Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
prometheuslocke

Mind Control. It's been here the whole time.

431 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jaylemurph

So, the answer: Since it's been around since before we knew about quantum mechanics, it must have come from somewhere else. I don't personally believe in demons, or that humans would time travel to the past to do this to ourselves.. so, I'm left with an alien force.

For a quick read on some of my reasons that it's really, really old:

The Dendera Light: http://unduecoercion...a-light_24.html

Hitler/Paperclip/MK-Ultra: http://unduecoercion...idden-hand.html

1984, Brave New World: http://unduecoercion...s-security.html

Religion, in general: http://unduecoercion...-and-devil.html

So, uhhh, how much, exactly, do you get paid to shill for unduecoercion.blogspot.com?

Or is it your own site? Because why carry coals to Newcastle and go to the site when I'm betting you can repeat any of that here for us?

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

So, uhhh, how much, exactly, do you get paid to shill for unduecoercion.blogspot.com?

Or is it your own site? Because why carry coals to Newcastle and go to the site when I'm betting you can repeat any of that here for us?

--Jaylemurph

It's mine.. and it's like 20 pages of text. I put it on a blog so I don't have to repeat it over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

So, the answer: Since it's been around since before we knew about quantum mechanics, it must have come from somewhere else. I don't personally believe in demons, or that humans would time travel to the past to do this to ourselves.. so, I'm left with an alien force.

For a quick read on some of my reasons that it's really, really old:

The Dendera Light: http://unduecoercion...a-light_24.html

Hitler/Paperclip/MK-Ultra: http://unduecoercion...idden-hand.html

1984, Brave New World: http://unduecoercion...s-security.html

Religion, in general: http://unduecoercion...-and-devil.html

I'll leave others to comment on the bottom three but the Dendera "lightbulb" is definitively not a lightbulb. Few ancient civilizations have been as skewed, twisted, and misrepresented as pharaonic Egypt at the hands of modern fringe writers like von Däniken and Sitchin, who are the progenitors of at least 75% of this sort of nonsense.

One cannot view a piece of wall relief in a pharaonic temple or tomb and really understand the whole—because the whole has to be understood. The inscription accompanying this particular relief explains what the Egyptians themselves saw it as, not von Däniken or Sitchin or the like:

Click here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

I'll leave others to comment on the bottom three but the Dendera "lightbulb" is definitively not a lightbulb. Few ancient civilizations have been as skewed, twisted, and misrepresented as pharaonic Egypt at the hands of modern fringe writers like von Däniken and Sitchin, who are the progenitors of at least 75% of this sort of nonsense.

One cannot view a piece of wall relief in a pharaonic temple or tomb and really understand the whole—because the whole has to be understood. The inscription accompanying this particular relief explains what the Egyptians themselves saw it as, not von Däniken or Sitchin or the like:

Click here.

I agree completely that it's not a lightbulb. My contention is that it represents a mind control weapon, and I believe the rest of the reliefs support my theory well. If you look at the series of them, it shows the weapons hands being changed (or it being fought), and the depictions of the "humans" changes from worship to "love".

edit: I read through the texts, which i had only seen partially before. At first glance, the two mentions of eternity seem to indicate that the idea that they are prophetic is correct. I have to go over it more tomorrow, really tired.

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

What is the official reason entanglement can't send information? Is it because it is only when they are both observed that they resolve, and if you try to "force" a state on one of the entangled pair, it breaks the entanglement? Thus because both will have the same state, yet that state can't be predicted, it is worthless to use to send information.... Is that close??

You can't force a state on one of the particles.

The typical "thought experiment" attempting to use entanglement for communication is two beams of entangled particles, where each beam contains only one of the particles. The beams travel in opposite directions. The sending unit (where they bacame entangled) serves as the center of the system, and two "readers" are placed at opposite ends.

One reader resolves his particle, and the partner particle can then be observed to be the same.

Think of how the second "reader" could possibly be able to tell if he was the one that resolved the particle, or if his partner on the other end did it. After all, it takes observation on both ends, and observation is what locks the particle into a particular quantum state.

The second reader could observe particle after particle and have no way to tell if he was causing the quantum state or merely "reading" the state that is resolved at the other end.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diablo Blanco

but the Dendera "lightbulb" is definitively not a lightbulb.

Sure it is. The Dendera 'lightbulb' is found in the Temple of Hathor. Hathor obviously meaning "House of Thor" Ha= house and thor meaning the norse god of thunder and LIGHTNING of which powers the lightbulb.

Or, if you prefer, Hathor meaning "House of Horus" Hat= house and 'hor' being short for Horus. Horus being the Sun and in the Electric Universe Theory, the Sun is electrical. Therefore powering the 'lightbulb'.

(None of this is likely to be true as Hathor was a female and horus and thor both being male.) lol

Edited by Diablo Blanco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

You can't force a state on one of the particles.

The typical "thought experiment" attempting to use entanglement for communication is two beams of entangled particles, where each beam contains only one of the particles. The beams travel in opposite directions. The sending unit (where they bacame entangled) serves as the center of the system, and two "readers" are placed at opposite ends.

One reader resolves his particle, and the partner particle can then be observed to be the same.

Think of how the second "reader" could possibly be able to tell if he was the one that resolved the particle, or if his partner on the other end did it. After all, it takes observation on both ends, and observation is what locks the particle into a particular quantum state.

The second reader could observe particle after particle and have no way to tell if he was causing the quantum state or merely "reading" the state that is resolved at the other end.

Harte

Earlier I posted this: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-gently-cubit-superposition.html

Using that, and a normal measurement utility to collapse one of the two entangled particles, it should be possible to create a binary signalling channel... no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Earlier I posted this: http://phys.org/news...erposition.html

Using that, and a normal measurement utility to collapse one of the two entangled particles, it should be possible to create a binary signalling channel... no?

Your article is about teasing info out of a qubit without disturbing superposition.

Entanglement is about causing the collapse of this same superposition.

Care to elaborate how the two can work together?

I first read about the find you linked to in Scientific American. They used the method to determine that the future of a particle can determine it's past. In fact, some think that the complete randomness of quantum states can be explained through influences on the particle that arise in that particle's own future.

A much, MUCH wilder idea than even mind control. However, still not wild enough to create faster than light communication.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

Your article is about teasing info out of a qubit without disturbing superposition.

Entanglement is about causing the collapse of this same superposition.

Care to elaborate how the two can work together?

I first read about the find you linked to in Scientific American. They used the method to determine that the future of a particle can determine it's past. In fact, some think that the complete randomness of quantum states can be explained through influences on the particle that arise in that particle's own future.

A much, MUCH wilder idea than even mind control. However, still not wild enough to create faster than light communication.

Harte

0 = superpostion

1 = collapsed

since we know we can force collapse on one side, and decide whether or not its occurred (without knowing or caring what the collapsed position is)

you've just communicated faster than light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
When someone replies to a post carefully containing links and concepts which would clarify what we were arguing about by not reading them, responding rudely to the favor, and saying "just listing stuff" it doesn't leave a warm fuzzy feeling for someone who is genuinely trying to explain a concept to someone.

But you are just listing stuff. Going on about bits of the brain other than neurons, without even trying to explain how they relate to what your talking about. The same with your links - they don't support your argument, you're just misreading the science, and drawing faulty parallels, hoping someone here is guilable enough not to pull you up on it.

Your idea doesn't work, it really is as simple as that - I've asked you to explain it and you can't.

Further, my second point was deconstructed in thirds, the first reply flat out rude, the second which completely explained what she was looking for was completely ignored in her reply (I guess it didn't gel well with her attempt to pretend there was nothing substantial offered), and the third boiled down to calling actual theoretical physics nothing more than science fiction.

There's a difference between blunt and rude. And tachyons are science fiction, sorry.

By the way, a tachyon is a real theoretical particle with imaginary mass.

No it isn't real. Its pretty much a thought experiment - "how would a particle with these properties behave?" - no one actually suggests that tachyons are real.

Good luck learning in the future.

Thank you, likewise.

Also, charge is a quantum property, whose state can be modified via entanglement.

I know what charge is. You were talking about the "charge of a neuron". A neuron isn't a particle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

0 = superpostion

1 = collapsed

since we know we can force collapse on one side, and decide whether or not its occurred (without knowing or caring what the collapsed position is)

you've just communicated faster than light.

Thats not communication. Communication has to have content. Binary can turn on and off. You can't uncollapse a wave function (as far as I know), so its useless as a form of communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

Thats not communication. Communication has to have content. Binary can turn on and off. You can't uncollapse a wave function (as far as I know), so its useless as a form of communication.

Transmitting a single bit of classical information is still transmission of classical information. Thank you for taking part in our discussion, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

But you are just listing stuff. Going on about bits of the brain other than neurons, without even trying to explain how they relate to what your talking about. The same with your links - they don't support your argument, you're just misreading the science, and drawing faulty parallels, hoping someone here is guilable enough not to pull you up on it.

Your idea doesn't work, it really is as simple as that - I've asked you to explain it and you can't.

There's a difference between blunt and rude. And tachyons are science fiction, sorry.

No it isn't real. Its pretty much a thought experiment - "how would a particle with these properties behave?" - no one actually suggests that tachyons are real.

Thank you, likewise.

I know what charge is. You were talking about the "charge of a neuron". A neuron isn't a particle.

You do not understand my explanation, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. You didn't ask for clarification, you called it an 'arbitrary list', which I assure you it is not.

Tachyons are theoretical particles. Here, look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Again, I was talking about the charge of a molecule within the neuron (this is what a protein, dna, and "molecule" is). These things do have charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

You do not understand my explanation, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. You didn't ask for clarification, you called it an 'arbitrary list', which I assure you it is not.

Tachyons are theoretical particles. Here, look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Again, I was talking about the charge of a molecule within the neuron (this is what a protein, dna, and "molecule" is). These things do have charge.

Per your own link:

Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. It was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light and instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation.

and

Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence has been found.

The above is not a basis on which one can claim tachyons are real. Hence why they are called "theoretical" particles.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

The above is not a basis on which one can claim tachyons are real. Hence why they are called "theoretical" particles.

Which is exactly what I have called them, over and over, in this thread.

The fact that they are theoretical does not mean that an imaginary mass particle could not exist. Further, I never suggested they traveled faster than light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

Which is exactly what I have called them, over and over, in this thread.

The fact that they are theoretical does not mean that an imaginary mass particle could not exist. Further, I never suggested they traveled faster than light.

That they "could exist" doesn't mean that they "do exist" which further means there's no reason to bring them into a discussion as anything remotely resembling a fact. They're not.

Also it doesn't matter what "you" suggested as tachyons by their own theoretical nature are suggested to travel faster than light.

I have to agree this sounds like another example of "throwing enough crap against the wall to see what sticks". Sad really.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Sure it is. The Dendera 'lightbulb' is found in the Temple of Hathor. Hathor obviously meaning "House of Thor" Ha= house and thor meaning the norse god of thunder and LIGHTNING of which powers the lightbulb.

Or, if you prefer, Hathor meaning "House of Horus" Hat= house and 'hor' being short for Horus. Horus being the Sun and in the Electric Universe Theory, the Sun is electrical. Therefore powering the 'lightbulb'.

(None of this is likely to be true as Hathor was a female and horus and thor both being male.) lol

The name Hathor is a Greek rendering of the original ancient Egyptian (Hwt-Hr), which does in fact mean "House of Horus." The name Horus itself is a Greek rendering of the original ancient Egyptian (Hr or Hrw). This reflects Hathor's protective role over Horus—in some versions of the myths she's his mother, in others his wife. That's one of the problems comprehending ancient Egyptian religion in modern times. It lasted and developed for such a great length of time that the deities and their roles changed a lot—and were sometimes understood or worshipped differently in different parts of the Nile Valley. This is particularly true for Horus.

Obviously Thor does not come into play because he is from a completely different (and much later) culture at the other end of the world. Although it would be pretty cool if Horus wielded a deadly war hammer. :w00t:

The bottom line is, people not familiar with ancient Egypt sometimes ascribe unrealistic levels of technology to this distant culture. It was a Bronze Age culture from start to finish. One must understand the actual limits and scope of ancient technology based on the extant evidence. And nothing—nothing—in the extant archaeological or philological evidence suggests the Egyptians had even the slightest concept of electrical systems or levitation or advanced weaponry or toaster ovens, et cetera.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

And nothing—nothing—in the extant archaeological or philological evidence suggests the Egyptians had even the slightest concept of electrical systems or levitation or advanced weaponry or toaster ovens, et cetera.

Someone clearly didn't read today's news about the new-found temple with the "Littany of That Device Which Toasts, and Heats, and Warms, but Which is Virtually Useless for Floating, and Projecting Weaponized Energy" carved on the wall. It's a virtual game-changer.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

0 = superpostion

1 = collapsed

since we know we can force collapse on one side, and decide whether or not its occurred (without knowing or caring what the collapsed position is)

you've just communicated faster than light.

You can't decide whether or not collapse has occurred. Observation would be required, which results in collapse. Your "partial" observation (whatever you want to call it - the "gentle" one) would yield no transferred information from anything done to the other particle.

Harte

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

Someone clearly didn't read today's news about the new-found temple with the "Littany of That Device Which Toasts, and Heats, and Warms, but Which is Virtually Useless for Floating, and Projecting Weaponized Energy" carved on the wall. It's a virtual game-changer.

--Jaylemurph

Aw, damn, it's impossible to keep up with the latest finds.

What about geysers? Does the Litany mention geysers? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Aw, damn, it's impossible to keep up with the latest finds.

What about geysers? Does the Litany mention geysers? :w00t:

Don't mention the G word, it brings head aches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

That they "could exist" doesn't mean that they "do exist" which further means there's no reason to bring them into a discussion as anything remotely resembling a fact. They're not.

Also it doesn't matter what "you" suggested as tachyons by their own theoretical nature are suggested to travel faster than light.

I have to agree this sounds like another example of "throwing enough crap against the wall to see what sticks". Sad really.

cormac

What are you talking about? Honestly, the mention of tachyons was nothing more than a "what if" thrown at the end of a detailed explanation of the current process of entanglement. It could easily be replaced with a neutrino, which we already know can travel great distances and through matter.

Did you read the post that included the initial use of the term? Harping on a three word "hypothetical" sentence, which has nothing to do with the rest of the argument, pretty much means you are only looking for a loophole to get out of being wrong. Not to mention, you haven't really been responding at all to that thread.. what's the use in chiming in to talk about 1% of the whole? "Sad really."

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

The name Hathor is a Greek rendering of the original ancient Egyptian (Hwt-Hr), which does in fact mean "House of Horus." The name Horus itself is a Greek rendering of the original ancient Egyptian (Hr or Hrw). This reflects Hathor's protective role over Horus—in some versions of the myths she's his mother, in others his wife. That's one of the problems comprehending ancient Egyptian religion in modern times. It lasted and developed for such a great length of time that the deities and their roles changed a lot—and were sometimes understood or worshipped differently in different parts of the Nile Valley. This is particularly true for Horus.

Obviously Thor does not come into play because he is from a completely different (and much later) culture at the other end of the world. Although it would be pretty cool if Horus wielded a deadly war hammer. :w00t:

The bottom line is, people not familiar with ancient Egypt sometimes ascribe unrealistic levels of technology to this distant culture. It was a Bronze Age culture from start to finish. One must understand the actual limits and scope of ancient technology based on the extant evidence. And nothing—nothing—in the extant archaeological or philological evidence suggests the Egyptians had even the slightest concept of electrical systems or levitation or advanced weaponry or toaster ovens, et cetera.

I agree with you, but magic and the mystical certainly pervaded not only their myths but their belief system. I don't think it's outlandish to entertain the possibility that these beliefs had some basis in reality. Not that I think magic exists, but that perhaps they did witness Von Daniken like intervention, and had no other explanation. This is the soul of my interpretation of the Dendera reliefs.

In similar fashion, the Nag Hammadi scrolls and their gnostic beliefs also talk about "unseen aliens" with the ability to "possess" people. Until about 300ad this was canonical. I can't recall if I've discussed the Fall of Rome here, but the removal of this type of literature was one of the main consequences of that. Romans, like the German foofighters in WW2 reported seeing "flying shields" around this time. The contention is an alien force used the Fall, and the resulting dark age, to hide their existence -- destroying religious literature which may have revealed their ever present existence to us now, or in the near future, when we realize that they have this technology.

http://www.jayweidner.com/Archons.html discusses one persons interpretation of some of the gnostic writing. It's very similar to what I have seen... now. Demons, aliens, 'archons,' whatever you call it, in today's context its mind control.

Edited by prometheuslocke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prometheuslocke

Quaentum: prometheuslocke, If mind control does exist, how do you know you haven't been controlled to put out false information?

But if thats true, then at least he is right - there is a conspiracy and mind control technology exists. And obviously being used to make sure that the conspiracy sounds as stoopid as possible, and therefore ridiculed by as many people as are willing to listen, leaving the aliens to get on with their nefarious plans...

I don't know that. Though I'm fairly confident I've researched many possibilities to explain a phenomenon I have witnessed first hand. At the same time think about this. I get a significant amount of "flack" and "disbelief" on this forum and in other places. I have read many, many way more outlandish theories and explanations of conspiracies and technology which are embraced and championed. In my opinion, the fact that this one, which I promise you is rooted in much more grounded science than "microwave guns" and "GWEN towers" (thanks Jesse Ventura), creates anger, animosity, and a need to reject it in many people -- proves that if there is a broad mind control conspiracy, maybe it's the readers response that should be looked at for evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph

Aw, damn, it's impossible to keep up with the latest finds.

What about geysers? Does the Litany mention geysers? :w00t:

I don't feel comfortable stealing cladking's thunder, you know?

Oh, damn. I think I just did. Sorry about that, ck.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.