Ask a question - edaboard.com
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Microwave brain scrambler?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12 Next
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
Guest
Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:06 pm
On 15/03/2010 13:52, Winston wrote:
Quote:
On 3/14/2010 11:54 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
On 15/03/2010 05:14, Winston wrote:
(...)
Then you will recall the following finding.
By irradiating a lab animal with a non-ionizing carrier that
has a low frequency AM subcarrier, Dr. Adey has taken over control
the eye muscles of that lab animal, aiming them anywhere he
pleases, any time he wants.
Here is Dr. Adey's passage that I wildly extrapolated to reach my
paraphrase:
"...For example, if one presents a flash of light, the animal
must make that [EEG] response within two seconds or be "punished."
In this punishment the eyes are involuntarily deviated to the
opposite side by stimulation of the brain itself.
This is unpleasant but not painful."
Conditioned response.
Totally different from what you are talking about.
Dirk, I wasn't referring to the 'flash of light', (but you
knew that).
I was referring to the modulated non-ionizing radiation
Dr. Adey used to control the cat's brain so to steer it's
eyes in a direction that the cat did not necessarily intend.
'Conditioned response' requires a stimulus that can be sensed
without an intervening tool, (a radio receiver in this case).
On 15/03/2010 05:14, Winston wrote:
(...)
Then you will recall the following finding.
By irradiating a lab animal with a non-ionizing carrier that
has a low frequency AM subcarrier, Dr. Adey has taken over control
the eye muscles of that lab animal, aiming them anywhere he
pleases, any time he wants.
Here is Dr. Adey's passage that I wildly extrapolated to reach my
paraphrase:
"...For example, if one presents a flash of light, the animal
must make that [EEG] response within two seconds or be "punished."
In this punishment the eyes are involuntarily deviated to the
opposite side by stimulation of the brain itself.
This is unpleasant but not painful."
Conditioned response.
Totally different from what you are talking about.
Dirk, I wasn't referring to the 'flash of light', (but you
knew that).
I was referring to the modulated non-ionizing radiation
Dr. Adey used to control the cat's brain so to steer it's
eyes in a direction that the cat did not necessarily intend.
'Conditioned response' requires a stimulus that can be sensed
without an intervening tool, (a radio receiver in this case).
Not necessarily.
Hence the word "subliminal"
Quote:
I cannot hear radio transmissions without a receiver. Can you?
I can't hear magnetic fields either, but Persinger showed that mag
fields modulated with voice can result in choices, which should have
been random, being skewed towards the object of the modulated voice.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
Guest
Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:58 pm
On 15/03/2010 13:09, Winston wrote:
Quote:
On 3/14/2010 11:45 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
On 15/03/2010 00:07, Winston wrote:
On 3/14/2010 12:24 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
(...)
I should add that the symptoms are quite vague.
A kind of fuzziness of thought.
See one of my previous responses for an indication
of what symptoms are very likely to occur.
They are very specific.
And the actual facts, as opposed to "likely to occur", tell a different
story.
I disagree. Dr. Adey's results show an immediate, overwhelming effect.
You can bet that the cat used in Dr. Adey's experiments tried like hell
to avoid having it's eyeballs deflected and yet, Dr. Adey could force
the cat to look in any direction Dr. Adey wished, at any time.
You really think this has not been tried? Lots of times?
It was successfully tried any number of times during Dr. Adey's
experiments. Human trials are a natural outcome and I *do* think
that experiments with human volunteers have been done.
The thing I'm concerned about is that the transmitter will be
used against honest, law abiding people without their consent.
Thank you for thinking about this important development.
--Winston
On 15/03/2010 00:07, Winston wrote:
On 3/14/2010 12:24 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
(...)
I should add that the symptoms are quite vague.
A kind of fuzziness of thought.
See one of my previous responses for an indication
of what symptoms are very likely to occur.
They are very specific.
And the actual facts, as opposed to "likely to occur", tell a different
story.
I disagree. Dr. Adey's results show an immediate, overwhelming effect.
You can bet that the cat used in Dr. Adey's experiments tried like hell
to avoid having it's eyeballs deflected and yet, Dr. Adey could force
the cat to look in any direction Dr. Adey wished, at any time.
You really think this has not been tried? Lots of times?
It was successfully tried any number of times during Dr. Adey's
experiments. Human trials are a natural outcome and I *do* think
that experiments with human volunteers have been done.
The thing I'm concerned about is that the transmitter will be
used against honest, law abiding people without their consent.
Thank you for thinking about this important development.
--Winston
http://www.raven1.net/lida.htm
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Winston
Guest
Guest
Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:38 pm
On 3/15/2010 12:58 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
(...)
Quote:
http://www.raven1.net/lida.htm
Rave - in - a - box!
Cool!
--Winston
Winston
Guest
Guest
Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:39 pm
On 3/15/2010 12:02 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Quote:
On 15/03/2010 13:14, Winston wrote:
(...)
Quote:
I would like to contrast your scientific evidence against Dr. Adey's.
Have you published? Can you provide a link please?
You have misread the paper.
Have you published? Can you provide a link please?
You have misread the paper.
You know what they say about opinions. :)
--Winston
Winston
Guest
Guest
Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:52 pm
On 3/15/2010 12:04 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Quote:
On 15/03/2010 14:44, Winston wrote:
On 3/15/2010 1:43 AM, Bill Beaty wrote:
On 3/15/2010 1:43 AM, Bill Beaty wrote:
(...)
Quote:
You can argue forever about whether you've been blessed with five toes
or six, but immediate direct inspection goes far in silencing the
doubters.
One step at a time.
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
As part of a trigger for a conditioned reflex.
The previous conditioning was the big "thing"
or six, but immediate direct inspection goes far in silencing the
doubters.
One step at a time.
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
As part of a trigger for a conditioned reflex.
The previous conditioning was the big "thing"
I was not referring to the point of Dr. Adey's experiment at
the time, but the more compelling aside regarding his control
of the cat's eyes using modulated non-ionizing radiation.
Quote:
He used an RF signal like Pavlov used a bell (or so the story goes).
Pavlov used food as a reinforcing stimulus, linking it
to the sound of a tuning fork.
Let me ask you a completely different question:
Quote:
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
Winston
Guest
Guest
Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:58 pm
On 3/15/2010 12:06 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
(...)
Quote:
I can't hear magnetic fields either, but Persinger showed that mag
fields modulated with voice can result in choices, which should have
been random, being skewed towards the object of the modulated voice.
fields modulated with voice can result in choices, which should have
been random, being skewed towards the object of the modulated voice.
Next we will be discussing opera. :)
Let me ask a 'yes' / 'no' question:
"By irradiating a lab animal with a non-ionizing carrier that
has a low frequency AM subcarrier, Dr. Adey has taken over control
the eye muscles of that lab animal, aiming them anywhere he
pleases, any time he wants." Do you agree with that assessment,
based on Dr. Adey's paper?
Thanks
--Winston
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:43 am
AZ Nomad wrote:
Quote:
I'd love to hear the explanation for 000 gauge cables snaking through
the ceiling and the megawatt power company feed for winston's infernal
machine. Sorry we had to lose the supply room for my equipment racks,
but isn't that better than pepper spray?
A M-72 is smaller, cheaper and lighter. The only evidence lift
behind is a thin piece of sheet metal, and a hole. ;-)
--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:20 am
On 15/03/2010 21:52, Winston wrote:
Quote:
On 3/15/2010 12:04 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
On 15/03/2010 14:44, Winston wrote:
On 3/15/2010 1:43 AM, Bill Beaty wrote:
(...)
You can argue forever about whether you've been blessed with five toes
or six, but immediate direct inspection goes far in silencing the
doubters.
One step at a time.
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
As part of a trigger for a conditioned reflex.
The previous conditioning was the big "thing"
I was not referring to the point of Dr. Adey's experiment at
the time, but the more compelling aside regarding his control
of the cat's eyes using modulated non-ionizing radiation.
He used an RF signal like Pavlov used a bell (or so the story goes).
Pavlov used food as a reinforcing stimulus, linking it
to the sound of a tuning fork.
Let me ask you a completely different question:
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
On 15/03/2010 14:44, Winston wrote:
On 3/15/2010 1:43 AM, Bill Beaty wrote:
(...)
You can argue forever about whether you've been blessed with five toes
or six, but immediate direct inspection goes far in silencing the
doubters.
One step at a time.
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
As part of a trigger for a conditioned reflex.
The previous conditioning was the big "thing"
I was not referring to the point of Dr. Adey's experiment at
the time, but the more compelling aside regarding his control
of the cat's eyes using modulated non-ionizing radiation.
He used an RF signal like Pavlov used a bell (or so the story goes).
Pavlov used food as a reinforcing stimulus, linking it
to the sound of a tuning fork.
Let me ask you a completely different question:
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Winston
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:38 am
On 3/15/2010 10:20 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Quote:
On 15/03/2010 21:52, Winston wrote:
(...)
Quote:
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.
Thank you for your thoughts on this subject.
--Winston
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:48 am
On 16/03/2010 05:38, Winston wrote:
Quote:
On 3/15/2010 10:20 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
On 15/03/2010 21:52, Winston wrote:
(...)
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.
On 15/03/2010 21:52, Winston wrote:
(...)
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation,
as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys.
Thanks
--Winston
Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.
My last word on the subject:
"...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind."
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Winston
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:36 pm
On 3/15/2010 11:48 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Quote:
On 16/03/2010 05:38, Winston wrote:
On 3/15/2010 10:20 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
On 3/15/2010 10:20 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
(...)
Quote:
Spend $100 and build one yourself.
It's trivial.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.
My last word on the subject:
"...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind."
It's trivial.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
In that case, none of the findings I could generate would
change your mind.
My last word on the subject:
"...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind."
Excellent! Thanks!
--Winston
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:47 pm
On Mar 15, 2:27 am, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:
Quote:
On 3/14/2010 4:35 PM,Bill Slomanwrote:
On Mar 14, 7:43 pm, Winston<Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:
On 3/14/2010 6:23 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:
(...)
You'd beter find something more persuasive.
Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with
a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain
unconvinced of the possibility.
On Mar 14, 7:43 pm, Winston<Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:
On 3/14/2010 6:23 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:
(...)
You'd beter find something more persuasive.
Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with
a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain
unconvinced of the possibility.
If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd
believe in it.
You are a long way short of that, and my current scepticism is
correspondingly rational, despite what you'd like to think.
Quote:
That is good because
science is largely based on the attempt to invalidate a guess.
If I had the funding and some amazingly generous
terminally ill volunteers, I would pursue the effect
and publish a report that you would find compelling.
science is largely based on the attempt to invalidate a guess.
If I had the funding and some amazingly generous
terminally ill volunteers, I would pursue the effect
and publish a report that you would find compelling.
You could try. I don't like your chances of success.
<snip>
Quote:
No cyclotron necessary. Aim, dial in the power and press
the button.
the button.
Cyclotron reasonace doesn't need a cyclotron - just an ion, a magnetic
field and an RF field with a frequency that is a close match to the
charge-to-mass ration of the ion and the magnetic field, and an
environment for the ion where the mean free path is a lot longer than
the circular path of the ion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_cyclotron_resonance
Invoking it as mechanism for getting RF energy into the brain is
evidence of an imprefect education in physics.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Winston
Guest
Guest
Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:00 pm
On 3/16/2010 7:47 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
(...)
Quote:
Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with
a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain
unconvinced of the possibility.
If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd
believe in it.
a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain
unconvinced of the possibility.
If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd
believe in it.
That is fair.
(Still, I would like a yes / no answer from you
whether you believe there is evidence to support the
theory that Dr. Adey *did* use modulated non-ionizing
radiation to steer a lab animal's eyes against that
animal's will, as he claimed in his paper.)
Quote:
You are a long way short of that, and my current scepticism is
correspondingly rational, despite what you'd like to think.
correspondingly rational, despite what you'd like to think.
Bill, despite my attempt at humorously characterizing your
position on this, I hope I have never implied that I
believe you're anything less than perfectly rational.
I don't claim another is behaving irrationally
unless I have a good solid reason.
Skepticism is good. Sometimes people who disagree with me
are correct and my point is incorrect. Discovery of that is a
'teachable moment' for me and I relish it.
Quote:
That is good because
science is largely based on the attempt to invalidate a guess.
If I had the funding and some amazingly generous
terminally ill volunteers, I would pursue the effect
and publish a report that you would find compelling.
You could try. I don't like your chances of success.
science is largely based on the attempt to invalidate a guess.
If I had the funding and some amazingly generous
terminally ill volunteers, I would pursue the effect
and publish a report that you would find compelling.
You could try. I don't like your chances of success.
That is also fair.
Quote:
snip
No cyclotron necessary. Aim, dial in the power and press
the button.
Cyclotron reasonace doesn't need a cyclotron - just an ion, a magnetic
field and an RF field with a frequency that is a close match to the
charge-to-mass ration of the ion and the magnetic field, and an
environment for the ion where the mean free path is a lot longer than
the circular path of the ion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_cyclotron_resonance
No cyclotron necessary. Aim, dial in the power and press
the button.
Cyclotron reasonace doesn't need a cyclotron - just an ion, a magnetic
field and an RF field with a frequency that is a close match to the
charge-to-mass ration of the ion and the magnetic field, and an
environment for the ion where the mean free path is a lot longer than
the circular path of the ion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_cyclotron_resonance
Excellent! That will be the thing I learned today. Thank you.
Quote:
Invoking it as mechanism for getting RF energy into the brain is
evidence of an imprefect education in physics.
evidence of an imprefect education in physics.
Guilty as charged.
I took Dr. Adey's evidence about calcium movement at face value.
I am skeptical about the resonance you point out as well.
Resonance is by definition frequency dependent.
Dr. Adey's transmitter effect is frequency dependent only at
the EEG level (~16 Hz), not WRT carrier frequency.
I feel calcium efflux is a side issue anyway.
I claim I do not know *why* involuntary brain control apparently
is always caused by a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing
radiation and you claim that calcium efflux is very unlikely to
have been caused by cyclotron resonance, in this case.
If we never find out exactly *why* involuntary brain control
apparently is always caused by a particular kind of modulated
non-ionizing radiation it will matter much less than knowing
*that* involuntary brain control apparently is always caused by
a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing radiation,
however the movement of calcium ions may be linked
to the phenomenon or not.
I still think the transmitter will work disturbingly well,
based on Dr. Adey's research findings. :)
Thanks!
--Winston
Winston
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:31 am
On 3/16/2010 3:49 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
(...)
Quote:
I think you are taking Dr. Adey's results a lot too seriously - his
explanation is (to put it kindly) unlikely to be the only explanation
that fits the data he presents.
explanation is (to put it kindly) unlikely to be the only explanation
that fits the data he presents.
Very good. Thank you Bill.
Resolved:
Quote:
Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation, as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing
radiation, as shown in Dr. Adey's paper?
Dirk Bruere: No
Bill Sloman: No
Bill Beaty: No
AZ Nomad: No
JosephKK: No
Steve: No
Saved a lot of time and money there!
Thanks everyone
--Winston
Bill Sloman
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:49 am
On Mar 16, 5:00 pm, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:
Quote:
On 3/16/2010 7:47 AM,Bill Slomanwrote:
(...)
Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with
a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain
unconvinced of the possibility.
If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd
believe in it.
That is fair.
(Still, I would like a yes / no answer from you
whether you believe there is evidence to support the
theory that Dr. Adey *did* use modulated non-ionizing
radiation to steer a lab animal's eyes against that
animal's will, as he claimed in his paper.)
(...)
Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with
a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain
unconvinced of the possibility.
If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd
believe in it.
That is fair.
(Still, I would like a yes / no answer from you
whether you believe there is evidence to support the
theory that Dr. Adey *did* use modulated non-ionizing
radiation to steer a lab animal's eyes against that
animal's will, as he claimed in his paper.)
He may have got the effect he described, but I doubt if the non-
ionising radiation had much to do with it, apart - perhaps - from
warming up the lab animals scalp. That sort of experiment offers room
for a lot of confounds.
<snip>
Quote:
I still think the transmitter will work disturbingly well,
based on Dr. Adey's research findings.
based on Dr. Adey's research findings.
I think you are taking Dr. Adey's results a lot too seriously - his
explanation is (to put it kindly) unlikely to be the only explanation
that fits the data he presents.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - Microwave brain scrambler?
