{"id":266840,"date":"2023-03-26T08:06:26","date_gmt":"2023-03-26T08:06:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=266840"},"modified":"2023-03-27T14:36:28","modified_gmt":"2023-03-27T14:36:28","slug":"tin-foil-hat-wear-it-proudly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=266840","title":{"rendered":"Tin Foil Hat\u2014Wear It Proudly"},"content":{"rendered":"

Michael Hoffman \u2013 Substack.com March 24, 2023<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Directed-energy technology is the perfect covert weapon. It leaves no fingerprints and is non-attributable. For decades alternative researchers, activists and scientists sounded the alarm and some even resorted to the use of tin foil, placing it in the windows of their homes or fashioning head gear from it to protect themselves from the perceived threat. It may have been an inchoate action but at least it recognized there was a threat.<\/p>\n

Those so engaged are taunted and jeered by the \u201cpeople who know better\u201d and who talk down to us\u2014the corporate media and Hollywood\u2019s tastemakers and trend setters. The image of the \u201ctin foil hat\u201d has become a trope in American culture, a signature device for indicating who among us is a supposedly rational, intelligent human and who is a moronic paranoid, or so the Cryptocracy wants us to believe.<\/p>\n

We acknowledge that satire and caricature are legitimate tools when reason and evidence have proved unable to dislodge superstition, logical fallacies or prejudice.<\/p>\n

However, in some circumstances radically original ideas and pioneering research which undercut prevailing mythologies are mocked by partisans who have no cogent answers and no way of effectively defeating ideas and research they fear and detest.<\/p>\n

There certainly are bamboozled people on both sides of the political spectrum whose naivet\u00e9 and\/or confirmation bias are so intense and self-deluding online that they comprise what we have described as the Internet fever swamp.<\/p>\n

One of our columns is titled \u201cThe Right-wing fever swamp<\/a>,<\/strong>\u201d which is an accurate profile of people who scour the Internet solely to obtain material they can use to buttress their biases and who have no real interest in the pursuit of the truth wherever it may lead<\/em>, which is the main means by which knowledge is advanced.<\/p>\n

In the case of the corporate media, whose job it is to suppress that which contradicts the dogma of the ruling class, scorn is employed to limit debate and suppress dissenting evidence before it can receive a fair hearing in the public square. These suppression tactics limit the advancement of knowledge and entrench the ruling class monopoly over information.<\/p>\n

One category of lesser humans who the corporate media and entertainment conglomerate condition us to believe are deserving of our sneers and contempt, are Americans who espouse non-conformist views, disseminate dissenting information or ask heretical questions at variance with heavily propagated Establishment beliefs. These people are often said to metaphorically wear a \u201ctin-foil hat.\u201d<\/p>\n

The tin-foil sneer is used to belittle or discredit those who hold beliefs that are outside an alleged consensus which in actuality has often been manufactured by notoriously inaccurate polls. Furthermore, the tin foil label conveys a sense of intellectual and moral superiority on the part of those who attach it to others, as if those who apply the term are above self-delusion themselves.<\/p>\n

The tin-foil hat put-down has contributed to a culture of polarization and tribalism, where those with differing beliefs are viewed as inferior or defective, and where meaningful dialogue and exchange of information is obstructed.<\/p>\n

The Media\u2019s Tin Hat Foil Obsession<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There are many hundreds of examples of the use of this neuro-linguistic dehumanization mechanism by media, government and in the Society of the Spectacle\u2019s entertainment conglomerate. Here are a few:<\/p>\n

In a 2003 episode of \u201cThe Simpsons\u201d television program, the character Homer Simpson wears a tin foil hat to protect himself from government mind control.<\/p>\n

In 2004, during the U.S. presidential election, supporters of Senator John Kerry were accused of wearing \u201ctin foil hats\u201d for suggesting that voting machines could be hacked to manipulate the results. (In 2017, former Secretary of State John Kerry used the term “tin foil hat brigade” to describe people who believed that the U.S. government was involved in a conspiracy to rig the 2016 presidential election).<\/p>\n

In 2004, the Seattle Times used the term “tin foil hat” to describe a conspiracy theory that the Bush administration had orchestrated the 9\/11 attacks as a pretext for invading Iraq.<\/p>\n

In 2005, a New York Times editorial criticized those who believed in conspiracy theories surrounding the 9\/11 attacks, referring to them as “tin foil hat-wearing loonies.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2005, a cartoon by Matt Davies in the Journal News showed a man wearing a tin foil hat and holding a sign that read “No more wiretaps!” The cartoon was a commentary on the controversy surrounding the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.<\/p>\n

In 2006, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow used the term “tin foil hat time” to dismiss a question from a reporter about whether the Bush administration was planning a military strike on Iran.<\/p>\n

In 2006, the TV show “South Park” featured an episode in which the character Butters wears a tin foil hat to protect himself from government mind control.<\/p>\n

In 2007, the term “tin foil hat brigade” was used in an editorial in the Daily Herald to refer to people who believed that the U.S. government was involved in the 9\/11 attacks.<\/p>\n

In 2007, the TV show \u201cMythbusters\u201d an episode featured a test of the effectiveness of tin foil hats in blocking government mind control. The episode concluded that tin foil hats did not work, further perpetuating the idea that anyone who believed in mind control was a conspiracy theorist.<\/p>\n

In 2008, White House press secretary Dana Perino used the term “tin foil hat” to dismiss charges that the Bush administration had staged the 9\/11 attacks.<\/p>\n

In 2011, the New York Times used “tin foil hat” to describe an accusation that the Fukushima nuclear disaster may have been caused by a military weapon.<\/p>\n

In 2012, a Wall Street Journal editorial ridiculed those who believed in \u201cchemtrails\u201d (the idea that airplanes are spraying toxic chemicals into the atmosphere) as “tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid conspiracy theorists.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2012, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta used the term “tin foil hat” to dismiss a question from a reporter about whether the U.S. government was involved in arming Syrian rebels.<\/p>\n

In a 2013 TV episode of \u201cSouth Park,\u201d the character Randy Marsh wears a tin foil hat to protect himself from perceived government surveillance.<\/p>\n

In a 2013 article in \u201cThe Huffington Post,\u201d the term “tin foil hat” was used to describe those who questioned the official account of the Boston Marathon bombing.<\/p>\n

In 2013, CIA director Michael Hayden used the term “tin foil hat brigade” to demonize researchers who asserted that the U.S. government was conducting mass surveillance on its citizens.<\/p>\n

In a 2014 article in The New York Times, the term “tin foil hat” was used to assail conspiracy theories related to the Ebola virus.<\/p>\n

In a 2015 article online in \u201cThe Huffington Post,\u201d the term “tin foil hat brigade” was used to mock individuals who opposed mandatory vaccination laws.<\/p>\n

In a 2015 episode of \u201cThe Big Bang Theory\u201d television show, the character Sheldon Cooper laughably wears a tin foil hat to protect himself from non-existent government surveillance.<\/p>\n

In a 2017 article in The Independent, the term “tin foil hat” was used to describe questions about the official account of the September 11 terror attacks.<\/p>\n

In a 2018 article in The New York Times, the term “tin foil hat” was used to dismiss questions related to vaccine safety.<\/p>\n

In a 2020 article in The Guardian, the term “tin foil hat” was used to scoff at questions concerning the COVID-19 vaccine.<\/p>\n

In a 2019 article in The Washington Post, the term “tin foil hat” was used to dismiss allegations that the official account of the \u201csuicide\u201d of financier Jeffrey Epstein in a high security federal facility, were without foundation.<\/p>\n

In a 2020 article in Forbes, the term “tin foil hat” was used to describe questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.<\/p>\n

In 2020, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany used the term “tin foil hat” to dismiss a question from a reporter about whether President Trump had suggested that people inject disinfectant to treat COVID-19.<\/p>\n

In a 2021 TV episode of \u201cThe Daily Show with Trevor Noah,\u201d the term “tin foil hat” was used to laugh at questions concerning the fairness of the 2020 US presidential election.<\/p>\n

In a 2021 article in The Atlantic, the term “tin foil hat” was used to describe the government\u2019s COVID-19 vaccine campaign.<\/p>\n

In a 2021 article in Forbes, the term “tin foil hat” was used to describe the questioning of vaccine safety.<\/p>\n

Conditioned to Disrespect and Dehumanize Dissidents<\/strong><\/h3>\n

As you can see, the American public has been repeatedly conditioned in our 21st century to disrespect and dehumanize dissidents who have the temerity to ask questions the ruling class can\u2019t or won\u2019t answer.<\/p>\n

The”tin foil hat” colloquialism has also been used to describe concerns that a foreign power may have used microwave technology to attack U.S. diplomats in Communist nations such as Cuba, or that our \u201cown\u201d government may be employing it against Americans here at home.<\/p>\n

In a 2018 article publicized by NBC News, an \u201cexpert\u201d suggested that the idea of a microwave attack on U.S. diplomats in Cuba was a \u201ctired Cold War trope\u201d and a \u201ctin-foil hat theory.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2018, \u201cPolitico\u201d published an article titled “The Strange Case of the Diplomat and the Brain Injury,\u201d which suggested that the idea of a sonic or microwave attack was the product of over-active imaginations, cold war thinking, and a \u201ctin-foil hat theory.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a 2019 article in The Guardian, a British neurologist dismissed claims of microwave radiation attacks as \u201ctin-foil hat conspiracies.\u201d<\/p>\n

The relentless mockery at work in these insults and putdowns which are intended to provide fresh incentives to mob mentalities to isolate and crush dissidents, rest in the fact that the Cryptocracy is well aware that invisible attacks on the human brain, including inducing external words and sounds into the subconscious mind, is a known and verifiable technology which the New York Times, using B-movie parlance, has described as \u201cthe spooky impact of microwaves on the human brain.\u201d<\/p>\n

Our Overlords reserve to themselves the right to utilize far-out terms which, if taken up by mere peasants, would cause them to be consigned to the tin foil nutcase category. Their order to us is, \u201cDo as I say, not as I do.\u201d<\/p>\n

The following is an abstract of a report by the US government\u2019s National Intelligence Council, issued March 1 and declassified. It is titled, Updated Assessment of Anomalous Health Incidents<\/a><\/strong>. In it the federal government denies that microwave or other forms of electronic radiation has damaged the health or neurological systems of U.S. intelligence agents and diplomats. Reports of the damage are referred to as \u201canomalous health incidents\u201d and abbreviated as \u201cAHIs\u201d:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis IC-coordinated Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) addresses the question of whether one or more foreign actors bears responsibility, either deliberately or unintentionally, for causing anomalous health incidents (AHIs) reported by US Government officials across multiple agencies since 2016. The ICA was written in response to senior US policymaker interest and updates the IC\u2019s previous assessment on AHIs published in January 2022.<\/p>\n

\u201cSince US officials first reported AHIs in Havana, Cuba in late 2016, the IC has sought to understand whether these events can be attributed to a foreign actor and a deliberate external mechanism. The IC pursued three separate lines of inquiry: the first encompassed work determining whether available data points to the involvement of a foreign adversary in the incidents; the second focused on the feasibility and existence of deliberate mechanisms that an adversary might use against US personnel to cause anomalous health incidents; and the third evaluated whether medical analysis can help determine if an outside actor is involved in the broad range of phenomena and symptoms associated with AHIs.<\/p>\n

\u201cBased on the results of these three lines of inquiry, most IC agencies have concluded that it is \u2018very unlikely\u2019 a foreign adversary is responsible for the reported anomalous health incidents. IC agencies have varying confidence levels, with two agencies at moderate-to-high confidence while three are at moderate confidence. Two agencies judge it is \u2018unlikely\u2019 an adversary was responsible for AHIs and they do so with low confidence based on collection gaps and their review of the same evidence.\u201d (End quote)<\/p>\n

Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, said earlier this month that the U.S. government has \u201cconcluded that it is \u2018very unlikely\u2019 a foreign adversary is responsible\u201d for the brain injuries known as \u201cHavana Syndrome.\u201d<\/p>\n

Marc Polymeropoulos is a retired Central Intelligence Agency officer who served in the CIA\u2019s Directorate of Operations for over 26 years. He was the agency’s Chief of Operations for Europe. Polymeropoulos has been vocal about his experience with Havana Syndrome, which he says he suffered in December 2017 while on assignment in Moscow.<\/p>\n

In a two-part interview that aired March 10 on the Spanish-language Miami television channel Am\u00e9ricatev\u00e9<\/a><\/strong>, Polymeropoulos charged that ruling out probable adversaries responsible for the brain damage to U.S. personnel \u201cis an insult to those who were injured in the line of duty.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the Wall Street Journal<\/em>, \u201cMr. Polymeropoulos says he knows CIA officers who were \u2018involved in high-threat operations around the world, primarily against the Russians\u2019 and also suffered brain injuries that forced them into medical retirement. He says that prior to experiencing the sudden neurological disorders associated with Havana Syndrome, they were people in top physical and mental condition.<\/p>\n

\u201cAfter leaving Moscow in very rough shape and returning to the U.S.A., Mr. Polymeropoulos says he was denied medical care by the CIA. Going public helped his case and he eventually got to see doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center\u2026doctors told him he didn\u2019t have a pre-existing medical condition. Rather, he had a brain injury\u2026he thinks something similar was happening among Cuban intelligence after President Obama re-established diplomatic ties with the island:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat people don\u2019t understand is the war between U.S. and Cuban intelligence was going as hard as ever\u2026they were a very strong adversary\u2026Our officials in Havana were sitting ducks.\u2019 Polymeropoulos sees\u2026an effort by Washington to sweep the whole thing under the rug so it can get on with business as usual. \u2018Institutionally they want this to go away\u2019 because otherwise they\u2019re going to have \u2018trouble staffing\u201d embassies.\u2019 (Read more at wsj.com<\/a><\/strong>)<\/p>\n

Members of \u201cJason,\u201d a secretive group of elite scientists that serves the U.S. security state<\/a><\/strong> have an unknown role in microwave and directed energy technology applications.<\/p>\n

The Frey Effect<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Microwaves directed at the head in the area around the temporal lobe were perceived as sound in a 1962 experiment. According to William J. Broad, scientists \u201ccite an eerie phenomenon known as the Frey Effect, named after Allan H. Frey, an American scientist (cf. Allan H. Frey, \u201cHuman Auditory Response to Modulated Electromagnetic Energy,\u201d July, 1962<\/a><\/strong>).<\/p>\n

Frey found that microwaves can deceive the mind into perceiving ringing, buzzing and grinding sounds. These may be evidence of attacks with microwave weapons producing acoustic effects. The brain acts as an antenna (cf. Z. Weinberger and E.D. Richter, \u201cCellular telephones and effects on the brain: the head as an antenna and brain tissue as a radio receiver\u201d<\/a> [Med Hypotheses,<\/em> December, 2002]).<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Frey Effect was summarized by James C. Lin and Zhangwei Wang in their 2007 study, \u201cHearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds<\/a><\/strong>.\u201d They write, \u201cThe hearing of microwave pulses is a unique exception to the airborne or bone-conducted sound energy normally encountered in human auditory perception. The hearing apparatus commonly responds to airborne or bone-conducted acoustic or sound pressure waves in the audible frequency range. But the hearing of microwave pulses involves electromagnetic waves whose frequency ranges from hundreds of MHz to tens of GHz. Since electromagnetic waves (e.g., light) are seen but not heard, the report of auditory perception of microwave pulses was at once astonishing and intriguing.<\/p>\n

\u201cMoreover, it stood in sharp contrast to the responses associated with continuous-wave microwave radiation. Experimental and theoretical studies have shown that the microwave auditory phenomenon does not arise from an interaction of microwave pulses directly with the auditory nerves or neurons along the auditory neurophysiological pathways of the central nervous system. Instead, the microwave pulse, upon absorption by soft tissues in the head, launches a thermoelastic wave of acoustic pressure that travels by bone conduction to the inner ear. There, it activates the cochlear receptors via the same process involved for normal hearing\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

In a similar study, J.A. Elder and C.K. Chou state<\/a><\/strong>, \u201cThe human auditory response to pulses of radiofrequency (RF) energy, commonly called RF hearing, is a well established phenomenon. RF induced sounds can be characterized as low intensity sounds because, in general, a quiet environment is required for the auditory response. The sound is similar to other common sounds such as a click, buzz, hiss, knock, or chirp. Effective radiofrequencies range from 2.4 to 10000 MHz, but an individual’s ability to hear RF induced sounds is dependent upon high frequency acoustic hearing in the kHz range above about 5 kHz.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe site of conversion of RF energy to acoustic energy is within or peripheral to the cochlea, and once the cochlea is stimulated, the detection of RF induced sounds in humans and RF induced auditory responses in animals is similar to acoustic sound detection. The fundamental frequency of RF induced sounds is independent of the frequency of the radiowaves but dependent upon head dimensions. The auditory response has been shown to be dependent upon the energy in a single pulse and not on average power density.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some scientists associated with these studies attempt to reassure the public by stating\u2014without evidence\u2014that these induced sounds are harmless. For example, Elder and Chou state, \u201cThe hearing of RF-induced sounds at exposure levels many orders of magnitude greater than the hearing threshold is considered to be a biological effect without an accompanying health effect.\u201d<\/p>\n

William J. Broad: \u201cThe National Security Agency gave Mark S. Zaid, a Washington lawyer who routinely gets security clearances to discuss classified matters, a statement on how a foreign power built a weapon \u2018designed to bathe a target\u2019s living quarters in microwaves, causing numerous physical effects, including a damaged nervous system.\u2019<\/p>\n

Beaming spoken words into people\u2019s heads<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u201cIn Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S. Air Force scientists sought to beam comprehensible speech into the heads of adversaries. Their novel approach won a patent in 2002, and an update in 2003\u2026. The lead inventor said the research team had \u2018experimentally demonstrated\u2019 that the \u2018signal is intelligible.\u2019 As for the invention\u2019s intended use, an Air Force disclosure form listed the first application as \u2018Psychological Warfare.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Department of Defense has deployed an \u201cActive Denial System\u201d weapon which uses an invisible beam of directed energy to debilitate the neurological systems of street protestors and \u201crioters.\u201d See this video:<\/p>\n