Brain Implant Allows Users to Instantly Speak Foreign Language,,,

bluered.gif (1041 bytes)

Nano-Chip Brain Implant Allows Users to Instantly Speak Foreign Language,,,

bluered.gif (1041 bytes)

The first-ever nano-chip language translators are rolling off the assembly line and into cosmetic surgeons’ offices quicker than you can say “Se Habla Espanol?” No longer will it be necessary for those wishing to learn a second or even third language to go through the arduous process of weeks and weeks of studying tapes or attending language classes. The product is called “Nano-Second Language” or NSL, and they are expected to sell out within weeks.

bluered.gif (1041 bytes)

http://rj.revolvermaps.com/f/g.swf

The makers of the NSL brain implant first developed the product under a grant by the United States Department of Defense as a solution to the problem servicemen and women were having when being shipped overseas to the Middle East. “No one spoke Arabic which led to some serious misunderstandings between our military and that of the country our servicemen were stationed in,” says Dr. Lewis Lipps, chief engineer on the NSL project. “The NSL Arabic version will immediately resolve that issue and allow certain soldiers to communicate in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, even Libya with little to no problem,” said Lipps.

Asked how the nano-chip brain implant works, Lipps explained, “The NSL Arabic version, for instance, has a complete Arabic alphabet and dictionary with over 20,000 common words which are electronically translatable from English literally within nanoseconds. In a simple outpatient procedure, the NSL chip is implanted into the corpus callosum portion of the left side, or the language center, of the brain and activated.”

bluered.gif (1041 bytes)

Dr. Lipps then showed illustrations of the procedure which is done through arthroscopic surgery. “As soon as a soldier thinks out the phrase he wants to say,” he continued, “he pushes a button that is also implanted discretely underneath the skin on the soldier’s upper left side of the head.” Dr. Lipps explained that when the soldier goes to speak, it appears he is tapping his head as if he is thinking of what to say, and voila, his words come out of his mouth in the language he has implanted. In this case, Arabic.

Initial test results indicate a 97.6% success rate on the battlefield and the nano-chip is already being used by many servicemen and women today. Now that the product has been tested and proven to be efficient in Arabic, a Mandarin Chinese model is being tested on businessmen from various industries who find it necessary to communicate in Chinese with their business counterparts in China. The NSL Chinese version should be available to the business world within two to 8-10 months.

bluered.gif (1041 bytes)


Posted by 

Tags: ,,,,

The Society of Neural Prosthetics “IMPLANT” and Whole Brain Emulation Science !

The Society of Neural Prosthetics and Whole Brain Emulation Science

What is mind uploading?

Mind uploading is a popular term for a process by which the mind, a collection of memories, personality, and attributes of a specific individual, is transferred from its original biological brain to an artificial computational substrate. Alternative terms for mind uploading have appeared in fiction and non-fiction, such as mind transfer, mind downloading, off-loading, side-loading, and several others. They all refer to the same general concept of “transferring” the mind to a different substrate.

Once it is possible to move a mind from one substrate to another, it is then called a substrate-independent mind (SIM). The concept of SIM is inspired by the idea of designing software that can run on multiple computers with different hardware without needing to be rewritten. For example, Java’s design principle “write once, run everywhere” makes it a platform independent system. In this context, substrate is a term referring to a generalized concept of any computational platform that is capable of universal computation.

We take the materialist position that the human mind is solely generated by the brain and is a function of neural states. Additionally, we assume that the neural states are computational processes and devices capable of universal computing are sufficient to generate the same kind of computational processes found in a brain.

Hacking The Brain !

Plasma....

Hacking The Brain !

Moon 101

The world is changing fast–maybe faster than we ever thought. And within five years, science fiction is going to turn into non-fiction. We’ll be able to read each other’s minds, forget all our passwords.

IBM  2012   5 IN 5

To understand the issue a little clearer, we will need to treat the human brain much like a computer with dedicated hardware. In this respect, what we are looking for is one, or more, security flaws that we can exploit. So, we have to come at this much like a hacker would.

We know from our previous articles that the brain emits weak radio frequencies in the sub-1000Hz range. The principles of radio tell us anything that can produce a radio signal, can also accept one. Thus, we have overcome our first major hurdle, the establishment of a physical transport layer. A physical transport layer allows for two-way communications.

http://rg.revolvermaps.com/f/f.swf
Instant readers of th world

neuron nano 202

Given that we know that no information is directly encoded onto the radio waves, the frequencies are unique due to axon properties and the supply of energy will cause a neuron to fire, we have now established a data transport layer. That is, data is not communicated, it is stimulated in the target and the target experiences whatever that stimulation corresponds to.

If we return to our hacker analogy, what we have found is the human brain, whilst using a spread spectrum and a highly discreet frequency response to eliminate cross-talk, is unable to label information and determine that it has been processed before. In short, the human brain is vulnerable to what is known as a replay attack.

For those that have a deeper interest, or indeed are involved in Neuroscience, I have come across a scientific paper which should outline the principle in more scientific terms. The following paper, published in 1995, describes the electromagnetic induction of “fundamental algorithms”, or neural networks, to generate any sensory perception required. We will get to how this functions in a moment, for now, have a quick read:

On the possibility of directly accessing every human brain by electromagnetic induction of fundamental algorithms.

Persinger MA.

Behavioural Neuroscience Laboratory, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract :

Contemporary neuroscience suggests the existence of fundamental algorithms by which all sensory transduction is translated into an intrinsic, brain-specific code. Direct stimulation of these codes within the human temporal or limbic cortices by applied electromagnetic patterns may require energy levels which are within the range of both geomagnetic activity and contemporary communication networks. A process which is coupled to the narrow band of brain temperature could allow all normal human brains to be affected by a subharmonic whose frequency range at about 10 Hz would only vary by 0.1 Hz.

mind to mind

I have provided two diagrams, on the right hand side, to explain how this functions. If we look at diagram two, we can observe how the neurons, when viewing green grass, emits a specific pattern of radio waves at certain frequencies. If we now look at diagram three, we can observe that transmitting this pattern and frequencies back to the brain will result in the target seeing green grass. Of course, there are certain limitations and we will discuss them in a moment.

As we can see, anything we can possibly experience can be reduced to certain patterns and frequencies emitted from the human brain. As such, any experience can be faked by a computer and sent to your brain. Thus, it is a matter of recognizing these patterns and frequencies and this brings us back to the first citation in this article.

As human beings, we all assume that we are unique and that should be the case with our brains. As much as we would wish this to be true, it is simply not. We all must perform the same functions and be wired relatively similarly to conduct those functions. The reason we can all, for the most part, see, touch, smell, hear and taste indicates that we have all have the same basic circuitry that allows these perceptions to function. With pattern matching and a large database we can build a library of thoughts, feelings, images, opinions and sounds that are generally applicable to anyone.

Thus, as the above citation calls it, we all have certain fundamental algorithms. As such, we all emit very similar patterns and frequencies due to this similar wiring. The slight variations that do occur, prevent us from emitting radio waves that would cause interference in all of our perceptions. If this we’re not the case, we would experience each others thoughts, vision, auditory and emotional experiences every minute of every day. Again, for our astute readers, this would indicate limited acts of natural telepathy due to wave propagation and frequency response. That, however, is a completely different story.

The limitation that I mentioned earlier are the result of actively processing input. That is, whilst I can put phosphenes or bright images in your vision, I may not be able to put more subtle or complex images. The problem is that the neurons are already firing and I have only two choices, interrupt or accelerate. That would usually translate to either darkness, or a bright spot. A similar issue exists with all sensory input. As a result, it is not possible to place someone into a VR type environment, but it is possible to scramble their inputs, causing wide spread malfunctions, hallucinations and loss of motor skills.

 brain 1001

The Dark Side

That’s pretty much it for the technical side of the mechanism, but the real question would be, what would it be like? Well, if I got you to think of the phrase “Hello World!” and recorded the associated frequencies and patterns, I could retransmit them and you would feel that you have just thought the words “Hello World!”, in your own inner voice. Unless you had extensive experience with the A.I. and a very deep understanding of your own mind, then it would be impossible to tell the difference.

Now, imagine a merger talks, or even political agreement. To get a person to commit to an agreement, I simply transmit a copy of my own feelings of acceptance to the target. They now feel the way you do about the agreement and will sign. It is also possible to block certain thoughts, or feelings of negativity, and even place your own counter-arguments to these thoughts directly into their mind. As far as the target is concerned, it was their own idea and they did it out of their own free will.

moon brain

Why debate when you can impose your will?

Sat Oct 9, 2010 2:48 PM EDT

Newsvine

The Neurophone

Although the offered explanations for “Hearing Voices” can include everything from trickery to hidden transmitters to tinnitus to psychic/haunting experiences to possession or encounters with God/aliens (to so – called schizophrenic episodes) by far the most common REAL reason is covert Neurophone harassment as arranged by government agencies and/or other criminals.

US Patent # 3,393,279. July 16th, 1968

US Patent # 3,647,970. March 7th, 1972

The Neurophone was developed by Dr Patrick Flanagan in 1958. It’s a device that converts sound to electrical impulses. In its original form electrodes were placed on the skin but with defence department developments, the signals can be delivered via satellite. They then travel the nervous system directly to the brain (bypassing normal hearing mechanisms). Dr Flanagan’s “3D holographic sound system” can place sounds in any location as perceived by the targeted / tortured listener. This allows for a variety of deceptions for gullible victims.

Today, the CIA, DIA (etc) use satellites and ground – based equipment to deliver verbal threats, deafening noise and propaganda; using neurophone technology. Anything from TV’s/radio’s appearing to operate when switched off through to “Voices from God” and encounters with “telepathic” aliens are all cons using neurophone technologies to torment, deceive and (most importantly) discredit agency/criminal targets. Naturally, the system can mimic anyone’s voice and automatic computer translations (into any language) are incorporated.

eye nano 101

Anecdotal evidence indicates that people like David Koresh, Martin Bryant and others could have been programmed then remotely triggered (or tricked) using harrassment technologies like the neurophone. (Although most of the targets are intelligent and law-abiding). For example, John Lennon’s killer, Mark Chapman, (Sweden) Anna Lind, Olof Palme, reportedly heard voices before and after silencing the agency-hounded peace advocate. “God” apparently told him to confess verbally.

To explain why others physically moving into the path of the laser do not pick up the signals, please note the following “possibilities”… a) Kirlean photography may be an ancillary system so it’s attuned to the targets personal energy field (their unique EM waves).

b) The magnetite in our brains can act as a detectable fingerprint.

c)Equally each of us has a unique bioelectrical resonance frequency in our brains. EMF Brain stimulation may be encoded so that pulsating EM signals sent to the targets brain cause audio-visual effects which only the target experiences. This, to me, is the best explanation.

d) The individuals “vibrational pattern” could be used as a signal filter like a radio receiving only the sound modulating the frequency of the station it’s tuned to.

e) The monitors simply adjust the volume downwards when you’re in a position where the signal could hit someone else’s body. Even if they heard it (briefly) they’d attribute it to another voice in the crowd etc.

As with the final proof, the definitive answer lies in the actual blueprints; secreted in the bowels of the Pentagon or some similar facility. Nonetheless, there is no report of ANY intercepted neurophone signals. If it wasn’t so effective it would not have been used to facilitate silent communications between U.S. government agents/Europ/military personnel.

.

Highlight of the Mindjustice.org website:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Op-Eds:

Outlaw nonconsensual human experiments now by Cheryl Welsh, published online June 2009 athttp://www.thebulletin.org/

New article “Bioethics Commission Failed Obama’s Mandate in New Report” by Cheryl Welsh in The Daily Censored, an online news source in cooperation with Sonoma State University’s student-run Project Censored. See: http://dailycensored.com/2012/01/05/bioethics-commission-failed-obamas-mandate-in-new-report/

President Obama will act on the Presidential Bioethics Commission December 2011 report. Now is a unique time for public input. Human subject protections should include a U.S. rule or statute that requires informed consent in classified research.

Table of Contents

  1. Citations of Mind Justice
  2. Russian Research
  3. Experimentation Law
  4. Selected Projects by Mind Justice
  5. Research and Information
  6. Allegations by Targeted Individuals from Around the World
  7. Future Plans for Mind Justice

Links
This is an extensive list of informational website relating to the crimes of organised, directed energy weapons, pyscho-electronic mind control, and related topics.

www.organised-crime-of-covert-electronic-assault-nz.com

www.mireilletorjman.com

www.nationalcaresociety.org

www.catchcanada.org

www.freedomfchs.com

www.oasisturningpoint.org

www.mindjustice.org

www.stopcovertwar.com

www.raven1.net

www.raven1.net/gaslight.htm

www.raven1.net/glossary.htm

www.multistalkervictims.org

www.shoestringradio.net

www.shoestringradio.net/policewhoknow.txt

www.shoestringradio.net/docswhoknow.txt

www.eharassment.ca

www.mindcontrolforums.com

www.americancognitivelibertiesassoc.org

www.psychologicalharassment.com

www.govharass.com

www.us-government-torture.com

www.us-government-torture.com/Larson%20/Report%20Edit.pdf

www.afafa.org

www.surveillanceissues.com

www.projectcensored.org

www.thematrixdeciphered.com

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mkultra

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/mind_control

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/cointelpro

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson

www.lesliecrawford.cabanova.com

archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=1275

www.rob-profile.com

www.jbhfile.com

www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrol10pg

www.wanttoknow.info/emailmk

www.wanttoknow.info/mindcontrolinformation#mindcontrolsummaries

www.webspawner.com/users/perpbuster

www.bugsweeps.com/info/electronic_harassment.html

www.exoticwarfare.com

www.exoticwarfareproof.org

www.amnestyusa.org/Reports_Statements_and_Issue_Briefs/Torture_and_the_Law/page.do?id=1107981&n1=3&n2=38&n3=1052

takeaction.amnestyusa.org

Posted 2 months, 1 week ago.

Add a comment

The NSA / IBM – Behind The Curtain

world in my eyes

Mr Computer’s capabilities and human-like reasoning cannot be understated.

Read more: http://www.mindcontrol.se/?page_id=6776

Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:54 PM EST

IBM BRAIN-LIKE COMPUTER CHIP, FUTURE ROBOT APOCALYPSE IS RIGHT ON SCHEDULE

IN SCIENCE’S STORIED QUEST TO MIMIC HOW THE HUMAN BRAIN FUNCTIONS, IBM HAS HIT A MAJOR MILESTONE. IN A JOINT VENTURE BEING FUNDED IN PART BY THE DEFENSE

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY (DARPA), THE COMPUTER MANUFACTURER HAS CREATED THE FIRST OF WHAT IT CALLS “COGNITIVE COMPUTER CHIPS” WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO EMULATE THE WORKINGS OF A LIVING BRAIN.

THE NEW TECHNOLOGY — NICKNAMED SYNAPSE (SYSTEMS OF NEUROMORPHIC ADAPTIVE PLASTIC SCALABLE ELECTRONICS) BY DARPA — IS MILES AHEAD OF ANY COMPUTER SYSTEM BEFORE IT, AND WORKS MUCH DIFFERENTLY. DARPA RESEARCHER DHARMENDRA MODHA NOTES “THE COMPUTERS WE HAVE TODAY ARE MORE LIKE CALCULATORS. WE WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THE BRAIN.” THIS INCLUDES FUNCTIONS LIKE MEMORY AND LEARNING, WHICH ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THE PROTOTYPE CHIPS BUILT BY IBM.

A COMPUTER THAT LEARNS AND ADAPTS IN REAL TIME MAY BE JUST AROUND THE CORNER

READ:  HTTP://WWW.CBSNEWS.COM/STORIES/2011/08/18/SCITECH/MAIN20094004.SHTML

ETICA stands for Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications

ETICA stands for Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications

This website contains information about the ETICA project. You are invited to look at the deliverables, publications, consortium member and other useful information.

 

The ETICA project was a reserach project on “Ethical Issues of Emerging ICT Applications” funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (GA 230318). It ran from April 2009 to May 2011. ETICA’s main objective was to identify ethical issues of emerging technologies and their potential application areas in order to analyse and evaluate ethical issues arising from these. On this basis, ETICA has developed  recommendations on how to engage with the ethics of emerging ICT in a proactive and acceptable manner.

 

On this website you can find all the results of the project, including

 

If you are interested in the findings of the project, in technologies, ethical issues, conceptual questions etc, please go to the

ETICA wiki

 

This is meant as a prototype of the ICT Ethics Observatory, one of the recommendations coming from the project.

 

Summary / ETICA magazine

This magazine gives a brief summary of the ETICA project, the work undertaken, methodologies used, findings and recommendations. A printed version is available from the project coordinator. Please feel free to download the pdf version here.

ETICA / STOA policy recommendations

These policy recommendations were developed in collaboration with the STOA panel and are based on the project findings and arose from the final event.

Commission Publication in Ethics of ICT and Security

This publication contains a chapter based on the ETICA project.

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues

Meeting 5: May 18-19, 2011, in New York, N.Y.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE AGENDA
Welcome and Opening Remarks

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Amy Gutman, Ph.D.
Commission Chair
James Wagner, Ph.D.
Commission Vice-Chair

Play Play Flash Video

Executive Director's Report

Executive Director’s Report

Valerie H. Bonham, J.D.
Executive Director

Play Play Flash Video

Session 1: Federal Standards - Introduction

Session 1: Federal Standards – Introduction

Christine Grady, R.N., Ph.D.
Commission Member

Play Play Flash Video

Session 2: Implementing Federal Standards

Session 2: Implementing Federal Standards

Connie Celum, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor of Medicine;
Professor of Global health;
Adjunct Professor of Epidemiology;
Director, International Clinical Research Center, Department of Global Health, University of Washington

Play Play Flash Video

David A. Borasky, Jr., M.P.H., C.I.P.

David A. Borasky, Jr., M.P.H., C.I.P.
IRB Manager, Office of Research Protection, RTI International

Play Play Flash Video

Sergio Litewka, M.D., M.P.H.

Sergio Litewka, M.D., M.P.H.

International Programs Director;
Research Assistant Professor, University of Miami Ethics Programs

Play Play Flash Video

Session 2 Q & A

Session 2 Q & A

Play Play Flash Video

Session 3: Implementing Federal Standards – International Efforts

Session 3: Implementing Federal Standards – International Efforts

Murray M. Lumpkin, M.D., M.Sc.
Deputy Commissioner for International Programs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Play Play Flash Video

Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D.

Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D.

Director, Office for Human Research Protections, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Play Play Flash Video

Session 3 Q & A

Session 3 Q & A

Play Play Flash Video

Session 4: Implementing Federal Standards – Ethics Issues

Session 4: Implementing Federal Standards – Ethics Issues 

Ronald Bayer, Ph.D.
Professor and Co-Chair, Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University

Play Play Flash Video

Joseph J. Fins, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Joseph J. Fins, M.D., F.A.C.P.

E. William Davis, M.D., Jr. Professor of Medical Ethics;
Chief, Division of Medical Ethics;
Professor of Medicine, Professor of Public Health, and Professor of Medicine in Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College

Play Play Flash Video

Session 4 Q & A

Session 4 Q & A

Play Play Flash Video

Session 5: Roundtable

Session 5: Roundtable

Play Play Flash Video

Session 6: Public Comment

Session 6: Public Comment

Play Play Flash Video

Opening Remarks

Opening Remarks

Amy Gutmann, Ph.D.
James Wagner, Ph.D.

Play Play Flash Video

Session 7: Transnational Standards

Session 7: Transnational Standards

John R. Williams, Ph.D.
Consultant, World Medical Association (WMA);
Adjunct Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa;
Adjunct Research Professor, Department of Philosophy, Carleton University (Ottawa)

Play Play Flash Video

Johannes J. M. van Delden, M.D., Ph.D.

Johannes J. M. van Delden, M.D., Ph.D.

President, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS);
Professor of Medical Ethics, Utrecht University Medical Center

Play Play Flash Video

Dafna Feinholz, Ph.D.

Dafna Feinholz, Ph.D.

Chief of the Bioethics Section, Division of Ethics of Science and Technology, Sector for Social and Human Services, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Play Play Flash Video

Francis P. Crawley

Francis P. Crawley

Executive Director, Good Clinical Practice Alliance – Europe (GCPA)

Play Play Flash Video

Session 7 Q & A

Session 7 Q & A

Play Play Flash Video

Session 8: European Perspectives

Session 8: European Perspectives

Linda Nielsen, J.D.
Vice President, European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE);
Professor of Global Law and Governance, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Play Play Flash Video

Maurizio Salvi, Ph.D.

Maurizio Salvi, Ph.D.

Policy Advisor (Ethics) to the President of the European Commission;
Head of the EGE Secretariat;
Member of the Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA)

Play Play Flash Video

Session 8 Q & A

Session 8 Q & A

Play Play Flash Video

Session 9: Roundtable

Session 9: Roundtable

Play Play Flash Video

Concluding Remarks

Concluding Remarks

Amy Gutmann, Ph.D.
James Wagner, Ph.D.

Play Play Flash Video

Satellite Read Your Thoughts – Physics Revealed

 Satellite Read Your Thoughts – Physics Revealed (2012 Update)

Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:00 PM EST

Bright ideas…literally.

I received an email in regards to some of my calculations in this series. Apparently, discussions around the web have found several errors and even provided some better examples. Whilst the articles are meant for the lay person, I thought it best to update the figures in light of this new information.

 I will resist the urge to go back and correct the articles, after all, this is supposed to be an ongoing investigation. The scientific method requires that theories are revisited when the underlying facts change and I feel that the following figures are a better representation of a single neuron. I will endeavor to be as precise as I can be and point out where I have made assumptions or idealisms.

 Reception And Detection

 So, thanks to the guys over at ATS (AboveTopSecret.com), we have the following to work with.

If a physical or chemical stimulus is strong enough to cause depolarization from the resting potential of ö70 mV to around ö50 mV, the voltage-dependant Na+transmembrane channels open. Favored by both the concentration gradient (see Table 1) and the electric gradient, Naions flow into the cell, creating an electric current (I = ΔQ/Δt). The influx of Na+ causes a local reversal of electric polarity of the membrane, changing the electric potential to about +40 mV (a swing of 110 mV from the resting potential. The small cross-sectional area (A) of an axon and high resistivity (ρ) of the axoplasm yield an extremely high resistance (R = ρL/A).Ê A piece of nerve axon 1 cm in length (L) has an electrical resistance of about 2.5 x 108 Ω (comparable to that of wood). The produced electrical current:

I = V/R = (110 x 10-3 V)/(2.5 x 108 Ω) = 4.4 x 10-10 A

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Casey_Adamson/Personal%20Web%20Page.htm

 

Firstly, we need to determine the power supplied to the axon and we do this with the following equation:

0.05 * 0.00000000044 A = 0.0000000000022 Watts ( 2.2 x 10-12 W)

Next, we will use an idealized calculation to determine the power density of the signal at 500Km and drive both the dBm and dBW of the signal. I say idealized as not all of that power in the original current is converted to a radio wave. Not only this, but we are assuming an isotropic radiator, that is, the energy propagates uniformly in all directions.

 With a little understanding of Antenna Theory, we can observe why this not a problem:

1. ANY piece of conducting material will work as an antenna on any frequency.

Even a straightened paper clip will work on 160 Meters. All we have to do is properly match the the transmitter to the the paper clip, and the paper clip will radiate ALL of the power fed to it! The aperture of this antenna will have a radius of 5/32 wavelength (.079 sq. wavelengths cross section area); essentially this is close to the theoretical “Isotropic” source. If this antenna is located in “free space”, the radiation will be almost equal in all directions.

http://k9erg.tripod.com/theory.htm

 Thus, these figures are generalizations, but are not far from the actual values.

0.0000000000022 Watts / (4PI x (500000m^2))

0.0000000000022 Watts / 3141592653589.7932384626433832795

= 7.0028174960433947738308855883906e-24 W

 

= -201.54727191871927618387329422323 dBm

= -231.54727191871927618387329422323 dBW

So there we have it.  To detect a single neuron firing at 500Km, we require a sensitivity of at least -231.55 dBW at our receiver.  But the story does not end here.

 Within the brain, entire clusters resonate at specific frequencies.  That is, there could be hundreds or thousands of axons all emitting, slightly out of phase, so these signals could be above the threshold that I have outlined above.  I feel that this method explains the detection of ELF RF energy detected coming from humans.  That is, its a product of photons received versus time.

 Transmission

 Buried in the comments section of one of my previous articles was a series of three very important scientific articles.  The articles are as follows:

 

  • Chaos control and synchronization of two neurons exposed to ELF external electric field (view here).
  • Unidirectional synchronization of Hodgkin–Huxley neurons exposed to ELF electric field (view here).
  • Fire patterns of modified HH neuron under external sinusoidal ELF stimulus (view here).

 

These scientific articles demonstrate the basic mechanism of controlling the firing pattern of a neuron remotely.  That is, they show how to interface with the brain remotely and induce a controlled hallucination.

 This is the basic mechanism by which the Artificial Intelligence can send information directly to the human brain.  Using the E-field of an ELF radio wave, neurons can be stimulated into firing under the direct control of the external field.  By stimulating patterns consistant with correct neural coding schemes, voice, pictures, video and sensations can be communicated to a target.

 At this point, I see no reason why any function the brain is capable of performing cannot be controlled by this external field.  The only real difficulty is identifying the correct neural coding schemes for specific actions or responses.  This includes complex thought processes and decision making.  Knowing exactly how far the NSA has progressed in this matter is impossible to gauge at this point.

 So, Can A Satellite Read Your Thoughts?

 If it were just a case of sheer distance, then yes, it would not be a problem.  Many have suggested that a parabolic dish of enormous size would be required, but this is not the case.  To some degree the atmosphere itself will act as a dish, but the photon wavelengths are so huge that focusing them on to a detector is not really required if using a closely spaced array.  Further, there is the issue of ionospheric reflection, but this is imperfect and does not have great impact on the E-field.

 I will not rule out a ground-based system, or some form of hybrid.  No doubt during early testing such ground-based systems were employed. 

 All said, a satellite system is a question of engineering, not of physics and it can do a lot more than just read your thoughts.