Letter to Jesse Beltran

Subject: Formal Technical Challenge and Request for Data – ICAACT Phase III Review

---

Dear Mr. Beltran,

This letter serves as a formal response and technical challenge regarding your work with ICAACT Phase III and the ongoing use of the ACECO FC1003 frequency counter to detect alleged RF-emitting implants.

As a licensed TSCM professional, I have conducted an in-depth forensic review of your methodology, equipment, and public claims. The conclusion is clear: your current approach lacks scientific credibility and fails to meet the basic standards of RF signal detection and classification.

Additionally, I previously offered training and consultation to help correct these errors and elevate your methodology to a professional standard. That offer was ignored.

---

⚠️ Your Equipment Is Not Capable of What You Claim

Your Phase III testing relied on the ACECO FC1003 — a $150 handheld frequency counter — to detect covert RF emissions allegedly originating from inside a Faraday cage.

Based on manufacturer specifications, engineering analysis, and real-world test replication, I have confirmed the following:

• The FC1003 has a sensitivity threshold around –55 dBm (or worse at higher frequencies)
• Its “Hold” button can freeze false signals, misleading observers into thinking a transmission is present
• It lacks waterfall analysis, RBW control, FFT, or any demodulation tools
• When antenna placement introduces capacitive coupling, body discharge, or ambient RF reflections, the device can generate spurious readouts

In short, this device is incapable of identifying weak, covert, or sub-noise-floor RF transmissions — the very kind you claim to detect.

---

❗ Evidence of Methodological Flaws or Manipulation

My detailed review shows that your current process may involve:

• Holding the FC1003 near body tissue where static discharge or ground potential difference causes a false spike
• Pressing the “Hold” button at the moment of transient noise, then misrepresenting that locked value as proof of an implant
• Presenting this result without IQ data, no signal classification, no waterfall trace, and no replication in a controlled environment

If done knowingly, this is not just error — it is technical deception.

---

🔬 You Owe the Community Real Evidence

You have positioned yourself as an advocate for victims of electronic harassment. But selling or promoting unscientific claims to desperate individuals can waste their time, ruin legal cases, and lead them away from real forensic solutions.

If your claims are valid, I am formally requesting the following:

1. IQ Data

Provide raw IQ recordings of any alleged detected signals. Without this, the signal cannot be verified, replayed, or demodulated.

2. Waterfall Plots

Show visual frequency-over-time plots from the scan. These are standard in RF signal verification.

3. Signal Classification

Explain how you determined that the captured frequencies:

• Were not harmonics, spurs, or ambient interference
• Were continuous, modulated transmissions
• Originated from within the body

4. Test Reproducibility

Provide documentation that shows:

• Multiple replicable scans
• Blind test conditions
• Shielding performance verification
• Consistency of signal over time and location

---

🧠 Offer of Training Was Ignored

I previously offered to help you correct your methods — for free. You chose instead to continue down a path of pseudoscientific misapplication, while threatening legal action against critics who expose the truth.

If your methods cannot withstand professional scrutiny, your focus should not be on lawsuits — it should be on learning the correct science.

---

🛡️ First Amendment & Legal Position

Let me be absolutely clear:

All of my critiques are based on verifiable technical facts, manufacturer specifications, and published engineering standards. As a certified professional, I have both the right and the responsibility to speak out when public claims endanger vulnerable individuals.

Truthful, expert critique is protected by the First Amendment. Attempting to silence critics with legal threats is not only unethical — it’s a sign of a failing argument.

---

⚖️ Closing Notice

If you wish to restore credibility and protect the community from misinformation:

• Accept a public, recorded technical debate
• Submit your raw data and methodology to neutral third-party engineers
• Cease promotion of scanning protocols that lack scientific validity

If you continue to present pseudoscientific scans as evidence of covert implants, I will escalate this to consumer protection authorities, legal observers, and continue publishing fact-based technical rebuttals.

Sincerely,
########
Licensed TSCM Professional
CyberTorture.com Contributor