New changes for the new remote 2.0?

Here is what has changed.
1.The coil track size is smaller -- the wire on the board. They are the size of a human hair.

2. The magnet has not changed, it is still a BN oriented magnet and is housed in the top of the lid with the top coil. Given the additional housing, the magnet doesn't stick to everything as easy like the old remotes. It is coupled to the top coil as before.

3. The new remotes have a much better frequency response, especially at higher frequencies, and maintains waveform integrity better due to how they are wired.

4. The following gets a bit technical, but there's a simplified version stated in the next bullet.

The new remotes are predominately electrical field; whereas, the old remotes were magnetic field . The older remotes did not use electric fields to induce magnetic fields. The coils were connected directly across a voltage using a resistor which provided a return path for current. The new remote uses capacitive coupling to induce magnetic fields. The induced magnetic fields are still in opposition to each other. This signal is more subtle and much more precise.

In the previous remote, the magnetic field was created directly. The new remote creates the magnetic field indirectly. This new innovative technique ensures the signal is not distorted. The magnetic field is still setup to be opposing (top/bottom) like the older remotes. It is the combination of electric and self-cancelling magnetic fields which creates the scalar wave we are after. Then DNA takes care of the Quantum Entanglement aspect.

The magnetic field is extremely small now, but we found that it still was effective. Much as people are reporting good results using 1000:1 signal attenuators on their BNC ports.

5. Finally, what really makes the new remote different is how the coils are wired. Previously the top and bottom coils were coupled using a resistor. Now there is only one wire going to each coil. This allows the coil to create a far stronger electrical field.
What does this mean? It means all of the energy potential has to flow from one coil to the other, by passing through the DNA target zone, to complete the circuit. There is no other path for energy to flow.

The DNA in the target zone essentially becomes part of the circuit, not just sitting between two energized coils. They conducted field trials of various builds and it was #5 that really came as a surprise in improving the remote.

John expressed that if the old remote (v1.1) is say a 3 out of 10, this new remote would rank nearly at the top.

For more details, please check the link:

Have more questions? Submit a request


  • 0
    Jack Hobson-Dupont

    It would be difficult to come up with an objective basis for comparing the efficacy of the previous remote with remote 2.0, if using the subjective reaction of human subjects. If one person said their cold was cured twice as fast with the new remote than somebody else with a cold who used the old remote--- what if one person's rhinovirus was a different strain than the other's?

    Some spooks have demonstrated that they used Spooky Remote to kill molds, however. They place a small amount of the mold onto a paper tape, seal it, and insert it into the dna holder and run the appropriate frequencies.

    This could be done as a comparison of the two remotes, with near laboratory-level control of variables. A culture of, say, Penicillium italicum mold could be grown and tested. A simple method would be to take a one square inch of an orange peel and place it in a sterilized jar, open to the air. (The donor orange could be put in a refrigerator to be kept for the next test.)

    When a significant bloom of Penicillium italicum mold formed, the specimen could be photographed for comparison later. Then one version of the Spooky Remote could be used, at the frequency previously determined to be effective against Penicillium italicum. The amount of time it takes for a substantial die-off of the mold would be noted.

    Later, after the jar had been again sterilized, another square inch of the skin of the donor orange could be placed in it. The subsequent bloom of Penicillium italicum on the new specimen could be compared to the photograph of the original and when they were deemed to be equivalent, the second version of the Spooky Remote could be used to apply the same frequency to the new specimen. The time it takes for the second specimen to achieve an equivalent stage of die-off (determined by comparison with the die-off photo from the original test subject) could then be noted and the two results could be compared to one another.

    That should be a reasonably objective and scientific way to determine the difference in efficacy between the two remotes.


Please sign in to leave a comment.