Prison Planet

Dionaibh

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DvTlZPZxlmMe/

I watched the above video, but found it very technical and hard to understand. The man who made the video talks about 5G and how it's going to used for global control. He examines a patent, and it looks legit.

Anyone with an engineering background, or around who's good at following technical diagrams etc, know whether what he's claiming is true?

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DvTlZPZxlmMe/

I watched the above video, but found it very technical and hard to understand. The man who made the video talks about 5G and how it's going to used for global control. He examines a patent, and it looks legit.

Anyone with an engineering background, or around who's good at following technical diagrams etc, know whether what he's claiming is true?

No it's not. There's no way 5G can be used for "global control".
There's no way 5G can be used to give people corona virus.
5G cannot control the weather.

Again, you seem very desperate to believe in a conspiracy no matter how silly.

Dionaibh

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not. There's no way 5G can be used for "global control".
There's no way 5G can be used to give people corona virus.
5G cannot control the weather.

Again, you seem very desperate to believe in a conspiracy no matter how silly.

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not desperate to believe in a conspiracy. That's why I am careful to say ',ay', 'possibly' and so on in my posts. But I am open to examining the claim and not dismissing it out of hand.

Then what is the patent he examines in the video?

krissovo

Dionaibh wrote: »

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DvTlZPZxlmMe/

I watched the above video, but found it very technical and hard to understand. The man who made the video talks about 5G and how it's going to used for global control. He examines a patent, and it looks legit.

Anyone with an engineering background, or around who's good at following technical diagrams etc, know whether what he's claiming is true?

I can not sit through that waffle, its complete scaremongering. Nothing more scary than edge computing or IOT, 5g is only an enabler increased data bandwidth and modern technology is increasingly centralising data.

Have a look at what Nvidia are doing, its very similar.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/events/vmworld/?nvid=nv-int-cwmfg-78644#cid=gnl_nv-int-cwmfg_en-us

4068ac1elhodqr

Haven't time to watch any video, and there is no Patent number supplied to view.

Suffice to say as per others, 5G is simply an enabler for bandwidth and also importantly, access.
Much like Musk's Starlink, it will result in onmipresent likely global, perhaps even free internet access.
Ideal for the trillions of smart IOTs objects on the way. Faster also means smarter processing objects.

Ideal for self-driving cars, smart cities, autonomous tasks humans currently perform (automation: human job redundancy).
Smart Lamposts might feature strongly (as per China): useful and handy for various tasks.
Unless your in HongKong, where civil rights protesters now try to saw them down with angle grinders.
Or in SanFran where city wide facial recognition technologies have been rejected on moral grounds.

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not desperate to believe in a conspiracy. That's why I am careful to say ',ay', 'possibly' and so on in my posts. But I am open to examining the claim and not dismissing it out of hand.

But some conspiracies can be dismissed out of hand.
Like this one.
Because they're ridiculous and silly.

Dionaibh wrote: »

Then what is the patent he examines in the video?

You tell us. You seem to think it's plausible.
But again I think you'll avoid.

Harika

Switched around a bit, what exact claim or patent worries you?

endacl

Harika wrote: »

Switched around a bit, what exact claim or patent worries you?

I think that’s the ‘5G Braincuff’. Designed by Skynet.

Patent pending.

Harika

endacl wrote: »

I think that’s the ‘5G Braincuff’. Designed by Skynet.

Patent pending.

Great point, if you want to learn a lot how skynet actually would take over the world, read
Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark

Dionaibh

King Mob wrote: »

But some conspiracies can be dismissed out of hand.
Like this one.
Because they're ridiculous and silly.


You tell us. You seem to think it's plausible.
But again I think you'll avoid.

But the reason I didn't dismiss it out of hand is because he shows a long document which he says is a patent. He goes through it. Is it possible to fake a patent?

Dionaibh

Harika wrote: »

Switched around a bit, what exact claim or patent worries you?

The claim made in the video, i.e. that 5G is going to be used to control human beings. Basically the claims made in the video worry me.

Here's a comment on article on Breitbart posted by the man who made the video:

"You want to see the truth . I have it I did the research the whole time.
If you wish to see here is what that freaking vaccine is all about https://www.youtube.com/wat...
And here is the actual weaponized cvid virus the one gates spoke of the second one that " will get peoples attention "
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
All backed up with the actual documents available in the description of each video. I did the work ."

Link to the article: https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/10/02/ron-desantis-people-avoiding-hospitals-due-covid-19-fears-are-hurting-dying/

If you scroll down to the comments you can read his comments. His username is AwakwnTimeisUp.

banie01

Dionaibh wrote: »

But the reason I didn't dismiss it out of hand is because he shows a long document which he says is a patent. He goes through it. Is it possible to fake a patent?

By your logic, anyone can claim anything as long as they show a "long document"

What in the patent leads you to give credence to his claim?
Why would any organisation intending to implement any form of coercive control over a population, file that intent as part of a publically accessible patent application?

Do you actually know and understand what a patent is?

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

But the reason I didn't dismiss it out of hand is because he shows a long document which he says is a patent. He goes through it. Is it possible to fake a patent?

Yes. Or he's misrepresenting what it says.

Just because someone has a document it doesn't necessarily mean that documents supports what they are saying.

Further, cranks like this guy and the others you like, love patents because they can show sinister stuff.
However, patents can be given for things that are just theoretical and might not actually work or be feasible.

Again, this is a very common tactic for scaremongers and bull**** artists to draw in the gullible.
Please stop falling for stuff like this.

Dionaibh

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. Or he's misrepresenting what it says.

Just because someone has a document it doesn't necessarily mean that documents supports what they are saying.

Further, cranks like this guy and the others you like, love patents because they can show sinister stuff.
However, patents can be given for things that are just theoretical and might not actually work or be feasible.

Again, this is a very common tactic for scaremongers and bull**** artists to draw in the gullible.
Please stop falling for stuff like this.

That's true.

But it's very hard to know what's true and what isn't true. You go onto YouTube and you see video titles such as "What's Really Going On", "This Is The Plan" etc. They look and sound plausible.

Dionaibh

banie01 wrote: »

By your logic, anyone can claim anything as long as they show a "long document"

What in the patent leads you to give credence to his claim?
Why would any organisation intending to implement any form of coercive control over a population, file that intent as part of a publically accessible patent application?

Do you actually know and understand what a patent is?

I don't. That's why I was wondering if someone who knows about patents (technical details etc) could say whether what he says in the video is true.

krissovo

Sorry OP but I fear you are quite susceptible. All the fancy diagrams and terms like MANAGEMENT PLANE & CONTROL PLANE in that document that you state you do not understand and have started defending are a mesh of technologies that are there today and clearly manipulated. The very fact that they are existing architectures makes them somewhat plausible and gives ammunition to the anti vaxxer/masker /flat earth groups.

I could write and file a similar patent in a weekend, for example I would use a multi cloud compute and networking architecture I could download from amazon & google (hint, its very similar to the video diagrams in your original post). Then take a IOS (iPad/iPhone) developer kit from apple and make a convincing patent to manipulate an Apple Watch to react when reading social media to influence an action from the user.

I could file that patent and as long as no one else has claimed it there is a good chance it will be approved. It does not make it a valid technology or does not prove governments are trying to control us.

Dionaibh

krissovo wrote: »

Sorry OP but I fear you are quite susceptible. All the fancy diagrams and terms like MANAGEMENT PLANE & CONTROL PLANE in that document that you state you do not understand and have started defending are a mesh of technologies that are there today and clearly manipulated. The very fact that they are existing architectures makes them somewhat plausible and gives ammunition to the anti vaxxer/masker /flat earth groups.

I could write and file a similar patent in a weekend, for example I would use a multi cloud compute and networking architecture I could download from amazon & google (hint, its very similar to the video diagrams in your original post). Then take a IOS (iPad/iPhone) developer kit from apple and make a convincing patent to manipulate an Apple Watch to react when reading social media to influence an action from the user.

I could file that patent and as long as no one else has claimed it there is a good chance it will be approved. It does not make it a valid technology or does not prove governments are trying to control us.

Thanks Krissovo. That's what I was looking for, for someone who understand patents and technology to offer an opinion on the video.

And I didn't mean to defend it. I was just wondering whether what he claims in the video is true.

Thank you.

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

That's true.

But it's very hard to know what's true and what isn't true.

No it's not.
It's called critical thinking.
It's pretty easy to do.
Unfortunately it often doesn't lead to exciting conclusions and secret special knowledge you can lord over people.

Dionaibh wrote: »

You go onto YouTube and you see video titles such as "What's Really Going On", "This Is The Plan" etc. They look and sound plausible.

First hint in critical thinking: Youtube is not a good source of information, stop using it as such.

Second: titles like those are clickbait nonsense which is again a tactic used to draw in the gullible.

And no, they are not plausible. They most likely suggest silly vague conspiracy nonsense like you've been parroting.

And it's also not plausible that if there was a big giant conspiracy behind the world, it would be figured out by some crank in his bedroom.

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

I don't. That's why I was wondering if someone who knows about patents (technical details etc) could say whether what he says in the video is true.

Then why are you asking this question in a conspiracy forum?
Why not an engineering forum?
Why not look up what a patent is because deciding this silly stuff was "plausible"?

You seem to be doing this a lot...

banie01

Dionaibh wrote: »

I don't. That's why I was wondering if someone who knows about patents (technical details etc) could say whether what he says in the video is true.

And any of us can claim to have the knowledge/qualifications that you think are needed to rebut this story.

Many posters here do have that knowledge, but why would any of those posters wish to rebut or refute nonsense conspiracy posts from breitbart and bichute?

Have you any actual evidence in support of the theory you have proposed?
Evidence that doesn't come from a video that "sheeple" won't watch?

Not opinion, not commentary, but actual evidence?
Or failing that, a fleshed explanation of what you believe is happening?
A couple of paragraphs, without links or videos will do.

Dionaibh

King Mob wrote: »

Then why are you asking this question in a conspiracy forum?
Why not an engineering forum?
Why not look up what a patent is because deciding this silly stuff was "plausible"?

You seem to be doing this a lot...

Sorry, I didn't realise there was an engineering forum on boards.

When I said plausible, I meant that when I watched the video it sounded like he knew what he was talking about and he was able to quote from the document. But good point on the critical thinking. Maybe I'm too quick to believe claims made on the internet.

Thank you.

Dionaibh

banie01 wrote: »

And any of us can claim to have the knowledge/qualifications that you think are needed to rebut this story.

Many posters here do have that knowledge, but why would any of those posters wish to rebut or refute nonsense conspiracy posts from breitbart and bichute?

Have you any actual evidence in support of the theory you have proposed?
Evidence that doesn't come from a video that "sheeple" won't watch?

Not opinion, not commentary, but actual evidence?
Or failing that, a fleshed explanation of what you believe is happening?
A couple of paragraphs, without links or videos will do.

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not proposing any theory. I was wondering what people might make of the claims made in the video.

And I didn't mean that I wanted opinions from people with an engineering background only. Sorry. I was just wondering what people made of the video.

Dionaibh

Dionaibh wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise there was an engineering forum on boards.

Yes, there's a lot more places on the internet that don't peddle silly childish conspiracy theories.
You should go visit them.

There are also many fine educational series on youtube, you could try them rather than watch scaremongering conspiracy cranks who are successfully tricking you.

Dionaibh wrote: »

Maybe I'm too quick to believe claims made on the internet.

Yes you are.

dhaughton99

Never mind 5g, it’s StarLink which is going to oversee command and control.

Timberrrrrrrr

dhaughton99 wrote: »

Never mind 5g, it’s StarLink which is going to oversee command and control.

Of what?

When?

How?

To what end?

4068ac1elhodqr

dhaughton99 wrote: »

Never mind 5g, it’s StarLink ...

Starlink is interesting, would leave no spot on the planet 'out of super fast network coverage' so selfies could be taken and posted to insta' from the NorthPole.

His Neuralink project could avail of this coverage, useful for some future human to tech neura-interfacing, if you can't beat some 2035 super-cloud-concious-ai, sure why not join it: Transhumanism(H+).

Anyways, until OP provides an easily refrenceable simple Patent reference number* (which will show the Abstract/Publlisher/Author/Dates/Diagrams/Methods), nothing to see here.

* most PDB's are free and easy to search: { Google Patents / Espacenet / USPTO Web Patent Databases / Patentscope by WIPO / Lens.org / Derwent World Patents Index / PatBase / Patseer / Drug Patent Watch / Patsnap}

dhaughton99

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Of what?

When?

How?

To what end?

The Elon Musk brain chip. Keep up man!

rtron

I remember going to an IoT convention, and thinking the only way this will work is if there are recievers/transmitters everywhere. Looks like this is somewhat plausible from the schematics in the video. But if there is a risk to human health this not a feasible approach in the long run.

rtron

rtron wrote: »

But if there is a risk to human health

Why would there be a risk to human health?

krissovo

rtron wrote: »

I remember going to an IoT convention, and thinking the only way this will work is if there are recievers/ receptors everywhere. Looks like this is somewhat plausible from the schematics in the video. But if there is a risk to human health this not a feasible approach in the long run.

The receivers and receptors as you put it are already in place for IOT and I bet that you are encountering them every day but do not realize it. However its not to "control peoples mind" but far from it, its a force for good!

I work in technology and my customers are using it today.......The same architecture that is shown in the video! Self driving cars, door bells, farming, home delivery, electricity, water supply and do not forget your PHONE, Fitness Watches, modern CARS in fact any item that can transmit and receive data is or will be part of it.

rtron

krissovo wrote: »

The receivers and receptors as you put it are already in place for IOT and I bet that you are encountering them every day but do not realize it. However its not to "control peoples mind" but far from it, its a force for good!

I don't think it can control minds, but it should have a positive affect on people's behaviors if used the right way. Hopefully it will address rural web connectivity issues aswell.

rtron

King Mob wrote: »

Why would there be a risk to human health?

There is a note in the video that illudes to the tech causing cancer.

rtron

rtron wrote: »

There is a note in the video that illudes to the tech causing cancer.

Ok. But how can it cause cancer?

rtron

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. But how can it cause cancer?

Until I read that in the video I didn't have a reason to think it did myself. I need to research it now as it's not explained well in the video.

Timberrrrrrrr

rtron wrote: »

Until I read that in the video I didn't have a reason to think it did myself. I need to research it now as it's not explained well in the video.

Save yourself some time

It doesn't cause cancer.

Sleeper12

They are cutting all the trees down because of 5G!!!

Oh yeah and the sky is falling too

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you seem very desperate to believe in a conspiracy no matter how silly.

Up the standard of posting please

rtron

rtron wrote: »

Until I read that in the video I didn't have a reason to think it did myself. I need to research it now as it's not explained well in the video.

But why would you research it?
5G can't cause cancer any more that it can control minds or control the weather.

There's no plausible mechanism by which it can cause cancer/control minds.

What did the video present that made you think it's possible or plausible?

rtron

King Mob wrote: »

But why would you research it?
5G can't cause cancer any more that it can control minds or control the weather.

There's no plausible mechanism by which it can cause cancer/control minds.

What did the video present that made you think it's possible or plausible?

There was a section in the video about using materials that reduce cancer risks. That is what caught my attention to cancer possiblity.

rtron

rtron wrote: »

There was a section in the video about using materials that reduce cancer risks. That is what caught my attention to cancer possiblity.

But how can it cause cancer?

5G does not use ionising radiation so there isn't a known way by which it can cause cancer.

In the section of the video, what was being described and by who?
I would guess it was the conspiracy theorist who made the video who is mischaracterising things to make them seem scarier than they are.

rtron

King Mob wrote: »

But how can it cause cancer?


In the section of the video, what was being described and by who?

The Patent number quoted in the video is US 10461421 B1 - would you know any good sites to to find patents?
I just found this one but not sure of its authenticity: https://patentswarm.com/patents/US10461421B1

banie01

rtron wrote: »

The Patent number quoted in the video is US 10461421 B1 - would you know any good sites to to find patents?
I just found this one but not sure of its authenticity: https://patentswarm.com/patents/US10461421B1

Figuring out that the US patent office might have a website is beyond your ken?
https://www.uspto.gov/
Or even that it might have a searchable database of all the patents they have issued, is still to much research for you?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

But with a bit of reading you will be able to figure out the conspiracy and understand how 5g causes cancer?(It doesn't)
But!
Given the standard of research skills demonstrated to date, I look forward to your conclusions.

rtron

banie01 wrote: »

Figuring out that the US patent office might have a website is beyond your ken?
https://www.uspto.gov/
Or even that it might have a searchable database of all the patents they have issued, is still to much research for you?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

But with a bit of reading you will be able to figure out the conspiracy and understand how 5g causes cancer?(It doesn't)
But!
Given the standard of research skills demonstrated to date, I look forward to your conclusions.

Nice one it is there.
BTW I'm not entertaining that 5G causes cancer, its just the patent refers to the equipment such as phones, vehicles and Anntenna arrays reduces risk of cancer which is good to hear.
But it implies there is a risk from the equipment which I never knew about before.

banie01

rtron wrote: »

Nice one it is there.
BTW I'm not entertaining that 5G causes cancer, its just the patent refers to the equipment such as phones, vehicles and Anntenna arrays reduces risk of cancer which is good to hear.
But it implies there is a risk from the equipment which I never knew about before.

There isn't, the risk at any radio wave length is ionizing radiation. 5g and the vast majority of centimetric and millimetre wave emitting tech is non-ionizing.

RADAR and some other short wavelength emitters that utilize magnetron and or AESA can and will cause cancer. Phones won't.
If such radio waves, FM, UHF and WiFi would have mutated and killed us years ago.

BTW the beam forming referred to in the Patent?
Is a new implementation of an old tech, Electronicly scanned radar arrays and some WiFi routers use similar techniques.
1 can cause cancer, the other doesn't because it's non ionizing.

Hotblack Desiato

banie01 wrote: »

RADAR and some other short wavelength emitters that utilize magnetron and or AESA can and will cause cancer.

Rubbish.

ohnonotgmail

banie01 wrote: »

There isn't, the risk at any radio wave length is ionizing radiation. 5g and the vast majority of centimetric and millimetre wave emitting tech is non-ionizing.

RADAR and some other short wavelength emitters that utilize magnetron and or AESA can and will cause cancer. Phones won't.
.

pure nonsense. RADAR uses RF energy which is non-ionising. magnetrons also do not cause cancer. there is no mechanism for them to do that. pretty much every one of us have a magnetron in our homes. a microwave oven is basically a magnetron.

banie01

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Rubbish.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

pure nonsense. RADAR uses RF energy which is non-ionising. magnetrons also do not cause cancer. there is no mechanism for them to do that. pretty much every one of us have a magnetron in our homes. a microwave oven is basically a magnetron.

Mea Culpa on the portion above folks.
Hotblack and Ohno, are 100% right and I honestly should have known better when I was typing.

My only excuse is that despite my knowing the difference and effect of Ionizing and non-ionizing...
That I conflated issues with mm wave radars and other high power magnetron emitters with ionisation.
Only reason I can think it happened is that I am a bit medicated at the present time.
And the auld Foxbat radar cooking rabbits at distance popped into mind and my opioid addled brain seized on a wonky and erroneous train of thought.

PS, on microwaves on the home.
Perfectly safe, even super so as they are built inside a Faraday cage.

Apologies again.
I won't edit the post, but hope the correction here can stand

Cannot believe I messed up the RF and EMF spectrums like that
Rookie mistake :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

banie01 wrote: »

Mea Culpa on the portion above folks.
Hotblack and Ohno, are 100% right and I honestly should have known better when I was typing.

My only excuse is that despite my knowing the difference and effect of Ionizing and non-ionizing...
That I conflated issues with mm wave radars and other high power magnetron emitters with ionisation.
Only reason I can think it happened is that I am a bit medicated at the present time.
And the auld Foxbat radar cooking rabbits at distance popped into mind and my opioid addled brain seized on a wonky and erroneous train of thought.

PS, on microwaves on the home.
Perfectly safe, even super so as they are built inside a Faraday cage.

Apologies again.
I won't edit the post, but hope the correction here can stand

Cannot believe I messed up the RF and EMF spectrums like that
Rookie mistake :pac:

We all have off days

banie01

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We all have off days

Oxycontin and Oxynorm...
What can I say other than they are a helluva combo :pac:

I mean my 1st sentence basically contradicts everything I said later on, but I powered on!