I bought an anti-5G device and here's my review

a reply to: TheRedneck

The funny thing is that aluminum foil will work for some signals. One of my Interns did his final research paper on this. He actually put a video camera in an aluminum foil lined box and placed several cell phones in the box one at a time. He then tried calling the phones and couldn't get through to any of them. The video was to show the signal strength on the phone inside the sealed box.

When I was in the Navy we had several EA-6B aircraft on board. One of the Plane Captains showed me the gold lining of the canopy. The gold was there to protect the crew from the radiation given off by the jamming pods on the aircraft. They used gold because it could be rolled thin enough so that you could see through the canopy.

When I worked the flight deck, I wore a two way radio headset. Every so often you would hear a slight noise. That was when the ship's radar signal beam passed through you. I did that for almost five years. If that beam didn't cause me any problems, I'm not too worried about 5G.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: IndieA
Should have saved your money, mate.

Here's one I just made that is scientifically proven to work as good as the one you just bought. Top of the range. Yours for fidy dollar.

I was just going to ask if he needed a bridge.

a reply to: JIMC5499

They used to tell us on aircraft carriers that, if you wanted to video record anything on the carrier, your camcorder needed to be wrapped in aluminum foil. That was back in 1998 though. I'm not sure how modern smart phones would respond, but my guess is that they would also have issues with EMI if not protected.

a reply to: IndieA

I'm sure you thought of this. Something someone reading this can do is, do not buy a 5G capable phone. They have to transmit in addition to simply receiving a signal. And when they don't receive that signal they boost the broadcast signal in an attempt to make a connection.

a reply to: IndieA

Video cameras were not too common when I was on carriers (1982-87). People don't realize that a lot of military electronics are shielded because of things like that.

a reply to: Jason79

All phones do this. It's why the battery drains fast in low signal areas.
It's not specific to 5g.

a reply to: IndieA

Could just have constructed a tinfoil hat type thingamabob.

Cost around 89p for the foil and to my knowledge not radioactive.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: IndieA

Could just have constructed a tinfoil hat type thingamabob.

Cost around 89p for the foil and to my knowledge not radioactive.

The device I bought isn't radioactive.

The scalar wave device, I also looked at, is also not radioactive.

a reply to: IndieA

Somewhat more expensive than 89p i imagine this ""Device"".

As to radioactive, well everything we encounter in our daily lives contains some radioactive material, ether naturally occurring or man made.

My understanding as to ""scalar wave devices"" is that they may be somewhat pseudoscientific by nature.

Operating outside physics as we know it, and their existence whilst presupposed in numerous theories, has yet to be supported by experiment.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Well, I hope the placebo effect was sufficient to justify the cost. This device cannot do what it claims. It's a scam.

For it to operate the way it is claimed would require the burning of every physics book in existence. A Faraday cage might be more expensive, but at least it can actually work.



a reply to: bobs_uruncle

(I hold a patent pending on this, but I am not selling them, I do lend out one unit for medical purposes though)

Interesting! How do you overcome latency in the gigahertz range? I'm also interested in how you manage to maintain proper power levels with increasing distance from your emitter.

Those are not "gotcha" questions... I have had the same idea, but never could figure out how to handle those two issues. I hope you can feel comfortable answering them.

TheRedneck

I only went into the low ghz range, up to about 5 ghz. Anything above that requires sync sensing where you PLL the wave being sent and then shift as close as you can to tie up alpha (zero cross) with inversions at alpha +/-90. Hopefully doing it that way will reduce the number of cycles that can effect you. However, if there is modulation/envelope manipulation or phase shifting with too little time (and we are talking nanoseconds here) between the modulations (or even phase shifting) you can't keep up unless you know the pattern.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: andy06shake

This page describes how the device, that I bought, works:

I don't fully understand it, but perhaps someone like Dave will.

airestech.com...

There are also some cool photos of their self-affine structure contained in their semiconducting wafer chip.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

Since I designed weapon systems for the military a long time ago

Purely theoretically, Dave, and based on achievable science what various kind of systems/technologies might be in play today? Theoretically of course.

Pain through nerve induction. It's ef'ing nasty, they cycle with higher microwave, it stimulates a nerve response that can be anything from tickling/itching to burning like you're on fire. If the power levels are low it won't do physical damage, if they're moderate you could end up getting new nerve endings like a heroin addict at which point every exposure to the weapon will be more painful. If they are high, well, you'll likely kill yourself to stop the pain, even if it isn't real, your brain still perceives it as real. Plus your body will likely automatically react badly, possibly tensing up to the point where blood starts getting cut off, then you'll get cell damage and the production of lactic acid (charlie horses). This also depends on how much adrenaline you pump into your system, because at some point, too much pain/stress/adrenaline, your heart can literally explode in your chest from beating too fast with an expanded vascular system (from the adrenaline).

Then there's focused scalar, targeting sympathetic cellular level frequencies, the frequencies are much lower, but they can kill. Did some work in this area for medical purposes and gave the NRC a list of organ frequencies, I kinda regret doing that now, because afterwards they asked me to build a focusable weapon using dielectric emitters. I refused and quit for a bit.

Then there's the potential/possibility of graphene oxide/hydroxide in the jabs... If that sh!t is self organizing along magnetic or electrical lines it's going to gravitate towards the nervous system, brain and heart likely creating antenna. If that is the case, then you have artificial conductors in your body that can be remotely excited using 5G or other EMF sources. That could kill, cause pain or pleasure and could be used as a control tool by governments and corporations. Dystopia could be a place on earth....

All purely theoretically of course ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Thanks Dave.
Your knowledge and experience is much appreciated.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Thanks for the input Dave.

Can i get one of your destructive interference devices to try out?

Also, can you confirm or deny that electronic warfare has been used on targeted individuals, and if so, can you talk about the capabilities of it that you know about?

Have you any experience working with 60Ghz, and if so, what can you say about how it excites oxygen molecules and how that might effect a living being.

I have one device left. I lend it out to people close to me that have cancer, diabetes and other diseases it might effect. I make no claims, people use, it does what it does. It's not just a destructive interference device for external EMF, it works on internal systems as well ;-)

Yes, electronic warfare is used, I built one for the South Africans in 1987 to manage "leaky" scientists, when I worked with CI. Now... if I was doing that kind of R&D in 1987 for my CO (also built a 3 megawatt laser, rail guns and an EMP weapon), imagine what they are doing today. Anything you see come out now has its roots in, and is likely, 30 years old, maybe older. Let's leave it at that, I already have 2+9 national security statutes listed against my file.

Anything that resonates a thing will either destroy it or increase its efficacy, the same applies to oxygen. Like a frequency and a crystal glass, hit it with its resonant frequency and it shatters, the bonds break. However, in electrical circuits if you hit the resonant frequency of a coil let's say, the power transfer increases. This is why antennas are cut to the size of the 1/4 wavelength of the frequency being transmitted or received, it increases the output by making it cleaner and increases the sensitivity.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Karen657

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: IndieA
Should have saved your money, mate.

Here's one I just made that is scientifically proven to work as good as the one you just bought. Top of the range. Yours for fidy dollar.

I was just going to ask if he needed a bridge.

That's a snag, mate! Not a bridge.

Goes well with fried onion, tomato sauce and a slice of bread, won't save you from 5g though.. And you'd need a few more to cross a river if it could be a bridge.. a very delicious bridge... *droooools*

a reply to: IndieA

I think you might be ok with 5G mate as long as you are not hugging the tops of the omnidirectional masts for extended periods of time.

It really is simply the next generation of communications medium.

There are studies from the likes of the World Health Organisation or Public Health Organisation in the UK that show 5G is not particularly harmful to our health any more than the last iteration aka 3G/4G.

And the wavelength 5G operates at is non-ionising radiation, meaning it does not produce enough energy to permeate or damage the cells in our body.

Each to there own all the same IndieA.

a reply to: andy06shake

I'm not concerned with the general use of 5G so much as I am about the weaponization of it.
I am still using a 4G phone, and I have already purchased my next phone which is only 5G with an attachment, which I won't be getting.

Patents I've seen suggest that radio waves can be used to manipulate a target a variety of ways, from changing mood or brainwaves, to transmitting audio via radio waves to someone's skull remotely.
I found one patent that claims to use 60Ghz to remote take vital signs of a subject.
Those are patents that were easy to find, I can only imagine what has been developed or is in development now.

On a side note, this just occurred to me.
60Ghz exicites oxygen molecules and it's been suggested that with enough amplitude it may be able to prevent a person's body from getting oxygen properly, mimicking covid symptoms.

60Ghz is also an unrestricted frequency anyone can use.

If 60Ghz is being directly aimed at people in a hospital, in an effort to constantly monitor vitals, would it be possible to hack this system and turn up the amplitude enough to create a false covid case or otherwise suffocate them? What are the dangers of continuous direct beam of 60Ghz even at low amplitudes? The studies don't seem to exist and the industry likes to assume that EMR is everywhere and generally safe. It's still really important for their cell tower workers to shut off the power before they climb those towers, though.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: IndieA

I think you might be ok with 5G mate as long as you are not hugging the tops of the omnidirectional masts for extended periods of time.

It really is simply the next generation of communications medium.

There are studies from the likes of the World Health Organisation or Public Health Organisation in the UK that show 5G is not particularly harmful to our health any more than the last iteration aka 3G/4G.

And the wavelength 5G operates at is non-ionising radiation, meaning it does not produce enough energy to permeate or damage the cells in our body.

Each to there own all the same IndieA.

All the same, from: The Scientific American:

"The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?
Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety."

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

It might be still a little early for a highland fling.

a reply to: IndieA

Deny Ignorance appears to have just gone out the window.
Why don't people question anything anymore?
Can't stop laughing at some of the posts where nobody has done any research! e.g. 5G will make you infertile/crippled/blind/bald/make your hair grow/etc.etc.
Sure you've got the picture now.

I left Covid out on purpose because there are so many silly stories/theories going around and they don't need any more bullcrap added to it.



w

originally posted by: nolabel
a reply to: IndieA

Deny Ignorance appears to have just gone out the window.
Why don't people question anything anymore?

The phrase "Deny Ignorance" as used by the team of posters who represent "common sense" on this forum is translated practically by them to read: "follow the official narrative!"

Why do we need the official narrative to be revealed to us by these so-called "critical thinkers"? All we have to do is google a question such as "Is 5g safe?" And google will have selected a whole bunch of results to prove it is. Why bother at all with ATS? Just google any question you are in doubt about and the oracle will have spoken.