Digital ID's for everyone

29-04-2020 02:32AM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Fascinating!
So some of it (as totally far-fetched as it must have sounded then), is indeed likely to come true, from written accounts, from way, way, way back in olde times.
"Very interesting".
.

But they said the same thing when barcodes were being introduced.#

You also don't believe it's going to come true entirely as the bible says the mark of the beast is going to be in the hand and forehead. That doesn't line up with anything you've claimed.

ohnonotgmail · 29-04-2020 08:59AM

King Mob wrote: »

But they said the same thing when barcodes were being introduced.#

You also don't believe it's going to come true entirely as the bible says the mark of the beast is going to be in the hand and forehead. That doesn't line up with anything you've claimed.

but maybe ...
OIP.6-edPL9UIBJ4Yy5vcnoTIgHaEZ?pid=Api&rs=1

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-04-2020 02:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

And again, why make a quantum tattoo when an iris can be used as a unique identifier?

This question in particular (again) highlights the sheer ignorance, lack of understanding, or ability to process basic information already given. A state of denial, pre-set bias and very present comedic distraction.

iRespond deconstructs the iris (and up to other 16 biometrics points, and any other available personal information) into a unique digital template that can’t be forged or duplicated. The template in turn is *paired* with a given 12-digit string of randomly generated numbers forming a unique numeric ID (UNiD).

The head scan (Iris) is good, but is just one of x16 various biometrics taken, along with all available personal information, and even medical/vaccine information/records, even phone numbers, current paper/card data, and email addresses...

Then Digitised.
Then Paired.
...Comprende?

"Paired" with a (new) UNiD (Unique numeric ID). The UnID part, is a 12-digit serial number, can be easily represented (and has been, in practice) with id2020.org's https://www.irespond.org/) into a smartphone QR Code/Tag.

This visual expression of the UnID can (and has been used in this way) in place of a passport when crossing a border (or any other product-service request), it's verified using Azure cloud based Blockchain verfication, the tiny 16kb upload that can be used with the very slowest of internet access, and in the most remote of places. This 'scan' becomes the primary and first-point ID check.

In simple terms the iris (head scan), is used as part of any two-step verificaiton if desired. But the pairing still requies the given UnID part.
The physical (head scan) can't be verified without the (arm/phone scan) of the UnID. Presenting eye balls only, does not qualifty as having a DigitalID.

While the UnID can be used as a simple QR code smartphone visual, the more persistant, easier, faster, and better method is the BillGates funded QDT body visual mark embodiment into the arm.
https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/ this is specifically designed, and ideal for global vaccine rollout.

McHugh said. “So our idea was to put the (vaccine) record 'on' (or into) the person,” he said. “This way, later on, people can scan over the (data) area to see what vaccines have been administered and give only the ones still needed.

Clever stuff, but only if you can 'keep up'.

Dohnjoe · 29-04-2020 03:02PM

This is just the Bill Gates-digital stuff-forced vaccination-biblical prophecy conspiracy extravaganza that's been doing the rounds

You're just trying to polish the turd with your own take

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-04-2020 03:19PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You're just trying to polish the turd with your own take

So you have no actual view of the already proven pilots schemes and science behind this?

You may well view the concept of "DigitalID's for everyone" (the actual topic) as "a turd" or conspiracy. That's your own personal limited view.

Be sure to let is2020.org's iRespond project (one of many) know what you think about their 12-digit string UniD to be paired to be used as a method of new DigitalID for everyone on the planet, and also too, maybe you should call the BGates funded MIT team project who actually made the Quantum Dot Tattoo. the same.

They both very clever, are they not?
Don't understand are you claiming it's all a fake?

29-04-2020 03:58PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

This question in particular (again) highlights the sheer ignorance, lack of understanding, or ability to process basic information already given. A state of denial, pre-set bias and very present comedic distraction.

Again, you're making a lot of personal remarks all while ignoring points.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

In simple terms the iris (head scan), is used as part of any two-step verificaiton if desired. But the pairing still requies the given UnID part.
The physical (head scan) can't be verified without the (arm/phone scan) of the UnID. Presenting eye balls only, does not qualifty as having a DigitalID.

The iris isn't in the head though.

It's not a "head" scan.
You previously claimed that an iris scan was "Scanning the forehead."
It's very bizarre you refer to it as such. I think this again is a result of you trying to make reality fit your biblical prophesy.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

While the UnID can be used as a simple QR code smartphone visual, the more persistant, easier, faster, and better method is the BillGates funded QDT body visual mark embodiment into the arm.

Firstly, you haven't shown that Bill Gates has funded any such thing.
Secondly, you haven't shown that these Quantum Tatoos actually are more persistant, easier, faster and better.
Thirdly, you're refering to them as a "visual mark". This isn't true. The quantum dot technology you've been posting about specifically is not visible.

Fourthly they can use irises the same way. Only Irises actually are persistent from birth to death. Your quantum tattoo idea can only last 5 years max.

It also bares clarifying here that is argument assumes that when the people you're accusing say things like "permanent" and "birth to death" that they are referring to the physical method by which the information is accessed.
It's actually far more likely that they are referring to the data itself.
But again, this is not convenient for you as you are more interested in proving a silly prophesy.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Clever stuff, but only if you can 'keep up'.

Bit of a writing tip here: you don't have to add scare quotes to terms like "keep up". It's a very common and accepted turn of phrase.

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-04-2020 04:22PM

King Mob wrote: »

The iris isn't in the head though.

What a strange point to keep raising.
The Iris is in the eyeball, the eye is in/on/within the head. It's certainly in your foot
...hello?

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly, you haven't shown that Bill Gates has funded any such thing.

Bill Gates and his Foundation funded the MIT team for the QDT
...hello {knock knock} anyone there?

King Mob wrote: »

Secondly, you haven't shown that these Quantum Tatoos actually are more persistant, easier, faster and better.

Much, much faster and better, why throw $$$ at something that's no good?

A tiny, encryped 16kb data mark such as QDT/QRC means you could have universal, global access to everything that requires an ID (at a point in the future).
Will your local library/shop/taxi/airport all install eyeball scanners instead of a small handheld scanner reading a simple pattern on a larger surface area.

Besides this (new unique and assigned) QDT holds (within it) up to x16 other bio-measurements, and all other personal information, your eyeball won't do that.

King Mob wrote: »

Thirdly, you're refering to them as a "visual mark". This isn't true.

A Falsehood.
Not only is it designed to be visual under infrared (for cheap simple handheld scanners used in supermarkets) it's actually flouresent (glows becomes excited) under this light, for enhanced visability under camera.
Likely to be readable from distance (I processed a small QR code from across a room yesterday <1sec verfication, using a very basic 2mp phone camera, this cheap camera FYI can also view infrared by default).
Try that with your eyeballs
...then see an optician.

Furthermore the QDT is semi-conductive, copper and polymer, which opens a another whole world of possibilities.

No wonder the worlds (2nd) richest lad went to the best University in the world for this. Their 1st (now outdated) test did 5yrs under constant UV skin exposure. Future versions will store more data, and target lifelong use.
Suer, keep twisting these facts, into your own special little conspiracy.

CT/Topic: Digital ID's for everyone (in the near future): Yes (/or someone can prove otherwise).

29-04-2020 05:40PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

What a strange point to keep raising.
The Iris is in the eyeball, the eye is in/on/within the head. It's certainly in your foot

Sure. But it's not in the forehead like you claimed eariler.
And claiming it's a "head" scan is a very odd way of putting it.
But we all know why you're refering to it in that odd way.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Bill Gates and his Foundation funded the MIT team for the QDT
...hello {knock knock} anyone there?

Not according to your link...

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Much, much faster and better, why throw $$$ at something that's no good?

A tiny, encryped 16kb data mark such as QDT/QRC means you could have universal, global access to everything that requires an ID (at a point in the future).

But again, you can do this with an iris.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Besides this (new unique and assigned) QDT holds (within it) up to x16 other bio-measurements, and all other personal information, your eyeball won't do that.

Again, this information can also be accessed using an iris as you identifier.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

A Falsehood.
Not only is it designed to be visual under infrared (for cheap simple handheld scanners used in supermarkets)

Infra red is not "visible". It's a bit awkward for you to redefine words, then moan at me for pointing out that you're using the words wrong.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

it's actually flouresent (glows becomes excited) under this light, for enhanced visability under camera.

That's also not "visible".

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

No wonder the worlds (2nd) richest lad went to the best University in the world for this. Their 1st (now outdated) test did 5yrs under constant UV skin exposure. Future versions will store more data, and target lifelong use.
Suer, keep twisting these facts, into your own special little conspiracy.

Well here's the thing, you keep moaning at me for making this point. But you make exactly the same point all the time.
Your last post has several examples.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Will your local library/shop/taxi/airport all install eyeball scanners instead of a small handheld scanner reading a simple pattern on a larger surface area.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Likely to be readable from distance (I processed a small QR code from across a room yesterday <1sec verfication, using a very basic 2mp phone camera, this cheap camera FYI can also view infrared by default).
Try that with your eyeballs
...then see an optician.

Here you seem to think that iris scans MUST use big expensive scanners.
Why can't small, cheap portable ones be developed like you believe quantum dot tattoos can be? Why can't an app be developed that can use phones most people use?

You also seem to think that iris scans need to be close range. But again, you assume that this can't be developed.
You also ignore the link i posted earlier how Iris scanning technology with ranges up to 60 metres are in development.

Further, you are dishonestly conflating the abilities of quantum dot tattoos with other things. Your links say nothing about them working "across a room".

And you also again make the insinuation that these quantum tattoos will be used for other services, so that it is in line with your conspiracy theory. You have yet to show this is the case and it remains a product of your imagination only.

And all of that is on top of the points you keep ignoring that are piling up behind you...

I don't mean however, as doing that only wears away your credibility and your poor attempts at snappy writing are really fun to read.

4068ac1elhodqr · 29-04-2020 07:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

Sure.

Sure, it scans part of the head agreed.

King Mob wrote: »

Not according to your link...

Yes, accoring to the link...
you failed to read it, and are now loosing credibility, try again:

https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem — knowing who’s vaccinated,’” said McHugh, who was recruited to join Rice (to create the funded QDT)

King Mob wrote: »

But again, you can do this with an iris.

Wrong, the iris is considered a secondary in practical use (ideal maybe for two-stage verification). The UnID requires a pair (don't say you missed this bit again), reading issues? The new combined UniD (pair) is then primary identifier. It forms also part of any QRtag type visual pattern, than can easily be placed on smartphone, or arm. The iris part can be easily replaced with a fingerprint, but.... it still requires a RNG number part (that part can't be left out, for blockchain verification), before a *pair* can be used in practice.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, this information can also be accessed using an iris as you identifier.

Go back, once more... read the bit about the UnID, that requires a *PAIR* for it to be used as a Blockchain key. One of the pair *must* be the RNG 12-digit string, the other part can indeed be the eye scan (or other 16 biometric point) can also be an phone number, or other item of personal info, not just biometrics.

They've already used the combined pair as presented that as a visual QRTag in. The QRTag actually pre-selects the level of access (data to pull from the cloud, using in-App sliders what info to share {also easy to manipulate}).

The QRTag was then presented at the border crossing, *not the Iris* (unless as secondary matching pair check). The QRTag in this example, the user pre-sets the level of information access, relative to request.

King Mob wrote: »

Infra red is not "visible".

It's visable to the low-cost scanner (and really, any basic camera, and thus from great distance) using line-of-sight. It's not designed to be easily visable to humans (hence it's under-skin), but for it's intended use, its considered a visual marking, a pattern. It's also semi-conductable, for future technologies.

You constant denial of this already demonstrated early technology, and ignorance of considerable efforts towards "DigitalID for everyone", is both a comedy and an free education lesson that I don't mind, and shall not even charge for.

////////////////
Digital ID's for everyone? (as a significant future program and effort).
Simply: yes, (or much more likely, than not)

The only 'counter theory' or discussion here would be a no,
this would actually require a 'wilder conspiracy' to support, by proper conspiracy theorists.
////////////////

Dohnjoe · 29-04-2020 11:33PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

////////////////
Digital ID's for everyone? (as a significant future program and effort).
Simply: yes, (or much more likely, than not)

The only 'counter theory' or discussion here would be a no,
this would actually require a 'wilder conspiracy' to support, by proper conspiracy theorists.
////////////////

Lol. You've taken your bizarre biblical conspiracy and diluted it right down into a question of whether there may be digital ID in the future

30-04-2020 12:26AM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Sure, it scans part of the head agreed./

Yes, but as I explained, it's an odd way to describe it.
You could also call it a body scan because it scans part of the body.

You are calling it a "head" scan so you can fit it into your belief in a supernatural prophesy.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Yes, accoring to the link...
you failed to read it, and are now loosing credibility, try again:

https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record//

No where in your link does it say that Bill Gates funded anything.
Please quote exactly where you believe your article says otherwise.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Wrong, the iris is considered a secondary in practical use (ideal maybe for two-stage verification). The UnID requires a pair (don't say you missed this bit again), reading issues? The new combined UniD (pair) is then primary identifier./

Why can't the Iris be the primary identifier and another biometric measure of the 16 others they use be the secondary?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

It's visable to the low-cost scanner (and really, any basic camera, and thus from great distance) using line-of-sight. It's not designed to be easily visable to humans (hence it's under-skin), but for it's intended use, its considered a visual marking, a pattern.

But it's not visible to humans at all. Your link says:

Their near-infrared dye is invisible

It's not a visual marking.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

////////////////
Digital ID's for everyone? (as a significant future program and effort).
Simply: yes, (or much more likely, than not)

The only 'counter theory' or discussion here would be a no,
this would actually require a 'wilder conspiracy' to support, by proper conspiracy theorists.
////////////////

Again, no, you've failed to show this and are misrepresenting things and making unfounded claims and significant leaps in logic and reason to make things fit into a predetermined conclusion.
This conclusion stems from the idea that the bible was able to make a prediction about the future. Which is silly.

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 02:05PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but maybe ...

Comedic "lol"(cringe), eye-rolling typical sci-fi diversion (much the norm here),
do please say hello and meet actual hard science and innovation:

30-04-2020 03:04PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Comedic "lol"(cringe), eye-rolling typical sci-fi diversion (much the norm here),
do please say hello and meet actual hard science and innovation:

Sorry, what do you think this patent proves exactly?

Personally, I think this is you trying to pretend that your claims are somehow supported. You either think this patent somehow supports your claims or you believe that by simply posting the patent, believe will be fooled into believing your claims.

In this instance, the patent is not for any kind of ID. It's a patent for the idea of
indicating a subject has received a medical treatment.
That's all.
It is not related or connected to the things you've been claiming.

EyesClosed · 30-04-2020 03:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, what do you think this patent proves exactly?

Personally, I think this is you trying to pretend that your claims are somehow supported. You either think this patent somehow supports your claims or you believe that by simply posting the patent, believe will be fooled into believing your claims.

In this instance, the patent is not for any kind of ID. It's a patent for the idea of
indicating a subject has received a medical treatment.
That's all.
It is not related or connected to the things you've been claiming.

It's also strange that you're posting an unsourced image with no link or references...
To me, that usually indicates that a person isn't be truthful about where they stole that image.

After going back and forth with that person on this thread the only link that they could come up with was Bill Gates has an interest in both things......so it must be they are linked.

But then everything else is ignored and the same two websites are posted over and over and over with nothing to link them. It gets old very fast.

30-04-2020 03:18PM

EyesClosed wrote: »

Bill Gates has an interest in both things...

TBH, I'm not even sold on that as he previously claimed that Bill Gates funded something according to one of his links, when his link said no such thing.

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 03:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

TBH, I'm not even sold on that as he previously claimed that Bill Gates funded something according to one of his links, when his link said no such thing.

Funded along with others (Cancer research) as is often the case with these projects. Also, it was as Bill that actually approached the team with the specific vaccine tracking issue.

They've (the MIT team) also worked previously together (best not to enquire, as that other project, makes QDT look very tame in comparison) with Bill.

30-04-2020 03:45PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Funded along with others (Cancer research) as is often the case with these projects. Also, it was as Bill that actually approached the team with the specific vaccine tracking issue.

They've (the MIT team) also worked previously together (best not to enquire, as that other project, makes QDT look very tame in comparison) with Bill.

And again, you are posting a picture of a google search, but not quoting from the article directly.
That strikes me as suspicious.

And then, looking up the websites these articles come from, we see one is:
https://savedmag.com/
Which is conservative christian conspiracy website.
As you can see from their banner add, they declare that "Chemtrails are spiritual warfare."

This is not a trustworthy source. I can see why you didn't link directly.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Also, it was as Bill that actually approached the team with the specific vaccine tracking issue.

That's not what your previous link said.

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem — knowing who’s vaccinated,’” said McHugh, who was recruited to join Rice

The foundation approached them and had some sort of meeting. That doesn't mean that it was Bill Gates himself. If it was Bill Gates himself, they would mention as such.
Further this statement doesn't mean that Bill Gates himself or his and his wife's foundation provided any funding. Your article makes no mention of such a thing.

Why are you lying about what's in your own sources...? That just makes you look really bad.

Personally I think that you are banking on people not actually reading the links you post and misrepresent.

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 04:10PM

King Mob wrote: »

And again, you are posting a picture of a google search, but not quoting from the article directly.

So you're ignoring the USPatent2016 reference on the direct screengrabs.

Fine your choice to conspire it never existed, maybe do you're homework next time, or do you need constant spoonfeeding?

King Mob wrote: »

Chemtrails ..

You forget the your usual lol carry on with the moon/ufo/scifi tv and so on.
Comedy gold.

King Mob wrote: »

The foundation approached them

Correct, The BillGatesFoundation approached them (and also, gave funding) with a problem, they returned the solution. They have both worked together previously on similar projects, oh which by the way an actual more dramatic body embodiment. Make of that what you will.

EyesClosed · 30-04-2020 04:16PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

So you're ignoring the USPatent2016 reference on the direct screengrabs.

Fine your choice to conspire it never existed, maybe do you're homework next time, or do you need constant spoonfeeding?

You forget the your usual lol carry on with the moon/ufo/scifi tv and so on.
Comedy gold.

Correct, The BillGatesFoundation approached them (and also, gave funding) with a problem, they returned the solution. They have both worked together previously on similar projects, oh which by the way an actual more dramatic body embodiment. Make of that what you will.

well the chemtrails is a quote from a site you linked......it proves that your source is bull.

Also the foundation approached them.....yet again how does that prove it was bill himself? it doesnt

30-04-2020 04:18PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

So you're ignoring the USPatent2016 reference on the direct screengrabs.

Sure I looked it up. Just found it odd that you opted for posting an image rather than a link.
I think this is usually because you're being less than honest.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Fine your choice to conspire it never existed, maybe do you're homework next time?

Never claimed that. Why are you misrepresenting me now...?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You forget the your usual lol carry on with the moon/ufo/scifi tv and so on.

Comedy gold.

What are you talking about?
You're the one who cited these guys as a source. They're the ones who have their belief in chemtrails front and center on their website.
To me, this is a dead give away they aren't a valid source.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Correct, The BillGatesFoundation approached them (and also, gave funding)

But you previously claimed Bill Gates himself approached them. You were wrong there.
Also the full name of the Foundation is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Also, your article does not say that they gave funding to these researchers.
The only source you have for this notion is an unsourced quote from a picture of a google search of a website that promotes bizarre christian conspiracy theories like the idea that chemtrails are a form of spiritual warfare...

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 04:21PM

For the constant one or two distractors, pleae do take (again) note the topic at hand:

And note also the basis and significant movement behind this, and their very own words:

Q. Digital ID's for everyone? (as a movement, plan and objective)
A. Yes

If you answered no... do feel free to explain/discuss your new conspiracy theory.
Explain why id2020.org have stated this very clear intention (in big letters too) if there is no substance to it.

30-04-2020 04:25PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Explain why id2020.org have stated this very clear intention (in big letters too) if there is no substance to it.

But that's not our position...

Why do you have to misrepresent everything?

EyesClosed · 30-04-2020 04:34PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

For the constant one or two distractors, pleae do take (again) note the topic at hand:

And note also the basis and significant movement behind this, and their very own words:

Q. Digital ID's for everyone? (as a movement, plan and objective)
A. Yes

If you answered no... do feel free to explain/discuss your new conspiracy theory.
Explain why id2020.org have stated this very clear intention (in big letters too) if there is no substance to it.

You have claimed that digital ids will be linked to vaccines by bill gates.
Now you are changing that to a question around digital ids.......why?

I and some others here have been asking for prove that bill gates is trying to link a digital id to a vaccine. You have a theroy which is grand, but you can't back it up with anything as you keep quoting two websites that are in no way linked.

So stop trying to change the subject and please back up your claims. Otherwise nothing you say can be taken seriously.

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 06:06PM

The only other possible and relative discussion (which was regarding the actual {evidence based} 'likely implementation' of id2020.org's, Digital ID push for everybody.
* Evidence based, as entirely actions of id2020's partners, associates, founders and indeed even it's active pilot-programs such as: iRespond, Everest, MyPass and so on, including some actual state schemes.

But if we can't even get over the main stumbling block (which some have already tried to twist), then that's plain agenda-drive diversion.
Which will have to be called out.

Can we can all for once, agree this is a true, likely and indeed planned push (the topic at hand), before considering the many aspects of what it might be.
Note: any future event, to unfold, can only be by its nature, a theory, so will be open to slight speculation.

Q. Digital ID's for everyone? (as a movement, plan and objective)
A. Yes???

EyesClosed · 30-04-2020 07:57PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

The only other possible and relative discussion (which was regarding the actual {evidence based} 'likely implementation' of id2020.org's, Digital ID push for everybody.
* Evidence based, as entirely actions of id2020's partners, associates, founders and indeed even it's active pilot-programs such as: iRespond, Everest, MyPass and so on, including some actual state schemes.

But if we can't even get over the main stumbling block (which some have already tried to twist), then that's plain agenda-drive diversion.
Which will have to be called out.

Can we can all for once, agree this is a true, likely and indeed planned push (the topic at hand), before considering the many aspects of what it might be.
Note: any future event, to unfold, can only be by its nature, a theory, so will be open to slight speculation.

Q. Digital ID's for everyone? (as a movement, plan and objective)
A. Yes???

So you're just gonna ignore all your previous statements cause you can't back any of them up?

And you're gonna change tact here and ask this question over and over?

Dohnjoe · 30-04-2020 08:02PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Fine your choice to conspire it never existed, maybe do you're homework next time, or do you need constant spoonfeeding?

What's the conspiracy? with himself?

Dohnjoe · 30-04-2020 08:11PM

EyesClosed wrote: »

So you're just gonna ignore all your previous statements cause you can't back any of them up?

And you're gonna change tact here and ask this question over and over?

Note how the conspiracy is also kept deliberately vague

Does anyone actually know what it is?

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 08:16PM

EyesClosed wrote: »

And you're gonna change tact here and ask this question over and over?

This question is of upmost importance,
it's also the title of the thread (look above)

and it's also being purposefully ignored and diverted (see previous pages) from. In fact, No body has answered it as Y/N yet!
(aside from some belligerent question twisting)

Can only suspect some people here are simply scared, by the very concept.
Don't worry this is understanable. There will be both positive and negative aspects to consider, as the objective is met in the years to come.

The conspiracy now appears not about the existance of the program, but a bigger question is that people think the question is itself a conspiracy and thus not addressed.

Q. Digital ID's for everyone? (as a movement, plan and objective as set out clearly on https://id2020.org/digital-identity)

A. Yes??? / No???

Dohnjoe · 30-04-2020 08:33PM

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

This question is of upmost importance,

Does Bill Gates want to crack open our heads and feast on the goo inside, this question is of utmost importance because I've written that it is

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-04-2020 08:52PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Does Bill Gates want to crack open our heads and feast on the goo inside, this question is of utmost importance because I've written that it is

Diversion and misdirection are the tools of fools (see above childish comment)
but THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THE THREAD is.

Q. Digital ID's for everyone? (as a movement, plan and objective as set out clearly on https://id2020.org/digital-identity)
A. Yes??? / No???

So, by default and id2020's publishing or expressiom of "YES, that there is a plan or intent for Digital IDs for everyone on the planet"

- the next stage (for the more intelligent of us), is to consider what form this will likely take, it's uses, and implications.

Digital ID's for everyone

Comments