The Case of John St. Clair Akwei
John St. Clair Akwei claims to have worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US government, and filed a lawsuit against them in 1992 (Washington DC, Civil Action 92-0449) for being targeted with what he referred to as ‘Remote Neural Monitoring’ (RNM) technologies. Many people have referred to this case as proof that these technologies exist, but on closer examination it can be seen that there’s very little to actually substantiate his claims. In fact, there is good reason to suspect that this case was a deliberate disinformation ploy to create the illusion that the NSA has more capabilities than it really does. This is a standard tactic used to throw off foreign and domestic adversaries and protect classified secrets. This sort of disinformation ploy is designed to create a prop that can then be used to lead people’s beliefs about the capabilities of these technologies so that they have a false understanding of the methods used in their targeting and the real methods are overlooked.
Akwei’s lawsuit application has been posted on the Internet in its entirety, and in reviewing it, I discovered that he provided very little information about the technology that would indicate how it operates, nor is there any more than a few sentences regarding the effects he claims to have suffered by these technologies at the hands of the NSA. Apparently, Akwei had no evidence at all to support his claims, or he would have clearly stated this fact in his lawsuit application. In fact, his case was dismissed by Judge Stanley Sporkin on the grounds that it was frivolous. By reading his application, it is indeed obvious that he had no case. I came across one online post by someone who said they had contacted Akwei to find out the results of the case, and Akwei hadn’t been interested in discussing it and didn’t want to be bothered about it.
Nonetheless, because Akwei went so far as to file a lawsuit, many people have come to automatically assume that this somehow gives his claims credibility, and I see his case being cited by one person after another as supporting evidence for their own claims, which makes me suspicious. It appears that his case is being used as part of an ongoing disinformation campaign to influence the targeted public in what it believes about these mind-control technologies and the methods that are used to cause the effects that they are experiencing.
Akwei states that he was in two-way communication with NSA agents who used these technologies to harass him, but he provides very few other details about his targeting beyond this and the majority of his application is filled with background information about the NSA and some details about their purported technological capabilities. Most of this information was already widely available at the time he filed his lawsuit. The only information that might have been relatively new at the time was a few of the more extraordinary claims he made about the technology.
For instance, Akwei describes technological capabilities that I have already shown (see http://exposinginfragard.blogspot.ca/2014/06/a-primer-on-v2k-vs-mind-reading.html) to be unrealistic. For instance, he states (emphasis added):
“Without any contact with the subject, Remote Neural Monitoring can map out electrical activity from the visual cortex of a subject's brain and show images from the subject's brain on a video monitor. NSA operatives see what the surveillance subject's eyes are seeing. Visual memory can also be seen.”
He goes on to state that it is all done non-invasively and “with no physical contact with the subject.” This implies that no special requirements are needed, such as implants or preliminary EEG sessions for learning a target’s unique brainwave signature patterns. However, I have already shown in my previous article how scientifically unrealistic this is.
Like virtually every other person making such extraordinary claims about these technologies (Tim Rifat, Jesus Mendoza, Robert Duncan, Alex Jones, etc.), Akwei fails to describe whatever method might be used that would circumvent all of the problems that have been detailed in my previous article regarding remote mind-reading technologies. He also fails to provide any sources for his information other than a list of references to a number of books and documents that he states he only discovered in 1991 after having notified the authorities and getting no responsive action. This list seems to be the extent of his evidence, and much of the referenced material is familiar to this author and none of it bears evidence that would support Akwei’s more extraordinary claims.
In his lawsuit application, Akwei makes the following claim (emphasis added):
“NSA computer-generated brain mapping can monitor all the electrical activity in the brain continuously. The NSA records aid decodes individual brain maps (of hundreds of thousands of persons) for national security purposes.”
He also states:
“Each person's brain has a unique set of bioelectric resonance/entrainment frequencies. Sending audio information to a person's brain at the frequency of another person's auditory cortex would result in that audio information not being perceived.”
Irrespective of finding some way of overcoming all of the problems described in my previous article regarding these technologies, reading all the activity of the brain, even if it could somehow be done, would require some very powerful computers with incredibly immense storage and memory capacities for each person being targeted. Even a MEG machine can’t read the activity of individual neurons and approximately 50,000 active neurons are needed for the brain to generate a signal that is strong enough to be detectable by it, so the claim that all brain activity can be monitored would require some exceptional science that lies outside of our current understanding of physics. This comment of Akwei's reflects his ignorance of the physical limitations of such a scheme.
But let’s consider this claim a little further, just to properly understand how unrealistic it is.
There are approximately one hundred billion neurons in the human brain, which means that just to capture one millisecond (1/1000 of a second, the approximate time it takes for a neuron to fire) of brain activity for one person, with only one byte of computer memory allocated to each neuron, it would require about 100 gigabytes of storage space per millisecond. One second of monitoring would require 100 terabytes (1 terabyte = 1,000 gigabytes). One hour (3,600 seconds) of monitoring one person would require 360,000 terabytes (360 petabytes, or 360 quadrillion bytes). Multiply this by the number of people that Akwei claims are supposedly being monitored (hundreds of thousands), and it becomes even more unrealistic. Of course, a single byte per neuron is far short of what would actually be required, since it would also be necessary to store and analyze information about each neuron, such as what it does, what its state is, what other neurons it connects to (there are approximately one thousand dendrites on each neuron that connect to other neurons), its firing rate, etc. Each additional piece of information about each neuron would multiply the storage requirements for each neuron by at least a factor of two, but probably much more. On top of all this, there’s the necessity of mapping all the meaningful neural firing patterns that are decoded from a person’s brain activity, which would require even further computer resources, both for doing the analysis and for storing the patterns and information about their meaning. Even though far less than the full set of 100 billion neurons would ever be of interest in mapping or monitoring for any particular type of pattern, the storage and analysis of a person’s brain activity would still require extraordinary memory and storage capabilities.
To put this into better perspective, in August 2011, IBM was reported to have built the largest storage array ever, with a capacity of 120 petabytes (120 million gigabytes). This would be about enough to store the complete neural information for one human brain for about twenty minutes at most.
So we see that for Akwei’s claims to be true, there has to be a database for each individual target that contains complete data on that person’s recognized patterns, as well as storage capacities for every millisecond of brain activity to be used for real-time monitoring while also analyzing the person’s brain activity. This might easily require days, weeks, or even months worth of recorded data during the preliminary pattern learning phase. Not that this is completely impossible, but it needs to be kept in perspective what Akwei is claiming, and what is realistic.
Akwei makes one more statement in his application that’s of particular interest here. He says (emphasis added):
“Signals Intelligence implemented and kept this technology secret in the same manner as other electronic warfare programs of the U.S. government. The NSA monitors available information about this technology and withholds scientific research from the public. There are also international intelligence agency agreements to keep this technology secret.”
This is an important point to take note of, because it supports the fact that the Robert Malech patent is also often cited as proof that these mind-reading technologies exist, yet the fact that this patent is in the public records goes directly against NSA procedures for keeping technological secrets. Why would it be there in the publicly available patent records if it were a classified technology that the government wanted to keep secret? It wouldn't.
The Robert G. Malech Patent
Because many people have been referring to this particular patent as proof that remote mind-reading technologies exist, I decided to search it out at the US Patent Office website, and retrieved a copy of the original application (US patent #3951134). The patent application was made in 1974 and was granted in 1976. The patent application describes the technology as an:
“Apparatus for and method of sensing brain waves at a position remote from a subject whereby electromagnetic signals of different frequencies are simultaneously transmitted to the brain of the subject in which the signals interfere with one another to yield a waveform which is modulated by the subject's brain waves. The interference waveform which is representative of the brain wave activity is re-transmitted by the brain to a receiver where it is demodulated and amplified.”
As has already been explained in my previous article, there are a number of problems with this method of remotely reading brainwaves that makes it unrealistic as a real application. However, because it received a patent grant, many people assume that the technology must work.
The use of the word ‘remote’ can be deceiving when used in relation to such technologies, and might mean nothing more than the distance of mere inches, as with SQUIDs in a MEG machine. The Malech patent gives no indication of the distances that the described technology would be expected to work at, but it does state the following (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 the problems that I outlined in my previous article – that any extraneous electromagnetic interference arising between the source and the target will disrupt the signals, and this interference is virtually impossible to eliminate in an open environment. The greater the distance between source and target, the more interference there will be to contend with. This applies to both the transmitted signal and the returned signal, doubling the problem of sending and receiving a reliable signal. But more than that, the above quote also reveals the patent author only assumes that the technology will work as expected, rather than having actually been tested.
Further, in describing the method of operation, the patent 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 filed (1974), there was no certainty that this technology would work as described or even that specific brainwave patterns could be determined, which suggests that a prototype of the technology was never actually built and tested to see if it would do what the patent author claims. According to the patent application process in the USA, such requirements are not necessary as long as the technology or invention is conceptually sound and based on known scientific principles.
One more thing needs to be understood that has to do with the patent process. According to an explanation of the patent examination process available on the US Patent Office website (emphasis added):
“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 the Malech patent application will reveal that certain distinctions in its wording – most specifically in the choice of using the words ‘can’, ‘will’, and ‘may’ when and where they have been – suggest that the application author clearly understood that certain key aspects of this technology’s operation were only being assumed to work, rather than being certain to. I will spare the reader from going over these details of the application here, however, and will instead leave it to those who are interested in verifying this for themselves to read the original patent application available at the US Patent Office and carefully note how it is worded to reflect certain assumptions were being made about its capabilities.
One final note about this patent. It was obviously of no interest to the military or intelligence organs of the US government, otherwise it would have been immediately classified and kept out of the patent records. The fact that it received a patent grant relatively quickly and is in the patent records implies that the military/intelligence organs had already researched this technology and found it to be unworkable. That being the case, the Malech patent may have been purposely planted in the public records as a prop for later disinformation campaigns to mislead and confuse the targeted public about the sort of mind-control technologies that are being used on them, while other, more realistic methods of mind-control are applied without any awareness of the target. Even if the Malech patent wasn’t purposely planted, it has nonetheless become a misleading piece of information that has since been frequently used as proof that this remote mind-reading technology exists and can even do everything that John St. Clair Akwei claims.
Thanks for the links, Benjamin...ReplyDelete
The use of rnm technology against the public is a reality. I am currently living this nightmarish experience and have been for years now. If you want to know the capabilities and effects of rnm technology upon a person give me a call. My telephone number is 9199371159. This is real!!.ReplyDelete
I'm not saying RNM tech doesn't exist. I'm saying that it isn't capable of what people think it is, due to physical limitations that are well known by scientists.ReplyDelete
When I get someone wanting me to call them by phone, I get very suspicious. Phones are capable of being used for RNM, subliminal hypnosis, etc.
Why don't you just write me and explain it to me. I'd like to know how you think the tech works and how it can overcome those physical limitations.
The truth is in the deatils.
Re the last comment... My email address is firstname.lastname@example.orgReplyDelete
Of course, like all people making such claims, Enrico fails to produce.Delete
This is real everyone, wake up!!! ive been totured every way you can imagine it drove me to the become insane and i thought i was going crazy but how is that even possible after so little time all of sudden i have all these symptoms it drove me to go to the physc ward and a physiciatrist and nothing is working and now my reputation is ruined im 24, female have no history of schizophrenia, bi- polar- depression and suicidal. my life was perfect they led me to believe i was crazy and now they are still torturing me even in my dreams.ReplyDelete
Ive been stalked for 2 years and some months. I have a perfectly healthy mind after all this and just so you know some people dont think its real even though people are having the same side affects to this thing seriously ?? 400 million people complaning about the same thing i thought i was going crazy and you know what they are testing it out and wait untill it happens to you for those who are suffering like me i hope the best please someone help me i want my life back !!Delete
estefania bautista... what do you mean exactly by "this thing"? Generalizing about the technology and what it can do is causing a problem in the TI community, in that people who claim to be suffering from it often jump to concusions about what the tech can do based on what they hear it can do, but they never have scientific facts to back them up. Very few if any claimants of "mind-reading" tech ever describe any of their experiences in enough detail to justify that it's remote electronic brainwave reading tech (which is virtually impossible), and they don't consider that their symptoms mght be influenced by subliminal hypnotic commands sent through V2K or over common tech like computers and cell phones. I don't like people who rely on emotional diatribes to make their case. I'd just as soon delete them from my blog.Delete
And ANOTHER one who fails to respond beyond making wild claims with nothing to support it. People whose posts are filled with emotional content like the above are extremely questionable, IIMO.Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete