For all of you, conspiracy theorist and believers (UFO, Haarp, New World Order)

Forums › Off topic › For all of you, conspiracy theorist and believers (UFO, Haarp, New World Order)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 35

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#534811 18-Oct-2011 16:25

gzt:
codyc1515: Curious how you guys will dismiss this mind control patent.
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,356,368.PN.&OS=PN/5,356,368&RS=PN/5,356,368

and this is evidence of what exactly?

The link reads: "methods and apparatus for entraining human brain patterns" (among other things).

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

gzt

16921 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#534818 18-Oct-2011 16:29

codyc1515:
gzt:
codyc1515: Curious how you guys will dismiss this mind control patent.
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,356,368.PN.&OS=PN/5,356,368&RS=PN/5,356,368

and this is evidence of what exactly?

The link reads: "methods and apparatus for entraining human brain patterns" (among other things).

yes, and this is evidence of what exactly?

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#534823 18-Oct-2011 16:33

gzt:
codyc1515:
gzt:
codyc1515: Curious how you guys will dismiss this mind control patent.
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,356,368.PN.&OS=PN/5,356,368&RS=PN/5,356,368

and this is evidence of what exactly?

The link reads: "methods and apparatus for entraining human brain patterns" (among other things).

yes, and this is evidence of what exactly?

"What is claimed is:

1. A method of inducing desired states of consciousness in human beings, comprising the following steps:

combining a plurality of replicated electroencephalogram (EEG) waveforms, each indicative of a particular desired state of consciousness, to produce a combined EEG waveform;

superimposing said combined EEG waveform on two separate sets of carrier waves using stereo sound;

creating differential beat frequencies between said sets of carrier waves based on said superimposing step; and

providing the resulting signals in audio form to respective ears of a human being, to induce said state of consciousness."

gzt

16921 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#534829 18-Oct-2011 16:41

Yeah, I don't think you're getting me.

There are endless scientific papers written on these topics. Search arxiv or any other science paper database.

It is not surprising there are patents on this topic.

There are plenty of CD's and gadgets you can buy which utilise similar techniques.

I understand what you are saying, I'm just not sure what your point is. Can you expand on that a bit?

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#534831 18-Oct-2011 16:42

gzt: Yeah, I don't think you're getting me.

There are endless scientific papers written on these topics. Search arxiv or any other science paper database.

It is not surprising there are patents on this topic.

There are plenty of CD's and gadgets you can buy which utilise similar techniques.

I understand what you are saying, I'm just not sure what your point is. Can you expand on that a bit?

I wanted to know what other people thought of it, not saying its true or not but to have a patent on it there would have to at least be some logical reasoning behind it.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#534861 18-Oct-2011 17:53

ScottStevensNZ:

The burden of proof is on those who believe in the conspiracy theory (and provide me with an Illuminati application, but I beleive that is already in the mail - thanks Mauricio!). Fact is, even the most basic tools of Logic can disprove conspiracy theories. What is more likely - that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government involving massive amounts of planning and secrecy and the result of wiring 100+ story buildings with demolition charges without any of the thousands of employees of those buildings noticing? Or a bunch religious nut jobs with a history of suicide bombings and who admitted to doing it?

The thing is with conspiracy theories is that they (ironically) present the most circuitous complex explaination for an event - which is proabably why I enjoy them so much :)

So what your saying is that officialdom has no need of proof when presenting what it calls fact? Interesting way to look at it.

Who here believes the official line on the JFK assassination, and the subsequent "magic bullet" theory as proposed by the Warren Commission?

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#534869 18-Oct-2011 18:07

I read through the above link.

My thoughts:
1) The existence of a patent is not evidence of an existing product. Also, there's a chance it might not work if it did.

2) After reading right through, it just looks like a process that might help with sleeping disorders, and that's actually pretty cool.

3) A common tactic among conspiracy theorists is to take an announcement of a piece of technology, or even the intention to try creating a technology, and either build a conspiracy around it or cherry pick parts that suit a theory they already have.

I saw it that sort of thing done on naturalnews.com (AVOID!)
They'd done that with a story about a proposed heart-monitoring tattoo microchip in order to replace bulkier technology. Somehow, "they're already microchipping people and they cause cancer!" (It turns out that injected microchips [not tattooed chips] *might* cause a slight increase in cancer in rats.)

I'm not saying codyc1515 is doing this, just saying that's something to look out for and worth adding to the proverbial "baloney detector" kit.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#534880 18-Oct-2011 18:19

BurningBeard: I read through the above link.

My thoughts:
1) The existence of a patent is not evidence of an existing product. Also, there's a chance it might not work if it did.

2) After reading right through, it just looks like a process that might help with sleeping disorders, and that's actually pretty cool.

3) A common tactic among conspiracy theorists is to take an announcement of a piece of technology, or even the intention to try creating a technology, and either build a conspiracy around it or cherry pick parts that suit a theory they already have.

I saw it that sort of thing done on naturalnews.com (AVOID!)
They'd done that with a story about a proposed heart-monitoring tattoo microchip in order to replace bulkier technology. Somehow, "they're already microchipping people and they cause cancer!" (It turns out that injected microchips [not tattooed chips] *might* cause a slight increase in cancer in rats.)

I'm not saying codyc1515 is doing this, just saying that's something to look out for and worth adding to the proverbial "baloney detector" kit.

I posted it here to see what others thought, I'm not saying it works or it doesn't: I haven't tried it (or have I...). ** puts tin foil hat back on **

Mooseboy

124 posts

Master Geek

#535120 19-Oct-2011 12:56

codyc1515:
gzt: Yeah, I don't think you're getting me.

There are endless scientific papers written on these topics. Search arxiv or any other science paper database.

It is not surprising there are patents on this topic.

There are plenty of CD's and gadgets you can buy which utilise similar techniques.

I understand what you are saying, I'm just not sure what your point is. Can you expand on that a bit?

I wanted to know what other people thought of it, not saying its true or not but to have a patent on it there would have to at least be some logical reasoning behind it.

You're able to patent pretty much anything for pretty much any reason. There are people who get rich simply by patenting products and then suing companies who build similar things, see: patent trolling.

Draw a circuit diagram on a piece of paper, call it a mind control device, pay your $10 (or whatever it is), and you've got yourself a patent.

gzt

16921 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#535354 19-Oct-2011 21:42

[The tone of this Herald article is a bit conspiratorial, hence it's appearance in this thread]

I am not familiar with the exact timeline of the Christchurch earthquakes and aftershock warnings. I read this in the Herald this evening:

"Under cross-examination by counsel for earthquake victims' families this afternoon, GNS scientist Dr Kelvin Berryman admitted information was withheld from the public, on advice from social scientists scared for the beleaguered city's collective mental health"

"Government earthquake experts held back forecasts of a massive aftershock for Christchurch following the magnitude 4.9 Boxing Day jolt because they didn't want to alarm the already traumatised population"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10760238

The article does not do a good job with the summary but here is what I take from it after processing it -

A warning was given (ie; not totally suppressed) - but the information actually provided was not as specific about geography or magnitude as it could have been. Is this an accurate summary?

Feel free to discuss any aspect.

codyc1515

1598 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#535371 19-Oct-2011 22:42

gzt: [The tone of this Herald article is a bit conspiratorial, hence it's appearance in this thread]

I am not familiar with the exact timeline of the Christchurch earthquakes and aftershock warnings. I read this in the Herald this evening:

"Under cross-examination by counsel for earthquake victims' families this afternoon, GNS scientist Dr Kelvin Berryman admitted information was withheld from the public, on advice from social scientists scared for the beleaguered city's collective mental health"

"Government earthquake experts held back forecasts of a massive aftershock for Christchurch following the magnitude 4.9 Boxing Day jolt because they didn't want to alarm the already traumatised population"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10760238

The article does not do a good job with the summary but here is what I take from it after processing it -

A warning was given (ie; not totally suppressed) - but the information actually provided was not as specific about geography or magnitude as it could have been. Is this an accurate summary?

Feel free to discuss any aspect.

I think I would be much more comfortable knowing there was a large chance of an aftershock in the coming months, than not know (quite possibly risking my own and others lives). This reminds me of the recent Fukushima Earthquake/Tsunami/Nuclear disaster, see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/02/japan-nuclear & here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#535399 20-Oct-2011 00:54

The cover up of Fukishima is hardly a conspiracy theory though, unless you live in Japan...

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#535451 20-Oct-2011 09:18

gzt:A warning was given (ie; not totally suppressed) - but the information actually provided was not as specific about geography or magnitude as it could have been. Is this an accurate summary?

Feel free to discuss any aspect.

The way I understood this was that GNS identified a number of likely probable places that a significant aftershock could occur. And thats about as close as they can get.
How other agencies choose to deal with that.......

So to put this in 'conspiracy' perspective. The GNS is NOT Ken Ring and may have chosen NOT to spook those in Christchurch as their scientific approach to these things meant they do not operate with the same impunity (and apparent clarity) as aforementioned Mr Ring. So GNS could not have put any date, time or location on this eventuality.

Without the benefit of any hindsight..... what would you have done?

gzt

16921 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#535653 20-Oct-2011 15:54

codyc1515: I think I would be much more comfortable knowing there was a large chance of an aftershock in the coming months, than not know (quite possibly risking my own and others lives). This reminds me of the recent Fukushima Earthquake/Tsunami/Nuclear disaster, see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/02/japan-nuclear & here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06nuclear.html.

Just digressing to comment on the Fukushima plant for a second, back to the herald story in a mo.
I haven't kept up with the Fukushima plant story, but at the time it looked to me like TEPCO wasn't telling the Japanese government everything it knew, and the Japanese government actually did not want to know what it didn't know.

The Americans were naturally a bit concerned about that because they had a lot of citizens in Japan, and a lot of military personnel on bases:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-Diplomat-says-Initially-Tokyo-Doubted-Seriousness-of-Fukushima-Nuclear-Crisis-127997308.html

"Kevin Maher [[Former US diplomat]] says American decision-makers quickly realized there was little reliable data coming from their Japanese counterparts about the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant. "There was a point where we told the Japanese government, 'Look you guys got to take this seriously. This is a real serious situation. The government needs to respond to this.' And, I think the [Japanese] government eventually came to that conclusion, itself," he said.

gzt

16921 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#535686 20-Oct-2011 17:04

oxnsox: So to put this in 'conspiracy' perspective. The GNS is NOT Ken Ring and may have chosen NOT to spook those in Christchurch as their scientific approach to these things meant they do not operate with the same impunity (and apparent clarity) as aforementioned Mr Ring.

No the GNS is not Ken Ring. I cannot begin to express how thankful I am that is the case. Earthquakes are not very predictable. However, by contrast aftershocks are very predictable (just not by Ken Ring) within certain accepted parameters. This is not controversial at all.

The reason I'm dropping it in this topic is because the NZ Herald article has a somewhat sensationalist tone to it which will almost certainly cause misunderstanding.

The Herald led with a rewritten version on the front page of the print edition this morning. It is a bit clearer on the process and sequence of events, but far less than ideal. More on this later.

oxnsox: So GNS could not have put any date, time or location on this eventuality.

As the article states - GNS empirically assigned a magnitude and several likely locations for the aftershock events. The article does not mention a specific temporal window, but there is no doubt a temporal window is implicit in the statistical analysis performed.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 35