ShadowWatcher

I fly fpv drones, we use 5.8 gigahertz to relay video back to our headsets. I don't know of anyone who has flown over three miles away without use of a ground station, which is a highly boosted antenna for lack of better words. The point is, the range of 5G is not very far, why would they put 5G up in space? You would need another station roughly every 3 miles till the signal got to the ground. Kind of like a ladder of antennas. This is just what I have found from using it, if we could fly further than that away, trust me we would!

Pollycracker

Brussels bans 5G. If it's not good enough for the New World Order it should not be good enough for the USA.

iamlegion

Good thing psyop faggots, ex intel faggots, and every other lame brained faggots don't do real research.

  • A) Cryptological Aspects of ESP; https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/nsa-rdp96x00790r000100030008-7

  • CIA declassified document of an NSA document—

  • Outlines predecessors to ionization and radiation dosing—

  • Outlines predecessors to war theatre and false flags—

  • Outlines predecessors to using stress as a tool—

  • Outlines predecessors to using pharmacology as a tool—

  • Outlines predecessors to using GeoEngineering to block/excite/track adepts


B) Torture, targeted stalking is equal to or greater than the existence of the Foundlings https://imgur.com/a/u2b1IswImgur Album appearances AND abductions;

lead us to surmise that we are being harvested, bread, or kidnapped for the explicit intent of making children evolve their latent abilities. ie., -- Druish practices -- Occult Arts (devolving into 'satanism') -- occult and secrete schools appearing and disappearing periodically -- and persian sex cults persisting into pedophilia, homosexuality, and trans-humanism


C) H.R. 2977 https:/ /www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2977/text

Section 7 / B This bill is aimed at clearly defining space as a clear zone from these weapons, while stating the bill does NOT exclude their current usages https://imgur.com/a/rrpdqYNImgur Album

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as-- (i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons; (ii) chemtrails; (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems; (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons; (v) laser weapons systems; (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.


I submit that A, B, C are part of the same program(s) which have been disguised as a benefit when in-fact, they are seek and destroy, or seek and control mechanisms on all humans on any landmass, bodies of water, or air space.

Weapons in section B are currently deployed and disguised as commercial products under the guidance of the CIA and NSA and used as a conquer and control mechanism against personal agency or group initiative.

NOTE: this would benefit from seasoned PG researchers offering correlations or refuting claims where needed, however, this one document does represent the polestar for many of the technologies and social issues you are all investigating.

———————

Bonus material:

I should note, for reference, as it relates to religious people and their practices/myths:

If you have been brutalized, raped, beaten senseless, molested, tortured or —worse?;

A collection of lamentations from Dumuzid entitled "In the Desert by The Early Grass" describes;

“Damu, the "dead anointed one", being dragged down to the Underworld by Demons, who blindfolded him, tie him up, and forbid him from sleeping.”

Consider the Vatican Church's statue/installation, positioned behind the Pope. This would be the church the ED from OuterDark clearly indicates is a snake head (Horned Viper? Oldest family line?).

The Statue reflects this story, and the process of ritual abuse used to create "adepts" or "gifted" ones. The anointed one is an allusion to what they do their "adepts" once spotted or identified—if they try to be "good"

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KSOxOirh0NU/TqnNF-Wgg4I/AAAAAAAACn0/HeMplWHl5RQ/s640/Pope%252C+Cardinals.jpgJPG

Does this look like Christ, or a replication of the story of Damu? I don't think "good" has ever existed and anyone who actually believes in good; are dealt with like this in order to avoid a contagion into their 'ancient' rites and methods. And as a part of the greater alchemical principles of energy, thought-transference, esp, psi—whatever you want to call it, fear will always draw our attentions elsewhere and into a void of our own self-making.

We have it backwards. And that is why we always lose.

I have permission to share OP's original work. https://voat.co/v/technology/3119283

TraditionalCode0

I have this saying "Synchronicity is God's way of saying you're onto something."

So when I saw this post, I though I might post a response going into the information/signal being transferred to your head as 'the point' as much as any 'energy weapon'.....but decided against because I didn't want the grief.

So I left VOAT and on a lark, seached YouTube for one of my favorite guitarists, Robin Trower... when what popped up ??? I'd forgotten about Barrie Trower's life work. Or had I?

So 'God' sends a message.............a link. Happy Sychronicity.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trower+5G

TraditionalCode0

Weaponizing 'space'. Hence The Space Force

PathogenAlpha

Sending those satelites into orbit is an act of war .

India, Russia, China, and other countries out there will not allow those 5G units to take up stationary orbit around the planet.

We are going to see missiles being sent up into orbit to destroy those units..

WakkoWarner

How do you prove that something is safe?

Take nuts for instance, we ate nuts fomr pretty much all our history, so it would be reasonable to think they are safe. Yet, in some cases, especially lately, many persons literally risk their life eating them.

So, at most, you can prove something is unsafe, or unsafe in some cases, but you can never really prove something is safe. Life is dangerous, things that are safe for me might be deadly for you. What should we do? Stop any kind of progress because we are scared that it might, somehow, hurt us?

Now, asking that some tests should be conducted before deploying 5G worldwide is reasonable. Asking the impossible, like "prove it's safe" is not.

Emily10103

....Now you can train your cat to do handshake with you and your guests They will impress from your cat https://petscare100.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/train-your-cat-to-do-handshake-with-you/

Stop your dog from barking

https://petscare100.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/train-your-dog-from-no-barking

Emily10103

....

SYNCORSWIM

5G shills

Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby

There is no radio frequency that has enough energy to have biological impact. This fear of 5G is moronic.

badruns

Yeah, that school in California where 3 kids and 3 teachers got cancer from the cell tower on the top of the school were just making things up. Also the NYC firemen who reported concentration and memory problems until the towers at their station were removed were just imagining things. Also the reports of these cell phone tower workers experiencing infertility for weeks until they ceased working at the towers was just made up. Also this study in particular should be ignored

https://youtu.be/y4JDEspdx58

It's almost as if they do cause issues depending on the strength of the signal...

Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby

You are awash in electromagnetic radiation all the time. There has never been a time in your life that you have not been. But there are no radio or cell frequencies that are narrow enough to cause biological activity. Microwaves don't even penetrate past the surface and those only heat by quickly oscillating the polarity of the field - causing water molecules to flip back and forth.

But NONE of that is relevant to cell towers. The whole idea is preposterous and speaks to a real ignorance about what this technology is.

I am sure you can find anecdotes for everything and RT articles or nature news articles. But none of them have a plausible testable hypothesis for what these low frequency bands could do and the claims being made fly in the face of physics.

badruns

You're retarded - signal strength is an inverse square relationship.

You are awash in electromagnetic radiation all the time. There has never been a time in your life that you have not been.

No shit, but there's a big difference between the sun which is millions of miles away and working directly underneath a transmission tower.

Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby

The energy coming out of those towers is no stronger than a street light. But it does not matter how close it is - the wavelength the highest energy band is 3mm. That is WAY too big to interact with chemical bonds or interfere with any biological processes. Compare that to UVB which has a wavelength of 320 to 400 nm - which is small enough to interfere with any place along the strand that has two thymine bases in a row. Those light frequencies are sufficient to generate oxygen free radicals - but this is all millions of times smaller than the wavelength of 5G.

So it does not matter how much energy you dump into a transmitter at anywhere from 3 to 90 ghz - its not going cause any biological responses. I think you should look at the evidence offered in support of that hypothesis with more skepticism. You might want to attempt to look for verification or at least understand what mechanism they are offering as the possible response. What was shown that i have seen does not lend me confidence about their claims.

badruns

If what you say is true, why do European contries issue guidelines about exposure limits? Are you suggesting they are being foolish?

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

The only study that was done in the US that I was aware of was decades ago: it used mice - those mice got cancer at triple the rate of the control group. This was hand-waved away because "mice often get cancer". Here's a more recent one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm

Are you going to actually show anything backing up what you're spouting, or keep parroting your preconceived notion in the face of what should be common sense at this point?

Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, right?

Toroidal

The Sun does the same thing. That being said, wear your UV protection.

qwop

Does sunlight pass through opaque materials? Can sunlight penetrate deep into opaque substances, and interact with matter inside them?

Now what about microwaves?

Figure out the answer to those questions, and you will understand why the sun does not do the same thing.

Toroidal

The sun emits frequencies in the 5G range, yes.

Adam_Jensen_

Which frequencies are unsafe, the sub 6GHz or super 25GHz?

I think 5G could be safe if they removed the higher frequency spectrum >25GHz until they provide better brain damage studies.

MaunaLoona

Not safe by design. It's a weapon.

Tb0n3

No studies show it's NOT safe.

qwop

Lack of studies is not a criteria for safety. What are you, a 5 year old?

BlueDrache

Nor is lack of studies a qualification for it being dangerous.

Show me a reputable study from something other than a fly-by-night bullshit blog conspiritard website and I'll consider it.

Until then, shut up.

qwop

Nor is lack of studies a qualification for it being dangerous.

That is not the point of the article. The industry is refusing to do ANY studies at all on specifically 5G. Would you be willing to step onto an airplane that was never tested for airworthiness?

Please explain to me your reasoning. Do you support putting possible pollutants into the environment, without any testing for safety or harm? I genuinely want to understand your thought process here.

qwop

Former senior toxicologist Ronald Melnick, Ph.D., from the National Institute of Health says the following:

Key findings from the $30 million NTP cell phone study:

  • Cancers and preneoplastic lesions in the heart and brain
  • DNA damage in brain cells of rats and mice
  • Heart muscle disease
  • Reduced birth weights
  • The assumption that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer or other health effects, other than by tissue heating, is wrong .

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyrdQE503Sc

1,670 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers on Electromagnetic Fields and Biology or Health:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view

Overview of 67 studies ranked by power density with observed effects, compared to current safety standard:
https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png

Some fun picks:

Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/

The human skin as a sub-THz receiver:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303

Electromagnetic radiation exposure causes cognition deficit with mitochondrial dysfunction and activation of intrinsic pathway of apoptosis in rats:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29872015/

Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230

Frontal and temporal lobe Glioma rates in the UK since 1995:
https://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/de-vocht-response.jpg

I await your response.

Tb0n3

With all this cellphone usage all over the world, where is the precipitous rise of brain cancer cases in the average population?

BlueDrache

There isn't. Because they're taking stuff out of context and conjecturing their ideology on top of it. This anti-5G and anti-vaxxing has become a religion at this point.

DishingShitLikeA

Next up... Asbestos! The wonder mineral!

Tb0n3

Gotta be careful around that dihydrogen monoxide. Sure there's no studies showing it's dangerous, but with a name like that you know it's just causing all kinds of cancer.

DishingShitLikeA

I just might drown in all the disinfo!

Tb0n3

There'd have to be "info" first.

DishingShitLikeA

Valid

CarpenterforChrist

How will this possibly work? It is my understanding that 5g operates on microwaves. Microwaves are only good for short distances. Maybe 5g isn't what they are telling us it is.

VOALTRON

You are correct. From what I have read, satellite communications using C band (TV broadcast station, Mhz waves) transmissions will be used with the satellites.

Satellites will be used to assist 5G networks, but they're not going to be using 5G frequencies. https://www.rcrwireless.com/20180108/5g/the-role-of-satellites-in-delivering-5g-tag17-tag99

qwop

The SpaceX project is called Starlink, and it will use the Ku and Ka bands, which are in the mm wave length. These bands have already been used for satellite communication previously, so it does work. The atmosphere only attenuates the signals, it does not block them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)

VOALTRON

Starlink satellites would orbit at ​1⁄30 to ​1⁄105 of the height of geostationary orbits, and thus offer more practical Earth-to-sat latencies of around 25 to 35 ms, comparable to or exceeding existing cable or fiber networks[49] (although transmitting a signal halfway around the globe takes at least 67 ms at the speed of light).

Wow. That's a seriously ambitious project! It looks like it's still a few years away though.

While details are lacking, it appears that they plan to make this work by utilizing powerful earth based antennas, mounted to some type of base station. And from there, utilize standard 5G cell transmissions.

CarpenterforChrist

So the signal will "slow down" to get from tower to satellite and vice versa but "speed up" again from tower to tower. Call me skeptical, but the only advantages to this will be for AI and not humans.

VOALTRON

The satellite transmissions are to connect remote areas, similar to how satellite internet connections work today.

Normal 5G networks use wireless (high frequency) transmissions within their cell zones, and then pass that data off to a fiber optic backbone to move the data to connect cells over long distance. The satellite transmissions will be much, much slower, so I expect they will only be used for 5G cells that can't get a fiber connection.

Jewed

5G is just the carrier wave frequency, the amount of data you can transmit does have a relationship to the carrier but you can change the carrier frequency.

CarpenterforChrist

Did you read the linked article? It states the frequency used will be in the Mhz spectrum, not microwave.

Jewed

The article is crap, so no. 300+ MHz is considered microwave by many.

glassuser

Not by anyone who isn't a conspiracy retard. 300 MHz is the bottom of the UHF band.

CarpenterforChrist

Do you know anything about radio waves and micro waves? Science bro.

Jewed

I know how to use a spectrum analyzer and design RF filters. Maybe that's enough to know that microwaves are radio waves.

CarpenterforChrist

What's your theory on radiation?

Diggernicks

If it IS safe whats the problem?

qwop

Diggernicks I know you like to troll these posts, but I hope you'll never be in charge of setting safety standards for anything. A lack of studies you see, is not proof of safety. It is basic common sense.

What we have instead are numerous papers showing harm from frequencies in the 3G and 4G ranges. Therefore there is in fact no reason to assume 5G is any safer. Safety has to be proven. Just putting your head in the sand is not a valid strategy for this.

GapingAnus

lack of studies you see, is not proof of safety

Nor is a lack of studies proof of danger. Where are the studies that indicate danger for the frequency ranges and relevant power levels. Do note the inverse square law wrt. cell towers and especially sats.

We have known for decades to be a bit careful with anything above the 70cm band but transmission power matters hugely here. So where are the studies for the wattages that will be relevant ?

BlueDrache

In the conspiritard head, that is it.