peacepink

Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts? - Physics Revealed - Part 3 - Released

Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts? - Physics Revealed - Part 3


http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2010/10/03/5223971-can-a-sate...

This article adds a little background information, defines reduced figures for the system and improves upon the assessment made in the first article.

Views: 1200

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Deepthought goes into the physics of the technology in great detail, but is there indeed much as regards the functions and implications in his recent revelations that hadn´t been previously reported?

John Fleming first wrote ¨The Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance¨ in 1996, which even then outlined the incredible capabilities of a Satellite. 14 years is a long time in terms of technological advances nowadays. The article at the following site was written in June of 2003.

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&s...

He referred to ¨the amazing powers of satellites that include reading a person's mind, monitoring conversations, manipulating electronic instruments and physically assaulting someone with a laser beam¨.
He went on to suggest that surveillance satellites began reading minds sometime in the early 1990s, adding that thousands of Americans were under satellite surveillance and had been stripped of their privacy.
He stated at the end of the article that ¨no source of information on satellites indicates whether the abuse of satellite surveillance is mediated by the government or corporations or both´.
That then is what I would call a proper revelation, to discover which entities are responsible, as it appears that knowledge of the technology was available years ago. Is it just governments or are others involved by now? The reason I would doubt that it´s just government involvement is because intelligence agencies don’t seem bothered that the information appears on Internet websites or even in books. Most people are still not informed in any case, since they’re not going to find what they’re NOT looking for on the web. What the media don´t bring to the sheeple, the sheeple won’t receive, and so neither will they be aware that it´s being kept from them. I imagine that in the not too distant future, desktop computers will have larger monitors with the capacity to partition off one side of the screen to have images flash up with a brief description of any and every topic indexed by Google. Possibly an additional facility that websites would have to finance, perhaps together with companies advertising their products as in TV commercials. It wouldn´t half change the situation. Indeed, it would be a totally different ball game.

Another interesting case:

Dr John Hall wrote the book ¨A New Breed – Satellite Terrorism in America¨, and even managed to get it published. He was actually arrested at some point by the FBI and his professional licence taken away. Amazingly, it got a couple of minutes coverage on CNN, but only because he´d been examined by doctors and diagnosed as suffering from delusional disorder, LOL. The short clip is on the Internet somewhere, but I´ve searched You Tube again and cannot find it a second time. It may by now have been removed.
"Deepthought goes into the physics of the technology in great detail, but is there indeed much as regards the functions and implications in his recent revelations that hadn´t been previously reported?"

Without the physics, it could be just waffle. DeepThought is the first to show how it can be done.




"John Fleming first wrote ¨The Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance¨ in 1996, which even then outlined the incredible capabilities of a Satellite. 14 years is a long time in terms of technological advances nowadays. The article at the following site was written in June of 2003."

As far as I can see at the moment, the technology goes as far back as the late 80's. The A.I. is at least a decade old, perhaps as old as the late 80's, early 90's.




"He referred to ¨the amazing powers of satellites that include reading a person's mind, monitoring conversations, manipulating electronic instruments and physically assaulting someone with a laser beam¨."

The first part is correct. Manipulating electronic instruments depends on what frequency the device is subject to interference and if a frequency can be directed to the target. The last claim of being assaulted with a laser beam is wrong, its not technically feasible.



"He went on to suggest that surveillance satellites began reading minds sometime in the early 1990s, adding that thousands of Americans were under satellite surveillance and had been stripped of their privacy."

The theory was around in the late 70's, so deployment would have been early-to-mid 80's. Ground testing would have happened in late 70's. It was almost certainly in active deployment around 1990. Its a Bush and the people behind the Iran-contra inspired tool (see total information awareness).




"He stated at the end of the article that ¨no source of information on satellites indicates whether the abuse of satellite surveillance is mediated by the government or corporations or both´.
That then is what I would call a proper revelation, to discover which entities are responsible, as it appears that knowledge of the technology was available years ago. Is it just governments or are others involved by now?"

Its an in-house SIGINT project. That means the NSA and GCHQ being involved at least, perhaps the full range of members of Echelon.

Its not in corporate hands.




"The reason I would doubt that it´s just government involvement is because intelligence agencies don’t seem bothered that the information appears on Internet websites or even in books."

They're bothered alright. I'm sure every main intelligence agency worth its salt has been to DeepThought's page. They're obviously not in a position to do much about it. What's done is done, they would only confirm it and then risk DeepThought explaining to everyone what is being done with the tech and having the credibility of his arrest/detainment.

That would open a can of worms and possibly lead to mass arrests of intelligence staff and technicians, even politicians. It would certainly cost jobs, extensive lawsuits, damage credibility and shake the very foundations of major intelligence organizations. It would be like the Nazi's and the Nuremberg trials.



"Most people are still not informed in any case, since they’re not going to find what they’re NOT looking for on the web. What the media don´t bring to the sheeple, the sheeple won’t receive, and so neither will they be aware that it´s being kept from them."

True, China has the great firewall and the west has the great spam wall. The difference is the presence of technical information. How long before a public demo happens? Then the question will be asked, how did DeepThought arrive at the design?

That should prove interesting.




"Dr John Hall wrote the book ¨A New Breed – Satellite Terrorism in America¨, and even managed to get it published. He was actually arrested at some point by the FBI and his professional licence taken away."

Personal accounts really mean nothing. The real concern is technical information both in terms of two-way communication of the brain and the capabilities of the A.I.. Articles such as those published by DeepThought would be really problematic as they outline something that can be tested, everything else is debatable. Technical material provides a lot more credibility as it brings the material in from absurdity to plausibility.

That DeepThought's real strength.
¨Without the physics, it could be just waffle. DeepThought is the first to show how it can be done.
Technical material provides a lot more credibility as it brings the material in from absurdity to plausibility¨.


I get the point, but it may be that plausibility is just not enough. Maybe there is actually a decisive third step required before it makes any kind of real impact. That is probably why national security agencies don’t feel threatened.

1) Articles and books such as those written by John Fleming and John Hall effectively do no more than suggest that PERHAPS IT CAN BE DONE. (See reviews below)

2) Deepthought´s claims backed up by the relevant technical material show that IT CAN INDEED BE DONE, at least in theory.

3) As yet though, nobody has demonstrated that it is doable in practice, and there is certainly no conclusive evidence that IT IS BEING DONE.

Covert surveillance and harassment of innocent individuals is obviously taking place but there appear to be other possibilities as to the means. I´ve been looking around the net for reliable material as there is so much conflicting information, and have discovered the following with respect to claims that satellites may be responsible.

Please note:

Apparently, “The Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance ” was linked to 25 websites and it caused quite a stir, especially the mind reading aspect. He has since revised some of his claims in -
Follow-up Notes to My Article on Satellite Surveillance: Microwave Radar as Opposed to Infrared Detection

http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/05-02-2002/25533-0/

The book actually got a BOGUS rating at http://www.creviews.net/cr000001.htm


Likewise the following reviews make short work of some of John Hall´s claims.

Eleanor White rating:

A New Breed Satellite Terrorism in America (Just a sample comment)

"Satellites can see through our homes and show the positions and
activities of people inside. I know this because friends who are
CIA/NSA/FBI agents confirm this." That has not even remotely come
close to being demonstrated to date. The geological scans have not
been shown using pixel sizes small enough to do that. Statements
by nameless people, without mainstream documentation, are simply
personal claims. For officials to act on information like that as
truth, mainstream documentation is required.

It actually got a DISCUSSION REQUIRED label at http://www.creviews.net/cr000041.htm


Review by Steve Wilson – former counterintelligence agent.

Review: A New Breed Satellite Terrorism (Hardcover)

I was really looking forward to reading this treatis, but soon found myself putting it down. The talk of using a thermal imager to "see" inside a structure is patently false. I was a government Counterintelligence Agent and we used thermal imagers often. They will not see into a structure!

Thermal Imagers only detect changes in temperature; IF a person was leaning against an outer wall long enough you might see a faint outline of their form. However if a body is not in direct contact with the structure you wouldn't see any indication of an individual heat source emanating from someone's body. Intensity is equal to 1/radius squared, therefore your body heat emanates in all directions and certainly would not simply transfer your bodies image to only one spot on the wall, therefore you could not "see" any persons inside the structure.

I'm sorry but these errors take away the authors credibility - ie - I find myself wondering what else is exaggerated or stated in error. I cannot recommend this book, sorry.

http://www.creviews.net/satwepnegreview.jpg
"I get the point, but it may be that plausibility is just not enough. Maybe there is actually a decisive third step required before it makes any kind of real impact. That is probably why national security agencies don’t feel threatened.

3) As yet though, nobody has demonstrated that it is doable in practice, and there is certainly no conclusive evidence that IT IS BEING DONE."

In theory and in practice are the same thing as far as this technology is concerned. The principle of radios and transducers are well understood. It's also not really difficult to prove, there would be numerous transmitters in orbit and simply recording them would be enough.

The technology described is too detailed, too multi-discipline for a single person to invent and describe. What is more likely, that DeepThought is an uber-genius, outstripping specialists worldwide, or he has direct knowledge of the technology?

What's the most plausible scenario?




"Covert surveillance and harassment of innocent individuals is obviously taking place but there appear to be other possibilities as to the means. I´ve been looking around the net for reliable material as there is so much conflicting information, and have discovered the following with respect to claims that satellites may be responsible."

No, there is not, just pseudo-science that makes no sense to anyone except those with little education in the field.




"Apparently, “The Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance ” was linked to 25 websites and it caused quite a stir, especially the mind reading aspect. He has since revised some of his claims in -
Follow-up Notes to My Article on Satellite Surveillance: Microwave Radar as Opposed to Infrared Detection"

He doesn't understand the principles of radio communication. No big mystery here.




"Satellites can see through our homes and show the positions and activities of people inside."

Where is the science, it just a claim with no additional information. Even I would say, discussion required.




"I was really looking forward to reading this treatis, but soon found myself putting it down. The talk of using a thermal imager to "see" inside a structure is patently false. I was a government Counterintelligence Agent and we used thermal imagers often. They will not see into a structure!"

Again, the issue is the author's lack of technical knowledge, not that it cannot be done:

http://mathoda.com/2008/09/america-has-relentless-see-through-walls...

From what I remember this is a form of side-scanning radar. Its nothing new, the technology goes back to the 40's or 50's, it was limited by computational power:

Through-the-Wall Radar Simulations for Complex Room Imaging
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.p...

A parabolic mesh in the walls and roof of the structure should combat it effectively.



So, the intelligence agencies have never had to deal with the real technology being described before, just vague references wrapped up in delusion and disinformation.

They are worried alright.
¨¨In theory and in practice are the same thing as far as this technology is concerned. The principle of radios and transducers are well understood. It's also not really difficult to prove, there would be numerous transmitters in orbit and simply recording them would be enough.
The technology described is too detailed, too multi-discipline for a single person to invent and describe. What is more likely, that DeepThought is an uber-genius, outstripping specialists worldwide, or he has direct knowledge of the technology?
What's the most plausible scenario?¨¨

He may as you suggest have direct knowledge of the technology. But I would still question what security implications that could have for intelligence agencies, if it´s not backed up by concrete evidence regarding its deployment to intrude on the public. You state above that it´s not really difficult to prove, there would be numerous transmitters in orbit and simply recording them would be enough. Would! A conditional reference is not conclusive by a long way. Your claim regarding the redundancy of gang stalking is affected by the same argument.

You previously stated:

¨Technical material provides a lot more credibility at it brings the material in from absurdity to plausibility¨,

Accepted, but it´s not plausibility that tells us it´s actually being used by government agencies to target innocent citizens. You earlier claimed gang stalking doesn´t exist any longer. Such activity is made redundant by the system, you stated. You then added above that claims regarding the capabilities of the latest satellite technology would be just waffle without the physics and that Deepthought is the first to show how it can be done. So showing that it can be done is the stage we are at. That´s quite a long way off knowing that it´s being done. So if you´re just assuming it´s being done, how do you know it´s replaced gang stalking?

My battered brain has problems making sense of all that.

PS I replied to your 20 questions last night, but are you yourself going to participate too?
"He may as you suggest have direct knowledge of the technology. But I would still question what security implications that could have for intelligence agencies, if it´s not backed up by concrete evidence regarding its deployment to intrude on the public."

How else would he know its design? Even if the records were deleted, the architecture would be present. That means one of two things, direct or indirect contact. Either way, his account would be enough to prove it.




"You state above that it´s not really difficult to prove, there would be numerous transmitters in orbit and simply recording them would be enough. Would!"

There is a technical reason. Given that we have the same functional neural networks, by altering the frequencies slightly, it can be replayed to another person, a judge for example. Thus, the A.I. could be heard talking, muscles felt tightening, etc.

Its not like its an encrypted channel.



"Accepted, but it´s not plausibility that tells us it´s actually being used by government agencies to target innocent citizens. "

How else do the stories become consistent? The nuances of the A.I. are quite clear, it has a defined modus-operandi that is highly distinct. If it wasn't happening, these elements would not appear in people's stories. This is something that can be checked and independently verified.




"So showing that it can be done is the stage we are at. That´s quite a long way off knowing that it´s being done."

Not as far as you think. Knowing how it is done shows what exactly can be done. This can be used to separate fact from fiction and true TI's from bullshitters, mentally ill, A.I. and DoD personnel.

All it takes is for one description to match the capabilities and its proved, there is no other way they could know.




"PS I replied to your 20 questions last night, but are you yourself going to participate too?"

I'm not a TI. I'm just following DeepThought's work and that of some others. I think I have a solid enough grasp of the principles to attempt to determine how wide-spread this actually is. As I said, 90% is pure bullshit, but it should be easy to spot the distinctly artificial amongst the outpouring of emotion. The only way to fake that material, is to have inside knowledge, which acts as a good marker for people to track down when this comes to a head.
Sorry to be such a pain, but I am still not clear on this. I don’t see a clear-cut connection between the latest technology as described by Deepthought on paper, and the redundancy of gang stalkers which you claim has already taken place. The physics baffles me, but the general logic doesn´t.

The capabilities of the technology could make gang stalkers redundant.
I´m OK with that one.

However, the capabilities of the technology have already made gang stalkers redundant. That one still has me baffled.


Anyway, I also have additional doubts as regards the redundancy of gang stalking, which you could perhaps dispel.

¨¨As I said, 90% is pure bullshit, but it should be easy to spot the distinctly artificial amongst the outpouring of emotion¨¨.

What about the following Home Office website containing UK government statistics on gang stalking?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hors276.pdf

You will note that stalking not only exists, but that it does so on an alarming scale. Furthermore, the staggering statistics are provided alongside two other crimes, namely domestic violence and sexual assault. Yet, domestic violence and sexual assault are readily reported and discussed by the mainstream media whilst organized stalking most definitely is not. There is something amiss here as you would agree. If governments and corporates weren’t involved in this stalking in some way, you´d expect it to capture media attention. But it doesn´t, even although the government´s own statistics prove that it exists.
Moreover, I have carried out widespread searches on the net on some of the websites which you claim to amount to bogus disinformation sites created by NATO. We´re talking up to a million sites depending on which search engine is used. I would argue as follows.
Firstly, sites with web addresses such as multstalkervictims.com, survivingorganizedstalking.com, targetedindividuals,com, and similar ones, I would expect to be genuine, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t mislead. If NATO or any other entity has expanded the volume of websites on such a scale as a ploy to help create this subculture of nutters you refer to, it´s unlikely they would have access to web addresses which accurately describe the topic. These would have been taken long before such a plan would have been dreamt up. Indeed, there were relatively few organized stalking sites at all before 2004, so you can appreciate that no such ploy was called for. Hence, that would also mean that Eleanor White´s site A Target´s View is clean. Yet, she refers to all the typical symptoms of organized stalking on her site which are likewise referred to on countless other sites. Then there are sites by John Allman from Christians Against Mental Slavery, and others that make references to his articles and speeches. He actually had six comments deleted by Deepthought and that was only on the first Satellite Technology forum. There are many other sites that make references to Eleanor White who is considered by many to be a pioneer in the fight against OS. Likewise, Freedom from Covert Harassment and Surveillance is arguably the most popular site, and is recommended by a multitude of websites related to OS.
None of this makes sense at all. Whilst there are doubtless bogus sites out there, they don’t constitute hundreds of thousands which have been planted there in order to sidetrack targets and turn them into nutters. Even if half the websites on the subject are bogus, that still leaves an incredible number of genuine sites.

You previously stated that staff is no longer necessary on the ground with the development of invasive satellite technology as outlined by Deepthought. Foot soldiers are not required as the technology in question reaches into the mind, and the system described can induce psychosis thus causing unconnected events to be related to a person´s mind. But as Organized Stalking DID exist prior to the development of this latest technology, it would account for many of the sites that you regard as bogus. Is that not so? It would then relate to obsolete information as opposed to disinformation. So far so good. But then we hit a major stumbling block. WHERE HAVE ALL THE STALKERS GONE? Nobody can know for sure how many would have been deployed in traditional gang stalking, assuming they are now redundant. But we have to be talking large numbers, like hundreds of thousands in any one country, and millions internationally. What then has happened to those millions of foot soldiers who have suddenly become redundant? It could be claimed that some were firemen, policemen, security guards, etc. but that still leaves many redundant stalkers who have suddenly disappeared without trace. That apart, such a situation would provide a breeding ground for prospective whistleblowers amongst the rank and file, who would no longer be answerable to their mysterious and anonymous leaders. Whilst they may not know the identities of their former superiors, they could still provide invaluable information as regards harassment and surveillance at street level. There must be at least a minority of perps with some kind of conscience, and others who would need the money if they are no longer ¨employed¨¨. Granted, they wouldn’t be able to sell their stories to the press or TV for obvious reasons, but the Internet would provide an ideal setting to reveal all.
It appears to be a hypothetical situation to me. Much too much of a threat to national security, as well as future plans for global rule. None of this seems to be making any sense. I would suggest that if OS has been replaced by the latest satellite technology, then there would need to be an interim period of at least a generation during which time ground staff could be retained in order to ward off threats to national security. Hence, we would need to currently have a situation whereby intrusive satellite technology performed the incredible feats as outlined by Deepthought, but with gangs still active, or possibly redeployed in one capacity or another on the ground. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense.
"However, the capabilities of the technology have already made gang stalkers redundant. That one still has me baffled."

The technology can be used to cause sleep deprivation, stress positions, anxiety, fear and manic depression. These factors together will induce a psychotic response in the victim. One element of a psychotic response is delusions of persecution, "or the feeling that everyone is in on it". In fact, the A.I. can generate pre-built conclusions and stimulate them, in real-time, to give the impression that this event is related to whatever your delusion is focusing on. The A.I. is a wind-up merchant, its has been trained to find this funny and excels at the function.

Thus, the technology itself make real gang stalking a bit pointless. Not to mention the resources and exposure factors, especially since SIGINT staff are analysts not field operatives.



"What about the following Home Office website containing UK government statistics on gang stalking?"

I've read through this document and there is no mention of Gang Stalking:

page 76 - Shows relationship to stalkers
page 83 - Shows duration
page 116 - Shows majority thought it was trivial or family matter

General stalking does exist and is indeed a problem, but there is no mention of large groups.




"Moreover, I have carried out widespread searches on the net on some of the websites which you claim to amount to bogus disinformation sites created by NATO. We´re talking up to a million sites depending on which search engine is used. I would argue as follows."

I would say its a combination of the A.I., paranoid delusions and con artists. The A.I. would appear to be the main source of all the bullshit. Its what it was designed to do and since 99.9% couldn't tell the difference between it and a human, it would look like a lot of independent sources. That said, paranoid delusions have the same effect and millions would report the same symptoms.





"If NATO or any other entity has expanded the volume of websites on such a scale as a ploy to help create this subculture of nutters you refer to, it´s unlikely they would have access to web addresses which accurately describe the topic. These would have been taken long before such a plan would have been dreamt up."

This plan is older than the internet. Whilst NATO nations do provide cover for classified programs which they become aware of, it is more likely that the core members of Echelon are directly involved. That would be mainly the NSA and GCHQ, with minor support from the rest of that SIGINT block of nations. They would just let the A.I. have a field day...it would love it.




"Indeed, there were relatively few organized stalking sites at all before 2004, so you can appreciate that no such ploy was called for. Hence, that would also mean that Eleanor White´s site A Target´s View is clean. Yet, she refers to all the typical symptoms of organized stalking on her site which are likewise referred to on countless other sites."

I've seen her site and its bread-and-butter persecution stuff. I have not read too much into her story, it may indeed stem from an assualt, but the wider claims such as those listed below are purely delusional:

WHY is my home entered when I'm out?
WHY are my things being damaged or stolen?
WHY are my work and work area tampered with?
WHY is my car tampered with overnight?
WHY do I have constant trouble with my telephone?
WHY do strangers harass me in public places?
WHY is my mail delayed, messed with or stolen?
WHY are my family and friends treating me like dirt?
WHY am I no longer able to sleep?
WHY can't I hold on to a job?

In this type of mental state, all you need to do is either directly stimulate paranoid thoughts, or introduce one or two incidents into an already paranoid mindset and the ball rolls by itself. It can also just as easily be a natural thing. Regardless of anything else, at this stage she requires psychiatric assistance. Only then could her story be properly evaluated.



"Then there are sites by John Allman from Christians Against Mental Slavery, and others that make references to his articles and speeches. He actually had six comments deleted by Deepthought and that was only on the first Satellite Technology forum."

I was watching and John Allman was posting about microwaves and V-2-Skull technology. The author was right to delete the posts, he was passing himself off as a technical authority when anyone with half a brain could tell his comments were bullshit. I don't know who this guy is, but I would advise him to pay attention to DeepThought, he obviously knows how a real-world deployment should occur and the technology required.




"None of this makes sense at all. Whilst there are doubtless bogus sites out there, they don’t constitute hundreds of thousands which have been planted there in order to sidetrack targets and turn them into nutters. Even if half the websites on the subject are bogus, that still leaves an incredible number of genuine sites."

It makes sense if you understand the human brain and how it malfunctions. The technology has been designed to induce legitimate forms of mental illness, such as psychosis and build a history of mental health issues. With full integration, so that you are getting audio, video, sensations and muscle activity, it can simulate Schizophrenia. Given the numbers of genuinely mentally ill, if we now get the A.I. to put those thoughts into your head, you should join the ranks of the online groups.

Its what we call a group delusion and is very well understood. This is just leveraged by the NSA and GCHQ. Its a cheap form of cover designed to lower the credibility of the target and hide genuine victims in the crowd.

If you told someone you had an A.I. in your head and you were chatting all the time, would anyone believe it? That's the whole idea, but that level of cover is starting to fall apart.



"But as Organized Stalking DID exist prior to the development of this latest technology, it would account for many of the sites that you regard as bogus. Is that not so?"

I don't think so. Given the time-line of development, they would have had this capability almost immediately upon initial deployment. There was no prior technology to this, just upgrades to the basic principles. The public record would point to an initial deployment in the late 70's, or early 80's.




"What then has happened to those millions of foot soldiers who have suddenly become redundant? "

There was never any, its a well known symptom of paranoid persecution, even with real TI's. Its a symptom of an illness, not a real event.
I have posted a blog providing links to a radio Interview with Julianne McKinney, a former US army intelligence officer,
and also pasted what I found to be the most relevant points below the links. What is your verdict on this. Please comment as there seems to be no end of conflicting information. As valid information goes, surely it doesn´t get any more reliable?
¨The capabilities of the technology could make gang stalkers redundant.
I´m OK with that one.
However, the capabilities of the technology have already made gang stalkers redundant. That one still has me baffled¨¨.

The above was my comment in full, and you took it out of context by separating the second part from the first in your response. Hence, you did not respond to the question implied. I am already aware of the claim that the technology can create a psychotic state of mind in a target, as you´ve already pointed out on several occasions. The implication of the second part of my statement above in context with the first, is that it doesn’t accurately describe the current situation. The current situation is that there is no evidence this technology is in use, and hence there exists no justification for suggesting OS and EH are no longer deployed on the ground. It´s a simple logical fact and there is nothing in physics and induced psychosis that can affect it.

With respect to the Home Office crime statistics you state:
¨¨I've read through this document and there is no mention of Gang Stalking¨¨

Please observe:
Eight per cent of women and six per cent of men were subject to stalking during the particular year the survey was carried out. This means that over 1.2 million women and almost 900,000 men were affected. You´ll find the full table on page 20 of the Home Office document.

Well, of course gang stalking isn’t described as such. There would be no more chance of finding references to organized stalking in government statistics than within the media. That´s obvious. But it is also obvious that 2 million people were not stalked by a single stalker in a single year, which means that gang or organized stalking is contained within the above statistics, to a considerable degree at the very least.

So Eleanor White requires psychiatric assistance according to you. That´s the first time I´ve heard that one. Not many would agree with you. You keep making references to mental illness and psychiatry - delusions, paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, connecting unrelated events and so on.

Let me point something out. I know that I could induce a state a psychosis in almost anybody around me if I were so inclined and without any sophisticated weapons or the help of A I. It wouldn’t be difficult. Anyone who has, or gains access to another individual’s personal space can create paranoia, delusion and psychosis with a minimum of fuss by gaslighting them. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the victim is mentally ill, otherwise we´d all be trotting off to the psychiatrist. Most TI´s would have been of sound mind prior to their targeting, so what benefits would be gained from visiting a psychiatrist? As you are aware, or should be, psychiatrists invariably misdiagnose because they´re complicit to the abuse, or otherwise disbelieve TIs stories. So it´s a no win situation. You exaggerate the incidence of mental illness dramatically in any case. Any misinterpretation of a situation to you is mental illness. If somebody tells me something which is untrue and I believe it, does that mean I am mentally ill?
"The current situation is that there is no evidence this technology is in use, and hence there exists no justification for suggesting OS and EH are no longer deployed on the ground. It´s a simple logical fact and there is nothing in physics and induced psychosis that can affect it."

Its the only technology capable of producing the effects described by the majority of TI's. If this was not in deployment, we would have no talk of mind control.

It cannot be practically achieved with any other currently described technology.



With respect to the Home Office crime statistics you state:
Eight per cent of women and six per cent of men were subject to stalking during the particular year the survey was carried out. This means that over 1.2 million women and almost 900,000 men were affected. You´ll find the full table on page 20 of the Home Office document.


70% of which were described as trivial or family related. That leaves about 600,000 cases which effect 0.098% of the population. At no stage in the report, is any form of group stalking mentioned.




But it is also obvious that 2 million people were not stalked by a single stalker in a single year, which means that gang or organized stalking is contained within the above statistics, to a considerable degree at the very least.


No, it does not. If it was considerable, it would have been notable and a breakdown provided. As such, no supporting evidence exists.



So Eleanor White requires psychiatric assistance according to you. That´s the first time I´ve heard that one. Not many would agree with you. You keep making references to mental illness and psychiatry - delusions, paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, connecting unrelated events and so on.

Yes. Her claims are atypical of a paranoid, persecutory, mindset. Whilst there is every possibility of some interference, it would not be to the levels described. As I said before, that does not mean that some of her claims are accurate, but there is certainly an element of mental illness present.

What induced this mental illness, is very much open to question.



But that doesn’t necessarily mean the victim is mentally ill, otherwise we´d all be trotting off to the psychiatrist. Most TI´s would have been of sound mind prior to their targeting, so what benefits would be gained from visiting a psychiatrist?

It is a function of the technology to induce mental illness over a prolonged period of time to establish cover. It is also the mechanism by which the A.I. introduces itself into the psyche. The aims are twofold, the first is to reduce credibility to minimize public exposure and secondly, and most importantly, to create even that small lingering doubt that you may have lost it. A final, but important, aim is to interfere with the ability to reason and thus determine or describe the source accurately.



As you are aware, or should be, psychiatrists invariably misdiagnose because they´re complicit to the abuse, or otherwise disbelieve TIs stories. So it´s a no win situation.

I'm aware of a limited number of cases, but it is highly rare that they are complicit. If you talk to any psychiatrist, they will tell you that they do not base their diagnosis on stories, but a wide range of physiological symptoms. Granted, these can be induced by the A.I., but nonetheless it results in a real mental illness that must be treated.

A psychosis is a psychosis, regardless of how it is induced.



You exaggerate the incidence of mental illness dramatically in any case. Any misinterpretation of a situation to you is mental illness. If somebody tells me something which is untrue and I believe it, does that mean I am mentally ill?

What you will find is, its not as much to do with what you are told, but how a break down in the chemical processing in your brain effects how you incorporate that information into your world view. If you incorporate it into your world view and then allow that information to color how you interpret events, then yes, it does make you mentally ill, as your perceptions have been distorted.

This is something that needs to be corrected and that requires proper mental health care.
If your interpretation of mental illness were accurate, it would mean that the whole population would potentially be mentally ill on the basis of my example. I understand the technology induces psychosis but so could I induce the same illness by gaslighting with no weapon required. Indeed, I could drive somebody close to me stark staring mad, if I wanted. The only difference with the technology is that the ploy can be executed covertly from a remote location to target TIs worldwide. But the principle as far as potential for inducing mental illness goes, is the same in both cases. Yet, not all targets in both instances are prospective loonies. The difference is that one is a normal case of victimizing, while the other carries the stigma of the mentally ill TI with the tinfoil beanie. That´s the long and the short of it.

Gangstalking statistics.

¨¨At no stage in the report, is any form of group stalking mentioned. If it was considerable, it would have been notable and a breakdown provided¨¨.

I don’t think it´s necessary to point out why gang or group staking isn´t mentioned and why the total figure isn’t subdivided. If the BBC shy away from it, then the Home Office sure as hell won´t rock the boat. In other words, the figures have to remain blurred to obscure the true situation. That in itself should tell you it´s reasonably widespread.
On the subject of gang stalking, it is interesting to note that Julianne McKinney was gang stalked but due to her background with the military intelligence agency, was able to get it stopped after meeting the perps head-on. That proves two points. Firstly, it proves gang stalking was indeed in operation and hence did exist. Secondly, it means that it wasn’t a figment of her imagination brought on by the technology, as she still suffers EH though with no stalking. She acknowledges the two situations, one with and one without stalking. That´s pretty clear-cut.

If somebody tells me something which is untrue and I believe it, does that mean I am mentally ill?

That was my question. I would have thought the answer to the question was obvious. I asked it merely to stress a point. But you read deeper into it beyond the point of answering the question, which actually is the point I was making in the first place – exaggerating the presence of mental illness.

TIs that take on board disinformation regarding MC and related topics on the internet are no more mentally ill as a result, that the remaining 99% of the population who have been totally duped by the media by being effectively mind controlled from birth. Now, I´d say that is a classic example.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Latest Activity

Robin Yan posted blog posts
5 hours ago
Gretta Fahey posted blog posts
8 hours ago
Wayne Morin Jr posted a blog post
8 hours ago
Alels replied to Robin Yan's discussion Please help me confirm with UN Human Rights  and all   if they saw this message.  They are hacking me everything I am using. Thanks.
"Are you are internet perp? Why not use one link and others left for other TI? Dont be selfish, dont be stupid, dont be perp"
12 hours ago
Robin Yan commented on Robin Yan's blog post Please help me confirm with UN Human Rights  and all   if they saw this message.  They are hacking me everything I am using. Thanks.
22 hours ago
Robin Yan replied to Robin Yan's discussion Please help me confirm with UN Human Rights  and all   if they saw this message.  They are hacking me everything I am using. Thanks.
yesterday
Soleilmavis and Brother Parren are now friends
yesterday
Robin Yan posted a discussion
yesterday

Badge

Loading…

© 2018   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service