Again and again, I come across the claim that implants are responsible for what people are experiencing as far as remotely reading their brainwaves This will clear the matter up, and these people should begin to look elsewhere for the cause of their experiences. This is a recent post to me on facebook, and my response:
Karen Oliemans
Excellent reading Anthony You are, however, completely out of date with your research. Nano tech inside victims using satellites as the in between station to secret service control rooms has overtaken all the tech that you have researched. Mindcontrol.se is the site to look at all the different nano tech technologies that are also being used by rogue syndicates infiltrating big corporations, already since 2006/7 from witness accounts. Dutch TI Sandesh de Rijk is such a victim. Two weeks ago I went to a TI day in Brussels and met with Magnus Olsson who started raising awareness about this evil tech. There is now tech that can cut through your teeth and cause big holes in teeth and arteries. Every human brain has an unique brain energy pattern that can be identified by computer software in a control room (this happens without the use of any equipment on the victim) which is then analysed and further used for experimentation and also for criminal purposes, i.e. to actually control that persons energy fields including thought processes as every emotion has a specific frequency and therefore can be manipulated outside of that person by that special computer and then fed back into the victim. You must go to that website Anthony and read up about this totally horific tech. It is mind boggeling and heartbreaking. These nano tech particles are actual mini computers that can be utilised for mind control of the victim, that is what it boils down to. I cannot help you with other info except that website and also the websites that Flickk Anhuii gets some of his info from. We are together on this Anthony, and we also depend on each other too and only have each other as we are all victims. Stay strong
----
Scientific facts based on the laws of physics do not go out of date. Let me explain something. This is simple physics I'm going to describe, and can be verified by any radio technician.
It would be impossible to remotely pick up signals coming from any nano-sized implant beyond a few inches at best. Such an implant would essentially be a radio transmitter, and would have to follow the same scientific principles that any other radio transmitter does. A radio transmitter can only produce a given amount of amplitude, based on the amount of power it can handle, and this power level is largely determined by the size of the capacitor that stores and builds up the energy for the transmitter's signal. A capacitor has to be larger the more power it must store to gain the amplitude it needs to send the signal the desired distance. Amplitude equates to the distance that a radio wave can propagate. All EM waves lose amplitude with distance. An implant, whether nano-sized or larger, is therefore severely restricted in the amount of power it can use, due to its small size. This means that the amplitude of its signal will be extremely low, and so the distance that the signal will propagate is going to be equally extremely short. We're talking about inches at best. You could have a million nano-devices in you, working in tandem, and still, the combined signals will not add together to increase the amplitude. All you'll get is a very weak field effect of the same amplitude.
Brainwaves are also extremely weak, and can't be read by any device even inches distant from the head and without special shielding to block both natural EM and EM coming from unnatural sources that are constantly propagating throughout the environment. Take a look at what's required for a MEG machine to work. A MEG is the most sensitive device known to be able to read brainwave patterns (more powerful than a PET or fMRI scanner). This is all detailed at the link below, including pictures of the shielding used, to give you an idea of the problems involved.
When you say that "Every human brain ... can be identified by computer software in a control room (this happens without the use of any equipment on the victim)", you are completely mistaken and need to check your facts. My research will help you with that. As I said, scientific facts do not go out of date. My research is based on scientific facts.
If you want us all to be together on this, then please don't expect me to start at square one again, as I've had to do so many times already because people just refuse to look at the research that I've already done for them. I'm trying to make it simple for others to understand where they're wrong, and I've continually provided links to my research, without ever receiving one response that even attempts to disprove it. I just get a continual stream of similar responses to yours by a never-ending string of new people who are misinformed (no disrespect intended). It's very tiring to deal with after a while (I often wonder if it's purposeful).
I don't know offhand what you've seen of my research, but I suggest you look at this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82734018/A-Primer-on-v2k-and-Mind-Reading-Technologies-Part-i
If you really want to work together (which is what I'd like as well), then see if you can find among any of your reference material anything that actually describes in this same sort of detail how what you claim is possible, based on known physics. This is what I've been asking for from people who make similar claims as yours for over a year now. Nobody has yet been able to. This includes Magnus, of all people. If that information can be provided, I'll look at it and take it into consideration. What I won't do any more, however, is continually waste my time looking at links that end up not detailing these things. That sort of response only increases my doubts about the sensibilities of other TIs, and makes me suspicious of the sources that put out this false information. Don't you think it's only fair to for others to be able to provide the sort of detail that I do in proving claims? Appeals to the emotions won't make falsehoods into facts. Stick with looking at the science behind the claims. Keep the emotional rhetoric out of it. It doesn't excuse faulty claims.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to explain this. I hope it helps clear some things up.
No comments:
Post a Comment