1e41436ba4
Very good, Herbert. You executed my instructions perfectly. I
apologize to the group that you posted this three times, but there is
a glitch in the mind-control software I am using - the "send" button
sticks.
;-)
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Herbert Brandt
Tom, I guess, your reply should be a funny joke.
But there is no reason for you to guy the electromagnetic mindcontrol.
Even if you can not imagine to be concerned yourselve.
As owner of Kinesis International Inc. you are shurely rich and presumtuous.
Actually you are less endangered of electromagnetic harassment like
poorer people.
Read the experience of mindcontrol-victims in the Internet.
You will be amazed at that what they tell about.
That is a totally different matter as you are accustomed until now.
Androcles
"Herbert Brandt" <socialg...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:48E7DBB...@yahoo.de...
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and
mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the
crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be
revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the East with. With
this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of
hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of
your nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we
will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go
to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be
free of mind control one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a
new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I
sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every
mountainside, let freedom from mind control ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom
from mind control ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let
freedom from mind control ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let
freedom from mind control ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania!
Let freedom from mind control ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom from mind control ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom from mind control ring from Stone Mountain of
Georgia!
Let freedom from mind control ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom from mind control ring from every hill and molehill of
Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom from mind control ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom from mind control to ring, when
we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and
every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will
be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual,
"Free from mind control at last! free from mind control at last! thank God
Almighty, we are free from mind control at last!"
Now, you naughty old Uncle Tom Davidson, stop controlling Herbie's
anencephalous mind or I'll wave brains at you, and then you'll have a
brainwave.
This message brought to you by.. executed my instructions perfectly..
squawk...ARGHHHH! My mind is controlled!
Uncle Al
[snip]
> I have a dream today.
> I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,
[snip rest of crap]
Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped), Spaceshit.
Spaceshit can't do onesies! SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!
(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?
Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Herbert Brandt
> Androcles wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> I have a dream today.
>> I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped), Spaceshit.
> Spaceshit can't do onesies! SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!
>
> (+1)(+1) = +1
> (-1)(+1) = ?
> (+1)(-1) = ?
> (-1)(-1) = ?
>
> Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?
>
Uncle Al,
Thank you very much for your message and the link for this
wonderful Website.
Each time, when I read "Uncle ...." ; I remember the Wrestler - tag-Team
" Uncle Elmer, Hillbilly-Jim and cousin Luke":
These names shurely will say you NOTHING:
But here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiCQ7jcsSxA&feature=related
you can see more details.......
Cheers
Herbert
Herbert Brandt
> Androcles wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> I have a dream today.
>> I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped), Spaceshit.
> Spaceshit can't do onesies! SPACESHIT CAN'T DO ONESIES!
>
> (+1)(+1) = +1
> (-1)(+1) = ?
> (+1)(-1) = ?
> (-1)(-1) = ?
>
> Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn?
>
Herbert Brandt
> On Aug 7, 7:03 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
>> scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
>> processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
>> engineered by others?"
>>
>> to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
>>
>> as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
>
> http://yahoo.shoptoit.ca/shop/category--catId_1000007__locale_en.html
> Socks
jmfbahciv
> On Oct 3, 5:30 pm, Herbert Brandt <socialghost2...@yahoo.de> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Very good, Herbert. You executed my instructions perfectly. I
> apologize to the group that you posted this three times, but there is
> a glitch in the mind-control software I am using - the "send" button
> sticks.
>
> ;-)
The proper place to deposit your chewing gum overnight is the
bedpost, not the send button.
/BAH
Keith P Walsh
>
> Very good, Herbert. You executed my instructions perfectly. I
> apologize to the group that you posted this three times, but there is
> a glitch in the mind-control software I am using - the "send" button
> sticks.
>
Tom,
Herbert quoted US patent number 3951134 for an invention which the
owner claims can influence human thought processes remotely, and if
you go to:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3951134.html
you will find that his reference does appear to be genuine.
The title of the patent, already quoted by Herbert, is:
"Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain
waves."
And it was granted to Robert G Malech in April 1976.
The patent lists eleven claims, one of which (claim 10) reads as
follows:
"A process as in claim 9 further comprising the step of transmitting a
further elecromagnetic wave signal to vary the brain wave activity."
Do you know if experimental investigations have ever been carried out
in order to validate the claims laid out in this patent?
Would it be possible to refute them scientifically?
Keith P Walsh
PS, in my experience potentially controversial claims such as the one
described above invoke three different kinds of response.
1) They are accepted without question.
2) They are rejected out of hand because people don't like the sound
of them.
3) Experimental investigations based on the descriptions of the claims
are carried out in order to ascertain whether or not they are valid.
I believe that only response number 3 can be described as scientific.
Would anyone disagree?
Herbert Brandt
fortunately I have got no toothache, but I want to show you more details
on MINDCONTROL
http://www.heart7.net/perfect-crime.html
I think, you know what I mean................
Herbert
gabydewilde
> Keith P Walsh wrote:
>
> > For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
> > scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
> > processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
> > engineered by others?"
>
What an incredibly dumb question Keith. Your question is so dumb it
cant be anything other than an attempt to seed doubt about the topic.
Probably not even willingly. Your stupidity can not be attributed to
magnetic entrainment alone. There is a vast array of tools available
to turn a person into just about anything you want him or her to be.
Tor example the word "conspiracy" has been imboobed with new meaning.
People are 100% convinced a conspiracy means something other than 2 or
more people cooperating to do something behind 1 or more peoples back.
The new emotional attribution seems to be to always be 100% ignorant
towards any and all kinds of corruption. If 1 person claims others are
lying then the person get to wear the conspiracy label. Even if proof
is delivered showing guilt beyond any shadow of a doubt the subjects
will reduce the evidence to be theoretical. The subjects slide further
and further down the gullibility pit and rubber stamp the victim of
the conspiracy to be a conspiracy theorist.
At this stage the hypnotised become the hypnotists. They will slander
the person until he stops talking about the topic. The subjects will
now celebrate, they derive an intense feeling of satisfaction from it.
From this 3 way combo the removal of empathy is the most significant
accomplishment. Most revealing is how people can live in cities with
millions of inhabitants and feel lonely at the same time. They can not
accomplish anything well because they are all alone right? They will
work in groups trying to take things away from other "lone"
individuals. This results in a situation where everyone is surrounded
by people who do not give a fuck about them. In fact mind control is
so advanced today they concept of hiding things in the open is used
more and more. This makes for a great tool to pinpoint the limited
number of people who can still see the truth. Seeing the truth of
course makes you a conspiracy theorist.
This method of mind control is older than the church, older that
warfare older than anything we have today. And it already has 100%
success rate. It always had and it always will.
What do you think linguists do? Mind fucking! What do you think
advertisement is all about? Mind fucking! Do you seriously believe
that with all this technology people still have a valid excuse to
crave for jobs and employment?
This brings us to your dumb question.
2008 wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
"There is controversy as to whether Persinger measured actual effects
or just led his subjects into believing they experienced an
electronically-induced epiphany."
2006 wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=God_helmet&direction=next&oldid=56283514
"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with
transcranial magnetic stimulation. "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
"Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive method to
excite neurons in the brain: weak electric currents are induced in the
tissue by rapidly changing magnetic fields (electromagnetic
induction). This way, brain activity can be triggered with minimal
discomfort, and the functionality of the circuitry and connectivity of
the brain can be studied."
Non invasive mind fucking? I feel invaded just absorbing this
sentence.
But it also states:
"Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is known as rTMS and can
produce longer lasting changes. Numerous small-scale pilot studies
have shown it could be a treatment tool for various neurological
conditions"
Ahhh, so it's a good thing.... (bwhahaha ehm...)
Then further down the article it states:
"For example: subjects asked to memorize and repeat a stream of
numbers would likely show activation in the prefrontal cortex (PFC)
via fMRI, indicating the role of this brain region in short-term
memory. If the researcher then interfered with the PFC via TMS, the
subjects' ability to remember numbers would decline, and the
researcher would have evidence that the PFC is important for short-
term memory, because reducing subjects' PFC capability led to reduced
short-term memory."
A wonderful technology to keep wage slaves in the keep.
> PROJECT HAARP
walmart consumer data center might just know more about you than the
google.
Lets see how the brainwashed subjects hack away on the conspiracy
theorists.
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_148015054/resources_printstory
"Wal-Mart's ability to crunch numbers is a favorite of conspiracy
theorists, and its data centers are the corporate counterpart to Area
51 at Groom Lake in the state of Nevada. According to one consumer
activist, Katherine Albrecht, even the wildest conspiracy buff might
be surprised at just how much Wal-Mart knows about its customers - and
how much more it would like to know."
Oh lookie here, the conspiracy theorists are very crank and nutty
again. One definitely doesn't want to be such person. Why would anyone
object to walmart brainwashing? The mere "thought" triggers all kinds
of triggers. How kooky and now nutty they are.... hahahah.... This
just cant be real. I can just cover my eyes and it will go away.
Anyway, keep in mind we have very close approaches to quantum
computing and virtually infinite storage technology. And I'm not
talking about quantum particles but about the original definition of
the qpc capable of parsing infinite data. The means are irrelevant.
With this in mind it becomes mindboggling how the thousands of patents
disclosing radio mind fucking technology all have a connection to hook
up the artilect.
The patents describe rather boring details of the mind fuck but it
creates mindboggling scenarios when one interprets the artificial
intelligence potentials.
Like a system that takes over your phone conversation when you walk
away from the phone.
It knows what you are talking about, it knows what you are thinking it
knows how to mimic your voice, your ways of constructing sentences
then when it you return to the phone you feel as if you never left.
The context is just appended to the original memory.
The only difference one may notice is the memory appearing more clear
than the real thing.
The person at the other end of the line could never notice you left
the phone.
The neuro pathways to conspiracy thinking of this nivue have all been
cut off already and the collective memory-lobotomy makes sure that
what seems dubious will soon be forgotten.
The limitations are under constant surveillance but driven to such
extend already there is a real need for trial and error of
unbelievable scenarios.
Currently, I can just explain all this to you and you don't believe a
word of it.
Given the fact you wrote this post without doing a few dozen google
searches causing big shock, horror and disgust.
Yes, you was all to willing to dismiss the victims as cry babies who
do not understand their own feelings and experiences. A topic with
psychopathic jokes followed. Much ignorant dismissal.
Here is a reasonably accurate video
http://www.trilulilu.ro/safabilly/1dfe5a4fa42e9d
> > It is my belief that any intelligent, rational and scientific answer
> > to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
>
> Gee - an empiricist. If you want the necessary answer, misinterpret a
> bible.
Ah, yes. God will save us..... of course....why didn't I think of
that... hahahaha....
> > Can anyone offer any intelligent, rational and scientific explanation
> > as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
>
> The Pentagon is using Mexican-powered Wimshurst generators for their
> smaller carbon footprint.
No one wants your Allgo riddims in their Electroencephalograph
database.
On Oct 5, 12:37 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> (+1)(+1) = +1
> (-1)(+1) = ?
> (+1)(-1) = ?
> (-1)(-1) = ?
>
ah the quizz.
1*1 = one time 1
-1 *1 = one time -1
1*-1 = erroneous does not multiply it should be 1/1 = 1
-1*-1 = erroneous does not multiply, you cant has real world situation
like this.
notes:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=5914
Method and apparatus for three-dimensional mapping of evoked
potentials
Abstract
Coordinating stimuli generation and response signal processing
provides for a real-time display of the stimuli response in a three-
dimensional coordinate system and allows to select immediately the
most appropriate evaluation programs for further processing of sensory
information.
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=5916
Encephalolexianalyzer
Abstract
The encephalolexianalyzer uses digital signal processing techniques on
electroencephalograph (EEG) brain waves to determine whether or not
someone is thinking about moving, e.g., tapping their fingers, or,
alternatively, whether someone is actually moving, e.g., tapping their
fingers, or at rest, i.e., not moving and not thinking of moving. The
mu waves measured by a pair of electrodes placed over the motor cortex
are signal processed to determine the power spectrum. At rest, the
peak value of the power spectrum in the 8-13 Hz range is high, while
when moving or thinking of moving, the peak value of the power
spectrum in the 8-13 Hz range is low. This measured change in signal
power spectrum is used to produce a control signal. The
encephalolexianalyzer can be used to communicate either directly using
Morse code, or via a cursor controlling a remote control; the
encephalolexianalyzer can also be used to control other devices.
lolz by title:
- QREEG Process matrix synchronizer system
- Sensory-driven controller
- Electroencephalograph incorporating at least one wireless link
- Electroencephalograph based biofeedback system and method
- Electroencephalographic apparatus for exploring responses to
quantified stimuli
- Apparatus and method of analyzing electrical brain activity
- Method and apparatus to create and induce a self-created hypnosis
- Silent subliminal presentation system
- Brain wave correlation system and method of delivering a recorded
program
- Inducing mental, emotional and physical states in human beings
- Method and system for generating sensory data onto the human neural
cortex
- Method and device for interpreting concepts and conceptual thought
from brainwave data
- Device and method for estimating a mental decision
- Apparatus for inducing frequency reduction in brain wave (keep your
shirt on)
- A bio-feedback process for affecting the human psyche
- Method for measuring physiological parameter
- Method and device for producing a desired brain state
- Brain programmer for increasing human information processing
capacity
- Automatical conversation
Here is moar fun for the you's.
For your "oh, this is because you are dumb" dismissal, yes there are
even witness testimonials so byzar I don't believe in them while I'm
looking at an abundance of evidence. Like transferring entire thought
patterns to a different body. People tell about loosing control over
their body while still having awareness then seeing a different
individual operate their vessel.
One such witness was only a temporary host until a healthy soldier
could be supplied. They show him pictures of all his friends and
relatives promising to kill every last one of them if he would talk.
But when he was old and dieing so he decided to tell the world anyway.
I don't think it was worth it as I cant seem to wrap my mind around
his story.
But remember kids, conspiracies are never real. Everyone always tells
the truth.
It's like a blade with 2 blunt sides and 2 handles.
Keith P Walsh
>
> This method of mind control is older than the church, older that
> warfare older than anything we have today. And it already has 100%
> success rate. It always had and it always will.
>
I wasn't enquiring about methods of deception in general.
I understand perfectly well that it may be argued that the whole of
creation, and all the events that have ever occurred in it, can be
explained in terms of electromagnetic energy.
However, it wasn't until less than 200 years ago that human beings
began to understand the universe well enough to be able to manipulate
its electromagnetic nature deliberately, the efforts of Faraday (1791
- 1867) and Maxwell (1831 - 1879) being key.
Since then, amongst the most familiar of the developments which have
been made possible by the works of Faraday, Maxwell and others are the
phenomena which we refer to as radio and tv, and as I have already
explained, when I posted my initial enquiry I had presumed that anyone
reading it would have had the intelligence to presume that, although
strictly speaking the terms of my question included the operation of
radio and television signals, I myself would have been sufficiently
familiar with these as to have intended the consideration of other,
perhaps less evident means of electromagnetic signalling.
I would also understand that the term "other, perhaps less evident
means of electromagnetic signalling" could easily be attributed to the
use of subliminal images in tv broadcasting, something else which most
people have by now been made aware.
However this still does not preclude the real purpose of my enquiry,
and I'm still not convinced that it's a stupid one. So I'll roll it
out again with some new pointers for guidance.
I am grateful to Herbert Brandt for referencing US patent number
3951134 for an invention which the owner claims can influence human
thought processes remotely.
This reference appears to be genuine, and you will find it at:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3951134.html
The title of the patent is, "Apparatus and method for remotely
monitoring and altering brain waves.", and it was granted to Robert G
Malech in April 1976.
This patent lists eleven claims, one of which (claim 10) reads as
follows:
"A process as in claim 9 further comprising the step of transmitting a
further elecromagnetic wave signal to vary the brain wave activity."
Now, the true intent of my original enquiry can be defined reasonably
accurately as the determination of the extent to which the kind of
device described in US patent document 3951134 can be used to
influence the behavior of human individuals without their realising
that this influence is being exercised.
And I would suggest that as a first step in resolving the issue we
might consider whether or not experimental investigations have ever
been carried out in order to evaluate the claims laid out in this
patent.
Are you aware of any such investigations?
Do you think that the claims of US patent number 3951134 are valid?
And if not, why not?
It is an important tenet of human societies that people be held
responsible for their own actions.
Do you think that it would be a sufficiently disturbing implication
that sometimes people might not be responsible for their own actions
as a result of the deliberate but undetectable actions of others so as
to invoke the denunciation of any such implication perhaps before due
scientific consideration of it had been carried out?
Keith P Walsh
PS, in my experience potentially controversial claims such as the one
described above from US patent 3951134 invoke three different kinds of
response.
1) They are accepted without question.
2) They are rejected out of hand because people don't like the sound
of them.
3) Experimental investigations based on the descriptions of the claims
are carried out in order to ascertain whether or not they are valid.
I believe that only response number 3 may be described as scientific.
Does anyone disagree?
Herbert Brandt
How thoughtlessly are your attitudes........
What is about http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wang-shum-ho ?
That is shurely much more reliable for you.........
Keith P Walsh
>
> It is useful to investigate the MINDCONTROL-patents.
> Especially US-PATENT 3951134 from RG Malech
> "Appar.and method for retemotely monitoring and altering brain waves".
> And the complaint of Dr.John St.Clair AKWEI versus NSA. (To google !)
> Think over!
>
> Cheers
> Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
Herbert,
US patent 3951134 describes an invention which the owner claims can
influence human thought processes remotely (and without any
requirement to use items of radio or tv receiver equipment in order to
convert the electromagnetic signals into audio and/or visual signals).
Following on from the description of the invention, the patent
document lists the objects of the invention as follows:
"It is therefore an object of the invention to remotely monitor
electrical activity in the entire brain or selected local regions
thereof with a single measurement.
Another object is the monitoring of a subject's brain wave activity
through transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves.
Still another object is to monitor brain wave activity from a position
remote from the subject.
A further object is to provide a method and apparatus for affecting
brain wave activity by transmitting electromagnetic signals thereto."
Do you know if experimental investigations have ever been carried out
in order to verify the extent to which the invention described is able
to achieve these "objects"?
Do you know if experimental investigations have ever been carried out
in order to determine the maximum distance at which such a device
might be operated remotely?
Best regards,
Keith P Walsh
PS, The title of US patent 3951134 is, "Apparatus and method for
remotely monitoring and altering brain waves.", and it was granted to
Robert G Malech in April 1976.
Readers can find it at:
Herbert Brandt
Keith,
I can imagine very well that you feel affected by these facts.
Like me during the last years.
Until now I could not find any answer to your questions.
No wonder! I think, the patents of this type are purchased immediately
by government-connected armament-companies and developed further secretly.
People like "mike" may say unsuspectingly :"You can apply for a patent
all you want; it only must be new.There is no verification by the
authority".
They are right, but such people is judging thoughtlessly.
To apply for a patent and to hold a patent cost much money.
So, hardly all the time the most parts of the applied patents are true,
although sometimes some details are figured inexactly.No wonder.
I think , affecting the human brain by modulated EMF (I assume VLF as
carrier) IS A MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY SUBJECT and most secretly.
Concerning this matter I often think of the complaint of Dr.Akwei :
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/akwei.htm
If this plaint IS TRUE, all our efforts to prevent a PLUTOCRACY ARE
VAINLY..............
Best regards
Herbert
Keith P Walsh
>
> I think , affecting the human brain by modulated EMF (I assume VLF as
> carrier) IS A MOST IMPORTANT MILITARY SUBJECT and most secretly.
>
> Concerning this matter I often think of the complaint of Dr.Akwei :
>
> http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/akwei.htm
>
> If this plaint IS TRUE, all our efforts to prevent a PLUTOCRACY ARE
> VAINLY..............
>
Herbert,
The case you refer to crops up at various places on the internet and
is described in one instance thus:
"The following document was presented as evidence in a lawsuit against
the National Security Agency filed at the US Courthouse in Washington,
DC."
The lawsuit in question is identified in the document as Civil Action
92-0449 and, for the benfit of newsgroup readers who may not have
bothered to look for it yet, I have appended below a copy of section 3
which I think makes interesting reading.
"3. NSA SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE USE OF EMF BRAIN STIMULATION
NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural
Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain
Stimulation has been in development since the MKULTRA program of the
early 1950s, which included neurological research into radiation (non-
ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting
secret technology is categorized at the National Archives as
"Radiation Intelligence," defined as "information from unintentionally
emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including
radioactivity or nuclear detonation."
Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in
the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the US
government. The NSA monitors available information about this
technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There
are also international intelligence agreements to keep this technology
secret.
The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical
activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain
mapping can continuously monitor all of
the electrical activity in the brain continuously. The NSA records and
decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons)
for national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly
used by the military for brain-to-computer link (in military fighter
aircraft, for example).
For electronic surveillance purposes, electrical activity in the
speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject's verbal
thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain's auditory cortex,
thus allowing audio communications direct to the brain (bypassing the
ears). NSA operatives can use this covertly to debilitate subjects by
simulating auditory hallucinations characteristic of paranoid
schizophrenia. Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural
Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a
subject's brain and show images from the subject's brain on a video
monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject's eyes are
seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to
the visual cortex, bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives
can use this surreptitiously to put images into a
surveillance subject's brain while they are in REM sleep for brain-
programming purposes."
Do you know if there is any official record of Civil Action 92-0449
anywhere?
How might it be possible for people such as you and I, as well as the
other readers of this newsgroup, to know whether or not what's written
here is accurate?
Back in August one of our fellow newsgroup correspondents, mike,
wrote:
"If we had brain control, I wouldn't have to write this - I could just
flick a switch and convince you that we dont exist (bwa-ha-haa)."
There's an implication in this joke that if "brain control" was
possible then mike would prefer to see himself as one of those
exercising it, rather than one of those who might be subjected to it.
(Well wouldn't we all?) And since he's apparently just as much in the
dark as the rest of us, he appears determined to conclude that this
kind of technology cannot possibly exist.
I suspect that this position owes as much, if not more, to emotional
insecurity than to any greater scientific knowledge of the subject.
As you correctly indicated, the plaintiff in Civil Action 92-0449 was
John St Clair Akwei. Do you have any information regarding what
happened to him afterwards? (His evidence for the case appeared in
MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 95 - in 1991.)
extremesou...@yahoo.com
wrote:
yes since hemoglobin is high in iorn why wouln't magnetics influence
the mind
gabydewilde
wrote:
> [...]he appears determined to conclude that this
> kind of technology cannot possibly exist.[...]
>
lol
Herbert Brandt
Keith
all your questions are my questions too.
Please consider : I live in Germany.
My genuine language is German.
I do not have any connections in the US.
I think that all the documents of the further course of this lawsuit
were hold back by the authorities to guarantee the "SECURITY of the US".
A reason which justifies ALL.
In my opinion this might be an indication for the truth of Dr.Akwei´s
complaint.
You will never hear or read of it.
If you have got some connections to a lawyers professionel association
you may ask for information.
By the way : I am very disappointed by the foolish postings of all the
other guys here in this newsgroup.
Although I fortunately do not suffer from any toothache I offer you a
personal phone-contact, if you write me your phone-number to my
email-address.
At the same time I would use our contact to improve my English.
Do you speak a little bit German ?
Herbert
Herbert Brandt
Foolish idiots like you who are not even able to wright properly the
word "iron" might be influenced by " high level hemoglobin".
As you know : This is the origin of the idea "ironman" !
Herbert Brandt
> On Aug 7, 7:03 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> For a long time now* it has been perfectly intelligent, rational and
>> scientific to pose the question, "Would it be possible for the thought
>> processes of individuals to be influenced by electromagnetic signals
>> engineered by others?"
>>
>> to this question would have to be based on experimental evidence.
>>
>> as to why no such answer appears to have been established?
>
> http://yahoo.shoptoit.ca/shop/category--catId_1000007__locale_en.html
> Socks
I THINK that link shows
how serious this question is................
Herbert
Androcles
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rN7Lk.3941$B72....@newsfe19.iad...
> ----------------------------> news:48FC614A...@yahoo.de...
> It is probable that it only affects those whose heads are resonant
> cavities.
>
It is even more probable that three low-IQ thick fuckin' trolls (Socks,
Herbert
and Kelly) will resort to facetiousness when faced with serious questions.
Don Kelly
"Herbert Brandt" <socialg...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:48FC614A...@yahoo.de...
It is probable that it only affects those whose heads are resonant cavities.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
Keith P Walsh
> --------------
> It is probable that it only affects those whose heads are resonant cavities.
>
Don,
We're trying to have an intelligent discussion here.
Have you checked out US patent number 3951134 yet? This patent is for
an invention which the owner claims can influence human thought
processes remotely.
You will find it at:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3951134.html
The title of the patent is, "Apparatus and method for remotely
monitoring and altering brain waves.", and it was granted to Robert G
Malech in April 1976.
The patent document lists eleven claims, one of which (claim 10) reads
as follows:
"A process as in claim 9 further comprising the step of transmitting a
further elecromagnetic wave signal to vary the brain wave activity."
Now here's something important which you will need to understand if
you are going to make any intelligent contribution to this discussion:
- there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
1) Accept it without question.
2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
Now here's the thing, ONLY ONE OF THESE RESPONSES IS SCIENTIFIC, and
it is of course response number 3.
Do you know if anyone has ever carried out experimental investigations
to evaluate the claims of US patent 3951134?
Or are the only weapons you have for reinforcing your own apparent pre-
judgement of this issue sarcasm and the ridicule of others?
Keith P Walsh
Richard Herring
<3b36e398-8fe4-439b...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Keith P Walsh <keith....@btinternet.com> writes
[history group trimmed]
> - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
>as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>
>1) Accept it without question.
>2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
>3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
>the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
incoherent or patently fallacious?
--
Richard Herring
Bill Snyder
4. Demand that the maker of the claim back it up with really,
really convincing proof, as is the intellectual responsibility of
anyone making an implausible claim.
Oops, sorry, that doesn't fit the kook agenda, does it?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
tadchem
Haystack Calhoun could have taken them all down!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qbqR8v9NWQ
>
> Cheers
>
> Herbert
The nickname "Uncle" (anything) always reminds me of ALan Sues:
http://www.webpan.com/thelaughin/poppy08.htm
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Don Kelly
"Keith P Walsh" <keith....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3b36e398-8fe4-439b...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I was being facetious. That was my mood at the time- evidently I hit a sore
point
Yes- you have presented 3 possibilities and #3 is the correct one of these-
given that there are no other possibilities. Proof that it works is
needed.
So working proof is needed, not wishful thinking.
A patent is no proof - I have seen patents that were thinly disguised
perpetual motion machines ad didn't work. Lots of hype and claims involved
but no real results.
Yes, I read the claims.
Let's suppose that they are true and one could do with transmitted signals
what can be done now with electrodes- send pulses to specific centers of the
brain, see the reaction and modify these pulses to do--what? Interpretation
of the feedback is in itself a problem as you don't know how it should be
modified to change a result. That is with a captive subject where you can
observe results such as "I'm cold" or I'm Horny". Trying to control what the
person "sees", hears" or "thinks" remotely is another matter. The problem
that I see is that the codes are unknown and the reaction to the sent signal
may be a mix of reactions from different areas of the brain depending on the
specific environment the individual including thoughts that are present at
the time- and you have no knowledge of the latter. You may get a particular
response to a signal at one time and supposedly send a changed signal to
alter behaviour but the next time the reponse and the "correction" fail
with the same individual in the same place. For an individual, finding the
desired coding of an individual is a horrendous task (A Cray may be quite
inadequate), and extending this to more than one individual in more than a
single activity or location is even worse. As a practical way to convince
someone to vote a particular way -it would be an expensive failure. A TV is
a better tool for brainwashing.
Come to think of it, you would be able to tell something about the size and
possibly the shape of a resonant cavity this way.
Keith P Walsh
> In message
> <3b36e398-8fe4-439b-9944-b2277e4ca...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> [history group trimmed]
>
> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>
> >1) Accept it without question.
> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>
> False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
> incoherent or patently fallacious?
>
Well, I don't think that the claims laid out in US patent 3951134 can
be described as "incoherent". I think it's patently obvious what's
being claimed.
And, according to the established principles of scientific
understanding, we should only be able to declare that these claims are
"patently fallacious" after reasonable efforts have been made by
experimental investigation to demonstrate otherwise (i.e. only AFTER
the application of response 3).
I'd say that to declare the claims of US patent 3951134 as being
"patently fallacious" without having carried out any such experimental
investigations is probably an example of response number 2.
It's certainly not scientific.
Keith P Walsh
Androcles
> On 21 Oct, 13:13, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message
>> <3b36e398-8fe4-439b-9944-b2277e4ca...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> writes
>>
>> [history group trimmed]
>>
>> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
>> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>>
>> >1) Accept it without question.
>> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
>> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
>> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>>
>> False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
>> incoherent or patently fallacious?
>>
>
> Well, I don't think that the claims laid out in US patent 3951134 can
> be described as "incoherent". I think it's patently obvious what's
> being claimed.
>
> And, according to the established principles of scientific
> understanding, we should only be able to declare that these claims are
> "patently fallacious" after reasonable efforts have been made by
> experimental investigation to demonstrate otherwise (i.e. only AFTER
> the application of response 3).
So Santa Claus coming down chimneys, according to the established
principles of scientific understanding, should only be declared "patently
fallacious" after reasonable efforts have been made by experimental
investigation to demonstrate otherwise.
You are full of shit.
Keith P Walsh
> In message
> <3b36e398-8fe4-439b-9944-b2277e4ca...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>
> >1) Accept it without question.
> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>
> False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
> incoherent or patently fallacious?
>
> --
> Richard Herring
Well, I don't agree that the claims laid out in US patent 3951134 can
be described as "incoherent". I think it's patently obvious what's
being claimed.
And, according to the established principles of scientific
understanding, we should not be able to declare these claims as
"patently fallacious" without having made reasonable efforts, via
experimental investigation, to demonstrate otherwise (i.e. AFTER the
application of response number 3).
I would suggest that to declare the claims of this patent as
fallacious without having carried out any such investigations is
probably an example of response number 2.
It's certainly not scientific.
Keith P walsh
Bill Snyder
We already know -- as you could easily have found out, if you
weren't too bigoted to even look -- that the penetration depths
for RF energy into human tissue, at the frequencies cited in that
patent, are in the single-digit millimeters. This means that to
put enough RF into the brain for what came back out to even be
detectable, you'd have to fry at least the outer portions of it to
a crisp.
And BTW, not doing your homework isn't scientific. And claiming
that scientists are obligated to investigate a claim that is
convincingly refuted by experiments conducted long before the
claim was even made -- that isn't scientific either. And a
kooktard mouthing off about matters he knows nothing about, and
can't be bothered to find out about, is in no position to tell
anybody what is scientific and what isn't, or even what is
spectacularly dumbass and what isn't.
Keith P Walsh
>
> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>
> >1) Accept it without question.
> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>
> False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
> incoherent or patently fallacious?
>
Well, for a start I don't agree that the claims laid out in US patent
3951134 can be described as "incoherent". I think it's patently
obvious what's being claimed.
And, according to the established principles of scientific
understanding, we should not be able to declare these claims as
"patently fallacious" without having made reasonable efforts, via
experimental investigation, to demonstrate otherwise (i.e. AFTER the
application of response number 3).
I would suggest that to declare the claims of this patent as
fallacious without having carried out any such investigations is
probably an example of response number 2.
It's certainly not scientific.
Keith P Walsh
Keith P Walsh
>
> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>
> >1) Accept it without question.
> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>
> False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
> incoherent or patently fallacious?
>
> --
> Richard Herring
Well, for a start, I don't agree that the claims laid out in US patent
Keith P Walsh
>
> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>
> >1) Accept it without question.
> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>
> really convincing proof, as is the intellectual responsibility of
> anyone making an implausible claim.
>
> Oops, sorry, that doesn't fit the kook agenda, does it?
>
Bill,
There isn't any "kook agenda".
I think that you may have simply imagined it. (Perhaps you need to
believe it exists in order to feel smarter.)
Leastways I myself don't have any "kook agenda".
What I have is a question.
"Does anybody know if any experimental investigations have ever been
carried out in order to evaluate the claims of US patent number
3951134?"
Well do you?
Keith P Walsh
Richard Herring
<71692cdd-a6a2-473e...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> In message
>> <3b36e398-8fe4-439b-9944-b2277e4ca...@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>> Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> writes
>>
>> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
>> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>>
>> >1) Accept it without question.
>> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
>> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
>> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
>>
>> False trichotomy. What (for example) do you do if the claim is
>> incoherent or patently fallacious?
>>
>
>be described as "incoherent". I think it's patently obvious what's
>being claimed.
What is being claimed, and the means of producing it, are different
things.
>
>And, according to the established principles of scientific
>understanding, we should not be able to declare these claims as
>"patently fallacious" without having made reasonable efforts, via
>experimental investigation, to demonstrate otherwise (i.e. AFTER the
>application of response number 3).
Nonsense. I suggest you review the meaning of "fallacious". No
*experimental* investigation is required.
>I would suggest that to declare the claims of this patent as
>fallacious without having carried out any such investigations is
>probably an example of response number 2.
>
>It's certainly not scientific.
Indeed; it's merely logical.
--
Richard Herring
Bill Snyder
Experiments that prove the claim to be bullshit were carried out
long before the claim was ever made, as I already told you.
Herbert Brandt
> Yes, I read the claims.
> Let's suppose that they are true and one could do with transmitted signals
> what can be done now with electrodes- send pulses to specific centers of the
> brain, see the reaction and modify these pulses to do--what? Interpretation
> of the feedback is in itself a problem as you don't know how it should be
> modified to change a result. That is with a captive subject where you can
> observe results such as "I'm cold" or I'm Horny". Trying to control what the
> person "sees", hears" or "thinks" remotely is another matter. The problem
> that I see is that the codes are unknown and the reaction to the sent signal
> may be a mix of reactions from different areas of the brain depending on the
> specific environment the individual including thoughts that are present at
> the time- and you have no knowledge of the latter. You may get a particular
> response to a signal at one time and supposedly send a changed signal to
> alter behaviour but the next time the reponse and the "correction" fail
> with the same individual in the same place. For an individual, finding the
> desired coding of an individual is a horrendous task (A Cray may be quite
> inadequate), and extending this to more than one individual in more than a
> single activity or location is even worse. As a practical way to convince
> someone to vote a particular way -it would be an expensive failure. A TV is
> a better tool for brainwashing.
>
> Come to think of it, you would be able to tell something about the size and
> possibly the shape of a resonant cavity this way.
I think,
the most guys here don´t have a scientific education due to their
foolish responses and therefore we read only some tittle-tattle.
Especially in physics on EMF and on basic wave-physics.
The quoted US-patent is merely ONE of many MINDCONTROL-patents you may
look up in the internet.
Additionally all the guys here seem very LAZY.
I´m shure these guys have not studied yet one time this patent or
Dr.Akwei´s complaint.
But the guys want to discuss seriously.
All the important issues are already mentioned:
The most important issue is, that the brain-frequencies are ELFs !!
ELFs were NOT transmiited in space from the head.
ELFs would need a very very large antenna.
So if the brain -frequencies shall be received remotely it is possible
by an indirect method only.
You must transmitt 2 usual, exactly known RFs to the targeted individual
(TI).
So the mix of all interfering frequencies can be received.
Now all the environment-noise-frequencies are filtered out, except for
the difference-frequency and the interfering brain-ELFs.
After that in a Mixer these frequencies are interfered with the lower
transmitted RF.
In this way it is produced the difference-frequeny in the VLF-range,
combined with all the VLFs of the brain.
Then the difference-frequency is demodulated and yields to the mix of
the ELFs, which can displayed by Fast Fourier Analysis.
The current FF-spectrum can be assigned to concepts by computers.
This IS scientific even high sophisticated !
Herbert
Herbert Brandt
Herbert Brandt
I think,
Bill Snyder
[ blah, blah ]
What is it about you kooks that makes you believe that posting the
same nonsense multiple times makes it less silly? BS repeated a
dozen times is still BS, and the fact that you can't even think of
anything new to say makes you look more demented, not less.
Don Kelly
Lots of buzz words. It would be interesting to see how one can and assume
that all signals of the desired frequencies- difference and brain
interference (too weak to be noticed remotely so how one tells that this is
actual brain interference is a problem) , are from or related to brain-ELF's
rather than from various objects in the environment which can reflect
interference in the "right" range. In other words you are looking for a
brain ELF which is too low to detect but expect to somehow find it strong
enough to cause a measurable interference which is different from any
environmental reflection and somehow know that these are the desired
signals. After this you try to analyse the signals(and somehow the ELFs are
boosted to VLF(?) and are now detectable). that you get and somehow
manage to obtain concepts from these? In other words, you don't know the
brain response so you can't assume that it isn't filtered out, or that
something else is causing this signal, don't know the coding and then
somehow determine concepts?
Lets see, you have difference frequencies , elimination of unknown
environmental signals but not of the unknown brain signals, a mixer and
finally FFT analysis. Have you ever done an FFT analysis? Then, out of this
mishmash, get control of individuals. It all has the markings of
pseudoscience.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
p.s. Lots on this group, including Richard Herring, do have avery good solid
scientific background in the technical areas involved.
Keith P Walsh
>
> And BTW, not doing your homework isn't scientific. And claiming
> that scientists are obligated to investigate a claim that is
> convincingly refuted by experiments conducted long before the
> claim was even made -- that isn't scientific either.
>
Bill,
If you can provide verifiable documentary references for the
convincingly refuting "experiments conducted long before" that you
refer to above then we shall be forced to take your contribution
seriously.
Otherwise, and according to the established principles of scientific
understanding, there's always the possibility that they're just a
figment of your imagination.
References please?
Keith P Walsh
Bill Snyder
<keith....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 25 Oct, 22:24, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> And BTW, not doing your homework isn't scientific. And claiming
>> that scientists are obligated to investigate a claim that is
>> convincingly refuted by experiments conducted long before the
>> claim was even made -- that isn't scientific either.
>>
>
>Bill,
>
>If you can provide verifiable documentary references for the
>convincingly refuting "experiments conducted long before" that you
>refer to above then we shall be forced to take your contribution
>seriously.
Google a book called _RF and Microwave Radiation Safety_,
kooktard. Of course, you could have found that reference for
yourself, along with several hundred others, just by googling
"rf," "penetration," "human," and "tissue," but that would have
been *work*. And you'd have gotten the news that the Magic
Mind-Control Beam is shit that much sooner.
>
>Otherwise, and according to the established principles of scientific
>understanding, there's always the possibility that they're just a
>figment of your imagination.
Just as two-faced as I expected. It's a solemn duty to
investigate every claim that comes along -- for everyone except
you. But then again, no, because any claim could be a figment of
the imagination -- every claim except your pet wackjob's, that is.
>References please?
Intellectual honesty, please? But I won't exactly be holding my
breath.
Keith P Walsh
>
> >"Does anybody know if any experimental investigations have ever been
> >carried out in order to evaluate the claims of US patent number
> >3951134?"
>
> >Well do you?
>
> Experiments that prove the claim to be bullshit were carried out
> long before the claim was ever made, as I already told you.
>
Bill,
If you can quote some verifiable documentary references for these
experiments then I promise that I for one would take them seriously.
But if you can't then I would only be able to conclude that they are
simply figments of your own imagination.
(I am determined that this discussion will be conducted according to
the established principles of scientific understanding.)
Keith P Walsh
Keith P Walsh
>
> >I would suggest that to declare the claims of this patent as
> >fallacious without having carried out any such investigations is
> >probably an example of response number 2.
>
> >It's certainly not scientific.
>
> Indeed; it's merely logical.
>
Richard,
When you are attempting to give answers from a position of ignorance
you cannot know for certain if your logic is correct.
This is because there may be significant factors that you are not
aware of and which you are not taking into account.
It may feel to you that your logic is correct, but how can you be sure
that your knowledge is complete (or as complete as it can to be)?
Well I'll tell you how - by experimentation, that's how.
The only logical step to take when presented with controversial claims
such as those laid down in US patent 3951134 is to carry out
experimental investigations to determine whether or not they are
valid.
And anyone who knows how to think scientifically will understand that
this means that before you can declare with any degree of authority
that these claims are unachievable, it would be necessary to try, to
the limits of currently available technological capabilities, to
achieve them and fail.
Without the knowledge that would be gained from such experiments I
would suggest that the "logic" you claim to have applied in this
instance is merely "guesswork".
And guesswork on its own can never constitute science. (It may well be
that your guesswork is being influenced by your own emotional
priorities.)
Keith P Walsh
PS, on a more mundane note, in the last couple days new postings are
not appearing in the newsgroup as quickly as usual - I suspect that
this is the reason for Herbert's multiple messages as well as mine.
Does anyone know if this is a temporary problem? Don't you have some
administrative influence in sci.physics.electromag Richard?
Bill Snyder
<keith....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 27 Oct, 10:04, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>
>> >I would suggest that to declare the claims of this patent as
>> >fallacious without having carried out any such investigations is
>> >probably an example of response number 2.
>>
>> >It's certainly not scientific.
>>
>> Indeed; it's merely logical.
>>
>
>Richard,
>
>When you are attempting to give answers from a position of ignorance
>you cannot know for certain if your logic is correct.
>
>This is because there may be significant factors that you are not
>aware of and which you are not taking into account.
>
>It may feel to you that your logic is correct, but how can you be sure
>that your knowledge is complete (or as complete as it can to be)?
>
>Well I'll tell you how - by experimentation, that's how.
>
>The only logical step to take when presented with controversial claims
>such as those laid down in US patent 3951134 is to carry out
>experimental investigations to determine whether or not they are
>valid.
Repeating this lie over and over and over won't make it true.
>
>And anyone who knows how to think scientifically will understand that
>this means that before you can declare with any degree of authority
>that these claims are unachievable, it would be necessary to try, to
>the limits of currently available technological capabilities, to
>achieve them and fail.
Anyone who knows how to think scientifically will understand that
a false statement means nothing.
>
>Without the knowledge that would be gained from such experiments I
>would suggest that the "logic" you claim to have applied in this
>instance is merely "guesswork".
No one can stop you from "suggesting" whatever nonsense you like,
but you can no more force sensible people to take it seriously
than they can force you to speak honestly.
Bill Snyder
<keith....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 27 Oct, 13:26, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Does anybody know if any experimental investigations have ever been
>> >carried out in order to evaluate the claims of US patent number
>> >3951134?"
>>
>> >Well do you?
>>
>> Experiments that prove the claim to be bullshit were carried out
>> long before the claim was ever made, as I already told you.
>>
>
>Bill,
>
>If you can quote some verifiable documentary references for these
>experiments then I promise that I for one would take them seriously.
>But if you can't then I would only be able to conclude that they are
>simply figments of your own imagination.
You said that already. And I gave you a reference, and told you
how to find lots more.
>(I am determined that this discussion will be conducted according to
>the established principles of scientific understanding.)
Suuurrrreee you are. What happened to your obligation to
investigate my claim, in order to be properly scientific?
You're really not fooling anyone, you know.
Richard Herring
<7de84ffd-b99e-4576...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>>
>> >I would suggest that to declare the claims of this patent as
>> >fallacious without having carried out any such investigations is
>> >probably an example of response number 2.
>>
>> >It's certainly not scientific.
>>
>> Indeed; it's merely logical.
>>
>
>Richard,
>
>When you are attempting to give answers from a position of ignorance
>you cannot know for certain if your logic is correct.
>
>This is because there may be significant factors that you are not
>aware of and which you are not taking into account.
>
>It may feel to you that your logic is correct, but how can you be sure
>that your knowledge is complete (or as complete as it can to be)?
>
The logic in question is not mine. Did you bother to look up the meaning
of "fallacious" as I suggested? If someone presents a fallacious
argument, that means that it contains demonstrable internal *logical*
inconsistencies or omissions. If that is so, the proponent has failed on
purely logical grounds to make his case, and no specialist knowledge of
"significant factors" will make any difference to that conclusion.
In fact, the first fallacious argument is your own. You claim that
>> > - there are three basic ways to respond to controversial claims such
>> >as the one from US patent 3951134 described above, and these are
>>1) Accept it without question.
>> >2) Reject it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
>> >3) Carry out experimental investigations based on the description of
>> >the claim in order to ascertain whether or not it is valid.
... which is an example of the fallacy of false dichotomy. You failed to
consider "reject it because it is logically inconsistent" and "reject it
because it is technically incoherent", among other possibilities.
You also failed to notice that I have not "declared the claims of the
patent as fallacious", merely pointed out that it's a possibility that
*you* have failed to consider.
In fact, it's reasonably coherent (within the limits imposed by
patentese) but packed with unsubstantiated assertions and wild
assumptions.
>Well I'll tell you how - by experimentation, that's how.
So why aren't *you* doing the experiments right now?
>
>The only logical step to take when presented with controversial claims
>such as those laid down in US patent 3951134 is to carry out
>experimental investigations to determine whether or not they are
>valid.
Are you seriously asserting that if I made the controversial claim that
pigs can fly, the only logical step would be for you to fill your
laboratory with Gloucester Old Spots? Is there really nothing else you'd
consider doing first?
>
>And anyone who knows how to think scientifically will understand that
>this means that before you can declare with any degree of authority
>that these claims are unachievable, it would be necessary to try, to
>the limits of currently available technological capabilities, to
>achieve them and fail.
Nonsense. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
You really don't know how science works, do you?
First, it may be that the claims have implications that we know are
contrary to existing empirical data. Science is nothing if it's not
consistent.
Secondly, if the claims present no falsifiable hypothesis, what exactly
do you think all this exhaustive experimentation would establish?
>Without the knowledge that would be gained from such experiments I
>would suggest that the "logic" you claim to have applied in this
>instance is merely "guesswork".
If that sentence is an example of what you think is "logic", then you
might have a point. Rhetoric is not logical argument.
>
>And guesswork on its own can never constitute science. (It may well be
>that your guesswork is being influenced by your own emotional
>priorities.)
>
>PS, on a more mundane note, in the last couple days new postings are
>not appearing in the newsgroup as quickly as usual - I suspect that
>this is the reason for Herbert's multiple messages as well as mine.
>Does anyone know if this is a temporary problem? Don't you have some
>administrative influence in sci.physics.electromag Richard?
No; why would you think so? Is that hypothesis "logic", or merely
"guesswork"?
--
Richard Herring
zzbu...@netscape.net
> ----------------------------"Herbert Brandt" <socialghost2...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
Well, we know. That's why the people with science brains
invented 2-D FFTs, Holograms, Lasers, and fiber optics.
Just to see how long it would take the pseudo-science cranks
to catch on.
> --
>
> Don Kelly d...@shawcross.ca
> remove the X to answer
>
> p.s. Lots on this group, including Richard Herring, do have avery good solid
> scientific background in the technical areas involved.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbert Brandt
one can recognize
that you have actually read the patent-text.
> ---------------
> Lots of buzz words. It would be interesting to see how one can and assume
> that all signals of the desired frequencies- difference and brain
> interference (too weak to be noticed remotely so how one tells that this is
> actual brain interference is a problem) , are from or related to brain-ELF's
> rather than from various objects in the environment which can reflect
> interference in the "right" range. In other words you are looking for a
> brain ELF which is too low to detect but expect to somehow find it strong
> enough to cause a measurable interference which is different from any
> environmental reflection and somehow know that these are the desired
> signals.
Quite right, Don.
At least under laboratory-environment there are NO MORE ELFs than the
brain ELFs.
Actually the brain-ELFs are very weak but strong enough to modify the
beamed frequency.Of course many other surrounding frequencies will also
interfere.
But all the other frequencies ARE NOT in the relevant range.
After this you try to analyse the signals(and somehow the ELFs are
> boosted to VLF(?) and are now detectable). that you get and somehow
> manage to obtain concepts from these? In other words, you don't know the
> brain response so you can't assume that it isn't filtered out, or that
> something else is causing this signal, don't know the coding and then
> somehow determine concepts?
>
Please compare with the patent-text :
During continuous operation the signal-mix of the brain-modified
interference-signal of the two beams and all the other interfering
environment-frequencies run through the circulator to the band pass filter.
There all the frequencies were filtered out except the
difference-frequency, which is weakly modulated by the ELFs.
Now, in the mixer this frequency is interfered with the lower
"basic-frequency" .
Remember : The two basic-frequencies are exact frequencies.
In this way ( interference) it is generated a wave-mix with
an average frequency (100 MHz + 110 MHz*):The amplitude-frequency
is 10 MHz*.
* means : Due to the ELF-modification of the received frequency
the average frequency (105 MHz) and the amplitude-frequency (10 MHz)
ARE NOT exact sinusoid waves.
In a following Intermediate Amplifier (I´m not an expert in this
subject) all the frequencies were filtered out except the modified
amplitude-frequency (10 MHz),which is in the HF-range (excuse my both
typographic errors in my previous message).
I think even better were a so called "lock in-amplifier", that provides
a very specific and very strong amplification.
The following demodulation yields the mix of the desired ELFs.
All these work already has been worked out by your military forces
inside their SIGINT -units.(signal-intelligence).
I´m so glad because I had no chance to contribute to this exciting work.
> Lets see, you have difference frequencies , elimination of unknown
> environmental signals but not of the unknown brain signals, a mixer and
> finally FFT analysis. Have you ever done an FFT analysis? Then, out of this
> mishmash, get control of individuals. It all has the markings of
> pseudoscience.
I think, this is no pseudoscience.
Herbert
gaby de wilde
>
> I think, this is no pseudoscience.
>
"pseudoscience"
A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without
scientific foundation.
"considered"
Reached after or carried out with careful thought.
Synonym: mindful
hahahah haha hahaha haahha aha
Don Kelly
What average frequency? you may have sum and difference frequencies
> In a following Intermediate Amplifier (I´m not an expert in this subject)
> all the frequencies were filtered out except the modified
> amplitude-frequency (10 MHz),which is in the HF-range (excuse my both
> typographic errors in my previous message).
> I think even better were a so called "lock in-amplifier", that provides
> a very specific and very strong amplification.
> The following demodulation yields the mix of the desired ELFs.
>
> All these work already has been worked out by your military forces
> inside their SIGINT -units.(signal-intelligence).
>
> I´m so glad because I had no chance to contribute to this exciting work.
>
>> Lets see, you have difference frequencies , elimination of unknown
>> environmental signals but not of the unknown brain signals, a mixer and
>> finally FFT analysis. Have you ever done an FFT analysis? Then, out of
>> this mishmash, get control of individuals. It all has the markings of
>> pseudoscience.
>
> I think, this is no pseudoscience.
>
>
> Herbert
---------------
This almost looks as if somebody started from a simplified explanation of a
radio receiver's mixer and then expanded it into la-la land to distill out
pure bunk. It appears to have worked to fool you. One true thing that you
have indicated is that you are no expert. This is not my area of Electrical
Engineering expertise (which is in the low frequency range) but I have
sufficient exposure to little bit of science actually involved to seriously
question the statements that you quote and see them as being based on
unwarranted assumptions, and a potful of fiction mixed in with a teaspoon
of facts to make it fool the patent clerks.
There are enough holes in this to confirm my suspicion that it is
pseudoscience so I won't wear my tinfoil hat (widow screen in hot weather).
Thank you
Keith P Walsh
>
> Lets see, you have difference frequencies , elimination of unknown
> environmental signals but not of the unknown brain signals, a mixer and
> finally FFT analysis. Have you ever done an FFT analysis? Then, out of this
> mishmash, get control of individuals. It all has the markings of
> pseudoscience.
>
US patent 3951134 describes an invention which the owner claims is
able to influence human brain activity remotely.
Such a claim is certainly controversial, and at least for most of us
it remains to some degree (see post-script below) unproven.
However, carrying out experimental investigations to determine whether
or not this claim is valid would not be "pseudoscience".
It would be science.
Keith P Walsh
PS, Don't forget that it has already been demonstrated, and accepted
by other correspondents in these newsgroups, that it is indeed
possible to influence brain activity using an electromagnetic device
held at close range to the subject (see message of 8th August from
Keith P Walsh to this thread).
So, in principle, what we're actually debating here is not (Bill
Snyder take note) whether or not this can be done, but at what range
it can be done and, perhaps more importantly, to what precision of
effect.
It has become an essential tenet of our societies that individuals are
held responsible and accountable for their own actions. If it proved
possible for one individual to influence the behavior of another from
a position remote enough such that the latter was completely unaware
that such an influence was being exerted (remember I mean without the
aid of any items of tv or radio receiver equipment being used), then
this tenet would no longer hold.
I believe that it is actually the fear of such a possibility being
true which induces many people, including yourself and some of the
correspondents in this thread, to dismiss it prematurely and without
proper scientific justification.
You're making an emotional judgement, not a scientific one.
I also suspect that if I suggested that if anyone did actually succeed
in developing a device which they could use to influence other
people's behavior to their own advantage they might choose to try and
do so secretly, then I may be accused of inventing what is commonly
known as a "conspiracy theory".
However I would say that, based on what I have learnt about the way
that people tend to behave, I was just being logical.
There's only one way to find out if you can use electromagnetic waves
to make other people do what you want them to do without them
realising it, and that's to try it out.
And I think the likelihood is that if anyone succeeded in doing this
they wouldn't necessarily have told us about it, no matter how smart
we think we are.
Richard Herring
<8f9fd588-0177-4c63...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Lets see, you have difference frequencies , elimination of unknown
>> environmental signals but not of the unknown brain signals, a mixer
and
>> finally FFT analysis. Have you ever done an FFT analysis? Then, out
of this
>> mishmash, get control of individuals. It all has the markings of
>> pseudoscience.
>>
>
>US patent 3951134 describes an invention which the owner claims is
>able to influence human brain activity remotely.
I don't know why you're so obsessed with this patent. A patent is not a
scientific theory. The purpose of patent claims is to provide legal
documentation that the claimant can use to prove (in the legal sense)
that he had some idea first. If an inventor has any ideas or
afterthoughts relating to the use of his invention, however vague and
speculative, he throws them in as extra claims. Their purpose is not to
prove (in the scientific sense) that the idea is feasible, either in
theory or practice. As such, they can be wildly speculative, and no more
compelling reason to believe something might be true than an episode of
your favourite sci-fi series would be.
The majority of your favourite patent describes a method for remotely
*detecting* brain activity, and even that's pretty speculative, filled
with sweeping generalisations that don't exactly suggest any real
detailed knowledge of the relevant fields -- either electromagnetism or
neurobiology.
The part about *controlling* brain activity is evidently an afterthought
thrown in for good luck.
Here's (I think, E&OE) the entire text of the patent relating to
influencing brain activity remotely, as opposed to merely detecting it:
=====================================================
"The demodulated waveform also can be used to produce a compensating
signal which is transmitted back to the brain to effect a desired change
in electrical activity therein.
[...]
10. A process as in claim 9 further comprising the step of transmitting
a further electromagnetic wave signal to the brain to vary the brain
wave activity.
11. A process as in claim 10 wherein the step of transmitting the
further signals comprises obtaining a standard signal, comparing said
received electromagnetic energy signals with said standard signal,
producing a compensating signal corresponding to the comparison between
said received electrogagnetic energy signals and the standard signal,
and transmitting the compensating signals to the brain of the subject
being monitored.
[...]
A further object is to provide a method and apparatus for affecting
brain wave activity by transmitting electromagnetic signals thereto.
[...]
Transmitter 28 is used to produce a compensating signal which is
transmitted to the brain 10 of the subject 8 by the antenna 4. [...] The
compensating signals affect electrical activity within the brain 10.
[...]
The compensating signal, when transmitted to the monitored region of the
brain, modulates the natural brain wave activity therein toward a
reproduction of the standard signal, thereby changing the neurological
response of the subject. [...] Through these means, brain wave activity
may be altered and deviations from a desired norm may be compensated. "
=====================================================
It consists entirely of unsubstantiated assertions, with no theoretical
or empirical justification for them. There's not the smallest hint that
the inventor has tried to implement any of this, or has any idea what
his "compensating signals" would have to look like, or whether any of
the theoretical or practical problems of implementing it can actually be
solved.
In short, the existence of this patent has no bearing whatsoever on your
original question. It doesn't constitute any kind of evidence either for
or against the plausibility of any theory, or the feasibility of any
method, of mind control.
--
Richard Herring
Keith P Walsh
>
> I don't know why you're so obsessed with this patent. A patent is not a
> scientific theory. The purpose of patent claims is to provide legal
> documentation that the claimant can use to prove (in the legal sense)
> that he had some idea first. If an inventor has any ideas or
> afterthoughts relating to the use of his invention, however vague and
> speculative, he throws them in as extra claims. Their purpose is not to
> prove (in the scientific sense) that the idea is feasible, either in
> theory or practice. As such, they can be wildly speculative, and no more
> compelling reason to believe something might be true than an episode of
> your favourite sci-fi series would be.
>
Richard,
I understand perfectly well what the function and status of a patent
document are.
However, I also understand that if the ideas set out in a patent
document are not tried out in practice then, according to the
established principles of scientific understanding, YOU NEVER GET TO
FIND OUT WHETHER THEY WORK OR NOT.
Sure you can sit around making up excuses for PRESUMING that the
invention won't work without ever bothering to try (which is what I
think you're doing).
But that isn't science. It's just guesswork.
Don Kelly is guilty of the same lazy thinking as you are.
On 22nd October he wrote:
"I have seen patents that were thinly disguised perpetual motion
machines and didn't work."
So what?
US patent 3951134 doesn't describe a "thinly disguised perpetual
motion machine". It describes an invention for influencing human brain
activity remotely. And it was granted to Robert G Malech in April
1976.
The fact that someone else's patent may have proved useless doesn't
have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of this one (at least,
according to the established principles of scientific understanding it
doesn't).
I would say that the implications of there being any possibility that
the claims set out in Robert G Malech's patent might be true are so
important that, from a scientific point of view, it doesn't make any
sense that no single attempt should have been made during the last 36
years to find out in practice whether or not they are achievable.
I have read your reasons why you do not agree with this point, but I'm
afraid I don't accept that they are valid.
However I would like to test your logic with another question if I
may. I presume that you have some professional and/or academic
connection with the world of electromagnetics. Had you ever heard of
Robert G Malech before his name was brought to your attention in this
newsgroup thread? And if not, do you think that this is more to be
likely because the claims in his patent are not valid, or is it more
likely to be because they are?
(For example, if his claims really were "patently fallacious",
wouldn't his reputation have been famously celebrated up there along
with Santa Claus and the flying elephants, at least in
"electromagnetic" circles?)
Keith P Walsh
PS, I'm mindful of the fact that Bill Snyder thinks he has found
evidence of experiments which refute the claims of US patent 3951134.
However I get the impression that his "evidence" is more concerned
with studies to measure heating rates in human cell-tissue caused by
RF and Microwave energy. A signal which is only designed to stimulate
neurological synapses might not cause any discernable temperature
increase, and would therefore register a "safe" result in such a
study. But feel free to butt in again if you think I'm wrong Bill.
Richard Herring
<f6789fe0-52bf-411f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>>
>> I don't know why you're so obsessed with this patent. A patent is not a
>> scientific theory. The purpose of patent claims is to provide legal
>> documentation that the claimant can use to prove (in the legal sense)
>> that he had some idea first. If an inventor has any ideas or
>> afterthoughts relating to the use of his invention, however vague and
>> speculative, he throws them in as extra claims. Their purpose is not to
>> prove (in the scientific sense) that the idea is feasible, either in
>> theory or practice. As such, they can be wildly speculative, and no more
>> compelling reason to believe something might be true than an episode of
>> your favourite sci-fi series would be.
>>
>
>Richard,
>
>I understand perfectly well what the function and status of a patent
>document are.
>
>However, I also understand that if the ideas set out in a patent
>document are not tried out in practice then, according to the
>established principles of scientific understanding, YOU NEVER GET TO
>FIND OUT WHETHER THEY WORK OR NOT.
So what? If *you're* so concerned WHY AREN'T *YOU* DOING THE
EXPERIMENTS?
>Sure you can sit around making up excuses for PRESUMING that the
>invention won't work without ever bothering to try (which is what I
>think you're doing).
Then you think wrongly. The "invention" won't work because *there is no
invention*, only speculation.
>
>But that isn't science. It's just guesswork.
>
>Don Kelly is guilty of the same lazy thinking as you are.
>
>On 22nd October he wrote:
>
>"I have seen patents that were thinly disguised perpetual motion
>machines and didn't work."
>
>So what?
>
>US patent 3951134 doesn't describe a "thinly disguised perpetual
>motion machine". It describes an invention for influencing human brain
>activity remotely.
If by "invention" you mean some kind of an actual device for
"influencing brain activity remotely", then no, it does not. It contains
a mere speculative idea that some such device might be possible. It
presents no evidence for believing that idea, and no details of how that
device might work.
[...]
>I would say that the implications of there being any possibility that
>the claims set out in Robert G Malech's patent might be true are so
>important that, from a scientific point of view, it doesn't make any
>sense that no single attempt should have been made during the last 36
>years to find out in practice whether or not they are achievable.
When *you* set out to "find out in practice" you'll soon discover why.
Here's a hint: what kind of "compensating signal" is needed to "alter
the natural brain waves in a desired fashion", and what is the
relationship between those "natural brain waves" and the thoughts you
want to modify?
>
>I have read your reasons why you do not agree with this point, but I'm
>afraid I don't accept that they are valid.
Tough.
>
>However I would like to test your logic with another question if I
>may. I presume that you have some professional and/or academic
>connection with the world of electromagnetics. Had you ever heard of
>Robert G Malech before his name was brought to your attention in this
>newsgroup thread?
No.
>And if not, do you think that this is more to be
>likely because the claims in his patent are not valid, or is it more
>likely to be because they are?
Again with the false dichotomy. No to both. No means for determining
their validity is presented.
>
>(For example, if his claims really were "patently fallacious",
(You still appear to be under the misapprehension that I have described
them in that way. I haven't.)
>wouldn't his reputation have been famously celebrated up there along
>with Santa Claus and the flying elephants, at least in
>"electromagnetic" circles?)
No. As I said, patent applications are not scientific theories.
It is clearly to the patentee's advantage to make as many speculative
claims as he can get away with, whether he believes them or not. If
someone else happens to validate them, he can claim the rewards without
investing his own time and money. Speculative patents are just as likely
to be the work of a cynic as a crackpot.
--
Richard Herring
Bill Snyder
<keith....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>PS, I'm mindful of the fact that Bill Snyder thinks he has found
>evidence of experiments which refute the claims of US patent 3951134.
>However I get the impression that his "evidence" is more concerned
>with studies to measure heating rates in human cell-tissue caused by
>RF and Microwave energy. A signal which is only designed to stimulate
>neurological synapses might not cause any discernable temperature
>increase, and would therefore register a "safe" result in such a
>study. But feel free to butt in again if you think I'm wrong Bill.
So you claim there's some kind of "magic RF" which isn't RF? Which
doesn't get absorbed by human tissue in the same way that the
ordinary variety does? Kookier by the second. Did this guy
invent the magic-RF himself, or did somebody else do that? Why is
this magic-RF unmentioned among his many claims?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there's the penetration depth figure
I cited several messages ago, derived from a wide variety of
experiments over several decades, a key value in an area that's
very much scientifically and medically "alive."
There's a graph of penetration depth vs frequency visible to
anyone willing to actually look in the on-line sample of the book
I cited. It tells you at what depth an RF signal of a given
frequency impinging on human tissue will have lost a specified
percentage of its power. From that it's easy to calculate the
maximal fraction of the original power that could remain after the
signal penetrated deeply into, say, a human brain (and the maximal
fraction of that which could possibly make it back out again, if
we're looking at the alleged "reading" as opposed to "writing").
The obvious conclusion is that you *can* in fact do mind-reading
or mind-control with RF -- by cranking up the power high enough
and leaving it on long enough to fry the person's brain. That
way, your zero "reading" is guaranteed to be accurate, and you've
definitely "controlled" his brainwaves by bringing all of them
zero. But a microwave oven with the safeties disabled would do
the same thing more easily and cheaply; why didn't you cite the
patent for one of those?
Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>In message
><f6789fe0-52bf-411f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>Keith P Walsh <keith....@btinternet.com> writes
>>
>>may. I presume that you have some professional and/or academic
>>connection with the world of electromagnetics. Had you ever heard of
>>Robert G Malech before his name was brought to your attention in this
>>newsgroup thread?
>
>No.
FWIW, he appears to be a professional electrical engineer who published
a number of papers on microwave antennas in the 1950s and 60s...
>
>It is clearly to the patentee's advantage to make as many speculative
>claims as he can get away with, whether he believes them or not. If
>someone else happens to validate them, he can claim the rewards without
>investing his own time and money. Speculative patents are just as
>likely to be the work of a cynic as a crackpot.
>
... so more likely cynic than crackpot.
--
Richard Herring
mike
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, keith....@btinternet.com says...
> On 29 Oct, 13:22, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know why you're so obsessed with this patent. A patent is not a
> > scientific theory. The purpose of patent claims is to provide legal
> > documentation that the claimant can use to prove (in the legal sense)
> > that he had some idea first. If an inventor has any ideas or
> > afterthoughts relating to the use of his invention, however vague and
> > speculative, he throws them in as extra claims. Their purpose is not to
> > prove (in the scientific sense) that the idea is feasible, either in
> > theory or practice. As such, they can be wildly speculative, and no more
> > compelling reason to believe something might be true than an episode of
> > your favourite sci-fi series would be.
> >
>
> US patent 3951134 doesn't describe a "thinly disguised perpetual
> motion machine". It describes an invention for influencing human brain
> activity remotely. And it was granted to Robert G Malech in April
> 1976.
>
> The fact that someone else's patent may have proved useless doesn't
> have any bearing whatsoever on the validity of this one (at least,
> according to the established principles of scientific understanding it
> doesn't).
>
> I would say that the implications of there being any possibility that
> the claims set out in Robert G Malech's patent might be true are so
> important that, from a scientific point of view, it doesn't make any
> sense that no single attempt should have been made during the last 36
> years to find out in practice whether or not they are achievable.
>
RGM's patent claims can be easily ascertained without the need for
experimentation.
Honestly, let me make the following claims:
a) Many people believe in "the power of God", so I propose that by
prayer to [insert appropriate god], I will be able to control the mind
of any non-believer; or
b) Just like Mandrake the Magician there really may be people capable
of instantaneously hypnotising subjects so they experience vivid visual
hallucinations, so I propose finding these people and enlisting their
help in the mind-control of hypno-sensitive subjects; or
c) With reference to experiments carried out in the 60's and 70's on
worms, I propose grinding up the brains of people of certain political
beliefs and feeding the extracted DNA to other subjects to force them
into the same belief set; or
d) Based on clear evidence that certain viral infections can alter the
behaviour of their insect hosts [it has been shown that these insects
indulge in 'high-risk behaviour' which increases the chance of the cycle
bird-eats-insect - virus-deposited-in-bird-droppings - new-insects-
infected-via-droppings-on-leaves], I propose that such viruses can be
bio-engineered in such a manner that they can infect humans and alter
their mental state; or
e) As there is a wealth of evidence that micro-trauma to certain
regions of the brain can affect the behaviour of accident victims, I
propose the use of multiple beams of intense ultra-sound which, by
causing local damage, can 'turn-off' certain neural pathways within the
subjects brain - thus altering their behaviour in a programmed manner.
Will you now require that my claims should be investigated to determine
their feasibility? Note that the tin-foil helmet won't protect you from
any of these forms of mind control. Note also that my name does appear
as a claimant on a number of provisional and full patents, so surely my
claims must be taken seriously.
Mike
Don Kelly
----------------------------
"Keith P Walsh" <keith....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:f6789fe0-52bf-411f...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Richard,
So what?
Keith P Walsh
----------------
There are many holes in this. two signals are sent .apparently in the 100MHz
range (Brandt apparently quoting from the patent).
Assumption: the weak brain signal somehow modulates (amplitude or frequency-
not indicated) these signals.
No evidence for such modulation and no possible mechanism given.
Assumption: one can somehow recover these signals from the difference
signal.
In fact, what is likely is that if such brain signals have any effect (and
they apparently can't be measured directly from a distance). they will be
nearly equivalent to a slowly varying DC level change which doesn't change
the amplitude, phase or frequency of the two initial signals. So- when the
amplitude of one signal is increased by a small percentage- the amplitude of
the other is also increased by nearly the same percentage- nearly full
cancellation within 3 parts in 10^8. If frequency modulation- same
cancellation effect. That is with a large modulating signal. Since the
brain signal is so small, one is left with trying to detect something very
much smaller and less than what can be separated from random noise.
The errors involved with the demodulation?? process will swamp this and, if
not, the errors in the FFT will wipe out any meaningful results.-
I mentioned a Cray before- it would be needed and may still be inadequate.
However, at the frequencies indicated, the human brain cavity is nearly 1/4
wavelength and could have interesting near resonance effects if it weren't
for the high attenuation.
There are many more assumptions-none of which have any basis given. In other
words, given assumption a, assumption b, ...... assumption z..... THEN such
and such is possible. The fact that the assumptions have no bases doesn't
seem to matter.
Given all the lack of any real science behind this patent, do you wonder why
most would spend research funds and efforts in a direction which has a
slightly better chance of success (say 1 in 100 million). If you want to
support this with your funds - be free.
Keith P Walsh
> In message <ed0TyBPMUJCJF...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>
> >In message
> >Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> >>However I would like to test your logic with another question if I
> >>may. I presume that you have some professional and/or academic
> >>connection with the world of electromagnetics. Had you ever heard of
> >>Robert G Malech before his name was brought to your attention in this
> >>newsgroup thread?
>
> >No.
>
> FWIW, he appears to be a professional electrical engineer who published
> a number of papers on microwave antennas in the 1950s and 60s...
>
>
>
> >It is clearly to the patentee's advantage to make as many speculative
> >claims as he can get away with, whether he believes them or not. If
> >someone else happens to validate them, he can claim the rewards without
> >investing his own time and money. Speculative patents are just as
> >likely to be the work of a cynic as a crackpot.
>
> ... so more likely cynic than crackpot.
>
Now it's my turn to claim false dichotomy!
Perhaps he was both deadly serious and correct. (Well in the absence
of any experimental evidence to the contrary how would we know?)
Would you happen to have any idea who John McMurtrey is or was?
He appears to have taken Malech more seriously than you do.
Someone has attributed him with the comments shown.
Keith P Walsh
*************************************************
Remote EEG Discussion
By John McMurtrey MS
“Thought reading or ‘synthetic telepathy’” communications technology
procurement is considered in a 1993 Jane’s[a] Special Operations
Forces (SOF) article: “One day, SOF commandos may be capable of
communicating through thought processes.” Descriptive terms are
“’mental weaponry’ and psychic warfare” [1] Although contemplated in
future context, unlikely is development from scratch solely for
Special Forces, and availability of a technology not fully adapted to
troop level Special Forces requirements is implied.
In 1976 the Malech Patent # 3951134 “Apparatus and method for
remotely monitoring and altering brain waves” was granted. [2] Given
operation example is 100 and 210 MHz; frequencies penetrating
obstruction. Remote delineations are: “The individual components of
the system for monitoring and controlling brain wave activity may be
of conventional type commonly employed in radar”; and “The system
permits medical diagnosis of patients, inaccessible to physicians,
from remote stations.” License is to Dorne & Margolin Inc., but now
protection is expired with public domain.
The capability of remote EEG is predicted by electromagnetic
scattering theory using ultrashort pulses. [3] The Malech patent
utilizes interference of 210 and 100 MHz frequencies resulting in a
110 MHz return signal, which is demodulated to give EEG waveform.
Reference to ultrashort pulses without mention of another interfering
frequency indicates that these remote EEG references represent
different mechanisms, and therefore methods. Ultrashort pulses
currently have definition in the range of 10-15 second. Considering
that EEG word elicited potentials are comparatively long (100s of
milliseconds), has relevance to remote radar EEG capture adequate to
word recognition, with ultrashort pulses allowing greater than 109
radar reflections in a millisecond (10-3 sec.)
The possibility of impressing an ‘experience set’ on an individual is
also contemplated.3 The above patent also can alter brain waves.
Microwave non-lethal weapon brain wave disruption[4] and behavioral
change including unconsciousness[5] are known.[6]
The Malech EEG telemetry patent and ultrashort pulses represent active
radar probe. Yet a passive field extends as far as 12 feet from the
human as detected by a cryogenic antenna.[7] A publication maintains
this device as entirely adaptable to clandestine applications and
pointedly comments on the disappearance of physiological remote
sensing literature since the 1970’s for animals and humans, while all
other categories of remote sensing research greatly expanded.[8]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a] Jane’s is the most respected and authoritative of defense
reporting services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Lopez R. “Special operations survives Pentagon budget constraints”
Jane’s International Defense Review 26(3): 247-51, 1993.
[2] Malech RG. Patent #3951134 “Apparatus and method for remotely
monitoring and altering brain waves” USPTO granted 4/20/76.
[3] Department of the Army, USAF Scientific Advisory Board. “New World
Vistas: air and space for the 21st century” 14 vol. (Ancillary Volume)
p 89-90, 1996.
[4] Morehouse DA. Nonlethal Weapons: War without Death Praeger, p. 20,
1996.
[5] Dando M. A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Non-Lethal Weapons
Brassey’s, London, Washington p. 22, 1996.
[6] Becker RO. Cross Currents Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles, p.
303-4, 1990.
[7] Taff BE and Stoller KP. Patent #49400558 “Cryogenic ermote sensing
physiograph” USPTO granted 7/10/90.
[8] Stoller KP and Taff BE. “Remote Physiological Sensing: Historical
Perspective, Theories and Preliminary Developments” Med Instrum 20(5):
260-5, 1986.
Richard Herring
<e4c33e3b-b514-472a...@v56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> In message <ed0TyBPMUJCJF...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
>> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>>
>> >In message
>> ><f6789fe0-52bf-411f-9cb2-d69490fda...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> writes
>>
>> >>However I would like to test your logic with another question if I
>> >>may. I presume that you have some professional and/or academic
>> >>connection with the world of electromagnetics. Had you ever heard of
>> >>Robert G Malech before his name was brought to your attention in this
>> >>newsgroup thread?
>>
>> >No.
>>
>> FWIW, he appears to be a professional electrical engineer who published
>> a number of papers on microwave antennas in the 1950s and 60s...
>>
>>
>>
>> >It is clearly to the patentee's advantage to make as many speculative
>> >claims as he can get away with, whether he believes them or not. If
>> >someone else happens to validate them, he can claim the rewards without
>> >investing his own time and money. Speculative patents are just as
>> >likely to be the work of a cynic as a crackpot.
>>
>> ... so more likely cynic than crackpot.
>>
>
>Now it's my turn to claim false dichotomy!
>
>Perhaps he was both deadly serious and correct. (Well in the absence
>of any experimental evidence to the contrary how would we know?)
We can look at those claims, for a start. Have you actually *read* the
patent in question?
>
>Would you happen to have any idea who John McMurtrey is or was?
No.
>
>He appears to have taken Malech more seriously than you do.
So? Appeal to authority is a well-known rhetorical fallacy. Here you
don't even appear to know whether your "authority" is authoritative.
>
>Someone has attributed him with the comments shown.
Most of which are not about the Malech patent, but his other references.
--
Richard Herring
Keith P Walsh
>
> >He appears to have taken Malech more seriously than you do.
>
> So? Appeal to authority is a well-known rhetorical fallacy. Here you
> don't even appear to know whether your "authority" is authoritative.
>
I don't have any idea whether you are "authoritative" either.
Nevertheless, I've found someone else who appears to take Robert G
Malech's patent more seriously than you do. It's a guy called Nick
Begich, MD, and he references US patent 3951134 in his piece
"Controlling the Human Mind”, which you can find at:
http://www.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/MindControl.pdf
More interestingly, he also quotes an article from a book published by
the Air University Press in the USA entitled "Low-Intensity Conflict
and Modern Technology", which says:
'Currently available data allow the projection that specially
generated radio frequency radiation (RFR) fields may pose powerful and
revolutionary military threats. Electroshock therapy indicates the
ability of induced electric current to completely interrupt mental
functioning for short periods of time, to obtain cognition for longer
periods and to restructure emotional response over prolonged
intervals.
'Experience with electroshock therapy, RFR experiments and the
increasing understanding of the brain as an electrically mediated
organ suggested the serious probability that impressed electromagnetic
fields can be disruptive to purposeful behavior and may be capable of
directing and or interrogating such behavior."
The book was edited by Lt. Col. David J Dean of the US Air Force (some
level of authority there!). However this particular quote is taken
from a contribution included in the book which is entitled "The
Electromagnetic Spectrum in Low-Intensity Conflict", and is attributed
to a Paul Tyler.
"Paul Tyler? Which Paul Tyler?", I hear you ask.
Well, as a matter of fact there appears to be a degree of confusion
there. The reference appended to Nick Begich's article (Ref 74)
specifies "Tyler, Capt. Paul E., MC, USN". However, other sources
attribute this article to a Paul H Tyler, described as the former head
of a US Air Force radiation project.
You can inspect and compare descriptions of Paul E Tyler and Paul H
Tyler respectively at:
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=9224277
and:
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=205105015
Are these the names of two different people or not?
And if so, which one of them wrote "The Electromagnetic Spectrum in
Low-Intensity Conflict"?
I'd say that if it was the one who had led the US Air Force radiation
project then he may well have been writing with some "authority" on
the subject.
Wouldn't you?
Keith P Walsh
Richard Herring
<13be9bca-f141-47c5...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >He appears to have taken Malech more seriously than you do.
>>
>> So? Appeal to authority is a well-known rhetorical fallacy. Here you
>> don't even appear to know whether your "authority" is authoritative.
>>
>
>I don't have any idea whether you are "authoritative" either.
You miss the point again. Nobody is appealing to me as an authority.
>
>Nevertheless, I've found someone else who appears to take Robert G
>Malech's patent more seriously than you do.
Again, so what? Another appeal to questionable authority.
> It's a guy called Nick
>Begich, MD, and he references US patent 3951134 in his piece
>"Controlling the Human Mind”, which you can find at:
>
>http://www.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/MindControl.pdf
Yes, and?
"References" is about all he does: apart from quoting from it he doesn't
appear to draw any conclusions from it. And the fact that he references
it doesn't make the slightest difference to what the patent describes.
I'll ask you again: have you actually read it?
>More interestingly, he also quotes an article from a book published by
>the Air University Press in the USA entitled "Low-Intensity Conflict
>and Modern Technology", which says:
>
>'Currently available data allow the projection that specially
>generated radio frequency radiation (RFR) fields may pose powerful and
>revolutionary military threats. Electroshock therapy indicates the
>ability of induced electric current to completely interrupt mental
>functioning for short periods of time, to obtain cognition for longer
>periods and to restructure emotional response over prolonged
>intervals.
>
>'Experience with electroshock therapy, RFR experiments and the
>increasing understanding of the brain as an electrically mediated
>organ suggested the serious probability that impressed electromagnetic
>fields can be disruptive to purposeful behavior and may be capable of
>directing and or interrogating such behavior."
"Projection", "may", "indicates", "suggested", "probability", "may be".
That's a lot of hypotheticals in two short paragraphs.
>The book was edited by Lt. Col. David J Dean of the US Air Force (some
>level of authority there!).
As a military analyst, it appears. One part of that job is to keep an
eye on the crackpot fringe, as insurance just in case something of real
military significance emerges. The fact that the USAF takes an interest
in a particular field isn't an endorsement of it.
>However this particular quote is taken
>from a contribution included in the book which is entitled "The
>Electromagnetic Spectrum in Low-Intensity Conflict", and is attributed
>to a Paul Tyler.
So Colonel Dean's authority is beside the point anyway.
>
>"Paul Tyler? Which Paul Tyler?", I hear you ask.
Wrong again. I couldn't care less.
[...]
>
>I'd say that if it was the one who had led the US Air Force radiation
>project then he may well have been writing with some "authority" on
>the subject.
>
>Wouldn't you?
>
Possibly. Equally, he might just have been the senior manager who signed
the funding requisitions.
But since what he so authoritatively states is no more than the obvious,
what difference does it make?
--
Richard Herring
gabydewilde
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/95965-0/#
Major-general of the reserve of the Russian Federal Custodial Service
Boris Ratnikov tells that Russia and other countries work on making
special devices that turn humans into zombies.
Boris Ratnikov says that Russia has been working on the psychotronic
impact upon humans since the 1920s. Until the mid-1980s secret centers
for investigation of psychic impact upon humans were working in large
cities of the country under the KGB’s patronage. Thousands of
brilliant researchers were working on the problem in the twenty secret
centers. After the break-up of the USSR the centers were closed and
the researchers either left abroad or currently work in various parts
of Russia.
Now that new technologies and the Internet are widely spreading people
must realize that the menace of psychic impact upon humans is really
immense. At the same time, the official science still insists that
psychotronic is mere charlatanry. Boris Ratnikov is sure however that
in less than ten years psychotronic weapons will grow more dangerous
than nuclear and atomic weapons.
On Oct 29, 4:05 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>[snip] This is not my area of Electrical
> Engineering expertise (which is in the low frequency range) but I have
> sufficient exposure to little bit of science actually involved to seriously
> question the statements that you quote and see them as being based on
> unwarranted assumptions, [snip]
How orwellian.
On Oct 29, 8:32 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> carrying out experimental investigations to determine whether
> or not this claim is valid would not be "pseudoscience".
>
> [snip]
>
> what we're actually debating here is not (Bill
> Snyder take note) whether or not this can be done, but at what range
> it can be done and, perhaps more importantly, to what precision of
> effect.
>
>[snip]
>
> I also suspect that if I suggested that if anyone did actually succeed
> in developing a device which they could use to influence other
> people's behavior to their own advantage they might choose to try and
> do so secretly, then I may be accused of inventing what is commonly
> known as a "conspiracy theory".
Assertions: Pseudoscience, not real, conspiracy theory, terrorist,
national securty etc etc
On Oct 29, 2:22 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>[snip]
> I don't know why you're so obsessed with this patent. A patent is not a
> scientific theory. The purpose of patent claims is to provide legal
> documentation that the claimant can use to prove (in the legal sense)
> that he had some idea first. [...]
How orwellian.
On Oct 29, 4:38 pm, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
> I understand perfectly well what the function and status of a patent
> document are.
>
A usenet group is a place where people post messages.
>[snip]
>
> Sure you can sit around making up excuses for PRESUMING that the
> invention won't work without ever bothering to try (which is what I
> think you're doing).
>
> But that isn't science. It's just guesswork.
>
> Don Kelly is guilty of the same lazy thinking as you are.
>
> On 22nd October he wrote:
>
> "I have seen patents that were thinly disguised perpetual motion
> machines and didn't work."
>
> So what?
>
>[snip]
>
> Bill Snyder thinks he has found
> evidence of experiments which refute the claims of US patent 3951134.
How orwellian.
On Oct 29, 5:53 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> [...]
> you think wrongly. The "invention" won't work because *there is no
> invention*, only speculation.
>
Truth by denial.
>[snip]
>
> If by "invention" you mean some kind of an actual device for
> "influencing brain activity remotely", then no, it does not. It contains
> a mere speculative idea that some such device might be possible.
then say "BUT" right?
> It
> presents no evidence for believing that idea, and no details of how that
> device might work.
>
How orwellian.
> [...]
>
> When *you* set out to "find out in practice" you'll soon discover why.
> Here's a hint: what kind of "compensating signal" is needed to "alter
> the natural brain waves in a desired fashion", and what is the
> relationship between those "natural brain waves" and the thoughts you
> want to modify?
Like I said, usenet is a place where people post messages. What part
you don't understand?
>
>[snip]
>
> No means for determining
> their validity is presented.
>
If I close my eyes I become invisible. True story!
> [snip]
>
> No. As I said, patent applications are not scientific theories.
>
> It is clearly to the patentee's advantage to make as many speculative
> claims as he can get away with, whether he believes them or not. If
> someone else happens to validate them, he can claim the rewards without
> investing his own time and money. Speculative patents are just as likely
> to be the work of a cynic as a crackpot.
>
How orwellian.
On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> [snip
> So you claim there's some kind of "magic RF" which isn't RF?
>[snip]
How orwellian Billo.
On Oct 29, 6:16 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> ... so more likely cynic than crackpot.
>
How orwellian.
On Oct 30, 1:00 am, mike <m....@irl.cri.replacethiswithnz> wrote:
>
>[snip Note that the tin-foil helmet won't protect you from
> any of these forms of mind control. Note also that my name does appear
> as a claimant on a number of provisional and full patents, so surely my
> claims must be taken seriously.
How orwellian.
On Oct 30, 4:03 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> [snip]
> There are many more assumptions-none of which have any basis given. In other
> words, given assumption a, assumption b, ...... assumption z..... THEN such
> and such is possible. The fact that the assumptions have no bases doesn't
> seem to matter.
>
> Given all the lack of any real science behind this patent, do you wonder why
> most would spend research funds and efforts in a direction which has a
> slightly better chance of success (say 1 in 100 million). If you want to
> support this with your funds - be free.
>
No no, usenet works perfeclt fine. It's a place where teh peoples post
messages. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
On Oct 30, 9:28 am, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> [snip]
On Oct 30, 10:57 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> [snip]
> Appeal to authority is a well-known rhetorical fallacy. Here you
> don't even appear to know whether your "authority" is authoritative.
>
How orwellian.
http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/area_summary.php?id=3
Teh Rockefeller neuroscience laboratories
Rockefeller scientists study the nervous system from many
perspectives, from the isolation of molecules and cells mediating
neural function and development, to the study of the cellular
ensembles engaged in high-level sensory processing, to the discovery
of mechanistic links between the biology of the brain and particular
behavioral states. In recent years, the university has added several
new laboratories in the neurosciences, mirroring the explosive growth
in the discipline as a whole.
Rockefeller neuroscience laboratories span the areas of molecular and
cellular neurobiology, sensory neuroscience and the neurobiology of
behavior. Topics of current investigation include, among many others:
the control of gene expression in neurons; the formation and
patterning of the embryonic vertebrate nervous system; circadian
rhythms; olfaction; the effects of experience and hormones on brain
plasticity; and the cortical mechanisms of visual perception.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12177
Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies, from the
National Research Council, identifies and explores several specific
research areas that have implications for U.S. national security, and
should therefore be monitored consistently by the intelligence
community. These areas include:
1. neurophysiological advances in detecting and measuring
indicators of psychological states and intentions of individuals
2. the development of drugs or technologies that can alter human
physical or cognitive abilities
3. advances in real-time brain imaging
4. breakthroughs in high-performance computing and neuronal
modeling that could allow researchers to develop systems which mimic
functions of the human brain, particularly the ability to organize
disparate forms of data.
As these fields continue to grow, it will be imperative that the
intelligence community be able to identify scientific advances
relevant to national security when they occur.
HA, Those sexy Us American terrormongers.
Have you found the WMD's already?
Let me make things really simple for you.
A brainwashes B
And
B brainwashes A
Both A and B will never present a real opponent, they are both immune
to the truth.
The force is very weak in both A and B.
You don't want to sell me death sticks.
You want to go home and rethink your life.
:-)
Richard Herring
<8e257074-d027-4e9a...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
gabydewilde <foto...@gmail.com> writes
>Hello Orwellian liemongers.
I see someone's learned a new word.
--
Richard Herring
gabydewilde
>
> I see someone's learned a new word.
>
http://educate-yourself.org/mc/
The topic of mind control is elaborate, multifaceted, and multi
layered. For the casual reader, it can quickly become numbing,
overwhelming the senses and creating a desire to exit the topic, but
avoiding this subject is the most foolish thing you could possibly do
since your only chance of surviving this hideous and insidious
enslavement agenda, which today threatens virtually all of humanity,
isto understand how it functions and take steps to reduce your
vulnerability.
The plans to create a mind controlled workers society have been in
place for a long time. The current technology grew out of experiments
that the Nazis started before World War II and intensified during the
time of the Nazi concentration camps when an unlimited supply of
children and adults were available for experimentation. We've heard
about the inhumane medical experiments performed on concentration camp
prisoners, but no word was ever mentioned by the media and the TV
documentaries of the mind control experiments. That was not to be
divulged to the American public. Mind control technologies can be
broadly divided into two subsets: trauma-based or electronic-based.
The first phase of government mind control development grew out of the
old occult techniques which required the victim to be exposed to
massive psychological and physical trauma, usually beginning in
infancy, in order to cause the psyche to shatter into a thousand alter
personalities which can then be separately programmed to perform any
function (or job) that the programmer wishes to"install". Each alter
personality created is separate and distinct from the front
personality. The 'front personality' is unaware of the existence or
activities of the alter personalities. Alter personalities can be
brought to the surface by programmers or handlers using special codes,
usually stored in a laptop computer. The victim of mind control can
also be affected by specific sounds, words, or actions known as
triggers.
The second phase of mind control development was refined at an
underground base below Fort Hero on Montauk , Long Island (New York)
and is referred to as the Montauk Project. The earliest adolescent
victims of Montauk style programming, so called Montauk Boys, were
programmed using trauma-based techniques, but that method was
eventually abandoned in favor of an all-electronic induction process
which could be "installed" in a matter of days (or even hours) instead
of the many years that it took to complete trauma-based methods.
Dr. Joseph Mengele of Auschwitz notoriety was the principle developer
of the trauma-basedMonarch Project and the CIA'sMK Ultra mind control
programs. Mengele and approximately 5, 000 other high ranking Nazis
were secretly moved into the United States and South America in the
aftermath of World War II in an Operation designated Paperclip. The
Nazis continued their work in developing mind control and rocketry
technologies in secret underground military bases. The only thing we
were told about was the rocketry work with former Nazi star
celebrities like Warner Von Braun. The killers, torturers, and
mutilators of innocent human beings were kept discretely out of sight,
but busy in U.S. underground military facilities which gradually
became home to thousands upon thousands of kidnapped American
children snatched off the streets (about one million per year) and
placed into iron bar cages stacked from floor to ceiling as part of
the 'training'. These children would be used to further refine and
perfect Mengele's mind control technologies. Certain selected children
(at least the ones who survived the 'training') would become future
mind controlled slaves who could be used for thousands of different
jobs ranging anywhere from sexual slavery to assassinations. A
substantial portion of these children, who were considered expendable,
were intentionally slaughtered in front of (and by) the other children
in order to traumatize the selected trainee into total compliance and
submission.
Read moar:
http://educate-yourself.org/mc/
Uncle Al
[snip cap]
> Major-general of the reserve of the Russian Federal Custodial Service
> Boris Ratnikov tells that Russia and other countries work on making
> special devices that turn humans into zombies.
[snip rest of crap]
1) It's been done - by niggers.
2) MK ULTRA
3) Republicans
4) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
gabydewilde
> gabydewilde wrote:
>
> [snip cap]
>
> > Major-general of the reserve of the Russian Federal Custodial Service
> > Boris Ratnikov tells that Russia and other countries work on making
> > special devices that turn humans into zombies.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> 1) It's been done - by niggers.
> 2) MK ULTRA
> 3) Republicans
> 4) idiot
>
Thanks for the help desking Al. We all like to think you are naturally
gifted, but of course we will never know and deny everything.
short overview
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5842900522324963929
Teh actual brain wave overview.
http://www.bevolution.dk/pdf/Brainwave%20Model%20New.pdf
Morphine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhcR1ZS2hVo
the advantages of being a zombie
http://petervallone.net/cblog/?/archives/22-Why-I-Like-Being-a-Zombie..html
Miss Hilton will be returning home to Los Angeles just in time for the
exciting Halloween holiday celebrations, as she’s always up for a
great theme party.
http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/paris-hilton-heads-home-for-halloween-208665/