Historic Court Ruling Regarding Electronic Harassment

Not many people realize that the new way to get back at your neighbor is to beam dangerous microwave radiation into their home. This is undetectable and damaging to equipment and the human body ... for more info do a search for Barrie Trower, a British scientist who's been warning about this ... Anyway, this kind of abuse has been difficult to prove and victims have often been labelled as "delusional" .....and there are lots of victims around the world ... yesterday a woman in Southern California ( who I happen to know personally ) won her case in court ... here's the notice that I received .... https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/...er/1412104797/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Not many people realize that the new way to get back at your neighbor is to beam dangerous microwave radiation into their home. This is undetectable and damaging to equipment and the human body ... for more info do a search for Barrie Trower, a British scientist who's been warning about this ... Anyway, this kind of abuse has been difficult to prove and victims have often been labelled as "delusional" .....and there are lots of victims around the world ... yesterday a woman in Southern California ( who I happen to know personally ) won her case in court ... here's the notice that I received .... https://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/...er/1412104797/

---

After reading that link to the newsletter it appears to me that this is another internet hoax.
Satellite dishes are not pointed at the equator, they are pointed up into the sky. Both Dish Network and DirecTV use satellites that are in the 140 to 160 degrees azimuth. Also, people with satellite internet can upload data so that means that the standard residential satellite dishes do transmit RF signals up to the satellites to be bounced back to the land based internet connections (how else could a person with satellite internet use the internet if their satellite dishes did not transmit RF). Using an RF meter cannot distinguish between radiofrequency (RF) radiation and microwave (MW) radiation, and there is no defined set of frequencies on the spectrum that are exclusively dedicated to microwave communications.
The newsletter says that the plaintiff prevailed in this case, but also admitted that there is one more court session for the case, so it is a premature determination. I say the whole thing is a hoax.

The trial was held at Joshua Tree Superior Court and I was invited to attend to give support, so I know for sure that this was legit and I'm sure that court records will verify that …

Regarding the science, I'm no expert, so I suggest that you listen to the conference call tonight which is mentioned on the newsletter. There should be around 200 people on the call including scientists, electrical engineers, journalists, and of course the principles in the case … this is a big story and could pave the wave to identifying covert electronic abuse …

If you miss the call, it is recorded and can be listened to at a later time ... here are a few links which might help ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDEOr4-y1Ik

https://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems2.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

After reading that link to the newsletter it appears to me that this is another internet hoax.
Satellite dishes are not pointed at the equator, they are pointed up into the sky. Both Dish Network and DirecTV use satellites that are in the 140 to 160 degrees azimuth. Also, people with satellite internet can upload data so that means that the standard residential satellite dishes do transmit RF signals up to the satellites to be bounced back to the land based internet connections (how else could a person with satellite internet use the internet if their satellite dishes did not transmit RF). Using an RF meter cannot distinguish between radiofrequency (RF) radiation and microwave (MW) radiation, and there is no defined set of frequencies on the spectrum that are exclusively dedicated to microwave communications.
The newsletter says that the plaintiff prevailed in this case, but also admitted that there is one more court session for the case, so it is a premature determination. I say the whole thing is a hoax.

---

Now this is confusing, you wrote that there was a Historic Court Ruling, but the newsletter says that there is still more court proceedings for this case, was a determination made or not ?
And what is this conference call all about ? Is it an official public court hearing ?, or just a bunch of science fiction writers getting together on a conference call for a chat ?
With all the false statements in that newsletter that you posted, I don't believe one word of it, but I don't doubt at all that in this sue-crazy litigious society, that some people will try and sue others for anything that they can invent, but that doesn't mean that the case is viable or the plaintiff will prevail in a court of law. Get back to us when the case is settled with the official court documents regarding the disposition of this controversial case. You started it by posting it on this site, so you owe us the official documented outcome of the disposition in this important accusation.
By the way, your link about the RF bands is a bit outdated and not entirely accurate now at all. I will explain the details if anyone wants when I have the time.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

The trial was held at Joshua Tree Superior Court and I was invited to attend to give support,

---

The judge agreed that there was electronic harassment and issued a restraining order. The restraining order will be made public in the next few days and I'll be happy to post it along with the website of the principles involved. I'm not sure what the follow up date is for but I'll be finding out.

The conference call is hosted by a support group for victims of these technologies. Here's their website ...

https://www.freedomfchs.com/

Regarding the frequencies in the microwave spectrum, I'm sure that it's a matter of scientific fact and not opinion. If you have information about this then please post it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

Now this is confusing, ...

---

Aldo, you may be correct, though I don't think there's enough evidence to prove this is a hoax. I'm still undecided. A few thoughts:

Just because the linked newsletter refers to satellite dishes being pointed at the equator rather than pointed at satellites in geosynchronous equatorial orbit, doesn't invalidate the story for me. (Perhaps I'm too used to seeing technical information presented poorly by writers who don't quite understand what they're saying.)

DirecTV users in the Joshua Tree, CA area need to point their antennas generally southerly at from 165 to 185 degrees azimuth, and upward at roughly 50 degrees elevation, depending on which satellite they're using. There are other providers' satellites closer to the horizon which require elevation angles as low as 20 degrees.

Microwave vs. radio frequency? Doesn't make any difference to me, which term is used, for this discussion. Microwaves are generally accepted as being those electromagnetic waves with frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz.

To your comment that "there is no defined set of frequencies on the spectrum that are exclusively dedicated to microwave communications," I think the FCC would beg to differ!

Although I'd like to know about what characteristics of the alleged harassing signals were measured, and how, that level of detail would be beyond the scope of a short newsletter. So, for me, there's not enough technical information in the original posting for an informed analysis. There is enough, however, to pique my interest; I'll stay tuned.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

After reading that link to the newsletter it appears to me that this is another internet hoax....

---

This is a very interesting story, (if true). I imagine the case is a matter of public record if it was tried in a public court of law, could you please provide some links to these court documents, or at least some articles in the media about this controversial case. I am very interested in this.
I can't imagine why a civilian would deliberately point a satellite dish at a neighbors house, because doing so would render the satellite system useless, but I wouldn't be skeptical at all if the military would pull something off like this.
There are parabolic microphones that use dishes to hear sounds long distances.
I was trying to think what else might be happening, like a friend of mine hooked his Wi-Fi to a satellite dish and transmitted it a long distance with very low power of a Wi-Fi, it could have been a wide area network (WAN) Wi-Fi antenna like a YAGI.
Microwave communications use a very powerful focused beam, microwave communications are for the "backhaul" of mobile phone systems and commercial and public agency 2 way radio systems where fiber optic systems are not available. Microwave towers are usually located on ridge tops or on towers in flat areas where there are no obstructions spaced about 30 miles apart or line of sight.
For a civilian to get his hands on a microwave system would be very rare, and of course he would have to be fully licensed by the FCC with a special commercial microwave endorsement to purchase and operate a microwave transmitter. Microwave is very dangerous, it can seriously injure or even kill people if they happen to get in that microwave beam up close, but from a distance at lower power, it may not be so dangerous. When a cop points a radar gun at your car, you are getting dosed with microwave (MW) radiation, and keep in mind that there is also RF radiation everywhere all the time, RF antennas are omni directional, that means that they broadcast in all directions, whereas microwave feedhorns or dishes only transmit a focused concentrated beam.

There are no frequencies defined by the FCC as "for exclusive use of microwave communications only", contrary to what you have been misled to believe.

Until someone with a bit more technical knowledge than most reporters (or judges) possess posts a description of the device's capabilities, we won't know if this really was serious or just a wacko who has no idea how to create a radiant energy weapon that actually works.
My prejudice is that it's either a victim who's unnecessarily fearful or a hostile neighbor trying a high-tech form of voodoo. Both those are more likely by far, which of course doesn't eliminate the possibility that there really is some credible attack. However as Aldo's pointed out, it's not easy to get your hands on an effective source of harmful radiation - and someone who could do that should also have the smarts to hide it. After all, the point of radiant weapons is that their 'projectiles' are invisible.

By the way, the whole idea of the hazards of low-level radiation bring back memories of R.Heinlein's story "Waldo" and the remedy for too much exposure to radio waves: magic fingers!

Since the FCC is responsible for frequency allocations, and since there are numerous microwave frequency bands set aside specifically for communications, I must be misunderstanding your intent. Can you describe further the meaning and ramifications of what you're saying?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

There are no frequencies defined by the FCC as "for exclusive use of microwave communications only", contrary to what you have been misled to believe.

---

As I've said before, I'm not a scientist and my interest in this case has to do with the humanitarian aspects of it...

That being said, I have done a little bit of research and I found this … which verifies that microwave signals can indeed be transmitted by using a parabolic satellite antenna …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission

The conference call can be found on Talkshoe.com, Call ID # 66339 … it should be the first recording that you see …

The man who did the research to prove this case said that he traveled around the victim's neighborhood with an RF meter circling in a 5 mile radius to look for signals to verify her claims. He found a significant stream within the microwave spectrum coming from her neighbor and noticed at the same time that his satellite dish was tilted unnaturally towards her house …

I know for a fact that the military has been testing microwave weapons, in fact there's a link to this at the bottom of the above reference …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

question is, if this story is true, ( and the judge seems to think that it is ), was this man working for the government and if not, has this technology gotten into the hands of the general public? … either scenario is bad news …

We shall see if media picks this up … I kind of doubt that that will happen …

The problem that I have with your theory is that an RF meter cannot determine if a transmission is indeed microwave.

There are no definitive microwave frequencies, but the FCC allows microwave communications devices , commercial and household microwave ovens, medical pacemakers and glue sputtering machines to be operated in the UHF band.

There are no microwave communications that operate under 1,000 MHz, BUT there are commercial microwave ovens that operate in the 900 MHz UHF band, and the glue sputtering machines and pacemakers are allowed to operate down to 300 MHz. Ovens, industrial machinery and pacemakers are utilizing microwave technology but they do not transmit into the air. What you and a hundred other people read on Wikipedia about microwave being anything over 300 MHz is completely false information posted on Wikipedia that has not been challenged yet because the statement is so far out that nobody has bothered to challenge it.

I have 2 way radios, cordless phones and mobile phones that operate over 300 MHz and they are not microwave communications devices. Also , there are SmartMeters that operate in the 900 MHz band that are most definitely not using microwave technology.

It's obvious that you have been misled by these activists who claim to have PhDs (post hole diggers).
About the military testing microwave weapons, I don't doubt that, they test a lot of things.

In fact, it was the U.S. military that developed microwave technology for WW2 for object locating (RADAR). They have a revolving dish that sends out a concentrated high powered beam into the sky and out on the ocean that detects objects, and RADAR is still in use today for many purposes including traffic counting and detection for signal systems and local law enforcement for looking for speeding vehicles.I remember living up on the hill on the coast and everytime a ship would cruise offshore with their RADAR on, it would blast our TV's and shortwave radios every time the dish revolved, it was annoying to say the least.

It was the RADAR technicians working for the military who discovered that microwave can cook things (including humans). Some of those technicians got seriously injured because they didn't realize how powerful microwave transmissions were (but the military doesn't care about their troopers) hey, they discovered more commercial uses for microwave.
Oh, don't believe everything that you read on Wikipedia, anyone can post false information and it stays until challenged. You will see an asterisk with a disclaimer that reads, "this citation needs verification". I have seen a few things on Wikipedia that are false, and any troll can post on Wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

As I've said before, I'm not a scientist and my interest in this case has to do with the humanitarian aspects of it...

That being said, I have done a little bit of research and I found this … which verifies that microwave signals can indeed be transmitted by using a parabolic satellite antenna …

---

Aldo,

You'll have to take this up with the man presenting evidence in this case and the judge who decided that he was correct. I will be posting the restraining order when it becomes public … As I have said, I am not a scientist …. I'm guessing that we're missing some info here … if the woman had doctor's reports of burnt skin for example, along with high RF readings in her house, then it might sway a judge to suspect microwave frequencies … btw, the judge said at the very beginning of the case that he had heard of this before ….

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

The problem that I have with your theory is that an RF meter cannot determine if a transmission is indeed microwave.

There are no definitive microwave frequencies, but the FCC allows microwave communications devices , commercial and household microwave ovens, medical pacemakers and glue sputtering machines to be operated in the UHF band...

---

It seems that the case in question was an application for a restraining order. These are typically heard by very low level judges, sometimes attorneys acting as temporary judges, and the standard of proof needed to obtain a restraining order is extremely low. Often orders are granted because it is politically safer to grant an order than refuse one and then be blamed if something bad happens. Usually orders are granted on the basis of statements and a brief hearing where each side gets to say their piece. Mostly no actual sworn evidence is taken, and no kind of cross examination takes place. This cannot possibly be described as a historic court ruling.

Patrick Brinton

Thank you Patrick,

I had a feeling that this story was a hoax from the beginning. There were too many inaccuracies for me to believe it was a true story.

I must say that I have seen more quackery, science fiction and false information about microwave radiation than all other subjects. Most people simply repeat other false information posted on the internet by non-scientist activists.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

It seems that the case in question was an application for a restraining order. These are typically heard by very low level judges, sometimes attorneys acting as temporary judges, and the standard of proof needed to obtain a restraining order is extremely low...

---

It will be interesting to see what you post about this case, especially the names of the plaintiff and defendant.
One thing I might add, using an RF meter cannot determine if said electromagnetic radiation is indeed from a microwave communications transmitter and could never be used as evidence in a court of law.

The only real way to determine if a transmission is RF or MW radiation is to take the reading, and then pinpoint the source. Then an inspection must made and the antenna must be located. A good rule of thumb is, if there is no microwave dish or feedhorn, it is not a microwave communications transmitter.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Aldo,

You'll have to take this up with the man presenting evidence in this case and the judge who decided that he was correct. I will be posting the restraining order when it becomes public … As I have said, I am not a scientist...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

Thank you Patrick,
I had a feeling that this story was a hoax from the beginning. ...I must say that I have seen more quackery, science fiction and false information about microwave radiation than all other subjects. Most people simply repeat other false information posted on the internet by non-scientist activists.

---

depends on what you mean by 'hoax', though. It's perfectly plausible that one neighbor was trying to intimidate another by pointing his dish and saying 'boo'. I made the voodoo analogy in an earlier post, because in both cases you don't get results without the intended victim knowing about the attack.

Please forgive me if I sound condescending or disrespectful because it is not my intention. I understand how unbelievable this information sounds to someone with no prior knowledge.

Rather than cast doubt on this story by discrediting the science, the judge and it's importance, I would think that your curiosity would be piqued and that you would do a little research. Here's a little help …

https://www.freedomfchs.com/

https://psychophysical-torture.de.tl/IAACEA.htm

..... 2 great big organizations dedicated to protecting your freedom to be you without worrying about some corrupt government or organized crime group microwaving you through the walls of your home when you least expect it.... thousands of people risking their lives to protect you … Time to wake up now and do some research …

This is no idle threat and the reason that this case is historic is because most of these judges are paid off or threatened to keep them from exposing this information. Obviously, this judge was non-corruptible … also, the powers that be pay thousands of online shills to discredit anyone who tries to expose this info … So this judge, this one judge had the guts to call it as he saw it … Unprecedented? … yes, and also historic …

It is the first time that covert electronic harassment has been recognized in a court of law … period. And there's bound to be more to come as other victims file suit. This is a story that is coming out ... this is just the beginning ....

I personally am against any kind of surveillance, and I do a very good job of avoiding it at all times.

But when you say this case is based on science, I have to disagree.

You wrote that the "science" involved was that the lawyer used a tri-field meter and a field strenghth meter to determine that the "electronic harassment" was from a microwave transmitter because it was in the "microwave frequency range". There are two important reasons why this information is flawed, the first one is the fact that both a tri-field meter and a field strength meter DO NOT identify what frequency the electromagnetic radiation is transmitting at, only a frequency counter device can identify what frequency is being transmitted. The second one is the fact that there is no microwave frequency only range, microwave communications, RADAR and other microwave devices are allowed to operate in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band , but most of the UHF band is not used by microwave devices.

I really find it hard to believe that any judge would make a ruling based on psuedo-science, if the judge is smart, he will not rule on a case that is based on faux science. That could hurt his career and credibility in the future, so I figure that the "microwave harassment" charge will be tossed.

There is probably more to this case, like perhaps the plaintiff is misled by all the hyperbole and is also a bit paranoid.
The plaintiff most likely has been reading non-science activist sites or viewing some of the amateur videos on the internet, and freaked out because her neighbor had some satellite receiver dishes and maybe some radio antennas on his house (I personally have 3 satellite dishes with 2 LNBs on each dish and 5 radio antennas on my house , only 1 of those antennas transmits RF for my mobile phone. But, I live in a private secluded area and nobody can see my antenna array.

And, from what I know about microwave communications is that it is point-to-point line of site communications, and microwave does no penetrate trees, mountains or buildings. And when used as RADAR, the microwave beam is used for object location, meaning that it reflects off of objects, if it penetrated the objects, there would be no "blip" on the RADAR screen. Think about it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Rather than cast doubt on this story by discrediting the science, the judge and it's importance, I would think that your curiosity would be piqued and that you would do a little research. Here's a little help...

---

Aldo,

On this page you will find the PDF files which contain the report to the court regarding the microwave transmissions along with the credentials of the man doing the reporting. The paperwork which summarizes the findings of the court will be published shortly.

https://www.knowing-is-half-the-battle.com/

Coincidentally, this report came out today as well. It concerns a man in Napa who petitioned the government for information after he felt that he was wrongly accused of mental illness. This appears to be an actual DOD document which describes microwave capabilities …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fM9uls4-Y8

At this time I wish to state that I have witnesses who will verify that I am in good mental and physical condition, and I ask the community to witness any changes which occur in my health and well being and that of my family and friends. I am being threatened after releasing this story and can barely connect to Wacco to post. Now why would this be happening I wonder? Fortunately, the affects of microwave targeting are known ….

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

...You wrote that the "science" involved was that the lawyer used a tri-field meter and a field strenghth meter to determine that the "electronic harassment" was from a microwave transmitter because it was in the "microwave frequency range". There are two important reasons why this information is flawed, the first one is the fact that both a tri-field meter and a field strength meter DO NOT identify what frequency the electromagnetic radiation is transmitting at, only a frequency counter device can identify what frequency is being transmitted. The second one is the fact that there is no microwave frequency only range, microwave communications, RADAR and other microwave devices are allowed to operate in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band , but most of the UHF band is not used by microwave devices...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Aldo, On this page you will find the PDF files which contain the report to the court regarding the microwave transmissions along with the credentials of the man doing the reporting.

---

hey, I'm a computer programmer too, though not a professor like he is, and certainly not a certified gun loader. So can I testify in cases based on my hobbies too??

seriously, he may be a skilled hobbyist. But unless we accept the premise that all people with actual professional credentials in this field have been scared off by the threat of scaryVestedInterests(tm) et al., his prominance in the case is a signal of how weak the case is. He mixes his objective observations with undefended claims in his testimony - another red flag. I'm clearly a skeptic on this, but really I wouldn't use something like this to defend my position if that was the one being challenged. How hard can it be to get someone whose career centered on RF and microwaves, ideally with a research/academic background, to back this up?

art,

I looked at your half the battle link.it is pure whackery (whacky quackery)
I zoomed in and still much of the text is illegible, especially the dark blue text on the dark red background.
I looked at the drawing of the spectrum, and noticed that there was a band called "MICRO" right above the UHF band, I'm sorry but there is no band called MICRO at all, here are the frequency bands.

ELF Extremely Low Frequency
VLF Very Low Frequency
LF Low Frequency
MF Medium Frequency
HF High Frequency
VHF Very High Frequency
UHF Ultra High Frequency
SHF Super High Frequency
EHF Extremely High Frequency
THF Terra High Frequency.

I have a printout somewhere that lists the specific bands by kilohertz, megahertz, gigahertz and terahertz (hertz means cycles per second), but you should be able to easily find those frequencies in real numbers if you do an internet search.
If a judge is basing this restraining order case on the link that you provided, any good lawyer will shoot holes in it, heck even a non-lawyer like myself did it very easily.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Aldo,

On this page you will find the PDF files which contain the report to the court regarding the microwave transmissions along with the credentials of the man doing the reporting. The paperwork which summarizes the findings of the court will be published shortly.

https://www.knowing-is-half-the-battle.com/...

---

Aldo, Podfish …

I will forward your comments to those involved as I am not qualified to argue about the science. As I've said before I'm sure that symptoms of abuse and the fact that the judge had heard of similar abuse before probably played a role in this case. Also, I happen to know that there were many other victims of this abuse in the court room all with similar stories and meter readings, so that might also have played a role. There's actually quite a history of court cases dealing with this subject....

Personally, I'm more likely to believe a judge in a court of law then strangers on an online forum … no offense … just my opinion ….

more coverage of this:

https://beforeitsnews.com/spies-and-intelligence/2014/08/secretly-microwave-assaulted-mkultra-vcitims-2446568.html

and a personal note from the woman who won the case ...

Hi ..... we will have the court transcripts on Friday and then we will up load as soon as possible. That should put the nay sayers to rest . Thanks for letting Levi and I know.

and now this reporter is experiencing difficulties ....

https://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...s-3004542.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

more coverage of this:

https://beforeitsnews.com/spies-and-intelligence/2014/08/secretly-microwave-assaulted-mkultra-vcitims-2446568.html

and a personal note from the woman who won the case ...

Hi ..... we will have the court transcripts on Friday and then we will up load as soon as possible. That should put the nay sayers to rest . Thanks for letting Levi and I know.

---

another court case involving these technologies ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyEEE-o59xo&feature=share


and an upcoming conference about this in Brussels ...

https://www.covertharassmentconferen...pm95suo0tqtb64

Thanks for another hilarious video on You Tube, that really takes the cake for science fiction propaganda.
Tell me, what kind of brain dead idiot would let anyone implant multiple chips in their body ?
So far, you have not posted any information validating your original post that started this thread, so I take it all as another internet hoax.
I'll bet that the case was tossed before it even went to court. Come on, it wasn't microwave at all.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

another court case involving these technologies ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyEEE-o59xo&feature=share


and an upcoming conference about this in Brussels ...

https://www.covertharassmentconferen...pm95suo0tqtb64

---

Here is the transcript for the first case Aldo, ..

https://www.knowing-is-half-the-batt...criptsFull.pdf

and here's a write-up of the James Walbert case ...

https://rudy2.wordpress.com/james-wa...rep-jim-guest/

and who are you Aldo? ... would you mind telling me why you are such an expert about these court cases and why your opinions should even be considered when weighed against the proven decisions of the court?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

Thanks for another hilarious video on You Tube, that really takes the cake for science fiction propaganda.
Tell me, what kind of brain dead idiot would let anyone implant multiple chips in their body ?
So far, you have not posted any information validating your original post that started this thread, so I take it all as another internet hoax.
I'll bet that the case was tossed before it even went to court. Come on, it wasn't microwave at all.

---

boy, every time I think I'm done with this, something so egregious is presented that I get sucked back in.

from the court transcript, the "expert" says ridiculous things about microwaves on the (barely readable) around page 51. He's totally misrepresenting what the deal is with sine waves, square waves, and sawtooth waves. The shape of waves explains why a C-flat on a guitar sounds different than on an oboe, but it's not like the oboe will kill you but the guitar won't. (it's actually the other way around...) He returns to that when he talks about measuring the interference with her computer.
I don't understand why someone with the skills to use the test equipment would make such inane statements. Without those, I'd be interested in what might be the cause of the measurements he reports. But this is like someone testifying about the cause of the pest infestation in your house saying he has equipment that lets him listen for bugs because the drills they use make such a loud whining sound. I wouldn't let that guy put a tent over my house and pump it with chemicals!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Here is the transcript for the first case Aldo, ..

https://www.knowing-is-half-the-batt...criptsFull.pdf

---

Wow Podfish, I had no idea that you were so knowledgeable about microwaves ... I'll send your message along to the "expert" but I must say that he's totally overwhelmed with others who are complaining about the same abuse ....

As I've stated before, personally I trust the judicial system a tad more then a couple of complete strangers on the internet ... no offense intended ... Would you care to comment about the convention in Brussels? ... are those folks also less informed than you seem to be?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

boy, every time I think I'm done with this, something so egregious is presented that I get sucked back in....!

---

The whole thing was unreadable, I have never in my life seen such garbage posted on the internet.
And to top it off, there was no ruling at all made in this discombobulated bunch of words.
I did read most of it, what I got is that she had a cold (more like pneumonia), was seeing a psychiatrist, has hot flashes because she is way over 65 years old, had her credit wrecked by microwaves, has "acreage", has problems with illegal bicyclists and has mental problems beyond belief.
I really believe that laughing is very good for the mind, so I thank you Art for the laugh.
I certainly hope that you don't take this unresolved case seriously. It's a joke.
And, thank you Podfish for your insights, you are spot on.

[QUOTE=podfish;182602]boy, every time I think I'm done with this, something so egregious is presented that I get sucked back in./QUOTE]

now I'm laughing ... thank you ...

so you too know more then anyone else involved in the case including the judge? ... OK ...

and what are your qualifications again? ... and would you care to comment on the conference in Brussels?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

...
I really believe that laughing is very good for the mind, so I thank you Art for the laugh.
I certainly hope that you don't take this unresolved case seriously. It's a joke.
And, thank you Podfish for your insights, you are spot on.

---

and yes, she won her case .. according to Levi McCann "you will see at least twice, if not more, the court saying that Watterson has proven "Prima Facie" evidence and it stands in the court... Now in layman's terms that means that she won the entire case ".....

here's more coverage of it ...

https://libertasintel.wordpress.com/...nt-court-case/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

and yes, she won her case .. according to Levi McCann "you will see at least twice, if not more, the court saying that Watterson has proven "Prima Facie" evidence and it stands in the court... Now in layman's terms that means that she won the entire case ".....

here's more coverage of it ...

https://libertasintel.wordpress.com/...nt-court-case/

---

'winning her case' means she has a restraining order:

"So in summary, Kathleen received a conditional restraining order for electromagnetic frequency harassment with penalties of up to 2 years in prison and up to $5000 in fines for violation of the court order."

I'd be really interested in reading about a successful prosecution for violating this order. That's when she'd need to prove that such a thing actually happened. The other case you mentioned also was regarding a request for a restraining order. I'm curious enough to follow up - next time I see him, I'll ask a lawyer friend if restraining orders are as casually authorized as this one seemed to be. There certainly was no informed questioning of the 'technical expert's assertions. As the defendant's lawyer pointed out, the judge was acting as an advocate for the plaintiff since she wanted to serve as her own lawyer. I'd be interested in how well that aspect of the hearing goes over if there's ever any serious consequences. Note there are no fines mentioned, or any other real impact on the defendant. If, as I assert, the defendant is extremely unlikely to be able to use any form of "electromagnetic frequency" weapon, then the restraining order has zero meaning. This case does nothing to prove the reality of such harassment.

--- by the way, I have no opinion about whether he's trying to harass her or not. If indeed he pointed his dish antenna at her house, and he understood her fearfulness (which was probably pretty apparent) then he most likely did indeed want to freak her out. She may well deserve a restraining order against him. But there's still no evidence of any harm other than the very real emotional stress the plaintiff is reporting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Wow Podfish, I had no idea that you were so knowledgeable about microwaves ...

---

I'm stretching for an analogy.
The nonsense this "expert" says about square waves, sawtooth waves, etc. mixed in with his apparent knowledge of the real tools used to measure electromagnetic radiation is rather incongruous and confusing. It's as if a car mechanic who just did a perfectly adequate tuneup told you that leaving your blinkers on too long will cause heart disease, and using windshield wipers when it's only a little foggy will disrupt your sleep patterns. Apparently he can handle some things requiring a reasonable amount of technical knowledge, but he sure has an over-excited imagination.

Ham radio operators are only licensed to operate radio equipment, they are not licensed to operate any microwave equipment.
Ham radio operators are usually kind and considerate of their nearby neighbors when operating their radio transmitters, some of them are quite powerful and unlike microwave these radio antennas are omni-directional, meaning that they transmit radiofrequency radiation in all directions.
It sounds like this old lady was a bit paranoid and thought that the radio antennas were actually microwave dishes. She probably complained to the defendant and he just played on her fear and lack of knowledge. In other words, he was just messing with her mind and intimidating her in retaliation for her being a kook.
There were no microwaves involved in this case, just possibly some harassment.
No court would ever order a ham radio operator to give up his license and hobby just because of some paranoid old lady who mistakenly thinks that radio antennas are actually microwave antennas. And, since radio antennas are omni directional (except for a YAGI), I could see where a judge would forbid the defendant from pointing a YAGI antenna at the plaintiffs house from now on. The only reason that the defendant pointed his satellite dishes or YAGI antennas at the plaintiff's house was to harass her, there are no signals to receive from her house.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I'm stretching for an analogy.
The nonsense this "expert" says about square waves, sawtooth waves, etc. mixed in with his apparent knowledge of the real tools used to measure electromagnetic radiation is rather incongruous and confusing. It's as if a car mechanic who just did a perfectly adequate tuneup told you that leaving your blinkers on too long will cause heart disease, and using windshield wipers when it's only a little foggy will disrupt your sleep patterns. Apparently he can handle some things requiring a reasonable amount of technical knowledge, but he sure has an over-excited imagination.

---

Once again Podfish or Aldo, would you care to comment on the link which I supplied about the conference in Brussels?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Once again Podfish or Aldo, would you care to comment on the link which I supplied about the conference in Brussels?

---

sorry, but I'm not sure what you expect in way of comment. I looked at the link, and sure nuff there's a conference. It doesn't look very technical to me, and I don't see how it pertains here.

to summarize my observations in this thread:
- there's nothing that counts as serious evidence that any real attempt at projecting microwaves has occurred.
- there's no finding by any court that such a thing has occurred
- the 'expert' says some very odd things, that don't make sense to anyone who has even a moderate amount of relevant knowledge.

However: it is indeed possible for microwaves to be aimed at a person, and if they were it would be potentially hazardous to a person's health. It's also possible the expert was clumsily trying to simplify concepts for a non-technical audience. But I don't have any reason to believe that either of those two things happened here.

Once again Podfish, if you are going to challenge the decisions that have been made by a court of law I think that it would be wise to state your qualifications ... if this is just personal opinion then that's what it is ... if on the other hand you are an expert in such matters then that would be something else ...

Also, most people, when faced with information like this would do a little research??? .... I can supply tons of links to scientists, global support groups, patents, lawsuits, etc. if you like ....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

sorry, but I'm not sure what you expect in way of comment. I looked at the link, and sure nuff there's a conference. It doesn't look very technical to me, and I don't see how it pertains here.

to summarize my observations in this thread:
- there's nothing that counts as serious evidence that any real attempt at projecting microwaves has occurred.
- there's no finding by any court that such a thing has occurred
- the 'expert' says some very odd things, that don't make sense to anyone who has even a moderate amount of relevant knowledge.

However: it is indeed possible for microwaves to be aimed at a person, and if they were it would be potentially hazardous to a person's health. It's also possible the expert was clumsily trying to simplify concepts for a non-technical audience. But I don't have any reason to believe that either of those two things happened here.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Once again Podfish, if you are going to challenge the decisions that have been made by a court of law I think that it would be wise to state your qualifications ... if this is just personal opinion then that's what it is ... if on the other hand you are an expert in such matters then that would be something else ...

Also, most people, when faced with information like this would do a little research??? .... I can supply tons of links to scientists, global support groups, patents, lawsuits, etc. if you like ....

---

you're now being (deliberately) obtuse. I explicitly pointed out that the judge made NO DECISION regarding the existence of harassment, at least according to the materials you supplied. The judge gave an injunction AGAINST FUTURE harassment. I see nothing in any of your links that consists of a finding that such an 'attack' has been made. So I did not "challenge the court". I did a little research (I read your links) and that's all they said.
And hell yes I'm an 'expert' by the standards that the deposed computer science professor uses to establish his own expertise. And it doesn't take an expert to say his representation of the nature of microwaves as square waves or sawtooth waves is nonsense. I've expressed a willingness to accept a deeper explanation from him, that he was deliberately and clumsily oversimplifying his description of wave behavior for a non-technical audience, but without a cross-examination or without testimony from another technically competent witness we'll apparently never know if he believes the explanations at face value. By the way, experience setting up wi-fi is NOT the same as having qualifications as an RF engineer. He's a software guy. Like in so many controversies that reach the public, you have people testifying outside their specialty but that isn't apparent to the average joe.

You're also very profligate in the links you give. You seem to swing from interest in a specific case to the broader issues of the purported gangstalker use of radiant weaponry; the only way I can imagine you found the Brussels conference relevant is that it shows that there's enough interest in that broad topic to draw a paying crowd, thus by association the concept must have some validity. I don't care to get into that debate. But there's yet to be presented a specific instance that is indisputably a radiant attack on an individual. Neither of the court cases you mention are anything more than issuance of a restraining order (again, judging by the links you provide). When either miscreant is convicted and fined or jailed for such an attack, by all means re-open this thread!