Blogs

detection (3)

microchip implant detection

Posted by stephan on January 20, 2013 at 3:55pm

Hi,

I think i have been bugged with microchip/RFID humann implant/radio transmitter/ICT implant/cohelar . I don't exactly whicch one is implanted. Most common is RFID implant.

I bought 4 EMF/RF detectors to  detect  any RF emission of RFID(Radio Frequency Identification Device) implants that may probably implanted in my body.  I tried QuWave defender, schumann resonance device, orgone blaster , Personal Polarizer, CellSensor EMF Detection Meter , 3-Axis Gaussmeter but no luck

I followed some of shielding tips published in internet,

I tried ,EMF shielding products from  lessemf  to block or reduce emf exposure. I bought GPS jammer, cellphone jammer, nothing work.

what is successful way of detecting RFID microchip.  I read somewhere that passsive RFID can't be detected using above devices. Only active RFID devices which have their own power source can be detected. passivee RFID need to detect using RFID reader which will chanrge device while scanning . but i don't know frequency or location this device implanted .

some suggestions from other users is like this,   "It's not as simple as holding a RF detector up to the body and getting a reading. There is background RF noise that has to be taken into account. The implant may not read out (transmit data) until it is first activated by an external interrogation signal, which may itself be coded in some fashion. When activated, the implant may read out for just a few brief seconds, making detection difficult. The implant's output may be of a 'spread-spectrum' nature, making it very difficult to capture with a typical RF detector or even with a RF spectrum analyzer.
 
For close to the skin surface implants, a scan with a Infrared imaging camera might show up 'hot spots' where the implant had been recently activated and its components are warmer than the surrounding tissues. In some cases, even small but strong magnets may physically influence an implant near the skin's surface."

Can you suggest me best method to detect  passive RFID human implant?

refernces

my blog

http://prasad519.blogspot.in/2011/02/beware-of-human-implantation-w...  

 http://lifeabundantly-alim.blogspot.in/2010/08/rfid-forced-brain-implants.html

http://rense.com/general17/imp.htm

 Victim story

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mindcon29.htm

http://brainmaping.com/wordpress/?p=48

 

How the implants look like

http://missmarla.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/rfid-microchips-is-it-possible-to-monitor-2-way-conversations/

 

see other victims

https://peacepink.ning.com/

Search these words in Google for more information   gang stalking ,

Satellite neuro technology,   rfid human implants, verichip human implant, mind control victims,

A Brain Implant Victim Speaks Out - Branded by the Thought Police , Memorials of Mind Control and Directed Energy Weapon

, Introduce V2K (Voice to Skull) - peacepink

Read more…

#1110 Bioethic blog Read your mind? Not in a ‘million light years’

Posted by treelaw45 TI on March 18, 2011 at 7:31am
#1110 Bioethic blog Read your mind? Not in a ‘million light years’

http://blog.bioethics.gov/2011/02/28/read-your-mind-not-in-a-%E2%80%98million-light-years%E2%80%99/

 A, "million light years", is not an answer that describes time. Included at the bottom are comments, mine included.   Peter Rosenholm

blog.Bioethics.gov

The blog of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
Read your mind? Not in a ‘million light years’
Written by John Donnelly on February 28, 2011 — 8 Comments

The members of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues received a primer today on recent advances in the use of medical technology on neuro-imagery. It was a session that Dr. Gregory House of the TV show House would have found fascinating – especially the multiple uses of MRI machines to help detect hard-to-diagnosis diseases.

The Commission is considering whether to embark on examining ethical issues surrounding the uses of neuro-imagery and genetic testing.

A panel of scientists said that one cutting-edge ethical issue now involves how private companies could use this technology for what they called “neuro-marketing” in order to advance the sale of products.

But one issue not on the table: whether new technology can help read minds — because it can’t.

Such technology “is a million light years away,” said Dr. Martha Farah, the Walter H. Annenberg Professor in Natural Science and Director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania.

Science isn’t close to enabling researchers to read the thoughts of others, Farah said in an interview. Still, though, she knows people fear that it will happen. She said she gets asked about it frequently.

“We are nowhere near being able to read sentences or thoughts that are the equivalent of sentences,” Farah said. “But it is the case that we can derive a fair amount of personal information including current mental states, such as mood, intentions, and desire to buy an object” from Functional MRIs, or fMRIs.

But the interpretation of brain imagery, captured in fMRIs, was far from perfect, she said. “There is a lot of significant personal information from fMRIs. It is with a degree of accuracy that is far from perfect, but is well above chance.”

That leads Farah to be wary of neuro-marketing. “The biggest ethical issue to me is the fact that many of the most exciting new applications of brain imaging are being developed entirely with private corporate funding for commercial purposes,” she said. “I don’t think that is going to give us the best new contributions to society, and I don’t think that is going to lead to the greatest transparency concerning what these scans can do.”
Posted in Liveblog Coverage | Tagged Dr. Gregory House, Dr. Martha Farah, neuro-marketing, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, reading minds, TV show House
8 Comments to “Read your mind? Not in a ‘million light years’”

You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed.

   1.
      sc's Gravatar sc
      March 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      I believe that it is critically important to consider the ramifications of issues such as these preemptively. While it may not be exactly hyperbolic to state that we are “nowhere near being able to read … thoughts,” as soon as a company thinks this is a worthy goal and starts to invest heavily in it, the growth will be rapid.

      I do not believe that anyone should at all suggest that this is an impossible endeavor, unfortunately. Just because our current imaging technologies are not up to the task does not mean that a more sensitive measure, or a paradigm shifting one, may not be on the horizon.

      I would agree that we are relatively far from such technology, but with the current accelerations of technological growth and neuroscience understanding, it would not be surprising to see within the next 50 years.

      Also, a light year is a measure of distance and not time. So, unless there is a suggestion that no one within a radius of 9.4×10^21 m has access to this technology, then that quote may have been given in error.
      Reply
          *
            Martha Farah's Gravatar Martha Farah
            March 1, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

            Hello and thanks for the reasonable comments. I agree that one should never discount the possibility of a “paradigm shift,” but I feel confident that the extrapolation of current brain imaging methods will not get us there. And given concerns about mind reading with current technology expressed by some members of the public in attendance, it seemed worth making the point in loud & clear terms. There is some impressive work being done to read mental information from the brain. But relative to real mind-reading, it’s like climbing trees to get to the moon — you can make some progress away from the ground and toward the moon, but only so far. Speaking of celestial bodies, I was using a distance analogy — we’re nowhere close, we’re light years away — but it did get lost in quotation! Thanks again for your thoughts. Martha
            Reply
   2.
      tmk81's Gravatar tmk81
      March 2, 2011 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      Just because public research is far from mind reading doesn’t mean it is not being done… clandestinely. Even Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, admits “Our biggest problem has always [been] how do we get into the head of somebody”. Note the word BIGGEST. It’s narrow views like those of Dr. Martha Farah that have been leading society to be caught with its pants down.
      Reply
   3.
      Gary D Chance's Gravatar Gary D Chance
      March 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      The use of language here is extremely important. There’s a skip from neuroimaging to science with the conclusion derived from neuroimaging applied on the broader level of science. There is a whole other area of neuroscience involving detecting and decoding electrical impulses which was not even discussed at all. Neuroimaging fundamentally measures mass which limits what can be done with respect to brain research drastically.

      Although we saw the letter “M” on the back of the brain by neuroimaging techniques where sight images are processed, we did not see any neurological work that reflected decoding electrical impulses such as was reported by the BBC News in 1999 where the ability to look through a cat’s eyes was accomplished: http://bbc.in/gQyBtJ The Commission has utterly failed to bring to the surface this aspect of neuroscience today.

      I make a similar analogy between mind reading today versus the inadequacy of neuroimaging to accomplish this at all. There has been a lack of any consideration given by the Commission to that branch of neuroscience which decodes electrical impluses that would reveal thoughts (words, sentences and images). This is completely different from neuroimaging.

      I am quite concerned about this dismissal which is valid for neuroimaging being used on a broader basis when applied to science or other areas of neuroscience. My concern comes from the facts of my experience for the past decade where those people well known to me using neuroscience based surveillance technology have been able to read my thoughts (words, sentences and images) and repeat back to me what I am thinking by means of electronic transmission of sound, aka, Voice-to-Skull (V2K) so called by the US Army. I will go one step further and say that thoughts can be made audible in this manner, so that what one thinks in terms of words and sentences come out of a speaker because I hear my thoughts through S2K on a slight delay basis.

      Those among the 22 public speakers at the end who reported the same experiences from various parts of the US that I have experienced in London revealed that this exists on a global basis and is being carried out as experiments on non-consensual human subjects as these people repeatedly described while they pleaded for help from the Commission to save their lives.

      John Donnelly wrote “But one issue not on the table: whether new technology can help read minds — because it can’t.” This is the language problem. “New technology” is limited to neuroimaging when the Commission did not even consider other areas of neuroscience such as decoding the brain’s electromagnetic radiation emissions. “Science isn’t close to enabling researchers to read the thoughts of others, Farah said in an interview.” continues John Donnelly. Again this is a language usage fallacy. One cannot extrapolate a narrow area of research and application to a broader base.

      The Commission has done itself and the public a great disservice by not considering all aspects of neuroscience or even science that might be applicable. I think that the Commission needs to go back to this area and do it justice by a thorough review of the current state of neuroscience that takes in decoding electrical impulses of the brain. What is actually being done is far, far from what is being presented by this Commission so far. This hole needs to be filled in, and those who speak from the public listened to very carefully. They are at the forefront of abuse by research.
      Reply
   4.
      Derek D. Brodie's Gravatar Derek D. Brodie
      March 4, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      Pesonally if an individual was to actually try to read another individuals mind I believe it would entail this process. Find the vibratory frequency of the tissue of said subjects brain. Then pass that frequency at a low level through said tissue. Being received on the other side of said subjects head the frequency could then be analyzed for distortion due to electrical field functioning in brain processes. If the electrical field of the brain can be mapped. Then an individuals brain can be read by the fluctuations of said fields. Personal opinion not researched.
      Reply
   5.
      Peter Rosenholm's Gravatar Peter Rosenholm
      March 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      Session 3 of Bioethics Commission

      http://tinyurl.com/4t67woe

      At about 45 minutes into this Session 3 video of the bioethics Commission Lisa Becker asks a question and in Dr. Farah’s response she says subvocal speech recognition is only speech and not mind reading. If knowing a subjects unspoken thoughts is not mind reading then what is mind reading.

      I have written on how millimeter wave surveillance that measure heart and breathing rates as well as sweating as being used in concert with V2K/MEDUSA (microwave hearing effect) as being used as a remote lie detector or to enhance remote no-touch-torture using other directed energy weapons. We need to consider emergent and current technology as being components of a weapons system.
      Another example might be to stimulate a part of the brain to bring up a memory. Subvocal speech recognition could be used to read the subjects unspoken thought. Similar results might be obtained with brain imaging/FMRI.
      No longer can one technology be considered just by its self.

      Peter Rosenholm
      Reply
   6.
      Jeff's Gravatar Jeff
      March 4, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/13/4656599-can-a-satellite-read-your-thoughts-physics-revealed
      Reply
   7.
      jameskdom's Gravatar jameskdom
      March 9, 2011 at 3:33 am | Permalink

      Neuroscientists are already able to read some basic thoughts, like whether an individual test subject is looking at a picture of a cat or an image with a specific left or right orientation. They can even read pictures that you’re simply imagining in your mind’s eye. Even leaders in the field are shocked by how far we’ve come in our ability to peer into people’s minds. Will brain scans of the future be able to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth? Suggest whether a consumer wants to buy a car? Reveal our secret likes and dislikes, or our hidden prejudices? While we aren’t there yet, these possibilities have dramatic social, legal and ethical implications… http://tinyurl.com/l7z8ry
Read more…

#1094 Bioethics Commission off camera observations

Posted by treelaw45 TI on March 5, 2011 at 5:52am
#1094 Bioethics Commission off camera observations

  If you watch the Bio ethics commission you will see these people talk all about this subject at length and yet dance around many subjects or details. Dr. Amy Gutmann started the Commission saying that clearly the Guatemalan tests were wrong and there will be no debating that non-consensual human experimentation, "is wrong". Everyone of the sitting commettee members agreed.  Still Dr. Farah a speaker denied subvocal speech recognition is mind reading when asked by the Chair Dr. amy Gutmann. They broke after this exchange between DR. Farah and the Dr. Amy Gutmann. I then walked up to them as Dr. Gutmann walked away say, "We will discuss this later". I don't think she was happy with Dr. Farah twisting the truth. I then spoke to Dr. Farah who denied knowing about millimeter wave surveillance and V2K. I explained how they are used as a remote lie detector, but she claimed to know nothing about it.
    You will then see Dr. Farah push for brain imaging or FMRI to be used as a lie detector in her closing remarks. Dr. Gutmann then points out that brain imaging for lie detection is only 90% accurate. She states that that would mean 10% of the innocent people would be found guilty who were innocent and 10% of the criminals would walk away.
     I want you to look deeper and see that the Chair Dr. Amy Gutmann is the eighth president of the, "University of Pennsylvania". She is the Boss of a few of these people at this meeting. They very likely have had these areas of contention for some time.
Dr. Farah also of the, "University of Pennsylvania" is the Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and and the Director for the Center for Neuroscience and society: as well as senior Fellow, Center for Bioethics. If you are catching on it has been these peoples jobs to look at the ethics of looking into our brain...........At the University of Pennsylvania!
    On the legal side and also from, "University of Pennsylvania Law school and School of Medicine. was Dr. Stephen Morse, J.D., Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry.
    To Top off the list Dr. Moreno was in attendance also from the, "University of Pennsylvania". I asked him about using millimeter wave with V2K as a lie detector. He said he didn't know of the technology so I said, It is, "Voice to Skull", the,  "Voice of God Weapon", "MEDUSA", "The Microwave Hearing Effect", "The Frey Effect"..." He said Oh I think I heard of that one. He then left.
     I'm unsure of how this will end. Billions are being made on the non-consensual human experiments done on us. National security is a good excuse to not speak about some things but clearly they are denying subjects that are not a national security issue like MEDUSA and its microwave hearing effect, The Army listed V2K on one of its sites till it was curriusly taken off. "Subvocal", was meantioned as, "Mind Reading" and I credit Dr. Amy Gutmann the Chair for actually bring that up. Then though Dr. Farah says it is not mind reading it is just muscles that twitch to the unspoken thought, and that mind control is a million years away. Clearly the desire for federal grants, power and control is stering this commission away from the truth or at least the whole truth.
    As we the TIs were speaking a man and Dr. Moreno were standing over by the door way and Ken Rhoades over heard the undisclosed man say, "They are catching on".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_D._Moreno

"Moreno has been a senior staff member for two presidential commissions and has given invited testimony for both houses of Congress.

In 2005, Moreno joined the faculty at Penn as part of President Amy Gutmann’s Penn Integrates Knowledge (PIK) Initiative.

Moreno is the editor or author of 17 books including:

    * Progress in Bioethics: Science, Policy, and Politics, (MIT Press, 2010) ISBN 9780262134880
    * Science Next: Innovation for the Common Good from the Center for American Progress, (Bellevue Literary Press, 2009) ISBN 1934137189
    * Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense, (Dana Press, 2007) ISBN 1 932594167 [6]
    * Ethical Guidelines for Innovative Surgery, (University Publishing Group, 2006) ISBN 1555720439
    * Is There an Ethicist in the House?: On the Cutting Edge of Bioethics, (Indiana University Press, 2005) ISBN 0253346355
    * Ethics in Clinical Practice, (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Second Edition, 2004) ISBN 0763729450
    * In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis, (MIT Press, 2004) ISBN 0262633027
    * Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary, (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003) ISBN 0801878136
    * Undue Risk: Secret State Experiments on Humans, (Routledge, 2000) ISBN 0415928354
    * Deciding Together: Bioethics and Moral Consensus (Oxford University Press, 1995) ISBN 019509218X
    * Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide, And The "Right To Die", (Touchstone, 1995) ISBN 0684807602

Selected articles

    * "Embracing Military Medical Ethics," American Journal of Bioethics, 2008, 8(2): 1-3 [1]
    * "The Triumph of Autonomy in Bioethics and Commercialism in American Healthcare," Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2007, 16: 415-419 [2]
    * “Taking Stem Cells Seriously”, American Journal of Bioethics, 2006, 6(5), 6-7. [3]
    * “Congress’s Hybrid Problem,” Hastings Center Report, 2006: 12-13. [4]
    * “Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” Nature Biotechnology, 2005, 23: 793-4. [5]

Read more…