"They can insert thoughts and ideas in TI by electrical stimulation of the brain, but they really can read minds? I mean, I know that they can read emotional states (fear, anger, worry) but I'm not so sure they can read complex thoughts. Rather I think they only get approximations for reading brain activity. Please give me your guidance on this."
"Yes, they can see what you are viewing, hearing, and thinking to
I contacted Robert Duncan to ask for an explanation of how this was done. I referred him to my document ‘A Primer on V2K vs. Mind-reading Technologies’, so he would know what research I’ve already done. He responded by saying:
“It sounds like you haven't done basic research. There are no simple answers. Read books like "Project: Soul Catcher". Study neuroscience, physics, and psychology beforehand.”
Well, I’ve done a lot of research into these and other subjects already, enough to not be so easily put off by his dismissive response. In fact, it made me very suspicious, because I’ve had this same experience with other high-profile individuals on the Internet who make equally extraordinary claims. They seem to think that they have the scoop on the truth and to question what they say is the equivalent of heresy.
So I started doing a little digging for information on Dr, Robert Duncan, looking for any further information on him and his claims. Most of what I found, apart from a lot of podcasts (which I don’t waste my time with for certain reasons) were just promotions for his new book, which happened to be the same one he had suggested I read. So, he had been subtly trying to influence me to pay him for information that I can’t be sure is going to answer my question. I became more suspicious.
I put out an enquiry among my friends in the TI community, and was soon directed to an older book he had written that was available online, called ‘The Matrix Deciphered’. When I got a copy of it, I contacted him again to ask why he hadn’t just referred me to it, instead of subtly suggesting that I purchase his new book. He responded by telling me that this older book wasn’t supposed to have been released. However, I later found that he has a blog where it’s available. I also discovered that he had deleted the posts on his facebook page in which he said it wasn’t supposed to have been released. I was getting more and more suspicious.
Anyway, I started reading his book, and I’m only more confused by his response to my initial inquiry, because he claims within its opening pages that:
“My motivation for writing this book was to help consolidate the technical information about the most advanced, secret military weapons being tested on civilians throughout the world, and to give new test victims a literary reference…”
Why didn’t he refer me to this book, if it promised to “consolidate the technical information” and provide a “literary reference”? This is what I was looking for from him. My suspicions loomed ever larger.
I contacted him again and told him in no uncertain terms that I suspected he was spreading false information and that I was intent on exposing these untruths, he replied, in part:
“I told you once before Anthony. I do not stand by that piece of crap you are reading so quit attaching my name to it. I do not do activism anymore.”
Well, this is interesting, considering he’s the author of the book in question, and his name keeps coming to my attention from people who state that he’s still doing activism. In fact, that’s how he came to my attention. Also, he failed to say anything about this book being “a piece of crap” earlier. He had merely told me it wasn’t supposed to have been released. It seemed to me that he was making more and more excuses to try to put me off track.
I wasn’t about to believe any of this, since it seemed to me that it might be a simple attempt at dissuading me from researching his claims and exposing any false information he might be spreading.
I’m going to try to avoid making all the comments that I could make about what he says in his book, because it would probably result in a document that was twice as long as the book itself. My primary intentions here are to extract whatever relevant information I can on what he claims about remote mind-control technologies as they relate to what I quoted him saying at the beginning of this document – that “they can see what you are viewing, hearing, and thinking to some extent."
The first piece of relevant information is a reference to a patent issued to a Robert G. Malech in 1976 (US patent #3951134). It’s described as:
“a fairly simple radar device that could read whole brain electrical activity at a large distance. It has the major advantages of no wires and full brain electrical activity analysis, not just points on the skull surface […] by ‘illuminating’ the brain and its electrical conductance then reading the return signal. The imaging method observes the changes of frequency resonances, amplitude, and phase which represent the states of neuron depolarization throughout the brain.”
I searched out this patent at the US Patent Office, and retrieved the original application. Although such a patent exists and is described as Robert Duncan says, I was still not so easily convinced.
First of all, an important question needs to be asked: What is the maximum distance that this technology will operate at? The application does not provide an answer, but I did find something in the description that suggests that it probably isn’t very far at all. It states, in part (emphasis added):
“If the amplitudes of the two signals transmitted to the subject are maintained at identical levels, the resultant interference waveform, absent influences of external radiation, may be expected to assume zero intensity when maximum interference occurs[.[”
This raises a problem, as I outline in my document mentioned above – that any electromagnetic interference (external radiation) between the source and target will disrupt the signals, and this is virtually impossible to eliminate. The greater the distance, the more interference to contend with. This applies to both the signal that’s transmitted and the signal that’s received back, doubling the problem of getting a reliable reading.
Further, in describing the method of operation, the application states (emphasis added):
“[T]he interference waveform is modulated by the brain waves. It is believed that this is due to the fact that brain waves produce electric charges each of which has a component of electromagnetic radiation associated with it.”
These last two quoted statements clearly indicate that, at least at the time that the application was made (1974), there was no certainty that specific brainwave patterns could be determined, which means that the technology was never actually built and tested to see if it would do what is expected. According to the patent application process in the USA, such requirements are not necessary.
It should be noted that a MEG machine, which is the most advanced method of brain scanning in use today, reads electromagnetic emissions from the brain in a similar fashion as this patent describes, and requires a very carefully controlled setup to eliminate all external interference. The MEG didn’t come into use until after this patent was applied for. If the MEG had to be designed in the manner that it is in order to eliminate all external interference, then it stands to reason that the technology described in this patent would have to as well.
According to an explanation of the patent examination process available on the US Patent Office’s website:
“As a rule the examiner will give to a claim its "broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. […] [T]he words of the claim must be given their plain (ordinary and customary) meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification.”
Given this fact, a closer scrutiny of this patent application will reveal that the distinctions in its wording – specifically in the use of the words ‘can’, ‘will’, and ‘may’ – suggest that the author of the application understood that certain key aspects of this technology’s operation were being assumed to work, rather than being certain to, However, I will not attempt to show this here, due to space, and will instead leave it to those who are interested in verifying this to have a look at the patent application for themselves.
A few final words regarding this patent application. There is no specific claim that it would be able to do what Robert Duncan claims is possible with current mind-control technologies, i.e., that it can be used to “see what you are viewing, hearing, and thinking to some extent." What it does claim to be able to do is best described in its final paragraph (emphasis added):
“As will be appreciated by those familiar with the art, apparatus and method of the subject invention has numerous uses. Persons in critical positions such as drivers and pilots can be continuously monitored with provision for activation of an emergency device in the event of human failure. Seizures, sleepiness and dreaming can be detected. Bodily functions such as pulse rate, heartbeat reqularity and others also can be monitored and occurrences of hallucinations can be detected. The system also permits medical diagnoses of patients, inaccessible to physicians, from remote stations.”
However, these capabilities don’t necessarily have to rely on brainwave emissions, and can be determined by stronger electromagnetic emissions coming from other parts of the body, or from body movements (similar to EKG readings), although it doesn’t specifically state this. Again, the wording used is very important, and it is very likely that the author was being careful to suggest the most extensive applications possible to encourage an application grant.
To be continued...