台湾难友部落客 - 日本身體情報(腦波)監控警報器 (Japan patented, for TI use handheld alarm device against DEW, linked to law enforcement agency)

Posted by LIM SC on February 8, 2011 at 4:46pm

http://lichia.tsou.hohayan.net.tw/modules/discuss/main.asp?act=show&id=9123
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

FBI-CIA ARE TERRORISTS

Posted by FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA on February 7, 2011 at 10:45pm

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

HELLO FAMILY....I POSTED PICS OF MY MICROCHIPS IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM!!!!..

Posted by Zainik Jaylin on February 7, 2011 at 8:27am

THANX,IF ANYONE HAS ANY ADVICE OR SUGGESTIONS I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR THEM..I AM NOW IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO FILE A LAWSUIT,BUT I AM UNSURE OR THE ACTUAL CRIME,AND WHOM DO I FILE THE LAWSUIT AGAINST.I DO INFACT KNOW THE DOCTOR THAT IMPLANTED ME,THE DATE,AND TIME.I KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE A SEPERATE LAWSUIT[A PERSONAL INJURY LAWSUIT]..I WOULD REALLY LIKE SOME ADVICE AND DIRECTION AS OF HOW AND WHAT TO DO...THANKS

Neural Devices

Posted by Annie on February 7, 2011 at 6:30am

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.

Morrell%20Martha%20with%20caption.jpg "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

10 Comments

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

#1072a Bill Clinton and Radiation Experiments

Posted by treelaw45 TI on February 6, 2011 at 5:06am

#1072a Bill Clinton and Radiation Experiments

    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

"WORLD'S MOST ADVANCED HUMAN DETECTION TECHNOLOGY. HUMANS ONLY, EVERY TIME." as claimed by manufacturer

Posted by LIM SC on February 5, 2011 at 11:12am

Its able to identify magnetic field of an individual heartbeat for tracking purposes. "See" through wall technology ?

Behaviour in Public? : Ethics in Online Ethnography By Allison Cavanagh

Posted by Jay Sinn on February 5, 2011 at 3:30am

"Articles on ethics in social research can often seem somewhat thin on
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.. Pilled higher and deepers, the dead weight" William J Rigby- google potassium nitrate William J Rigbyiam J Rigby

Posted by ron on February 4, 2011 at 12:08pm

"Getting rid of the Expendible Containers" George Green "I Get rid of the PHD's.. Pilled higher and deepers, the dead weight" William J Rigby- google potassium nitrate William J Rigbyiam J RigbyThe Plan for the USA as early as 2000. Posphene gas is now what they have thought to use.. on the USA and it looks like a bio weapon.. it is POISON GAS

"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 by treelaw45 TI on February 4, 2011 at 9:33am

#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> .

“She obviously thought her husband, being an immigration officer,
would be able to find out what was going on,” a source inside the
immigration office told the Mirror. “Little did she know it was him who
had put her on the list. By all accounts he then had the time of his
life.”

What’s more, Home Office officials didn’t discover the fraudulent
listing until the immigration agent, whom the British government didn’t
name, was put up for promotion and a review of his work uncovered his
wife’s name on a no-fly list.

The officer confessed to altering the list and was fired for “gross
misconduct,” the Home Office stated.

He reportedly worked at the immigration bureau’s head office near
London, where he was part of a group responsible for updating government
security lists.

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 Signals Intelligence mission of the NSA

Posted by Annie on February 4, 2011 at 7:07am

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)

"Technology is able to do mass mind control & might have already happened" Dr Michael Persinger, Discovery Ultrascience Mind Control (Part.2)

Posted by LIM SC on February 3, 2011 at 6:30pm

In Pt. 2 of youtube footages, Dr Michael Persinger actually said the mind control technology is able to do mass mind control i.e. satellites, tv & radio, and it might have already happened.

Discovery Channel Ultrascience Mind Control
https://peacepink.ning.com/video/discovery-channel-ultrascience Pt.1/2
https://peacepink.ning.com/video/discovery-channel-ultrascience-1 Pt.2/2 (in the finishing part, it said mass mind control might have already happened)

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-buWhether wielded intentionally by terrorists or mischievously by citizens, laser devices can produce potentially lethal results.

Posted by ron on February 3, 2011 at 1:00pm

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2008-pdfs/april08leb.pdf/view

Whether wielded intentionally by terrorists or mischievously by citizens, laser devices can produce potentially lethal results.

Brain Implants for MIND CONTROL // Minduploading

Posted by Magnus Olsson on February 3, 2011 at 6:41am

Brain Implants for MIND CONTROL // Minduploading

Brain Implants for MIND CONTROL!

There could be conflict between the personal freedom to use one‘s economic resources to get an implant that will enhance one‘s physical capabilities and what society at large considers desirable or ethically acceptable.“

How threatening for mankind is an Artificial Brain ?

First let me state that at this moment the biggest threat for mankind is the human specie ! ABC-weapons in wrong hands can result in extreme damaging behavior.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHp1rM-Qo

Brainchip video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p06RLa6Wuys

25-04-2010. MINDTECH seeks to establish a network of laymen and media. This group will be dealing with the social and ethical sides to research, development and the implementation of emerging technologies in our society.

Meanwhile, philosophers working alongside the researchers say it’s time to find out more about how the public feels about such bionic research, which in some cases is being used to enhance human memory, physical abilities and perception.“

Not yet published research materials in interdisciplinary brain research and development of computer-brain interface must therefore be attributed to an unknown number of defenseless experimental subjects, many with families whose lives are destroyed in a wild orgy of computer abuse.This is to copy the cognitive behaviors and human perception in the development of quantum physics.Try The items have no options or informed consent, served as on-line research materials on aging.

MindUploading.org addresses the specific issues that may arise when neural prostheses are customized to a specific patient, and when large scale neural prostheses lead to whole brain emulation: the emulation of a patient’s complete brain function in a prosthetic substrate. Site content is focused on neuroscience and computational research that is involved in an eventual progression from neural prostheses to the applied science of whole brain emulation, including the concept of “mind-transfer”.

The Real Manchurian candidates (RTAmerica): Is C.I.A Developing Robot Assassins?

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHp1rM-Qo&feature=player_embedded

Webb: Targeted Individuals EUROPE: http://targeted-individuals-europe.com/index.php

mind control minduploadng magnus olsson sweden

Implant chip in the human brain.Synthetic telepathy is communication systems built on thoughts, not speech. Multimedia communication network is based. Brain copying is performed around the clock, largely by learning computer, copying is nothing short of serious torture. No one would voluntarily give informed consent to this serious research abuse. It takes years of learning and program development to develop the new computer-brain interfaces and multimedia language between man and computer. Subjects are now against their will has been online for five years on Man-Brain-Computer-Interface.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHp1rM-Qo

-

Proof: http://www.us-government-torture.com/Larson%20Report%20Edit.pdf

-

Read E.U -commisioner Professor Rafael Capuros presentation.

www.capurro.de/ECLSC2010.ppt

And look at Ray kurzweils video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqXBLDyGOjI

Magnus Olsson (SWEDEN)

E-mail : bionicgate@live.se

Government Thought Policing: The NSA and Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM)

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.

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 thisfrequency band. :

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/E.U

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)

Mind Control / Uploading ,,,

MIND CONTROL SWEDEN 2010

The Mind Has No Firewall,,,

That some of today’s cutting-edge neuroscience breakthroughs in nanotechnology, computer-brain integration and information technologies not yet recognized because they are too controversial with regard to the prevailing legal and IT policy and medical diagnostics.

The age of pharmaceutical microchipping is now upon us. Novartis AG, one of the largest drug companies in the world, has announced a plan to begin embedding microchips in medications to create “smart pill” technology.

The microchip technology is being licensed from Proteus Biomedical of Redwood City, California. Once activated by stomach acid, the embedded microchip begins sensing its environment and broadcasting data to a receiver warn by the patient. This receiver is also a transmitter that can send the data over the internet to a doctor.

EURON: European Robotics research Network

“EURON is a shorthand for “EUropean RObotics research Network”. It is the community of more than 225 academic and industrial groups in Europe with a common interest in doing advanced research and development to make better robots.”

The chosen name doesn’t probably only have to do with the research on robotics but also on the huge amount of money that it will generate in the future.

…

The Network brings together researchers and commercial companies working on artificial perception systems to model neuronal functions and cognitive processes, to optimize existing learning algorithms and to realize intelligent artificial systems.

Cyberhand

Cyberhand is a project funded by EU Future Emerging Technology Program robotic hand for replacement of lost limbs. The hand is designed to respond to signals from the human nervous system.

Blue Brain Project

BBP is a massive cooperative project of EPFL (Switzwerland) and IBM. It uses IBMs super computer Blue Gene to through reverse engineering copy the whole human brain.

BBCI

The Berlin Brain Computer Interface (BBCI) is a collaboration between German researchers to develop BCI technology for commercial and medical uses.

PRESENCCIA

A 7 million euros EC-funded collaboration among 15 different laboratories in 7 countries for the purpose of developing virtual reality environments with BCI applications.

GRIP

A collaborative project of 5 European countries – paralyzed human hand.

NEUROBOTICS

Focuses on basic research fusing neuroscience and robotics to design, develop and test, tele-operated robotic systems to help restore personal autonomy to sensory-motor-disabled persons.

bbci, blue brain project, cyberhand, euro projects, euron, grip, neurobotics, presenccia, research,researches

The European AI Researchers

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/08/us-summit-novartis-proteus-idUSTRE6A754720101108

The idea behind all this is to create “smart pills” that can sense what’s happening in the body and deliver that information to the patient’s doctor. Novartis plans to start microchipping its organ transplant anti-rejection drugs and then potentially expand microchipping to otherpharmaceuticals in its product lineup. This same technology could soon end up in pills made by other drug companies, too.

SMARTER THAN YOU THINK

Aiming to Learn as We Do, a Machine Teaches Itself

Jeff Swensen for The New York Times

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/05compute.html

NELL’S TEAM Tom M. Mitchell, center, and, from left, William Cohen, Jayant Krishnamurthy, Justin Betteridge, Derry Wijaya and Bryan Kisiel.

By STEVE LOHR

Published: October 4, 2010

Give a computer a task that can be crisply defined — win at chess, predict the weather — and the machine bests humans nearly every time. Yet when problems are nuanced or ambiguous, or require combining varied sources of information, computers are no match for human intelligence.

Smarter Than You Think

Grasping Language

Articles in this series are examining the recent advances in artificial intelligence and robotics and their potential impact on society.

Multimedia

Graphic

Automated Learning

Few challenges in computing loom larger than unraveling semantics, understanding the meaning of language. One reason is that the meaning of words and phrases hinges not only on their context, but also on background knowledge that humans learn over years, day after day.

Since the start of the year, a team of researchers atCarnegie Mellon University — supported by grants from the Defense Advanced Research Projects AgencyandGoogle, and tapping into a research supercomputing cluster provided by Yahoo — has been fine-tuning a computer system that is trying to master semantics by learning more like a human. Its beating hardware heart is a sleek, silver-gray computer — calculating 24 hours a day, seven days a week — that resides in a basement computer center at the university, in Pittsburgh. The computer was primed by the researchers with some basic knowledge in various categories and set loose on the Web with a mission to teach itself.

“For all the advances in computer science, we still don’t have a computer that can learn as humans do, cumulatively, over the long term,” said the team’s leader, Tom M. Mitchell, a computer scientist and chairman of the machine learning department.

The Never-Ending Language Learning system, or NELL, has made an impressive showing so far. NELL scans hundreds of millions of Web pages for text patterns that it uses to learn facts, 390,000 to date, with an estimated accuracy of 87 percent. These facts are grouped into semantic categories — cities, companies, sports teams, actors, universities, plants and 274 others. The category facts are things like “San Francisco is a city” and “sunflower is a plant.”

NELL also learns facts that are relations between members of two categories. For example, Peyton Manning is a football player (category). The Indianapolis Colts is a football team (category). By scanning text patterns, NELL can infer with a high probability that Peyton Manning plays for the Indianapolis Colts — even if it has never read that Mr. Manning plays for the Colts. “Plays for” is a relation, and there are 280 kinds of relations. The number of categories and relations has more than doubled since earlier this year, and will steadily expand.

The learned facts are continuously added to NELL’s growing database, which the researchers call a “knowledge base.” A larger pool of facts, Dr. Mitchell says, will help refine NELL’s learning algorithms so that it finds facts on the Web more accurately and more efficiently over time.

NELL is one project in a widening field of research and investment aimed at enabling computers to better understand the meaning of language. Many of these efforts tap the Web as a rich trove of text to assemble structured ontologies — formal descriptions of concepts and relationships — to help computers mimic human understanding. The ideal has been discussed for years, and more than a decade ago Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the underlying software for the World Wide Web, sketched his vision of a “semantic Web.”

Today, ever-faster computers, an explosion of Web data and improved software techniques are opening the door to rapid progress. Scientists at universities, government labs, Google, Microsoft, I.B.M. and elsewhere are pursuing breakthroughs, along somewhat different paths.

For example, I.B.M.’s “question answering” machine, Watson, shows remarkable semantic understanding in fields like history, literature and sports as it plays the quiz show “Jeopardy!” Google Squared, a research project at the Internet search giant, demonstrates ample grasp of semantic categories as it finds and presents information from around the Web on search topics like “U.S. presidents” and “cheeses.”

Still, artificial intelligence experts agree that the Carnegie Mellon approach is innovative. Many semantic learning systems, they note, are more passive learners, largely hand-crafted by human programmers, while NELL is highly automated. “What’s exciting and significant about it is the continuous learning, as if NELL is exercising curiosity on its own, with little human help,” said Oren Etzioni, a computer scientist at the University of Washington, who leads a project called TextRunner, which reads the Web to extract facts.

Computers that understand language, experts say, promise a big payoff someday. The potential applications range from smarter search (supplying natural-language answers to search queries, not just links to Web pages) to virtual personal assistants that can reply to questions in specific disciplines or activities like health, education, travel and shopping.

“The technology is really maturing, and will increasingly be used to gain understanding,” said Alfred Spector, vice president of research for Google. “We’re on the verge now in this semantic world.”

With NELL, the researchers built a base of knowledge, seeding each kind of category or relation with 10 to 15 examples that are true. In the category for emotions, for example: “Anger is an emotion.” “Bliss is an emotion.” And about a dozen more.

-ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH ILLEGAL EXPERIMENTATION AND-

INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS

COPUS

Committee on the Public Understanding of Science

The Royal Society

6-9 Carlton House Terrace

London

SW1Y 5AG

United Kingdom

Fax +44 (0)20 7839 5561

http://www.copus.org.uk

Federation of American Scientists

1717 K St., NW Suite 209

Washington, DC 20036

Voice: (202)546-3300

Fax: (202)675-1010

http://www.fas.org

The Lay Institute

Nick Begich, Executive Director

Dallas, Texas

info@layinstitute.org

Mind Justice 46

Cheryl Welsh, Executive Director

E-mail: welsh@mindjustice.org

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Signalistgatan

9 SE-169 70

Solna Sweden

Phone: +46-8-655 97 00

Fax: +46-8-655 97 33

E-mail: sipri@sipri.org

Sunshine Project Germany

The Sunshine Project

Scheplerstrasse 78

22767 Hamburg

Germany

Phone: +49 40 431 88 001

Fax: +49 40 67 50 39 88

February Contact

Posted by Lynn Clarise Bahrenburg on February 3, 2011 at 1:00am

February 1, 2011

VT State Senator Bernie Sanders

One Church Street

Burlington, VT 05401 HAND DELIVERED

VT State Senator Patrick Leahy Congressional Representative Peter Welsh

Main Street Main Street

Burlington, VT 05401 MAILED CERTIFIED Burlington, VT 0540l HAND DELIVERED

Gentlemen:

As you know from past correspondence, my life is threatened by criminal activity at the highest levels of government. As State of Vermont elected officials from my District, I am asking you to intercede on my behalf to put an end to Domestic State-Sponsored Terrorism with Satellite High Tech Weapon Technology.

The fusion of Military and Corporate America or The Military – Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower had the foresight to warn of in his Farewell Address To The Nation is responsible for the shredding of the Constitution and is the reason America can no longer refer to itself as a democracy when it clearly is anything but a democracy.

How is it that the United States Government is permitted to go freely about targeting, terrorizing, injuring and disabling innocent defenseless Americans with no prosecution and no conviction and people in positions of authority who know what is going on and could do something about it feel compelled to ignore and sweep it under the carpet (?)

Innocent defenseless American citizens being used for abuse and torture with Satellite High Tech (emr) Weapons in addition to being used for Medical – Scientific R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p m e n t and our elected officials are doing nothing to stop it.

When experimentation, research and development cannot get approval from an Institutional Review Board because it is unethical, risky and amoral, it gets funding from the Department of Defense and typically the CIA as a covert black budget project. They even get to label it CLASSIFIED to cover it up.

'Scientific' abuse, torture and experimentation by profoundly disturbed sick individuals who operate out of global multi-million dollar corporations sit on each others Boards of Directors - men in a business suit and a tie who like the smell of blood and our elected officials in Congress continue to advocate funding in the billions of dollars annually for BLACK Military projects. Are Congressional leaders aware of what goes on behind the closed doors of these corporations (?) Do Congressional leaders socialize with corporate gentlemen who get together after hours to sip martinis and view real time video clips of the sexual abuse of men, women and children or maybe they're more in the mood to entertain themselves with the electronic torture of men, women and children – it allows these paragons of manhood to feel like m e n when nothing else will. And, all the while, everyone who could do something has a personal agenda and excuse for doing nothing.

SRI International aka Stanford Research Institute are Futurists dedicated to building computing machines to mimic human capabilities; Autonomous Robotics – Cyborgs – Transhumanism – Cloning – Mind Control – Behavioral Modification – Human Engineering aka Human Enhancement. SRI International is a lead intelligence and psychological -biological operations contractor to the Pentagon with 150 medical – scientific laboratories in Menlo Park, California. They are considered the “soul” of Silicon Valley and are in large part responsible for the destruction of American democracy and the decline of morality.

If I was found guilty of a crime to justify what is being done to me, why was I not charged and allowed to defend myself (?)

I was approved for criminal black budget military – biomedical scientific experimentation, abuse and torture with Satellite Electromagnetic Radiation (emr) High Tech Weapon Technology; i.e., Mind – Body Invasive Technologies and there needs to be an investigation immediately.

If my name was registered with the Secret FISA Court as someone to be watched or as an enemy combatant, - do I not have the right as an American citizen to see the evidence presented for which I was obviously found guilty of so that I can defend myself (?)

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Lynn Bahren- --

Burlington, VT

cc: WILLIAM H. SORRELL, Esq., VT State Attorney General, 109 Main Street, #1, Montpelier, VT 05609-1001

lb

Enclosure

Some of us who are targeted with this weaponized technology wonder if the families of people like the Arizona Congress woman who was shot – if family members are aware of USAF Patent Technology and numerous other Corporate Patents of the same technology going back to the 1970's that puts voices in the heads of people who can be mind controlled to kill and other weapons systems like Silent Sound (?)

This is something also that deserves an investigation and should not be dismissed.

UK NETWORK FOR SURVIVING STALKING (www.nss.org.uk/)

Posted by LIM SC on February 2, 2011 at 9:30am

eBook : The Truth Will Set You Free (90 Days Money Back Guarantee) Check It Out

Posted by LIM SC on February 1, 2011 at 11:26pm

Coercive persuasion

Posted by Jay Sinn on February 1, 2011 at 5:29pm

Coercive persuasion comprises social influences capable of producing substantial changes in behavior, attitude, and ideology through the use of coercive tactics and persuasion, via interpersonal and group-based influences.The term was coined by Edgar Schein[1] in 1961 in relation to his study of Chinese POWs' indoctrination. According to Schein, the essence of coercive persuasion, ..., is to produce ideological and behavioral changes in a fully conscious, mentally intact individual. Schein notes that elements of coercive persuasion exist in many areas of human endeavor, such as college fraternities, established religion, social rehabilitation programmes, the armed forces, and other conventional institutions. Schein also suggests that the popular image of brainwashing as entailing "extensive self-delusion and excessive [mental] distortion [...] is a false one." [2]Martyn Carruthers has the following definition: "Coercive persuasion attempts to force people to change beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors using psychological pressure, undue influence, threats, anxiety, intimidation, and/or stress. (Coercive persuasion has been called mind control and brainwashing.) [3]Coercive persuasion is studied in managerial psychology, psychology of religion, epistemology, civil law (legal system), politics, diplomacy, and different aspects of sociology.In academic fields, the terms coercive persuasion, coercive psychological systems, or coercive influence are often used interchangeably.Coercive persuasion is used as a deterrent in diplomacy and warfare, using a threat to use force, or a credible threat to escalate a crisis or war to a more dangerous level.[4]Some scholars such as Michael Langone or J.K. Ungerleider use the term coercive persuasion in the same sense as brainwashing, thought reform or mind control[5] [6] and connect it to methods of cultic groups in acquiring and retaining members. This view is disputed by scholars such as James Gene[7] and Bette Nove Evans [8], among others, while the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion[9] stated in 1990 that there was not sufficient research to permit a consensus on the matter and that "one should not automatically equate the techniques involved in the process of physical coercion and control with those of nonphysical coercion and control". A similar statement was made by the American Psychological Association in 1987 when they rejected the report produced by the "APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control" (DIMPAC)).[10], stating that "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." See also Brainwashing controversies.In the cases of Molko vs. Holy Spirit Association and Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology, coercive persuasion was connected by the plaintiffs to the legal concept of undue influence[11][12].Tactics mentioned in describing coercive persuasion can include everyday methods like hard sale tactics or environmental control like described by Robert Lifton.Many refrences at the end of the article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_persuasion

Correspondent Drew Griffin Investigates for CNN in ‘Rogue Justice’

Posted by Jay Sinn on February 1, 2011 at 3:55pm

Drew Griffin reports for ‘Rogue Justice’ debuting Sunday, Jan. 30 at 8:00pm ET & PT on CNN/U.S.Greg Taylor spent 17 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit. Floyd Brown, also innocent, was forcibly detained in a mental institution for 14 years. The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) was at the center of both cases.CNN correspondent Drew Griffin investigates for Rogue Justice, airing on CNN/U.S on Sunday, Jan. 30 at 8:00p.m. ET and PT, and replaying on Saturday, Feb. 5, also at 8:00p.m. ET and PT.In Taylor’s case, the jury took just hours to sentence him to life, but the SBI had withheld evidence from the jury. In Brown’s case, an SBI agent claimed that he had written down verbatim a six-page confession that Brown had given him describing the murder in intricate detail. But Brown has the I.Q. of a seven-year-old and is incapable of even spelling his own name. Though there was no physical evidence linking Brown to the crime, the alleged confession resulted in his confinement to a mental institution.“The SBI lab became the prosecution’s lab, not the justice system’s lab,” says Christine Mumma, Taylor’s attorney.Taylor’s and Brown’s cases raised serious questions about the SBI and its investigations. An audit of the SBI’s crime lab ordered by the State Attorney General’s office in North Carolina found more than 200 cases between 1986 and 2003 in which blood test results were withheld from trial. In many cases, the evidence withheld would have helped the defense. In three of those cases, defendants were executed; four more remain on death row.Taylor’s and Brown’s terrifying experiences and personal struggles to achieve justice can be seen in separate features on www.cnn.com, as well as a video excerpt from the documentary. Digital material from Rogue Justice will be available beginning today, Thursday, Jan. 27.Rogue Justice was produced by Brian Rokus and Taryn Fixel. Kathy Slobogin is managing editor and Scott Matthews is the executive producer for CNN’s Special Investigations and Documentaries unit.CNN Worldwide, a division of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., a Time Warner Company, is the most trusted source for news and information. Its reach extends to nine cable and satellite television networks; one private place-based network; two radio networks; wireless devices around the world; CNN Digital Network, the No. 1 network of news Web sites in the United States; CNN Newsource, the world’s most extensively-syndicated news service; and strategic international partnerships within both television and the digital media.-30-CONTACT: Jennifer Dargan 404.885.4638

恭喜發財 HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR

Posted by LIM SC on February 1, 2011 at 3:06pm

The New York Times : UK Psychiatrist Did A Study Concluded That Not All People Participating Mind Control Sites Are Delusional

Posted by LIM SC on February 1, 2011 at 9:00am

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Dr. Bell, whose study was published in the journal Psychopathology, said that it does not suggest all people participating in mind-control sites are delusional, and that a firm diagnosis of psychosis could only be done in person.

For people who say they are the target of mind control or gang stalking, there may be enough evidence in the scientific literature to fan their beliefs. Many sites point to MK-ULTRA, the code name for a covert C.I.A. mind-control and chemical interrogation program begun in the 1950s.

Recently the sites have linked to an article published in September in Time magazine, “The Army’s Totally Serious Mind-Control Project,” which described a $4 million contract given to the Army to develop “thought helmets” that would allow troops to communicate through brain waves on the battlefield. CHECK IT OUT !

Neural devices stimulate growing market

Rick Merritt

11/12/2010 1:33 PM EST

Comments

#1070 UK Officer Fired for putting wife on, "No-Fly" List

Domestic Intelligence (DOMINT)

Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance by independently operating NSA personnel.

NSA’s domestic electronic surveillance network

Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering

Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance.

NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation

Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM

National Security Agency Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology

NSA Techniques and Resources

Remote RNM Devices

Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas

Chemicals and Drugs into Residential Buildings with hidden NSA-lnstalled and maintained plastic plumbing lines.

Brief Overview of Proprietary U.S. Intelligence/Anti-Terrorist Equipment Mentioned.

Brain Implants for MIND CONTROL // Minduploading

Brain Implants for MIND CONTROL!

Domestic Intelligence (DOMINT)

Individual citizens occasionally targeted for surveillance by independently operating NSA personnel.

NSA’s domestic electronic surveillance network

Signals Intelligence Remote Computer Tampering

Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance.

NSA Signals Intelligence Use of EMF Brain Stimulation

Capabilities of NSA operatives using RNM

National Security Agency Signals Intelligence Electronic Brain Link Technology

NSA Techniques and Resources

Remote RNM Devices

Spotters and Walk-Bys in Metropolitan Areas

Chemicals and Drugs into Residential Buildings with hidden NSA-lnstalled and maintained plastic plumbing lines.

Brief Overview of Proprietary U.S. Intelligence/E.U

Mind Control / Uploading ,,,

EURON: European Robotics research Network

SMARTER THAN YOU THINK

Aiming to Learn as We Do, a Machine Teaches Itself

By STEVE LOHR

Published: October 4, 2010

Smarter Than You Think

Multimedia

Note: this page contains paid content.