Existing Thought Scanning and Mind Control Technology
(c) R. N. Boyd

The radiated emanations of Consciousness are of two classes: The first type falls off in intensity as the square of the distance. The other forms are superluminal and non-local. This second class includes the quantum potential (information field) [given by the Shcroedinger equations], gravitational waves (gravitons), torsion waves, spin field waves, graviphotons, and Moebius transform E/M. (The Cherokee tribe applied radiations of the second type to use selected stars as communication relays.)

Certain agencies of the US government have had this technology for many years.

I first noticed it back in 1991. I called it the "dream machine". The onerous problem with this technology is that it has typically been applied to remotely alter the belief structures and emotional structures of human beings, without their knowledge or consent.

[Example of such a technology]:


The word comes from "oneiros": Dream, in Greek.

So the meaning is a "machine which visualises dream scenes" onto a TV screen. Not something to put in everyone's hands as the technology of oneirovisualisators leads to machines being able to convert internal audio Thoughts into external audio which means, in other words, we will be able to hear anything a person thinks. Again, not something to put in everyone's hands.

Note: Technology to trigger dreams and hallucinations in persons from a distance with properly engineered microwaves has been available since the 1970's.

They have more computing power than you can imagine. The NSA has a superconducting sentient supercomputer which is capable of remotely monitoring up to 30 million people at any given instant. The exact computational capacities of this computer are probably classified, so I'll say no more.

[Claude]: "It is impossible for the time being to record any Thought from a distance."

[RN Boyd]:

Sorry. This is an inaccurate statement. See, for example: Brain Activity -- (and I remark that this is just the tip of the iceberg.)

In addition, I have been discussing with Don Watson, modifications of the software of the Mindsong, a computer peripheral which causes your computer to become telepathic (based on the Schroedinger equations), so that the thought-forms can indeed be displayed on the CRT. (Don Watson is one of the original programmers of the Mindsong software.) There is much more to this, as the modifications we have in mind should enable us to display various non-physical forms of Consciousness on the computer monitor, and further, to communicate with such. Additionally, it is possible, that with the proper adjustments, this procedure might be able to be accomplished remotely. (This is because the Schroedinger equations are non-local.)

One cannot know everything about *anything*, according to Godel's Law. Wouldn't it be well to qualify the above sentence with some term such as, "...to the best of MY knowledge"? Or,"...in my opinion"? Rather than making some absolute proclamation on a topic on which one is not completely informed?

Remember, there is always something that one can't or does not know. For me, I do not deem it wise to think in terms of absolutes, in the face of an infinity of unknowns. Especially when I haven't been there myself and looked with my own two eyes. Additionally, to approach the observable with an attitude of skepticism increases the probability that what *should* be observable will be missed entirely, just because such observable does not correspond with our preconceptions regarding what should, or should not, be observable. In other words, do not exclude data that does not agree with your beliefs. It may well be that your beliefs are in need of modification, *NOT* that the data is wrong.

I have found it best to think in terms of scales of validation of the various data, rather than to exclude any data entirely. In this manner, each piece of information is put into the system (the mind) for it to operate on, unencumbered, where the various data points are given weights in accordance with the empirically observable, the reproducibly experiencable, on the one end of the scale, and utter fantasy at the other end of the scale.

Even then, I can still mislead myself on occasion through wishful thinking, as I have recently demonstrated regarding "air boards". That was because I failed to evaluate the validity of what I wanted to hear. I'd like to point out that the error could easily have gone in the opposite direction, where I was completely denying some observable fact, through wishful thinking. Lesson: It pays to verify all data, whether they agree or disagree with what is held by the intellect as true (or not true), or desired as true (or not true).

Finally, I'd like to point out that when the intellect has reached a conclusion, there is trouble waiting. "To conclude" means "to stop", "an ending", "a finalization". A conclusion means the end of all exploration, the ending of all further discovery.

Therefore, one should rather take the approach of: "This is what is implied by what I have observed *to this point* in my exploration of this reality". But never should one assume that these implications are the end to all learning. There is ALWAYS something we have not realized or seen yet, which will need to be incorporated into our logical structures and our understandings of our Universe.

Finally, what you don't see, is *exactly* what will hurt you! It never pays to exclude *any* possibilities without proper and complete validation.