Hendricus G Loos, Master of Mind Control

a reply to: dashen
I'd say we need peer-reviewed research papers on that topic. The patents in question cite a lot of other patents but don't seem to cite peer-reviewed scientific research, in what I've seen so far.

I'm not a neuroscientist, but I know that a single photon isn't enough to trigger a visual response in the human eye or nervous system, but it might be enough in some frogs. How do I know this? From reading peer-reviewed research on the topic. A patent doesn't have any requirement to be peer reviewed and some of them make very unreliable claims.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Do this. Ignore the hocus-pocus technobabble of the patent. Now, sitting there, what sort of evil subliminal mind control do you think I can cause by, say, tapping you with a warm water balloon? Think I can make you into a godless commie, or go kill someone, or see visions? I don't.

You mean like Chinese water torture?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Actually a single photon will trigger a single rod which will relay a message to the brain.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Actually a single photon will trigger a single rod which will relay a message to the brain.

Still there's no visual response. We can't "see" it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is that not what makes it subliminal?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Higher paygrade" engineers

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I'm not a neuroscientist, but I know that a single photon isn't enough to trigger a visual response in the human eye or nervous system,

What about a whole lot of "single" photons firing in carefully chosen patterns?

A patent doesn't have any requirement to be peer reviewed and some of them make very unreliable claims.

Maybe this is the point - maybe some of the patent info is bogus...maybe on purpose?

Think about it (I think you even said it), nobody who had a working 'mind control device' would want people (in general) to know about it, right?

So, what if the device we're talking about 'does' work, but just not in the way that the patent 'says' it works?

You would have exclusive rights to your device, but anyone who came across the patent (i.e. curious conspiracy theorists with engineering 'connections') -
- would see that the device couldn't work (as described) and think the whole invention was bogus...


I would be interested in having Bedlam look at the patent from the point of view that it might work by means of affecting the brain 'thru' the visual cortex of a person watching a television or computer monitor...

Ok, you egghead types, tease out what this is about for us:

A NEW ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY ARCHITECTURE HAS BEEN CONCEIVED, WHICH GIVES A LARGE INCREASE IN MEMORY CAPACITY OVER THE HOPFIELD MEMORY, AND PROVIDES IMPROVED ASSOCIATIVE RECALL AS WELL. FURTHERMORE, THE NEW MEMORY SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF OVERLEARNING IN UNSUPERVISED ADAPTIVE OPERATION. THE NEW ARCHITECTURE MAY BE DESCRIBED AS A REFLEXIVE HETERO-ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY WITHORTHONORMAL LABELS THAT ARE PROCESSED IN A CERTAIN NONLINEAR MANNER. THE OPERATION INVOLVES SIGNAL FLOW IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, AS IN A RESONATOR. IN EACH ITERATIVE CYCLE, DATA ARE CONVERTED INTO LABELS, WHICH THEN ARE TURNED BACK AGAIN INTO DATA. THE PHASE II OBJECTIVE IS THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THIS ARCHITECTURE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A RIG SUCH AS TO PROVIDE PROOF OF CONCEPT, AND THE CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENTS TO INVESTIGATE A NUMBER OF LOCAL ADAPTIVE MECHANISMS, AS WELL AS STOCHASTIC EFFECTS.

This got him over half a million dollars from DARPA back in 1987.

Adaptive Stochastic Content-addressable Memory

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Best as I can tell it's referring to neural net methods of processing and memory storage

originally posted by: lostgirl
What about a whole lot of "single" photons firing in carefully chosen patterns?

In the landmark 1942 study it took about 9 single photons but I don't know about a "carefully chosen pattern".

Can a Human See a Single Photon?

The subjects were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to say whether or not they thought they had seen a flash. The light was gradually reduced in intensity until the subjects could only guess the answer.

They found that about 90 photons had to enter the eye for a 60% success rate in responding. Since only about 10% of photons arriving at the eye actually reach the retina, this means that about 9 photons were actually required at the receptors. Since the photons would have been spread over about 350 rods, the experimenters were able to conclude statistically that the rods must be responding to single photons, even if the subjects were not able to see such photons when they arrived too infrequently.

Maybe this is the point - maybe some of the patent info is bogus...maybe on purpose?

I don't know how credible that is but it might be more credible than taking some of the claims at face value when they don't really add up very well. I think there are mind control techniques, I just don't see them in the Hendricus G Loos patents. But they aren't very subtle, for example when Derren Brown created an experiment along the lines of the conspiracy theory about a CIA programmed assasin executing Robert Kennedy:

Derren Brown ~ Assassin ~ Full Episode ~


However he had an exceptional test subject who was highly susceptible to hypnotic suggestion and Derren Brown admits this wouldn't work with most people, and he is not very susceptible to hypnotic persuasion himself so even this mind control technique which was successful on a particular subject wouldn't be very reliable for the masses.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Surely a monitor gives off at least 9 photons .
And since a human brain can consciously process a stimulus of 90(9) photons, surely subliminally it is picking up more.

a reply to: dashen

Not with skin. It has a serious lack of rods and cones.

a reply to: dashen

I've got that too, and as I said that answer is no. At least if you leave out hard radiation.

But as I also said, ignore the photon part. Show how tapping someone with an object of barely detectable warmth can be made to cause "mind control". Leave out the hocus pocus parts.

a reply to: Bedlam

What about the effects of light on circadian rhythms

a reply to: Arbitrageur

sry about the exoskeleton, nothing with mind control, OT the OP.. curiosity

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

What about the effects of light on circadian rhythms

Why do you think skin is involved with that?

a reply to: Bedlam

Hence, my theory that the 'device' (or method or what have you) isn't even intended to affect the skin, they just put that in the patent to throw people off...

...but when you consider how intently our minds focus on TV or computer screens, we're practically in a hypnotic state at times -

- then add some specifically designed "pulsing" of images generated by a special 'device'/'method', and how suggestible might a person become?

If nothing else, you could certainly affect their nervous system - I mean, I can't stand 'ordinary' video that flickers (i.e. pulses) too much, makes me slightly anxious and if I keep looking, I get migraine...and I know epileptic seizures can be triggered by flashing (pulsing) lights...

I don't know, I don't have any real education in anything, but it strikes me that all of the above in context with the particular patent under discussion, could point to some 'degree' of mind control at least...

Introducing The Outernet: Free, Worldwide Wi-Fi Access Beamed From Space
www.ibtimes.com...

The setup the purpose?
Forced to flat screen HD TV (The US is moving from Analog to Digital Feb 17 2009)
Free, Worldwide Wi-Fi (see link above)
Charter forced customers to change to free HD Boxes
Windows offering FREE Windows 10
Reason for living off grid becoming illegal many places?

We have commented on and noticed the constant flashing on Tv even on rental movies.

Good link.
www.disabled-world.com...

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: Bedlam

Hence, my theory that the 'device' (or method or what have you) isn't even intended to affect the skin, they just put that in the patent to throw people off...

Possible, I suppose. It certainly doesn't make sense. You'd have to look at the weasel wording of the patent to see if they worded it so that they covered "other means" or the like.

Or, the patent is just crap. An awful lot of them are.

...but when you consider how intently our minds focus on TV or computer screens, we're practically in a hypnotic state at times -

- then add some specifically designed "pulsing" of images generated by a special 'device'/'method', and how suggestible might a person become?

I'd suppose it depends on whether "pulsing" causes suggestibility. I'd say 'no'. It looks like the claim is that the pulsations themselves are conveying info, but at 2.5Hz, it's going to take a long long long time to convey anything.

If nothing else, you could certainly affect their nervous system

So would a baseball bat, and it's a lot cheaper.

a reply to: Bedlam

Neural oscillation coupled with the fact that brain waves fall bwtween the .5 to 18 Hertz range make sense