Brain implants vs Microwaves

2000-08-04  Preliminary version

It is assumed that the reader knows about the general problem, discussed in other documents on these home pages (link to introduction below).

So far the emphasis on these home pages has been to direct peoples/the medias attention towards the general problems connected with mind control. I now feel it's time to try to critically assess some of the information in order to be able to focus the attention on essentials, and hopefully, to help the victims of electronic mind control to get more backing from competent scientists to really get at the truth.
After some brief discussions with some victims, I have come to the conclusion, that it may be difficult to get strong backing from the victims themselves to push on for the truth, using objective methods. One possible reason for this is that there are documents on the internet, which have given some, if not most of the victims, the impression that the use of implanted neurotransmitters for mind control has now been superseeded by more advanced methods which don't need any implants. The phrase 'from implants to microwaves' is one way of expressing this. Ie the impression is given that microwave beams, or other electromagnetic signals, unaided by implants, are able to remote control the brain in a way similar to the way it can be controlled with the aid of an electronic brain implant. An example of this is the following document:
John St. Clair Akwei vs. NSA, Ft. Meade, MD, USA
I quote:
Detecting EMF Fields in Humans for Surveillance.
A subject's bioelectric field can be remotely detected, so subjects can be monitored anywhere they are. With special EMF equipment NSA cryptologists can remotely read evoked potentials (from EEGs). These can be decoded into a person's brain-states and thoughts. The subject is then perfectly monitored from a distance. NSA personnel can dial up any individual in the country on the Signals lntelligence EMF scanning network and the NSA's computers will then pinpoint and track that person 24 hours-a-day. The NSA can pick out and track anyone in the U.S.

The fields in question can be detected under well-controlled laboratory conditions at distances of maybe a few meters, not much more. Under normal, more noisy conditions, these fields cannot be detected at all without applying electrodes to the head. The total information that can be extracted from remote signals is very limited. Therefore even if the thoughts really exist in that form, only fragments could be obtained remotely (ie max a few metres a way). However as soon as electrodes are applied, on the skin or preferably in the brain, this changes and much more information can be extracted. In order to make use of it, it is necessary to use advanced electronic circuitry in direct connection with the electrodes, ie like brain implants.
In conclusion, the quoted text is totally misleading. NSA doesn't have the capabilities suggested and no other organisation either as long as we outrule the use of brain implants. This follows from basic scientific facts.

Let's consider the numbers involved. There are billions of neurons, each one associated with an independent set of signals. And the brain waves have frequency content in the very low end of the spectrum. This means the information capacity is low and in addition the noise level is very high and unpredictable. These circumstances don't match. Therefore the brain waves cannot contain the same type of information as you would obtain using direct electrodes connected to individual neurons. And even if the information where encoded in some complex manner, the amount of information is too small to be able to represent such electrode information, no matter what kind of clever transformations would be tried.

I am however not competent to outrule that some crude type of thought-reading could be possible under favorable conditions a couple of metres from a person. But this kind of technology would be easy to counter using very simple noise-generation even under such ideal conditions. No serious Big Brother would use that kind of technology for general surveillance.

Another similar consideration would be the possibility that an external field could switch the targets brain among a small number of standard states, like the types of brain waves known as alfa, beta, gamma etc. I haven't tried to find out about that, but it wouldn't make any difference in this context.

There are other documents attributing to microwaves and ELF (extremely low frequencies) the capability of exciting the brain in a way similar to what can be achieved using implants. So far I haven't seen anything that couldn't be easily refuted on basic scientific grounds. Basically there is no natural interface in the brain which could convert external microwaves into the type of signals occurring in the brain. Likewise with ELF. The fact that the neurons individual electromagnetic signals combine to an overall electric envelope doesn't mean that the process can be inverted. Ie it doesn't follow that the 'right' kind of externally imposed electric signal would excite the same kind of neuron signals, anymore than you can put a really dead person back to life by using some kind of massage resembling the motion existing in a living person. Therefore the whole idea that you could access the brain using external fields only, is unrealistic. This doesn't outrule that a crude type of influence could be accomplished. However even that seems unlikely, since in that case we would be very susceptible to the ever-present noise background. A simple noise generator creating weak low frequency noise would cause an apparent mass psychosis with the most absurd consequences. It would be an easily built, very potent weapon, which would render an entire airforce armada useless if the human brain could really be accessed without implants.
The evolutionary process leading to the present design of the human brain, has during millions of years put the brain to test under all sorts of noisy conditions, from natural electromagnetic sources. It would have been an evolutionary disadvantage if the brain could be easily disturbed by weak external fields, similar to those naturally occurring in the brain. And such fields really exist in nature. They are produced by athmospheric electricity and probably by the sun.
Incidentally it has been found that, by converting these athmospheric signals to an audible sound, a kind of music results. Some of the recordings where there are more pronounced effects are known as 'whistlers', 'lion roars' etc.
There are people, who measure such fields and record such athmospheric music on a hobby basis.

(Note 1:The fact that microwaves can be used to produce crude sounds in the head of a human being depends on thermal effects and doesn't mean that the brain is really accessible electromagnetically.
Note 2: human beings can be influenced using subliminal sounds, without implants, however that doesn't imply any direct electromagnetic access to the brain. In combination with implants such technologies can however be very powerful, but in that case the implants suffice. Nothing more is needed.
Note 3:I am not denying that electromagnetic waves can be used as a weapon causing very unpleasant effects in the brain, but this is a comparatively trivial effect and doesn't imply any sofisticated type of control. )

Therefore I consider all the talk of various types of fields, unaided by implants, capable of transferring such nontrivial phenomena like thoughts to be untrue and I assume that they are a consequence of deliberate disinformation. Furthermore if these techniques existed, and superseeded the use of implants, why would the Airforce develop various types of microchips for insertion in the brains of military personnel?. It would be much easier to use the other implant-free techniques.

A lot more can be said. But I think this suffices to convince people with a scientific background, that the alleged implant-free methods for remote mind control are not very likely to exist and should be considered to be disseminated for disinformation purposes. It seems very farfetched to think that the mind control victims would invent such an idea. Therefore the suspicion should be directed against the mind controllers. Since I have concluded that implants are needed and the disinformation campaign has it that they aren't needed, it is an obvious conclusion that the disinformation is aimed to take the heat off the implant technique. To redirect peoples attention from that to something less tangible. Where hard evidence is not expected to be found in the victims bodies.
Psychologically, such an idea may come as a releif for some victims, since they wouldn't have to worry about removing the implant using complex surgery. The brain, being a delicate organ, is likely do be damaged, if large wired-in implants are physically removed. According to recent publications, such modern implants have the neurons grow into the electronic implant. Further as the victims are made to beleive in the existence of implant-free methods they rightly conclude that such methods would be more deniable and therefore they would most certainly be the method of preference if they existed.
Therefore there wouldn't seem to be any point in looking for implants. Even if some victims suspect that they may have implants they can't be sure that they will be able to prove it. Depending on the type of implant, it may be more or less hard to see it using xrays or other methods. And maybe they are afraid that they won't get a fair examination done. After going through such a (fairly or unfairly done), failed examination they expect to be worse off than if they never tried it.
By sticking to the allegedly existing implant-free methods, they don't have to be put to a test in the same way.
Since they have in many cases, (if not all), been treated as delusional, they are not very keen on being put to a test when they expect everybody to want the outcome to be a failed test.

It is conceivable that this strategy, of sticking to the idea that they are being harassed by the implant-free technology, may be a winning strategy even if, in the end, it turns out to be a faulty idea. One rationale could be that the authorities, who know that the victims are really being harassed, prefer that the precise nature of the technology is hidden. Nobody appart from the controllers get to know it. This may prevent the proliferation of the unethical use of the technology. I don't know how the argument goes. But I know that ESB technology is fully evolved, ready to be used in a legitimate manner, ie consensually, to cure and improve the lifes of millions of people. It would be unethical to hide it. It should be pointed out that the technology to help people with serious spinal damage, such that they are paralyzed, needs some way to reconnect wounded or dead nerve fibres. Brain implants alone cannot compensate for such problems. However, once the connection is made it seems likely that the brain implant can be used to quickly aid the body in relearning the skills which have been unused due to the spinal damage.
I think research to create artificial nerve fibres is under way in some open research projects. Corresponding classified research wouldn't be unexpected. The bionic fighter would be incomplete without it. It's difficult to foresee to what extent abusive use of the technology would proliferate as it becomes widespread, but I assume all nations would be keen on negotiating the matter. There are some fairly complex technical issues, such as how to keep unwanted intruders from peoples brains. It is similar to the problem with internet safety.
Continuing, about the strategy of sticking to the possibly erroneous idea. Compare this with the people who suffer from some kind of allergy against electrical systems or whatever it is. There is agreement about the reality of these problems, however as far as I know there is, so far, no scientific explanation of what is really the cause. Double blind tests have not been able to correlate the victims reactions with any objective data, such as electromagnetic fields. I may have got this wrong, but this is what I have gleaned from some glimpses of the media coverage. In any case this problem is now handled along with other conventional deseases what regards social insurance matters and there is no questioning of the honesty or sanity of the people affected. It may turn out later that the real cause was something unexpected, but that wouldn't necessarily matter to those affected.

Some observations can be made, regarding the victims of remote electronic mind control.
Expected differences between victims where implants mediate the effect and victims where the effect comes from an external electromagnetic field unaided by any implant. For the latter cause the following properties would Not be expected:
  • The capacity to be completely singled out.
    eg as the victim walks in a crowded place in between the people he is still the only one affected. The people, who sometimes must cut him off from any kind of directional electromagnetic beam, would still never seem to experience similar types of harassment. Despite being exposed to the same field. Alternatively, if such a field is switched off everytime the victim is in that kind of situation, just to avoid affecting other people, then the victim would notice the absence of symptoms. Thus this kind of test would be revealing if the harassment were due to a directional beam, intended to reach only the victim.
    If this is the case it is a strong argument for the hypothesis that the person does have an implant.

  • No intermittency
    The harassment does not seem to vanish irregularly, it doesn't have a strongly varying intensity depending on the victims location and motion. Ie it seems to be transferred by a very reliable communication channel. It's not like carrying a radio in a mountainous terrain, where the signal would sometimes be screened off.
    (On the other hand intermittency wouldn't prove anything, only its absence.)

  • Distinct parts of the body appear to be remotely controlled.
    This would mean that the brains corresponding centres would be selectively excited.
    Such selectivity is not likely to be possible unless an implant is used.

    To be continued and edited. Perhaps some kind of appeal to various scientists to offer help to the victims to find out whether or not they have an implant.

References - 1

References - 2

Return to Introduction