Microwave brain scrambler?

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

(...)

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

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

Excellent! Thanks!

--Winston

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.

You could try. I don't like your chances of success.

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.

Invoking it as mechanism for getting RF energy into the brain is evidence of an imprefect education in physics.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

(...)

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, 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.

That is also fair.

Excellent! That will be the thing I learned today. Thank you.

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

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.

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

(...)

Very good. Thank you Bill.

Resolved: >> 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?

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

(...)

What *was* I thinking.

It's clearly impossible.

:)

--Winston

9

There are plenty of nonsense patents in the system. The ban on patenting perpetual motion machines reflects the fact that they are a particularly popular with mad inventors, so the ban save the patent examiners a useful amont of time.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

(...)

The grantee had a couple DoD development contracts and demonstrated the device at the 2007 Navy Opportunity Forum at the Hyatt Regency in Crystal City Virginia.

Not too many perpetual motion machines make it that far. :)

Thanks, Bill.

--Winston

959

The US military isn't too good at filtering out charlatans - they put time and money into telepathy and clairvoyance at one point.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

money.

59

Poor thing, just because there is a patent does not mean that the device=20 can be built nor that it will work as claimed. Patents are not what they= =20 were supposed to be and have not been since WW2.

Here's a way to back up that statement:

Just click on the graphic below the title "Enter Query Text:" in the top left corner of the window.

I searched for 'aura' and 'e.s.p.'; wasn't able to uncover a charlatan selling those concepts to the Navy.

Here are some more search terms to try:

ectoplasm extrasensory ghost paranormal spirit spontaneous combustion supernatural telekinesis business ethics budget surplus

Let me know what you uncover, OK?

Thanks!

--Winston

I agree with Don Lancaster 100% about patents:

Clearly the applicant is begging to be ripped off.

However: This grantee had a couple DoD development contracts and demonstrated the device at the 2007 Navy Opportunity Forum at the Hyatt Regency in Crystal City Virginia.

Not too many perpetual motion machines make it that far. :)

Thanks for your clarifying comment, JosephKK.

--Winston

Straw Man Argument, you have no proof that they even demo'ed a poster, let alone hardware...

Here, stand in our booth and we'll make you sick or distraught...

Yes, right, You obviously have no idea of human research protocols and lawyers...

Steve

On 3/19/2010 5:49 AM, snipped-for-privacy@uakron.edu wrote: > Straw Man Argument,

Let me help.

I think you (and Dirk and Bill S. and Bill B. and AZ) believe:

1) A microwave brain scrambler is either physically impossible or that it would be tested only in the most scientific, careful, responsible way if it did exist.

2) Either Dr. Adey misinterpreted his test results or that my paraphrase of Dr. Adey's test results is inaccurate.

Are you saying that these aren't an honest assessment of your position? Do my characterizations differ from your real position in any material way? How so?

Who's position did I misrepresent? We aren't talking about Terrell's bowling ball, are we? :)

What would you regard as sufficient proof, then?

If I told you for example that there is a tiny radio transponder attached to most small, high value retail items, would you believe me?

Would you believe me if I told you that our USENET conversation was likely being copied by researchers and used for their marketing purposes?

There is really nothing that would convince you, short of putting you in front of one of these nasty devices.

Even then, as you regained consciousness, you might even claim that you fell asleep in two seconds, waiting for the test to begin. :)

You don't have to take my word for it. These are the people who run that show:

snipped-for-privacy@navyopportunityforum.com | 585-617-6298

If I had been at the 2007 Navy Opportunity Forum at the Hyatt Regency in Crystal City Virginia and had been one of the actual unfortunate volunteers, I could speak from personal experience about the efficacy of the tool. (You wouldn't believe it then, either.) :)

Steve, we've been over this already.

When the tool becomes available, it will be tested on the public without their knowledge or permission. No 'informed consent'. No lawyers. None will be deemed necessary because the weapon leaves no evidence that it was used. It will be a technical 'sucker punch'.

Most testing will be done by bored minimum - wage 'managers' at a retail outlets, just goofing off.

Most tests will *not* be double-blind peer-reviewed studies performed by grad students at accredited universities.

It is the nature of this kind of tool. I may not have mentioned this but it is not illegal and it will leave no evidence it was ever used except for the store's surveillance video.

Want to wager how long that video lasts after the 'manager' gets a call from Corporate? :)

--Winston

--
Today's retailer is in an awkward position.
He must assuage his visceral need to anger
some of his clients while having to delight
them sufficiently to guarantee repeat business.

Winston, Lets get something straight. I've worked on a non RF version of the 18 hz thing in a past life. Its a miserable failure in its present forms. Most people shake it off in a second or so, if they are even affected at all... A few folks are really sensitive to it, but very few.. Weak RF, no way... Been there, Done That, Wasted a hell of a lot of money, and got the tee shirt.

Your wasting your time...

Steve

I agree. Non-RF is a non-starter. What were we saying about 'straw men'? :)

I developed a non-ice cream sundae. It didn't sell well, even during the summer. Ice cream sundaes are therefore impossible, yes?

I take it that your microwave field strength was less than 105 W /m^2?

How far into the brain did you place your electrodes?

I disagree.

Thanks for the information, Steve.

--Winston