It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The US Military Wants To 'Microchip' Troops

page: 13
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
can someone upload a pic of an RFID that they have in their home right now?

I have heard about them,,,,,but "SHOW ME"




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Its possible the timing fits in with other events, and most likely they will
target the least powerful, most enslaved and work thier way up the chain.

Thanks for your comments!



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


I have many...found them in my clothes, store bought razor cartridges,
a few electronic items had them in the box, also found one in a lamp I bought.

Not worried, they are passive. However the ones in my debit cards....
they are marked with the symbol.
edit on 7-5-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


again I say, RFID implants communicating with our brain to make us do things is psy-fi unless there is one in the brain already...

the thought of this sure sells a lot of religion I will agree.
if this is the case

how do we limit a being of energy capable of DNA design so complicated as to make different species from carbon to a projection of our conception.

If my government hi-jacked my body with a chip and made me believe in the boogy man, Jesus wouldnt see through that and I would go strait to Hell because of it....really
Really?............it sure does fill the plates of Saturday Night Special Guest events though...

Nope....they already have us hook line and sinker



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


Well mind control is everywhere. TV, radio, internet.

However complete enslavement as referred to in Revelations...well thats a different thing
altogether. If a "mark" is forced on a person, does that count?

I dont think it does for the sake of addressing the passage in Revelations.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker11
Hacking could take on a whole new twist.


Kind of scary...yet I see no other future, everything is heading toward this type of technology being shared among the global population quite quickly now.

If only we could be sure of non abusive handlers of this information it could actually be really cool.


Star and I actually agree.

I keep getting labeled a luddite because I protest things like this, but the problem is not really the technology, it is the people who control this technology and the ways they would use it.

For convenience it is nice, but to be controlled, tracked and monitored - which they have done and will do - is not worth it.

Connivence never should be put in front of liberty and privacy.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
They want to microchip us too. Some people will still say it for the betterment of humanity...arg



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 



However complete enslavement as referred to in Revelations...well thats a different thing
altogether. If a "mark" is forced on a person, does that count?


It really doesn't speak of enslavement. It speaks of mass voluntary worship of the "beast" combined with a purging of those who do not. One is not enslaved by "the mark" - that is merely symbolic of worship.

Of course - Revelations was speaking of the end of Rome, and is only applicable to current events in the sense that history has the obnoxious tendency to repeat.

reply to post by burntheships
 



I have many...found them in my clothes, store bought razor cartridges,
a few electronic items had them in the box, also found one in a lamp I bought.

Not worried, they are passive. However the ones in my debit cards....
they are marked with the symbol.


You understand how RFID works, don't you?

They work off of a few principles of electromagnetism. First - a magnetic field of a certain frequency is emitted by some kind of device. Then, an 'antenna' (actually a secondary winding, speaking in terms of transformers) experiences an induced voltage potential. Current flows - usually into a type of resistor, and possibly even a capacitor circuit. This sets up an oscillation of voltage potential within the device that conforms to a specific frequency.

More costly versions use the induced current to power small circuitry that activates a data transmitter that merely rattles off a pre-established code.

That's it. Due to the very nature of electromagnetism - the secondary/ "antenna" must be at least a few centimeters long/in diameter/etc - and any model using a transmitter will usually run a few millimeters (cell phone antenna size).

Which means that any nano-architecture in your body is going to be local use, only. You would still require a cell-phone sized device (even with advances in nano-scale electronics - raw physics sets limits on how small you can make radio transceivers) to interface with these smaller devices.

Which is why the cell phone will become a very interesting thing in the future. While we may see it integrated into a wide variety of things - including clothing - I think it will be the preferred method of interfacing with nanoscale implants in the brain and other parts of the body - because of the ability to shut it off.

The implants will have a very basic set of local functions - but they would mostly be designed to work via a standard interface (perhaps something similar to blue-tooth; and with a very similar range) with other, more powerful devices. There will probably be some "implanted cell phones" - but I don't really see them being popular. We are constantly bombarded by e-mail, texts, phone calls, etc - and this is only going to increase in severity as access to the technology continues to grow.

Human beings want their privacy - along with other principles. Which is why you'll see the market do some funky things. Take Virtual Boy, for example... true stereoscopic 3d in the 90s. Why didn't it take off? Well, honestly, it was a tad premature. The other reason is that no one really wanted 3d - the console generation that brought about commonplace 3d raster rendering wouldn't hit the market for about another two years. Now, the gimmicky 3d displays of inferior properties are all the rage.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Amicus, $c*m will call ye terrorist



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 





Which means that any nano-architecture in your body is going to be local use, only. You would still require a cell-phone sized device (even with advances in nano-scale electronics - raw physics sets limits on how small you can make radio transceivers) to interface with these smaller devices.

what about fractal antennas?



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 



what about fractal antennas?


What about them?

For those who want to know what he's talking about: en.wikipedia.org...

Physics doesn't change, even for these antennas.


Many fractal element antennas use the fractal structure as a virtual combination of capacitors and inductors. This makes the antenna so that it has many different resonances which can be chosen and adjusted by choosing the proper fractal design. Electrical resonances may not be directly related to a particular scale size of the fractal antenna structure. The physical size of the antenna is unrelated to its resonant or broadband performance. The general rule of antenna length being near target frequency wavelength does not apply itself in the same way with fractal antennas.


customers.hbci.com...


While much of the current reserch and development work has centered on the 900 MHz, PCS and S-band applications, fractal antenna design techniques can be applied to any frequency and any type of antenna, such as dipoles, monopoles, and helices. Replacing the spring stubby on cell phones with a fractal design results in a more efficient antenna, one that is cheaper to manufacture, and broad-band enough that designers are considering including a GPS receiver in future cell phones.

"We have been able to use a fractalized helix to shrink the height to one-third normal with the same gain," Cohen said. The trade-off with this reduction in size is a decrease in bandwidth to slightly less than 25 percent."


So, yeah - the size of a cellular phone antenna.

Any other challenges for the avionics technician ranked in the 99 percentile on technical knowledge Navy wide?



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepainweaver
It was only a matter of time. It might make it easier to rescue Pows, since I'm sure they will have some sort of gps tracking.


Nope. Doesn't work that way. There's not really any "GPS tracking chips", it's a CT meme.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Bedlam

What sort of personal data do you envisage are going to be on a medical monitoring part?


The idenity of the person its in? There would have to be some transmission capability
also, otherwise what good is it?


Can't really see random people beating you down on the street and slicing a part out of your arm to get your identity. And it's an h-field part, it sort of "transmits" although radio waves aren't involved, but you'd need to get close and have the crypto keys to it.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


they're 2-4 times more compact, + needless to say, the higher frequency needs the shorter antenna.
however, Zorgon is right out there: EMP would unhorse a $hit out of it. + keep in mind, this thing barely can provide ciphered link with center, so it could be cheated as well



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


It was not me that was talking about that aspect of it, some one else.
I just think its a bad idea, there are better alternatives than putting
nanosensor microchips inside our body.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


I can certainly see it making its way to a certain set of workplaces,
and have also heard that those who work in classified projects at upper levels
have been "chipped".


Not an implant but I've got an array of tags I wear like a keyring to open doors I have access to at the customer's site, and another set for work in Pensacola.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SarK0Y
 



they're 2-4 times more compact,


And already used in cellular phone antennas.

Making small antennae has not necessarily been that big of a problem. The primary limiting factor has been the restrictions of RF circuitry. Antennae can couple efficiently down to 1/4 wavelength using the quarter-wavelength shunted stub (which is actually a very basic fractal antenna).

www.microwaves101.com...

The real issue is that of power - something the modeling of fractal antennae allowed us to do with much smaller antennae than usually practical without a long antenna or array (the fractal antenna is, essentially, a self-contained array of quarter stubs).



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellenderit is very wrong

it is my extreme right of life to be able to hide

if only just to be alone.

Turning us into robots isnt the answer, those with the latest gadgets will get the work load, if its robots we subcontract, only he with the most robots will succeed.


It isn't a tracking device. It doesn't turn you into a robot.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Bedlam


It's big and lumpy - bigger than the verichip. It's only the sensor elements that are nanoscale.


Why are you spreading disinformation?

It is clearly not "big and lumpy"


What are YOU looking at? Understand that it's not "nanoscale" - that's only the sensor part. The whole thing is somewhat larger than the verichip.

Looking at the articles, first off, the 'business insider' article cranks off incorrectly - there aren't any "nanochips", that's a crap marketing term. There aren't picochips, femtochips, or yottochips either.

Next, nanomaterial != nanobot. There really aren't any nanobots like you see on star trek or stargate. It's one of those things they'd like to do but they're not there yet. If you see "nano" something in an article, it's some sort of engineered material, not a robot.

That article quotes WND, which is right down there with "educate yourself" in terms of technical inaccuracy.

If you follow the articles upstream to their spawning grounds, you'll find that the "nanoscale robots" that are being designed at Stanford are extremely simplistic things, hardly nano (the ones Poon at Stanford are doing are about twice the size of a grain of rice) and require you to be in an MRI machine to provide a magnetic field for the parts to "move". All they do is move so far. They are about as crude as it gets. It's not like the artist's concept drawing with little submarines.

The ones they're doing at DARPA are implanted biosensor arrays. The sensor parts of it are the nano tech. It's not "nanobots", it's nano materials. The rest of it is bone stock NFC microcontroller IP.
edit on 8-5-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Proof that up ole boy.
I am here wating.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join