AnubisSight Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 Just now, swansont said: We're allegedly discussing science. You're expected to be defending a claim if you are taking the position that it's true. The paper states that they have subjects that have been affected by the technique and have results that reoccur. What is science than!? If they can get a patent (more than one) based on those findings how is that not science?! I am not defending anything. How can you think that...? BTW MOD what about the people "hijacking" my threads!? Asking stupid questions and going way off topic?! How can you single out and call yourself a mod... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticore Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 You can get a patent for any old rubbish - you just have to convince the examiner that it is original. (And pay the fee.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 3 hours ago, AnubisSight said: Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set How do you jump from this "Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation" to this ... "It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set" - you can't just draw that conclusion and accept it - it is totally ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnubisSight Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 That is what the paper says. I guess on here, it is ridiculous to post anything and try to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticore Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 3 hours ago, AnubisSight said: Many computer monitors and TV tubes... How long since anyone here even saw anything other than a flat screen monitor or TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnubisSight Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Manticore said: How long since anyone here even saw anything other than a flat screen monitor or TV? How dare I talk about anything at all ever oh mr. wise man godlike creature how blessed I am that you have graced my post with your divine word... 2 minutes ago, Manticore said: How long since anyone here even saw anything other than a flat screen monitor or TV? And thank you for your downvotes and how thankful I am that we all have you to put me in my place. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticore Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, AnubisSight said: How dare I talk about anything at all ever oh mr. wise man godlike creature how blessed I am that you have graced my post with your divine word... And thank you for your downvotes and how thankful I am that we all have you to put me in my place. I certainly didn't "downvote" you (though I am now sorely tempted to). My question that you refer to was a general one addressed to anyone who reads the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, AnubisSight said: That is what the paper says. I guess on here, it is ridiculous to post anything and try to talk about it. Yes - it is quite a jump to that conclusion. How do they get from -"stimulation from radiation" - which we all know happens.. to "so therefore we can control your mind"? - think about it -- what was the source of the paper? - I wouldn't trust that source again. We ARE talking about it.. Don't get huffy just because we think it is rubbish. We are attacking the crazy suggestion that because the skin is stimulated by radiation you can conclude that mind control is possible through the TV, we aren't attacking you. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 48 minutes ago, AnubisSight said: There are many of these patents, they are papers as well You have only linked to a patent. Which means nothing. It is not a (scientific) paper. If you can't provide some real support for your claims I will assume it is fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnubisSight Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Manticore said: I certainly didn't "downvote" you (though I am now sorely tempted to). My question that you refer to was a general one addressed to anyone who reads the thread. You really are our savior! Thank you for finally coming and bringing goodness and light to all the bad! You people make me sick. Your moral high standing mindset. So far you and the other man, have treated me as if I should not speak or ask about anything at all. You two have shown me, a brand new member, that my words and thoughts are totally worthless in your all knowing eyes.. You have shown me that you sit on your high horse judging all who come your way. 3 minutes ago, DrP said: Yes - it is quite a jump to that conclusion. How do they get from -"stimulation from radiation" - which we all know happens.. to "so therefore we can control your mind"? - think about it -- what was the source of the paper? - I wouldn't trust that source again. We ARE talking about it.. Don't get huffy just because we think it is rubbish. We are attacking the crazy suggestion that because the skin is stimulated by radiation you can conclude that mind control is possible through the TV, we aren't attacking you. ;-) I am not angry that you think it is rubbish! I am angry at how some people on here act towards me. I couldn't care less about people thinking the paper is rubbish, I did not write it! I DO care that some people think they're so much better than others and feel the need to talk down to others who are trying to talk about a paper. So far these people have shown me that posting anything on here will bring the wrath of their harsh words and downvotes because they are easily offended and their thoughts of themselves outweigh all else. Strange... 5 minutes ago, Strange said: You have only linked to a patent. Which means nothing. It is not a (scientific) paper. If you can't provide some real support for your claims I will assume it is fiction. Even when I do link to peer reviewed docs you treat them and me like shit. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticore Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) If you don't want answers, why come here at all? Edited August 29, 2017 by Manticore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 58 minutes ago, AnubisSight said: The paper states that they have subjects that have been affected by the technique and have results that reoccur. What is science than!? If they can get a patent (more than one) based on those findings how is that not science?! I am not defending anything. How can you think that...? BTW MOD what about the people "hijacking" my threads!? Asking stupid questions and going way off topic?! How can you single out and call yourself a mod... You need to cite the actual findings, rather than a patent. If you feel a rule has been broken, use the report post link at the top of the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnubisSight Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 Just now, Manticore said: If you don't want answers, why come here at all? I thought this would be a good place to SPEAK with like minded thinkers and intelligence. I tested the waters with two thoughtful and provoking docs in the scientific spectrum. All you have shown me is that it is looked down at to have said anything at all. So far you have acted as if you have this moral mountain that everyone must climb for you, in both docs! 1 minute ago, swansont said: You need to cite the actual findings, rather than a patent. If you feel a rule has been broken, use the report post link at the top of the post. I dont care about "rules" I do care about interesting convos and speaking to RESPECTFUL and intelligent people! NOT being treated like SHIT and disrespected in all kinds of ways! I am not one who goes around downvoting and insulting everyone just because I am offended or my idea was disagreed with, unlike a few members here. It is sad that a place that calls itself a scientific forum can harbor such disrespect and hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, AnubisSight said: Even when I do link to peer reviewed docs you treat them and me like shit. No and no. No one has done either of those things. You are being oversensitive to disagreement/questioning of your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnubisSight Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share Posted August 29, 2017 Just now, Strange said: No and no. No one has done either of those things. You are being oversensitive to disagreement/questioning of your ideas. I am talking about both here and the forced acceptance thread you are acting like a fool in. You treat people whom you know nothing about like shit mate... All you have done is berate me while I linked you to many papers and items. You did not look at the links on the page I linked you. There are 13 studies done there! There is a wealth of differing info on this hence why I started off with these two talking points. It showed me that you and the other gentleman treat any idea that isn't mainstream like a total waste and disrespect anyone who talks about it. That tells me that unless there is a "concrete" idea, whatever the hell that means, you will chew out and treat the poster like shit for whatever reason. Maybe it makes you feel good about yourself? who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) You can file a patent for things that may not be real. The potential seizure risk from strobe effects is well known and illegal to use maliciously in many locations. There are devices which could allow a crude, limited form of mind control, but these would all require surgery. There's no simple, unobtrusive method. Getting information out is a simpler matter and more realistic concern. You can't control and may not even be aware of your brain recognizing a rapidly shown password or image. Edited August 29, 2017 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nec209 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 OP what are you claiming that this electromagnetic fields controls people emotions for some kind mind control device? For what goal are they using this new device for? This new electromagnetic field device to control people their emotions? A mind control device? 6 hours ago, AnubisSight said: I am talking about both here and the forced acceptance thread you are acting like a fool in. You treat people whom you know nothing about like shit mate... All you have done is berate me while I linked you to many papers and items. You did not look at the links on the page I linked you. There are 13 studies done there! There is a wealth of differing info on this hence why I started off with these two talking points. It showed me that you and the other gentleman treat any idea that isn't mainstream like a total waste and disrespect anyone who talks about it. That tells me that unless there is a "concrete" idea, whatever the hell that means, you will chew out and treat the poster like shit for whatever reason. Maybe it makes you feel good about yourself? who knows... What studies? Where? What do they claim the device do? Mind control? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticore Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Endy0816 said: You can file a patent for things that may not be real. The potential seizure risk from strobe effects is well known and illegal to use maliciously in many locations. I did think of strobe effects - if this is what is happening (assuming anything is), then the effect could also be shown on a flat screen monitor. Another (rather unlikely alternative) could be that on a tube screen, the changing magnetic field is causing an infrasonic vibration - the effects of which are well known. http://www.skepdic.com/infrasound.html Edited August 30, 2017 by Manticore Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrKrettin Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 18 hours ago, swansont said: You should know that patents don't guarantee that the device actually works... The European Patent Office grants patents based only on originality. The applicant is under no obligation to prove that something actually works, and the EPO is under no obligation to test anything, unless an examiner rejects it as being obviously contrary to the laws of physics (such as a perpetual motion machine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 1 hour ago, DrKrettin said: The European Patent Office grants patents based only on originality. The applicant is under no obligation to prove that something actually works, and the EPO is under no obligation to test anything, unless an examiner rejects it as being obviously contrary to the laws of physics (such as a perpetual motion machine). I think the US patent office operates under a similar paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area54 Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 On 29/08/2017 at 11:05 AM, AnubisSight said: If you keep following my posts and whatnot, you will learn sooner or later about sarcasm. I can hardly wait for that glorious moment. Oh my! It's taking effect already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 6 hours ago, swansont said: I think the US patent office operates under a similar paradigm. Pretty much, there are a number of patents within the EU and USA for perpetuum mobiles: (e.g. US 12/321,968 DE19919022 (A1)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now