Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Microwave brain scrambler?

D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 15/03/2010 05:14, Winston wrote:
(...)
Then you will recall the following finding.

By irradiating a lab animal with a non-ionizing carrier that
has a low frequency AM subcarrier, Dr. Adey has taken over control
the eye muscles of that lab animal, aiming them anywhere he
pleases, any time he wants.

Here is Dr. Adey's passage that I wildly extrapolated to reach my
paraphrase:
"...For example, if one presents a flash of light, the animal
must make that [EEG] response within two seconds or be "punished."
In this punishment the eyes are involuntarily deviated to the
opposite side by stimulation of the brain itself.
This is unpleasant but not painful."

Conditioned response.
Totally different from what you are talking about.

Dirk, I wasn't referring to the 'flash of light', (but you
knew that).
I was referring to the modulated non-ionizing radiation
Dr. Adey used to control the cat's brain so to steer it's
eyes in a direction that the cat did not necessarily intend.

'Conditioned response' requires a stimulus that can be sensed
without an intervening tool, (a radio receiver in this case).

Not necessarily.
Hence the word "subliminal"
I cannot hear radio transmissions without a receiver. Can you?

I can't hear magnetic fields either, but Persinger showed that mag
fields modulated with voice can result in choices, which should have
been random, being skewed towards the object of the modulated voice.
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
I disagree. Dr. Adey's results show an immediate, overwhelming effect.
You can bet that the cat used in Dr. Adey's experiments tried like hell
to avoid having it's eyeballs deflected and yet, Dr. Adey could force
the cat to look in any direction Dr. Adey wished, at any time.

You really think this has not been tried? Lots of times?

It was successfully tried any number of times during Dr. Adey's
experiments. Human trials are a natural outcome and I *do* think
that experiments with human volunteers have been done.

The thing I'm concerned about is that the transmitter will be
used against honest, law abiding people without their consent.

Thank you for thinking about this important development.


--Winston

http://www.raven1.net/lida.htm
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
(...)


As part of a trigger for a conditioned reflex.
The previous conditioning was the big "thing"

I was not referring to the point of Dr. Adey's experiment at
the time, but the more compelling aside regarding his control
of the cat's eyes using modulated non-ionizing radiation.
He used an RF signal like Pavlov used a bell (or so the story goes).

Pavlov used food as a reinforcing stimulus, linking it
to the sound of a tuning fork.

Let me ask you a completely different question:

'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.

Thanks


--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 3/15/2010 12:06 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

(...)
I can't hear magnetic fields either, but Persinger showed that mag
fields modulated with voice can result in choices, which should have
been random, being skewed towards the object of the modulated voice.

Next we will be discussing opera. :)

Let me ask a 'yes' / 'no' question:

"By irradiating a lab animal with a non-ionizing carrier that
has a low frequency AM subcarrier, Dr. Adey has taken over control
the eye muscles of that lab animal, aiming them anywhere he
pleases, any time he wants." Do you agree with that assessment,
based on Dr. Adey's paper?

Thanks

--Winston
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
I was not referring to the point of Dr. Adey's experiment at
the time, but the more compelling aside regarding his control
of the cat's eyes using modulated non-ionizing radiation.


Pavlov used food as a reinforcing stimulus, linking it
to the sound of a tuning fork.

Let me ask you a completely different question:


'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.

Thanks


--Winston

Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 15/03/2010 21:52, Winston wrote:
(...)


Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.

I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.

Thank you for your thoughts on this subject.

--Winston
 
D

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.

My last word on the subject:
"...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind."
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
(...)


My last word on the subject:
"...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind."

Excellent! Thanks!

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 3/16/2010 7:47 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

(...)
If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd
believe in it.

That is fair.

(Still, I would like a yes / no answer from you
whether you believe there is evidence to support the
theory that Dr. Adey *did* use modulated non-ionizing
radiation to steer a lab animal's eyes against that
animal's will, as he claimed in his paper.)
You are a long way short of that, and my current scepticism is
correspondingly rational, despite what you'd like to think.

Bill, despite my attempt at humorously characterizing your
position on this, I hope I have never implied that I
believe you're anything less than perfectly rational.

I don't claim another is behaving irrationally
unless I have a good solid reason.

Skepticism is good. Sometimes people who disagree with me
are correct and my point is incorrect. Discovery of that is a
'teachable moment' for me and I relish it.
You could try. I don't like your chances of success.

That is also fair.
Cyclotron reasonace doesn't need a cyclotron - just an ion, a magnetic
field and an RF field with a frequency that is a close match to the
charge-to-mass ration of the ion and the magnetic field, and an
environment for the ion where the mean free path is a lot longer than
the circular path of the ion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_cyclotron_resonance

Excellent! That will be the thing I learned today. Thank you.
Invoking it as mechanism for getting RF energy into the brain is
evidence of an imprefect education in physics.

Guilty as charged.

I took Dr. Adey's evidence about calcium movement at face value.
I am skeptical about the resonance you point out as well.
Resonance is by definition frequency dependent.
Dr. Adey's transmitter effect is frequency dependent only at
the EEG level (~16 Hz), not WRT carrier frequency.

I feel calcium efflux is a side issue anyway.

I claim I do not know *why* involuntary brain control apparently
is always caused by a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing
radiation and you claim that calcium efflux is very unlikely to
have been caused by cyclotron resonance, in this case.

If we never find out exactly *why* involuntary brain control
apparently is always caused by a particular kind of modulated
non-ionizing radiation it will matter much less than knowing
*that* involuntary brain control apparently is always caused by
a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing radiation,
however the movement of calcium ions may be linked
to the phenomenon or not.

I still think the transmitter will work disturbingly well,
based on Dr. Adey's research findings. :)

Thanks!

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
On 3/16/2010 3:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

(...)
I think you are taking Dr. Adey's results a lot too seriously - his
explanation is (to put it kindly) unlikely to be the only explanation
that fits the data he presents.

Very good. Thank you Bill.

Resolved:
Dirk Bruere: No
Bill Sloman: No
Bill Beaty: No
AZ Nomad: No
JosephKK: No
Steve: No

Saved a lot of time and money there!

Thanks everyone

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
Could you use amplitude modulated microwaves to disable a bad guy?

Picture this:
A robber enters a restaurant, swings a pistol around and demands money.

Secreted in the ceiling of the dining room is a microwave transmitter
equipped with a parabolic dish that can be aimed to cover any portion
of the eating area.

(...)

What *was* I thinking.

It's clearly impossible.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=elCiAAAAEBAJ&dq=US+2007/0249959

:)

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
(...)


There are plenty of nonsense patents in the system. The ban on
patenting perpetual motion machines reflects the fact that they are a
particularly popular with mad inventors, so the ban save the patent
examiners a useful amont of time.

The grantee had a couple DoD development contracts and demonstrated the
device at the 2007 Navy Opportunity Forum at the Hyatt Regency in Crystal
City Virginia.

http://www.navysbirprogram.com/NavySearch/Award/award.aspx?pk=C18BA979-DADB-4892-896A-1E89970EA8BD
http://www.fortliberty.org/us-navy-seeks-vomit-ray.html

Not too many perpetual motion machines make it that far. :)

Thanks, Bill.

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
The US military isn't too good at filtering out charlatans - they put
time and money into telepathy and clairvoyance at one point.

Here's a way to back up that statement:

https://www.navysbirsearch.com/?

Just click on the graphic below the title "Enter Query Text:"
in the top left corner of the window.

I searched for 'aura' and 'e.s.p.'; wasn't able to uncover a charlatan
selling those concepts to the Navy.

Here are some more search terms to try:

ectoplasm
extrasensory
ghost
paranormal
spirit
spontaneous combustion
supernatural
telekinesis
business ethics
budget surplus

Let me know what you uncover, OK?

Thanks!

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
Poor thing, just because there is a patent does not mean that the device
can be built nor that it will work as claimed. Patents are not what they
were supposed to be and have not been since WW2.

I agree with Don Lancaster 100% about patents:
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

Clearly the applicant is begging to be ripped off.

However:
This grantee had a couple DoD development contracts and demonstrated the
device at the 2007 Navy Opportunity Forum at the Hyatt Regency in Crystal
City Virginia.

http://www.navysbirprogram.com/NavySearch/Award/award.aspx?pk=C18BA979-DADB-4892-896A-1E89970EA8BD
http://www.fortliberty.org/us-navy-seeks-vomit-ray.html

Not too many perpetual motion machines make it that far. :)

Thanks for your clarifying comment, JosephKK.

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
Straw Man Argument,

Let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think you (and Dirk and Bill S. and Bill B. and AZ) believe:

1) A microwave brain scrambler is either physically impossible
or that it would be tested only in the most scientific, careful,
responsible way if it did exist.

2) Either Dr. Adey misinterpreted his test results or that my paraphrase
of Dr. Adey's test results is inaccurate.

Are you saying that these aren't an honest assessment of your position?
Do my characterizations differ from your real position in any material
way? How so?

Who's position did I misrepresent? We aren't talking about Terrell's
bowling ball, are we? :)
you have no proof that they even demo'ed a poster,
let alone hardware...

What would you regard as sufficient proof, then?

If I told you for example that there is a tiny radio transponder
attached to most small, high value retail items, would you believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfid

Would you believe me if I told you that our USENET conversation was
likely being copied by researchers and used for their marketing
purposes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining

There is really nothing that would convince you, short
of putting you in front of one of these nasty devices.

Even then, as you regained consciousness, you might even claim that
you fell asleep in two seconds, waiting for the test to begin. :)

You don't have to take my word for it. These are the people
who run that show:

[email protected] | 585-617-6298
Here, stand in our booth and we'll make you sick or distraught...

If I had been at the 2007 Navy Opportunity Forum at the Hyatt Regency
in Crystal City Virginia and had been one of the actual unfortunate
volunteers, I could speak from personal experience about the efficacy
of the tool. (You wouldn't believe it then, either.) :)
Yes, right, You obviously have no idea of human research protocols and
lawyers...

Steve, we've been over this already.

When the tool becomes available, it will be tested on the public without
their knowledge or permission. No 'informed consent'. No lawyers.
None will be deemed necessary because the weapon leaves no evidence
that it was used. It will be a technical 'sucker punch'.

Most testing will be done by bored minimum - wage 'managers' at a retail
outlets, just goofing off.

Most tests will *not* be double-blind peer-reviewed studies performed by grad
students at accredited universities.

It is the nature of this kind of tool. I may not have mentioned this
but it is not illegal and it will leave no evidence it was ever used
except for the store's surveillance video.

Want to wager how long that video lasts after the 'manager' gets a call
from Corporate? :)

--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winston, Lets get something straight. I've worked on a non RF version
of the 18 hz thing in a past life. Its a miserable failure in its
present forms.

I agree. Non-RF is a non-starter.
What were we saying about 'straw men'? :)

I developed a non-ice cream sundae. It didn't sell well,
even during the summer.
Ice cream sundaes are therefore impossible, yes?
Most people shake it off in a second or so, if they are
even affected at all... A few folks are really sensitive to it, but
very few.. Weak RF, no way...

I take it that your microwave field strength was less than 105 W /m^2?
Been there, Done That, Wasted a hell
of a lot of money, and got the tee shirt.

How far into the brain did you place your electrodes?
Your wasting your time...

I disagree.

Thanks for the information, Steve.


--Winston
 
W

Winston

Jan 1, 1970
0
No microwaves.. I didn't need Microwaves or any RF...

Going much further blows my NDA, but trust me, your wasting your time
with the microwaves or the whole 18 hz process. I have nothing to gain
by telling you this... Not to mention you have to tune it for each
person..

Again, the only way the microwaves work is to cook tissue or slightly
heat the hearing mechanism. You either need to heat the inside of the
ears slightly ,or release enough heat to cause shockwaves inside the
skull. And if your using that much RF energy, you will find yourself
a guest at the Hague...

Let's agree to disagree.

I'm here to learn. I will pay careful attention to any double-blind
peer reviewed scientific data or reasonably plausible applied science.

When you tell me those three things, I wonder why they appear to
contradict the information that I've gathered.
Please feel free to post a link to any data you find compelling.

Thanks! :)


--Winston
 
Top