Humans to be micro chipped and tracked

reply to post by Unregistered


If they start tagging our brains I think I would be OK.
My husband claims that my brain is new and barely used!

reply to post by AlreadyGone


I am not getting that chip no matter what.
That is why I think I'm on the red list instead
of the blue one.

reply to post by Bedlam


Thanks for posting the letter - great

I was searching for something to do with animal chipping when I came across a really good blog, well researched, plenty of links to other sources and plenty of things I didn't know ...

There are already many patents for human chips.
How human chpping got through the FDA.
The Mexican Attorneys Office chipping happened in 2004.
and much more ...

a good read ...
www.noble-leon.com...

and my cats microchip is coming out next weekl!!

Smigs

[edit on 17/5/10 by Smiggle]

One Question:

Fear from being tracked from RIF Chips? Handy anyone? LULZ

reply to post by Smiggle


One of my cats is chipped as well.I wanted to have
it removed and the vet wasn't too happy about it!
I read somewhere where you can use some tape
demagnetizer to render the chip useless.

This thread should be a help here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-5-2010 by mamabeth]

Good day,

Brand new subscriber to ATS, but had to register to get your worries up to date.

About a week ago I was reading another site and came across a guy called Bob Boyce. He got a chip implanted, and because he was experimenting with all kinds of things electrical, the chip caused major cancer in his body. There are many links to his work and story, but I will post this one as it has photographs of his x-rays with the chip in his shoulder.

pesn.com...

I know the type of chip, it has been used in animals for years, so this article is not as far fetched as some may think.

reply to post by mamabeth


Thanks mamabeth - my cat has a lump where his body is trying to reject the chip, but it has gone black and Im worried and angry.
I mentioned to my vet I was bringing him in to get it out last week when I had my other cat there, and I got 'the look' from him. Thats OK, Ive had to stand strong before on issues for my animals.

Smigs

reply to post by Old_RSA


Welcome to the boards Old_RSA
Im off to have a look at the link - thanks for that.

Smigs

Earth calling Bedlam ...

I was looking over a new 12th May 2010 chip patent pending from PositiveId Corp (formerly Verichip) and am wondering if the information coming from the chip was recieved wirelessly? Is that right? Is that the chip holding information and then accessed from a outside source? heres what I was reading ...

investors.positiveidcorp.com...

The provisional patent covers the use of RF technology to help sense and communicate changes in mass (i.e., glucose levels in the blood) through an electromechanical drive-based wireless molecular sensor to an external reader.

This corp is bound to move into the realms of nanobiology and nanobots - I have no doubt - the big chip will be replaced ...

Smigs

There is something else for the future, the 2020 Neural Implant. This reminded me about the article.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by faceoff85.. then the phrase of not being able to buy groceries without the mark of the beast would be fullfilled as well...

Actually, the phrase used in describing "the mark of the beast" is a Greek version of the description of tefillin.

the biblical prophecy talks about the bearers of that mark in the end having excrusiating pain from that mark.. scientifically speaking if the battery contained in an RFID chip were to break and the fluid were to enter the body it would give extreme burning sensations... An EMP would in theory be able to achieve that very situation.. so hear me out... what if the sun would give off such a tremendous EMP-burst in the near future, when alot of people have been fitted with the chip? see where i'm going here?

There is no battery in an RFID part. At least not in an implant: the parts get their power from the interrogator.

EMPs rarely affect small self-contained assemblies, the major effect is to damage the parts of an assembly connected to long lines, such as antennas, power leads, peripheral cables and the like. Sometimes long traces on PCBs in non-shielded assemblies are affected by logic level upset but rarely by direct damage.

So a physically small circuit with no leads wrapped in nice conductive saline-filled meat is unlikely to receive any damage whatsoever.

reply to post by Bedlam


Not true. Did you do any research at all on Verichip? The following took 5 minutes on clusty...

Question: What is RFID?
Answer: Radio Frequency IDentification. The technology involves tags that transmit radio signals, which are picked up by readers. The most common method is to store a serial number on a microchip that is attached to an antenna and is used to identify an item.

source
and...

The VeriChip emits a 125-kilohertz radio frequency signal that transmits its unique ID number to a scanner. The number then accesses a computer database containing the client's file. Customers fill out a form detailing the information they want linked to their chip when they undergo the procedure, Cossolotto said.

Earlier this week, ADS announced that the FDA had ruled that the VeriChip was not a regulated device when used for "security, financial and personal identification/safety applications."

The agency's sudden approval of the microchip came despite an FDA investigator's concern about the potential health effects of the device in humans. (Microchips have been used to track animals for years.)

The company is marketing the device for a variety of security applications, including:

* Controlling access to physical structures, such as government or private sector offices or nuclear power plants. Instead of swiping a smart card, employees could swipe the arm containing the chip.

* Reducing financial fraud. In this scenario, people could use their chip to withdraw money from ATMs; their accounts could not be accessed unless they were physically present.

* Decreasing identity theft. People could use the chip as a password to access their computer at home, for example.

Cossolotto said ADS has gotten "hundreds" of inquiries from people interested in being implanted.

Meanwhile, privacy advocates are wondering about the specter of forced chippings.

"(ID chips) are a form of electronic leashes, a form of digital control," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "What happens if an employer makes it a condition of employment for a person to be implanted with the chip? It could easily become a condition of release for parolees or a requirement for welfare."

Rotenberg said EPIC has filed a Freedom of Information Request to learn more details about the FDA's sudden approval of VeriChip.

The chip has also alarmed some Christians, who fear it is the biblical "Mark of the Beast"; dozens of websites allude to the Satanic implications of the technology.

Mark of the Beast Chip

How VeriChip Works
An implantable, 12mm by 2.1mm radio frequency device, VeriChip is about the size of the point of a typical ballpoint pen. It contains a unique verification number. Utilizing an external scanner, radio frequency energy passes through the skin energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal containing the verification number. The number is displayed by the scanner and transmitted to a secure data storage site by authorized personnel via telephone or Internet.

source

I ask you, Bedlam, want to retract that statement: "To begin with, implanted RFID tags do NOT emit a radio signal "anywhere, anytime!"?

Originally posted by Smiggle
Earth calling Bedlam ...

I was looking over a new 12th May 2010 chip patent pending from PositiveId Corp (formerly Verichip) and am wondering if the information coming from the chip was recieved wirelessly? Is that right? Is that the chip holding information and then accessed from a outside source? heres what I was reading ...

They use an h-field type part. It's "wireless" in the sense that you don't have a jack on your tummy or something, but it's not a radio signal. The information it holds is like the stuff in a pacemaker (which works the same way), mainly the programming for the doses and whatnot.

While "nanobots" may appear at some time in the future, no-one's got a working one. When you see the term nano-technology in the press, they're invariably talking about an engineered material, such as very tiny particles of titanium, not a StarGate sort of nanyte.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Not true. Did you do any research at all on Verichip? The following took 5 minutes on clusty...

I don't need to do research on it - I could design you one. I've done a number of RFID designs for the military.

The technology involves tags that transmit radio signals, which are picked up by readers. The most common method is to store a serial number on a microchip that is attached to an antenna and is used to identify an item.

Two things with this cite. One, printronix only does e-field tags. Remember from the letter I sent to Fox?

The sorts of RFID tags that can be read at a distance are e-field, or radio tags... passive e-field tags also don't "transmit radio waves" - they signal by changing their reflectivity.

So printronix' FAQ is going to be referring to the type of RFID they do. The FAQ is also grossly oversimplified for people that don't have a clue, so it's easier to say they 'transmit radio signals' than to say they use quarter-wave back-scatter modulation, which doesn't actually 'transmit radio waves', but reflects the interrogator's beacon to varying degrees by changing the load of the antenna a bit. Printronix also make active RFID, which has batteries in and does transmit radio waves, so for an active tag it would be technically correct. However, the Fox article was bemoaning implants and product tags, which are passive.

Here is a much better article than some FAQ for the clueless from Printronix (skip down to 3.2.2) but as you can see, your eyes are going to start rotating in opposite directions from the technical terms. Printronix found it easier in a FAQ for people who don't understand squat about RFID to be inaccurate in an attempt not to be baffling.

The math for e-field tags is the same as for radar, basically the tag changes its reflectivity, or RCS, to signal. It does not emit radio signals, it reflects them to the reader. Like I said before, it's like someone shining a flashlight at you, and you signaling back with a mirror.

On to your second cite:

The VeriChip emits a 125-kilohertz radio frequency signal that transmits its unique ID number to a scanner. The number then accesses a computer database containing the client's file. Customers fill out a form detailing the information they want linked to their chip when they undergo the procedure, Cossolotto said.

Wired and Engadget are renowned for getting RFID stories wrong. However, let's look at the phrasing they use: emits a 125-kHz radio frequency signal. You'll note they don't call it a radio signal. The exact term is 'radio frequency' signal. That's literally correct - from my post to Fox: "The magnetic field from the interrogator device is time-varying at a 'radio frequency', but it is not a radio wave."

Where they go wrong is in saying that an h-field tag emits a signal - it doesn't. Like the e-field tag I mentioned above, an h-field tag varies a load on its receive coil. The interrogator sees this as a load change on its output coil.

Here's you a much better explanation than a one-sentence misstatement in Wired. Skip to page 6, otherwise there's math, and read starting at "Data transfer between a tag and a reader":

When a tag is placed within the alternating magnetic field created by the reader, it draws energy from the magnetic field. This additional power consumption can be measured remotely as a voltage perturbation at the internal impedance of the reader antenna. The periodic switching on and off of a load resistance at the tag therefore effects voltage changes at the reader’s antenna and thus has the effect of an amplitude modulation of the antenna voltage by the remote tag. If the switching on and off of the load resistor is controlled by the tag’s stored data stream, then this data is transferred from the tag to the reader. This type of data transfer is called load modulation. The process of load modulation creates amplitude modulated sidebands symmetrically placed around the 13,56 MHz interrogation carrier frequency.

I admit it's a lot thicker reading than "OMG - RADIO WAVEZ!" from Wired, but it's at least correct. You have to understand, too, that most writers from magazines don't have a clue either - as typified by the guy from Fox - so they put their misunderstandings in print. That doesn't make them a valid reference. Unfortunately, the places you can get the real information, like the ISO standard for near-field RFID parts, are technically thick. I'm surfing for something accurate but without math for you, and most everything I'm hitting are design guides full of math and technical info, it's what I'd need to design with but you won't likely understand it.

note: Found you one. This article is accurate. It's a bit thicker than a non-technical (and inaccurate) sound bite from Wired, but it's nearly maths free. Skip down to the header "Near-field RFID", where you'll read:

Tags that use near-field coupling send
data back to the reader using load modulation.
Because any current drawn from
the tag coil will give rise to its own small
magnetic field—which will oppose the
reader’s field—the reader coil can detect
this as a small increase in current flowing
through it...if the tag’s electronics
applies a load to its own antenna coil and
varies it over time, a signal can be encoded
as tiny variations in the magnetic field
strength representing the tag’s ID.

THAT'S correct. This guy's an Intel engineer, though, not some hack from Wired. They even have a picture of the Verichip part, so you'll know that's what I'm talking about when I say "near field". Note that "near field" "h field" and "magnetic coupling" are basically equivalent in this context. You'll even see where he talks about the lambda wall, only he doesn't call it that - skip down to this:

The range for which we can use magnetic
induction approximates to c/2(pi)f,
where c is a constant (the speed of light)
and f is the frequency. Thus, as the frequency
of operation increases, the distance
over which near-field coupling
can operate decreases.

c/f is what we call "lambda" or "wavelength", I'd normally jot this down as lambda/2pi on a notepad, but it's tough on here, I don't know how to do Greek letters on ATS other than to pull up Mathcad and make a lot of little JPGs with the equations in, which isn't worth the time. Outside the lambda wall, no near-field part can return a signal, even if you could get around the other issues, which you can't. The SNR and drive issues will stop you at about 3 feet, for anything practical in the non-military market.

Final cite:

... radio frequency energy passes through the skin energizing the dormant VeriChip, which then emits a radio frequency signal containing the verification number...

Yet another semi-accurate blurb from media written for light reading by the uninformed. This time indymedia, which is far less technical than Wired, sad to say. You'll note, again, it doesn't say "radio signal" but "radio frequency signal". It's still inaccurate to say "emits" - they're telling you that because it's easier than trying to describe load modulation. Would you like a few dozen technically accurate yet difficult to read cites? The last one I posted is the easiest to read by far that I've found.

Originally posted by autowrench

I ask you, Bedlam, want to retract that statement: "To begin with, implanted RFID tags do NOT emit a radio signal "anywhere, anytime!"?

Ran out of characters in the last post. So, to summarize, not at all. What you have to be able to do is understand the technology, and know when the information you read is technically accurate and when it's crap, or just being oversimplified for people who don't want to see math or hear confusing technical explanations.

In the case of the stuff you posted, it's being oversimplified in favor of making for light reading. What I posted is technically accurate, and mostly a lot more fun to read than, say, the ISO spec for this stuff, or a treatise on it that uses radar equations.

It also helps to be able to distinguish between active and passive, h-field and e-field RFID types when you're reading an article. Most magazine authors do not understand that there are different types (the case with the Fox guy) and tend to mix them up in a single article, which contributes to the BS level.

Originally posted by zzombie
Please watch:

Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population

Google Video Link

ok!!! And Mr Rockefeller actually confessed the biggest conspiracy known to man to some nobody he had just met...

I can see the dialog

"hi mr rockefeller nice to meet you"

"hello mr nobody that I just knew... listen, wanna know my ultra secret top conspiracy for me to able to take over the world... its nuts you have to listen to this! But please... dont make a video out of it revealing my master plan! I'm trusting you with my deepest secret, Mr nobody who I've just met. Now we'll be best friends forever..."

this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on ATS... besides the "I'm an alien" "gay penguins" and "TPTB have plans to ignite saturn and turn it into a star" topics, of course...

EDIT: I forgot those idiots that talk to aliens and have a message of peace, and the ones who come from the future of course... sorry for that.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by FraternitasSaturni]

Reply from Bedlam ...

While "nanobots" may appear at some time in the future, no-one's got a working one. When you see the term nano-technology in the press, they're invariably talking about an engineered material, such as very tiny particles of titanium, not a StarGate sort of nanyte.

Reply to Bedlam ...
Yes they do have working nanobots already, and they have a version for people with Parkinsons as well.

From a BBC Interview I treanscribed with Carrie Gracie talking to Ray Kurzweil:

. For example if I were to say 20 years from now you’ll have millions of nanobots – blood cell sized robots – in your blood stream keeping you healthy from inside. You might say ‘hmmm that sounds very futuristic’. But now there’s already 50 experiments of doing exactly that with the 1st generation of blood cell sized devises, that are nano-engineered, in animal tests.
One scientist cured type1 diabetes in rats with a blood cell sized devise that’s lets insulin out in a controlled fashion. In MIT they have a blood cell sized device that can detect and destroy cancer cells in the blood stream.
And these technologies, if you what we can do today, and apply what I call the Law of Accelerator Returns – the fact that these information technologies will be a billion times more powerful in 25 years, that gives you some idea of what will be feasible. So that will be the 3rd Bridge. That really will provide dramatic extensions to our longevity.

While not exactly chips, the race to get nanobiotechnology up and running is already well on its way, with Ray Zurzweil saying that within 25 years society could be looking at wirelessly updating nanobots within the physical system and also have the technology to program them .... all in the name of health and science?

They are well on their way to Artificial Intelligence being placed in the human body as a component of the physical. Tracking and monitoring the device (the person) will be very simple in some cases.
This is where I think the Chip development will go.


[edit on 19/5/10 by Smiggle]

[edit on 19/5/10 by Smiggle]

[edit on 19/5/10 by Smiggle]

Originally posted by Smiggle

Reply to Bedlam ...
Yes they do have working nanobots already, and they have a version for people with Parkinsons as well.

Well, you're quite right in that they're not chips, and neither are they nanobots.

The Parkinsons and diabetes example are much more in line with what I'm talking about in the form of nanoengineered materials. Basically, both are "micelles" filled with medicine - in the case of the diabetic material, it's tiny spheres filled with insulin that leaks out through 7 nm pores. No batteries, no little arms, no logic, no nanobot. The same with the Parkinson's device, only in that case it's L-dopa. These are nothing more than time-release pellets, only more controlled. They don't "cure" anything - they're just a means of dispensing meds.

Same with the MIT "cancer nanobot" - it's an engineered material (like I said) that is designed to bond to cancer cells. No batteries, no chips, no logic, no computers, no little machines moving around ala Stargate. It's an engineered material, like nano-titanium.

You have to be careful when quoting Kurzweil - he's a futurist, like Toffler. He gets paid to dream big, but it doesn't mean that it's true in the sense that he wants to portray it to you.

The Bilderburgs and other world igits have been planning this for a long time. I am sure this was the main reason 'They' pushed that 2000 page Health Care Bill down everyonees throats. And the part/plan of getting the implant chips is in there... I am sure of it. Did anybody really read the whole thing...

'They' have been waiting for the time when people will simmer down over protesting it and history shows this could happen in this case too.

'They' may even have a plan in place for something to happen or in the event something would happen that would cause people to fear and want to get one for safety or other reasons. Or worst ...pull another Patriot Act type Bill in an event of some other disaster. BTW anybody else noticed how quickly 'They' came up with that constitutional stripping Patriot Act Bill?

In 1996 I was shocked when I read where in New York the government would give $25.00 to let them implant them with this -then- experiemental chip. I didn't think many people would fall for that but then I read the lines of people went around buildings for 6 blocks. I suppose it was the desperate for money for whatever reasons.

I wondered if any of them Lithuim batteries leaked under their skin. (that's what was powering them, then) I found out later leaks caused grievous sores. That's what the Bible said would be one of the inflictions to anyone taking the Mark of The Beast.

Truth, Love and True Light, Maya










reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX

Don't need to micro chipped, if you have a cell phone you can be tracked by satellite.