How a TI’s Belief Structure Can Fail Them Dangerously

When TIs find their defensive or offensive tactics failing, it is likely because one or more key aspects believed true of their targeting is a falsehood deliberately created for them: the enemy knows you cannot win a war defending against tactics not in play, if it blinds you to those which are.

by H. Michael Sweeney proparanoid.wordpress.com   Facebook   proparanoid.net  

copyright © 2017, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this notice and byline, are included. Quote freely, links requested. Please comment any such repost or quote link to original posting.

What you will learn reading this post:

• part of targeting includes misleading the TI into false beliefs about their targeting;
• what constitutes authoritative proofs capable of revealing the truth vs. beliefs;
• examples of common falsehoods held as true, including scams. 

The problem

In some 25 years, now, I’ve had contact with more than 12,000 targeted individuals according to my email list. Out of that number, I can count on one hand the number of them who had a correct understanding as to who their enemy was and what tactics were being used against them, and how to combat them successfully. So convinced are most TIs about such misbeliefs, that they often refuse to take advice that would work to better their stance, and instead continue to try things already proven ineffective. Worse, they might simply give up trying, at all.

Targeting is a psychological war, and one largely invented by and often waged by the intelligence community, who live and breath in a World where nothing is what it seems. If there is one thing they know how to do well, it is how to convince their victims that something untrue is true, and something true, is false. Their chief weapon is disinformation, and its ally among the foolish, misinformation. Disinformation offered and accepted as true, is spread rumor like as misinformation by those accepting it. This was, by the way, the heart and method portrayed in the popular TV series, Mission Impossible; a spy agency who typically got what they wanted by getting the enemy to believe in an unreal set of ‘facts.’

Their other primary weapon against TIs is the psychological profile, which tells the enemy exactly how their target will respond to a given circumstance, enabling them to create situations designed to cause a certain conclusive response which builds the false narrative. When things like street theater, surveillance technology, and other targeting methods are combined with the goal to mislead in kind, the victim has almost no chance to come away with anything resembling reality. The other victory this hands the perps, is that it makes it much easier to insure that the victim will be seen as mentally imbalanced by anyone observing or brought into the affair when seeking help. Knowing the enemy’s psyche was also part of Mission Impossible, the show always starting with a summarized dossier on the mission’s target and their weaknesses.

Among the most common falsehoods most TIs presume to be true, but which cannot be true, we find a laundry list of topics sold on the basis of technobable, false credentials of ‘authoritative sources,’ circular references, and a deluge of mantra-like disinfo/misinfo. Some effort will be made, here, to summarize, but first, we need understand what a true authoritative source is, and is not. Should any doubt my summarizations are valid, they must first find an authoritative source to prove me wrong, or they simply continue in the lie with no basis.

 

Authoritative information sources

One cannot well prove a case for targeting technology beliefs based on material provided by a targeted individual or mind control Web site, and certainly, not based on a YouTube or someone’s blog or post. At best, such is hearsay, opinion, or personal belief or suspicion. At worst, it is a complete fabrication, or based upon one. Don’t forget that some TIs are pretenders, some even perps, such that no personal claims can ever be deemed as proofs in and of themselves. The sad truth is, I’ve yet to see more than a handful of ‘proofs’ offered by TIs as to their particulars which would serve them in a court of law. Mind control sites seldom provide actual reference proofs, commonly citing other mind control sites or proofs shown herein as illegitimate. Circular references abound.

No. A credible proof must come from some outside resource which has no reason to be biased and itself be unaffected by targeting or disinformation/misinformation, and which can be backed up with citations as to the source of their information. I’m talking about things like patents, scientific papers, government records, news accounts, and good books by solid researchers of accredited note with usefully referenced footnotes, that their statements can be verified as factual. ONLY those things can be seen as authoritative and, therefore, holding a viable resemblance of truth and reality.

A warning about patents, however: patents can be filed based on imaginary or unworkable technology without proof of concept testing, and get by the patent office. I have some background in patent writing and patent requirements, and have seen such patents on file. Unless a patent relating to Political Control Technology applications is tendered by a major corporation, it would be wise to consider it carefully before making assumptions. The unworkable patents I’ve seen were by individual citizens, only.

Even so, one must be careful. Anyone can write a book or put up a Web site, make a video. In fact, a good deal of disinfo/misinfo comes from books. The best example would be books claiming to expose secrets of mind control by ex intelligence officers. No! No! No! No intelligence officer could safely write such a book without violating a Secrecy Oath or law such as the Official Secrets Act (U.K.) in a way that would get them and their books vanished. So I would never quote or trust a Barry Trower or Robert Duncan.

I do trust and have quoted from works of ex CIA agents, but only because their work was approved by Central Intelligence Agency as NOT violating any oath… because nothing they had written of had not already been reported in media or in the Congressional Record, or other public domain literature. The books were not exposing anything new, but merely confirming it in useful manner. In other words, they were not the true originating source, the opposite of a Trower or Duncan. I also know of one CIA agent who wrote and published an unapproved book, and he was hunted down to the point of exiling himself in Cuba. So how is it that Trower and Duncan are exempt?

So when you read a book, including mine, be skeptical and judgemental: demand good citations as to source. My books are heavily footnoted to aid in that judgement call, and typically include an appendix full of additional proofs. In fact, the third book in my proparanoid series, The Defensive Field Guide, is in part a collection of such proofs and citations in a form useful in dialogs with non believers. In such a use, everything within it is verifiable by the doubter.

And, when you base conclusions on a technical source, such as a patent or scientific paper, you must make sure you understand what you are reading, or do additional research until you do. Certainly do not rely on the conclusions of other persons with no credentials in the field, for they likely do not know any more about it, than you. This is a great source of misinformation, because technical papers to the non technical lay person can be read into any number of wrong conclusions. It’s like asking an atheist to interpret scripture, in a way; the translation will be quite flawed.

And here is a simple test: Google a given topic, such as Remote Neural Monitoring. If the returns features ONLY mind control related sites and the like, you are likely looking at disinfo/misinfo. For one thing, Google has a built in bias against ‘fake news’ which they define as anything contravening the ‘official line.’ The official line is that there is no such thing as mind control, so when all you get is mind control, its fake news they want you to have. No. If it was a real thing, you would have up front the ‘scholarly articles,’ news stories, and the mainstream view on topic… and THEN you might see some mind control sites and the like, as if some kind of discredited ranting from the fringe.

Another simple test: when you see a claim for a technology, IS THERE A LINK to THEIR SOURCE so you can verify the claim? Again using RNM, there are consistent claims it is an NSA technology, but NO ONE is providing links as to how they know this to be the case. With enough research, you find the claim originated from some guy no one ever heard of who claims to be a technologist, and HE (William Starrett) gives no link as to how he happens to know. He does provide a video of Snowden talking about SOMETHING UNRELATED and tries to fit it to his narrative; disinformation. There is another source, Russel Tice, who is another claiming to be an ex intelligencia (NSA) whistleblower akin to Edward Snowden. He, too, cites unrelated technology and relies on Robert Duncan, rather than first-hand knowledge. No thank you; disinformation.

And one final test: does someone offer some magical new age technobable gadget, glass bauble or jewelry, salve, oil, or audio they claim will cure/combat the alleged technology? This crap commonly pops up just as fast as the alleged tech, a remarkable feat given that we are typically five to ten years behind the technological curve, which means we don’t understand the technology even exists, much less how it works, and far less about how to defeat it. Do you really believe a $300 pendant with a picture of you as a child engraved on it will stop imaginary scalar waves?

What distresses me about disinfo/misinfo is how easily it becomes everyday ‘fact’ amid the various TI groups and Web resources. Take, for instance, this image which is being used by several organizations and web sites, including PACTS (People Against Covert Torture and Surveillance) offered as proofs of microwave attacks, and microwave murder. Make no mistake, microwave can kill, and cause horrific burns if misused. But the image is not of a microwave victim, at all. It is a bomb blast victim from the Middle East. If you can’t trust the validity of one image or claim at a Web site, can you trust the validity of any found there?

Did you know you can search for images by dropping an image into the Google search bar? Try it sometime. Its a good way to reveal fake news and disinfo/misinfo.

 

Falsehoods thought true

The following is a summary of commonly accepted false beliefs. Not one of them has any factual basis not originating from the enemy. The right hand dangles a Scorpion about your face after the left hand conceals the poisoned spike used to make you think you’ve been bitten; anti-venom won’t cure the actual poison used.

SEEING THROUGH YOUR EYES

No. Shared Vision is easy to simulate through excellent surveillance, computer hacks, and so forth. The belief is based on scientific papers and news reports, but they reveal the ability requires hundreds of implanted probes in direct contact with the brain by drilling holes or removing the skull cap, all directly connected to a room full of supercomputer. The alternative method also written of in hypothetical papers is to replace or surgically modify the eye to be bionic, complete with video transmitter. This would be a two-three week hospital surgical procedure and recovery. I think a TI would notice any of the above clues, but not one, has; no one is seeing through our eyes. These scientific articles have become the basis for false conclusions by people who fail to understand what they were reading. This is in my books, btw.

READING YOUR MIND

No. Same answer as above, almost identically. However, there is another way to simulate it which approximates the result. There is a documented V2S bio implant called RAATS which can intercept and decode your brain’s EEG signals which represent the 26 phonemes making up the little voice in your head which is you talking to yourself about (whatever), including what you are about to do. It is not mind reading, but it can capture the verbalized thoughts for like result. You can learn to suppress the voice, and foil it. However, it is also a two way system capable of V2S, and remains a threat. This is in my books, as well, as is how to thwart it. See also RNM, next.

REMOTE NEURAL MONITORING

No. This is a good example of misinfo, and disinfo (per previous dialog — there are zero authoritative sources). In addition, some TI’s have tried to misapply technical proofs without understanding what they were reading. Some cite brain to brain technology which requires a supercomputer and for both parties to wear a special helmet in a system which neither reads the mind nor is capable of controlling thoughts; it merely causes muscular reaction. Others cite a similar article talking about controlling a mouse’s motor functions wirelessly, based on light, but it requires brain surgery and again has nothing to do with mind reading, and only controls muscular response.

RNM has been further mismarried and confused with Neural Linguistic Programming. NLP is not mind control, as such, but the mere clever use of words/phrases to confuse someone. It is not technology, but a method employed by magicians to misdirect, and by quick change artists to get more change back than due them. However, it is a skill often taught to CIA agents or acquired by others as a tool towards getting people to cooperate. Elements of it are often used in interrogative procedures. It has no actual relationship to RNM other than a similarity in name… and any such relationship which has been assumed is, in fact, an example of written NLP at work to confuse.

BEING IMPLANTED, FINDING IMPLANTS

No (and yes). Make not mistake, implants are real and often employed. I’ve had one, and it eventually came out on its own, rather a rare outcome. There are tracking implants, pain causing implants, and V2S implants (there are three technological ways to cause V2S, one of which relies on implants). I don’t mean to say implants don’t exist in TIs, but I do maintain many TIs falsely conclude they are implanted as a means to explain why their defenses against other (wrong) technology does not work. We must hope this is the case, because implants are very difficult to detect or combat (remove, kill, shield).

The problem is amplified by wrong beliefs about detection. Countless TIs become victims of scam artists claiming to find implants with cheap RF/EMF detectors which allow the moving of a finger to cause the instrument to ‘indicate’ the presence of an implant, when it is actually only sensing the movement of the finger. “That will be $50, please… do you want me to keep searching for another?”

Detection is not impossible, but RF/EMF is not emitted by most implants, and therefore, they cannot be found by cheap gadgets. Getting a professional with proper gear to scan and to tell you about it is typically next to impossible. X-ray and MRI scanner techs and doctors will seldom share the information, it being thought that they are taught in medical school that implants are a government tool to track terrorists, or similar. A good TSCM (Technical Security CounterMeasures) expert tends to balk at requests to scan, they are almost always ex intelligence agents and prone to not crossing their former employers. They also don’t like to do it because if they find none, they will be disbelieved and accused of lying, and payment will be refused, resulting in litigation. And, btw, they charge an arm and a leg, when the bill is presented.

THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL ME

No. Time was, when someone knew something they should not, became too annoying a squeaky wheel to the ‘system,’ or in some way threatened the plans of the powerful, they would simply kill them. But with the perfection of early mind control experiments post WWII, it was quickly discovered that the best way to keep those secrets (and any others) from being revealed, was to make the pesky risks seem insane. Mind control methods have replaced the ‘wet job’ as the way to deal with potential ‘trouble makers.’ There is now no need to kill someone, and in fact, a mind control victim has great potential as a resource for some future project use as a patsy, as guinea pig in new tech or methodology, or training exercises. It costs a lot of money to MC someone, and so, why destroy the person and the investment? This is one reason why membership in the TI community seems to be ‘for life.’

More than that, MC is all about psychology, and the greatest tool in the arsenal of psychological manipulations is fear. It is easy to make someone think their life is in danger, the ultimate driver of fear. Listen. If they wanted you dead, you would already be long dead. It is just that simple.

There is no profit in a ‘slow kill,’ because it would leave forensic clues that would endanger ongoing operations. Out of my 12,000 TI contactees, easily a third or more thought they were marked for death. Out of those thousands, only one actually died from targeting, and that was seen clearly as accidental and unintended consequence by the perps. Another died of organ failure deemed due to old age (nearly 80), but which was likely augmented by constant DEW. Perhaps a dozen others have died in ways which are reported as accidents (i.e., auto), but which the TI community embraces as murder. Another dozen suicides are blamed on targeting.

Suicide is the ultimate expression of giving up, the ultimate price of failing to defend against the real facts of targeting, and the final proof that the victim has decided to voluntarily give up God’s gift of Free Will and submit to the will of their generally satanic tormentors. When Cancer patients and quadriplegics can fight on and endure with dignity, why would anyone give perps that victory? Because they grew tired of defending against the wrong things with the wrong defenses.

SCALAR WAVES

No. This is a perfect example of technobabble at work. There are zero authoritative articles, certainly none which scientifically address scalar waves, which are alleged to disobey the laws of physics and attributed by some people as being employed in mind control.  The primary proponents and parties attempting via Youtube and Web presentations to ‘prove’ scalar waves (leaving more questions than answers) and tie them into mind control are often the same people selling $300 pendants to ward them off. It is a sham.

SATELLITE TARGETING

No, underscored. Some claim satellite DEW torture. Some claim RNM by satellite, already debunked, above. I’ll devote some time to DEW debunking, but I will admit to the possibility that satellites can potentially be used for area wide mood control or subliminal messaging, ONLY. You can in theory broadcast EEG signals and embed subliminal messages within communications signals. This is known technology such as used in Command Solo aircraft being flown every day over the U.S. and elsewhere.

This use of satellites is mere speculation, however, but I’d not be surprised. Command Solo flies training missions every day over US cities, and not even the operators know what is in the ‘training’ tapes being broadcast. The military has admitted the technology was used to sway Bosnian elections, and to cause Iraqi soldiers to surrender in droves, sometimes to small camera mounted drones. Given the number of butthurt Democrats who have waxed violent over the elections, it appears SOMETHING has driven a good number of people beyond the edge of acceptable and normal behavior.

Why DEW attacks are not possible by satellite: Any beamed energy, other than lasers, falls off at the square of the distance. A cell tower transmitter is good to about 2~5 miles with a relatively small emitter. At the height of satellites, the amount of power required to broadcast a microwave beam to earth and have it strong enough to penetrate buildings to hit an individual would likely require a power source far too large to fit in a satellite. Powerful land communications microwaves, broadcast at seriously high energy levels with a huge emitter, have a typical maximum range of about 40 miles. Satellites are typically some 22,000 miles high, or higher.

The harder challenge is associated with transmitter size to handle that power. Microwave communications towers require transmitters typically in the range of 8 to 18 feet in size to punch towards 40 miles. To do fire a signal 22,000 miles would take units far too large to launch. But the bigger hurdle is accuracy, given that in order to maintain the illusion of insanity, you would not want anyone nearby to be hit with a beam (collateral damage). The best military grade GPS is accurate only to about 12 feet, which means a plus or minus error of about 10 feet for the center of beam, and the beam width would be much wider than was the transmitter. Bystanders many yards away, or further, would notice the same targeting effects.

But suppose it could be done? The next problem is cost and client (TI) servicing. A typical military or intelligence satellite can only target ONE client at a time. Given the size required for DEW targeting, certainly only one. Yet how many TIs think they are targeted by satellite? There would need be thousands of such birds, but there are not even one thousand satellites in total from all nations on Earth for all purposes, inclusive. Each satellite costs roughly a half billion dollars to launch, and about $15M a year to maintain, hardly cost effective when a perp with a modified microwave oven-style weapon can do the same job from a nearby building for a few thousand dollars a month.

What about availability? There are zero satellites in geostationary orbit over the United States which are not communications or weather satellites; the military and intelligence community only use orbiting satellites. That is another inefficiency for targeting individuals, because it would only be overhead for targeting for a few moments several times a day. How many TIs can claim targeting on a regular schedule that fits that?

Satellite targeting makes no sense either technically, or financially. It is a fantasy of convenience to the greater targeting movement fostered by Robert Duncan and Barry Trower. If people believe in satellite targeting, they will stop trying to learn the truth, and stop trying to defend themselves, as there is ‘no way to fight satellites.’

True: because they are not at war with you.