Mind reading/mind control

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Spicer, John
> Sent: 20 June 2006 13:09
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: Mind reading/mind control
>
>
> This is VERY bad science, so I hope Owen posted it tongue in cheek.

What? Me? Tongue in cheek? Perish the thought.

Bad science? Surely it's better that non-experts are occasionally allowed to
play with expensive test gear and learn a little in the process? In the
context of aluminium millinery, I think the report is no worse science than
any other comment on the subject that I have ever read.
>
>
> The bit about frequency allocation is complete balderdash
> (there's another word beginning with B that is more appropriate.)
>
> Just to complicate things; there are a whole raft of
> organisations involved with the use of radio spectrum apart from
> the above national regulators, e.g. ITU-R, CEPT, ERO, FCC, ETSI,
> etc.  And because in general countries have neighbours, they
> can't just assign spectrum to their military, willy-nilly.  This
> is all done by very slowly moving international agreement.

You have good reason to think so John but you would be wrong in the case of
the US and many other nations. The frequency bands allotted to the military
are a national matter, ITU only coordinating band allocation for 'government
use'. Even 'govt use' band allocations within a single ITU region are not
particularly well co-ordinated (for an example look at how FR is out of step
with the rest of ITU Region 1 in its PSRCS band allocation) and there is
limited coordination of band allocation between the three IU regions and
what there is largely driven by commercial considerations and those of
long-range signal propagation. Much military equipment is tuneable only by
switching between fixed channels set at the time of manufacture. This
equipment can than be deployed on operations anywhere in the world and -
trust me on this - will be used as was agreed with the manufacture in some
other ITU region some decade earlier. C'est la vie militaire :-) FYI, what
used to be the combat net radio band (probably what would have been the most
singly congested part of the VHF spectrum in time of war was chosen
independently (for reasons to do with state of the art and propagation
factors) almost identically by the WP and by NATO. If every net was opened
simultaneously each available channel would be in use *on each side* approx
three times over, thus relying on geographical separation and for same side'
daily frequency assignment planning to deconflict use of the available
space. However, along the FEBA and with no official deconfliction between
the two sides, the joke was that for CNR to work at all, the sides would
have to develop a modus vivendi on only using the frequencies on alternate
days :-) Then you throw in a little electronic warfare into that mess.....
:-))

Of course military use of the spectrum has now got much clever but don't
think for one moment that this means that military use of the spectrum is
reduced. Rather, think of the entire spectrum (say to 2GHz - or 5GHz if you
prefer) being used on a pseudo random basis modified by local and immediate
availability of channel for narrowband signalling. Grab a slot for say 20
secs and then you are gone, perhaps though with transmitter duty cycle of
say 25%, not returning to that specific channel for days, weeks or even
months. Then there are the UWB fast frequency hoppers and DSSS comms
units....

Owen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Owen Lewis
> Sent: 19 June 2006 11:56
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Mind reading/mind control
>
>
>
> The link below is to an MIT empirical study into the attenuation of RF
> emissions by aluminium hats. Contrary to expectations and despite the
> testing of several different styles of that, it was discovered that,
> regardless of design, the hats actually act as an amplifier rather than as
> an attenuator at certain frequencies. This observation is common
> to all the
> styles of hat tested. Also, the frequencies at which an increase in the
> radiated power is observed are all either reserved for US
> military use or US
> telecom.
>
> http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> --
>
> Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
>
> Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK.
>
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is
> proprietary to
> Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without
> permission. This communication is for information only and shall
> not create or
> change any contractual relationship.
>
>
>
>
>