The way I conceive of a modern brain implant device

This document was written in the spring of 2000 and was left in a preliminary state.

Table of contents

Introduction

 2001-04-13
Part1 and part 2 where written earlier and are kept for the record.
However they are a bit unwieldy and the reader may wish to skip them and
pass directly to part 3

Part 1

In order to be able to affect the brain in all the ways that the mind controllers have affected me, the technology they use, must be something different from the examples I have seen described elsewhere. Further, some people seem to be sure, that similar effects can be accomplished without implants. I haven't communicated with any of these people, but I assume they must have taken X-ray scans and didn't find anything on the X-ray recording. One explanation for this may be that they did have an implant but that it wasn't visible on an ordinary X-ray scan. If we decide we trust that the X-ray equipment used in all such investigations has not been manipulated somehow, for instance in such a way, that the people who operate the equipment don't suspect anything, then the conclusion must be that if there is an implant it must be invisible in the used type of X-ray examination. I don't want to dwell too long on problems related to such manipulations with the X-ray equipment. However there is a problem with a brain-implanted person. He can't hide easily, since there is this built in tracking device in the persons head. It would in principle be possible to keep track of the limited number of people, among the mind-control victims, who, at one time, would try to get an unmanipulated X-ray scan. With present-day technology it wouldn't be inconceivable, that every X-ray instrument of the needed quality would be monitored and there would be some kind of warning and special preparations made every time such a patient was there. The people operating the machine would not have to be involved. I think that this chain of argument should be followed for completeness, but just the same, I will now break it, since I don't think it's necessary anyway.

The budgets available for Mind-Control research, I mean the hardware part, have in all likeliness been so large that there hasn't been any economical reason to opt for anything but the best. The specification to aim for could, in my opinion, realistically include a requirement that the device be completely invisible in any normal X-ray examination. Since this sort of technology is likely to be an almost irresistable challenge for some types of scientists, I am sure, that if there isn't any fundamental obstacle to overcome to solve the problem, they did it in a couple of years. Maybe already in the 1970's. It certainly could have been done in the 1970's if there isn't any unsurmountable fundamental problem. And I can see no reason, why there should be any fundamental problem, given the necessary funding. The brain is a very irregular object, and it constitutes a noisy background, which would conceal many conceivable types of sufficiently thin implants. It therefore seems likely that a modern implant of the type used for mind control would be a thin foil of some kind. Although I haven't gone deeply into brain theory, I know that different senses and motoric abilities have corresponding localized regions spread out over a fairly large part of the brain. Is there any way you could selectively control many such areas, without having a fairly good galvanic or capacitive contact established locally? With the limited knowledge I have I wouldn't think so. I have seen information on the internet, which seems to indicate that that could be accomplished by using the brainwaves and their temporal/spectral properties . Decoding the brain somehow. But this seems very unlikely to me and I tend to think that all such rumours are disinformation1. Probably intentional disinformation, disseminated through seemingly authentic articles, treating matters in military technology.

Remains good old capacitive/galvanic2 contacting. This means that the brain implant will have to be large as well. At least its delimiting surface ought to be many cm's and maybe the size of the head. Why not. If it covers the top of the brain uniformly, there will be no revealing 'faultlines' anywhere. And if it's thin, it may not even be easy to see it by the naked eye, viewed against the brains irregularities. It may be optically transparent and look just like some kind of slime on the first look. In order to function it ought to have some strength, but not necessarily as strong as a sheet of plastic. If a person would have an accident where the brain would come out, it would be advantageous for those who want the mind-control technology to remain secret if the implant resembled the naturally ocurring biological tissues. Further, the material used should preferably have some degree of transmission for oxygen and nutritional substances. All this points to using some thin foil.
One problem. Does it suffice to establish contact with the upper surface of the brain, or is there some other region that is absolutely essential? Anyway, in order to establish a capacitive contact with the brain, I am guessing that the information available about some recent, unclassified, implants can be used as a guidance. The neurons seem to be able to grow a little bit into such devices, and that seems to be the mechanism sought for, also on a larger scale with many neuron/electronics contact areas. This also fits well with the thin-foil model, since that has the softness necessary to follow the shape of the brain and hence make a large number of contact points accessible. The thin foil may be rolled to a thin cylinder, which could be inserted through the nasal cavity or passing the eyeballs. Using a special instrument it is probably possible to slowly insert such a cylinder and then let it slowly unfold inside the head until it covers the top. Those who developed the technique must have used a model head and experimented before they reached an acceptable solution. There is no point in trying to guess at some complex method of setting the thing up inside the head. Once you have found a way to build a ship in a bottle you can repeat it any number of times. Some way or the other they have the foil unfold and then the contact is established almost by itself without any manual adjustment of individual contact points.

Footnote 1:However see:Technical hypothesis.
Footnote 2:galvanic contact is probably unneeded.


How to prove the presence of the brain implant device

 In order to prove the presence of such a device, I can envisage two main roads:

1. Cooperation:

 Those who know, help reveal the truth. It may seem like wishful thinking, to expect this to happen.
Cooperation is certainly my method of preference, and the one that I am opting for, as I am pressing for publicity. In the case that such a cooperation is established, the precise way to proceed does not have to be lined up here, but can be saved for later. This is one of many good reasons for trying to see the world beyond antagonistic schemes. I mean, most people are not genuinely evil and I beleive that the system is best reformed from within, by creating such conditions, where the good people, within the system, will prevail. In order for this to happen, it is necessary that people become informed on the abusive manners of the authorities, and that the media become actively involved in pressing for much greater openess in these matters. As long as the good people remain silent and inactive, evil will prevail.

Moreover, there may be commercial reasons why there would be hope for greater openess, due to the potential application of the technology within the legitimate and unclassified branches of medical science. Just as a brain implant may be used to torture an individual, it can probably be used as a painkiller as well.

2. No such cooperation can be established.

 Methods to prove the existence of the implant:
  • Advanced X-ray techniques, combined with other methods, which I leave aside at the moment.
    Note added later: I haven't considered ultrasound methods. Intuitively thin objects would seem to be rather tricky, using sound waves. But I haven't tried to get any expert opinion.
  • Direct surgery of the head and the brain. It may be necessary to cut a large opening in the head or many smaller openings. If the purpose is to prove the presence of such a brain implant, the task is finished when a foreign object which has the necessary properties is found through the opening(s). What should constitute sufficient proof, is naturally in need of clarification. If the task is to fully remove the device, it may be necessary to use microsurgery, since there seems to be a certain chance that the implant is firmly held to the brain on a single neuron basis. It is probably a rather involved operation. In all steps of the process, cooperation with those who know the technology, would probably improve the situation, leading to less damage to the brain. If the implant is constructed in such a way, that it can be destroyed by remote control, without leaving any remnants, other than substances which could be explained by other causes, then one could fear, that in the event that surgery is done to the victim, without any prior X-ray proof, it would be tempting to use the remote destruction option some time before the surgery and hence, in the eyes of many observers, effectively disprove the existence of the implant.
    I am saying this because I am seriously contemplating to volunteer, to have my head opened, to prove the existence of the implant. And very early after I first realized what had been done to me, I was thinking about the possibility that the thing could be remotely destroyed without leaving such traces which would constitute proof. I felt that since they're into the deception game to such an extent already, it would seem like a possibility, that they really had it constructed that way.
    Without having had any consultation with a specialist, I expect that it may be a risky operation, but nevertheless, I am seriously contemplating it.

    One serious problem in this connection is that there would have to be high tech experts present, at all the critical phases of the operation, and under the present state of matters, these experts would have to be willing to risk reprisals for themselves or their families, by helping to prove that there is a foreign object of the sought kind in the brain. Since the precise nature of the brain implant is not known in advance, these experts would have to have a very deep understanding of the general principles involved. If there is no cooperation with the groups of people involved in mind control, the experts would have to be chosen from outside of their communities. Further, these experts would have to be incorruptible.
    The surgeons involved would likewise have to be incorruptible and willing to risk reprisals. Since those who are the peers in the mind-control research programs are likely to have influence over large research funding, in many cases without any accountability, there would be many temptations, to try to corrupt both the surgeons and the other experts.

    And they say everyone has a price.

Apart from the problem of establishing some kind of cooperation between the mind-control experts and myself, there ought to be a reasonable chance for openness regarding the general aspects of the technology, simply because the people involved in it are likely to be well aware of the fact that they could themselves become mind-control victims. The mind-control technology can be used against any person. In fact it would seem more probable that it would be used for spying on and controlling people in influencial positions. Such as heads of state, experts with strategic or economically important knowledge. One application would be to use it for industrial espionage: for stealing business secrets. Another to control all key persons within the intelligence agencies, and among the police. Using advanced computer programs such control could be excerted on any number of people. One could imagine having different intelligence agencies controlling each other. I beleive that principle is used by Saddam Hussein's regime, and it wouldn't come as any surprise if this is a common strategy in most other regimes as well, at least to some extent.
It seems to me, that it is reasonable to assume, that a great majority of the people in any subgroup of the human population, would fear this technology and the secrecy, that surrounds it, whether or not they themselves have had any involvment in it. And those who would really like things to stay the way they are, must be a small minority of people.
If only a small minority of people really want it, it should be possible to influence people within the system to break the secrecy. Here the media can play an important role by formulating the opinion held by the majority of the people. And by addressing those authorities, which can be assumed to be closely involved or to be able to control the funding etc.


Communication with the brain implant device

 Since the aim is to control, with a high degree of deniability, the means of communicating with the brain implant can be expected to be difficult to intercept. Therefore it seems likely that the communication is accomplished, by way of modern military radio frequency technology. This means that the frequency used varies over a wide range, and in order to intercept such communication or even to prove anything is there other than background noise, it is both necessary to have very advanced equipment which probably isn't openly available and, more importantly, it is necessary to have access to the secret codes they use to rapidly, and in a seemingly random fashion, change the frequency of the radio transmission. And to know by what means synchronization, which is vital to this type of communication, is achieved. It is a complicated technology. But it is well established in the military arena. And in that connection it can be considered standard technology these days. But to listen in on such a communication line is so formidably difficult that it is not worth trying for an amateur.
Let's assume that we want to use RF interference to destroy the communication for the mind controllers. Since the type of communication I am contemplating, uses a wide frequency range, we need to produce RF interference over the entire bandwidth, meaning that we will interfere with all TV and Radio receivers in the neigbourhood. Including all mobile-phone communication. Hence there is no way to defend yourself in a populated area, without causing unacceptable problems for other vital activities. Modern RF methods are both hard to listen to and to sabotage without simultaneously sabotaging every other use of these means of communication. It is possible to put a screen around a mind-controlled person for a limited time, but unless you want to build your own jail and live in some kind of metal housing all hours of the day, you will be vulnerable every now and then. And for those periods the brain implant will be accessible for fresh data transfer and reprogramming. And all this can be fully automated. If a mind-controlled person were to isolate himself completely under such conditions where the person could be absolutely certain that there wasn't any data transfer to and fro the brain implant, there would still be a wide range of options to the program in the implant, to be used in ways which would produce impressions of being under realtime surveillance. What I am trying to say is that at this advanced level of technology, for an ordinary person, it isn't worth the effort, to try some serious high-tech countertactics.
In addition, by even discussing these problems in terms of two sides engaged in a battle, some people might want to profit by selling equipment to both sides, instead of stopping the madness.

Note added later:
Some mind-control victims have been interviewed by CNN and technicians were apparently sent out to try and detect the electromagnetic radiation that these victims beleive is the cause of their symptoms. Apparently these technicians didn't find anything. I know almost nothing about these cases or what kind of measurement was done. However, if the reader is able to follow my line of argument elsewhere in this document, it should be clear that no final conclusion could be drawn from the outcome of such a measurement.

Technical hypothesis

 As I have stated earlier, I beleive a brain implant is a necessity for electronic mind control. And I have stated that I am skeptical about information about methods for mind control where only an external electromagnetic field is used to directly affect the brain in the way experienced by mind-control victims. However it does seem possible that the brain implant and such electromagnetic fields could be used in some combination, which is different from simply transferring the data to and fro. It may be that the power needed for the brain implant as well as its general functioning is so confined due to the deniability sought for, that it is necessary to sometimes use some kind of external field to help up the operation. For instance, by mixing in a strong external field it may be possible to boost and/or frequency-shift the weak RF signal produced by the implant. It may be that such strong external fields would therefore be used on occassion to speed up the data transfer rate. In between the data transfer sessions, the operation of the brain implant need not be dependent on any external fields.
Another use for strong external RF fields could be as a controlled noise background, completely concealing the communication with the implant. Note that, unless you are an insider, having access to all necessary equipment and code keys etc, a strong RF field, of the kind we are contemplating here, for which the frequency may be rapidly switching according to a complex and secret scheme, does not reveal itself clearly. At the most it will show up as a weak increase in the general noise background.

An entirely different idea would be to use a very large number of randomly dispersed microscopic implants, (like a raisin pudding), in conjunction with external RF fields. That would seem to be completely dependent on external computer power, and external fields. It doesn't seem inconceivable that the mobile phone net could be used as one component in such a mind control system. Since technology is now moving towards more of wireless communication, there will probably be several options.
(Note added later: Reading Open letter to British Premier John Major, see quotation therefrom under References, I realize that this kind of technology is said, by some observers, to be one actually in use.)

Most people don't have a chance of checking what's really inside all the microchips that surround them everywhere. It cannot even be outruled, that many widely spread standard components in computers and mobile phones, already contain, seemingly innocent, subsystems, which can be secretely controlled by mind-control organizations. This doesn't mean that the, formally responsible, manufacturers know anything about it. These systems are so complicated, that you can't tell by a visual inspection. Or somebody could make seemingly exact copies of standard components, but with slightly altered content.

At the moment, I choose not to speculate further about it.
But there is no point in feeling depressed about it or to indulge in wishful thinking. The people who develop the controlling technology, continue to do so, as long as we don't stop it. And they are rational, scientifically oriented people, so we can't entirely avoid some discussion of the technical aspects.



Part 2

2000-10-07
Still editing
At the moment I have no certain information about the precise nature of the implants in my head. I cannot outrule that there are big ones, visible with the naked eye if the brain substance were directly accessible. Here I will however concentrate on very small implants and put forward an hypothesis about the way such artifacts may be constructed.
If I were a dedicated mind control researcher, how would I build them? For starters I think I would try the scheme outlined below. However, it is likely that this scheme needs some refinement as discussed further down.
I will not assume that the technology is extremely simple. If it were, it would be too easy to counter. Extremely simple would be examplified by having the biotelemetric signals carried by fixed frequency duplex communication, directly detectable on a tuned receiver and easily jammed by a noise transmitter. This kind of technology was used in the 1960s in laboratory experiments on humans and animals and it could well be used now, but I will not discuss that simple possibility here.
In order to make the communication deniable and jamming proof, one method is to use rapidly and quasirandomly varying frequency. Another method is to use a controlled noise background. One such method would be to create something like the complementary of a signal: a silent window, a moving dip in the noise background. Maybe both those ideas make sense and could be put to use simultaneously. The randomness would be only an appearance of course. The controllers would know exactly how to unravel the information. Since there may be natural noise in addition to the controlled noise there would be technical problems, however I will not discuss that in any detail. There are ways to counter it. Such as using redundant codes, or redundant uses of the rf spectrum:several parallell channels. In addition there may exist techniques to actually shift natural noise temporarily:blowing a hole in the spectrum, who knows? The complexity would lie on the controller side and needn't pose a problem in the receiver side, where there are severe restrictions on the attainable complexity. But lets leave that aspect aside. The implant could modulate the incoming field so as to create a scattered field, hidden under the umbrella of the stronger incoming field, thereby making it impossible for others to find the weak scattered signal used to transfer data from the targeted individual. Only the controllers who have access to the precise info about the incoming field would be able to lift off the umbrella and thus unmask the weak scattered field. In addition the incoming field could be used for various types of heterodyne detection of the weak signal making much higher sensitivity possible. Without any precise calculations it is still possible to make an educated guess suggesting that the controllers would be able to safely receive the weak signal over a range of several hundred metres without anybody else having any way to know that there was any traffic from the targeted person and in addition it would be very difficult to know that there was ant traffic to the target. Even though there would be a microwave signal, it wouldn't differ much from natural noise. In addition there is cellular network communication going on, offering many extra possibilities for clever methods of hiding signals. It boils down to having a realtime control over the way the rf spectrum is being utilized and to use that info in realtime, to mask what is going on. The cellular phone operators needn't be involved at all. However the people who have mind control in mind may have a motive for wanting to see some schemes being realized rather than others what regards the way the rf spectrum is actually being utilized. And therefore it wouldn't be surprising if that aspect may have influenced the way various regulatory bodies have made there decisions over the last decade or decades. It is conceivable that a sufficient superiority in the realtime analysis of this background rf-traffic and noise would suffice to always get a sufficient deniability. However if the mind control technology is to be used on a large number of people simultaneously, there are reasons to beleive that an efficient utilisation of the rf spectrum is an issue and that the conditions differ from those of nondeniable rf communication. One problem with a rapidly varying microwave frequency on the receiver side: requires fairly advanced receiver tech. If instead of a single field at least two different microwave fields are used, the reception would be rendered less complicated. A beat signal could be obtained more easy to handle in a simple microchip. Both microwave fields would have their frequencies rapidly changing, in a seemingly random manner and on a spectrum analyzer, it would be hard to tell the difference between the measured data and natural background noise. That is it would be hard to prove that there was anything there. However there would be a some kind of connection between these two fields, in terms of relative phase or relative frequency. The beatnote between those fields would contain information. This beatnote however would be detectable on other receivers as well and hence the deniability would seem to go away. Therefore some additional ideas are needed to get back to the original degree of deniability. One possibility would be to use one microwave field and combine it with an openly available signal, eg from the cellular phone network (no need for collusion with the cellular phone operators would be necessary). This openly available signal would be transformed in a way not known by anyone except the mind controllers. The way it would be transformed would be technically simple enough to be feasible on a mini-implant but using some kind of secret code key. After this transformation the implant would be in the position to extract otherwise deniable info. If many implants are to be processed in parallell the technical problems are of a different nature I will not discuss that here. If each implant keeps track of If a tiny brain implant contains some suitable kind of rf-detector, followed by an electronic circuit representing a digital key, it would be possible to obtain a high degree of selectivity. Each implant would have its own unique key and would be deaf to all the other keys. For example if the brain has been implanted by injecting say 1000000 tiny implants through the blood stream, each one suitable for contacting a single neuron, the digital key would need 20 bits for uniqueness. For 1000 implants 10 bits would suffice. The reason I mention such a high number as a million is that this type of implantation does not give a high precision in targeting individual areas of the brain. Therefore high quantities are needed for good coverage. Once one such implant has been invented massproduction is the next natural step and therefore it doesn't seem farfetched that they would do this if they want to use the technology at all.
Some selfcriticism: I suggested that a simple broadband detector would do. It would, but then it would not be a deniable technology since somebody equipped with a similar simple broadband detector could easily prove that there was some kind of rf communication going on. Therefore one should expect that the detector is more sofisticated. We must keep in mind that we are dealing with a very small chunk of matter, so there isn't room for very complex circuitry. But nevertheless if deniability is a necessity, the simple passive type of detector would have to be improved, by adding something more. In the iterated version of the above scheme, the two fields combined would not contain the infor mation in the simple way mentioned. The information would be there, but it could only be extracted by a very particular type of signal existing in the detector. This kind of scheme is much harder to accomplish in a tiny low power detector and my first impression is that it would be too difficult. That the small capacity of the implant would be needed for other tasks than just detecting a signal. It would probably be of great value to have the greatest possible independence of the implant. The greatest possible storage for computer program and memory storage. Therefore even if the detector is sofisticated it must nevertheless be very simple.
The people who have invented the technology have had a lot of time and resources as well as opportunities for learning from experiments. In addition they are necessarily very talented people. If I could easily guess how they have solved the problem I would have to be smarter than they are and I am sure this isn't the case.
I can see several possibilities, involving a local oscillator on the implant. However in order to make many such tiny oscillators operate safely and reliably, it would be necessary to have a separate control system for that separate aspect only. Lots of added complexity. The local oscillators could not have fixed frequency but would have to be quasirandom, since their combination with the input signals would decode the information. The naked signals would have to look like random noise in order to maintain deniability.
The trouble with this is that unlike the case with a simple passive detector, their would seem to be need for some kind of precision fast timing function built into the system.
I thought about this earlier this year and I didn't like it. It seemed like I was on the wrong track and that I shouldn't bother the reader as long as I didn't have anything better to suggest.
To recapitulate:The task is to hide information in a seemingly random noise and then detect it in a way that needs some secret code key to make it look like something other than noise.
The problem of selectively reaching individual implants is much easier and was outlined above.
Earlier this year I was wondering whether they had some kind of global signal used for timing and for communicating code keys. That wouldn't need any fast circuitry and the preferred characteristics would be that it would access all areas and would be completely jammingproof. I wondered whether some kind of ELF signals could be used for that. But I will not speculate further about it since there is a lot of disinformation circulating. In addition, it seems likely that the smart inventors of the technology that I am trying to reveal have found some way to achieve the quasirandomness mentioned above without any precise global timing. Perhaps my mistake is that I expect to decode the information in its analog form. Maybe there is no need for that if the digital info is quasirandom in appearance and the proof of any information is only obtained after decryption. Then there would be need for fast but relatively simple digital decryption circuits on board the implant and only after passing that circuit meaningful information would appear. Do note that if these electronic circuits have a higher degree of miniturisation than unclassified equipment they could be very fast without any need for high power consumption. The extreme case of this is a simple molecule which contains innumerable sharp resonances in all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. If it is located in outer space it can carry information safely for years and still interact instantaneously. This is of little practical use in the environment of a human brain, but nevertheless it gives an idea about the limits of microscopic technology.
After having speculated about the receiver part of the brain implant, what about the transmitter part? If the implant is transmitting data successfully, there must by necessity be a receiver somewhere in the vicinity. Therefore there might as well be external microwaves present too. And therefore the tiny transmitter might use those fields to create the emitted signal. If the implant modulates these fields the emitted data might be hidden near those fields and only at the generating source would there be any information about how to decode this information. The quasirandom appearance of the stronger incoming fields would effectively protect the information coming from the implant. Therfore deniability would be a much smaller problem in this direction.
The discussion so far has been limited to the problem of creating rf communication to and fro the implant. All such communication can be shielded effectively and therefore an mc victim should be able to avoid any new data entering or leaving the brain implants if the shielding is efficient.
Now taking the point of view of the dedicated mind controller how would you go about countering such methods? I think I would try to store as much information as possible in a computer program on board the implant. There would be some algorithm weighing together previously existing states or processes with some gradually evolving new additions. This would make it look like the communication still works, but there would be no way to update the conditions to fit in with some unexpected events, meaning that all uses necessitating realtime communication in a critical manner would be prevented. An example of such critical uses would be to punish the subject instantaneously for something he says or does. And which is not connected with any distinct state of the brain which could otherwise be used in a programmed fashion for automatic punishment. Such phenomena would however not be sufficiently selective. They would either be too sensitive, punishing the subject too easily or too easy to evade by concious acts of the mind.
Therefore if the shielding is adequate there would be differences with respect to qualified realtime mind control. Further even other than realtime effects would be affected, since the variations of a small computer program must be limited. Only if the unshielded mind control device was used far below its full potential would the shielded condition be really difficult to tell appart from the unshielded.
I wonder how many people who would be willing to live entirely inside a small metal cage for long times, like weeks or months, for the purpose of collecting statistical data for proving the suggestions made here. I wouldn't even volunteer myself under the present circumstances, with the limited backing I have in several respects. I would however welcome a serious scientific investigation into these problems, headed and financed by the swedish government. Under such circumstances I would naturally be willing to cooperate. So far however neither the political opposition, nor the government have lifted a finger to make something happen. They could easily decide to offer money for information that would clarify these matters. Although this document is not the proper place for extensive talk about such suggestions it would seem possible to use a messenger primciple enabling information on factual circumstances to be passed on without revealing the identities of those directly involved. The information passed on must be such as to make it possible to convince the government about the basic facts and thereby to be able to make decisions about compensation without having to go through a lengthy legal process, where there is no binding evidence connecting the perpetrators to the crimes committed (if they are indeed crimes in the formal sense, which some high officials seem to deny according to one of the entries in References - 1)

Part 3

2001-04-13
Here it will be assumed that mind control implants are transponders, small enough to be transported through the blood vessels. But without or with very little built-in memory or other types of advanced control circuitry. The rf properties are assumed to be identical. Each such transponder is assumed to be selectively addressable. Somewhere in the signal path of such a transponder there is assumed to be some kind of digital key function necessitating a particular key word or information pattern to activate the communication channel between external computers and the single neuron to which such a simple transponder is assumed to be connected. It is assumed that the processes for transporting information to and from the brain both use the same rf spectrum and that the direction of the flow of information is determined by certain key words similar to those mentioned above. A complete data communication protocol is likely to exist for the system as a whole. Since such protocols are rather dry and technical it seems unnecessary to go into great detail. Each transponder could in principle be independently activated for communication in either direction meaning that there would be a two way communication for the system as a whole.
Early on I considered this kind of system however I disgarded it since I felt that it would necessitate real time rf communication and this would make it easy to jam or to shield against.
Later I realised that I had missed an obvious point.
The fact that the brain itself can be used as an almost inexhaustible resource for both information storage and for a multitude of intelligent functions. There is no need for large implants for that kind of function. If the experts have found out how to use the brain as a computer all they need is a multichannel communication protocol and a large number of individually addressable tiny interfaces to the large number of neuron connections. If this idea is correct, it means that some or many of the connections would not be used to directly control any corresponding parts of the body or to create other effects that the person would notice. Instead the parts of the brain used would be those otherwise unused by the person. The redundant capacity of the brain. Although the brain has diversified subsystems, the neurons seem to be multipurpose microprocessors of a kind and it seems possible that those who have unreveled the secrets of the brain know how to use most any neuron for most any purpose. Note that by using direct electronic connections it is likely that all the properties of the neurons can be manipulated and used much more efficiently than is possible in natural ways. From this follows that there is no need for real time communication to and fro the persons brain to produce a wide variety of symptoms. More importantly, this type of system seems to have all the necessary characteristics for useful biofeedback applications and the potential is almost boundless.
All you need is a large number of individually adressable tiny transponders and a host of advanced software in the remote computer. For a period of at least days and more likely longer time these remote computers are employed to perfect the system. Fitting the information extracted from the persons brain to models and using that information to achieve gradually improving control of the brain. The communication would take place whenever the rf signals got through. Just like on the internet, the particulars would be determined by the data communication protocols used. In order to escape the reach of the brain computer system one would have to be permanently shielded off by metal meshes or to endure some other type of highly constricted life. And they would have to remain in that kind of situation indefinitely, they could never leave their selfimposed prison. Not even for a few minutes. I wont elaborate that line of thought, although it makes sense, logically. An interesting aspect is the question of the range of such a system. Could a satellite be spying on people this way? In principle yes. In particular it could be used for the communication to the brain. However the communication from the brain would be very slow since the power scattered from a tiny transponder and the long distance to the satelite means the numbers work out very unfavorably. There are some quantitative estimates and further discussions in the separate document:
Estimates of the range of a brain computer system

Note on terminology:
Here I am using the term transponder which implies that it has the capacity for acting as a transmitter. Actually I assume that it scatters and modulates the external rf field, but it may perhaps not be endowed with any capacity for acting as an independent transmitter.

It seems to me that the natural way to receive the faint transponder signals would be via closely located receiver antennas. In order to prevent people from becoming shielded there would be an advantage to have the receiving probe placed in the persons home. Eg by using the ordinary signal networks already existing most everywhere: The electric power system, the telephone system, mobile phones etc. (I assume that the home is the only available location where the person might be able to make special arrangements for shielding and therefore it would be more important for the controlling side to have other alternatives than a remote receiver.) There would have to be a large number of repeaters or radio links built into such a system in order to cover all situations. If the number of targeted people isn't very large it is possible to have agents carrying portable receiving equipment or using cars and air planes. If they carry the equipment by hand it is likely to look rather bulky. There would probably be a cooled detector as well as protection against intrusion in order to maintain secrecy, such as some kind of facility for selfdestruction of the critical parts of the apparatus.
I think the following comment may be appropriate:
As this kind of thing is being suggested it might inspire ordinary people or agents to ridicule the victims by carrying around various bags resembling the above description. Further I beleive that if a subject has been allowed to see such equipment it has probably been when the agents have loosened up on security and more or less sympathized with the victims.
However communication is less necessary when the person has been subjected to a lot of programming already. The technology can be used to automatically punish people, eg by programming the brain to react on its own thoughts enacting some kind of unpleasant effect when the person thinks certain thoughts. One of the victims, J H Graf, has quoted a politician who threatened that those who didn't follow the party line would be punished by way of their own consciousness and that there were secret methods to achieve that. As long as the spectrum of programmed alternatives suffices there is no need to establish communication again. This holds both for punishments as well as for the many potential beneficial applications. This is a great asset in connection with legitimate medical applications for helping sick people, since the system operates even when no rf-communication can be established. It also means that such an artificial system resembles the natural learning functioning of the brain. Once you have aquired a certain capability it correponds to some complex information pattern stored in the brain. And its there indefinitely. Just like naturally learned skills or behavioural patterns they can be perfected and trimmed. The difference compared with natural processes is that many of the neurons might be harder to influence naturally. Nature provides us with a great potential but to utilize it fully isn't easy. For instance the various traditional meditational techniques take a long time to learn. The artificial methods have potential for improvement compared with the natural ones.
- - -
In any case universal systems covering all situations (regarding the reception of weak signals) might not be needed. For this reason it may be of limited value to speculate about the precise nature of the receiver systems. Of where they can be expected to be located. Computers and all other types of electronic equipment are possible candidates. As well as seemingly innocent standard components of widespread use. A computer is very useful since it creates a very noisy environment making it easier to hide extraneous signalling. It needs to be explained that by placing the receiver very close to the faint transponder signals much faster communication is possible. Further a larger implant in any part of the body would make it possible to increase the range of the system. Therefore larger implants openly used for various legitimate purposes would be tempting to endow secretely with the capability to act as a repeater or radio link to increase the range of the tiny transponders with sizes of a few microns (0.001 mm). An implant with a size of a few mm would be considered very large in this context. As implants for various purposes become widespread, there would be reason to keep track of the number and types of implants and a person could ask himself how many other artifacts that might secretely be present in the body or brain.
There is no place for being naive these days. Suspiciousness is a necessity in this age of paranoia.
- - -




Mind Control: explanation of the term

Return to Introduction