NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by somerandomuser

 

The only defense is a low frequency shielded room. Something like this:

...but with more attenuation in the sub 1KHz region...so, much thicker than this.

Ok, fair enough, what do you think about a room like that, except an interior and exterior metal cage, separated by an insulator, and connected through a small induction coil of the proper size?

Essentially making it a giant LC damper.

A tuned circuit? There is limited damping in that type of circuit at it resonant frequency. Also, you are only blocking the DC component of the signal and you need to be careful that the capacitor doesn't discharge into you.

Are you suggesting using it like a band pass filter to reject signals outside of the resonant frequency?

ELF would pass through it like it was nothing.

Originally posted by Bedlam
Point me to the scientific articles - I read his magnum opus and stopped when I saw that he didn't have a clue about what he was writing about.

Don't waste my time. If you are not even going to bother to read the material and supporting evidence, then I will not waste my time replying to you.

It is clear that you do not understand this technology, nor the associated physics. As such, your comments are worthless.

Originally posted by somerandomuser

Originally posted by Bedlam
Point me to the scientific articles - I read his magnum opus and stopped when I saw that he didn't have a clue about what he was writing about.

Don't waste my time. If you are not even going to bother to read the material and supporting evidence, then I will not waste my time replying to you.

It is clear that you do not understand this technology, nor the associated physics. As such, your comments are worthless.

How did I KNOW you wouldn't read your own stuff and point out the points you're basing your beliefs on. Ok, ok, here's the next thing you'll do - I'll read it, and pick it to pieces, and you will either say "no that's not the point I was referring to", but you won't state which it is, or you'll ring in secret unknown technology - you've already alluded to it - which can't be documented or detailed but which you are sure exists.

As for understanding physics - well, so far you haven't been making many statements here other than 'look, here's a bunch of links that can't be refuted because they're COOL'. And so far, I've started picking them apart and all you say, and you've done it more than once, is "it's OBVIOUS you don't understand it because you disagree". Puh-leeze.

I'm reading through the stuff - and my IQ is dropping steadily - do you know he cites Begich as proof of some of his points? Geez. Anyways, it doesn't stand up to much so far. He's really good at the non-sequitur, though, much better than Begich is. For example - his "scientific proof" here:

To answer this we must turn to this scientific paper. From this paper, we can observe the charge per square centimeter which is around 22-29 microamperes. We can perform some rough math on these figures that will reveal the answer to our question. The equations are rough and leave out a lot of additional factors, that said, the final figures will not be far from the truth and will probably under-estimate the capabilities of current classified technology.

So, using the formula Watts = Voltage x Amperage, we get the following peak power:

0.003 V x 0.0000029 A = 0.0000000087 Watts/cm2

HAHAHAHAHA. Ok - I took a quick look at the scientific paper - and it's a non-sequitur as is most of his stuff. See if you can spot the several errors, misdirections and shaggy dog story in just this one paragraph. Bonus points if you can pick out what he got from the "scientific paper", if it's applicable, and why.

ps: off to dinner - see ya when I get back. See if you can spot at least ONE of the mistakes.

A team of researchers from Berkley, University of California, claim to have developed a new brain imaging technology that will map human minds and recreate dreams and memories. Utilizing the new technology, the researchers were able to map brain patterns of subjects when they were watching videos from YouTube. The team then created another YouTube video based on the imaging and activity of the subjects' brain while they were watching the first video. The research was published on Sept. 22, in the journal Current Biology. For the purposes of this research, the scientists combined functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and computational models which decoded and reconstructed a person's dynamic visual experience. The researchers, who were themselves the subjects, spent hours lying inside an MRI machine and watched two sets of movie trailers while the machine recorded blood flow through the visual cortex, which processes visual information in the brain. While watching the first trailer, a computer program recorded the brain activities of the subjects and created an algorithm against the video's visual patterns. Then the second trailer tests the computer's movie reconstruction algorithm. The reconstruction algorithm resulted in a blurry but continuous 100-clip recreation of the original movie. The technology can, potentially, help scientists to read human minds, dreams and memories; all of which, to date, lie beyond human comprehension. In addition to mapping the human mind, the technology could also improve the lives of people with neurological diseases and will "allow people with no motor skills to go into the MRI for two hours every day and communicate with their families," said Jack Gallant, Professor of Psychology at Berkeley and co-author of the study. However, as the computational models are still in development, the date of implementation of the technology is still uncertain. "The technology will definitely get there, the question is just when," said Gallant.

This stuff regardless of how its done is VERY real!

As a observer of this thread i think it's clear that somerandomuser is tech savvy and has brought up some compelling information, i'm sure four hundred years ago when a scientist of that day pointed out that the earth was round there were other scientists who refuted this theory with scientific observations that seem to back the theory that the earth was flat, what at the time wasen't known is how the earth could be round.


In another words i think somerandomuser and Bedlam are both very knowledgeable when it comes to the scientific aspects of new types of technology but it's clear that somerandomuser has took the time to read all the articles he posted so to try and dismiss it that he hasen't i think is the wrong angle of this debate.

Originally posted by Bedlam
How did I KNOW you wouldn't read your own stuff and point out the points you're basing your beliefs on. ...And so far, I've started picking them apart and all you say, and you've done it more than once, is "it's OBVIOUS you don't understand it because you disagree". Puh-leeze.

You haven't picked anything apart. I am well aware that your posts until this point have been nonsense. Let's see if you do any better with the rest of the material.

Originally posted by Bedlam
HAHAHAHAHA. Ok - I took a quick look at the scientific paper - and it's a non-sequitur as is most of his stuff. See if you can spot the several errors, misdirections and shaggy dog story in just this one paragraph. Bonus points if you can pick out what he got from the "scientific paper", if it's applicable, and why.

There is nothing wrong with it, it is a ballpark figure to establish some numbers quickly. If you think the intended function is to provide accurate figures for radiated power, then you are quite wrong. If you had read the comments, then you know this.

There is nothing wrong with the source article and is highly applicable.

Originally posted by Mattodlum
The Bride Groom had been Chosen already. I'm waiting for his return.

Here I am! Past, Present, Future.

Freelance M.I.B - 777 When it is time, it is time for his return. He shall play with the A.I. once again to save the world.





(BY the way the book they gave me when I was a child - leviathan by Hobbs, is a joke.)

reply to post by somerandomuser

A tuned circuit?

Essentially, yes... it's an idea ive been kicking around for awhile now.

There is limited damping in that type of circuit at it resonant frequency. Also, you are only blocking the DC component of the signal and you need to be careful that the capacitor doesn't discharge into you.

Well, considering that the overall capacitance of the two cage layers are connected by the induction coil, I don't really see them building up a significant charge, overall.

Are you suggesting using it like a band pass filter to reject signals outside of the resonant frequency?

ELF would pass through it like it was nothing.

Yes, I was.... But since faraday cages work best at higher frequencies (the mesh size notwithstanding) I was figuring that you would construct the Cage/Inductor assembly to be resonant to extremely low frequency EM radiation, that would give you at least a measure of protection beyond JUST the grounding properties of the cage itself.

Oh, and tell me more about the DC component of the wave, vs the AC component?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Yes, I was.... But since faraday cages work best at higher frequencies (the mesh size notwithstanding) I was figuring that you would construct the Cage/Inductor assembly to be resonant to extremely low frequency EM radiation, that would give you at least a measure of protection beyond JUST the grounding properties of the cage itself.

Oh, and tell me more about the DC component of the wave, vs the AC component?

Well, I'm no expert on shielding, but a resonant cicuit re-radiates the incoming signal. The circuit is like a tuning fork in that regard. So, rather than capturing the signal, it would act as an echo chamber.

As for the DC component, I was just pointing out that an LC circuit only passes AC.

Originally posted by somerandomuser

You haven't picked anything apart. I am well aware that your posts until this point have been nonsense. Let's see if you do any better with the rest of the material.

Then no doubt you can point out specific examples of the nonsense. I'll wait.

There is nothing wrong with the source article and is highly applicable.

There's not much RIGHT with it - any of it. My starting point for the evening is that it's not even a valid ballpark. You can't see the ballpark from where he's at. Ok. You didn't want to (or weren't able to) spot any of the problems in that one small section. Let's start whittling at it.

First - the "scientific paper". It certainly was one. It had no bearing on the premise, but it certainly was a scientific paper. What he was looking for was, apparently, the current in an axon. He chose the Ca++ ionic current to use, probably because the author of that paper didn't spend a lot of time on the sodium or potassium ion currents. But let's go with it, even though I'm not at all sure the Ca++ ion current is predominant. Deepthought's statement was "From this paper, we can observe the charge per square centimeter which is around 22-29 microamperes." Ok, here's the first cluster of mistakes. One, microamperes is not a unit of charge - sloppy at best. Two, it really really should have bothered him (assuming that deepthought IS a him) that the paper was using uA/cm^2 for current, because that's not a current, it's a current density. There is a BIG difference. And it's one he didn't catch - he even tried to USE it to get his units to come out right, which is a major failure.

The paper is using current densities because it simplifies their math - the paper is discussing a multi-compartment model of a neuron. The simulation math comes out easier if you stick with current densities and distributed capacitance - see Pinsky and Rinzel 1994 as referenced by the "scientific paper" if you're into 24 compartment neuron modeling. But the upshot is that the 29 microamperes referenced is per square centimeter of axonal cross section. Not per square centimeter of brain tissue. That's stated over and over in the 'scientific paper'. The problem here is that axon cross sections are spectacularly SMALL. You have to multiply the 29 microamperes per square centimeter of axonal cross section by the actual cross section of an axon in square cm to get the current. Here is a nice cartoony bit of calculation that states that axonal currents are somewhere in the 4.4E-10 Ampere range, or .00044 microamperes, per axon. That's about four orders of magnitude short of what he was using for calculation - an extremely bad goof, caused by deepthought not actually understanding what he was reading. Sloppy work. If he wanted to get a decent number for the average axonal current in a cm^3 of brain matter, he'd need to know how many axons that IS,not easy to do. Brain's not all neurons by any stretch.

Next, you'll notice that he screws up the next step as well - he takes a power density (he even carries the 1/m^2 term along) and tries to calculate a spherical power density - multiplying two terms, both with 1/m^2 terms in them, he would have gotten a 1/m^4th if done right, he just handwaves it and keeps 1/m^2 - the error should have told him something was wrong but he blows smoke and hopes you won't notice the mistake.

Finally, the biggest shaggy dog of all, and you didn't get it. Skipping all the other mistakes he's made in just one or two paragraphs here, the biggest false leap of all yawns before you. He's telling you that every bit of dissipated electrical energy in that neuron is converted to RF. Think about that one. Even if he'd got the current right, you can't just say P = IV -> all emitted RF. No no no. That's not how that works. At all. Not nearly. Let's take his "scientific paper" - they're saying that the firing frequency of their model is something like 270Hz (see page 1552). You've got an axon maybe 1cm in length, its behavior is dominated by straight ohmic resistance (on the order of 2.5E8 ohms for a 1cm length - op cit). So what you're going to have happen to that I*V product is that it's going to be dissipated as straight I2R heat loss. Tomorrow - why that's so. First step is to understand that when you're putting a few nanoamps in a 2500 megohm path, that resistance is going to dominate the radiative impedance of the thing viewed as an antenna. Also the thing is a few hundred kilometers too short - it's the same reason your speaker wires don't radiate all your sound away as ELF/SLF. The speaker wire seen as an antenna for radiating it is so very very short, it's all e-field and nothing radiates as RF at all. A radio engineer would say it's totally capacitive as an antenna.

Oh, by the way, checking his numbers just to see if he'd muffed something else, he puts down 30mv as .003V (wrong) and 29 microamps as .0000029 Amps, also wrong. He did do the cm^2 to m^2 conversion correctly, so he can at least multiply by 10000, even though he next missed that he was multiplying two areas to get an area - also wrong.