NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber Security, Spying
Posted on October 7, 2014. Filed under: LATEST NEWS, NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber Security, Spying | Tags: Cannabis, cyber security, DEA, decoy, drugs, FACEBOOK, Fake Identity, Hemp, Justice Department, Marijuana, Narcotic Drugs, police, Spying |
This image obtained by The Associated Press shows a Facebook page for "Sondra Prince." The Justice Department said Tuesday it is reviewing a woman’s complaint that a Drug Enforcement Administration agent set up a fake Facebook account using her identity. AP
WASHINGTON – The Drug Enforcement Administration set up a fake Facebook account using photographs and other personal information it took from the cellphone of a New York woman arrested in a cocaine case, to trick her friends and associates into revealing incriminating drug secrets.
The Justice Department initially defended the practice in court filings but now says it is reviewing whether the Facebook guise went too far.
Sondra Arquiett’s Facebook account looked as real as any other. It included photos of her posing on the hood of a sleek BMW and a close-up with her young son and niece. She even appeared to write that she missed her boyfriend, who was identified by his nickname.
But it wasn’t her. The account was the work of DEA Agent Timothy Sinnigen, Arquiett said in a federal lawsuit. The case is scheduled for trial next week in Albany, New York.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement Tuesday that officials are reviewing both the incident and the practice, although in court papers filed earlier in the case, the federal government defended it. Fallon declined to comment further because the case is pending.
Details of the case were first reported by the online news site Buzzfeed.
Arquiett was arrested in July 2010 on charges of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. She was accused of being part of a drug distribution ring run by her boyfriend, who had been previously indicted.
In a court filing in August, the Justice Department contended that while Arquiett didn’t directly authorize Sinnigen to create the fake account, she "implicitly consented by granting access to the information stored in her cellphone and by consenting to the use of that information to aid in … ongoing criminal investigations."
The government also contended that the Facebook account was not public. A reporter was able to access it early Tuesday, though it was later disabled.
A spokesman for Facebook declined Tuesday to comment on the legal dispute. Facebook’s own policies appear to prohibit the practice, telling users that "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."
Lawyers for Arquiett did not immediately respond to email and telephone messages from The Associated Press. Arquiett did not immediately respond to an email asking to discuss the case.
Arquiett said in her filing that she suffered "fear and great emotional distress" and was endangered because the fake page gave the impression that she was cooperating with Sinnigen’s investigation as he interacted online with "dangerous individuals he was investigating."
The fate of Arquiett’s fight against the government’s use of her identity online is unclear.
A staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation – a civil liberties organization – Nate Cardozo, said the government’s rationale was "laughable."
"If I’m cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, ‘Can I search your phone?’ and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime – not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context," Cardozo said,
Lawrence Friedman, a privacy and constitutional law professor at New England Law-Boston, a law school, said the Arquiett’s "privacy claim rises and falls on the extent to which she consented to what it is the government says she consented to."
If Arquiett agreed to cooperate with an ongoing investigation and allow her phone to be used as part of that probe – as the government alleged in its court filing – then it would be harder for her to prove that her privacy rights were violated, Friedman said. If her phone were seized without consent, then she would have an easier claim.
"Basically, when you strike that kind of deal, you kind of have to play by the government’s rules," Friedman said. "This is not the ordinary situation in which the person walking down the street can have their identity stolen by the government," he said. "She was involved in a criminal investigation."
The US government can brand you a terrorist based on a Facebook post. We can’t let them make up the rules
Innocent people’s lives are being ruined. Why isn’t anyone watching the watchlist?
theguardian.com, Saturday 30 August 2014 09.00 EDT
Reasonable suspicion is based on a circular logic – people can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being suspected terrorists – that is ultimately backwards, and must be changed. Illustration: Joelle L / Flickr via Creative Commons Illustration: Joelle L / Flickr via Creative Commons
The US government’s web of surveillance is vast and interconnected. Now we know just how opaque, inefficient and discriminatory it can be.
As we were reminded again just this week, you can be pulled into the National Security Agency’s database quietly and quickly, and the consequences can be long and enduring. Through ICREACH, a Google-style search engine created for the intelligence community, the NSA provides data on private communications to 23 government agencies. More than 1,000 analysts had access to that information.
This kind of data sharing, however, isn’t limited to the latest from Edward Snowden’s NSA files. It was confirmed earlier this month that the FBI shares its master watchlist, the Terrorist Screening Database, with at least 22 foreign governments, countless federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, plus private contractors.
The watchlist tracks “known” and “suspected” terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans. It’s also based on loose standards and secret evidence, which ensnares innocent people. Indeed, the standards are so low that the US government’s guidelines specifically allow for a single, uncorroborated source of information – including a Facebook or Twitter post – to serve as the basis for placing you on its master watchlist.
Of the 680,000 individuals on that FBI master list, roughly 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation”, according to the Intercept. These individuals don’t even have a connection – as the government loosely defines it – to a designated terrorist group, but they are still branded as suspected terrorists.
The absurdities don’t end there. Take Dearborn, Michigan, a city with a population under 100,000 that is known for its large Arab American community – and has more watchlisted residents than any other city in America except New York.
These eye-popping numbers are largely the result of the US government’s use of a loose standard – so-called “reasonable suspicion” – in determining who, exactly, can be watchlisted.
Reasonable suspicion is such a low standard because it requires neither “concrete evidence” nor “irrefutable evidence”. Instead, an official is permitted to consider “reasonable inferences” and “to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience”.
Consider a real world context – actual criminal justice – where an officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop a person in the street and ask him or her a few questions. Courts have controversially held that avoiding eye contact with an officer, traveling alone, and traveling late at night, for example, all amount to reasonable suspicion.
This vague criteria is now being used to label innocent people as terrorism suspects.
Moreover, because the watchlist isn’t limited to known, actual terrorists, an official can watchlist a person if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is a suspected terrorist. It’s a circular logic – individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being suspected terrorists – that is ultimately backwards, and must be changed.
The government’s self-mandated surveillance guidance also includes loopholes that permit watchlisting without even showing reasonable suspicion. For example, non-citizens can be watchlisted for being associated with a watchlisted person – even if their relationship with that person is entirely innocuous. Another catch-all exception allows non-citizens to be watchlisted, so long as a source or tipster describes the person as an “extremist”, a “militant”, or in similar terms, and the “context suggests a nexus to terrorism”. The FBI’s definition of “nexus”, in turn, is far more nebulous than they’re letting on.
Because the watchlist designation process is secret, there’s no way of knowing just how many innocent people are added to the list due to these absurdities and loopholes. And yet, history shows that innocent people are inevitably added to the list and suffer life-altering consequences. Life on the master watchlist can trigger enhanced screening at borders and airports; being on the No Fly List, which is a subset of the larger terrorist watchlist, can prevent airline travel altogether. The watchlist can separate family members for months or years, isolate individuals from friends and associates, and ruin employment prospects.
Being branded a terrorism suspect also has far-reaching privacy implications. The watchlist is widely accessible, and government officials routinely collect the biometric data of watchlisted individuals, including their fingerprints and DNA strands. Law enforcement has likewise been directed to gather any and all available evidence when encountering watchlisted individuals, including receipts, business cards, health information and bank statements.
Watchlisting is an awesome power, and if used, must be exercised prudently and transparently.
The standards for inclusion should be appropriately narrow, the evidence relied upon credible and genuine, and the redress and review procedures consistent with basic constitutional requirements of fairness and due process. Instead, watchlisting is being used arbitrarily under a cloud of secrecy.
A watchlist saturated with innocent people diverts attention from real, genuine threats. A watchlist that disproportionately targets Arab and Muslim Americans or other minorities stigmatizes innocent people and alienates them from law enforcement. A watchlist based on poor standards and secret processes raises major constitutional concerns, including the right to travel freely and not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law.
Indeed, you can’t help but wonder: are you already on the watchlist?
Originally posted on FOX2now.com:
CALLAHAN, FL – A Florida mom says her four-year-old was expelled from his preschool over a message she posted on her personal Facebook page.
Ashley Habat says she and her son will were running late for school. It was picture day at Sonshine Christian Academy
“The administrator of the preschool checking him in she’s like “Well it’s picture day Will are you excited?” and you know he of course just went on to class but I had mentioned that they didn’t give enough notice. And she’s like, “Well we put it in his folder last week.” said Ashley Habat.
So Habat says she took to Facebook, saying she just wanted to vent her frustrations. She also never thought the school would ever see her post.
“They couldn’t see it, it was private to my friends only.” said Ashley Habat.
The post read, “Why is it that every single…
View original 194 more words
Posted on August 7, 2014. Filed under: CIVIL RIGHTS, Corporate Cannabis, LATEST NEWS, NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber Security, Spying | Tags: Arizona, Cannabis, Georgia, Hemp, investors, Kentucky, Maine, Marijuana, Missouri, New Jersey, wiretapping |
Once upon a time, AT&T (T) urged its customers to "reach out and touch someone" with a long-distance phone call (which Ma Bell could charge extra for at the time). Those were simpler times.
Today, in our post-9/11 world, if you reach out by phone, you may end up touching more people than you bargain for. And those people may have guns, badges and court-approved wiretap warrants.
Top States for Wiretapping
This is especially true in Nevada, Colorado, California and New York. A recent report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts said these four states issue the majority of wiretap authorizations in America (measured proportionate to their populations):
- Nevada authorized 38.2 wiretap authorizations per 500,000 residents
- Colorado authorized 12.4 per 500,000
- California authorized 11.7 per 500,000
- And New York State authorized 10.7 per 500,000
Rounding out the top 10 states for state-sanctioned wiretapping are Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri and New Jersey — in that order. In each state, state and federal law enforcement sought and received authorizations to conduct more than six wiretaps per 500,000 residents. (In case you were wondering, that office points out that it is not authorized to collect and report data on NSA wiretaps regulated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978).
According to Pew Research, which analyzed the report, 90 percent of the wiretaps authorized in 2013 were authorized to investigate "criminal drug-related offenses."
The 3,576 total wiretaps authorized resulted in 3,744 arrests (more than the number of wiretaps authorized). But the conviction rate from these wiretaps was less than 19 percent — just 709 convictions. (Curiously, AO also notes that in all of 2013, only one application for a wiretap was turned down.)
If that sounds bad, it is. According to a 2010 annual statistical report filed by the Justice Department’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the average conviction rate in the federal criminal judicial system for that year was 93 percent.
What It Means to Investors
But we digress. To find out how all of this may be relevant to investors, let’s return to the 90 percent figure. You’ll notice that while Nevada is the No. 1 state for wiretapping, No. 2 is Colorado — a state which in January decriminalized the recreational use of marijuana.
Now, there’s been a lot of talk lately about the opportunities that marijuana legalization — first in Colorado, and more recently in Washington state — might offer for investors. Over the past year, shares of GW Pharmaceuticals (GWPH) have risen more than eight times, and microcap Advanced Cannabis Solutions (CANN) have more than tripled in value. Small cap Medical Marijuana (MJNA) has risen 50 percent.
Still, the fact remains that even if individual states are beginning to move toward legalization, the federal government and its Drug Enforcement Administrationstill consider marijuana an illegal drug, period. Until this changes, the fear of federal prosecution of a state-legal drug therefore still hangs over this industry.
Reading the Tea Leaves at the DEA
What will be our first clue that the DEA has begun backing off enforcement of drug laws in places like Colorado, where the state strictures are loosening? It could be this AO report we’ve been talking about up above. Let’s quickly run back down the list of what we know:
- Colorado is one of the states most active in issuing state and federal wiretap authorizations.
- Nine out of 10 such wiretaps concern drug offenses.
- Colorado no longer finds marijuana as offensive as it used to.
It will be interesting to watch what happens to Colorado’s rank on the list of most frequent wiretappers when the AO issues its report on 2014 wiretap authorizations next summer. If Colorado falls a lot from No. 2, this could mean that law enforcement has decided to back off from prosecuting (at least marijuana-related) drug offenses in the state.
Such a development would bode well for marijuana stocks as more and more states vote to legalize, suggesting the DEA will bow to local interpretations of the drug laws.
If, on the other hand, Colorado continues to rank highly in the wiretap ratings — look out. That will be our first clue that the heat is still on.
Motley Fool contributor Rich Smith has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned either.
Social Networking Giant, Facebook (NASDAQ FB) may well be tracking all your talks. And this might even be happening when the messenger App is apparently off. As the government spy apparatus can monitor cell phone conversations even when the cell is off – and the battery can’t be removed. This raises further questions about Privacy control from Facebook.
This follows a report on Fox News notes that the Federal Bureau of Investigations can track cell phone conversations even when the phone is turned off. Fox News reports that FBI officials say they use the method to track critical “mafia” conversations.
The answer, notes Fox News host Shepherd Smith, is to take the battery out of your cell phone. One element the report didn’t mention, oddly, is that on most modern cell phones it is now impossible to remove the battery. In other words a powerful spy tool has been created so the NSA and other government agencies can in some cases illegally track your every movement and monitor your every conversation and — it can’t be turned off.
Facebook Inc: Facebook Privacy Issues
This comes on top of reports that Facebook (NASDAQ FB) may be tracking your cell phone conversations. Facebook terms and conditions required to accept to install the Facebook Messenger application now say Facebook may turn on your microphone without your permission, take pictures and videos. This information can be passed to the US government, which is working to various degrees with different firms.
According to reports, Twitter is fighting government spying on its users, while Facebook seems to take a more cooperative response. A Facebook spokesperson did not comment. Many in the media continue to overlook the growing intrusive and illegal nature of government. For instance, the most significant issue in modern press era is the Edward Snowden defections. Recent revelations that the CIA spied on the US Senate are a critical piece to explaining why Snowden’s revelations are important – the misuse of excessive spying capabilities – most of the real issues seldom receive attention.
Posted on July 7, 2014. Filed under: Federal Government, Healthcare, LATEST NEWS, Mental Health, NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber Security, Spying, Opinions, Patients, Political, Psychoactives, US Health Care, War and Order, WTF! | Tags: electromagnetic, Human Rights, LIDA Machine, mind control, MIND CONTROL EFFECTS, radio waves, ULTRASOUND AND VOICE-FM, UNCLASSIFIED SATELLITE TRACKING HUMAN IMPLANT SYSTEM |
I RECEIVED THIS AS A COMMENT ON THE KY BLOG FROM SOMEONE NAMED "J" WHO SHALL REMAIN ANONYMOUS HERE:
HERE IS THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE ON THE BLOG http://usmjparty.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/facebook-totally-screwed-with-a-bunch-of-people-in-the-name-of-science/
BELOW IS HIS REPLY TO IT:
The State of Unclassified and Commercial Technology Capable of Some Electronic Mind Control Effects
To help the reader appreciate the importance of this matter…
“We need a program of psychosurgery and political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. “The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.
“Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electrical stimulation of the brain.”
Dr. Jose Delgado (MKULTRA experimenter who demonstrated a radio- controlled bull on CNN in1985) Director of Neuropsychiatry, Yale University Medical School
Congressional Record No. 26, Vol. 118, February 24, 1974
Monkeys in restraint, wires coming out of top of skull, left image “normal”, right image with electric current being fed into the monkey’s brain – note pupil sizes and clenched teeth! These images portray Dr. Delgado’s ruthless disregard for life, pain, and suffering!
This document is organized so that a narrative article appears at the top, followed by appendices.
– BLACK = NARRATIVE ARTICLE
– BLUE = APPENDICES
I. LIMITATIONS… 3
III. III. MIND CONTROL EFFECTS…4
IV. IV. MAJOR TECHNOLOGY CLASSES… 9
V. V. PULSED MICROWAVE……12
VI. VI. ULTRASOUND AND VOICE-FM… 15
VII. VII. THROUGH-WALL RADAR…19
VIII. VIII. THOUGHT READING…21
IX. IX. IMPLANTS…23
X. CONCLUSION… 25
PM1…..THE LIDA MACHINE……28
PM2…..DR. ALLAN FREY’S PAPER…… 32
PM3…..NASA ARTICLE…… 43
PM4…..SCIENCE & ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES/KOHN’S PROJECTS… 46
PM5…..BIOLOGICAL AMPLIFICATION (OF EM SIGNALS)…48
PM6…..DR. DON R. JUSTESEN’S REPORT: 1974 VOICE TO SKULL SUCCESS……. 52
PM7…..U.S. GOVT DOCUMENT RE: RUSSIAN MIND CONTROL… 54
PM8…..OAK RIDGE LABS AND OTHER BULLETINS…58
US1…..SILENT SOUND, BRITISH ITV & NEXUS MAGAZINE… 64
US2…..U/SONIC MIND CONTROL COMMON, UNCLASSIFIED, MENSA EDITOR FINDS… 76
US3…..U/SONIC U.S. ARMY WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT…… 87
US4….SILENT HYPNOSIS, VOICE-FM COMMERCIAL METHOD… 88
US5….”ACOUSTIC SPOTLIGHT”, CAN TARGET ONE PERSON IN CROWD… 92
TWR1…THE LADS DEVICE…100
TWR2…THE RADAR FLASHLIGHT…. 102
TWR3…MILLIVISION THRU-CLOTHING/WALL RADAR… 103
TWR4…GROUND [**OR HOME/APT WALL**] PENETRATING RADAR… 104
TR1…COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE THOUGHT- READING DEVICES… 108
TR2…IMPLANTED RATS CAN CONTROL DEVICES WITH THOUGHT… 112
TR3…..THOUGHT READING BY RADIO SIGNAL…. 114
TR4…..ELECTRONICS SEES WHAT A CAT SEES… 117
TR5….MIND SWITCH – THINK APPLIANCES ON, OFF, OR ADJUST… 120
IMP1….PROMOTION OF HUMAN IMPLANTATION BY NIH… 123
IMP2….ITALIAN DOCTOR REPORTS HUMAN IMPLANTATION… 126
IMP3….IMPLANT TRANSMITS PHYSIO- AND PSYCHO- PARAMETERS BY RADIO… 127
IMP4….DR JOSE DELGADO’S “STIMOCEIVER”/HUMAN IMPLANT EXPERIMENTS…… 130
IMP5….UNCLASSIFIED SATELLITE TRACKING HUMAN IMPLANT SYSTEM…. 134
The author acknowledges that this article falls short of a rigorous academic paper. This is explained by the fact that all involuntary neuro-electromagnetic experimentees are kept in a sort of “barely alive” condition, with significant health problems, and either unable to work or just barely able to hold a job with limited earning potential. Furthermore, since the perpetrators constantly work to prevent the public from knowing anything about electronic mind control, evidence is obtainable with great difficulty, and often the only evidence is of lower quality than would be accepted for a scientific treatise. In short, everything in this article represents a struggle against immense odds. We ask readers to understand this and hope that those who are not under electronic attack and surveillance will try through independent channels to find better quality proof.
Electronic mind control technology had its start in the 1950s, as an obscure branch of the CIA’s MKULTRA project group. Just as organized crime is not stopped by hearings and court cases, neither did this originally obscure branch of MKULTRA activity, when the institutional/ drug/child abuse phases were exposed by the U.S.
Senate’s Church- Inouye hearings in the late 1970s. No criminal proceedings followed, and only two civil law suits (Orlikow and Bonacci) have succeeded. This assembly of unclassified and commercial literature is to show investigators and concerned citizens that in spite of the tightest possible information blackout imposed in the early 1970s, enough of the classified mind control technology has leaked out to show that significant classified accomplishments are overwhelmingly likely, and in need of disclosure, here at the end of the 20th century. It is hoped that government and media, who have shied away from this topic for decades, preferring the warm fuzzy feelings that “this can’t be true”, will read about the unclassified and commercial devices and understand the implications of continued turning the other way.
III. MIND CONTROL EFFECTS
Since government-backed electronic mind control is classified at the highest levels in all technologically capable governments, the description of effects is taken from the personal experiences of over 300 known involuntary experimentees. The experimentees without exception report that once the “testing” begins, the classified experiment specification apparently requires that the “testing” be continued for life. Many are young seniors, some in their 70s and 80s. Some have children and the children are often subjected to the same “testing” as their parent(s). The effects pattern:
This article is about unclassified/commercial technologies which can produce some of the effects of the classified equipment, not testimonials, but this much has become clear over time: – All “testing” consists of unique, carefully engineered-unprovable events to produce psychological stress in the victim. There are no events which do not fit that apparent purpose. – In every series of stress event type, ONE introductory event of very high energy/effect is staged. The obvious purpose is to be certain the victim KNOWS this is external harassment, and not just “bad luck”. From that time forward, the experimenters appear to apply “Pavlovian training” so that they can get the victim to “jump” (or react in some way) to the same effect at a tiny fraction of the initial “introductory” event. – This type of testing started during the Cold War, and shows every characteristic of being for military and intelligence psychological warfare purposes.
This type of testing all points to CONTROL of the test subject. Endlessly repeated words generated inescapably within the skull are just one hypnosis-like experience. Given that CONTROL is the likely ultimate purpose, INVOLUNTARY test subjects become a necessity. Thus, the phenomenon of people apparently being chosen at random for this “work”. – Given a requirement for INVOLUNTARY test subjects, the ONLY group with the necessary funds and legal powers is GOVERNMENT. Private contractors are no doubt the main perpetrators to keep the “work” well covered, but without secret complicity of GOVERNMENT, this expensive, extensive, and illegal atrocity simply could not happen.
The effect types categorized:
Here is a list of most of the common effects. It is not exhaustive, but is intended to show the reader how the perpetrators’ pallette of stress effects is broken down. Indent levels are used to show categories and sub-categories:
1. Invasive At-a-Distance Body Effects (including mind)
a. Sleep deprivation and fatigue
i. Silent but instantaneous application of “electronic caffeine” signal, forces awake and keeps awake
ii. Loud noise from neighbours, usually synchronized to attempts to fall asleep
iii.Precision-to-the-second “allowed sleep” and “forced awakening”; far too precise and repeated to be natural iv. Daytime “fatigue attacks”, can force the victim to sleep and/or weaken the muscles to the point of collapse
b. Audible Voice to Skull (V2S)
i. Delivered by apparent at a distance radio signal
ii. Made to appear as emanating from thin air
iii.Voices or sound effects only the victim can hear
c. Inaudible Voice to Skull (Silent Sound)
i. Delivered by apparent at a distance radio signal; manifested by sudden urges to do something/go somewhere you would not otherwise want to; silent (ultrasonic) hypnosis presumed
ii. Programming hypnotic “triggers” – i.e. specific phrases or other cues which cause specific involuntary actions
d. Violent muscle triggering (flailing of limbs)
i. Leg or arm jerks to violently force awake and keep awake
ii. Whole body jerks, as if body had been hit by large jolt of electricity
iii.Violent shaking of body; seemingly as if on a vibrating surface but where surface is in reality not vibrating
e. Precision manipulation of body parts (slow, specific purpose)
i. Manipulation of hands, forced to synchronize with closed-eyes but FULLY AWAKE vision of previous day; very powerful and coercive, not a dream
ii. Slow bending almost 90 degrees BACKWARDS of one toe at a time or one finger at a time
iii. Direct at-a-distance control of breathing and vocal cords; including involuntary speech
iv. Spot blanking of memory, long and short term
f. Reading said-silently-to-self thoughts
i. Engineered skits where your thoughts are spoken to you by strangers on street or events requiring knowledge of what you were thinking
ii. Real time reading subvocalized words, as while the victim reads a book, and BROADCASTING those words to nearby people who form an amazed audience around the victim
g. Direct application of pain to body parts
i. Hot-needles-deep-in-flesh sensation
ii. Electric shocks (no wires whatsoever applied)
iii.Powerful and unquenchable itching, often applied precisely when victim attempts to do something to expose this “work”
iv. “Artificial fever”, sudden, no illness present
v. Sudden racing heartbeat, relaxed situation
h. Surveillance and tracking
i. Thru wall radar and rapping under your feet as you move about your apartment, on ceiling of apartment below
ii. Thru wall radar used to monitor starting and stopping of your urination – water below turned on and off in sync with your urine stream
iii. Loud, raucous artificial bird calls everywhere the victim goes, even into the wilderness
2. Invasive Physical Effects at a Distance, non-body
a. Stoppage of power to appliances (temporary, breaker ON)
b. Manipulation of appliance settings
c. Temporary failures that “fix themselves”
d. Flinging of objects, including non-metallic
e. Precision manipulation of switches and controls
f. Forced, obviously premature failure of appliance or parts
3. External Stress-Generating “Skits”
a. Participation of strangers, neighbours, and in some cases close friends and family members in harassment
i. Rudeness for no cause
ii. Tradesmen always have “problems”, block your car, etc.
iii. Purchases delayed, spoiled, or lost at a high rate
iv. Unusually loud music, noise, far beyond normal
b. Break-ins/sabotage at home
i. Shredding of clothing
ii. Destruction of furniture
iii. Petty theft
iv. Engineered failures of utilities
c. Sabotage at work
i. Repetitive damage to furniture
ii. Deletion/corruption of computer files
iii. Planting viruses which could not have come from your computer usage pattern
iv. Delivered goods delayed, spoiled, or lost at a high rate
v. Spreading of rumors, sabotage to your working reputation
vi. Direct sabotage and theft of completed work; tradesmen often involved and showing obvious pleasure Illustration of the bodily effects
IV. MAJOR TECHNOLOGY CLASSES
These technology classes are for the UNclassified and commercial equipment which can emulate the “real” classified mind control equipment. Effect section 2, “Invasive Physical Effects at-a-Distance”, clearly establishes the existence of remote precision manipulation of objects which is far beyond the capabilities of unclassified and commercial equipment at the time of writing.
REMOTE PHYSICAL MANIPULATION is not covered in this article, but the reader should know that both NASA and IEEE have noted successes in creating very small antigravity effects (which are not due to simple magnetism.)
TRANSMISSION METHODS FOR NEURO- EFFECTIVE SIGNALS:
– Pulsed microwave (i.e. like radar signals)
– ultrasound and voice-FM (transmitted through the air) While transmission of speech, dating from the early 1970s, was the first use of pulsed microwave, neuro- effective signals can now cause many other nerve groups to become remotely actuated. At time of writing, that technology appears to be classified.
PAVLOVIAN HYPNOTIC TRIGGERS:
A [Pavlovian] hypnotic trigger is a phrase or any other sensory cue which the victim is programmed to involuntarily act on in a certain way. The 50s-70s MKULTRA survivors can still be triggered from programming done decades ago. A name “Manchurian candidate”, from a novel by John Marks, is used to describe a person who carries Pavlovian triggers. One of the main goals of the institutional/drug/child abuse phases of the CIA MKULTRA atrocities (1950′s through 1970′s) was to implant triggers using a “twilight state” (half-conscious) medication and tape recorded hypnosis. The ultimate goal was to have the acting out of Pavlovian triggers erased from the victim’s memory. Using one of the two transmission methods above, these triggers are now planted using either of the above two transmission methods, but with the words moved up just above (or near the top of) the audible frequency range. The result is that hypnotic triggers are planted without the subject being aware. This technology was used in the Gulf War and has a name: “Silent Sound”
THROUGH-WALL SURVEILLANCE METHODS:
So-called “millimeter wave” scanning. This method uses the very top end of the microwave radio signal spectrum just below infra-red. To view small objects or people clearly, the highest frequency that will penetrate non- conductive or poorly- conductive walls is used. Millimeter wave scanning radar can be used in two modes:
– Passive (no signal radiated, uses background radiation already in the area to be scanned, totally UNdetectable)
– Active (low power millimeter wave “flashlight” attached to the scanner just as a conventional light mounted on a camcorder), or, the use of archaeological ground penetrating radar
Thought reading can be classed as a “through wall surveillance” technology. Thought reading, in the unclassified/commercial realm, can be broken down as follows:
– Thru-skull microwave reading
– Magnetic skull-proximity reading
The reverse of biofeedback. Those low frequency electrical brain rhythms which are characteristics of various moods and states of sleep can not only be read out using biofeedback equipment or EEG machines, but using radio, sound, contact electrodes, or flashing lights, the moods and sleep states can be generated or at least encouraged using brain entrainment devices. Brain entrainment signals cannot carry voice, which is a much higher frequency range. Brain entrainment can, however, be used to “set up” a target to make him/her more susceptible to hypnosis. These major technology classes can produce some of the observed mind control effects, FROM HIDING AND UNDETECTABLY, with the exception of remote physical manipulation. IMPLANTATION is sometimes used to assist the above technologies but with current devices, implants are no longer required. Diagram showing the overall method, based entirely on unclassified 1974 technology, of how SILENT hypnosis may be transmitted to a target without the target’s being aware. This technique is probably the most insidious, because it allows months and years of programming and Pavlovian trigger-setting, while the target cannot resist.
V. PULSED MICROWAVE
Pulsed microwave voice-to-skull (or other-sound-to-skull) transmission was discovered during World War II by radar technicians who found they could hear the buzz of the train of pulses being transmitted by radar equipment they were working on. This phenomenon has been studied extensively by Dr. Allan Frey, whose work has been published in a number of reference books. What Dr. Frey found was that single pulses of microwave could be heard by some people as “pops” or “clicks”, while a train of uniform pulses could be heard as a buzz, without benefit of any type of receiver. Dr. Frey also found that a wide range of frequencies, as low as 125 MHz (well below microwave) worked for some combination of pulse power and pulse width. Detailed unclassified studies mapped out those frequencies and pulse characteristics which are optimum for generation of “microwave hearing”. Very significantly, when discussing electronic mind control, is the fact that the PEAK PULSE POWER required is modest – something like 0.3 watts per square centimeter of skull surface, and this power level is only applied for a very small percentage of each pulse’s cycle time. 0.3 watts/sq cm is about what you get under a 250 watt heat lamp at a distance of one meter. It is not a lot of power. When you take into account that the pulse train is OFF (no signal) for most of each cycle, the average power is so low as to be nearly undetectable. Frequencies that act as voice-to-skull carriers are not single frequencies, as, for example TV or cell phone channels are. Each sensitive frequency is actually a range or “band” of frequencies. A technology used to reduce both interference and detection is called “spread spectrum”. Spread spectrum signals have the carrier frequency “hop” around within a specified band. Unless a receiver “knows” the hop schedule in advance, there is virtually no chance of receiving or detecting a coherent readable signal. Spectrum analyzers, used for detection, are receivers with a screen. A spread spectrum signal received on a spectrum analyzer appears as just more “static” or noise. My organization was delighted to find the actual method of the first successful UNclassified voice to skull experiment in1974, by Dr. Joseph C. Sharp, then at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
Dr. Sharp’s basic method is shown in Appendix PM6, below. A Frey- type audible pulse was transmitted every time the voice waveform passed down through the zero axis, a technique easily duplicated by
ham radio operators who build their own equipment. A pattern seems to be repeated where researchwhich could be used for mind control starts working, the UNclassified researchers lose funding,and in some cases their notes have been confiscated, and no further information on that research track is heard in the unclassified press. Pulsed microwave voice-to-skull research is one such track.
Illustration showing the principle behind pulsed microwave voice-to-skull
PM1 http://www.raven1.net/lida.htm, photo and description of the Korean War LIDA machine, a radio frequency
device developed by Soviet Russia and used in the Korean War onallied prisoners of war. BRAIN ENTRAINMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE RADIO FREQUENCY SECTION BECAUSE THE MOST INSIDIOUS METHOD OF BRAIN ENTRAINMENT IS SILENTLY, USING RADIO SIGNALS.
PM2 http://www.raven1.net/frey.htm , Human Auditory System Response
To Modulated Electromagnetic Energy, Allan H. Frey, General Electric Advanced Electronics Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
PM3 http://www.raven1.net/v2s-nasa.htm , NASA technical report abstract stating that speech-to-skull is feasible
PM4 http://www.raven1.net/v2s-kohn.htm , DOD/EPA small business initiative (SBIR) project to study the UNclassified use of voice-to- skull technology for military uses. (The recipient, Science and Engin- eering Associates, Albuquerque NM, would not provide me details on the telephone)
PM5 http://www.raven1.net/bioamp.htm , Excerpts,
Proceedings of Joint Symposium on Interactions of Electromagnetic Waves with Biological Systems, 22nd General Assembly of the International Union of Radio Science, Aug 25 – Sep 2, 1987, Tel Aviv, Israel SHOWS BIOLOGICAL AMPLIFICATION OF EM SIGNALS, pointing to relative ease with which neuro-electromagnetic signals can trigger effects
PM6 http://www.raven1.net/v2succes.htm , Excerpt,
Dr. Don R. Justesen, neuropsychological researcher, describes Dr. Joseph C. Sharp’s successful transmission of WORDS via a pulse-rate- modulated microwave transmitter of the Frey type.
PM7 http://www.raven1.net/russ.htm , FOIA article circulated among U.S. agencies describing the Russian TV program “Man and Law”, which gives a glimpse into the Russian mind control efforts.
(Dr. Igor Smirnov, a major player, was used as a consultant to the FBI at the Waco Branch Davidian standoff.)
VI. ULTRASOUND AND VOICE-FM
Ultrasound is vibration of the air, a liquid, or a solid, above the upper limit of human hearing which is roughly 15,000 Hz in adults. Voice-FM uses a tone at or near that upper limit, and the speaker’s voice VARIES the frequency slightly. Either a “tinnitus-like sound” or nothing is heard by the target. Ultrasound/voice-FM can be transmitted in these ways:
– Directly through the air using “air type transducers”
– Directly to the brain using a modulated microwave pulse train
– Through the air by piggybacking an ultrasound message on top of commercial radio or television
The use of commercial radio or television requires that the input signal at the transmitter be relatively powerful, since radio and TV receivers are not designed to pass on ultrasound messages. However, the average radio and TV receiver does not simply stop ultrasound, rather, the ability to pass ultrasound messages “rolls off”, i.e. degrades, as the frequency is increased. Today’s radios and TVs can carry enough ultrasound messaging to be “heard” by the human brain (though not the ear) to be effective in conveying hypnosis. This was proven by the U.S. military forces in the Gulf War.
Ultrasounds (and voice-FM’s) main advantage in mind control work is that it can carry VERBAL hypnosis, more potent than simple biorhythm entrainment. The brain CAN “hear” and understand this “inaudible voice”, while the ear cannot. Once you can convey hypnotic suggestion which cannot be consciously heard, you have eliminated a major barrier to the subject’s acceptance of the words being transmitted. In previous decades, “subliminal advertising” using voice and images at normal frequencies were “time sliced” into an apparently normal radio or TV broadcast. This apparently did not work well, and now voice-FM “subliminal learning tapes” commercially available have superseded the time slice method. Illustration showing the operation of “silent sound” with the human hearing system, using near-ultrasound, FREQUENCY MODULATED voice One method for projecting either audible voice or voice-FM over long distances, virtually undectable if line of sight, is the “acoustic heterodyne” or “HyperSonic Sound” system, patented by American Technologies Corporation, San Diego CA, http://www.atcsd.com Illustration showing the principle of an ultrasound projection system capable of true ventriloquism at a distance, by American Technologies Corporation (licensor), Akai Japan (licensee)
US1 http://www.raven1.net/silsoun2.htm , ITV Silent Sound report with comments by Judy Wall, Editor, Resonance, newsletter of MENSA’s bioelectromagnetic special interest group.
US2 http://www.raven1.net/commsolo.htm , an article by Judy Wall outlining instances of UNclassified, openly-admitted- to, electronic mind control operations by government agencies.
US3 http://www.raven1.net/armyparw.htm , an SBIR (small business initiative contract) which clearly shows intent to use ultrasound as an anti-personnel weapon, including one-man portability and with power to kill.
US4 http://www.raven1.net/ssnz.htm , a commercial New Zealand company, Altered States Ltd., sells tapes which perform “suggestions” (i.e. hypnosis but not called such) using the Lowery patent voice-FM method, to hypnotize without the subject being aware. This is a key feature of neuro-electromagnetic involuntary experiments.
US5 http://www.raven1.net/acouspot.htm , a page originally from the MIT Media Lab’s acoustic engineer, Joseph Pompeii. Describes a similar technique under commercial and military development (American Technologies Corp., San Diego) under the trade name “Hypersonic Sound”. Shows that sound can be focused to the extent of targeting just one person in a crowd, acoustically, using ultrasound.
VII. THROUGH-WALL RADAR
When “millimeter wave” microwave signals are received, the waves are so small that they can display a two-dimensional outline of an object. Lower frequency radar can only show a “blip” which indicates an object’s presence or motion, but not its outline. A millimeter wave dish acts as a camera lens to focus incoming millimeter wave signals on to a plate with a two-dimensional array of elements sensitive to millimeter wave frequencies, in exactly the same way a camera focusses light on to a piece of film. Each of the sensitive elements is scanned in a definite order, just as with a TV camera and screen, and a picture showing the outline of an object is formed. If no signal is sent out by the scanner, it is called “passive” millimeter wave radar. If the subject is illuminated by a separate source of millimeter wave signals, it is an “active” scanner. Since passive systems can penetrate clothing and non-conductive walls UNDETECTABLY, it is obvious that with just a small millimeter wave “flashlight”, non-conductive walls can be scanned through and still very little detectable signal is present. Millimeter wave through-clothing, through-luggage is currently in use at airports. In addition to mind control experimental observation, millimeter wave scanners are ideal for stalkers and voyeurs, since the subject is portrayed in the nude. Millimeter wave scanners can be purchased from Millivision Corp., Northampton MA, info at http://www.millivision.com
TWR1 http://www.raven1.net/lads.htm , LADS, Life Assessment Detector System, a product of VSE Corporation, can scan through more than a hundred feet of non-conductive or poorly- conductive material to detect a beating human heart
TWR2 http://www.raven1.net/nij_p44.htm , Prototype version of the “radar flashlight”, which is a more portable version of the LADS system above. Can also be used to illuminate a subject for use with a Millivision thru-clothing/thru-nonconductive wall scanner
TWR3 http://www.raven1.net/millitec.htm , October 1995 blurb from Popular Mechanics, with photos showing hidden guns used for demo purposes (Millitech sold the rights to Millivision)
TWR4 http://www.raven1.net/ptscradr.htm , March 22 text taken from Patriot Scientific Corporation’s web site, their ground-penetrating radar section. Patriot’s GPR overcomes the limitation of the Millivision passive radar, i.e. inability to penetrate partially conductive walls.
VIII. THOUGHT READING
“Thought reading” appears to be one of the EASIER components of electronic mind control, given that commercial and unclassified thought reading devices are available and being actively developed. Thought reading is an enhanced version of computer speech recognition, with EEG waves being substituted for sound waves. The easiest “thought” reading is actually remote picking up of the electro- magnetic activity of the speech-control muscles. When we “say words to ourselves, silently”, or, read a book, we can actually FEEL the slight sensations of those words in our vocal muscles – all that is absent is the passage of air. Coordinated speech signals are relatively strong and relatively consistent. The other kind of “thought reading”, i.e. “MINING” someone’s brain for information from a distance is SPECULATIVE. We targetted individuals have no way to verify that is happening, however, we do know that we are “fed” hypnotic signals to force consistent “neutral” content (but of different character than prior to becoming test subjects,) DREAMS. These forced, neutral content (“bland” content) dreams occur every single night and may represent the experimenters’ efforts to have our experiences portray themselves in such dreams, in effect, MINING our experiences. Again, this is SPECULATION, but it seems very logical.
Appendix TR4, referenced below, confirms the ability of current unclassified technology to actually see what a living animal sees, electronically. It is therefore extremely likely that these forced dreams can be displayed on the experimenters’ screens in an adjacent apartment or adjacent house, (which are made obvious to the involuntary experimentee.) Finally, among the 300 known neuro-electromagnetic experimentees, we often have strangers either tell us what we are thinking, say they can pick up our broadcast thoughts, or tell us about events inside our homes at times when they could not have seen from the outside. BUGS are not used, and they have been searched for.
TR1 http://www.raven1.net/thotuncl.htm , Commercially available thought-reading devices, both implant-style and non-implant
TR2 http://www.raven1.net/ratrobot.htm , Implanted rats can control devices with their thoughts
TR3 http://www.raven1.net/ebrain.htm , from the July 1973 issue of Popular Electronics, a system to read EEG signals (the stuff of which thought reading is made) at a distance by passing a radio signal through the human head and analyzing the passed-through signal.
TR4 http://www.raven1.net/elecvisn.htm , an article describing electronically reading a cat’s brain waves and constructing a real-time image on screen from the EEG traces
TR5 http://www.raven1.net/m_switch.htm , the text from a site describing a mind-controlled “switch”, which can not only turn appliances on or off, but also adjust controls like volume.
Electronic implants are actually one of the older forms of electronic mind control technology. Implants can either receive instructions via radio signals, passing them to the brain, or, can be interrogated via external radio signals to read brain activity at a distance. Many of the about 300 known involuntary neuro- electromagnetic experimentees do not have implants, but have an aggressive and thorough regimen of mind control effects anyway. IMPLANTS ARE STILL SIGNIFICANT, though, for these reasons:
1. Their use, since World War II and continuing to the present day, associated with MKULTRA atrocities, is a crystal clear indication that a MOTIVE POOL of unethical researchers has existed through the late 1970s. The same people, none jailed, are still working, by and large. The reader can see that the existence of the same motive pool is overwhelmingly likely, given that no social changes have occurred which would prevent that.
2. The fact that to date (autumn 1999) no victim who has had implants removed has ever been able to get custody of the removed implant shows that research programmes using implants are still quite active and obviously quite important to someone. See http://www.morethanconquerors.simplenet.com/MCF/ , the Mind Control Forum for details on involuntary experimentees’ implantation and removal experiences.
3. The use of implants shows that, in the field of involuntary human experimentation, not every perpetrator group has access to the most sophisticated (implant-less) technology. Since implants for beneficial purposes are actively being promoted by NIH, it is obvious they will not disappear any time soon.
IMP1 http://www.raven1.net/centneur.htm , an article showing that human implantation is being done and even encouraged by the U.S. NIH (National Institutes of Health). While this public information is for the public good, it is a small step to move from publicly known and VOLUNTARY implantation to CONCEALED implantation for INvoluntary and criminal purposes.
IMP2 http://www.raven1.net/italydoc.htm , a testimonial by an Italian psychiatrist who has been assisting involuntary experimentees; this doctor began by assisting [Satanic or other] ritual abuse victims. Apparently involuntary brain implantation is alive and well in Italy, why not elsewhere?
IMP3 http://www.raven1.net/telectro.htm , a project abstract by AF, awarded to perform unclassified research and development of human implants which can read both physio- and PSYCHO- parameters.
IMP4 http://www.raven1.net/stimocvr.htm , an excerpt describing human implantation for purposes of two-way communication with the brain by way of implants and FM VHF radio. Blows away any doubts that human implantation has not been done, and even more, that the U.S. military are involved.
IMP5 http://www.raven1.net/sattrack.htm , describes an unclassified human implant satellite tracking system, ostensibly for benevolent use. (No method for avoiding unethical uses is described.) Applied Digital Solutions, Inc., Palm Beach, Florida.
Conclusion? While the documentary evidence in this report does not exactly “prove” we are being targeted by intelligence/defense contractors using classified electronic weapons, it certainly eliminates the argument that such devices are impossible, don’t exist, or that government has “no interest” in them, or that the “were tried years ago but didn’t work”. Add in the experiences of victims of the Tuskegee untreated syphilis experiments, the feeding of radioactive food to uninformed U.S. citizens, and the atrocities perpetrated under the institutional/drug/child abuse phases of the CIA’s MKULTRA programmes, and you have more than enough grounds to petition for an independent, open investigation. No doubt there were citizens of ancient Pompeii who argued that Vesuvius could not possibly erupt in their lifetimes. Faced with all the evidence, no honest government can afford to take the risk that electronic mind control activity may be happening, controlled from their own “back rooms”.
If any doubts as to the importance of this issue remain, please see below what the U.S. NSA (National Security Agency) says would be the result of releasing information on electronic mind control:
UP TO THIS PAGE, THIS REPORT HAS BEEN A NARRATIVE AUTHORED BY ELEANOR WHITE. THE APPENDICES ARE A COLLECTION OF THE BEST QUALITY FACTUAL MATERIAL FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES OUTSIDE THE INVOLUNTARY ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPERIMENTEE GROUP. THIS MATERIAL MAY BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED FROM REFERENCES PROVIDED.
APPENDIX PM1 … THE LIDA MACHINE
Associated Press (Exact date not shown on copy but tests took place 1982/83) Loma Linda (Veterans Hospital research unit) San Bernardino County a Soviet device that bombards brains with low- frequency (Eleanor White’s note: More likely radio frequency )carrier which is modulated or pulsed at brain-entrainment rates] radio waves may be a replacement for tranquilizers and their unwanted side effects, says a researcher, but it’s use on humans poses ethical and political questions. The machine, known as the LIDA, is on loan to the Jerry L. Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital through a medical exchange program between the Soviet Union and the United States. Hospital researchers have found in changes behaviour in animals. “It looks as though instead of taking a valium when you want to relax yourself it would be possible to achieve a similar result, probably in a safer way, by the use of a radio field that will relax you” said Dr. Ross Adey, chief of research at the hospital. [Missing one line on the photocopy] … manual shows it being used on a human in a clinical setting, Adey said. The manual says it is a “distant pulse treating apparatus” for psychological problems, including sleeplessness, hyper- tension and neurotic disturbances. The device has not been approved for use with humans in this country, although the Russians have done so since at least 1960, Adey Said. Low frequency radio waves simulate the brain’s own electromagnetic current and produce a trance-like state. Adey said he put a cat in a box and turned on the LIDA. “Within a matter of two or three minutes it is sitting there very quietly … it stays almost as though it were transfixed” he said. The hospital’s experiment with the machine has been underway for three months and should be completed within a year, Adey said. Eleanor White’s comments (Dr. Byrd’s statement follows):
1. Heavy “fatigue attacks” are a very common experience among involuntary neuro-electromagnetic experimentees. The LIDA device could, right out of the box, be used as a fatigue attack weapon, FROM HIDING, thru non- or semi-conductive walls.
2. If the LIDA machine is tuned for tranquilizing effect, then it might also be tuned for “force awake” and other effects too. This device is a psychotronic weapon, AS IS. A TV documentary stated the Russian medical establishment considers this 1950s device obsolete. (Wonder what has taken it’s place?)
Below is a statement from Dr. Eldon Byrd, U.S. psychotronic researcher who funded Dr. Adey’s work with the LIDA machine:
“The LIDA machine was made in the 1950′s by the Soviets. The CIA purchased one through a Canadian front for Dr. Ross Adey, but didn’t give him any funds to evaluate it. “I provided those funds from my project in 1981, and he determined that the LIDA would put rabbits into a stupor at a distance and make cats go into REM. “The Soviets included a picture with the device that showed an entire auditorium full of people asleep with the LIDA on the podium. The LIDA put out an electric field, a magnetic field, light, heat, and sound (of course light and heat are electromagnetic waves, but at a much higher frequency than the low frequencies of the electric and magnetic fields mentioned above). “The purported purpose of the LIDA was for medical treatments; however, the North Koreans used it as a brain washing device during the Korean War. The big question is: what did they do with the technology? It could have been improved and/or made smaller. It is unlikely that they abandoned something that worked. “Direct communication with Ross Adey: While he was testing the LIDA 4, an electrician was walking by and asked him where he got the “North Korean brain washing machine”. Ross told him that is was a Russian medical device. “The guy said he had been brain-washed by a device like that when he was in a POW camp. They placed the vertical plates alongside his head and read questions and answers to him. He said he felt like he was in a dream. Later when the Red Cross came and asked questions, he responded with what had been read to him while under the influence of the device. He said he seemed to have no control over the answers.
“The LIDA is PATENTED IN THE US. Why? They are not sold in the US–the only one I know that exists is the one that was at Loma Linda Medical Center where Adey used to work. Eldon”
**Involuntary neuro-experimentation activist Cheryl Welsh, Davis CA, sent in this clipping from an article by Dr. Ross Adey but without complete bibliographic references: “Soviet investigators have also developed a therapeutic device utilizing low frequency square wave modulation of a radiofrequency field. This instrument known as the Lida was developed by L. Rabichev and his colleagues in Soviet Armenia, and is designed for “the treatment of neuropsychic and somatic disorders, such as neuroses, psychoses, insomnia, hypertension, stammering, bronchia asthma, and asthenic and reactive disturbances”. It is covered by U.S. Patent # 3,773,049. In addition to the pulsed RF field, the device also delivers pulsed light, pulsed sound, and pulsed heat. Each stimulus train can be independently adjusted in intensity and frequency. The radiofrequency field has a nominal carrier frequency of 40 MHz and a maximum output of approximately 40 Watts.
The E- field is applied to the patient on the sides of the neck through two disc electrodes approximately 10 cm in diameter. The electrodes are located at a distance of 2-4 cm from the skin. [Eleanor White's comment: The fact that Dr. Ross Adey mentioned an "audience" being put to sleep by the LIDA suggests that the "E-field" electrodes may not play an essential role. The radio signal appears to be the primary cause of the sleep/trance effect.] Optimal repetition frequencies are said to lie in the range from 40 to 80 pulses per minute. Pulse duration is typically 0.2 sec. In an 8 year trial period, the instrument was tested on 740 patients, including adults and children. Positive therapeutic effects were claimed in more…”
APPENDIX PM2 – FREY’S PAPER
Human Auditory System Response to Modulated Electromagnetic Energy
ALLAN H. FREY
General Electric Advanced Electronics Center Cornell University Ithaca, New York TRANSCRIPTION, Courtesy of MindNet Archives, Mike Coyle posted at http://www.morethanconquerors.simplenet.com/MCF/
Frey, Allan H., Human Auditory system response to modulated electromagnetic energy. J. Appl. Physiol. 17(4): 689-692. 1962.
(*) Asterisks indicate unreadable characters in the original copy.
NOTE: In 1962, frequencies were expressed as kiloCYCLES, megaCYCLES, etc., with abbreviations being kc, mc
–The intent of this paper is to bring a new phenomena to the attention of physiologists. Using extremely low average power densities of electromagnetic energy, the perception of sounds was induced in normal and deaf humans. The effect was induced several hundred feet from the antenna the instant the transmitter was turned on, and is a function of carrier frequency and modulation. Attempts were made to match the sounds induced by electromagnetic energy and acoustic energy. The closest match occurred when the acoustic amplifier was driven by the rf transmitter’s modulator. Peak power density is a critical factor and, with acoustic noise of approximately 80 db, a peak power density of approximately 275 mw / rf is needed to induce the perception at carrier frequencies 125 mc and 1,310 mc. The average power density can be at rf as low as 400 _u_w/cm2. The evidence for the various positive sites of the electromagnetic energy sensor are discussed and locations peripheral to the cochlea are ruled out.
Received for publication 29 September 1961.
A significant amount of research has been conducted with the effects of radio-frequency (rf) energy on organisms (electro- magnetic energy between 1 kc and ** Gc). Typically, this work has been concerned with determining damage resulting from body temperature increase. The average power densities used have been on the order of 0.1-t w/cm2 used over many minutes to several hours. In contrast, using average power densities measured in microwatts per square centimeter, we have found that ****r effects which are transient, can be induced with rf energy. Further, these effects occur the instant the transmitter is turned on. With appropriate modulation, the perception of different sounds can be induced in physically deaf, as well as normal, in human subjects at a distance of inches up to thousands of feet from the transmitter. With somewhat different transmission parameters, you can induce the perception of severe buffeting of the head, without such apparent vestibular symptoms as dizziness or nausea. Changing transmitter parameters down, one can induce a “pins-and- needles” sensation. Experimental work with these phenomena may yield information on auditory system functioning and, more generally, in the nervous system function. For example, this energy could possibly be used as a tool to explore nervous system coding, possibly using Neider and Neff’s procedures (1), and for stimulating the nervous system without the damage caused by electrodes. Since most of our data have been obtained of the “rf sound” and only the visual system has previously been shown to respond to electromagnetic energy, this paper will be concerned only with the auditory effects data. As a further restriction, only data from human subjects will be reported, since only this data can be discussed meaningfully at the present time. The long series of studies we performed to ascertain that we were dealing with a biological significant phenomena (rather than broadcasts from sources such as loose fillings in the teeth) are summarized in another paper (2), which also reports on the measuring instruments used in this work. The intent of this paper is to bring this new phenomenon to the attention of physiologists. The data reported are intended to suggest numerous lines of experimentation and indicate necessary experimental controls. Since we are dealing with a significant phenomenon, we decided to explore the effects of a wide range of transmitter parameters to build up the body of knowledge which would allow us to generate hypotheses and determine what experimental controls would be necessary. Thus, the numbers given are conservative; they should not be considered precise, since the transmitters were never located in ideal laboratory environments. Within the limits of our measurements, the orientation of the subject in the rf field was of little consequence. Most of the transmitters used to date in the experimentation have been pulse modulated with no information placed on the signal. The rf sound has been described as being a buzz, clicking, hiss, or knocking, depending on several transmitter parameters, i.e., pulse width and pulse-repetition rate (PRF). The apparent source of these sounds is localized by the subjects as being within, or immediately behind the head. The sound always seems to come from within or immediately behind the head no matter how the subjects twists or rotates in the rf field. Our early experimentation, performed using transmitters with very short square pulses and high pulse-repetition rates, seemed to indicate that we were dealing with harmonics of the PRF. However, our later work has indicated that this is not the case; rather, the rf sound appears to be incidental modulation envelope on each pulse, as shown in Fig 1.
Some difficulty was experienced when the subjects tried to match the rf sound to ordinary audio. They reported that it was not possible to satisfactorily match the rf sound to a sine wave or to white noise. An audio amplifier was connected to a variable bypass filter and pulsed by the transmitter pulsing mechanism. The subjects, when allowed to control the filter, reported a fairly satisfactory match. The subjects were fairly well satisfied with all frequencies below 5-kc audio were eliminated and the high- frequency audio was extended as much as possible. There was, however, always a demand for more high-frequency components. Since our tweeter has a rather good high-frequency response, it is possible that we have shown an analogue of visual phenomenon in which people see farther into the ultraviolet range when the lenses is eliminated from the eye. In other words, this may be a demonstration that the mechanical transmission system of the ossicles cannot respond to as high a frequency as the rest of the auditory system. Since the rf bypasses the ossicle system and the audio given the subject for matching does not, this may explain the dissatisfaction of our subjects in the matching.
FIG. 1. Oscilloscope representation of transmitter output over time (pulse-modulated).
TRANSMITTER ELECTRONIC NOISE
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
— ————— ———–
ON OFF ON OFF
FIG. 2. Audiogram of deaf subject (otosclerosis) who had a “normal” rf sound threshold.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
0|—-|—-|—-|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–| A = RIGHT BONE
| | A | | | | | | | | |
|—-|—-B—-A–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–| B = LEFT BONE
| | | B | A | | | | | | |
LOSS(db) 20|—-|—-|—-B–B–AB-B–B–B–AB-|–| C =
| | | | | | | A | | | |
|—-|—-|—-|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–| D = RIGHT AIR
| | | | | | | | | | | C
| | C C C | | | | | C | |
| | D | D | | D | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
TABLE 1. Transmitter parameters
Trans- Frequency, Wave- Pulse Width, Pulses Sec.
mitter mc length, cm _u_sec
A 1,310 22.9 6 244 .0015
B 2,982 10.4 1 400 .0004
C 425 70.6 125 27 .0038
D 425 70.6 250 27 .007
E 425 70.6 500 27 .014
F 425 70.6 1000 27 .028
G 425 70.6 2000 27 .056
H 8,900 3.4 2.5 400 .001
FIG. 3. Attenuation of ambient sound with Flent antinoise stopples (collated from Zwislocki (3) and Von Gierke (4).
| | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
|—-|—|–|–|-|-|-|||—-|—|–|-||| A = FLENTS
| | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
10|—-|—|–|–|-|-|-|||—-|—|–|-||| B = THEORETICAL LIMIT
| | | | | | | ||| | | | ||| OF ATTENUATION BY
FUNCTION(db) |—-|—|–|–|-|-|-|||—-|—|–|-||| EAR
A | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
B | A A A | A AAA A| | | |||
| | | | B | | ||| | A | | |||
| | | | | | | ||| | | A |A|
| | | | | | | ||| B | | | |||
| | | | | | | ||| B | | B||
| | | | | | | ||| | B | | |||
| | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
| | | | | | | ||| | | | |||
100 1000 10000
TABLE 2. Theshold for perception of rf sound (ambient noise level 70- 90 db).
Avg Peak Peak Magnetic
Power Power Electric Field
Trans- Frequency, Duty Cy. Density, Density Field
mitter mc mw, cm2 mw, cm2 v cm turns, m
A 1,310 .0015 0.4 267 14 4
B 2,982 .0004 2.1 5,250 63 17
C 425 .0038 1.0 263 15 4
D 425 .007 1.9 271 14 4
E 425 .014 3.2 229 13 3
F 425 .028 7.1 254 14 4
FIG. 4. Threshold energy as a function of frequency
energy (ambient noise level 70-90 db).
(mw/cm2) | | | * |
| | | * |
| | | * |
| | | * |
| | | * |
| | * | |
| * * * * * * * | |
| | | |
Facebook is the best human research lab ever. There’s no need to get experiment participants to sign pesky consent forms as they’ve already agreed to the site’s data use policy. A team of Facebook data scientists are constantly coming up with new ways to study human behavior through the social network. When the team releases papers about what it’s learned from us, we often learn surprising things about Facebook — such as the fact that it can keep track of the status updates we never actually post. Facebook has played around with manipulating people before — getting 60,000 to rock the vote in 2012 that theoretically wouldn’t have otherwise — but a recent study shows Facebook playing a whole new level of mind gamery with its
guinea pigs users. As first noted by Animal New York, Facebook’s data scientists manipulated the News Feeds of 689,003 users, removing either all of the positive posts or all of the negative posts to see how it affected their moods. If there was a week in January 2012 where you were only seeing photos of dead dogs or incredibly cute babies, you may have been part of the study. Now that the experiment is public, people’s mood about the study itself would best be described as “disturbed.”
The researchers, led by data scientist Adam Kramer, found that emotions were contagious. “When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred,” according to the paper published by the Facebook research team in the PNAS. “These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks.”
The experiment ran for a week — January 11–18, 2012 — during which the hundreds of thousands of Facebook users unknowingly participating may have felt either happier or more depressed than usual, as they saw either more of their friends posting ’15 Photos That Restore Our Faith In Humanity’ articles or despondent status updates about losing jobs, getting screwed over by X airline, and already failing to live up to New Year’s resolutions. “*Probably* nobody was driven to suicide,” tweeted one professor linking to the study, adding a “#jokingnotjoking” hashtag.
The researchers — who may not have been thinking about the optics of a “Facebook emotionally manipulates users” study — jauntily note that the study undermines people who claim that looking at our friends’ good lives on Facebook makes us feel depressed. “The fact that people were more emotionally positive in response to positive emotion updates from their friends stands in contrast to theories that suggest viewing positive posts by friends on Facebook may somehow affect us negatively,” they write.
They also note that when they took all of the emotional posts out of a person’s News Feed, that person became “less expressive,” i.e. wrote less status updates. So prepare to have Facebook curate your feed with the most emotional of your friends’ posts if they feel you’re not posting often enough.
So is it okay for Facebook to play mind games with us for science? It’s a cool finding but manipulating unknowing users’ emotional states to get there puts Facebook’s big toe on that creepy line. Facebook’s data use policy — that I’m sure you’ve all read — says Facebookers’ information will be used “for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement,” making all users potential experiment subjects. And users know that Facebook’s mysterious algorithms control what they see in their News Feed. But it may come as a surprise to users to see those two things combined like this. When universities conduct studies on people, they have to run them by an ethics board first to get approval — ethics boards that were created because scientists were getting too creepy in their experiments, getting subjects to think they were shocking someone to death in order to study obedience and letting men live with syphilis for study purposes. A 2012 profile of the Facebook data team noted, “ Unlike academic social scientists, Facebook’s employees have a short path from an idea to an experiment on hundreds of millions of people.” This study was partially funded by a government body — the Army Research Office — and via @ZLeeily, the PNAS editor on the article says this study did pass muster with an Institutional Review Board, but we’ll see if it passes muster with users.
In it’s initial response to the controversy around the study — a statement sent to me late Saturday night — Facebook doesn’t seem to really get what people are upset about, focusing on privacy and data use rather than the ethics of emotional manipulation and whether Facebook’s TOS lives up to the definition of “informed consent” usually required for academic studies like this. “This research was conducted for a single week in 2012 and none of the data used was associated with a specific person’s Facebook account,” says a Facebook spokesperson. “We do research to improve our services and to make the content people see on Facebook as relevant and engaging as possible. A big part of this is understanding how people respond to different types of content, whether it’s positive or negative in tone, news from friends, or information from pages they follow. We carefully consider what research we do and have a strong internal review process. There is no unnecessary collection of people’s data in connection with these research initiatives and all data is stored securely.”
Ideally, Facebook would have a consent process for willing study participants: a box to check somewhere saying you’re okay with being subjected to the occasional random psychological experiment that Facebook’s data team cooks up in the name of science. As opposed to the commonplace psychological manipulation cooked up advertisers trying to sell you stuff.
Posted on November 30, 2013. Filed under: Federal Government, NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber Security, Spying, WTF! | Tags: Bilderbergs, Corporations, Council on Foreign Relations, Kennedy, lincoln, obama, Secret Societies, U.N., Whistle Blowers |
Lincoln, Kennedy & Obama’s "Warnings" ( Whistle Blowers Corps & Secret Societies )
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Obama and many more have openly said in public that Private Bankers, Corporations and Secret Societies like the Bilderbergs, Council On Foreign Relations and U.N. were the biggest threat to America. People just don’t what to listen, out of fear for the obvious. So they use defense mechanisms like displaced anger, Racism and they cling to the RED & Blue with a death grip. Meanwhile Campaign Contributions in Tax Havens like Ireland pay for, Outsourcing, Bank Fraud, Corporate Tax Fraud, Wars For Rothschild OPIC Profits and Wall Street Fraud. Meanwhile Corporation profits, Wall Street Profits, Taxes, Printing Money, Food Prices go up and American Citizens have less food on the table.
(People Need To Listen)
Whistle Blower Elected President Teddy Roosevelt "Warnings" Corporations : http://youtu.be/6FbQICYlwVo
Whistle Blower Elected President Kennedy "Warnings" Secret Society Speech : http://youtu.be/utYcFf93Srs
Whistle Blower Elected President Obama "Warnings" Secret Society Speech : http://youtu.be/wjssObygXaQ
Whistle Blower Ireland’s Parliament : http://youtu.be/CnJCvKA-oEU
Whistle Blower FBI : http://youtu.be/do_swOstGaI
Whistle Blower FED & World Bank : http://youtu.be/B1UwZIa9AFc
Whistle Blower CIA : http://youtu.be/fbVYF8gpNdo
Whistle Blower Economic Hit Man Killing US Jobs : http://youtu.be/wuxMcMwA3t8
Whistle Blowers TTP Outsourcing, SOPA Internet Regulation & Banker Deregulation : http://youtu.be/CS-x5SlcPPM
Whistle Blowers "Warnings" Private Banks, Corporations & Secret Societies : http://youtu.be/r4kmWZefTrQ
Whistle Blowers Confront Rothschild : http://youtu.be/6sCioKnpHdY
P.S. An election will only turn what could be a good man into a political puppet and put power into the wrong hands again.
I Will Not Comply !!! : I’m done being passive, you can wallow in your Government Sponsored delusion and petty arguments. I’m not supporting Corruption, Outsourcing, Bank Thievery, Debasing our Currency or Corporate Oil Trade Wars and Washington’s High Treason anymore. Every entitlement, service or oath breaker I have paid taxes for or supported to this day has turned out to be a legal battle or a total rip off. I Will Not Comply any more the IRS and ObamaCare will be getting a "I Will Not Comply" return letter this year. I use cash, barter, trade and go tax free from now on. If this government spies on us I will spy on them back. If this government taxes us I will tax them back. If this government fines, warrants or attacks, American Citizens, American Citizens will attack them back. If this government targets us at our homes American Citizens will Target them at theirs back. We are American Citizens ! We will not be tread on by this treasonous and corrupt government any more. Kevlar and High Tech Toys will not mean shit if they cross my line in the sand.
Sign the Stop Indefinite Detention Petition
To Your Senators
By Bruce Schneier, Special to CNN
updated 10:46 AM EDT, Tue June 18, 2013
Editor’s note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author of "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Needs to Survive."
(CNN) — Today, the United States is conducting offensive cyberwar actions around the world.
More than passively eavesdropping, we’re penetrating and damaging foreign networks for both espionage and to ready them for attack. We’re creating custom-designed Internet weapons, pre-targeted and ready to be "fired" against some piece of another country’s electronic infrastructure on a moment’s notice.
This is much worse than what we’re accusing China of doing to us. We’re pursuing policies that are both expensive and destabilizing and aren’t making the Internet any safer. We’re reacting from fear, and causing other countries to counter-react from fear. We’re ignoring resilience in favor of offense.
"Offensive Cyber Effect Operations," or OCEO, that are intriguing:
"OECO can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging. The development and sustainment of OCEO capabilities, however, may require considerable time and effort if access and tools for a specific target do not already exist.
"The United States Government shall identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power, establish and maintain OCEO capabilities integrated as appropriate with other U.S. offensive capabilities, and execute those capabilities in a manner consistent with the provisions of this directive."
Obama: NSA programs are transparent
Releasing NSA leaks: A public service?
NSA fallout could be ‘harmful’
Could the NSA leaker defect to China?
These two paragraphs, and another paragraph about OCEO, are the only parts of the document classified "top secret." And that’s because what they’re saying is very dangerous.
Cyberattacks have the potential to be both immediate and devastating. They can disrupt communications systems, disable national infrastructure, or, as in the case of Stuxnet, destroy nuclear reactors; but only if they’ve been created and targeted beforehand. Before launching cyberattacks against another country, we have to go through several steps.
We have to study the details of the computer systems they’re running and determine the vulnerabilities of those systems. If we can’t find exploitable vulnerabilities, we need to create them: leaving "back doors" in hacker speak. Then we have to build new cyberweapons designed specifically to attack those systems.
Sometimes we have to embed the hostile code in those networks, these are called "logic bombs," to be unleashed in the future. And we have to keep penetrating those foreign networks, because computer systems always change and we need to ensure that the cyberweapons are still effective.
Like our nuclear arsenal during the Cold War, our cyberweapons arsenal must be pretargeted and ready to launch.
That’s what Obama directed the U.S. Cyber Command to do. We can see glimpses in how effective we are in Snowden’s allegations that the NSA is currently penetrating foreign networks around the world: "We hack network backbones — like huge Internet routers, basically — that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one."
The NSA and the U.S. Cyber Command are basically the same thing. They’re both at Fort Meade in Maryland, and they’re both led by Gen. Keith Alexander. The same people who hack network backbones are also building weapons to destroy those backbones. At a March Senate briefing, Alexander boasted of creating more than a dozen offensive cyber units.
Longtime NSA watcher James Bamford reached the same conclusion in his recent profile of Alexander and the U.S. Cyber Command (written before the Snowden revelations). He discussed some of the many cyberweapons the U.S. purchases:
"According to Defense News’ C4ISR Journal and Bloomberg Businessweek, Endgame also offers its intelligence clients — agencies like Cyber Command, the NSA, the CIA, and British intelligence — a unique map showing them exactly where their targets are located. Dubbed Bonesaw, the map displays the geolocation and digital address of basically every device connected to the Internet around the world, providing what’s called network situational awareness. The client locates a region on the password-protected web-based map, then picks a country and city — say, Beijing, China. Next the client types in the name of the target organization, such as the Ministry of Public Security’s No. 3 Research Institute, which is responsible for computer security — or simply enters its address, 6 Zhengyi Road. The map will then display what software is running on the computers inside the facility, what types of malware some may contain, and a menu of custom-designed exploits that can be used to secretly gain entry. It can also pinpoint those devices infected with malware, such as the Conficker worm, as well as networks turned into botnets and zombies — the equivalent of a back door left open…
"The buying and using of such a subscription by nation-states could be seen as an act of war. ‘If you are engaged in reconnaissance on an adversary’s systems, you are laying the electronic battlefield and preparing to use it’ wrote Mike Jacobs, a former NSA director for information assurance, in a McAfee report on cyberwarfare. ‘In my opinion, these activities constitute acts of war, or at least a prelude to future acts of war.’ The question is, who else is on the secretive company’s client list? Because there is as of yet no oversight or regulation of the cyberweapons trade, companies in the cyber-industrial complex are free to sell to whomever they wish. "It should be illegal,’ said the former senior intelligence official involved in cyberwarfare. ‘I knew about Endgame when I was in intelligence. The intelligence community didn’t like it, but they’re the largest consumer of that business.’"
That’s the key question: How much of what the United States is currently doing is an act of war by international definitions? Already we’re accusing China of penetrating our systems in order to map "military capabilities that could be exploited during a crisis." What PPD-20 and Snowden describe is much worse, and certainly China, and other countries, are doing the same.
All of this mapping of vulnerabilities and keeping them secret for offensive use makes the Internet less secure, and these pre-targeted, ready-to-unleash cyberweapons are destabalizing forces on international relationships. Rooting around other countries’ networks, analyzing vulnerabilities, creating back doors, and leaving logic bombs could easily be construed as an act of war. And all it takes is one over-achieving national leader for this all to tumble into actual war.
It’s time to stop the madness. Yes, our military needs to invest in cyberwar capabilities, but we also need international rules of cyberwar, more transparency from our own government on what we are and are not doing, international cooperation between governments and viable cyberweapons treaties. Yes, these are difficult. Yes, it’s a long slow process. Yes, there won’t be international consensus, certainly not in the beginning. But even with all of those problems, it’s a better path to go down than the one we’re on now.
We can start by taking most of the money we’re investing in offensive cyberwar capabilities and spend them on national cyberspace resilience. MAD, mutually assured destruction, made sense because there were two superpowers opposing each other. On the Internet there are all sorts of different powers, from nation-states to much less organized groups. An arsenal of cyberweapons begs to be used, and, as we learned from Stuxnet, there’s always collateral damage to innocents when they are. We’re much safer with a strong defense than with a counterbalancing offense.
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bruce Schneier.