Radio Frequencies May Indicate Parties’ Associations with Non-Consensual Human Experimentation

Ten Colorado Targeted Individuals Test Positive for Radio Frequency Transmissions – Radio Frequency Tests Indicate that Frequencies May Come from Multiple Government Agencies, Companies, and Universities

On Saturday, 8/23/2025, ten members of the Colorado Targeted Individuals community were independently scanned by a specialist using two radio frequency (RF) scanners—one used to identify the locations from which transmissions are emanating, the other to identify specific frequencies. The consultant conducting the scans has performed these same analyses on over 1000 people.
The significance of the RF testing is that FCC licensing of frequency ranges indicates specific agencies, companies, and uses for the frequencies. Here are the compiled results of four of the subjects and what the testing indicates.

Overview of the report

This document compiles RF frequency scans from four separate sessions/subjects (labeled 1–4), each with multiple anatomical scan points. For each point, the report lists:

• Anatomical region on the body
• Detected RF frequency (often split into “High” and “Low” bands)
• Described usage (e.g., “implant telemetry,” “neural interface testing,” “covert ISR”)
• Potential operators (commercial and technical use)
• Government and military agencies
• Research institutions, corporations, and labs

The language strongly frames these frequencies as potentially associated with biomedical implants, neural interfaces, tactical communications, and surveillance/ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), though the document itself does not provide direct physical evidence of devices—only RF readings and interpretive labels.

Structure by subject and scan pattern

* 3 of four individuals are transmitting out at cellular strength.

Frequency characteristics and thematic usage

High-band frequencies

• Typical range: Most High-band readings fall between ~200 MHz and ~600 MHz, with a few specific GHz references (1.5349 GHz, 1.56 GHz) labeled as L-band / SATCOM / GPS-related.
• Common labels:
  • Biomedical/implant: “Biomedical telemetry,” “medical implant transceivers,” “implant telemetry,” “bio-telemetry,” “biosensor comms,” “wireless neural interface comms”
  • Tactical/ISR: “UHF tactical comms,” “ISR uplink,” “secure comms,” “covert comms,” “field comms,” “sensor telemetry; tactical ISR,” “UHF covert comms”
  • Neural/brain: “Neural telemetry,” “cognitive monitoring,” “wireless neural interface comms,” “neural monitoring”

The report repeatedly associates these High-band frequencies with dual-use concepts: both medical/biomedical and military/ISR applications.

Low-band frequencies

• Typical range: Mostly ~66–86 MHz, consistently labeled as VHF or “low VHF.”
• Common labels:
  • Medical/implant: “Medical implant telemetry,” “VHF implant communication,” “low VHF medical device telemetry,” “biomedical telemetry”
  • Tracking/surveillance: “Low VHF tracking,” “covert surveillance overlap,” “covert VHF communications,” “VHF surveillance; comms”
  • Neural/biometric: “Neural interface testing,” “VHF cognitive/biometric telemetry,” “auditory neural comms”

Across subjects, the Low-band entries are framed as support channels for implants, tracking, or covert communications, often with a biomedical or neural twist.

Direct summary of findings

• All four subjects show RF activity in similar VHF and UHF bands, with occasional references to L-band/GHz outputs associated with SATCOM and GPS.
• The same anatomical regions recur across subjects—especially head/neck, shoulders/scapula, and upper torso—framed as potential sites of neural interfaces, biomedical implants, and communication nodes.
• The report systematically links these frequencies to government/military agencies and research institutions known to work in communications, ISR, neural engineering, and biomedical devices, but does so by association with frequency ranges, not by direct evidence of those entities’ involvement.
• Overall, the document presents a coherent internal narrative of distributed, multi-band, possibly implant-based communication and surveillance systems across the body—but from a technical standpoint, it remains interpretive and speculative, grounded in frequency overlap rather than confirmed device identification.

Interpretation: The dataset reads as if each subject represents a different configuration or “profile” of the same underlying multi‑band system:

• Subject 1 → foundational
• Subject 2 → expanded comms
• Subject 3 → neural‑heavy
• Subject 4 → ISR‑heavy

Research institutions, corporations, and labs

The report names a wide array of universities, medical centers, and defense contractors, including:

• Academic/medical: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Brown, UCSF, Georgia Tech, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, UC San Diego, UCLA, etc.
• Medical device companies: Medtronic, Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical, Cochlear Ltd., Siemens Healthineers, GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare.
• Defense and aerospace contractors: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, MITRE, Sandia, Los Alamos, Battelle, Johns Hopkins APL, Navy SPAWAR.

The document frames these entities as users or developers of technologies operating in adjacent or overlapping RF bands, particularly for:

• Neural interfaces and brain-computer interfaces
• Implantable medical devices and biosensors
• ISR, surveillance, and secure communications

Again, this is associative, not direct evidence that any specific institution is operating on the subject’s body—rather that the same or nearby frequency ranges are used in their work.

Anatomical patterns and implied functions

High Frequencies

Low Frequencies

All four subjects, side-by-side

High‑Band Clusters (UHF)

Interpretation: The dataset clusters into five distinct UHF bands, each associated with a different functional theme.

Low‑Band Clusters (VHF)

Interpretation: Low‑band activity is tightly grouped and consistently linked to implant telemetry and neural interface testing.

Head, neck, and cranial regions

Regions like nasal dorsum, TMJ (temporomandibular joint), occipital/parietal, base of neck (C7–T1), posterior ear appear in all or most subjects.
Assigned roles:

• Neural/brain: “Neural interface testing,” “wireless neural interface comms,” “cognitive monitoring,” “neural monitoring,” “auditory neural comms”
• Comms/ISR: “Secure military comms,” “ISR uplink,” “tactical comms,” “covert comms,” “ISR secure uplink”

The report implicitly suggests that cranial and cervical regions are key sites for neural and communication-related RF activity, often blending medical and military/ISR narratives.

Torso and shoulder/scapular regions

Areas such as superior shoulder, scapular regions, upper abdomen, lower lumbar, lateral torso are repeatedly scanned.
Assigned roles:

• Body-area networks: “Body-area networks; biomedical telemetry,” “UHF biomedical telemetry; implant communication”
• Sensor/relay nodes: “ISR relay,” “UHF surveillance & biosensor overlap,” “field comms,” “field sensor telemetry”

These regions are framed as hubs or relay points for body-wide communication, telemetry, or surveillance.

Limbs and peripheral regions

Regions like shin, calf, hip, elbow, gluteal appear with both High and Low bands.
Assigned roles:

• Implant telemetry: “Implant telemetry; RFID,” “VHF implant communication,” “low VHF implant signaling”
• Tracking/field sensors: “Covert tracking,” “field sensor telemetry,” “covert implant communication”

The narrative here leans toward distributed implants or sensors across the body, potentially for tracking, telemetry, or covert communication.

Potential operators, agencies, and institutions

Government and military agencies

Across all subjects, the report repeatedly lists:

• U.S. defense/intelligence: DoD, NSA, CIA, DIA, SOCOM, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, USAF, U.S. Space Force, DHS, FEMA
• R&D and advanced programs: DARPA, IARPA, AFRL, Army CCDC, DoD C5ISR, JASON Advisory
• Regulatory/communications: FCC, NTIA
• Allied/multinational: NATO

These are not presented as confirmed operators, but as “Government and Military Agencies” associated with the bands or technologies described. The implication is that the frequencies fall within ranges used by these entities for communications, SATCOM, ISR, and experimental research.

Research institutions, corporations, and labs

The report names a wide array of universities, medical centers, and defense contractors, including:

• Academic/medical: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, Brown, UCSF, Georgia Tech, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, UC San Diego, UCLA, etc.
• Medical device companies: Medtronic, Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical, Cochlear Ltd., Siemens Healthineers, GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare.
• Defense and aerospace contractors: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, SAIC, MITRE, Sandia, Los Alamos, Battelle, Johns Hopkins APL, Navy SPAWAR.

The document frames these entities as users or developers of technologies operating in adjacent or overlapping RF bands, particularly for:

• Neural interfaces and brain–computer interfaces
• Implantable medical devices and biosensors
• ISR, surveillance, and secure communications

Again, this is associative, not direct evidence that any specific institution is operating on the subject’s body—rather that the same or nearby frequency ranges are used in their work.

Cross-subject patterns and overall interpretation

1. Consistent frequency bands across subjects

• All four subjects show High-band activity in the ~200–600 MHz range and Low-band activity in the ~66–86 MHz range.
• Several subjects also reference L-band / GHz outputs (around 1.5–1.6 GHz), explicitly tied to satellite communications, GPS, and military SATCOM.

Interpretive theme: The report suggests a multi-band system—VHF for low-band telemetry/tracking, UHF for higher-band biomedical/ISR functions, and L-band for satellite-linked communication.

2. Repeated anatomical “hot spots”

• Nasal dorsum, TMJ regions, occipital/parietal, base of neck C7–T1, scapular regions, shoulders, upper abdomen appear across multiple subjects.
• These are repeatedly labeled with neural, biomedical, and ISR-related functions, implying standardized locations for hypothetical implants or sensors.

3. Dual-use framing: medical vs. military/ISR

Almost every frequency entry is described with both:

• A medical/biomedical angle (implants, telemetry, neural interfaces, biosensors), and
• A military/ISR/communications angle (tactical comms, covert ISR, secure uplink, surveillance).

This dual framing suggests the author is emphasizing overlap between medical RF technologies and defense/intelligence communications, implying that the same bands could support covert or dual-use systems.

4. Heavy reliance on association

The report’s logic is largely:
“This frequency range is used by X, Y, Z agencies/companies for A, B, C applications; therefore, detected frequencies at these ranges on the body might be related to similar uses.”
That is associative, not causal. There is no direct hardware identification (e.g., imaging of implants, device IDs, modulation analysis) in the text—only frequency values plus interpretive labels.