>>414114 (last bread)
>Apparently you are assuming that remote mind control requires an implant in the subject? I do not assume that at all.
>Moreover, with >1 transmitting source (all electronic devices in the vicinity containing semiconductor components), a beam could be triangulated and focused on a subject.
No, I did not assume a requirement for an implant in order to gain mind control, I assume a desire for reliability on the part of those engaging in mind control; in terms of time frame given the timetable of what the controllers might want to accomplish.
Want complete mind control? Use Scopolamine and you'll get it, but the handler has to be there on site. Way too many mass shootings with reports of a "second shooter" that go down the memory hole. Could be a handler and the publicly identified shooter is completely soaped.
Yes, I do understand what can be done at the intersection of two broadcast signals, but again, in terms of reliability an implant is something the subject cannot escape and can be controlled by a single input signal.
We know that there are individuals who have been subjected to ritual abuse that fractured their minds into multiple personalities and they've been trained to do things and are very useful. I'm not talking about such people, I'm talking about disposable people in a truly cheap and disposable way.
Q said that they locate "pre disposable to mental illness" (Love the Linguistics of that) and they track and monitor them, later to be given TREATMENT.
Q did NOT SAY what the TREATMENT was that the shooters had received. We assume that psychotropics is part of that if not all of that treatment. However, the treatment might include hypnotism and/or an implant. Read the Liu paper.
I believe that we are to determine what the TREATMENT actually is in order to determine whether the shooters had received it.