Blogs

Amy Anderson recently received this letter of support from one of her City Council representatives in the city of Richmond, California.  The text is below: 

Dear Amy Anderson, 

Other members of the Richmond City Council and I, Councilman Nathaniel Bates are much aware of your efforts to enact a city based legislation regulating local authority and innovative space-based technology of which directly falls under federal and international jurisdiction.  The Space Preservation Act of 2001 reaffirmed US policy that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes.  

As you also are aware, the City of Richmond has done what it can to acknowledge and support individuals who claim to be Targeted Individuals (TI) by adopting Resolution 51-15 in support of targeted individuals who claim to be under assault from space based weaponry and rreferenced the Space Preservation Act (SPA). The SPA was introduced to the 107th Congress, HR 1977 to preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.  The resolution demonstrates the City's support of these proposed actions and more importantly, support for those individuals who identify themselves as targets of space-based weapons. 

Per your request, this letter is of my support on your efforts of seeking further legislative direction by contacting Mark DeSaulnier's Office. I wish you the best on taking further steps and commend you for being a strong advocate for the TI community.  

Sincerely, 

Nathaniel Bates, Councilman and former Mayor of Richmond, CA

If you hear technologically induced voices coming from inside your head against your will and wholly without your permission you should always respond to them exactly as follows - "Why am I hearing your voice coming from inside my head against my will and wholly without my permission while saying the following" (here you repeat exactly what they said to you.) Whenever you reply to the people who wirelessly transmit their voices into your head in this manner they react in annoyance for the following reason - The neuro operatives who interrogate me on a constant basis by reproducing their voices inside my head go on to sell their comments combined with my replies to interested parties in order to fully understand my personality type for purposes of brain research and many other types of research. However, they are not allowed to acknowledge to the seller exactly how they procured their data because their methods are highly unethical. The purchaser will only purchase the data on condition that they partially delete the part of my reply which says "Why am I hearing your voice coming from inside my head against my will and wholly without my permission while saying the following". However, said neuro operatives can not delete any of my spoken words without incurring both legal and financial penalties at a later date because of an reason unknown both to me and to the  neuro staff who I do not know and who I have never met.

Dear victims and supporters, 

After many years of hard work in educating public about the secret abuses and tortures of voice to skull technologies and remote electromagnetic mind control technologies, we have received good responses from public. 

Thousands of victims and supporters have written countless letters to government departments, social communities, human rights organizations, the media and the general public. Thousands of websites have been educating public about such technologies. Medias have started reporting such technologies. 

Since 2010, I created peacepink.ning.com, more and more people start knowing peacepink website and our work. There are more than 400 visitors came to this website every day.

https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-is-peacepink-worldwide-campaign-to-stop-the-abuse-and

Now, many people in public do believe in the abuses and tortures of mind control technologies.

Public Policy Polling asked voters to weigh in on 20 more infamous conspiracy theories, and the results show that  a not-insignificant number of people (15%) believe that the government or the media adds mind-controlling technology to TV broadcast signals (the so-called Tinfoil Hat crowd)

Among the other results:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/democrats-and-republicans-differ-on-conspiracy-theory-beliefs.html

“Tin Foil Hat Caucus” Debates “Mind Control” at NH State House

We could believe that the public start listening and concerning.

There are three ways for mind control victims to win their cases.

(1) One route is to appeal, which is an administrative procedure, and that is exactly a way a lawyer does not dare and does not have the energy to do. 

Write appeal letters to government departments, senators, representatives, to urge the government to investigate such horrible crime, sentence torturers according to law, and help victims.

(2) Another route is to seek public support. 

With enough supporting voices from public and with evidences, government must answer victims' appeals.

(3) File lawsuits to sue government who do not take their responsibilities to investigate such horrible crimes, and help victims.

Winning strategy

https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/will-victims-win-a-lawsuit

Mind control technologies are weapons which use drugs, electronic microchip implants, nanotechnologies, microwaves and /or electromagnetic waves to subvert an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making by attacking the brain and nervous system.

I have collected many reported articles which introduce 'mind control technologies'. The listing of these articles will not mislead readers; it is a short cut for readers to learn what mind control technologies are.

https://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/introduce-mind-control-and

Please go to comments to read more information.

* Radio Frequencies produce Knocking, buzzing (like a bee), clicking or hissing  noises when in range, creaking noises if radio frequencies are low,  (Proven).

* The part of your brain that detects the RF fields is the temporal lobe area, (Proven).

* Aluminum Fly Screen "blocks" RF fields, (Proven).

* The RF sounds will actually increase in decibels if you wear ear plugs, (No kidding, (Proven).

* A sequence of short pulsed radio frequencies are heard as "chirps", to where separate radio pulses with pauses in between are heard as auditory "clicks", (Proven).

* Longer pulses w/lower pitch, (>100 ms), creates a creaking noise, like that of a wooden rocker, rocking, (Proven).

* Auditory effects are dependent on the amount of energy that goes out in a "single pulse", (40mJ/cmx2 per pulse), not the power density.

* Single radio pulses of 40mj/cmx2 increases tissue temperature by about 5 x 10-6 C .

* Not everyone can hear pulsed radio frequencies.  A person has to have the right "physical attributes" to be able to hear audio frequencies above 5kHz, (Proven).

* The auditory sounds you hear, "can be recorded" by placing electrodes on the neuron auditory pathways, (Proven).

* Auditory responses from pulsed radio waves are heard by a persons normal auditory pathways, the ear, (believe it or not), via your "cochlea".  This goes for accustic, microwave and pulsed radio waves, (Proven),

"Taylor and Ashleman [1974] and Guy et al. [1975] showed the importance of the cochlea by finding that
destruction of the cochlea abolished RF evoked potentials recorded at higher levels in the auditory pathway.These results indicated that the locus of the initial interaction of pulse-modulated microwave energy with the auditory system is within or peripheral to the cochlea", (Taylor, Ashleman, Guy [1975]. 

To be Continued; egy :)

Sources;

Auditory Response to Pulsed

Radiofrequency Energy
J.A. Elder* and C.K. Chou
Motorola Florida Research Laboratories, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA

http://www.freedomfchs.com/auditoryresponsetopulsedrf.pdf

Terribly sorry to hear what you have been through.

Enough have been said on the evidence, the ways perps torture us, related books....What we really need is public inquiry into our cases. Class action lawsuits? No. Not now. In addition, whom will class action lawsuits lay charge against? The governments? It is too too.... hard. But, a public inquiry is not too too hard though. Pls watch my video on youtube. In the evidence list, you can find out how Mr. Attorney General of Canada, AI, Redress, Human Rights Watch dealt with torture cases. In addition, you can find some famous lawyers' statements regarding the process of dealing with torture cases. I posted it in here several days ago.

Let's go for a public inquiry.

Best,

Robin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCo-5V1vJAo; or

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1zds2vthGgXMTFiZGVhNzAtNzgxNy00MjZjLTg3MDAtNDllZGM4MWJmODFj&hl=en

; or

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_20726.pdf

Famous lawyers' statements:

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1167

With the government refusing to start a public inquiry and the International Criminal Court having launched a “preliminary” investigation into the Afghan detainee issue, law experts say there is a very real chance Canadian officials could be charged with war crimes.

“International law is very clear,” said Mr. Dosanjh, a lawyer and former attorney general of British Columbia. “You need circumstantial evidence; you don’t need actual knowledge of any specific allegations, or actual knowledge of torture. There was substantial knowledge of torture in Afghan jails. Every kid on the ground knew that. All of the reports, national or international, knew that.”

University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes says Mr. Dosanjh was correct. The government’s oft-repeated line that there was no documented physical evidence of torture of Canadian-transferred detainees is a “detour,” he said, which ignores the actual requirements of the law: circumstantial evidence that a risk of torture existed.