All Posts (12227)
Sort by
Please join us tonight at 11PM EST/8PM PST on talkshoe.com, or, give us a call at 724-444-7444 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 724-444-7444 end_of_the_skype_highlighting. ID: 83319 # pin: 1 #. Amy Anderson begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting (moderator) is seeking your support for her upcoming court case.
Thank you for your support and have a good day.
Chris J. Brunson
Investigator
Amy Anderson begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Researcher
Thursday Nights Moderator
Elvira Williams
Senior Moderator
Nigel Nicholson
2/4 Thursday Nights Moderator
Peter Perez
Assistant Moderator
Liam Michaels
Assistant Moderator
This is really good and answers a lot of questions. Thank You Deca. Peter
Date: Thursday, February 10, 2011, 11:34 AM
Association Against The Abuse of Psychophysical Weapons / Barrie Trower
Stutensee, Germany
Swetlana Schunin and Waldemar Lotz
s-schunin@t-online.de,
Tel: 0721 / 504 39 25
http://psychophysischer-terror.de.tl/Brief-an-B-.-Trower.htm
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?s=c2b5f6b0b290c5f9a8fd38639c6ef936&t=133767&page=18
The guy has no cell phone and no computer and his hand-written answers are a bit difficult to pair up with the respective questions.
Hence, I have paired them all up below for my own benefit, if anyone is interested.
by Deca:
1. How can we protect ourselves from microwave radiation?
Purchase a small microwave detector (audible), never carry a mobile phone, even switched off, never have a walkabout phone - even off, never have any wireless device. Screen your bed and chair with a thin metal (not foil) screen.
2. Can Bluetooth blockers or mobile phone blockers protect us from electronic torture-radiation, etc.?
No. The only real solution is to ¨jam¨ the signal but that can cause other complications from reflection and constructive interference.
3. Have you already tried one out yourself? Maybe there are other microwave blockers that can helpus?
http://handyblocker.org/der-W-Lan-und-Bluetooth-blocker.htm
As above. Personal or domestic (house) shielding is the only solution. Producing microwaves to ¨jam¨ microwaves may be more dangerous.
4. Which devices could be used to measure the radiation?
You could use a spectrometer but they can cost thousands of pounds and be very difficult to use. Simple detectors can be used, even hired from specialist people like ¨Powerwatch¨. They either flash little lights or ¨bleep¨ and cost around 100 pounds.
5. How exactly does this technology function?
They measure the frequency (number of waves) and amplitude (energy) of the waves. Not pulses or modulations – a spectrometer is needed for that.
6. Though we all get certain types of hallucinations, nobody knows exactly how we are tormented. Can you describe how the criminals attack us?
Yes. Microwave irradiation with the correct pulse frequencies can cause visual and audible hallucinations. Add to this, entrainment of the brain and you can induce severe mental illnesses that can fool psychiatrists. Effects can last weeks between irradiation attacks. It is very easy to do. You can be targeted all day and night to achieve the desired effect. If you go to the ¨h. e. s. e.¨ website, you should see a mathematical interpretation of how this occurs plus a flow chart. (h. e. s. e. is a German organization I think). They published some of my work. Please note at this point that I do not use or own a computer – just a fountain pen and bottle of ink.
7. How do you think we could convince the police that radiation readings are abnormally high in victims´ apartments and houses?
A legal measurement can only be made by an expert with a calibrated spectrometer over many days, weeks or months. Apart from being expensive – those irradiating you will soon learn of this and turn off their equipment. Hence, you will prove nothing. Hand-held devices are not accepted in court.
8. Is it possible to make laser or microwave attacks audible or obvious?
Yes, purchase a hand-held audible microwave detector.
9. Can you send us pictures of microwave weapons or devices?
Take a look out of your window! Any microwave mobile phone transmitter – any micro cell (picocell) in shops can be programmed by computer for this – as can any mobile phone you are carrying or using. Or any family member´s phone – even if it is totally off.
10. How can it be medically proven that the affected person is actually irradiated?
The best person for this is Professor Magda Havas
http://www.magdahavas.com
of Toronto University. She has conducted blood tests in her laboratory which show microwave irradiation. I believe they are on her website. I spoke there earlier this year. My talk should be on her website. (Look for the text of my address to King Kgolo Kgfela of South Africa).
11. Which blood and urine parameters clearly show that the affected person is irradiated?
As above – Magda Havas website – basically the viscosity changes.
12. Are there already devices in existence that measure body radiation?
Yes: EEG – ECG machines – lie detectors – it really depends on which part of the electromagnetic spectrum you wish to detect. All waves from the body can be detected, even the smallest A-B-Delta-Theta brainwaves.
13. Why are politicians too cowardly to address the issue unless they really get pushed?
There are people ¨above¨ politicians – (who just really deal with simple domestic matters) – those above politicians make the real decisions. These people are not subjected to a ¨vote¨ every four or five years!
14. Mr Trower, you speak with scientists and students but why not with doctors and lawyers?
15. Who can we expect to get help from - the press, the justice system, or just from ordinary citizens?
I have spoken to three legal firms in the last year: I even produced an 88 page document for one of them. The problem is with the Governments generally, all such cases, like this, where Government and Government scientists are complicit in illegal experiments or experimentation of population – they will stall and delay. Most cases take on average about fifty years to come to court. Hence, most cases fail due to the death of the victim. It is easy for Government lawyers to put the onus of medical proof onto the victim. Most doctors or consultants work for a department of health – which of course is a Government Department! If not, and they work privately, they still have to be registered with the Government. Hence, you will receive very little medical help. I have personally known three hospital consultants be threatened within four hours of talking up such cases. They all gave up and decided to keep their jobs!
Finally, you asked if I could give a press interview. It is a lot easier for the press to meet me here because I have all my documents to hand.
The biggest problem of course is proof. Even if you can prove you are being irradiated (which is doubtful), how do you prove who is responsible? Theoretically, it could be from as many as 150 different companies from as many countries. – not necessarily the country you are in. This is why microwaves are such perfect weapons.
I could probably come to Germany but it would be very expensive. You would do better to pay for an investigative reporter to write an article which exposes this – provided you could publish it of course!
I have been banned from contacting eight universities – which gives you an idea of Government power. Along with three death threats.
You may wish to read my address to King Kgfela on Magda´s website. A lot of good work to do with this is referenced on it.
BARRY TROWER
I trained at the Governments Microwave Warfare establishment in 60's. I worked with the underwater bomb disposal unit, which used microwaves.
In the 70's I helped de-brief spies trained in microwave warfare.
My first degree is in Physics (I specialised in microwaves)
My second degree is a research degree.
I have a teaching diploma in human physiology.
I teach advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College.
http://www.southdartmoor.devon.sch.uk/
Author of the Tetra Report for the Police Federation. I predicted the illnesses, which the officers now complain of.
I predicted the illness's the residents now complain of.
These are illness's that occurred before my report was published and cannot be psychosomatic.
At a conference in Birmingham I said " This Government, Industry and Government Scientists will be responsible for more deaths (of civilians) in peace time
than all the terrorist organizations ever." The evidence I have is showing this is correct. I put my money where my mouth is and stand my ground.
Barrie Trower
RADIO INTERVIEW
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2010/04/24/barrie-trower-on-microwave-radiation-stealth-warfare-and-public-health/
LINKS
http://handyblocker.org/der-W-Lan-und-Bluetooth-blocker.htm
www.magdahavas.com">http://www.www.magdahavas.com
http://psychophysischer-terror.de.tl/Brief-an-B-.-Trower.htm
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?s=c2b5f6b0b290c5f9a8fd38639c6ef936&t=133767&page=18
Posted by:
Gerry Duffett
3358-A McCowan Rd
Basement
Scarborough Ontario
Canada M1V 5P5
duffett52@yahoo.com,
gerryduffett@fastmail.ca,
http://gerryduffett.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general
IN RESPONSE TO MY POSTINGS RE: THE CIA
CIA Launches PR Push
people who are your victims, know exactly what your clandestine operations are all about !!!
bio implant anyone lately?
everyday
use micro wave, laser and ultra sound one anyone lately?
everyday
use or condone organized stalkers lately?
every day.
torture any one today?
each and every day, and train others
to do the same.
for your global agenda.
dont be fooled by doj propaganda
ITA) Grazie Franc. Scusa,ma noi italiani siamo molto diffidenti perchè abbiamo avuto molti sabotaggi e abbiamo avuto a che fare con INFILTRATI, SABOTATORI, "KIDDY". Spesso, non si riesce a capire se un utente è una vera vittima, un vero attivista, un semplice curioso, un infiltrato o un "kiddy". Abbiamo ricevuto molte molestie informatiche di varia natura.
ENG) Thanks Franc. Sorry, but we Italians are very suspicious because we had a lot of sabotage and we had to deal with infiltrators, Sabot, "KIDDY". Often, you can not tell if someone is a real victim, a real activist, just a curiosity, an infiltrator or a "kiddy". We received a lot of computer harassment of various kinds.
PORT) Obrigado Franc. Desculpe, mas os italianos somos muito desconfiados, porque nós tínhamos um monte de sabotagem e nós tivemos que lidar com infiltrados, Sabot ", KIDDY". Muitas vezes, você não pode dizer se alguém é uma verdadeira vítima, um ativista real, apenas uma curiosidade, um invasor ou uma "criança". Recebemos um monte de assédio computador de vários tipos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY I have a comment to franc. Everything perfect, now I too have the "bug characters" . Why?
Please look at the screenshot down
TODAY At 9:51pm on February 9, 2011
NOW At 0:48 on February 10, 2011 contrariwise ...
I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION DEAR FRIENDS :
Why this channel youtube, tells me a virus and untrusted site?
AND who is the infiltrator here in PEACEPINK ?
WHY TODAY I have a comment to franc, Everything perfect, now instead I too have the "bug characters"
Please look at the screenshot down
https://www.youtube.com/user/kcraigdc
CLICK SITE to LEFT in this CHANNEL
SECOND SCREENSHOT, after click inthe site to LEFT:
3° SCREENSHOT after CLICK in second site in this CHANNEL YOUTUBE:
Delle 192 pagine che abbiamo testato sul sito negli ultimi 90 giorni, 3 pagine hanno causato il download e l'installazione di software dannosi senza l'autorizzazione dell'utente.
Maybe this could be something for all you americans here at PP...
MISTAKES IS NOT THE WORD TO BE USED TO DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS BY THIS AND OTHER AGENCIES IN THE US.
THIS IS WHERE OUR HARD EARNED TAX MONEY GOES. TO OUT OF CONTROL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WITH NO TRANSPARENCY, UNANSWERABLE TO THE RULE
OF LAW. ALTHOUGH THEY ARE CALLED THE DEPT. OF JUSTICE. WHERE MURDER,
AND CORRUPTION IS PROTECTED BY STATE SECRETS, EXECUTIVE BRANCH, PRIVATE SECTOR, CRIMINALS WHICH HAVE FAR REACHING TENTACLES TO CONTROL
EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET. ALTHOUGH FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED SUCH CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE HITLER PROUD.
THEY CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE OATH OF OFFICE, THAT THEY HAVE SWORN TO LIVE BY. INVESTIGATE THE DOJ AND HAVE NO MERCY TO THESE TRAITORS OF OUR
COUNTRY AND CONSTITUTION.
At CIA, grave mistakes, then promotions
Human rights obstructions: Electronic torture
Eliminationism and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity
Genocide Far Worse Than War
Protecting Targeted Regions from Foreseeable and Preventable Disaster Management Agendas
Satanism Disguised as Science:
A Gross Human Rights Obstruction
Live Testimonies: Presidential Commission Bio ethical Issues May 18, 2011
ANDPublic Invite: The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bio ethical Issues May 2011 NYC Conference
http://guopeixi167.blog.163.com/blog/static/113292867201102742618632/
腦波雷達監控警報器一日本(專利廳)公開
日本國公開特許公報(A)國際特許分類第6版G01S 7/38
公開日：1995年11月21日(平成7年)
公開番號：特開平7－306259
名稱：身體情報(腦波)監控警報器
THE LARGEST MOVEMENT OF TERRORISM IS US EXPORT, NEW WORLD ORDER TACTICS
WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN EGYPT, THE NWO AT WORK, THE US OCTOPUS, THAT REACHES INTO OTHER COUNTRIES.
http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/profiles/blogs/cias-role-in-egypts-regime?xg_source=msg_appr_blogpost
Neural devices stimulate growing market
Rick Merritt
11/12/2010 1:33 PM EST
SAN JOSE, Calif. – A startup hopes to get regulatory approval soon to sell what could be its first of a family of neural implants it envisions. The work at NeuroPace is just one part of an emerging neural device sector poised for significant growth.
After a decade of development NeuroPace (Mountain View, Calif.) submitted its request to the U.S. FDA in July for a brain implant to treat epilepsy. The company hopes its RNS system could be approved for use within a year.
"Over the next decade, I believe a variety of closed and open loop brain stimulation devices will replace destructive [surgical] procedures," said Martha Morrell, chief medical officer at NeuroPace in a talk at the BioMedDevice Forum here.
Trials with the epilepsy implant has given researchers new insights into the technology's potential to serve conditions ranging from pain management and depression to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
"This is the first time we could look into the brain and see what's happening in real time," Morrell said. "We see this as a disease management tool," she said.
The RNS implant, which uses two custom chips, found abnormal brain activity in epilepsy patients was more extensive than previously thought.
"No one had ambulatory records of epileptic patients before, and it turned out the seizure was just the tip of iceberg," she said. "We found these patients need stimulation as much as 600 times a day for periods of typically 1-2 minutes," she added.
Doctors can program the device to sense and respond to a broad range of conditions. NeuroPace also maintains a database for long term studies of brain wave activity.
Morrell said she sees the potential for devices that deliver tiny doses of drugs as well as electrical stimulation to targeted areas of the brain. New electrode arrays and sensors will help expand the field of conditions such devices can address. Beyond brain waves, researchers are studying the flow in the brain of blood, oxygen, neural transmitters—and even temperature changes--as other ways to influence conditions.
1 2
You never know, when Bill Clinton tried to put through a law to stop Non-Consensual Human Experimentation if that caused himself to have heightened sexual stress as well as Monika Lewinsky via, "Mind Control" or, "Brain Entrainment". Thus this scandal and possible attack on our President may have derailed Bill's attempt to stop the programs that are attacking us then and now, remember JFK"
At the same time it was the admission of the radiation experiments on American test subjects that caused Bill to start an "Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments" (ACHRE) to review Washington's past actions in the hopes of preventing them from taking place
again.
That is why an attempt to stop this, "Non-Consensual Human Experimentation" could end our suffering. I wonder if Bill even new about Mind control and Brain Entrainment back then? It was certainly in use and there was a big push at the end of his term around 1998-1999.
http://tinyurl.com/4ntqasg
Peter Rosenholm
Its able to identify magnetic field of an individual heartbeat for tracking purposes. "See" through wall technology ?
the ground. Although volumes are dedicated to a wide variety of issues
within research practice, ethics tends to be overlooked. As
sociologists we must consider whether there is a reason for this.
Writing on ethics is surely one of the least popular activities a
sociologist can do, for it is a subject which carries with it an aura
of moralising which sits uncomfortably with us. After all, we all, as
sociologists and researchers, have clear codes of what constitutes
ethical behaviour to which we all adhere. This work is not, therefore,
an attempt to describe a moral platform but to consider internet
research through the lens of established paradigms in social research.
Of late there has been a rising interest in what has come to be
referred to as online ethnography. This is considered to be a variant
of traditional ethnomethodological techniques, utilising a spectrum of
observational and other qualitative methods to examine the ways in
which meaning is constructed in online environments and gleans much of
its’ analytical framework from derivations of conversation analysis.
This work considers a slightly different variant of this in looking at
the applicability to studies of internet interaction of the model of
research pursued by Erving Goffman. In "Behaviour in Public
Places"(1963) and "Relations in Public"(1971), Goffman’s concern is
with social relationships, social order and public life. His analysis
centres on the complex interrelation between the public and the
private, which is used here to illuminate the nature and forms of
online interaction. The questions which I hope to use Goffman’s
analysis to open up for debate are those which are fundamental to the
use of internet media in any research context. Can we justifiably
regard online interactions on bulletin boards, mailing lists and in
chat rooms as "public status" or do they constitute, as others may
argue, a form of private conversation which is embedded within a public
space? Or does the fact of private conversations occurring constitute
these arenas as private spaces into which we, as researchers, are
intruding? What are the natures and forms of intrusion online? And
finally, and most significantly, what is the status of text in a world
where the self is invested in the act of textual creation and no other?
These issues clearly have considerable ramifications for a
consideration of what would constitute a code of ethics in the age of
information, and the establishment of such a code is particularly
pressing now, when debate on the nature and forms of electronic life,
in both on and off-line arenas, increasingly takes its cue from a moral
panic over privacy and intrusion in the electronic age.
Firstly, however, we need to examine some contextual and theoretical
considerations concerning the applicability of the use of a Goffmanian
framework of analysis to online interaction. The key distinguishing
feature of online behaviour is that it occurs solely through text and
the exchange of text. Thus all "fronts", "settings" and "vehicles for
conveying signs" of self can only be that which can be rendered in
text. This is, some may argue, a fundamentally different proposition
from the forms of embodied communication and intercorporeal self
production (Crossley, 1995) which are investigated by Goffman. For
Goffman, like Austin, language (speech) is performative, which is to
say, it does something. "Each utterance presupposes, and contributes to
the presuppositions of, a jointly inhabitable mental world"(Goffman,
1983). The truth of this assertion is nowhere more evident than in the
case of online environments where utterances are all we can use to
produce self. Yet in "Relations in Public"(1971), for example, language
is given no privileged status as a means of constructing reality.
Rather it is grouped along with embodied acts as a form of
communicative or social ritual, one which reflexively affirms/creates
social orders and relationships. However, the specific conception of
speech as a form of ritual act is precisely what makes Goffman’s
perspective so valuable to a consideration of internet communication,
for this new arena raises serious questions about the nature of textual
communication and issues a challenge to old ways of thinking.
We are accustomed, howsoever erroneously (Foucault, 1979) to regarding
written language as the product of a single autonomous author. Writing
is privileged within Western culture as a an expression of, rather than
a constitution of, a single conscious self, as the views, opinions,
subj ectivity and experiences of a person. Thus we tend to see text as
autonomous, produced in isolation and on a conscious level, apart from
the co-ordination of interaction. As Giddens contends, textual creation
and interpretation "occurs without certain elements of the mutual
knowledge involved in co-presence within a setting, and without the
co-ordinated monitoring which co-present individuals carry on as part
of on-going talk"(1990: p.100). In short then, texts are located within
a realm defined by autonomy and distance from the mechanics of
co-present production of self. It is this conception that textual
interaction in electronic environments challenges and it does so
through forcing a redefinition of key elements in the debate, namely
those of co-presence, of means of co-ordination, and of producing self.
In online environments and in considerations of the nature of
cyberspace the self is systematically problematised. It has become an
article of faith amongst cyberspace commentators that the cyber-self is
an infinitely flexible creation of an autonomous individual. From the
concealment of aspects of stigmatised identity, through to the idea of
gender as an elective, through postmodernist fantasies of the
elimination of the embodied–self and a retreat into cyberspace, the
recurring theme is that of agency in the production of online selves.
In accounts of internet interaction the self is seen as an article of
individual genius, the creation solely of its’ controller, a creature
apart from and uninfluenced by the social world. This stance, then,
depends upon a philosophical commitment to a transcendent self, a
commitment which is outside the remit of an ethnographical perspective.
In Goffman’s terms the self may be seen as a reflexive constitution by
and of the social world. The cyber-self, no less than its embodied
counterpart, may be argued to be produced through ritual, through the
practices and relations which constitute the intersubjective fabric of
the online social world. "Self.." argues Goffman " is not an entity
half concealed behind events, but a changeable formula for managing
oneself during them" (1974:573). It is "a code that makes sense out
of…the individual’s activities and provides a basis for organizing
them" (1971:366). If this is so in everyday life, it can b e no less
true of interaction in online environments. It is simply that the
signifying resources available to a particular construction and
presentation of self are qualitatively different.
In "Relations in Public"(1971) Goffman delineates eight areas or
territories of the self, which we attempt to control in interaction
with others. These territories range from the body itself and its
covering (the sheath), through personal possessions, to the information
preserve, the set of facts about ourselves, biographical details and so
forth which we reveal or conceal according to the situation. It is
through control of these territories, the placement of individuals
within the spaces of the territories in relation to the self, that we
define our relations to others, the social world formed out of the
nexus of these relations, and therefore ourselves. What emerges from
the relocation of social interaction in the online environment is a
curious tension between intensification of control over the territories
of the self and its dissolution.
On the one hand we can attempt to present self in any terms of our
choosing, and the lack of visible evidence and of biographical and
situational information increases the chances of "passing", diminishing
the potential for a contradiction of self claims. We gain control over
our information preserves in this process. Yet even here one’s gain is
another’s loss, as aspects of identity and self claims may be
appropriated by others. Sherri Turkle (1986), for example, has spoken
of the profound sense of unease she felt upon being confronted with an
avatar which carried her name, her sense that an aspect of herself had
been reified and removed from her.
Moreover, it can be argued that at the same time we lose control over
the dissemination of the self we present. It is the conversational
preserve, which Goffman defines as including "the right of a set of
individuals once engaged in talk to have their circle protected from
entrance and overhearing by others" (1971:64) which is most violated in
this. The offence of overhearing is, in Goffman’s scheme, that of
encroachment, of taking from an individual information not intended to
be overheard, the penetration of a territory defined as own by the
speaker, and the defilement of same through the process of intrusion.
Thus we have arranged the elements of Goffman’s analysis which are of
most application to the analysis of online interaction, namely, the
territories of self; the notion of self as an intersubjective
construction of social interaction; public and private spaces as the
production of interaction; ritual as social reality; and interaction as
ritual. The question to which we now turn is that of the implications
of this stance for the ethics of social research online. Our starting
point must be a consideration of the status of online interaction,
whether as public or private. Whether internet communicative forms are
regarded as public or as private clearly has considerable ramifications
for how we may treat the wealth of sociological "data" which scrolls
before our eyes when we log on. Here it is the problematic notion of
text which must be anatomised. If we treat online texts, whether on web
sites, distributed through mailing lists, or as exchanges in chat rooms
as texts per se, then it is evident that our only responsibilities as
researchers lie in issues of intellectual property rights. However, if
these texts are seen as interaction then the situation is somewhat
different. In seeing textual production online as a form of self
presentation and production which occurs within co-present,
co-ordinated spaces of interaction we divorce the text from the
subjectivity of the "author", aligning it instead as interactive
ritual. Thus we are considering, not the expression of individual
personalities, but the strategic means and forms of interaction within
the media. The data is therefore, by implication, a product not of
individual agency but of social ritual, in much the same manner as the
pedestrian behaviour studied by Goffman may be considered to be
separate from the will of any specific observed individual. In this
instance, as Homan (1991:46) has argued, the data takes the form of an
insight which is not peculiar to any specific individual and therefore
does not attach a need to obtain informed consent from the participants.
If we are observing interactional ritual in this way, does it then
follow that we may liken our research online to the position of a
researcher who stands in a public place and observes the behaviour of
those within it? Sociology has long accepted that public behaviours are
a legitimate object for research insofar as such research focuses upon
the forms of interaction, rather than the acts of any individual. Hence
it is acceptable to observe the behaviour of people at town meetings,
in churches, pedestrian behaviour in the streets and shops without
needing to obtain informed consent. The reasons for this may partly
reside in the difficulty of obtaining informed consent in these
situations (a difficulty which is not applicable to online
environments, where an obvious means to communicate the fact of a study
in progress readily presents itself), but mainly centre on the lack of
necessity for it. Thus behaviour in public places is a legitimate
object of scrutiny for the social researcher, whereas that in private
is not, unless consent is given.
As Homan(1991)has argued, whether a space is public or private is
always relative to the definitions of those who occupy it and this is
particularly true of internet communities, where ther e are/were no
pre-existing cultural understandings of the nature of the media to
appeal to or be guided by in defining the situation. Two areas may be
considered to be revealing in this context, the views of the users as
expressed through the conceptual and verbal apparatuses of the
environments, and the actions of the internet community in the case of
"lurkers".
The ways in which electronic environments are described constitute a
conceptual apparatus, a tool for defining the spaces which we occupy
when online. As Correll (1997)demonstrated in the case of the Lesbian
cyber cafe upon which she conducted an ethnographic study, the creation
and maintenance of physical spaces is one of the key rituals in the
organisation of interaction. In a space where setting can only be
evoked textually, patrons of the cyber cafe used descriptions of
physical artefacts to organise the spaces of interaction, to define
relationships to each other and create/ maintain a social order(Correll
:1997). When we consider this in relation to spaces of online
interaction in general it can be seen that descriptions of place serve
to reflexively create arenas as public spaces. The diffusion of
references to town halls, town pumps, villages and cafes all give ample
testimony to an overriding definition of electronic forums as public
status. These spaces, then, are communal spaces, and this implies that
the interaction which occurs within them is also public and thus falls
within the remit of an observational sociology which is directed at
understanding behaviour in public spaces, whether on or off-line.
This idea is further supported by the actions of community participants
with regard to "lurkers" or non-contributors. Lurking is at the very
least tolerated in online environments and as Correll (1997) has
pointed out lurkers often receive a warm welcome from communities when
changing status to participant and acknowledging their previous
activities. Such a tolerance may only be regarded as intelligible from
the stance that internet interactions occur within a public arena and
are therefore matters for public consumption. If we imagine an
interaction in the offline world where one party listened attentively
but did not make his/her presence known to the others taking part, we
can only construe this in terms of "eavesdropping&quo t;. Th is
definition would be contingent upon our understanding of the
conversation as being private and therefore of the information being
divulged as the preserve only of those co-present when it was revealed.
However, this comparison reveals a problem, namely the definition of
co-presence as applied to internet communities. Although real time
interactions over IRC must be exempted from this, since there is a
temporal dimension involved in communication through that media, on
mailing lists, web sites and to some extent in MUDs and on bulletin
boards, the community to which we address ourselves is one that extends
beyond the confines of the immediately co-present. Our posts to a BBS
for example, may be replied to hours or days after we have produced
them. We address ourselves in these environments, therefore, to the
community as a whole, rather than those logged in at the time. A
researcher may be a part of this community, whether as a researcher or
simply in his/her own right as an individual and is thus amongst the
addressed in receiving this ritual of interaction.
However, it must be acknowledged that, just as Goffman saw private
spaces as existing within public ones, so in online spaces individuals
can delineate a private arena into which others transgress at their
peril. Through an exposition of the rituals and procedures by which
public spaces may be transformed into private ones, Goffman demon
strates that public and private are far from monolithic definitions to
guide action. Rather all such definitions are locally produced and are
therefore relative to the individual communal structures within which
they are rendered meaningful. In online interaction it is acknowledged
that some spaces are private to the specific community of users. Thus
Mitra has referred to online ghettos and the gradual fracturing of
internet life into multiple communities which share little in terms of
a common culture or over-riding definition of themselves as
"Netizens"(Hauben, 1997). Moreover, and to complicate matters,
Correll’s research has indicated that the use of public forums for
"private" engagements is widespread, with individuals often "breaking
off" to form enclaves of private conversation. So how do we, as
researchers, distinguish between interactions which are intended for
the entire community of Net users, to which we might with validity be
said to belong; those focused on a specific community, such as the
ethnic groups studied by Mitra; and those directed at the maintenance
of a private space between individuals? Only an engagement with the
frameworks of meaning and relevance of the individual communities as
revealed through the forms and rituals of interaction can yield an
understanding of these issues.
The above discussion, I hope, exposes some of the complexities surround
ing the issue of electronic interaction online and points the way to a
discussion of the key issues which we, as researchers, face when
venturing online. As always with matters of such complexity, any
discussion inevitably raises more questions than it answers. Can the
sociological researcher who participates in an electronic community
leave his/her sociological subjectivity behind, or is, as Homan has
suggested, the condition of being a sociologist an ontological state
which cannot be divorced from the self of the researcher? How can we
have an informed and informing ethnomethodological account of
cyberspace when it itself is distinguished by a schism between identity
and avatar? Who or what can give informed consent to participation in
research in a world where an adult presenting avatar may be the
construct of a child? Upon what terms and with reference to what means
are online selves produced? Such questions have no easy answers, for
the nature of online life is such that many of the main tenets of
social life are, if not undermined at least rendered problematic and
therefore available for reinterpretation. These are, however, issues
which cry out for debate if sociology is to acquire a meaningful and
informed understanding of social life online. If this article has
sketched out a framework for the consideration of these issues and the
resources available for their discussion, it has done what I intended."
Bibliography
Correll, Shelley (1995)"The Ethnography of an Electronic Bar: The
Lesbian Cafe" pp. 270-298 in "The Journal of Contemporary Ethnography"
Vol. 24 No. 3 October 1995
Crossley, Nick (1995)"Body techniques, agency and intercorporeality: On
Goffman’s Relations in Public" Sociology Vol. 29 No. 1 February 1995
pp. 133-149
Foucault, Michel "What is an author?" 1979 Reproduced in Bocock, R and
Thompson, K "Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity" Polity Press,
Cambridge 1992
Giddens, Anthony(1990) "Social Theory and Modern Sociology" Polity, Cambridge
Goffman, Erving (1963) "Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social
Organization of Gatherings" Free Press/ MacMillan , New York
Goffman, Erving (1969)"The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" Penguin, Harmondsworth
Goffman, Erving (1971)"Relations In Public: Microstudies of the Public Order" Penguin, Harmondsworth
Goffman, Erving (1974) "Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience" Harper and Row, New York.
Goffman, Erving (1983) "Felicity’s Condition" American Journal of Sociology 89 (1) pp.25-51
Hauben, M and Hauben, R (1997)"Netizens: On the History and Impact of
Usene t and the Internet" 1997 IEEE Computer Society Press, California
Homan, Roger (1991) "The Ethics of Social Research" Longman, Essex
Jordan, Tim (1999)"Cyberpower: The Culture and Politics of Cyberspace and the Internet" Routledge, London
Mitra, Ananda (1997) "Virtual Commonality: Looking for India on the
Internet" pp 55-79 in Jones, S (ed.) "Virtual Culture: Identity and
Communication in Cybersociety", Sage, London 1997
Turkle, Sherry (1996) " Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of Internet" Phoenix, London
http://www.cybersociology.com/files/6_2_ethicsinonlineethnog.html
"Getting rid of the Expendible Containers" George Green
"I Get rid of the PHD's.. Piled higher and deepers, the dead weight" William J Rigby- google potassium nitrate William J Rigbyiam J Rigby
#1070 UK Officer Fired for putting wife on, "No-Fly" List
Posted February 03, 2011 05:29:56 PM by treelaw45.
#1070 UK Officer Fired for putting wife on, “No-Fly” List
Thanks to the TI Deb for putting this up. The abuses of absolute power over others. -Peter
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/officer-fired-wife-no-fly-list/
UK immigration officer fired for putting wife on `no-fly’ list
February 3rd, 2011 / Raw Story
Woman stuck for three years in Pakistan
Ever since anti-terrorist “no-fly” lists were implemented in the years
following the 9/11 attacks, critics have aired concerns about people
being unjustly denied the ability to fly, and about the prospect of
government agents abusing the ability to ground travelers.
Now a revelation from the British government suggests those fears aren’t
unfounded.
According to the Home Office, the department in charge of internal
security in the UK, an immigration officer decided to get rid of his
wife by placing her on a “no-fly” list.
The Daily Mirror reported
<http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/30/immigration-officer\
-sacked-for-putting-wife-he-didn-t-like-on-terror-watch-list-115875-2288\
4828/> that the officer’s wife traveled to Pakistan to visit relatives,
but when she arrived at the airport to come home to Britain, she was
told she could not board the plane and officials would not reveal
why.The woman ended up stranded in Pakistan for three years as a result,
the Daily Mail reported
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351937/Immigration-officer-fir\
ed-putting-wife-list-terrorists-stop-flying-home.html> .
A Home Office spokesman said the British government takes all
allegations of misconduct seriously.
“On the extremely rare occasions where this occurs, the strongest action
is taken,” the spokesman said.
The following information was evidence provided in a civil suit against the federal government in the case Akwei v. NSA (92-0449). John St. Clair Akwei is a former National Security Agency employee and whistle-blower who exposed the use of neural monitoring to spy on individuals. The Signals Intelligence mission of the NSA has evolved into a program of decoding EMF waves in the environment for wirelessly tapping into computers and tracking persons with the electrical currents in their bodies.
(Source)
How The National Security Agency (NSA) Illegally And Unconstitutionally Harasses Law-Abiding Americans Everyday. How, you ask? Quite simply, actually. It’s done by EMF or ELF Radio Waves, and a technology known as “Remote Neural Monitoring”. Haven’t you ever wondered about that ringing in your left ear? Well, here are the reason(s). And just why should the NSA do this, you ask? To silence any who who dare to speak out against them or any other agency, or the Government or simply to think for themselves, and “outside the box”, if you will. Think not? Then, read on……….
- Blanket coverage of all electronic communication in the U.S. and the world to ensure national security. The NSA at Ft. Meade, Maryland has had the most advanced computers in the world since the early 1960′s. NSA technology is developed and implemented in secret from private corporations, academia, and the general public.
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT)
- The Signals Intelligence mission of the NSA has evolved into a program of decoding EMF waves in the environment for wirelessly tapping into computers and tracking persons with the electrical currents in their bodies. Signals Intelligence is based on the fact that everything in the environment with an electric current in it has a magnetic flux around it which gives off EMF waves. The NSA/DoD has developed proprietary advanced digital equipment which can remotely analyze all objects whether man-made or organic that have electrical activity.
Domestic Intelligence (DOMINT)
- The NSA has records on all U.S. citizens. The NSA gathers information on U.S. citizens who might be of interest to any of the over 50,000 NSA agents (HUMINT). These agents are authorized by executive order to spy on anyone. The NSA has a permanent National Security Anti-Terrorist surveillance network in place. This surveillance network is completely disguised and hidden from the public.
Tracking individuals in the U.S. is easily and cost-effectively implemented with the NSA’s electronic surveillance network. This network (DOMINT) covers the entire U.S., involves tens of thousands of NSA personnel, and tracks millions of persons simultaneously. Cost effective implementation of operations is assured by NSA computer technology designed to minimize operations costs. NSA personnel serve in Quasi-public positions in their communities and run cover businesses and legitimate businesses that can inform the intelligence community of persons they would want to track. N.S.A. personnel in the community usually have cover identities such as social workers, lawyers and business owners.
Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance by independently operating NSA personnel.
- NSA personnel can control the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the U.S. by using the NSA’s domestic intelligence network and cover businesses. The operations independently run by them can sometimes go beyond the bounds of law. Long-term control and sabotage of tens of thousands of unwitting citizens by NSA operatives is likely to happen. NSA Domint has the ability to covertly assassinate U.S. citizens or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health.
NSA’s domestic electronic surveillance network
As of the early 1960′s the most advanced computers in the world were at the NSA, Ft. Meade. Research breakthroughs with these computers were kept for the NSA. At the present time the NSA has nanotechnology computers that are 15 years ahead of present computer technology. The NSA obtains blanket coverage of information in the U.S. by using advanced computers that use artificial intelligence to screen all communications, irregardless of medium, for key words that should be brought to the attention of NSA agents/cryptologists. These computers monitor all communications at the transmitting and receiving ends. This blanket coverage of the U.S. is a result of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) mission. The NSA’s electronic surveillance network is based on a cellular arrangement of devices that can monitor the entire EMF spectrum. This equipment was developed, implemented, and kept secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs. With this technology NSA personnel can non-obtrusively tap into any communication device in existence. This includes computers, telephones, radio and video-based devices, printers, car electronics, and even the minute electrical fields in humans (for tracking individuals).
Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering
The NSA keeps track of all PCs and other computers sold in the U.S. This is an integral part of the Domestic Intelligence network. The NSA’s EMF equipment can tune in RF emissions from personal computer circuit boards (while filtering out emissions from monitors and power supplies). The RF emission from PC circuit boards contains digital information in the PC. Coded RF waves from the NSA’s equipment can resonate PC circuits and change data in the PC’s. Thus the NSA can gain wireless modem-style entry into any computer in the country for surveillance or anti-terrorist electronic warfare. Radio and Television signals can be substituted at the receiving end with special EMF equipment. Replacing signals in Radios and Televisions is another outgrowth of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) mission.
Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance.
A subject’s bioelectric field can be remotely detected, so subjects can be monitored anywhere they are. With special EMF equipment NSA cryptologists can remotely read evoked potentials (from EEGs). These can be decoded into a person’s brain-states and thoughts. The subject is then perfectly monitored from a distance. NSA personnel can dial up any individual in the country on the Signals lntelligence EMF scanning network and the NSA’s computers will then pinpoint and track that person 24 hours-a-day. The NSA can pick out and track anyone in the U.S.
NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation
NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL). EMF Brain Stimulation has been in development since the MKUltra program of the early 1950′s, which included neurological research into “radiation” (non-ionizing EMF) and bioelectric research and development. The resulting secret technology is categorized at the National Security Archives as “Radiation Intelligence,” defined as “information from unintentionally emanated electromagnetic waves in the environment, not including radioactivity or nuclear detonation.” Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are also international intelligence agency agreements to keep this technology secret. The NSA has proprietary electronic equipment that analyzes electrical activity in humans from a distance. NSA computer-generated brain mapping can continuously monitor all the electrical activity in die brain continuously. The NSA records aid decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for national security purposes. EMF Brain Stimulation is also secretly used by the military for Brain-to-computer link. (In military fighter aircraft, for example.) For electronic surveillance purposes electrical activity in the speech center of the brain can be translated into the subject’s verbal thoughts. RNM can send encoded signals to the brain’s auditory cortex thus allowing audio communication direct to the brain (bypassing the ears). NSA operatives can use this to covertly debilitate subjects by simulating auditory hallucinations characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia. Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject’s brain and show images from the subject’s brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject’s eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen. RNM can send images direct to the visual cortex. bypassing the eyes and optic nerves. NSA operatives can use this to surreptitiously put images in a surveillance subject’s brain while they are in R.E.M. sleep for brain-programming purposes.
Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM
There has been a Signals Intelligence network in the U.S. since the 1940′s. The NSA, Ft. Meade has in place a vast two-way wireless RNM system which is used to track subjects and non-invasively monitor audio-visual information in their brain. This is all done with no physical contact with the subject. RNM is the ultimate method of surveillance and domestic intelligence. Speech and 3D sound, and subliminal audio can be sent to the auditory cortex of the subject’s brain (bypassing the ears) and images can be sent into the visual cortex. RNM can alter a subject’s perceptions, moods, and motor control. Speech cortex/auditory cortex link has become the ultimate communications system for the intelligence community. RNM allows for a complete audio-visual brain-to-brain link or brain-to-computer link.
National Security Agency Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology
NSA SigInt can remotely detect, identify and monitor a person’s bioelectric fields. The NSA’s Signals Intelligence has the proprietary ability to remotely and non-invasively monitor information in the human brain by digitally decoding the evoked potentials in the 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electro-magnetic emissions from the brain. Neuronal activity in the brain creates a shifting electrical pattern that has a shifting magnetic flux. This magnetic flux puts out a constant 30-50 hz, .5 milliwatt electromagnetic (EMF) wave. Contained in the electromagnetic emission from the brain are spikes and patterns called “evoked potentials.” Every thought, reaction, motor command, auditory event, and visual image in the brain has a corresponding “evoked potential” or set of “evoked potentials.” The EMF emission from the brain can be decoded into the current thoughts, images and sounds in the subject’s brain. NSA SigInt uses EMF-transmitted Brain Stimulation as a communications system to transmit information (as well as nervous system messages) to intelligence agents and also to transmit to the brains of covert operations subjects (on a non-perceptible level). EMF Brain Stimulation works by sending a complexly coded and pulsed electromagnetic signal to trigger evoked potentials (events) in the brain, thereby forming sound and visual images in the brain’s neural circuits. EMF Brain Stimulation can also change a person’s brain-states and affect motor control. Two-way Electronic Brain-Link is done by remotely monitoring neural audio-visual information while transmitting sound to the auditory cortex (bypassing the ears) and transmitting faint images to the visual cortex (bypassing the optic nerves and eyes, the images appear as floating 2-D screens in the brain). Two-Way Electronic Brain Link has become the ultimate communications system for CIA/NSA personnel. Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM, remotely monitoring bioelectric information in the human brain) has become the ultimate surveillance system. It is used by a limited number of agents in the U.S. Intelligence Community. RNM requires decoding the resonance frequency of each specific brain area. That frequency is then modulated in order to impose information in That specific brain area. The frequency to which the various brain areas respond varies from 3 Hz to 50 Hz. Only NSA Signals Intelligence modulates signals in this frequency band. An example of EMF Brain Stimulation:
| Brain Area | Bioelectric Resonance Frequency | Information Induced Through Modulation |
| Motor Control Cortex | 10 HZ | Motor Impulse Co-ordination |
| Auditory Cortex | 15 HZ | Sound which bypasses the ears |
| Visual Cortex | 25 HZ | Images in the brain, bypassing the eyes |
| Somatosensory Cortex | 09 HZ | Phantom Touch Sense |
| Thought Center | 20 HZ | Imposed Subconscious Thoughts |
This modulated information can be put into the brain at varying intensities from subliminal to perceptible. Each person’s brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies. Sending audio information to a person’s brain at the frequency of another person’s auditory cortex would result in that audio information not being perceived. The Plaintiff learned of RNM by being in two-way RNM contact with the Kinnecome group at the NSA, Ft. Meade. They used RNM 3D sound direct to the brain to harass the Plaintiff from 10/90 to 5/91. As of 5/91 they have had two-way RNM communications with the Plaintiff and have used RNM to attempt to incapacitate the Plaintiff and hinder the Plaintiff from going to authorities about their activities against the Plaintiff in the last twelve years. The Kinnecome group has about 100 persons working 24-hours-a-day at Ft Meade. They have also brain-tapped persons the Plaintiff is in contact with to keep the Plaintiff isolated. This is the first time ever that a private citizen has been harassed with RNM and has been able to bring a lawsuit against NSA personnel misusing this intelligence operations method.
NSA Techniques and Resources
Remote monitoring/tracking of individuals in any location. inside any building, continuously, anywhere in the country. A system for inexpensive implementation of these operations allows for thousands of persons in every community to be spied on constantly by the NSA.
Remote RNM Devices
- a) NSA’s RNM equipment remotely reads the evoked potentials (EEGs) of the human brain for tracking individuals and can send messages through the nervous system to affect their performance.
- b) [Information missing from original]
- c) RNM can electronically identify individuals and track then anywhere in the U.S. This equipment is on a network and is used for domestic intelligence operations, government security, and military base security, and in case of bioelectric warfare.
Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas
- a) Tens of thousands of persons in each area working as spotters and neighborhood/business place spies (sometimes unwittingly) following and checking on subjects who have been identified for covert control by NSA personnel.
- b) Agents working out of offices can be in constant communication with Spotters who are keeping track of the NSA’s thousands of subjects in public.
- c) NSA Agents in remote offices can instantly identify (using RNM) any individual spotted in public whom is in contact with surveillance subject.
Chemicals and Drugs into Residential Buildings with hidden NSA-lnstalled and maintained plastic plumbing lines.
- a) The NSA has kits for running lines into residential tap water and air ducts of subjects for the delivery of drugs (such as sleeping gas or brainwashing aiding drugs). This is an outgrowth of CIA pharmapsychology.
Brief Overview of Proprietary U.S. Intelligence/Anti-Terrorist Equipment Mentioned.
- Fixed network of special EMF equipment that can read EEGs in human brains and identify/track individuals by using digital computers. ESB (Electrical Stimulation to the Brain) via EMF signal from the NSA Signals Intelligence is used to control subjects.
- EMF equipment that gathers information from PC circuit boards by deciphering RF emissions thereby gaining wireless modem-style entry into any personal computer in the country.
- All equipment hidden, all technology secret, all scientific research unreported (as in electronic warfare research).
- Not known to the public at all, yet complete and thorough implementation of this method of domestic intelligence has been in place since the early 1980′s.
-
“We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at all times: where there are no secrets from the government” ~ William O. Douglas (U.S. Supreme Court Justice)
Comments
Luis Sanchez
11/12/2010 5:00 PM EST
This makes me think of a day where complete mind control will be possible.
It will soon happen that equipment such as Emotiv becomes a common user interface.
This technology enables the continual study of the brain waves and a recognition of patterns will thus enable the establishment of commands that will trigger the lights power on, of, answer the phone incoming call or reject it or turn left and right on your vehicle... but... having no need for the hands... wouldn't that become boring? :).
Sign in to Reply