Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs
We should urge government start investigating the abuse and torture of remote electromagnetic mind control technologies from cases which have strong evidences. If government start investigating few cases which have strong evidences, all victims will see the hope that their cases would be investigated soon.
My case have strong fact and evidence, we encourage all victims to collect strong facts and evidences. If you have strong facts and evidences, please leave an comments to this discussion.
The Fact and evidence of abuses and tortures of mind control technologies:
I was controlled by remote Voice to Skull technologies and Mind Control technologies, and I was brought inside US Embassy in Hong Kong
What constitutes evidence of electronic harassment?
Posted by Jeremy on 6th January 2011
In this article:
•An invisible crime, committed at the speed of light
•How helpful are statements from the alleged developers or possessors of electronic harassment technology?
•When measurements are helpful, and when they’re not
•Can you prove that mind-invasive technology is being used against you, and how does that help you?
•On the utility of witnesses
To help targeted individuals complaining about electronic harassment with gathering evidence of what’s happening to them, and to demonstrate to skeptics what a difficult hurdle TI’s face, I’d like to go over what TI’s need to do to make their case in the court of public opinion, or the court of law.
An invisible crime, committed at the speed of light
When a person is shot with a gun, there are mountains of evidence left behind:
•the bullet, enabling investigators to narrow down the search for the weapon considerably;
•the entry/exit wounds;
•evidence placing the victim at a specific location when he was shot – blood droplets, footprints, and clothing fibers;
•ballistic evidence, allowing the bullet to be traced back to its source with some reliability;
•evidence left on the bullet itself – barrel markings, DNA of the suspect, and the suspect’s fingerprints (even if they’ve been wiped off1);
•a loud noise, alerting bystanders that a crime has been committed, in real time;
•and more, depending on the circumstances.
However, let’s suppose a person is attacked electromagnetically. What evidence is left behind?
•The target’s uncorroborated account of the sensations he felt.
The attack itself is completely silent and invisible. The attacker could be miles away.2 The equipment used is unknown, and effectively untraceable. There might be no visible or identifiable marks on the victim, as emerging nonlethal weapon (NLW) technologies are intended to inflict intolerable pain on a target, rather than damage him.3
How helpful are statements from the alleged developers or possessors of electronic harassment technology?
Do patents prove anything?
A patent only proves that someone is interested in developing the capabilities described in the patent. Without a working model, it doesn’t prove that the device described actually does what is claimed.
In fact, we would expect exactly the opposite; that any U.S. patents pertaining to clandestine technologies targets are complaining about would be dead ends. If they actually described working devices, they would be suppressed under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, because of national security concerns.4
Does a stated intent to develop capabilities prove anything?
Military agencies regard deception as a tool of warfare, and may arrange the publication of disinformation about future capabilities. It’s best not to read too much into statements regarding hypothesized technological developments. Occasionally, agencies like DARPA or MITRE corporation will publish requests for proposals or speculative strategies for the uses of futuristic technology. These statements may be useful for investigators who are trying to divine the shape of things to come, but aren’t useful for proving capabilities exist.
Does a statement or demonstration of capabilities prove anything?
Statements from established, credible sources about their capabilities are generally considered strong evidence. If those sources are caught lying, their credibility is undermined.
So a statement of capabilities is very useful in terms of making your case to the general public that a particular device exists and is or will soon be used. A demonstration is proof that it exists and is being used. However:
•A demonstration or credible statement of capabilities doesn’t prove that the device in question is being used against you;
•over-using references to these public statements or demonstrations may be portrayed as evidence of “obsession” on the part of a “deluded” writer.
When making your case, image is everything.
When measurements are helpful, and when they’re not
Can you measure it?
Measuring equipment that you can afford will, realistically, measure emissions in limited frequency ranges: 1 Hz to 21 Ghz is the maximum range of ‘affordable’ spectrum analyzer equipment as of 2010; RF detectors are much cheaper, but have a more limited range. This is troublesome, because at least one directed-energy weapon on the market (the Active Denial System) operates at a much higher frequency range.
For a measuring device to capture an RF signal, not only does the signal have to be in the frequency range that the device will pick up; the signal also has to be long enough in duration for the device to pick up. A military-grade implant might be picking up frequency-hopping signals of very short duration – microseconds or even nanoseconds between hops. A commercial spectrum analyzer wouldn’t be able to capture these signals.
Furthermore, an investigator has to be there with measuring equipment when the signal is being transmitted. The harassment might be turned off when the target has arranged for instruments to be present.
With obstacles like these, it’s not surprising that many TI’s don’t even try to capture measurements.
Are your measurements inaccurate or misleading?
Incorrect alignment of the measuring device, or proximity to large metal objects, can give misleading readings to unsophisticated investigators.5 Also, your detector may be deliberately set off.
What have you measured?
If you’ve recorded a signal that coincides with pain or distress, have you determined that a specific person is attempting to harm you?
Harm: ANSI has set standards for maximum acceptable levels of short-term microwave exposure; ionizing radiation has well-known lethal dosages; and at least one study shows a very strong correlation between long-term proximity to cell towers and certain kinds of ailments.6 If you can capture signals corresponding to the strength, duration, and radio-frequency of these harmful EM emissions, you know you’re being harmed by those emissions, and you’ll eventually be able to make a good case to the public and to a court.
If mind-invasive technology is being used, you need much more personalized evidence of harm. See my remarks in the next section.
Specific person: you have to trace the signal back to the source. You can do this with very inexpensive equipment – such as an RF detector – assuming the source isn’t adjusting his attacks in real time. Signal strength will increase with proximity to the source.
What have you gained by obtaining evidence that a specific person is attempting to harm you?
You’ve gained focus for a more thorough (and expensive) investigation by expert witnesses whose testimony will support your claim in court.
If you can prove harm, you’ll eventually have a criminal case. (Assault is illegal, whether it was performed with a microwave weapon or a baseball bat; there doesn’t have a law specifically prohibiting the use of a particular implement against you.)
Can you prove that mind control technology is being used against you, and how does that help you?
U.S. researchers recently demonstrated silk-based implants, with miniscule electrodes imprinted on a silk substrate that melts away, allowing for precise placement of the electrodes.7 This isn't necessarily happening to TI's, but it pays to think outside the box when considering implant architectures.
Many targets repeatedly get ‘hit’ in the same areas; some have discernible bulges under their skin suggesting the presence of foreign objects. It’s possible they have implants in those areas; it’s even possible that mind control technology requires the presence of implants.
Possible methods of detection include:
•Metal detectors or stud finders;
•An MRI reading;
•A CT scan, CAT scan, or X-ray reading.
However, just because the suspected implant or implants aren’t detected by commercial equipment, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’ve previously suggested that targets might be carrying covert taggants which enable tracking and targeting8, or the implants themselves might be microscopic.
Detection of covert taggants or implants will have to be through more indirect means. I’ll get to that in a minute.
So you’ve found an implant. What have you proved?
Unfortunately, not much. You have a foreign object in your body; it is in your possession; you have the right to disable it or remove it.
You don’t know who put it there, or how it’s affecting your body or nervous system. (However, a link between certain kinds of implants and cancer has been previously demonstrated.6.)
How likely are you to capture signals?
If hypothesized mind control signals are directed at implants in your body, they might (as discussed above in the Measurements section) be undetectable on commercial spectrum analyzers. Furthermore, the target’s harassers are unlikely to cooperate.
In my opinion, the best shot involves going after targets who are getting some form of highly frequent harassment (typically 24/7 voice-to-skull or subliminals).
It’s possible that targets getting highly frequent harassment are getting it from programmable implants – a telling sign would be that the harassment doesn’t go away when the target is inside a shielded environment, but it gets “dumber”. Programmable implants might be getting signals from the outside world only occasionally.
Will capturing signals help you?
For the sake of argument, let’s say the signals can be captured, and you manage to capture them. What’ve you got?
You’ve got a recording of an unusual signal that means nothing to the layman, or even to most civilian scientists and engineers. You have to demonstrate that this signal has an effect on you – and ideally, on others.
Having captured a mind control signal, if you can replay it and reproduce its effects on your nervous system or mind under controlled conditions, you now know that mind control technology is being used against you, and what its nature is.
You’re ready for a more focused – and expensive – investigation.
On the utility of witnesses
In the event that you find evidence linking attacks on you to a specific location, you’re almost ready to take legal action. However, you shouldn’t expect your adversary to lie down and accept a beating from the legal system; he might challenge you in court, and even counter-sue. You need credible expert witnesses who can verify or testify that attacks against you are coming from the location in question, and that they are harming you or causing you distress.
In the event you manage to capture signals to implants in your body (or mind control signals), expert witnesses will be an essential element of your proof that clandestine technology has been used against you. You would need to reproduce the signals’ effect on you in a shielded environment, in a double-blind study9, with reliable expert witnesses who understand the experiment and what’s being claimed.
The obstacles to proving the use of electronic harassment against a target are enormous, and even understated in this article. Much of what I’ve written above will not apply if the target’s harassers do not cooperate – or worse, act to mislead the target.
From our perspective, exposing targeting operations en masse is more economical and more likely than being able to prove they’re happening to a particular person. Skeptical third parties might be able to work wonders by bringing detection equipment with them on surprise visits to targeted individuals, but for them, talk is much cheaper.
It’s been three years of overt electronic harassment for me, and much longer for others, but we’re still at an impasse.
Please go to LAST PAGE OF "Replies to this Discussion" to read NEWEST Information