John St. Clair Akwei vs. NSA, Ft. Meade, MD, USA

File: jo.png (213KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 400x400px

Spotters
>a) Tens of thousands of persons in each area working as spotters and neighborhood/business place spies (sometimes unwittingly) following and checking on subjects who have been identified for covert control by NSA personnel.

>b) Agents working out of offices can be in constant communication with Spotters who are keeping track of the NSA's thousands of subjects in public.

>c) NSA Agents in remote offices can instantly identify (using RNM) any individual spotted in public whom is in contact with surveillance subject.

File: q3iCWqE.gif (858KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 240x228px

Chemicals in your water

>a) The NSA has kits for running lines into residential tap water and air ducts of subjects for the delivery of drugs (such as sleeping gas or brainwashing aiding drugs). This is an outgrowth of CIA pharmapsychology.

File: freya.jpg (72KB, 701x550px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 701x550px

Not sure what I just read, but I hope to clench the blood of NSA workers in my hands one day. God bless you OP.

The document is very short and very much worth reading it entirely. At the end there is a long list of references to scientific work relevant to the case. This is not bs.

>>127845577
>NSA Signals Intelligence uses EMF Brain Stimulation for Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Electronic Brain Link (EBL).
Your brain "waves" literally dont have enough energy to penetrate the neurons they come, and currently the only way to detect "brain waves" is to have a calibrated "net" of sensors that project known magnetic fields and detect the very minute disturbances.
You cant do this from any reasonable distance as interference would reduce the pasterns to meaningless static within inches.
The amount of interference from radio waves and every electronic device would have to be accounted for absolutely perfectly to the point you would need to know exactly what routines and software a device was running, how many cycles per second and what routes the cpu would take to process it.
You basically need omniscience to do that.

File: IMG_1743.jpg (82KB, 800x574px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x574px

>>127846650
What the fuck.
How do we know if we are being watched?
Who are they watching?
Why do they want to watch them?
How did we get here?
Can we stop them?
This is beyond 1984.
Where does it stop?
Isn't it like a prison?

File: auras-human.jpg (785KB, 1078x879px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1078x879px

Inb4 they accidentally discover pic related.

>>127847147
>Your brain "waves" literally dont have enough energy to penetrate the neurons they come, and currently the only way to detect "brain waves" is to have a calibrated "net" of sensors that project known magnetic fields and detect the very minute disturbances.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2977350/Forget-virtual-reality-control-games-MIND-Racing-game-uses-brainwaves-power-cars-track.html
This is old news too, and it was possible way before this.

>The amount of interference from radio waves and every electronic device would have to be accounted for absolutely perfectly to the point you would need to know exactly what routines and software a device was running, how many cycles per second and what routes the cpu would take to process it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_execution_environment#Implementations

>>127847338
If you are alive they are watching. They watch everyone.
There is no way in hell we can stop this, they literally have access to the inside of our minds.

On an unrelated note, how the fuck isn't this thread bumping to the top every single second? It isn't covfefe enough?

>>127845577

Me cago en sus muertos, éste invento, si se termina, NO PUEDE salir de EEUU.
Ya tiramos por la borda la libertad de expresión, la privacidad en línea y los límites morales del marketing. Ahora que, ni libertad de pensamiento tendremos? Esto es más retorcido de lo que Orwell nunca pudo imaginar.

>>127847975
>This is old news too, and it was possible way before this.
It is quite literally what i told you it was, a net of sensors producing known waves.
The only way someone is monitoring your thought patterns is if you are constantly wearing a giant, powered headset of some sort or if you have undergone incredibly invasive brain surgery where they slap that shit under the skin.


>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_execution_environment#Implementations
I dont quite think you understand here.
Unless your full-retard wearing a headset or have recently had the extremely invasive surgery option, the wi-fi from a phone or router, radio waves from the nearest radio tower, hell even the random interference from having a toaster running is LITTERALLY several dozen orders of magnitude greater than your brain waves.

It would be like trying to watch the movement of a single snowflake in a blizzard during an earthquake.

>>127847719
Auras dont exist in any meaningful way, sorry to break it to you.

The only things humans emit is infra-red wavelengths/heat and small amounts of radiation.

>>127845577
It's not quite at that level yet OP.

It's close, theoretically.

Most of what you described can't be done entirely passively, it really requires at least some sort of direct EM actions. Specifically for the visual one you described. That can be done in an fMRI quite easily, but outside of one it's basically impossible.

Not only would you need a near infinite level of computational power, but you would also need something akin to molecular, or dare I say quantum sensors to do what you've described. RF has it's limits, and you would even have trouble passively gathering info on the brain even if you had an EMF telescope pointed at someone's skull. It's even harder to inject images into someone's head.

Sound is an entirely different story though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect

>>127848347
Well, you just need to properly design a faraday cage to evade "them". 2-3 levels, with large amounts of EMF interference(think a wireless telegram with randomly oscillating power or something) and a white noise generator. But really though, you must have good meth in spain. This shit is a hell of a lot harder than you think it is, and it requires scifi level technology to actually pull it off in any sense.

>>127848550
By a headset, do you mean those things the Spaniard mentioned(the ones that measure brain activity in a lol-tier one track form) or a headset like earbuds or something?

File: 1494506404796.jpg (9KB, 236x294px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x294px

>>127848763
Yeah I assume so. I think auras are more like an allegory for internal mindsets or something like that.

>>127848763
>The only things humans emit is infra-red wavelengths/heat and small amounts of radiation.

That's sort of the Spaniards whole point. Cellular radiation and the radiation emitted by entire neural nets(they actually do have their own, predictable radiation emissions). I just don't think he understands the amount of pure mathematical crunching that would be required to process the data he's thinking of. That's assuming you have a fucking electron microscope implanting in your head aswell.

>>127845577
Thank you for posting this Op.

>>127848828
> it requires scifi level technology to actually pull it off in any sense.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20060145019?pageId=111028569981762970673

You just keep assuming that their technological level must be in the range that you are aware of.

>>127849778
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwxkgToaRFs

You might find this video interesting OP.

>>127848464
Why the fuck would you speak in Spanish?
Like, what's the purpose? Everyone's bilingüal here and this is not a Spaniard related topic at all.

File: eeg-brain-cap-university-of-maryland-1-537x402[1].jpg (52KB, 537x402px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 537x402px

>>127848828
>By a headset, do you mean those things the Spaniard mentioned(the ones that measure brain activity in a lol-tier one track form) or a headset like earbuds or something?
For high enough sensitivity to actually measure specific brain you need bare minimum 3 sensors and receivers that cover the x/y/z axis, though that would only be able to detect an extremely localized area and would be "fuzzy" at best in terms of accuracy. For anything that would be accurate enough to measure specific though patterns you need something like pic related.

And even then, after all that, you need to calibrate it. In tests where they have "seen" images from people's brain waves they had to spend hundreds of hours calibrating the eeg for the individual as brain waves, due to their nature, are not similar between individuals.

Hell, even if they found a way to reliably translate brain waves into like 240p basic images, it would be a ground-breaking noble-prize worthy scientific feat. Arguably one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the century.

File: magicdigits.gif (201KB, 660x780px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 660x780px

>>127845577
Righteous bump.

>>127850011
Yeah, I was pretty much thinking of http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

We're not far off from a fMRI setup or headset setup that uses AI to get high res images.

>>127849778
Yeah... what you're talking about doesn't use passive EMF. What you're talking about would at the very least need to put out enough EMF to cause and cure cancer at the same time, while only pulling in a small amount of relevant information.

It's basically a mathematical impossibility to do anything near the level you've described.

This sort of shit works really well on electronics, but not so much on anything that requires a near exact model of neurons, in combination with a near exact model of the relevant neural nets. Then, you need to process those models(which are gained through entirely indirect ways, such as a constant radar reflection), which is basically going to require more computers than what's physically possible.

This is pretty fucking far out there, and I've only just described what's required for a still image to be gathered remotely.

>>127845577
>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.
That's obvious bullshit, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could detect brainwaves remotely using some pretty large equipment.