A recent MIT study [1] calls into question the effectiveness of Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies. However, there are serious flaws in this study, not the least of which is a complete mischaracterization of the process of psychotronic mind control. I theorize that the study is, in fact, NWO propaganda designed to spread FUD against deflector beanie technology, and aluminum shielding in general, in order to disembeanie paranoids, leaving them open to mind control.

First and foremost, Rahimi et al. only considered simple radio frequencies. As I explained in detail in chapter 4 ("Psychotronic and AFDB Theory") of my book [2], only psychotronic energy can affect the brain in any coherent manner. Simple EM fields have only trivial effects -- such as causing indistinct sensations of a supernatural presence [3] -- over short distances. Only by converting electromagnetic energy into psychotronic energy using a psychotron-based device can the forces of mind control access from afar the neural network of a brain to both implant and extract thought complexes.

FIGURE 1: An AFDB-covered brain (A) is shielded by a repulsive resonance buffer (B), which deflects psychotronic fields (C). Coherent psychotronic rays (D) are defected at the aluminum surface (E) and decoherently scattered (F). The resonance buffer encapsulates the brain (G), providing basal protection against fields and glancing rays.

As illustrated in Figure 1, unlike with the mere attenuation of EM fields, aluminum deflects psychotronic fields and coherent psychotronic rays. The operational modalities of AFDBs for EM and psychotronic energies are completely different, and thus the experiment conducted by Rahimi et al. is inappropriate to test the effectiveness of deflector beanie technology in stopping mind control.

Besides the experiment's unsuitability, the experimental procedures themselves appear flawed. The measuring of the signal was described by Rahimi et al. as follows:

The receiver antenna was placed at various places on the cranium of 4 different subjects: the frontal, occipital and parietal lobes. Once with the helmet off and once with the helmet on.

FIGURE 2: (A) Excessively pointy omnidirectional antenna. (B) Chef's Pride brand foil (photo enhanced).

But the antenna shown in Figure 2 on their site would not possibly be able to fit under the helmets while on a head, at least not without awk­wardly balancing the helmet counter to best practices or punc­turing the foil. If the antenna was instead placed on the outside of the helmets, as seems most likely from the description, then that calls into question the entire conclusion: If the amp­lifi­cation effect is measured only on the helmet outside, then that suggests that the helmet is reflecting the EM radiation away from the wearer's brain.

Oddly, Rahimi et al. make a great deal about the price of their equipment, noting the US$250,000 price tag of their Agilent 8714ET network analyser three times in their short paper. What relevance is this to the conclusion? I believe its a subtle way of discouraging people from replicating the experiment at home.

There's another odd discrepancy in their procedure description: While they say that the test helmets were made of Reynolds aluminum foil, in the lower left of Fig. 2 ("B" in enhanced version above) one can clearly see a box of Chef's Pride brand foil on their work bench next to the completed helmets. Well, Rahimi et al., which is it?

They conclude the paper as follows:

It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC.

The "current helmet craze" may indeed have been propagated by government forces, but that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of AFDBs or their non-crazed use by sensible paranoids. It is a common MO of the NWO and allied conspirators to disingenuously promote that which they aspire to destroy. The current rise in joking references to AFDBs -- which is what Rahimi et al. are referring to by "the current helmet craze" -- is most likely a calculated ploy to scare off would be paranoids from the mental protection of foil. That the forces of mind control are bothering to do this is itself evidence of the effectiveness of AFDBs.

The most important question raised by the Rahimi et al. study is: Should paranoids trust people working for an organization deeply involved in the Military-Industrial Complex? While Rahimi, the lead investigator whose site the paper is hosted on, is from MIT's EE and CS departments, the et al. (Ben Recht, Jason Taylor, and Noah Vawter) are from MIT's notorious Media Lab, which receives funding from DARPA [4] -- one of those government agencies they pretend to be concerned about. When it comes to mind control, they are hardly an unbiased party. That, combined with the aforementioned discrepancies and questionable procedures, makes their conclusions highly suspect.

1. "On the Effectiveness of Aluminium Foil Helmets: An Empirical Study". Ali Rahimi, Ben Recht, Jason Taylor, Noah Vawter. MIT website, Feb 17 2005.
2. Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie: Practical Mind Control Protection for Paranoids. Lyle Zapato. Paladin Press, 2003.
3. E.g.: "Experimental induction of the 'sensed presence' in normal subjects and an exceptional subject". Cook CM, Persinger MA. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1997 Oct.
4. Most relevant here, a Media Lab research group called "Society of the Mind" (secret societies have long been involved in mind control) is involved in the DARPA funded CHIP: Comprehensive Human Intelligence Project, which "aims to develop a 'Cognitive Architecture' inspired by the observed structure and dynamics of the human brain/mind system" and is part of a larger DARPA program called Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architecture. DARPA gave Media Lab US$1,032,627 for this black project, about which no information can be found.

UPDATE: More details on the antenna problems and the connection with the Negroponte brothers in my post Rahimi Gets Popular.