NSA Mind Control Technology and A.I. Revealed

reply to post by MemoryShock

They've been getting away with the perfect crime for some time, especially in Washington.

What galls me is the damage done. You can't recover from it because it is ongoing. I pissed off the wrong people.

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

They've been getting away with the perfect crime for some time, especially in Washington.

What galls me is the damage done. You can't recover from it because it is ongoing. I pissed off the wrong people.

True enough...it almost makes any consideration to make things better kind of silly. Wages increase only after 5 cycles of inflation and are still heralded as the greatest piece of crumb to fall off of the table...

reply to post by MemoryShock

I'm speaking specifically of myself.

I worked for the gov and made the mistake of telling it like it is. Suddenly I was gravely ill.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody

I would be interested in hearing more of your story. Either here or PM me if you wish...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
We have to consider that there are probably uses and applications that we might not be even aware of yet. If they record brain waves and thoughts then they may be saving them, comparing them, and/or using them for composite software to simulate human thoughts processes.

The tech may be unnecessary to discredit someone but one of the main attributes is not being able to trace who is doing this to you. De facto presumption in such a case is that the individual is crazy and there you have it - the perfect crime.

No doubt that is very accurate. The limitation would be processor speed and the fact that Deepthought now shows that the human brain may work differently than most people believe. The theory on near-field communication fits so well with neural function.

As for not being able to trace the signal, Deepthought implied that was not true. In fact, his work is pointing to a phased array of some form and that can be localized quite rapidly.

reply to post by somerandomuser

Could you put this in simpler terms or point me to a web site that explains it?

I'm an idiot but I'm intrigued.

reply to post by disgustingfatbody

Unless I am mistaken, he is stating that if they are measuring thought waves (terminology is always a struggle for accuracy when presuming here, for me at least) then they may be doing so inaccurately if the brain doesn't work the way many people think. This is probably do to contextual reasoning with how short and long term memory interact with the sensory modalities and the fact that a thought does not necessitate behaviour. Of course, I am guessing here but I have been considering these types of thoughts for much of the duration of my 'symptoms'...

He is also suggesting that the processing speed of the computers are either set up incorrectly to adequately interpret brain function for a reasonable simulation or suggesting that artificial processing is no where near capable of processing information as fast as the brain.

The signal tracing is very interesting...if it can be traced than I wonder why isn't that happening?

reply to post by MemoryShock

Thanks. Interesting.

This issue of tracing the signal appears to be addressed in this new article. Its heavy on the radio DSP but it outlines what type of signal we are looking for, the technology that produces it, the equipment needed to detect it and how to defend against it.

deepthought.newsvine.com...

reply to post by somerandomuser

We can't walk around with a Faraday cage on our heads. I don't see any way around it.

Maybe not, but if we read the new article we can see that we can protect homes, offices, bedrooms, etc.

deepthought.newsvine.com...

It won't be long now before the signal is traced and people start making noises about it. That will be the beginning of the end.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Unless I am mistaken, he is stating that if they are measuring thought waves (terminology is always a struggle for accuracy when presuming here, for me at least) then they may be doing so inaccurately if the brain doesn't work the way many people think.

That article is very hard to follow, it seems like Deepthought was capturing everything that came into his mind on the subject. As far as I can work out, the system is functionally correct because it is activate the neurons in the correct sequence, thus producing the correct signals. The problem is that the accuracy of those signals would be massively off as far as the brain is concerned for a wide range of functions such as reasoning, etc. It may be functional for more simplistic task such as speech, motor control, etc.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
He is also suggesting that the processing speed of the computers are either set up incorrectly to adequately interpret brain function for a reasonable simulation or suggesting that artificial processing is no where near capable of processing information as fast as the brain.

I would agree with that statement. With near-field, DeepThought suggests that the brain as a whole is form part of the processing by data input from particular inputs. This means that a supercomputer focusing on a narrow region of the brain to speed up processing would miss the entire process and only observe a small subset at any one time. Now, this could be enough to functionally replicate many tasks, but may not have the resolution for more complex activity. This may explain why the target that Deepthought refers to can separate the external signal from his/her own senses. It would imply some discrete level of signal filtering is present which can perform such a separation. To consider it a different way, how could speech in a person's head be attributed to an external source? Obviously, the brain can filter it somehow and that filtration appears to spreading throughout the senses. Will it eventually reach the motor controls, or is it already present? As far as I can tell, it seems like the signal cannot override local motor control when the motor control is driven.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The signal tracing is very interesting...if it can be traced than I wonder why isn't that happening?

Make sure you read the new article, his approach appears to correct. I was shocked to learn that the signal was not ELF. It seemed to fit perfectly, but when he began to mention the lack of discrimination and plasma antennas it suddenly became clear why that was wrong. Now, I am not saying it can't be done, but from an engineering perspective, why waste money and time on a slow bandwidth hogging ELF transmitter, when you can do it just as well at high frequency?

deepthought.newsvine.com...

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by somerandomuser

 

We can't walk around with a Faraday cage on our heads. I don't see any way around it.

I have been thinking about this. Obviously, they are detecting some signal whether it is a direct emission or backscatter from a broadcast signal.

The best approach maybe to generate the same signal and mask the return signal. That may be a portable solution but it depends on the signal strength.

maybe we could wear a faraday cage on our heads as a type of hat. no tinfoil jokes.

have you ever been in such a cage? do you know if there is a perceptible difference in the environment inside it?

Originally posted by aaaiii
maybe we could wear a faraday cage on our heads as a type of hat. no tinfoil jokes.

A Faraday cage is a hollow ground, thus it must be a continuous conductive structure that is well grounded. The type of cage you suggest would serve only to amplify any signal, as would a tinfoil hat. Only a very small percentage would be reflected away.

I think people who come up with these ideas have misunderstood the principle of a parabolic dish (like the type used on a satellite dish). Most of the energy will pass through any metal structure mounted on the head, once inside the metal causes the signal to reflect, bouncing back and forth across the brain.

So, a walk-in properly engineered cage is the only solution.

Originally posted by aaaiii
have you ever been in such a cage? do you know if there is a perceptible difference in the environment inside it?

I have not and I don't how effective it would be for someone like me. I would however like to hear the result a genuine target had and the specifications of the cage.

Originally posted by somerandomuser
I would however like to hear the result a genuine target had and the specifications of the cage.

What would the cost be for such a thing...on a small scale? Not sure I could afford it nor would I immediately know how to construct it properly but I would be very interested in the results...I'm sure there are a few others who might be interested. Experiment only though because I don't think it is feasible to remain there forever and as a means to convince people it is completely useless as it relies on the same subjective experience to report on viability.

reply to post by MemoryShock

Google it.

I ran across a couple of pretty good descriptions while poking around.

reply to post by rtyfx

I'd rather get a recommendation from someone with technical expertise than mess up a random recipe on my own...

reply to post by MemoryShock

I gotcha. Just thought it would give you an idea.

What we have to remember is that secret technology is far more advanced than what is in the public arena. I was reading somewhere that this secret technology used be 20 years ahead of what we think the cutting edge is but today it is advancing faster than before and that new technology might even be 40 years ahead of what the public knows about.

S&F great find!