Martin Y wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:39 am
I must say, my gut feeling still has this case firmly filed on the same shelf as flying saucers. Mentions of some interesting physics which might enable it or hints that the basic technology to do something a bit like it exist somewhere or that the Russians are working on their own version seem remarkably familiar. Although I have a slightly higher expectation in this instance of an eventual revelation that changes my view, that's "higher" than a very, very low thing.
Likewise,
I guess diplomatic staff should only have heavily-vetted electronics, but issued phones or computers in their rooms (which are in their embassy and thus their national territory) would probably mess up any standing waves etc for focussed beams to work. To say nothing about how one would aim such devices at presumably someone's head.
Martin Y wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 9:39 am
I must say, my gut feeling still has this case firmly filed on the same shelf as flying saucers. Mentions of some interesting physics which might enable it or hints that the basic technology to do something a bit like it exist somewhere or that the Russians are working on their own version seem remarkably familiar. Although I have a slightly higher expectation in this instance of an eventual revelation that changes my view, that's "higher" than a very, very low thing.
Likewise,
I guess diplomatic staff should only have heavily-vetted electronics, but issued phones or computers in their rooms (which are in their embassy and thus their national territory) would probably mess up any standing waves etc for focussed beams to work. To say nothing about how one would aim such devices at presumably someone's head.
I guess diplomatic staff should only have heavily-vetted electronics, but issued phones or computers in their rooms (which are in their embassy and thus their national territory) would probably mess up any standing waves etc for focussed beams to work. To say nothing about how one would aim such devices at presumably someone's head.
They use it for crowd control so presumably you don't have to be that accurate.
Or secretive.
And this is a case where a tinfoil hat would actually be useful.
The secretive bit is what I was thinking about. I suspect that arcing might even be visible in jewellery - let alone any effect on the electronics in the room.
They use it for crowd control so presumably you don't have to be that accurate.
Last year there were a number of issues with need for crowd control in the US. Why did they use the traditional methods if they had some MEDUSA ready to launch at Ferocious AntiFa?
And BTW i found absolutely nothing on tech in that link. Just marketing magic.
They use it for crowd control so presumably you don't have to be that accurate.
Last year there were a number of issues with need for crowd control in the US. Why did they use the traditional methods if they had some MEDUSA ready to launch at Ferocious AntiFa?
And BTW i found absolutely nothing on tech in that link. Just marketing magic.
Wikipedia's first link is a document which appears to record someone being paid $99,965 for a six month proof-of-concept study. The summary statement claims that it produced microwave auditory effects but not whether they were incapacitating or at what range.
From this we can conclude the scientific fact that someone was able to sign off projects costing up to $100,000.
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
They use it for crowd control so presumably you don't have to be that accurate.
Last year there were a number of issues with need for crowd control in the US. Why did they use the traditional methods if they had some MEDUSA ready to launch at Ferocious AntiFa?
And BTW i found absolutely nothing on tech in that link. Just marketing magic.
Wikipedia's first link is a document which appears to record someone being paid $99,965 for a six month proof-of-concept study. The summary statement claims that it produced microwave auditory effects but not whether they were incapacitating or at what range.
From this we can conclude the scientific fact that someone was able to sign off projects costing up to $100,000.
Hmmm. *looks at my 3 (and counting) $100k R&D projects that got signed off as completed without even producing a substantial report*
Woodchopper wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:56 am
I'm procrastinating, so here's some pages from this book, which seem relevant.
Micro 1.jpg
Micro 2.jpg
Micro 3.jpg
I can believe those are all possible. What I struggle to believe is that they could be targeted at someone *covertly* if they have normal personal electronics nearby. Especially if it is supposedly targeting them whilst they're in their own embassy.
Thanks Woodchopper. I remember reading some better articles than that wiki page when I went through the report last year.
Like jimbob says, the general circumstances of the claimed use of the technology seems much more far fetched than its existence. Why target an embassy full of random staffers? (Unless there was a main target, and the others were collateral, or unless the US had done something similar first)
IIRC the official report doesn't make much mention of personal electronics. Do we know none were affected?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Woodchopper wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:56 am
I'm procrastinating, so here's some pages from this book, which seem relevant.
Micro 1.jpg
Micro 2.jpg
Micro 3.jpg
I can believe those are all possible. What I struggle to believe is that they could be targeted at someone *covertly* if they have normal personal electronics nearby. Especially if it is supposedly targeting them whilst they're in their own embassy.
They don't appear to have experienced the phenomena in their embassy though. According to this summary, the first diplomats to be affected in Cuba experienced noise, headaches etc in their homes or in hotel rooms. That might make it more possible to install equipment nearby (especially in an authoritarian country like Cuba). Though of course the same would apply to other means like poisoning.
Do I believe in conspiracies? Certainly. I believe, for example, that someone is targeting C.I.A. agents and White House officials with microwave radiation, the so-called Havana syndrome, and your government denied it.
Who do I choose to believe with? - this X-author or every colleague whose understanding of electromagnetic radiation propagation I take seriously?
From thread on implanted pacemaker started by shpalman on this subforum:
(I wrote)
Note observed range for this electromagnetic coupling to work:
The researchers also demonstrated in vivo pacing in an adult dog during open-chest surgery. They recorded a maximum pacing distance (between skin and transmission coil) of 17 cm, validating the pacemaker’s capability for long-range wireless energy transfer. These findings suggest that the device can achieve the necessary power transfer for operation in adult human patients.
From Shpalman link.
Now compare this with area coverage claimed for the Havana etc. ill feeling.
Well it's a completely different mechanism, but yes I do suspect you're correct that any EMF weapons would have to be larger and more powerful than a pacemaker, good point.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:09 am
Well it's a completely different mechanism, but yes I do suspect you're correct that any EMF weapons would have to be larger and more powerful than a pacemaker, good point.
Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:09 am
Well it's a completely different mechanism, but yes I do suspect you're correct that any EMF weapons would have to be larger and more powerful than a pacemaker, good point.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman.bsky.social / bsky.app/profile/chrastina.net
threads.net/@dannychrastina
That'll be ultravox rather than infrasound I guess.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:09 am
Well it's a completely different mechanism, but yes I do suspect you're correct that any EMF weapons would have to be larger and more powerful than a pacemaker, good point.
That only works because drones have sensitive microwave electronics onboard that can be jammed and disrupted. It's not at all relevant to this thread.
The pacemaker works at 17cm distance because it has a resonant antenna to receive the power. Remove that antenna, and the range would be ~1mm at best.
Indeed, but I guess that the diplomats would also have sensitive personal electronics - even if they could be more shielded than standard civilian electronics. To expand on your point - it is really hard to imagine some RF attack that manages to subtly harm a human whilst not causing glitches at least, or possibly permanent damage, in electronics that's not specifically designed to withstand it.
