“Electromagnetic Frequency Mind Control Weapons – Dr. Patrick Flanagan”

Electromagnetic Frequency Mind Control Weapons – Dr. Patrick Flanagan

by Zen Gardner

Dr. Patrick Flanagan speaks here about mind control frequencies and how they are piggybacking on the the many carrier frequencies within the electrosmog enshrouding the “developed world”, entraining the brainwaves of human beings and even animals, in a horrific invisible prison of mind control.

Flanagan was a wunderkind who developed and sold a guided missile detector to the US Military when he was eleven years old. At seventeen,he gained his air pilot’s license and worked at a Think Tank at The Pentagon. Later, he was a consultant to the NSA, CIA, NASA, Tufts University, the Office of Naval Research, and at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds for the Department of Unconventional Weapons and Warfare.

In 1958, he invented the Neurophone, an electronic nervous system excitation device that transmits sound through the skin directly to the brain, for which he received a US patent and which has been used by the US military for mind control applications.

Source: Electromagnetic Frequency Mind Control Weapons- Dr. Patrick Flanagan – Zen Gardner

P.S.

The Lilly Wave and psychotronic warfare

Here is a comment from Norman Pilon that I suggest everyone read and consider:

I’m not sure how much store to lay into this issue. Although a physical medium may absorb a range of EM spectra, its EM emissions will be characterized by the elements comprising its structure. This explains why, for example, astronomers, by analyzing the light spectra of a star, can determine the chemical or elemental composition of the star.

In other words, you cannot ‘tune’ the EM radiation of a medium to any desired frequency you might choose by carefully selecting the frequency of the light you shine on it.

Rather, by shining a light on something, you can affect its temperature and therefore the range into which it will emit in its characteristic spectral range, which is determined by its atomic or chemical structure.

Thus the spectra of the EM radiation emitted by your brain under normal conditions is a function of the elements and chemicals that make up your brain, and not anything cognitive or subjective that you may be experiencing or doing.

There is no EM frequency corresponding to an emotion, because EM frequencies are determined by chemicals or atoms or atomic bonds, but most emphatically not emotional states.

Therefore, although EM radiation, like X-rays, can certainly disrupt your brain functions by destroying cellular structures, essentially by ‘cooking’ them quite literally, it cannot ‘tune’ EM spectrum being emitted by your brain, except, of course, to the degree that it affects the actual overall temperature of that organ.

For a better understanding of the dangers of EM radiation, see this presentation by Chris Busby on how mobile phones cause cancer:

https://normanpilon.com/2015/07/14/chris-busby-on-how-mobile-phones-cause-cancer/

The upshot of Busby’s lecture is that if there wan’t so much ‘man-made radiation pollution’ in our biosphere, EM radiation from cell-phones might well be harmless. The harm ensues from the interaction between the cell-phone emissions and the radionuclides that we have synthesized from our now ‘radiation polluted’ environment, that pollution having originated from nuclear bomb tests in our atmosphere and the meltting-down of a handful of nuclear power generating stations.

9 thoughts on ““Electromagnetic Frequency Mind Control Weapons – Dr. Patrick Flanagan”

  1. Alarming, to say the least. It reminds me of the warning systems we have in place here, attached to the elementary school half a block away from my house. Last year when I was out working in my backyard, the siren blasted, and literally sent me to my knees in agony. Covering my ears didn’t help. I remember my thoughts at the time. “Disabling people is hardly the wisest thing to do in times of a real emergency.” It is incredible to contemplate the fact that people dream up such things, and even more absurd to realize that they spend the time and resources to build them!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I feel the same way, Carol. Some days I feel as if I am living is a sci-fi/horror movie.

    In my opinion, this is what happens when mankind gets hold of too much knowledge too soon. We have too many child-like ‘scientists’ worrying about fame, fortune and awards, instead of worrying about how to serve humanity and the planet.

    And behind these ‘scientists” are the creatures who care nothing for humanity or the planet.

    Thanks, Carol!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m not sure how much store to lay into this issue. Although a physical medium may absorb a range of EM spectra, its EM emissions will be characterized by the elements comprising its structure. This explains why, for example, astronomers, by analyzing the light spectra of a star, can determine the chemical or elemental composition of the star.

    In other words, you cannot ‘tune’ the EM radiation of a medium to any desired frequency you might choose by carefully selecting the frequency of the light you shine on it.

    Rather, by shining a light on something, you can affect its temperature and therefore the range into which it will emit in its characteristic spectral range, which is determined by its atomic or chemical structure.

    Thus the spectra of the EM radiation emitted by your brain under normal conditions is a function of the elements and chemicals that make up your brain, and not anything cognitive or subjective that you may be experiencing or doing.

    There is no EM frequency corresponding to an emotion, because EM frequencies are determined by chemicals or atoms or atomic bonds, but most emphatically not emotional states.

    Therefore, although EM radiation, like X-rays, can certainly disrupt your brain functions by destroying cellular structures, essentially by ‘cooking’ them quite literally, it cannot ‘tune’ EM spectrum being emitted by your brain, except, of course, to the degree that it affects the actual overall temperature of that organ.

    For a better understanding of the dangers of EM radiation, see this presentation by Chris Busby on how mobile phones cause cancer:

    https://normanpilon.com/2015/07/14/chris-busby-on-how-mobile-phones-cause-cancer/

    The upshot of Busby’s lecture is that if there wan’t so much ‘man-made radiation pollution’ in our biosphere, EM radiation from cell-phones might well be harmless. The harm ensues from the interaction between the cell-phone emissions and the radionuclides that we have synthesized from our now ‘radiation polluted’ environment, that pollution having originated from nuclear bomb tests in our atmosphere and the meltting-down of a handful of nuclear power generating stations.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well first of all, I am completely uniformed on this entire issue. But I’ll check out the link you have given me here.

    I have read some articles that claim the mind resides outside of the body, and so it can still function even if the brain is effected in some way. I have a tendency to believe this, by the way.

    I don’t watch tv all day long, because I can’t stand it! But at nights, being alone, I will have the tv on to break the deafening silence, especially if I am ill. And this usually amounts to watching a movie. And of course, I am surrounded by everything this video speaks of. And yet, I feel more aware of what is happening now than I ever have. So I’m not sure this video is right either.

    But it’s just the fact that these elite creatures are attempting to control people in this manner that is so troubling to me.

    Thanks, Norm, and I’ll check this link out tomorrow!

    I’m adding your comment to the post. People need to hear your opinion on this, and perhaps, they will check this link out as well!

    Like

  5. Hi Dave,

    I’ve re-read my comment, and would like to re-state it, so to speak.

    EM radiation translated in layman terms is ‘light.’

    Light is an emission that comes in a variety of flavors, that is, as ‘particle like’ quanta that oscillate as they travel through space, and these oscillations can be depicted as waves.

    We categorize ‘types’ of light by ‘wavelength over time,’ that is, by their ‘frequency’ of oscillation in a period of time, or what for convenience we merely refer to as their ‘frequency.’

    So for example, as can be found on WikipediA, X-rays have a wavelength ranging from 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz. Comparatively, all light visible to the human eye falls in a wavelength range of between 390 and 700 nanometers, with corresponding frequencies of between 430 and 770 terahertz. The point, here, to keep in mind is that different kinds of light are differentiated by their ‘freqencies’ or, what is essentially the same, their wavelengths.

    Now the thing that Einstein got his Novel Prize for in 1921 was for explaining the photoelectric effect, that is, just what it was about light that actually modulated the intensity of the current you could get out of a metal by shinning light on it. What he discovered was that it was the ‘frequency’ of light and not its intensity (brightness) that really affected the strength of the current you could generate. The higher the ‘frequency,’ the more current you got.

    This meant that light interacts with the electrons of atoms as it travels in close proximity to them. A part of its motion or kinetic energy is stripped away from it and transferred to some of the electrons along or near its path of travel. The higher the frequency of the light, the more interactions with a given electron it can have in a given amount of time and thus impart a greater amount of kinetic energy to the electron. Sometimes the energy imparted is so great that the electron breaks away from its orbit around its host atom, and that’s when you get the effect of ‘electricity;’ otherwise, the electron remains in orbit around its host atom, but in a more excited state, orbiting faster, and that’s when you get the effect of ‘heat’ or a temperature increase.

    So all light interacts with matter in basically two ways: it heats matter (which you can vary by changing the intensity or brightness of the light) and it strips electrons from atoms (the number of electrons stripped varying according to the frequency of the light).

    Therefore, exposing brain tissue to a beam of EM radiation, depending upon its frequency and intensity, will result in either heating the tissue or ionizing some of its component elements (– ionization being the stripping away of electrons –) , thereby potentially and irrevocably altering the structure of some of the cells of that tissue.

    And that’s it. There is no interaction between light and the tissues of one’s brain beyond this.

    Of course, it goes without saying that if you are altering the temperatures of cells and ionizing molecules and atoms in the brain of someone, you may end up disrupting that brain’s normal functioning.

    But since you cannot prevent heat dissipation from one part of the brain to other parts, nor control which molecules and atoms you are potentially ionizing, I don’t believe you can effectively use EM radiation to effectively “control” what people think and feel or how they behave.

    At most, you can sort of, kind of, control the extent of the physical damage you might inflict on someone’s brain by subjecting it to beams of EM radiation.

    Propaganda and education have greater probabilities of success for controlling people; have a proven track record; and are by far more economical means of social control.

    BTW: with all of this in mind, Busby’s explanation of the mechanics of how cell phones end up causing cancer (by imparting additional and enormous loads of kinetic energy on ‘free electrons’ or Beta particles that ionize molecules and atoms) should become more comprehensible.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Actually, Norman, after reading this, I now know I understood what Busby was talking about.

    I get it, and it makes sense, even though I am a dunce with basic science issues like this.

    Thanks. And like I said yesterday, I don’t know for certain, of course, but I am leaning towards the idea that the mind is somehow outside of or beyond the brain, and thus cannot be that easily manipulated.

    Since you do not take comments, and I understand why, I want you to know that I have viewed the first Steel video, and it was enough for me to go ahead and reblog your post today. I will view the other videos as well, over the next few days.

    I never considered locality and landscape as being factors in this, but it makes perfect sense. And the fact that during the California drought, these local ecologies were fixed by rehydration (or whatever the term is), makes it clear that CO2 cannot be the only culprit here, and that the science is definitely not settled!

    Thanks, Norm, for taking the time on this comment, and the one yesterday, to explain this, and for the excellent post today!!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “. . . I understood what Busby was talking about.”

    I know, Busby is not only a sharp brain but he is really good at explaining complicated interactions in ordinary English.

    I’ve got another Busby cued up, titled:

    Systemic uninformed consent to MASS VACCINATION — Pr Dr Chris Busby

    If you want to get a jump on the post,
    you can watch it here:

    It runs about 15 minutes.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Great! Thanks! I just finished watching the second Steel video.

    Excellent! Rational and sensible, and in terms most anyone could understand. It’s hard to find this today!

    I’ve got it bookmarked!

    Like

  9. I checked out his video on vaccines, and I will be posting it tomorrow.

    He sums up, in fifteen minutes, the 150 plus articles I have posted on this subject for the past two years.

    Does the risk outweigh the benefit. CRUNCH THE NUMBERS!

    And as he points out, and I have posted before, parents are not given the pertinent info needed on vaccinations to make an informed, safe decision.

    Thanks again, Norm!

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.