Microwave Interfacing With Humans

TheSpooner · 27-12-2019 4:31pm #1

Igotadose · 27-12-2019 4:42pm

Have you got a point? Do a little work, don't just dump links.

27-12-2019 4:43pm

All from the same source? Nah.

TheSpooner · 27-12-2019 4:57pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Have you got a point? Do a little work, don't just dump links.

There is too much material to cover in posts. But, the articles outline an orbiting microwave-based system able to read and write to the human brain and body. It based on a 10 year investigation spanning much of the globe and input from a wide variety of sources.

It speculates that this was the weapon used in the attacks on diplomatic and CIA staff in both Cuba and China, then goes on to outline the operational goals, the technology and basis of operation.

Very interesting, but you need to know quite a bit to keep up.

27-12-2019 5:04pm

TheSpooner wrote: »

There is too much material to cover in posts. But, the articles outline an orbiting microwave-based system able to read and write to the human brain and body. It based on a 10 year investigation spanning much of the globe and input from a wide variety of sources.

But this investigation seems to be some random anonymous person with a blog.
How do you know it's not just madey-uppey?

27-12-2019 5:08pm

I interfaced with a microwave yesterday..

Made weetabix..

Grab All Association · 27-12-2019 5:13pm

Never dry your boxers shorts in the microwave. It gives you the illusion they are still wet, but they are actually dry. Grand pair of Calvin Kleins completely ruined. That’s the only thing I can think I’ve used it for in two years. My dishwasher has stored Coke Zero. Effectively a stainless steel press.

I don’t know much about these conspiracy theories, but don’t dry your boxers no matter how much In a rush you are.

TheSpooner · 27-12-2019 5:13pm

King Mob wrote: »

But this investigation seems to be some random anonymous person with a blog.
How do you know it's not just madey-uppey?

The articles tracks with the reports coming from analysis of the Cuba and China attacks. It preceeded those reports.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/science/sonic-attack-cuba-microwave.html

There are scientific papers listed which support the interface technique, he pinpoints the likely tech used to deliver that and the dates of development match, the rest of it tracks with reports found all over the web.

Its also consistent with the training being provided to US government staff. The key difference is he claims this stretches back to the 50s and 60s, a view widely held by many others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtQbriWt64

27-12-2019 6:01pm

TheSpooner wrote: »

There are scientific papers listed which support the interface technique, he pinpoints the likely tech used to deliver that and the dates of development match, the rest of it tracks with reports found all over the web.

What scientific papers show that there's is an orbital weapon that is controled by an AI and can "wipe peoples brains and bodies".

That seems like the madey-uppy part.

TheSpooner · 27-12-2019 6:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

What scientific papers show that there's is an orbital weapon that is controled by an AI and can "wipe peoples brains and bodies".

That seems like the madey-uppy part.

Read. I'm busy right now.

27-12-2019 6:14pm

TheSpooner wrote: »

Read. I'm busy right now.

No thanks.
Often times when conspiracy theorists claim that we should "read this giant list of unsourced blog articles" or "watch this 3 hour long rambling youtube video" or "google it", it means that the information is not actually there.

You claimed that you have proper scientific papers that show there's an orbital microwave weapon.
Please show these papers.

A random unsourced blog is not convincing.
Please post scientific papers from credible journals.

TheSpooner · 27-12-2019 8:38pm

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks.
Often times when conspiracy theorists claim that we should "read this giant list of unsourced blog articles" or "watch this 3 hour long rambling youtube video" or "google it", it means that the information is not actually there.

You claimed that you have proper scientific papers that show there's an orbital microwave weapon.
Please show these papers.

A random unsourced blog is not convincing.
Please post scientific papers from credible journals.

All the material is in the links provided. I appreciate what you are saying, but if you don't want to explore conspiracy theory, debate it, etc., then why are you here?

Read it or don't, its your call, but there is no point in discussing it with people who haven't read the material.

Dohnjoe · 28-12-2019 12:25am

TheSpooner wrote: »

But, the articles outline an orbiting microwave-based system able to read and write to the human brain and body. It based on a 10 year investigation spanning much of the globe and input from a wide variety of sources.

Which 10 year investigation, and what is the source?

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 1:04am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which 10 year investigation, and what is the source?

DeepThought spent 10 years investigating the technology, the effects, the people, etc. and travelled around the world monitoring its presence and what it was doing. He gathered information from every available source, confirmed the physics and even put a lot of pressure on the prime suspects. His work is a mixture of his own and hundreds of other sources.

Dohnjoe · 28-12-2019 1:12am

TheSpooner wrote: »

DeepThought spent 10 years investigating the technology, the effects, the people, etc. and travelled around the world monitoring its presence and what it was doing. He gathered information from every available source, confirmed the physics and even put a lot of pressure on the prime suspects. His work is a mixture of his own and hundreds of other sources.

Indeed, can you give the specific source for that 10 year investigation and this orbiting system?

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 1:21am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, can you give the specific source for that 10 year investigation and this orbiting system?

You're dealing with the crown jewels of intelligence in multiple nations, systematic attacks of various civilian populations and even suspected mass murder of US Navy staff. What do you expect here, a signed confession?

I think you need to evaluate the work for yourself. Big trousers time mate.

28-12-2019 1:56am

TheSpooner wrote: »

All the material is in the links provided.

Experience has told me that this is unlikely the case and that spending hours trawling through a random anonymous blog will not contain any scientific papers that substantiate it's claims.

If I am wrong, and these papers exist and show there is something to this theory, then please simply link to these papers you claim exist.
You know where they are. It would take you seconds to copy and paste the link.
I don't understand why you would not do this if they existed, so I can only assume continued dodging means they do not exist.

TheSpooner wrote: »

I appreciate what you are saying, but if you don't want to explore conspiracy theory, debate it, etc., then why are you here?

I am. I'm asking to see if there is anything substantial to this theory before investing time into it.
So far, a random blog is not substantial. Vague claims about scientific papers is not substantial.
Remember, you are making a very bold and out there claim. You must have some convincing evidence beyond just "read stuff on the internet".

28-12-2019 1:57am

TheSpooner wrote: »

You're dealing with the crown jewels of intelligence in multiple nations, systematic attacks of various civilian populations and even suspected mass murder of US Navy staff. What do you expect here, a signed confession?

I think you need to evaluate the work for yourself. Big trousers time mate.

And yet some random internet people have figured it out and cracked the conspiracy?
That doesn't follow.

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 2:01am

King Mob wrote: »

And yet some random internet people have figured it out and cracked the conspiracy?
That doesn't follow.

What were you expecting? James Bond? Ethan Hunt?

Sorry to disappoint.

28-12-2019 2:14am

TheSpooner wrote: »

What were you expecting? James Bond? Ethan Hunt?

Sorry to disappoint.

Well you claimed that this thing was the "crown jewel of intelligence agencies".
If that's the case, how could a random person on the internet crack the conspiracy?
That's a contradiction.

Any luck on those scientific papers?

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 3:13am

King Mob wrote: »

Well you claimed that this thing was the "crown jewel of intelligence agencies".
If that's the case, how could a random person on the internet crack the conspiracy?
That's a contradiction.

Any luck on those scientific papers?

I like to think that we're not all stupid. For example, debating in circles while the country is under attack.

The scientific papers are in the links that you have refused to read.

28-12-2019 3:27am

TheSpooner wrote: »

I like to think that we're not all stupid. For example, debating in circles while the country is under attack.

The only reason we might be going in circles is because you are avoiding very simple questions.
Like this one.
We have a contradiction where you have claimed that this weapons system is highly classified and protected as a top priority by intelligence agencies.
You also claimed that some random person on the internet figured it out and exposed the weapon.

How do you resolve this contradiction?
How did some random guy on the internet outsmart all the intelligence agencies in the world when you believe those agencies could also just erase his mind at will?

TheSpooner wrote: »

The scientific papers are in the links that you have refused to read.

Again, experience tells me that this is not the case, therefore it's not worth investing the time in reading a ton of unsourced blog articles.

I would be willing to read them if there was something substantial behind them like scientific papers.
If you link them, then it would mean the blog might be worth reading.

However, since you are dodging the request, I believe this is because no such papers exist and you were telling a bit of a fib.

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 3:53am

King Mob wrote: »

The only reason we might be going in circles is because you are avoiding very simple questions.

Its not my place to answer questions. This thread is about DeepThought's work. I'm not here to convince you to read the work, but rather discuss the implications of it for Ireland, given that it is claimed to be operating within our borders and has the apparent capability of directing its political, economic, social and military policies.

The sheer potential of that alone should be alarming, demand a full response and with no effort spared to get to the bottom of it.

King Mob wrote: »

We have a contradiction where you have claimed that this weapons system is highly classified and protected as a top priority by intelligence agencies.

Given that you are here debating it, rather than sticking a gun in someone's face demonstrates the power.

King Mob wrote: »

You also claimed that some random person on the internet figured it out and exposed the weapon.

Has to be someone.

King Mob wrote: »

How do you resolve this contradiction?
How did some random guy on the internet outsmart all the intelligence agencies in the world when you believe those agencies could also just erase his mind at will?

Has it stopped it? How are you defending your country right now? Have you considered that this is more about your response? In disbelief until it is too late.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, experience tells me that this is not the case, therefore it's not worth investing the time in reading a ton of unsourced blog articles.

What experience? When was the last time someone came along and said someone is invading your nation with microwave weapons from orbit?

King Mob wrote: »

I would be willing to read them if there was something substantial behind them like scientific papers.
If you link them, then it would mean the blog might be worth reading.

However, since you are dodging the request, I believe this is because no such papers exist and you were telling a bit of a fib.

Who do you think is listening to this? Anyone can click on the links at the beginning of the thread and read them for themselves.

Do you not find your behaviour really odd? Like you're brain damaged?

28-12-2019 4:03am

TheSpooner wrote: »

Its not my place to answer questions. This thread is about DeepThought's work. I'm not here to convince you to read
the work,

So you are avoiding the questions because you can't answer them.

TheSpooner wrote: »

Has to be someone.

That's not an answer to my question. Please try again.

TheSpooner wrote: »

but rather discuss the implications of it for Ireland, given that it is claimed to be operating within our borders and has the apparent capability of directing its political, economic, social and military policies.

The sheer potential of that alone should be alarming, demand a full response and with no effort spared to get to the bottom of it.

TheSpooner wrote: »

Has it stopped it? How are you defending your country right now? Have you considered that this is more about your response? In disbelief until it is too late.

But again, if it's all made up, as it appears to be, then you are panicking about nothing at all.

TheSpooner wrote: »

What experience? When was the last time someone came along and said someone is invading your nation with microwave weapons from orbit?

There are many conspiracy theory claims made here, yours is not different.

TheSpooner wrote: »

Who do you think is listening to this? Anyone can click on the links at the beginning of the thread and read them for themselves.

Do you not find your behaviour really odd? Like you're brain damaged?

Asking for good evidence before believing a very far fetched conspiracy theory = brain damaged?

You claimed to have scientific papers that support your claims.
Why not just copy and paste them? You know where they are in your links. Why go to the effort of ranting and insulting, but not just copy and paste links to things you have?

The only reason I can imagine you are doing that is that the links simply don't exist.

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 4:15am

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed to have scientific papers that support your claims.
Why not just copy and paste them? You know where they are in your links. Why go to the effort of ranting and insulting, but not just copy and paste links to things you have?

The only reason I can imagine you are doing that is that the links simply don't exist.

You have spent the entire day trying to debate a topic that you won't read the material for. You are clearly trolling.

28-12-2019 4:27am

TheSpooner wrote: »

You have spent the entire day trying to debate a topic that you won't read the material for. You are clearly trolling.

No, I've spent a few posts asking you to show that there is something more substantial to your theory beyond a random blog.
You claimed you had scientific papers that support your theory.
Why not just copy and paste the links?

If you do so, then the discussion can move on.
If you are not willing to discuss the links you provided and just dumped a ton of reading without comment or support, then I fear you aren't looking for a discussion at all. You're looking to start your own blog.

Again, I'm trying to see if there's anything substantial to this theory.
However instead of providing anything substantial, you are dodging and ranting and throwing around accusations.

And again you said you are concerned about these weapons and their supposed effects.
If you really are concerned, you should be trying harder to illustrate and defend your position beyond link dumping and dodging.
Otherwise people aren't going to take you or your theory very seriously at all and it will be lumped in with the other conspiracy theories here.

FanadMan · 28-12-2019 4:32am

Those links are NOT scientific papers! They are deluded ramblings by some nutjob. If they are scientific papers, where is the peer review? Where is the corroboration by recognised and published professionals?

BTW, i think that there is only one troll in this thread and they created their account less than a month ago.....probably just to get views on their strange blog.

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 4:45am

FanadMan wrote: »

Those links are NOT scientific papers! They are deluded ramblings by some nutjob. If they are scientific papers, where is the peer review? Where is the corroboration by recognised and published professionals?

BTW, i think that there is only one troll in this thread and they created their account less than a month ago.....probably just to get views on their strange blog.

No one said those links were scientific papers. It was stated that they link to scientific papers.

I smell another troll account. Let's see a clear Ad Hominem, a little dash of a Strawman Argument, a twist of Hasty Generalization, a portion of Red Herring, a sprinkling of Causal Fallacy, a dab of Appeal to Authority and a nice topping with the start of a Bandwagon.

Quite professional, but I've been round the block a few times. So, foreign operated troll accounts?

28-12-2019 4:51am

TheSpooner wrote: »

No one said those links were scientific papers. It was stated that they link to scientific papers.

Which ones?
Which scientific papers?

FanadMan · 28-12-2019 5:05am

TheSpooner wrote: »

No one said those links were scientific papers. It was stated that they link to scientific papers.

I smell another troll account. Let's see a clear Ad Hominem, a little dash of a Strawman Argument, a twist of Hasty Generalization, a portion of Red Herring, a sprinkling of Causal Fallacy, a dab of Appeal to Authority and a nice topping with the start of a Bandwagon.

Quite professional, but I've been round the block a few times. So, foreign operated troll accounts?

I smell a need for a stronger dose of Clozapine

Nowhere in those "articles" is there a link to any scientific papers. There are YT links, but they are again just rambling bs. As others have asked, give links to these scientific reviews.

May I ask.....when are your xmas holidays over and when are you going back to school?

Fionn1952 · 28-12-2019 9:15am

I thought I'd give a hand to move the narrative along in here.

Going through the first link, there are absolutely no links to scientific papers. The author of the blog repeatedly refers to research, but does not link to it, and makes it clear that it's his own research. It's circular logic to use your own non peer-reviewed, 'research' to support an argument in favour of what you set out to prove with said research.

Even ignoring that, his research seems to consist entirely of anecdotal evidence from unnamed sources, and his own extrapolations as to what that means. Clearly below the standard of research Spooner has implied was contained within the material.

For example he makes the claim, "However, after nearly a decade of research alongside input by various specialists, former government agents, whistleblowers spanning the entire world the rather disturbing conclusion that we were looking at some form of microwave weapon".....with no reference to the actual research carried out, or a single one of his sources.

He claims, 'It took many years, but I eventually developed a range of workable theories on the transceiver technology.' without providing any schematics on his theoretical designs or even the most basic information beyond his claim.

He follows up with, "From clear localised heating, to RF interference in SDR equipment, from RF burns to clear beams passing through rooms, I got to see it all. Rather than being timid, withdrawing and maintaining cover, I observed a system that was blatant and aggressive." once more failing to give actual results or data.

I could literally write a blog tomorrow, with all the scientific accuracy and authority of this blog, I'll claim that Spooner is actually a covert government agent, posting easily discredited nonsense about microwave weaponry to distract us from the REAL truth about them, which I've researched since 2006, I worked with COUNTLESS microwave physics researchers, government researchers and a highly prestigious US university, who have turned double agent just to provide me this information, and we have concluded that they're using these microwave beams to make me, personally put on weight. I can only conclude that I am incredibly special, and that's why I'm being targeted.

You've possibly been taken in by a veneer of scientific language, but there's precisely zero actual science in this blog post. It doesn't inspire much faith that the remaining links will contain much in the ways of proper research.

Perhaps if you could narrow it down for me and let me know which of the blog posts contain actual research, I could have a look at some actual data before going back to read the author's conclusions? If you're very familiar with the author's work, it should be almost no effort whatsoever for you to tell me one or two of the blog posts which focus on hard data. When I've had a read through these, then we can move on to the conclusionary side of the discussion?

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 11:35am

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I thought I'd give a hand to move the narrative along in here.

Ok, I'll bite.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Going through the first link, there are absolutely no links to scientific papers. The author of the blog repeatedly refers to research, but does not link to it, and makes it clear that it's his own research. It's circular logic to use your own non peer-reviewed, 'research' to support an argument in favour of what you set out to prove with said research.

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that this first article was written in response to attacks on diplomatic staff in Cuba and China, prior to any released reported. The article was the first to publicly identify the sound as a result of microwave interfacing.

As you will learn, if you read up on the latest research, even those professionals not privy to the nature of the weapon have since concluded that it was microwave-based and that the sound was a product of that.

So, that would place DeepThought more than a year ahead of the public investigation and, perhaps, ahead of the FBI who were still claiming it was an absurd device called a sonic weapon.

So, anyone reading that would be ahead of the pack.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Even ignoring that, his research seems to consist entirely of anecdotal evidence from unnamed sources, and his own extrapolations as to what that means. Clearly below the standard of research Spooner has implied was contained within the material.

Its par for the course when dealing with many things in the world of intelligence. What you're more interested in is, given the tech, do these things sound plausible? If so, its a given someone will be trying this. The military applications are obvious.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

For example he makes the claim, "However, after nearly a decade of research alongside input by various specialists, former government agents, whistleblowers spanning the entire world the rather disturbing conclusion that we were looking at some form of microwave weapon".....with no reference to the actual research carried out, or a single one of his sources.

DeepThought is very well known, as his investigation series, having started on Newsvine in 2010. The comments are littered with conversations and information about the system, spanning many years. There is no doubt he did exactly what he claimed. The articles are probably more geared towards those that dig into things, rather than those that need spoon fed like a baby and every claim proved.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

He claims, 'It took many years, but I eventually developed a range of workable theories on the transceiver technology.' without providing any schematics on his theoretical designs or even the most basic information beyond his claim.

He does discuss the technology and principles of operation later in the series. This was a large portion of the work begun around 2010. It has been iterated over many times in the last decade in light of new information and his own improved understanding. The current speculated design he has is quite functional.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

He follows up with, "From clear localised heating, to RF interference in SDR equipment, from RF burns to clear beams passing through rooms, I got to see it all. Rather than being timid, withdrawing and maintaining cover, I observed a system that was blatant and aggressive." once more failing to give actual results or data.

Over the years, he has uploaded everything from photographs of RF burns, to raw IQ data on intercepted signals, as well as waterfall plots, etc. Much of that was done prior to 2013 though. He seems to have focused more on the AGI, theory of mind and psyops after that. I think its all about making AGI less gullible. But he still keeps tabs on the microwave stuff.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I could literally write a blog tomorrow, with all the scientific accuracy and authority of this blog, I'll claim that Spooner is actually a covert government agent, posting easily discredited nonsense about microwave weaponry to distract us from the REAL truth about them, which I've researched since 2006, I worked with COUNTLESS microwave physics researchers, government researchers and a highly prestigious US university, who have turned double agent just to provide me this information, and we have concluded that they're using these microwave beams to make me, personally put on weight. I can only conclude that I am incredibly special, and that's why I'm being targeted.

I doubt it. I don't need to take his work on faith like yourself. I can validate if the interface is functional, the rest is just human nature, isn't it?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You've possibly been taken in by a veneer of scientific language, but there's precisely zero actual science in this blog post. It doesn't inspire much faith that the remaining links will contain much in the ways of proper research.

The science comes later. I think these descriptions are more for people who get it and need to understand what mentality they are dealing with, as well as operational use cases. I suppose how it is used, or how it is to be used as well as understanding the depths these people will go to, is a good guide.

I suppose he doesn't waste time with people trying to prove the interface, he just says, there it is. If you can't understand it, or don't want to understand it, that's your problem. Obviously, there are people out there who are paid to both get it and not get it.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Perhaps if you could narrow it down for me and let me know which of the blog posts contain actual research, I could have a look at some actual data before going back to read the author's conclusions? If you're very familiar with the author's work, it should be almost no effort whatsoever for you to tell me one or two of the blog posts which focus on hard data. When I've had a read through these, then we can move on to the conclusionary side of the discussion?

You seem to have the same reading disability. Is it contagious in these forums? You can't debate something you have no read. Don't be daft. If you want to join in, take some time out and read.

Fionn1952 · 28-12-2019 1:24pm

TheSpooner wrote: »

Ok, I'll bite.

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that this first article was written in response to attacks on diplomatic staff in Cuba and China, prior to any released reported. The article was the first to publicly identify the sound as a result of microwave interfacing.

As you will learn, if you read up on the latest research, even those professionals not privy to the nature of the weapon have since concluded that it was microwave-based and that the sound was a product of that.

So, that would place DeepThought more than a year ahead of the public investigation and, perhaps, ahead of the FBI who were still claiming it was an absurd device called a sonic weapon.

So, anyone reading that would be ahead of the pack.

Its par for the course when dealing with many things in the world of intelligence. What you're more interested in is, given the tech, do these things sound plausible? If so, its a given someone will be trying this. The military applications are obvious.

DeepThought is very well known, as his investigation series, having started on Newsvine in 2010. The comments are littered with conversations and information about the system, spanning many years. There is no doubt he did exactly what he claimed. The articles are probably more geared towards those that dig into things, rather than those that need spoon fed like a baby and every claim proved.

He does discuss the technology and principles of operation later in the series. This was a large portion of the work begun around 2010. It has been iterated over many times in the last decade in light of new information and his own improved understanding. The current speculated design he has is quite functional.

Over the years, he has uploaded everything from photographs of RF burns, to raw IQ data on intercepted signals, as well as waterfall plots, etc. Much of that was done prior to 2013 though. He seems to have focused more on the AGI, theory of mind and psyops after that. I think its all about making AGI less gullible. But he still keeps tabs on the microwave stuff.

I doubt it. I don't need to take his work on faith like yourself. I can validate if the interface is functional, the rest is just human nature, isn't it?

The science comes later. I think these descriptions are more for people who get it and need to understand what mentality they are dealing with, as well as operational use cases. I suppose how it is used, or how it is to be used as well as understanding the depths these people will go to, is a good guide.

I suppose he doesn't waste time with people trying to prove the interface, he just says, there it is. If you can't understand it, or don't want to understand it, that's your problem. Obviously, there are people out there who are paid to both get it and not get it.

You seem to have the same reading disability. Is it contagious in these forums? You can't debate something you have no read. Don't be daft. If you want to join in, take some time out and read.

So essentially it's just appeal to authority, a gish gallop and ad hominem?

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of the burden of proof?

TheSpooner · 28-12-2019 2:17pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

So essentially it's just appeal to authority, a gish gallop and ad hominem?

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of the burden of proof?

Perhaps those using the microwave weapons are also familiar with the term?

29-12-2019 12:33am

TheSpooner wrote: »

Perhaps those using the microwave weapons are also familiar with the term?

It means that since you are making the claim that orbital, brain erasing, AI controlled microwave weapons exist and are in use, you have to show that this is the case. You have the burden of proof.
If you don't want to show your evidence and/or you are unable to, then rational people are simply going to reject your claims for what they appear to be, fictional.

TallGlass2 · 29-12-2019 12:46am

TheSpooner wrote: »

Perhaps those using the microwave weapons are also familiar with the term?

So you post a link, someone replies asking you expand, you do not, someone posts grilling your OP, and you post a detailed reply.

Chap, people ain't got time to be reading over 15 links. Get to the point or touch on.

Emme · 19-01-2020 12:10pm

I didn't read the papers but I was wondering why a little voice says "your porridge is ready now" a few minutes after I put it in the microwave to cook. Now I know why. My microwave is interfacing with me. I am thinking of getting a more sophisticated one that will read my thoughts so I can put the porridge in at night before I got to bed and I can ask it to cook the porridge a few minutes before I get up and then wake me up.

Genius!

Cheerful Spring2 · 23-01-2020 2:25pm

MK Ultra is established history, this not really a conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Where it does become a conspiracy, people believe Oswald, and some others involved in high profile shootings were brainwashed by the CIA to be shooters, or patsies for a bigger operation.

Robert Kennedy murder: many in conspiracy world believe Sirhan Sirhan was a MK ultra shooter.

Microwave weapons, that not really a conspiracy either, US arms industry is always looking at new technologies to be used to fight wars.

You find some of experimental known Microwave systems listed here by US Army and Navy research companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

Microwave Interfacing With Humans

Comments