NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

Now, he talking about the firing patterns, he thinks an analogue signal cannot be converted to digital. Never heard of an ADC or DAC???

It works.

ESP does not work because we don't share frequencies. There is no cross-communication between humans.

ATS Live - NLP does not work and different technology completely. Sending sound by a "beam" (Neurophone) is microwave thermo-elastic, Deepthought's work is an electrical interface.

ATS Live - They are talking microwaves, which is not this technology. This is ELF.

reply to post by somerandomuser


Yeah, they are talking about the Microwave Auditory effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

Where a beam of low intensity EM radiation is used to create audio signals in the targets brain.

Declassified in 2006

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by somerandomuser

 

Yeah, they are talking about the Microwave Auditory effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

Where a beam of low intensity EM radiation is used to create audio signals in the targets brain.

Declassified in 2006

You think they would have read the articles if they were going to discuss it.

Well, that was a big waste of time. For those listening to ATS Live, they were discussing the wrong technology completely and has nothing to do with Deepthought's work or this thread.

reply to post by somerandomuser

Well, that was a big waste of time. For those listening to ATS Live, they were discussing the wrong technology completely and has nothing to do with Deepthought's work or this thread.

Dude.... They didn't even *READ* this thread.

Complete waste of time.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Dude.... They didn't even *READ* this thread.

Complete waste of time.

They misrepresented Deepthought's work completely. What they were discussing was absurd. It had nothing to do with these articles whatsoever.

If I heard right, the most disinformation came from the guy from the BBC.

He could be MI5/MI6.

reply to post by somerandomuser

If I heard right, the most disinformation came from the guy from the BBC.

....the guy from the BBC.

Please tell me that you are joking....

(second line)

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

Please tell me that you are joking....

From what I remember it was the guy Stephen from the BBC. He directed everyone to microwaves, then talked about them frying people.

I didn't hear ATS live tonight but mind control type tech has been around for ages in prototype forms and put to use for experimentation from the '___' infused into MK-Ultra to the Microwave Auditory effect to electrical interface there trying in a sense to find the perfect component for mind control and weapon use, it's just a shame all the victims who they have experimented this type of garbage on.

I think we have a know all troll here. make up your own minds guys.

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Originally posted by tetra50

I was never talking about a direct exchange between human to human. Two logical things here: if you can use a fMRI to pull images out of a brain, and then upload them to a computer, use the computer then to alter, edit, manipulate and then interface with whatever other human brain, or even the same one.
Also, logically if you have a line into a brain to draw something out of it, it is only logic this line can be used both ways, i.e. a line in is a line out, and vice versa. I'm not sure you have thoroughly explored beyond what is being spelled out as to what could be achieved here.

You're not making sense...what do you mean?

\
Quite a few people who responded to you in this thread agree completely with you that this tech exists, and agree absolutely about the horror of what it is used for and represents, and yet, you treat many as though they make no sense, when your responses to those who agree seem to make no sense. There is nothing above that doesn't make sense, as you assert.

I'm not missing the point. Your beliefs are not established science. The functional viewpoint, that the mind is a product of genetics, is the established viewpoint.

Thus, any ability to recognise external electrical interference must be a product of genetics.

My remarks about consciousness are hardly "my beliefs." The debate that science, itself, has had about the functionality and what comprises and constitutes consciousness is historical, widespread and hardly non scientific. Behavioral psychology and other psychological specialties have long debated what consciousness is, and if it is a product of genetics, or environment....it's a cliche called nature vs. nurture.
As to the controlled hallucination that an interface with a computer can induce and that being "what we are discussing," it is what I have been discussing, too. And much of philosophy is about what defines consciousness. Even purely medical science has long debated what areas of the brain, and exactly what functions constitute and define consciousness. Genetics can hardly be the only determining factor of knowlege or awareness.....
Perhaps somehow this goes back to one of your first responses to me, that you know about the conservation of stupidity......LOL. I didn't take this personally at first, but it's beginning to seem that this is exactly how you meant it.
I find this terribly sad it seems to be this way, as this topic is something I feel is incredibly important, and the complete hijacking of the natural rights of human beings and individual life it represents.

I'm not missing the point. Your beliefs are not established science. The functional viewpoint, that the mind is a product of genetics, is the established viewpoint.

Thus, any ability to recognise external electrical interference must be a product of genetics.

Actually, here, your beliefs are not established science. If they were, then we would long ago have begun to take the children of serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. and anyone who was violent or displayed aberrant behavior and lock them up or attempt "treatment" before their behavior made it necessary, on just the assumption that such behavior would inevitably present as necessitated by "genetics" and DNA.

One of the last things used in defining consciousness and what constitutes it by ANYONE in science would be genetics. Am I speaking with a computer?

reply to post by mandroids


If we do, it is a sad thing, as this topic is so very important. But trying to exchange ideas in this thread is something akin to a my feelings in the dentist's office. However, getting the information to people eclipses the discomfort personally....for me, anyway.


But I would like to point this out. Very often people reveal themselves and their motivations without intending to, at least, directly.
This person is asserting that genetics is mainly responsible for consciousness, and functional consciousness--i.e.,
behavior. This belief is shared by groups engaged in discriminatory and racist endeavors. If consciousness is based in genetics, primarily, then your behavior, mind set, choices will be determined by your race and your parents. This is exactly what the promoters and believers in this technology would assert, and would see the use of said technology as a way to "solve" or "cure" remotely, and without your assent or agreement, your genetic trait failings or lackings.....as you would be seen as capable of nothing more than what came before you and biologically determined who you would be, think and do. That someone thinks this is agreed upon by science I find quite disturbing, and exactly why we have come to a point where such technology exists.
Even if someone could claim to use a fMRI to "claim" to know what is in your mind, and a product of it, therein lies part of the danger. If you can claim to define what is going on in a mind, you can most likely put it there, to justify the claim, and your method for "fixing" it.

And whether you can put it there or not, one must realize how dangerous the mind set being put across in this one statement-- that consciousness is a result of genetics--really is. In itself, it seeks to be predictive of human beings. In other words, you can be defined without your input or participation. And the tools for defining "you,"
exist inherently separate from you--

As to functional consciousness and genetics:

In 1953 Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Studies of the protein machine reveal a complex polymerase, which is contained in every cell, so that every single human cell has enough information to reproduce an entire human. DNA is extremely stable and in fact studies of fossil material that is 50,000 years old show the DNA structure to be still intact and viable.

This gave rise to a belief in the primacy of DNA as being the causal agent in all life. Genetic determinism holds that all traits and characteristics are defined at the moment of conception. Crick’s hypothesis implies a fatalistic view which disempowers the individual and would have you believe that you are controlled by your genes. Acceptance of this hypothesis is so widespread that some women whose family has a history of breast cancer have undergone a mastectomy rather than risk getting the cancer. This belief was in the best interest of drug manufacturers who have become very powerful.

But the reductionist idea that a cell is a bag of protein parts has been challenged by recent findings about cellular awareness. DNA studies ignored the function of regulatory proteins which turn cells off and on, or activate them through chemicals generated by the environment. Cell membranes contain receptors or antenna-like parts which act like scanners, converting environmental signals into electro-magnetic stimuli which regulate proteins within the cell.

There are many kinds of these receptors whose specific shape enables detection of many kinds of stimuli such as glucose, histamines, insulin, and even light, etc. It was assumed to be the cell nucleus that directs the cell’s activities, but in fact, the cell can accomplish everything but reproduction with the nucleus removed, and will continue to function as usual for months until the individual parts need to be replaced or reproduced. A bacterium, which is the most primitive organism, doesn’t even have a nucleus, or internal parts (organelles). All its functions are contained in the cell membrane.

So it turns out that awareness (the brain) is in the membrane, or ectoderm. The skin of cells is composed of two parts that make up a bi-layer of protein and phospho-lipids. The outer layer has receptors which are antenna-like structures that receive signals from the environment.

The interior of the cell has a negative electrical charge. A receptor acts like a switch which permits a positive electrical charge from outside the cell to enter through the cell membrane. This causes an electrical spark, or signal, which causes a vibrational frequency like Morse code to be generated. These electrical signals affect the proteins of the cell and regulate its functions.

So there are receptors and processors and channels to allow environmental stimuli to evoke responses within the cell by changing the shape of the proteins in the membrane. And these receptors are so extremely sensitive that they can detect the presence of a single atom of glucose diluted with enough water to fill a whole harbor at the seacoast.

Cell membrane molecules are lined up like a kind of liquid crystal that change from conductor to non-conductor. The membrane is a semi-conductor with gates and channels. Electrical currents flow across the channels when the gates are open. This is exactly the same definition as a computer chip. The cell membrane is the same as a computer chip with individual receptors as the keys on the keyboard. The cell nucleus is like the hard drive that contains the software. If you remove the floppy disk that installed the program, the computer still works and you can select which software program you want to use at the moment.

There are 50 to 70 trillion cells in the human body, and each one contains in its DNA blueprint enough information to reconstruct an entire human body, but it does not determine or limit the potential of that human. Organisms can change to accommodate the environment.

link
I could provide much more sourced refutation that the so called mechanism of functional consciousness may have very little to do with genetics, or that genetics only defines a very small part of it, but this is not initially what the thread is about and I do not wish to derail that. However, to state unequivocally that the mind is a product of genetics and this is established science is virtually heresy in what we know of physiological science today.

And this to add, as well, from a study of purely physiological effects:

Abstract
Results of epidemiological research show low association of electromagnetic field (EMF) with increased risk of cancerous diseases and missing dose–effect relations. An important component in assessing potential cancer risk is knowledge concerning any genotoxic effects of extremely-low-frequency-EMF (ELF-EMF).
Human diploid fibroblasts were exposed to continuous or intermittent ELF-EMF (50 Hz, sinusoidal, 24 h, 1000 􏰀T). For evaluation of genotoxic effects in form of DNA single- (SSB) and double-strand breaks (DSB), the alkaline and the neutral comet assay were used.
In contrast to continuous ELF-EMF exposure, the application of intermittent fields reproducibly resulted in a significant increase of DNA strand break levels, mainly DSBs, as compared to non-exposed controls. The conditions of intermittence showed an impact on the induction of DNA strand breaks, producing the highest levels at 5 min field-on/10 min field-off. We also found individual differences in response to ELF-EMF as well as an evident exposure–response relationship between magnetic flux density and DNA migration in the comet assay.
Our data strongly indicate a genotoxic potential of intermittent EMF. This points to the need of further studies in vivo and consideration about environmental threshold values for ELF exposure.

It is not only a causative factor in changing DNA, but there are also individual differences noted in the responses.... So it changes the DNA structure, but also of note is that individual differences more than bolster the idea that the initial DNA is not predictive as to even the purely physiological response in the individual.
Link

I would be very careful about established science and predictive assertions, if I were you, whether it addresses physiology or psychology.

reply to post by tetra50


I think somerandomuser did a great job of bringing this to the light i think we are just getting our signals crossed, the fact is part of this tech is a extension of a continued off shoot of MK-Ultra in terms of the study of the mind and mind control, now they did indeed went down a few different avenues to reach the point there at now.


Basing on what i read i would say that Microwave Auditory effect technology was the forerunner to electrical interface in terms of the advancement of mind manipulation, it seems what somerandomuser posted and is talking about is more advanced and more capable then the Microwave Auditory effect technology for certin purposes.


Anyway it's a good thread and i don't think it should be derailed the victims of these heinous weapons deserve better then that and the truth needs to get out there.

reply to post by King Seesar


I am not derailing the thread, first. An exchange of information should evolve, should it not? I agree with you completely, about everything you said in that post, and much of it, if you read the entire thread, I have already stated. It is difficult to be agreeing, and then have someone restate what you've already stated and agreed to, and then restate it, as if you need to be told it. No offense intended. I just find it strange, as I have stated everything you just said, only to have this person argue with every post I made, none of which argued against his OP.
The only thing I hadn't stated yet, ( was going to yesterday_ was the obvious link to MK Ultra. I was going to ask him if he'd heard of it. If you read my responses throughout this thread, I said exactly what you did about where this technology began, and this is its evolution.
Second, the victims deserve better? Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to make judgements, as you may, in fact, be addressing a victim. But I do not wish to become anecdotal here. I have complemented many, many times on the content of the thread, and stated ad nauseum that I wholeheartedly believe the importance of it outweighs whatever is going on here. Every single reply I have made to this poster has been argued with, as though I am a spreader of disinformation. Therefore, and as a victim, I am required to respond. Not to mention the fact that with any amount of intellectual dissemination, you will understand why I MUST refute that consciousness is a matter of genetics, as this predictive mentality is exactly the argument that will be, and has been, used to justify the use of the technology we are all despising in this thread.
I find it incredible you would reply in this way, as I have stated this about the truth needing to get out there so many times it is ridiculous.