Tag Archives: Limited-Effects Technology

Documentary Evidence of Covert Electronic-Weapon and Neurotechnology Use By US Government on Americans Series (2) The Limited Effects Technology (LET) Program Report | JPSG, OOTW/LE Programs, 1996

RAE (Report, Analysis, Op-Ed) | Ramola D | Posted January 30, 2020

Documentary Evidence since 1994 of Covert High-Tech Electronic-Weapon and Neurotechnology Use in Targeted Surveillance, Experimentation, Operations by US Government on Americans: A Series

(1) The DOD/DOJ Memorandum of Understanding on OOTW/LE, 1994

(2) The Limited Effects Technology (LET) Program Report | JPSG, OOTW/LE Programs, 1996

Unremarked in mainstream media, deliberately hidden from wider readership, there have been a series of declassified document FOIA-releases over the past few years which astonishingly reveal many facets of the now-known covert use of electronic-weapon and neurotechnology surveillance, experimentation, weapons-tests, and operations on the American public by various agencies and departments of the US Government and their contractors.

Similarity with Covert Global High-Tech Policing Operations: Similar operations have been unleashed worldwide, as reported extensively at this site and others online earlier. Some documentation in the public domain testifies to this global program, and will be reported more fully here shortly. For now, please see this Twitter thread, which discloses NATO High-Tech Non Lethal Weapon/Neuro Policing operations in Europe and discusses also how Non-Lethal Weapons Testing & Neuro Surveillance have been unleashed inside the USA:

HTML Page: Thread on Non-Lethal DEW Operations in USA, Europe, world, with references to US, NATO documents, articles 

On Twitter: Thread on Non-Lethal DEW Operations in USA, Europe, world, with references to US, NATO documents, articles

This series aims to address the public disclosures in recent FOIA releases of ongoing US Government use of Electronic Weapons and Neurotechnologies on Americans.

“Electronic Weapon” herein refers to the spectrum weapons used in Electronic Warfare as defined by the Department of Defense (DOD) in documents, particularly relates to anti-personnel weapons, includes all labeled as non-lethal-weapon, less-than-lethal weapon, psychotronic weapon, neuroweapon, next generation and emerging technologies, and includes RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) and BCI (Brain Computer Interface) tech.


(2) The Limited Effects Technology (LET) Program Report | JPSG, OOTW/LE Programs, 1996

PDF: The Limited Effects Technology (LET) Program Report | JPSG, OOTW/LE Programs, 1996

Recent document releases into the public domain include this Limited Effects Technology Program Report (linked above) released by the US Department of Defense on FOIA request on May 31, 2019 to Harun Krasna via Muckrock News, on a multi-document request made in January 2018, where initial notice of delays from the DOD FOI Office (until September 2018) suggesting high volume of responsive records seems to have petered out by May 2019 into return of a single report from DARPA, as their final response letter shows.

This FOIA request was made in January 2018 and asked DOD for “Copies of all research reports, annual reports, and indices of the Joint Program Steering Group (JPSG) as established by the 1994 MOU between the Department of Justice and Department of Defense, dating from 1994 to the present.”

(NOTE: The same request was sent by Mr. Krasna to the Department of Justice in January 2018 and yielded several documents in February 2018, including the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU reported here earlier. Of note, this writer had also queried the DOJ for this very same 1994 MOU in 2015, and was at that time denied this document, citing “no responsive records” and several claimed exemptions.)

The purpose of this article is to report on the structure, disclosure, and highlights of this JPSG LET Program Report, and offer insight into its content with an eye to more fully informing the American public what the implications and ramifications are regarding the use of anti-personnel military weaponry by domestic law enforcement and military branches on the American public, which is what this JPSG LET Program Report is premised on.

Notable About This Foia-Request Response

  1. DARPA chose to return one single document, after a 1.5 year delay, on this multi-document request for documents dating back (from 2018, time of request) to 24 years. (This should not be found acceptable to the American public—other reports obviously exist and are being withheld; DARPA should be queried again.)

  2. This document is dated 1996; no recent reports were released by DARPA; no notice of the ending of these JPSG joint DOD-DOJ programs has been given in this May 2019 response.

  3. This document is not redacted and is released in full, which implies that the disclosure of technology and policy in this document is acceptable now to DARPA; this is in line with the slow release of information on Non Lethal Weapons, Electronic Warfare, and Neuroweaponry the DOD has made online and in print—via notice of programs, weapons, conferences, articles, and recorded lectures in public-domain documents and sites online–in recent years. However it also implies the JPSG (a DOD-DOJ entity) chooses currently to reveal what’s in this document as applicable to Law Enforcement—which could be a way of corralling tacit public consent to Law Enforcement use by thus publishing notice of this insidious and pernicious weaponry.

  4. It is essential therefore for Media, human and civil rights groups to take note now of the disclosure here and ask further questions, examine implications for all, and delve deeper into what is really at stake with this “Limited Effects Technology Program.”

Basic Structure of This Limited-Effects Technology Report

This 9-page report with the JPSG Defense-Justice logo on the cover and naming David Fields as the Program Manager is divided into the following sections:

Background

Program Thrusts

The Limited Effects Technology Program

Electric Stun Projectile

Laser Surveillance and Dazzler System

Handheld Laser Dazzler

Pyrotechnic Devices

Acoustic Study

Summary

The Section Titled “Background”

Notable from the information in this section titled “Background” is the following:

  1. This Limited Effects Technology Program is acknowledged to be a JPSG program resulting from the MOU from 1994, reported earlier.

  2. The need for such a joint program merging the efforts of Defense and Justice in developing technology applicable to both is being rationalized and legitimized by recourse to stated historical reference of common “need” as technology requirements for both “converge.” This is assertion which is neither specific, transparent, nor explicatory. It is presumption which seeks to hide the fact that what is being discussed here, as the immediate technological lead-up to the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU, discussed here, demonstrates, are Remote Human Access-and-Control Neuro/Bio Weapons—Non Lethal Weapons and Neurotechnologies (to some extent revealed in “Program Thrusts”), which are arguably highly invasive of bodily and brain privacy, integrity, health, and safety.

Please see the section Some Context to this MOU in Article 1 of this series for historic Non Lethal/EMF Spectrum & Acoustic/Neuro/Bio Weapons-Development background to the MOU and all technology programs the MOU has given rise to.

  1. Examples given of operations sharing this need are “the (Defense) provision of humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping, countering the flow of drugs into the United States, counterterrorism, etc.–and (Justice) law enforcement forces engaged in LE operations.” We are expected to agree that military operations, even “peacekeeping” (which should not be considered a military activity in the first place: weapons cannot “peacekeep,” they subjugate) share a common need for “limited effects” tech i.e., silent Human Access Weapons—which, it should be noted, are not being named as such here. This notion of “need” is presumption, and emblematic of coercion of consent.

  2. The Need to Limit Force or apply only a “minimum amount of force” as primary principle of action is posited here—again without corroboration from real-life where war casualties and police violence abound—as a severe constraint to military and police ability to function. The solution to this false claim (false because it does not seem to be a real-life principle by which either police or military adheres) then funnels down to Non Lethals or Limited-Effects weapons, which are being characterized as force-limiting weapons within a claimed hierarchy of severity which completely ignores the unethical, human-rights-violating aspects of bio-hacking and neuro-hacking weapons, which is what they are (as will be seen shortly). More accurately, this section should be headed The Need to Be Seen to Limit Force, with Public-Image-Boosting Non-Visible Weapons.

  3. Common Threats posit militarized drug-smugglers and terrorists with access to military and LE Tech, which in real-life is made possible (as we understand now from much investigative and whistleblowing reportage including from journalist Gary Webb, LAPD investigator and government whistleblower Michael Ruppert and others) by gun-running, drug-running, and open arms sales by government, military, CIA, mafia, and private-sector alike, which makes this a circular argument: Military and LE fuel the arms/police weapons industry which creates these weapons, as well as tools such as electro-optic imaging devices to aid night vision goggles and Electronic Weapon countermeasures. This circular view also promises endless escalation via blackmarket sales of new weapons. “The criminals have our guns so we need new guns” could go on forever.

  1. Common Missions which name the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism imply that these are both military campaigns just as much as law enforcement campaigns, which would explain both the military-style DEA and LE SWAT team “drug” raids on homes, terrorizing children and families, and the non-lethal weapons-operations via DOD/USAF weapons-testing contracts on people wrongfully labeled “terrorists” as ensured by the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 after the Oklahoma Bombing (a staged insider event, as per whistleblower evidence), and later the Patriot Act of 2001 post 9/11 (another staged insider event, as per much public analysis and testimonial). Yet, in mainstream media and government press releases, these missions are not disclosed as such—the military aspect kept hidden–with much secrecy especially attending the field testing aspect of otherwise openly-disclosed non-lethal weapons testing contracts inside America.

  2. The most significant disclosure from this section comprises notice of 1) the members of the Joint Program Steering Group, as deriving from DARPA, the National Institute of Justice, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the US Army; 2) their ability to engage at any point in R&D of the weapons mentioned here; 3) the notion that they could participate in “demonstrations” of this technology just as much as developments. Are demonstrations then, what people are reporting today as 24/7 silent microwave/milliwave/infra-red/neurotech weapons operations in their neighborhoods, with use of drones, small planes, satellites, helicopters, zooming cars, parked vans and cars, antennas, cell towers, smart meters, backpack stalkers? (These also appear to be weapons-testing activities, weapons-training activities, and weapons-operations activities.)

  3. Also significant is the information that the Limited Effects Technology Program is only one part of a multi-technology program established by the JPSG to address joint tech priorities of Defense and Justice in 1995. The other tech programs are described in Program Thrusts.

The Section Titled “Program Thrusts”

This section in the LET report discusses the actual technology programs of the JPSG, names certain technologies being developed, tested, and used in training, reveals that most if not all of these are Remote Human Access spectrum and sonic technologies, yet maintains quite some obscurity in disclosing certain of these technologies, for example using vague terms like “communications security technologies.”

It is interesting indeed that this document titled The Limited Effects Technology Program Report in actuality presents information on all JPSG DOD-DOJ programs (or all deemed safe to record), yet focuses only on some LE tech, and uses the same opening Background section to preface notice of all JPSG programs—which implies commonality of context and nature of weaponry, i.e., Non-Lethal, Remote Human Access/Control (as will be seen below).

Significant, in this section, are the following.

  1. The JPSG Program—the most essential program ensuring DOD-DOJ liaison re. “advanced technology development” as per the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU—focuses on 7 technology areas, which, on close perusal, cover quite a bit of territory. This program in other words is being used to develop, test, and demonstrate sophisticated and secretive wireless, remote, radiation, EMF spectrum, acoustic, bio-communications detection, monitoring, tracking, and communications technologies with major implications for all individuals and the entire urban environment.

  2. The first six program areas are presented only in summary, with slightly more elaboration of the Limited Effects Technology program which titles the report. Notably, even this seventh section is not comprehensive in its coverage of the LET it purports to cover: the devices highlighted do not comprise the whole of the LET program, only that portion DARPA is willing to put in a document clearly intended for eventual public-release (after 25 years!) into the public-domain, which has happened now. (More on this subject in the LET Program section below.) 

  3. Concealed Weapons Detection:

Concealed- Weapons-Detection technologies the JPSG reports here it seeks to develop are “unobtrusive” —read, concealable in plain sight–systems which can detect weapons of various kinds, including those with little to no metallic content, from over 9 meters—27 feet, width of a couple rooms–away. Initial efforts were to cover stationary devices—but clearly this 1996 wording suggests mobile devices would also be developed.

Actual detection technologies in process then in 1996 included:

3.1 An X-ray sensor: which refers to sensor technology; X-ray sensors are variously used in medical/dental radiography and in scanning systems as in airport scanners for people or baggage.

They are possibly also used in Backscatter X-ray technology as reportedly carried in NYPD vans, about which NYPD, although sued by ACLU, was protected by the NY Appeals Court from divulging much about, while companies contracting with the US Government to produce “Z-Backscatter-Vans” offer more information on the X-ray imaging of vehicles they do;

3.2. Combined passive millimeter wave and infra-red sensors: which are sensors used in scanning systems which can detect objects by their relative millimeter wave glow or infra-red heat signature profile, literally see through clothes better than X-rays and give rise to images highly invasive of personal privacy. Both millimeter wave sensors and infra-red sensors are energy sensors, detecting bio-field energy and thermal signatures; the distance from which such sensors can be used is a matter for further research. Some infra-red sensors are used in cameras mounted on aircraft and satellites.

Interestingly, a document online from the Air Force Research Lab, written by an apparent contractor, Decision-Science Applications Inc., found online after the bulk of this article was written, reports in 1998 on Concealed Weapons Detection programs run on grants from the NIJ and DARPA--which suggests a possible connection to these JPSG programs, while revealing that NIJ and DARPA were funding the Air Force Research Lab, which in turn funded a private contractor, in a chain of inter-agency connections–and points to sensor technologies being intentionally developed to penetrate clothing.

Concealed Weapon Detection Program, AFRL Report/https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a359699.pdf

https://www.millivision.com/technology.html

Camera with Infra-red sensor showing heat signatures/https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-infrared-imaging.htm#

3.3 Combined ultrasound and radar sensors: which translates to:

a) Ultrasonic sensors: the use of high-frequency ultrasonic pulsed transmitter/receiver sensors to send and receive waves in echo from materials to determine their composition or proximity (used in a variety of industries including healthcare, agriculture, target-tracking of animals or humans from UAVs or manned aircraft, water-level sensing, car or obstacle detection), used in short-range, up to 10-meters application;

b) Radar sensors used in short and long range (up to 100 meters) object detection, tracking target movement, collision avoidance in cars, and to detect materials with guided wave radar or special antennas which ultrasonics may miss, such as softer, powdery, foamier, dustier materials, using either Doppler pulses or frequency-modulated continuous wave radar.

https://www.maxbotix.com

3.4 Low Frequency Magnetic sensor: Magnetic sensors use a variety of physical effects related to magnetism, such as eddy current sensing, measuring small relative changes in earth’s magnetic field created by variations in magnetic material, to detect flaws in metal, movement of metals (as in weapons) carried on a person’s body, movement of large metallic objects such as cars, etc. Magnetic sensors detect metal carried on persons when radar alone, stopped by metallic-walls or reflective insulation barriers, is not enough.

Low magnetic fields relate to biofields; low frequency magnetic sensors can pick up low frequency (ELF, ULF body resonance frequency below 10 Hz, below 30 KHz) magnetic fields as indicated in rise and fall of chest cavity; this capacity is used in earthquake life-detection and through-wall surveillance in combination with radar sensors.

Then there are super-conducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) which also pick up very low emfs, such as brain ELFs.

MEMS and nanosensors using thin film magnetic technology also exist. (On this subject: Radar sensors used in prisons are taking recourse to radar tagging to distinguish inmates from  guards—implying the use of nanosensors in tracking, which appear to be of different kinds.)

Through-the-wall surveillance technologies/https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/07_01.pdf

Squid/Wikipedia

Finally, this section’s disclosure on then-current use notes that the X-Ray sensor was being “demonstrated”–meaning, operated–in a correctional institution in California—a prison or juvenile detention center. The use of sensor and imaging technologies in correctional and detention institutions must be thoroughly investigated, in relation to the bioeffect harms from such technology usage.

What Is Not Being Explicitly Stated But Implied In This Entire Section?

  1. These sensor technologies are being tested on populations as per the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU in joint military-police programs, which means they are being used silently and experimentally on people.

  1. All sensor technologies, unless passive, require emission as well as reception of signal. This means that people—unwittingly, without being informed—are being subjected to X-rays, ultrasound radiation, millimeter wave technologies, radar technologies, ULFs, ELFS, and magnetic fields, at short-range and long-range, close-in and remote, ostensibly for weapons-detection testing purposes, in any number and type of environments, including but not limited to airports, train stations, public areas, and private homes. These technologies could be directed at people from inside buildings and homes, from inside cars, pickups, trucks, vans, from mountings in public locations, from parked vehicles in parking-lots and from moving vehicles while driving.

  1. Sensor technologies being tested at short and long range include low frequency magnetic sensors which track biofields, breathing activity, body resonance emfs, and low frequency brainwaves, plausibly using superconducting quantum interference and tunneling technologies, and comprising earthquake-life-detection monitoring or through-wall-surveillance as described in various other public documents, and plausibly also Remote Neural Monitoring or neurosurveillance, of the kind spoken about 28 years ago in the ex-NSA employee John St. Clair Akwei lawsuit against the NSA.

  1. As in the found document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, which posits the surreptitious use of socio-economic weapons of degradation to disable and disarm entire populations without their conscious awareness, the surreptitious testing of sensor technologies on populations is essentially the leveling of silent military spectrum weapons technologies on the bodies of citizens, without their knowing.

  1. The surreptitious leveling and usage of silent military spectrum weapons of bodily and brain monitoring, assault, and modification is precisely what thousands of reporting victims of EMF/Neuro DEW crimes worldwide—often labeled and dismissed as Targeted Individuals—are currently reporting, both inside the USA and out. Could it be that the testing of sensor technologies in concealed weapons detection constitutes one aspect of this surreptitious assault on citizens?

  1. Factually speaking, the disclosure in this document along with the disclosure in the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU that these technologies are being tested is, at minimum, evidence that invisible, spectrum technologies are being operated and tested on the bodies of people, from a distance and from close-by, exactly as thousands of highly credentialled and credible people– often labeled as “Targeted Individuals” and falsely characterized for credibility-disappearance as “Mentally Ill” by mainstream Govt-propaganda-pushing media–are reporting.

4.Geolocation/Navigation/Communications:

Three aspects to location, ID, and tracking technology are being covered in these JPSG programs, as delineated in this section on Geo-Location/Navigation/Communications in the LET Program Report:

4.1 Locating or precision-finding, precision-targeting of specific people, objects, or vehicles—this implicates GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) and other satellite technologies, including handheld satellites, for GPS-tracking of RFID human/object tags, cell phones; as well as human/object RFID/other, Nano/Micro tagging technologies to facilitate GPS-tracking, in other words, Surveillance and Tagging-for-Surveillance technologies.

4.2 Identifying or pinpointing identity of individuals & things—this suggests Identifying Biometric Surveillance & Tagging-for-ID- Surveillance: Facial/Gait/Iris/Fingerprint/Body/DNA/Other Recognition Surveillance; Unique RFID Tagging (Nano/micro biosensors & object tags) & WBANS (Wireless Body Area Networks) for Identification. Again, Surveillance and Tagging-for-Surveillance technologies. Involves Biometric Data Collection.(Law Enforcement has long been involved in this.)

4.3 Monitoring or tracking movement of people and things—this suggests Surveillance & Tagging-for-Surveillance: Audio/Visual Surveillance using microphones and cameras; Cyber Surveillance of computers; Through-Wall Surveillance with RF/ULF/Magnetic sensor technologies; Medical/Health monitoring & continuous detection of RF/other Implants & WBANs using Radar, Wifi; ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) surveillance using Radar from drones, spy/commercial planes, satellites, ground vehicles; Tagging-for-Surveillance: Unique RF/Spectrum & Nano/Micro tagging (correctional, medical) technologies, CCTL—Continuous Clandestine Tracking and Locating (military, intelligence) technologies; Sensor technologies (as discussed in the previous Concealed Weapons-Detection section). Again, Surveillance and Tagging-for-Surveillance technologies. (USAF, AFRL, USMC are currently conducting Non Lethal Weapons tests and ISR tests using these.)

Notably, “reduction of power consumption” is mentioned as a DARPA interest in tracking technologies; this might account for the increased development of passive or inert nanosensors which can be activated or energized by energy signals sent to them, rather than relying on inbuilt battery packs.

4.4 The two JPSG efforts mentioned here include Tagging, as discussed above, very slightly referenced with this line about tiny wireless sensors, termed “devices,” notably marked “modular” as in implantable WBANs, which do indeed have modules or nodes in a network. These are not just object-tagging devices, they are human-tagging devices.

Military tracking of objects and humans using sensors

The fully-implanted and centrally-monitored human

Sensors at level of cell, molecule, DNA

And this is not a slight JPSG effort at all: Tagging and sensor technologies constitute multi-billion dollar businesses and are intimately linked to all aspects of Geo-Location, Navigation, and Communications, as discussed above. Again, here too, DARPA should be more definitively and minutely questioned about these tagging technologies and how they are being used inside America, on Americans—especially since thousands of Americans, as also people worldwide, are reporting violative, non-consensual RFID micro and nano implants in their bodies.  

4.5 The first JPSG effort mentioned here, Soldier 911, is mentioned in DARPA literature as an emergency radio to help find soldiers in crisis.

However from the description in the LET report, it also sounds like a handheld satellite linked in to an emergency response network, functioning as a device to locate, identify, and track “the movement of individuals and vehicles,” which, if an additional feature (undisclosed in DARPA literature) on this device, is only possible through the use of pre-tagging of said individuals and vehicles with sensor and tagging technologies–or the use of SIGINT Remote Neural Monitoring, as described in the John St. Clair Akwei lawsuit vs the NSA in 1992, in the case of humans.

5. Sniper DetectionSniper Detection systems as mentioned here were intended to be of various kinds, including manually-portable, bodily-worn, and vehicle-mounted.

These systems, as stated above in the LET Program report–being explored and tested publicly from 1996 on–involve sensors: acoustic sensors, infra-red sensors, and integrated infrared-acoustic and infrared-laser sensors.

Interestingly, this section appears to be discussing technologies for detection of actual gunshot or sniper fire—not non-lethal fire, not spectrum-weapon-related shots. However the detection technologies themselves are spectrum technologies.

Brief research of these detection technology sensors indicates that acoustic, infra-red, and laser technologies are being developed and used by militaries to determine with pin-point precision the direction and location of fire from a weapon after a first shot. Sensors today are becoming highly sophisticated with universities (working on military grants, partnering with private firms) also involved in developing bio-mimetic systems of detection, using neural network learning and studying how bats and dolphins process sound and vibration.

It is notable that this program of Sniper Detection has been included as a JPSG program in this Limited-Effects Technology report as one of the multi-technology program thrusts of the JPSG.

JPSG, we recall, is the Joint Program Steering Group formed by the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU employing parties from both Defense and Justice in mutually-relevant matters and projects of security and law enforcement, OOTW and LE, intending to jointly develop and test “advanced technologies” of common interest.

Some Undisclosed Conclusions

1. Could it be therefore that Sniper Detection is related to matters of Mass Shooters, the phenomenon of supposedly crazed “lone gunmen”–plausibly mind-control victims of MK ULTRA RHIC-EDOM (radio hypnosis intra-cerebral electronic dissolution of memory) radio-hypnosis—shooting up people in random settings, as well as the Live Action Drills with Active Shooters run by the Department of Homeland Security?

If so, this offers a connection not merely between the DOD and DOJ but also with the DHS; all three departments are in some way involved in these sniper detection programs.

This also offers a connection to War on Terror programs and funding, since mass shooters are characterized internally as Domestic Terrorists—even if their “Manchurian Candidate” creation is by covert agencies in Defense/Justice/DHS/CIA, undercover of Live Action Drills, for purposes of driving Agenda 21/2030 Gun Control agendas, as is often surmised by many analysts.

2. Further, the JPSG efforts noted here to develop sensors, in its inclusion of biomimetic systems and neuroscience research, now used in sniper detection in the field, may well involve the use of neuroprosthetics, as indicated by the acknowledged use of cochlear implants in medical and neuroscience research over several decades by a Defense contractor, Biomimetic Systems, Inc.

3. It is plausible therefore—and a matter for further investigation—that the non-consensual use and implantation of cochlear and other neurological implants—which numerous citizens have come forward to report, over the last three to four decades–for the study of neural networks and auditory processes has accompanied the JPSG efforts in this area of Sniper Detection.

6. Information Technology:While this section is quite opaque, a few conclusions can be drawn:

  1. The JPSG states that it is addressing the needs for instant and secure communications needs in LE and Military by taking advantage of advances in civilian and govt-sponsored IC technologies. This would not however require a separate program to do so, unless undisclosed advances were being acquired.

  1. These advances, hinted at but not specified, could include Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, autonomous systems, cybernetics, cognitive computing, Internet of Things, Internet of Humans, lesser-known Neuro/Bio-communications technologies such as V2K (Voice to Skull) and Synthetic Telepathy, Hive Minds and Brain Nets revealed by whistleblowers like Richard Alan Miller and Robert Duncan (while some brain projects are openly revealed by public-domain DARPA information and known to exist via academic/government focus in US and worldwide), robotics, nanotechnology, the miniaturization of electronics, quantum computing, and other aspects of modern ICT which are left unnamed here. Simulating all 100 billion neural connections of brain on future supercomputers/https://www.kurzweilai.net/new-algorithm-will-allow-for-simulating-neural-connections-of-entire-brain-on-future-exascale-supercomputers

    Brainternet-Connecting a Brain to the Internet as an IOT device/Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSdN–axYbA

This possibility—of such undisclosed advanced projects being part of the IT program sketchily noted here–is once more underlined by the opaque disclosure of “innovative exploitation” of existing ICT infrastructure intended in the creation of interagency crisis management systems.

  1. Communications security technology” in common parlance includes encryption and authentication technologies which today include biometrics and RFID microchips, but is not further specified in this section.


Considering that the rollout of biometrics (iris, fingerprint, face, voice recognition) at airports and borders is being overseen by TSA, a part of DHS, and that DNA is collected by LE at jails and detention centers, it can be safely concluded that any joint program of Defense and Justice in this area would indeed encompass all of these certainly exploitative technologies.

  1. “Sharing information among agencies” points to shared information from different databases collected by different parties, including DNA collection databases managed by LE, and recently exposed for massive privacy violations. Police databases are apparently highly insecure, and corrupt officers have made it a practice to sell databases to private companies for thousands of dollars, a practice revealed by recent news articles, including by Chief Jones on Ramola D Reports.

Information Sharing across Law Enforcement/RAND report/https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR645.html

Law enforcement investigators seek out private DNA databases/Mashable

Police Are Collecting DNA From People Without Telling Them/Futurism

Police use of surveillance technology raises privacy concerns/MintPressNews

Across US, police officers abuse confidential databases/AP

Agencies Behaving Badly: Government Surveillance and Privacy Act Violations/Jurist

Ramola D Reports| Report # 120: Retired Police Chief Daymond Jones on Policing in America Today

  1. To conclude, the opacity of this section on Information Technology appears to hide much. It is entirely possible that non-consensual, clandestine implantation of RFIDs, as part of developments in Military/LE cybernetics, telemetry, biometrics, neuroinformatics in “innovative exploitation” of communications security technologies, is being executed by this JPSG program—as reported by high numbers of Americans. Again, this presents therefore an issue to be examined further with DARPA and the Justice Department.

7. Personnel Armor:This section, like the Sniper Detection section, seems to pertain explicitly to lethal weapons and not non-lethal or spectrum weapons.

However, it notes that lethal weapons threats—bullets from rifles and handguns—affect OOTW and LE operations both.

Protection from rifle bullets via advanced lightweight body armor in the course of OOTW/LE operations of any kind appears to be the focus here; the implication appears to be that such operations could involve rifle threats; it is possible therefore that this pertains, as also the Sniper Detection section, to mass shooters and the weapons (assault weapons, rifles) some have used, as well as to regular LE activities, which do involve lethal exertion of force, warranted or unwarranted, in situations of gun violence.

It’s interesting that this has been designated an area for Defense-Justice collaboration; plenty of Defense contractors exist who research and develop body armor, as any cursory inquiry into the market shows. LE also has a dedicated market producing police gear. For the JPSG to enter this arena suggests a corralling of new Federal funds perhaps, or some kind of development of new technology – countermeasure shielding for spectrum technology? – that is not being fully disclosed here. Note that what is being stated above as aspects of this program are presented as inclusions (“efforts include”), not all-encompassing and exclusive.

8.Biomedical Technology:

This is also a relatively opaque section suggesting telemedicine application in penitentiaries and OOTW rescue operations, which implies audio-video consultation and data transmission of medical detail perhaps but does not expand on the suggestions implicit in the label of “biomedical technology” which could include medical telemetry, meaning implants, body area networks, biosensors, and implanted biomonitors, at nano- and micro-levels, to aid in remote patient monitoring and other telehealth initiatives.

New Atlas article, 2018/https://newatlas.com/profusa-health-monitoring-biosensors/53870/

To reiterate, the incidence of such biomedical implants found to have been non-consensually implanted in what can only be understood to be undisclosed and covert human experimentation and tracking operation projects involving variably, academic, medical, and military/Intelligence personnel has been reported in large numbers by Americans as also people worldwide. It is possible therefore that the opacity of the language in this section obscures the larger truths of such non-consensual implantation being part and parcel of a plethora of telehealth processes and technologies being tested silently on people.

This latter possibility in fact has increasingly been reported by people experiencing invasive radar activation of non-consensual implants within contexts of seemingly being probed in public by a rotating army of stalkers masquerading as community monitors and healthcare workers.

9. Limited Effects Technologies:


Significant, from this brief introduction (further screenshotted below):

  1. As noted earlier, this section, which titles the report and occupies 5 of the 9 pages of this report yet details only one portion of the multi-technology JPSG program.
  2. Further, its detailing is incomplete, as indicated by the language in the opening section.

  1. Crowd control and deterrence devices being studied and developed under this LET program are presented here as innocuous, benign, and needed—as per a nonspecific claim of need. There is no indication however of actual studies to establish they are such, or actually “eyesafe” or “less lethal” as stated.

A significant fact to note is the language referring to “sponsoring” and “funding” programs and projects to develop these limited-effects technologies, which means JPSG is handing out grants and contracts to Defense/LE contractor companies to develop these weapons. This might well be the protocol by which all JPSG programs work, and could explain the AFRL contract with Decision-Sciences Applications, Inc. on NIJ and DARPA grants, mentioned above in the Concealed Weapons Detection section. 

Electric Stun Projectile

This “effort” relates to a physical projectile using wireless, gas, or “conventionally propelled” means intended to electrically shock and stun a human target, as Tasers also do. Hardly a “Limited Effect” weapon, this is a stun gun intended to be used as a  shock-defence if a soldier or LE officer is attacked. Note that the intent is still incapacitation, blunt trauma, high impact force–but using an electrical charge, not a high-velocity bullet. 

Developed in San Diego, tested on the Marine Corps, probably rolled out and in use now, post 1997. Notice that the photograph is blacked out almost and reveals nothing. DARPA is not going out of its way to provide clear information here.

A look into Jaycor, the company, online, now subsumed into Titan Corporation, a larger Defense contractor engaged in large-scale DEW, satellite, and navigational systems manufacture, reveals their interest in other counter-personnel stun-gun non-lethal weapons and crowd-control devices. Titan Corporation is therefore now manufacturing both large-scale DEWs to take out battleships and smaller-scale non-lethal weapons (being characterized here as “Limited-Effects”) to take out human beings, or fell them for a while–no doubt with damages, as “crowd-control.”

Laser Surveillance and Dazzler System

While blinding lasers were banned by the European Parliament in 1995, the use of lasers to dazzle and disorient human targets did not stop, as BOSS, developed by the US Air Force’s Phillips Lab in Albuquerque, New Mexico demonstrates. It is interesting that this surveillance and dazzler system was developed for and presumably funded by the JPSG at an Air Force laboratory.

From Defense Review, 2005/Laser_Battlefield_Optical_Surveillance_System_BOSS

Notably, this system 1) involves the use of infra-red thermal sensors to find targets plus lasers to dazzle targets, 2) can be applied remotely from a considerable distance, and 3) intends both a psychological effect in alerting targeted individuals to being targeted by way of Show-of-Force bright illumination and the physical effect of deleterious uber-brighting or dazzling of the target’s eyes.

Again, not exactly Limited Effects, but labeled as such.

Finally, it is notable that further integration of this “Limited Effect” optical sensor-and-weapon system with acoustic sniper detection systems already developed under JPSG (as indicated above also by the AFRL/Decision-Sciences Applications 1998 Report) was also being explored in 1996, further evidence that sensor and “non-lethal” spectrum technologies were being developed and tested by the JPSG for multiple uses.

Handheld Laser Dazzler

Also developed by the US Air Force’s Phillips Lab, the handheld laser dazzler—whether portable in a backpack or camouflaged as a flashlight—demonstrates that non-lethal energy weapons, including lasers, promising limited-effects were being made by the JPSG on a smaller scale, at lesser power, for purposes of portability and ease of use.

Portable Handheld Laser Dazzlers/https://www.tech-lasers.com/dazzlers/portable

Again, as per the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU, the non-lethal Spectrum/Acoustic sensor-and-weapon technologies being developed by the joint Defense-Justice partnership here were being tested—are being tested, have been tested for the past 25 years—and “demonstrated” on real targets.

Pyrotechnic Devices

The publishing of flash-bang devices designed to fast-bloom-smoke, dazzle, whistle, and other such is the one consistent element that disclosure on non-lethal weapons has maintained. Unwilling to speak openly of radar and sonic devices with silent and invisible physical bio-effects on humans, literature from the Joint Non Lethal Weapons Program has not refrained from pointing openly to these dazzle and vibrate devices, in obvious attempts to misdirect focus away from the far deadlier bio-hacking and neuro-hacking devices of non-lethal sensor technologies and neuroweapons.

Acoustic Study

This is evidence that infra-sound (below 20 Hz, the threshold of human hearing) weaponry for crowd-control was being researched in 1996 and tested on people, specifically to determine the biological effects of such transmissions, and explore means of incapacitating individuals for crowd-control purposes with infra-sound.

Prior information, available online, shows that infrasound had long been known to produce bio-effects and brain-effects–nausea, disorientation, brain fog–in humans, since Dr. Gavreau’s discoveries and experiments with infrasound in the 1950s, and efforts had already been made to create devices and systems to use infrasound in a weaponized way against humans, as in the published US Patent 3612211, screenshotted below.  

A salient point to note is that infrasound weapons (like other emerging weapons technologies) had been reviewed in the 1970s by United Nations conferences on disarmament, and efforts had been made, particularly by the Soviet Union, to halt the development of all such new weapons then seen as weapons of mass destruction. The US and UK were prominent naysayers to this plan in 1978 at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, where Hungary presented a paper on infrasound weapons and their effects. Now it appears that not only were such weapons not halted in development between 1978 and 1996, DARPA was arranging in 1996 for further development and testing of these dangerous acoustic weapons, long known to harm human bodies and brains.

The Section Titled Summary

While this document has touched on major program areas of the JPSG, its title and detail elaborate the more obvious flash-bang aspects of the “Limited-Effects Technology” program, while the Summary remains opaque. Notable however is the casual mention of “corrections” being aligned with the main parties involved in these joint programs, as in “military, law enforcement, and corrections” as the primary “user communities” being awarded “new, more effective tools,” with little description or specificity on the nature or kind of tools, and no summation of the high points of this document.

However, some definite conclusions can be reached regarding this entire document, in addition to all noted above at end of sections.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. DARPA returned this one 1996 document to a multi-document request on JPSG programs begun 25 years ago, after 25 years.

  2. This is not a fully disclosive document; much is being obscured, summarized, glossed over.

  3. The Limited-Effects Technology program is only one of several JPSG programs mentioned in this document.

  4. All these JPSG programs need to be understood, as stated, as deriving from the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU which announced the testing and demonstration of “advanced technologies.” That MOU followed on the heels of a classified Non-Lethal Weapons conference in 1993, and several decades of development and study of Non-Lethal technologies and “Psycho-Corrective” Neurotechnologies. (See Background & Context, MOU.)

  5. The need to limit force is reiterated as primary motivator in bringing DOD and DOJ together in a quest to find and use common modalities in wars on drugs and terrorism—a need which points directly to Anti Personnel Non Lethal Weapons—which are EMF Spectrum and Acoustic Weapons.

These JPSG OOTW/LE programs therefore are definitely focused on Non Lethal Weapons, that is, EMF Spectrum and Acoustic Weapons, which, by nature of the physical bio-effects they have on humans’ bodies and brains, are also Bioweapons and Neuroweapons—not mentioned as such in this document, but elsewhere disclosed, as for instance, by Debra Schnelle at the 2019 Blue Ribbon Emerging Biodefense Conference as Neuro Cognitive Weapons, by Dr. James Giordiano as Neuroweapons in numerous lectures, and discussed at length in the declassified US Army document Bio-Effects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons as Bioweapons and Neuroweapons, with intended damage to the human body and human brain.

  1. The JPSG comprises members from DARPA, US Army, National Institutes of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, and the FBI. Stands to reason that each of these institutions therefore—and their overseers, the Department of Defense and the Justice Department and leaders, the Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and the Attorney-General William Barr–is fully cognizant of the JPSG programs developing and testing sensor-and-weapon technologies on the streets of America described in this report.

  2. Further, each of these institutions is being permitted to participate in all aspects of the RDA (Research, Development, Acquisition) spectrum, meaning it is acknowledged that these non lethal neuro/bio EMF/acoustic technologies can be tested and demonstrated by the Bureau of Prisons (on prisoners), FBI, and NIJ (on watchlisted citizens? on unwitting members of the public at airports, train stations, hospitals, stores, roadways?) just as much as by DARPA and the US Army (on military personnel? On civilians near military bases? on “indefinite detainees”?) and just as much as jointly developed.

  3. Concealed weapons-detection technologies being developed indicate that people—unwittingly, without being informed—are being subjected to X-rays, ultrasound radiation, millimeter wave technologies, radar technologies, ULFs, ELFS, and magnetic fields, at short-range and long-range, close-in and remote, ostensibly for weapons-detection testing purposes, in any number and type of environments, including but not limited to airports, train stations, public areas, and private homes. These technologies could also be directed at people from inside buildings and homes, from cars, pickups, trucks, vans, from mountings in public locations, from parked vehicles in parking-lots and from moving vehicles while driving.

  4. Sensor technologies for weapons-detection being tested at short and long range include low frequency magnetic sensors which plausibly track biofields, breathing activity, body resonance emfs, and low frequency brainwaves, using superconducting quantum interference and tunneling technologies, and comprising through-wall earthquake-life-detection monitoring, remote neural monitoring, and the surveillance and monitoring of brain states and emotion states.

  5. GPS Tracking and identification technologies being tested and developed imply tagging-for-surveillance sensor technologies inclusive of RFID microchips, WBANs, biosensors, and nanosensors, and include monitoring and surveillance technologies such as different kinds of radar being tested and operated under ISR and military/Air Force Non Lethal Weapons Testing programs.

  6. Sensor technologies being developed for sniper detection, based on biomimetic systems, could include the use of cochlear implants and other neuroprosthetics in the study of auditory and neurological processes, as indicated by companies developing such systems.

  7. Innovative exploitation” of IT communications infrastructure & new technology here could include hive-minding AI projects, nanobots, Brain Nets, quantum computing, and synthetic telepathy, among other undisclosed technologies, involving non-consensual, clandestine implantation of RFIDs and BCI Tech, as well as biometrics/DNA data collection and sharing—as part of developments in Military/LE cybernetics and telemetry, and as reported today by high numbers of Americans.

  8. Personnel armor” being developed as a JPSG program could include research and development of countermeasure shielding for spectrum and acoustic non-lethal bio/neuroweapons, although not expressly stated here.

  9. Biomedical technology initiatives involving telemedicine and telehealth could include medical telemetry, meaning implants, body area networks, biosensors, and implanted biomonitors, of nano- and micro-levels, to aid in remote patient monitoring and other telehealth initiatives. Non-consensual implantation may well be part and parcel of a plethora of telehealth processes and technologies being tested silently on people, in prisons, as noted, and elsewhere.

  10. Limited-effects technologies being developed and tested under JPSG include electric stun projectiles, dazzling laser devices of both mountable and portable kinds, and other crowd-control devices.

  11. Acoustic devices using infrasound to produce physical effects for use in crowd-control to “incapacitate” was being studied at an Air Force Laboratory—and possibly being field-tested and “demonstrated” on populations to provide the needed “hard evidence” mentioned here.

  1. Factually speaking, the disclosure in this document along with the disclosure in the 1994 DOD-DOJ MOU that these technologies are being tested is, at minimum, incontrovertible evidence that invisible, spectrum technologies are being operated and tested on the bodies of people, from a distance and from close-by, exactly as thousands of highly credentialled and credible people– often labeled as “Targeted Individuals” and characterized for credibility-disappearance as “mentally ill” by mainstream Govt-propaganda-pushing media –are reporting.

  2. This document’s disclosure therefore—notwithstanding that much of its details have been withheld–is profoundly important in establishing that non-lethal weapons and sensor technologies, specifically EMF Spectrum and Acoustic Bio/Neuro Weapons have been developed, demonstrated and tested on populations under the aegis of joint Defense-Justice JPSG programs, since 1994.

Related

Documentary Evidence since 1994 of Covert High-Tech Electronic-Weapon and Neurotechnology Use in Targeted Surveillance, Experimentation, Operations by US Government on Americans: (1) The DOD/DOJ Memorandum of Understanding on OOTW/LE, 1994

Public Disclosure on Neuro Weapons and Neuro Technologies In Use Today

Extrajudicial Targeting Technologies (Weapons Use/Tests/Abuse); Biometric Surveillance, Non Lethal Weapons, Neuroweapons

False-Claim of Mental Illness in the Microwave, Millimeter Wave, Other “Non Lethal” Weapons Testing on Citizens in USA & Worldwide

Ramola D/No Longer True: The NSA “Isn’t Getting Violent Internally in the US”: Millions Today in US Are Targeted with RF/Scalar/Sonic Weapons, Nano Weapons, Neuro Weapons, Chem/Bio Weapons