NEURO IMAGINE STAFF MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF REMOTE NEURAL MONITORING STAFF IF NOT CLOSELY MONITORED.
Posted on October 19, 2019 by gretta fahey
I am non-consensually wirelessly linked to the wireless internet of things which is also known as the brain net. Unknown neuro operatives speak to me via a two way live link to the hearing centre of my brain. Occasionally, I take a note of a small sample of what they say to me and I post it online later. Here is a small sample of what they have been saying to me and about me to their own colleagues recently.
“Be careful of us Gretta Fahey. You are stepping too close to our comfort zone and we are not happy.”
“Does she drink alcohol.” “No, she never drinks alcohol.” “Shut her up.” “She has no interest in alcohol.” “Why doesn’t she develop a taste for something because I’d like to see her inebriated.”
“We need the system administrators to give us the go ahead to stop doing what we do to the body of Gretta Fahey, namely bio-robotizing her in order to eventually gain total external control over her limbs, and all other muscles of her living human body.”
“They are allowing this woman Gretta Fahey to have bladder leakages by their work activities.”
“Why are you torturing this woman for sixteen years.” “There is good money in it.”
“She is not washing herself well enough.” (I take a daily shower and I wash all of my clothes every day.)
**************************************************************************
“We need to have a system of digital analysis in Gretta’s bicycle.” “It would be illegal to place a digital system in Gretta’s bicycle without first asking her permission. Since we can not ask her permission because she would deny us permission we can not then have a digital analysis system placed on her bicycle and we therefore can not analyse her bodily and brain systems while she is riding her bicycle to town and back.” “It bodes badly against us if people start disposing of their digital analysis systems namely their smart engineered devices in order to break free of this digital enslavement system that we are currently setting up worldwide and especially inside the bodies and brains of a selection of human beings now considered smart individuals because they are now wirelessly tethered to the wireless internet of thing.” (That neuro operative then explained to me after I asked several questions that while I am riding my bicycle or while I am out and about without having any digital device within five feet of me then no data can be collected from my brain or body during that time. When I return home and sit in front of my computer which is a digital analysis system, data can then begin to be collected from my brain and body again but data which was generated by my brain and body while I was away from all digital analysis systems can never be regained.)
***********************************************************************
One of the neuro staff what heard by me to say the following to one of their colleagues “You can do what you like as long as you deliver the goods at the end of the day.” The other colleague was heard by me to then ask the following question “What are the goods.?” The answer that was heard by me was as follows “Societal Justice”. I myself wish to respond as follows “I have always obeyed all man made laws and there is extreme injustice in society but it does not come from me. It comes down from the top of a worldwide false hierarchical chain of command in the form of deliberately engineered evil policies. By now, all of our societal institutions have been infiltrated in ways that cause as many problems as possible to manifest in order that they can then make more and more laws so that we are eventually enslaved by them. If problems happen in society it is generally because of deliberate bad policies being made manifest in society. My question is as follows : why would torturing me psychologically for sixteen and a half years be a way of delivering “societal justice” to the world? Why don’t the wireless torturers turn their attention to those at the top of the false hierarchical based chain of command because that is where all the problems of the world stem from? Perhaps because my psychological torturers are cowards and will only pick on a single woman living alone in the West of Ireland rather than two thousand Satanists who sit at the top of the worldwide false hierarchical based chain of command and who own banks, corporations and up to forty six percent of the wealth of the whole world. Bullies always attempt to pick on someone less powerful than themselves and run from the powerful.
********************************************************************
I sometimes hear the voice to skull inner voices say the following about me “No one knows her”. I don’t know what they mean by this because whenever I write a letter to a politician or the media or anyone else I put my name, address, location code, website name, landline home phone number and email address on it. What else could they wish to know about me. I have a high profile in the sense that I sent out a lot of letters to government officials, university staff and the main stream media as well as the alternative media as well as pushing letters through letterboxes of the homes of my local towns. I have placed a lot of information about myself on my website.
************************************************************************
I once heard the voice of an unknown neuro operative coming from inside my head non-consensually while he said the following “I don’t want these images coming up on my screen.” I wish to explain here what I think he meant by that as follows –
If a scientific experiment is being conducted and the experimentation subject is wearing a cap over their brain which has electrodes on it while looking at a picture of an orange the evoked potentials which are generated on the computer screen of the scientist are automatically translated into information which lets him know that the subject is looking at a picture of an orange. If the subject simply conjures up a mental image of an orange with their imagination and no picture of an orange is present the scientist will then be allowed to know that no picture of an orange is present and the subject is simply conjuring up an image of an orange with their imagination. However, it is possible that their is a second scientist in another room looking at the same evoked potentials but that second scientist is not allowed to know whether the image of an orange which is presented on his screen is conjured up by the imagination of the subject or whether the subject is actually looking at a picture of an orange.
I am a non-consensual subject of such research but instead of wearing a cap containing electrodes on my head, neural dust containing something similar to electrodes is inside my head, close to my scalp. When I look at an image of something in my own home, an unknown scientist can know what I am looking at by having the evoked potentials my brain generates automatically translated into what I am looking at. If I imagine something inside my head the same unknown scientists can know that I have simply imagined something but that thing which I have imagined is not in my home and I have not physically seen it.
Some of what I see in my everyday life is disgusting and when it is also seen on the screens of the unknown criminal neuro staff who monitor everything I see or do they also find it disgusting. That is why I have been asked by those unknown criminal neuro staff not to look into my own toilet bowl anymore, whenever I use the toilet.
If an images is generated by a non-consensual subject of remote neural monitoring, is it always possibly for the remote neural monitoring staff to be able to accurately decipher whether that image is one which is real and is in the subjects environment, or whether it is a distant memory of the subject, or whether it is being conjured up by the subjects imagination or whether it is deliberately being inserted by neuro imaging staff who are unknown to the remote neural monitoring staff and who work from a different location to the remote neural monitoring staff? Have neuro imaging staff ever inserted external images into the brain of a human subject in order that remote neural monitoring staff would then wrongly believe that the subject had prior knowledge of a deed that the aforementioned subject had no prior knowledge of whatsoever.?
imaging (4)
Some human beings are having their biological processes directly affected by the unethical imprinting of unnecessary digital signals into their auras. Even though we dont know what method is being used against us, many human beings throughout most of the world are now reporting that they are experiencing their own body energy fields being forced to move against their wills thereby forcing their own muscles to move also against their wills. One possible method being considered may be that surveillance operatives can now imprint said unnecessary digital signals into human auras by the use oof a spectrometer which may be capable of being used to see inside the home of the individual being unethically interfered with. It may even be necessary for the targeted individual to be using a digital media screen because there may be reverse energy field cameras being built into digital media screens so as to enable the unethical operatives to see the human aura of their target.
I myself am one of those individuals who is now experiending forced muscle movement of my facial and body muscles against my will and without my permission. For further information please see my website which I alone own and control and which is called www.targetedindividualsireland.net. My name is Gretta Fahey, Newbrook, Claremorris, Co. Mayo, Ireland.
Demonic possession does not exist. It has been hoaxed over many decades and perhaps even more than a century in order to provide a cover story for unethical human energy field interference which is ongoing on a large scale throughout most of the world now.
An optical spectrometer (spectrophotometer, spectrograph or spectroscope) is an instrument used to measure properties of light over a specific portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, typically used in spectroscopic analysis to identify materials.
#1386a Tools for Getting Into Our Brains Bioethics(DARPA) and EPR/ESR
I know the post was big and would take effort and time to understand.
Thanks for diving in. that is why I tried to put the key location soas
to capture the TIs attention quickly.
>So now we're going to be able to interrogate the nervous system to find out how that happens....
Remember the writing that scalar waves react with the nervous system
extremely well in the Neurophone PDF. Also subvocal speech recognition
is reading unspoken thoughts from nerve impulses in the lower jaw and
neck area. The sensors to decode the brain don't necessarily have to be
in the brain we now know. Think of the facial recognition posts I put up concerning decoding the mind through minute muscle twitches. They don't always need to be invasive either to read the aspects of the mind.
I also noted when watching the first time that Dr. Nina Farahany made a statement something like mind control of course isn't happening but
would like the doctors to respond in their own words. Then I noticed they went to a two minute
break without the DARPA scientist William D. Casebeer, Ph.D. (U.S.A.F.,
Retired);
Program Manager; (DARPA)Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency; National Institutes of Health...answering the question. I think it was later that he said he didn't work on classified
projects. I wish we could have read his facial twitches. ;-) I'm glad
you took the time to watch and hope you looked at the EPR and ESR
technology and Persinger's video. I think this is very promising as to
how our brains are read. They deny what is national security so get used to that but we are given information none the less. "Nano Sensors with
animals in the field", and what signal type can read those nano sensors? Are they dusted, tattooed or internal? It is a big question that EPR
and ESR may help answer along with scalar waves and quantum
Entanglement? A lot of the hyperlinks(blue) went off to aspects of
quantum entanglement. What techniques are used to apply Nano
sensors?....... a needle, dust, drugs, water, food, shampoo, soap...and
how do we detect Nano sensors or is it impossible? Will detoxing help? Peter Rosenholm
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
