"HD Digital TV is Mind Control"

[lionking]

Well how do you explain this, that happened BEFORE we got the HD TV, hmmm?



Er, wait, I forgot... my Shill-ness must have been caused by HAARP.




That's what THEY want you to think.

Thanks very much for that link ON. My IQ dropped 5 points just opening it (and I don't have any to spare). Those guys make our friends in 9/11 CT look like gentlemen and women and Rhodes Scholars.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

MASTER CONTROL *reverb*

 

[INRM]

But if the government was going to employ this Mind Control thing, wouldn't regular non-digital signals be good enough for the job?

 

[sleeplessdwarf]

Ok, I'll admit that I love my 60" hdtv way too much to ever give it up even it this were remotely possible. I am a fan of horror movies so if one day some demon comes crawling out of the screen, hopefully I'll be trashed and just think it is a great 3D addition. I do have one question though. The op mentioned the converter boxes that the gov is so willing to provide to help this movement. I have not read any info on the box but if it is needed for people who do not have digital ready sets, doesn't that mean it will convert the signal from digital back to analog? If I am way off then excuse my lack of common sense but if I am correct then how in the hell will these boxes possible fit in with the takeover.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ok, I'll admit that I love my 60" hdtv way too much to ever give it up even it this were remotely possible. I am a fan of horror movies so if one day some demon comes crawling out of the screen, hopefully I'll be trashed and just think it is a great 3D addition. I do have one question though. The op mentioned the converter boxes that the gov is so willing to provide to help this movement. I have not read any info on the box but if it is needed for people who do not have digital ready sets, doesn't that mean it will convert the signal from digital back to analog? If I am way off then excuse my lack of common sense but if I am correct then how in the hell will these boxes possible fit in with the takeover.

Yes it receives the digital signal and uses it to produce an analog NTSC format signal that the older TV can use.

Correct, if the mind control signal can be trnsmitted to the viewer through the analog output of the converter then it would have been possible to do so without first transmitting it digitally. Its just a case of the NWO using enormous sums of money to produce results that they could have had by spending only teeny amounts of money on.

 

[jaydeehess]

well i think thats what he means by cable/satellite

however his HDTV option is redundant, as they still require cable or satellite (or most have a built-in digital receiver, same as those converter boxes) and most or all SDTVs produced recently have built in converters as well (mine does)

The point is he is saying that HDTV will soon be mandatory. It won't, pure and simple. Only those channels on satellite or cable that are advertised as HD will be HD. Other digital channels are not HD, they are digital SD.
Furthermore there will be no requirement for a converter box for anyone with cable as many channels will still be sent over the cable plant in plain old analog format that old TV's will be able to use same as always.

If one gets their signal over the air, ie. via an antenna on the roof, then they will need either a new TV or a converter.

If one wants those channels available on cable that are only sent in digital format then one will need a digital cable receiver just as they do now. Anyone with a digital cable box already will not have to swap it out for a new one.

For those on satellite there will be no change at all. Those signals have been all digital for a long time now already.

The author is wrong , not all channels will be HD, and not all channels on cable will even have to be digital.
So, if the author is refering incorrectly and simply means digital TV, rather than the subset of HDTV, and there is a mind control system that will use digital TV signals somehow, then it could have been in place more than a decade ago and affected everyone with digital cable or DTH satellite.
If the author is correct and the converter box will be able to put this mind control system into effect via the analog o/p and using the old NTSC TV set then the system does not actually need the digital transport to be effective.

THUS, this is all make-believe and further evidence of the lack of technical understanding that the general populace has.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Well said.

I should point out that even apart from the woo movement, there is a tremendous misunderstanding of the requirements for DTV.

I know of people that receive OTA signals AND have an HDTV with an ATSC tuner that have still purchased converter boxes and hooked them up to the composite video inputs on their fancy-pants HDTVs. And in doing so, have completely robbed themselves of the ability to display 16:9 720p and up HDTV signals.

This transition is much much easier than folks are making it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yes it receives the digital signal and uses it to produce an analog NTSC format signal that the older TV can use.

Correct, if the mind control signal can be trnsmitted to the viewer through the analog output of the converter then it would have been possible to do so without first transmitting it digitally. Its just a case of the NWO using enormous sums of money to produce results that they could have had by spending only teeny amounts of money on.

Good point!

 

[cwalner]

I am sorry, but no additional information is needed beyond what is in the actualy conspiracy post is needed to render this whole thins at ◊◊◊◊◊◊* stupid.

They (The Iraqis) were subjected to a technology that was so extreme and incomprehensible that they were suddenly reduced to the level of compliant children and felt grateful to still be alive in the wake of their mind-wrenching experience.

The technology will utilize a combination of HAARP transmitters, GWEN towers, microwave cell phone towers, and the soon-to-be-mandatory High Definition DIGITAL TV that will enter your home via A) Cable, B) Satellite, C) HD TVs, or D) those oh-so-easy -to-obtain "Digital Converter boxes"

This forces us to assume one of two scenarios.

1) prior to invading Iraq, we somehow managed to make certain that every single Iraqi soldier that surrendered had access to Digital TV via these converter boxes.

2) The converter boxes were not neccesary for mind controlling enemy soldiers, but after 6 years of technology advancement are now neccesary for the same effect on a friendly population.

I'm sorry, but these guys just aren't even trying anymore.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well said.

I should point out that even apart from the woo movement, there is a tremendous misunderstanding of the requirements for DTV.

I know of people that receive OTA signals AND have an HDTV with an ATSC tuner that have still purchased converter boxes and hooked them up to the composite video inputs on their fancy-pants HDTVs. And in doing so, have completely robbed themselves of the ability to display 16:9 720p and up HDTV signals.

This transition is much much easier than folks are making it.

<<face-palm>>


Not surprised though. I have been asked by the cable co. that owns the station I work for to do cable service calls occassionally. At one house they complained that cable did not work on most of the 5 TV's thay had in the house. In the basement I found that they had done their own wiring(surprise) and one cable was not long enough so they bought a splitter to join two pieces together. Now a 2way splitter would have reduced the signal to each leg by 1/2(of course) but they had used a 4 way splitter thus ensuring that no more than 1/4 of the incoming signal would go on through. However, they had connected the two cables both to outputs of the 4way splitter which now ensures that 1/1000000 th of the signal will pass through. Splitters are clearly marked as per inputs and outputs, they did not read it. I also asked why they would use a 4 way splitter to join two cables (never mind that the better bet is to replace the cable with one that is long enough) ,,, the answer, "the 4way was more expensive" and so they figured it must be better than either a 2way or a simple F connector female-female adaptor (which we refer to as an "F81"). All this to try and avoid charges from the cable co to add outlets, which they ended up having to pay anyway after I did it right.

Which goes to my point above about this conspiracy "THUS, this is all make-believe and further evidence of the lack of technical understanding that the general populace has."

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Speaking as a representative of a media company that distributes HD programming, I request that the moderators/administrators of this Forum immediately close down this thread and ban everyone that is participating.

There is nothing to this made-up story. The converter box is our friend. Digital TV is a good thing. HD is even better. Pay no attention to any information contradicting this.

That is all.

It's even worse when you combine it with a high-def DVR.

How about HD reality TV. THAT'S worse, ain't it?

Well said.

I should point out that even apart from the woo movement, there is a tremendous misunderstanding of the requirements for DTV.

I know of people that receive OTA signals AND have an HDTV with an ATSC tuner that have still purchased converter boxes and hooked them up to the composite video inputs on their fancy-pants HDTVs. And in doing so, have completely robbed themselves of the ability to display 16:9 720p and up HDTV signals.

This transition is much much easier than folks are making it.

Doh! It sounds like my local COSTCO. I was thinking that their HD monitors looked like crap until I noticed that there was nothing hooked up to the HDMI inputs.

 

[ktesibios]

THUS, this is all make-believe and further evidence of the lack of technical understanding that the general populace has.

Indeed. Not long ago, while slumming over at GLP, I ran across a claim that all TVs manufactured after 1995 work both ways- that is, they can transmit images of the people who are watching them, just like the telescreens in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Now, noone who has any clue about how a CRT or plasma display works, or of a camera tube or CCD image sensor, could possibly believe that, but given that the majority of Joe Publics out there probably couldn't explain what's happening in an ordinary incandescent lightbulb there are plenty of people who can find it plausible.

This made me think- I can make a technically correct claim that it is and always has been trivially easy to determine remotely what station a nearby AM or FM radio or TV is tuned to (just pick up the leakage from the receiver's local oscillator, measure its frequency and Bob's your uncle). I wonder what the effect of pointing this out on a woo forum could be.

THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WATCHING AND LISTENING TO! ZOMG!!!1111!

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Doh! It sounds like my local COSTCO. I was thinking that their HD monitors looked like crap until I noticed that there was nothing hooked up to the HDMI inputs.

Utter laziness! You don't even need HDMI cable to get HD signals to your television. Obviously that will give you the optimum quality and sound, as well as being the only way to get full 1080p, but component (Y/Pb/Pr) video will get you as far as 1080i, and that's enough for most televisions 42" and smaller, as well as being far less expensive than the HD cable.

Do I use HDMI cable anyway?

You betcha. Got my XBOX 360 and my Cox cable HD DVR both running into the SONY Bravia through HDMI.

Check out "Sunrise Earth" on the Discovery HDTheater network sometime in the AM. It's like landscape porn.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I was only looking at the 1080p models. That's what I want to get. One of our customers is Discovery, they do HD right.

 

[Uncle Vanya]

Indeed. Not long ago, while slumming over at GLP, I ran across a claim that all TVs manufactured after 1995 work both ways- that is, they can transmit images of the people who are watching them, just like the telescreens in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Now, noone who has any clue about how a CRT or plasma display works, or of a camera tube or CCD image sensor, could possibly believe that, but given that the majority of Joe Publics out there probably couldn't explain what's happening in an ordinary incandescent lightbulb there are plenty of people who can find it plausible.

This made me think- I can make a technically correct claim that it is and always has been trivially easy to determine remotely what station a nearby AM or FM radio or TV is tuned to (just pick up the leakage from the receiver's local oscillator, measure its frequency and Bob's your uncle). I wonder what the effect of pointing this out on a woo forum could be.

THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WATCHING AND LISTENING TO! ZOMG!!!1111!

Oh crap... does the CIA/NSA/FBI/OSI (Office of Secret Intelligence, you guys don't know about that one... yet) know that I was watching the Gilmore Girls? Crap! I swear it was my girlfriend watching it, I swear.

On a more practical note, wouldn't doing that require an antenna and an oscilloscope... located somewhere within shouting distance of the TV in question (I can't imagine the oscillator leakage would be particularly high power)? Maybe that explains the guy with dark sunglasses and suit with what looks like a HAM radio sitting in my living room.

 

[jaydeehess]

Indeed. Not long ago, while slumming over at GLP, I ran across a claim that all TVs manufactured after 1995 work both ways- that is, they can transmit images of the people who are watching them, just like the telescreens in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Now, noone who has any clue about how a CRT or plasma display works, or of a camera tube or CCD image sensor, could possibly believe that, but given that the majority of Joe Publics out there probably couldn't explain what's happening in an ordinary incandescent lightbulb there are plenty of people who can find it plausible.

This made me think- I can make a technically correct claim that it is and always has been trivially easy to determine remotely what station a nearby AM or FM radio or TV is tuned to (just pick up the leakage from the receiver's local oscillator, measure its frequency and Bob's your uncle). I wonder what the effect of pointing this out on a woo forum could be.

THEY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WATCHING AND LISTENING TO! ZOMG!!!1111!

That CT has been around for quite a while. I believe that it is a corruption of the fact that cable systems utilize frequencies below channel 2 for a 'reverse path'. Prior to the internet this was often used for sending live images back to the cable office or for telemetry. In the digital age it is the how your digital cable box and your cable modem communicate with the severs in the cable office(known as a "head end").

As for monitoring the L.O., with TV's that utilize a Satellite or digital cable receiver this will tell you nothing if you are monitoring the TV L.O. Its probably on ch 3 or 4. Many consumers will be using the composite or component video inputs, or HDMI. You could monitor the receiver L.O. but on a digital channel map all you might be able to do is narrow it down to 8 channels or so in that QAM group.
However it will work fine for TV's that are using OTA or analog cable signals. I don't know how you are going to discern between all the receivers in the area including the possibility of several TV's in the same house.

 

[Giggywig]

Well, I got a new 50" plasma HDTV and upgraded to the HD dish (TurboHD!), and I have noticed an increase in drooling while watching.

ETA: Why is DIGITAL in CAPS? Is it an acronym now? Or is it that bad for you?

 

[ktesibios]

@Uncle Vanya:

It would require an antenna, an amplifier tuned to the frequency range of interest and a means of measuring frequency- a spectrum analyzer would probably suffice.

I once freaked out my girlfriend by asking her if she had remembered to feed my cats when she stopped at my place the night before, when I was out on a gig. I had figured out that she had been there in a very simple manner.

At the time, I used an ordinary rabbit-ears antenna for TV reception. I had discovered that if my stereo, which was about six feet away, were tuned to any of three local rock stations (at 93.3, 93.7 and 94.1 MHz) and I was watching channel 12 on the TV it would produce colored herringbones on the screen. The reason was that when the stereo was tuned to those frequencies the second harmonic of its FM L.O. fell within channel 12's bandwidth (if the stereo was tuned to 93.3 MHz, the L.O. ran at 104 MHz (93.3+10.7), the second harmonic was at 208 MHz and channel 12 is assigned to 204-210 MHz).

The night in question I had set my VCR to record a couple of programs on channel 12 while I was out working. When I watched the tape the next morning about an hour into the recording the characteristic herringbones appeared. Since I knew when the recording had started I knew when the interference had begun and ended. The most parsimonious explanation was that Ann, who had a key to my place, had stopped by on her way home from rehearsing with her band and passed some time listening to the radio. Since I had learned to recognize the colored patterns produced by tuning the stereo to the three stations I mentioned, I even knew that she had been listening to WMMR.

Now if an ordinary TV receiver and rabbit ear antenna could pick up the second harmonic radiation (which is weaker than the fundamental) that well from 6 feet away, I don't think it implausible that a more directional antenna and a suitable amplifier could have picked up the L.O. from the street outside.

However, Jaydeehess is absolutely right about the difficulty of sorting out such information for digital receivers or of determining which set in a given building is tuned to what station.

BTW, home entertainment receivers seem to leak quite a bit of signal. If you tune a general-coverage SW receiver slowly around the area of 10.7 MHz, you'll probably pick up distorted music at some point. That's the leakage from the 10.7 MHz IF strip of the nearest FM radio, demodulated by means of "slope detection".

 

[jaydeehess]

However, Jaydeehess is absolutely right about the difficulty of sorting out such information for digital receivers or of determining which set in a given building is tuned to what station.

Well certainly someone would find it curious to see a vehicle parked on the street with a low frequency, highly directional antenna on the roof as it would be as wide the vehicle is long, if not larger. If a HAM operator nearby fired up his 500 watt, 20 meter transmitter there'd be no getting any information at all.

BTW, cable TV reverse path signals are in the 5-15 Mhz range. That might also bugger things up.

 

[jj]

You know those stories about troops surrendering to aerial R.O.V.s? It was because they were used to aim the guns on the USS Missouri.

I think that would break me too ...

Fire from an Iowa class is really, truly a new form of "message for you, sir".

I think that if you know your open position is about to be shelled by the Missouri, there's not a lot of room for options, if you can't skedaddle NOW.