Discussions on “5G” (and similar) Technology

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: Discussions on “5G” (and similar) Technology

Unread post by sharpstuff » Wed May 06, 2020 11:59 am

As a non-user of any mobile devices (and never have been), including laptops, digital T.V.'s, microwave heaters (a.k.a. ovens), I am still interested in the '5G' stuff, especially in relation to its potential harmful effects.

The proliferation of this 'technology' is scary enough if I cannot avoid it. Having said all that, I was exploring for a lucid description of this 5G.

I happened upon a video called 'The 5G trojan Horse (documentary). It is about an hour and a half in length.

I personally find some issues with it mentioning 'satellites' and various 'diseases' but these can be accepted or not. Overall, I found it very informative and appreciate the work that went into making it.

If you haven't seen it you might like to take a look.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ07BhcM5_4

Be well

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Discussions on “5G” (and similar) Technology

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Wed May 06, 2020 12:21 pm

Yak!

Image
A further two stations have now been installed at the 6,500-meter-high elevation camp, so the signal will be able to cover the summit of Mount Everest. About 25 kms of fibre optic cables were laid as part of the project. More than 150 employees took part in the construction and maintenance of the equipment, including the upgrade of the 177 km transmission trunk line and route along Everest, Unwire added.

The firm said that it would help improve communication for "mountaineering friends" for whom it was no longer "a dream to reach 8K live broadcasts with relatives and friends on 5G network".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11528512/ ... sing-yaks/
Priorities are priorities...

Altair
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Discussions on “5G” (and similar) Technology

Unread post by Altair » Wed May 06, 2020 2:11 pm

glg wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 7:26 pm
....
You work in IT and so maybe you can answer my question above?
How do cell towers, cell sites communicate – by what type of tech. (not protocols, but phys. tech.)
It is my contention that answering this Question may actually help us all to get a step ahead…
That's the easy part. Nowadays all cell towers are linked to the telco 'backbone' with fiber optics. A single FO thread may carry some terabits/s of data, so there is no problem with that. Maybe in some remote places where it's not economical they use plain old coax cable or microwave links, but that would be the exception.

glg
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Discussions on “5G” (and similar) Technology

Unread post by glg » Wed May 06, 2020 6:52 pm

Altair wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 2:11 pm
glg wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 7:26 pm
....
You work in IT and so maybe you can answer my question above?
How do cell towers, cell sites communicate – by what type of tech. (not protocols, but phys. tech.)
It is my contention that answering this Question may actually help us all to get a step ahead…
That's the easy part. Nowadays all cell towers are linked to the telco 'backbone' with fiber optics. A single FO thread may carry some terabits/s of data, so there is no problem with that. Maybe in some remote places where it's not economical they use plain old coax cable or microwave links, but that would be the exception.

Well, thank you!
Fiber Optics doesn’t only carry some terabits/s of data, but it does it much faster than wireless.
FO is a more reliable connection too.
So a wireless backhaul would need what kind of GHz spectrum to compete?
Idk…it probably just can’t compete…because the faster it gets, the less reliable—right?!

You know this reminds me of the, 99% of international data is trafficked by sea cables conundrum, which made its deserved dent on the cloud and satellite idea.

You say, my question was the easy part and I say, it’s the part that matters!

Granted though, obviously the end user is connected by wireless backhaul, but why do we need super high frequencies and above (EHF) if those bands are such sketchy transmitters?
Why if we have end users connecting mostly via FO and just a small distance via wireless can we not use rerouting protocols to avoid congestion (congestion—which seems to be the selling point for the use of high frequencies).
What’s the purpose of high frequency small cell towers? It isn’t speed—that’s covered by FO—it isn’t data load, that’s carried by FO and larger availability of cell sites…
What is it? Why the need for microwave type frequencies?
Seems counterintuitive to me…

I.e would you be so kind to tell me what you think is the hard part?

Btw. The easy part is seldom communicated—hard to come by for a lay person—and there is a huge diversion going against your claim that remote places use outdated physical connections (copper,coaxial), instead there’s claims to be found that those remote places have used, or will use wireless backhaul (https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-grou ... uction.pdf) ( see page seven of this occult offering by the ITU)
Except, I guess... in such remote places as the Himalayas where FO is allegedly deployed as stated clearly above your post?

Weird, I must be missing something…?
Truly, I must be missing the hard part…which certainly is possible, but until the FO, via wireless backhaul mystery is not cleared up, I will stick my tongue out and let the multiple FO layers slowly shave off.

patrix
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Discussions on “5G” (and similar) Technology

Unread post by patrix » Wed May 06, 2020 9:27 pm

SacredCowSlayer wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 11:18 pm
[
Dear Patrix,

I’m completely open to the idea that the 5G issue is just as you suspect. That said, I feel confident that this forum can handle objectively fleshing it out in such a way that the more sensationalized fear-mongering and/or DBA tactics can be avoided. If it becomes a problem, I’ll gladly address it.

As I’ve previously stated, the reality of the 5G issue (and the concerns therewith) is likely not binary (i.e. real v. fantasy). It makes sense to me that there could be a range of problems that stem from this technology (and similar technologies) . . . anywhere from (nearly) nonexistent to significant.

I really appreciate the contributions from our members, and I sincerely hope that this thread will become a source of knowledge (and perhaps liberation) for genuine researchers who would otherwise be trapped and paralyzed by the hyped up fears surrounding this topic.

Maybe the next step here would be to lay out the claimed dangers, and start trying to sort out which ones are worth exploring further. Obviously there are no beams of 5G blasting from satellites. So we can quickly set that one aside. Okay, I took the easy one. Next. :P

Edit by SCS: To be clear—I do agree that there are active disinformation and fear-mongering campaigns (of a wide variety) that have been launched (under the guise of “3G conspiracy”) in recent weeks/months to distract, confuse, scare, obfuscate, and ultimately reinforce the underlying claim that this “coronavirus” actually exists as some silent killer. I felt the need to clarify my position after doing some (cringeworthy) cursory research on the topic. Heaven forbid we be lumped in with the crowd on this one.
Dear SCS, what I appreciate with Cluesforum is that the discussions are "grounded" and that there's a strong awareness of the massive disinformation that is produced. A new technology is a perfect opportunity to create fear and attach strawmen that can be used to discredit the truth seeking community. Practically all other sites have disinformation attached to it (intentionally or not).

And regarding 5G and it's health issues I fail to see any substance. 5G isn't actually a new technology. It's more of an incorporation of existing Wifi technology into the mobile networks.

So again, what I've seen so far is comparable to chemtrails or perhaps low energy ionizing radiation for which there's equally no evidence that it actually causes cancer or any other health problems.

But I guess when you can build (and sell) a device that measures something invisible and makes some ominous noise, then it must be dangerous. Never mind the real poisons present in many of our medicines, foods and hygiene products. Sigh :rolleyes:

But by all means, I might have overlooked something but so far I see a lie that is sold with truth. As the saying goes - Disinformation needs to be 90 percent true to be effective.

tak47
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:27 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by tak47 » Thu May 14, 2020 3:29 pm


Petrov86
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:55 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by Petrov86 » Thu May 14, 2020 3:34 pm

tak47 wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 3:29 pm
:o :lol:



source: https://twitter.com/skitvomfeinsten/sta ... 3758923776

wtf?!
Hmmm looks fake to me.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Thu May 14, 2020 3:47 pm

tak47 wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 3:29 pm
:o :lol:



source: https://twitter.com/skitvomfeinsten/sta ... 3758923776

wtf?!
In the YouTube version of this video, one of the commenters called it out as a scam, noting that the circuit board was from an old TV set. I can't find the link at this time, but this could be a red herring for the 5G distraction. I recommend moving this to the 5G thread.

glg
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: The CORONAVIRUS circus

Unread post by glg » Thu May 14, 2020 4:00 pm

anonjedi2 wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 3:47 pm
tak47 wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 3:29 pm
:o :lol:



source: https://twitter.com/skitvomfeinsten/sta ... 3758923776

wtf?!
In the YouTube version of this video, one of the commenters called it out as a scam, noting that the circuit board was from an old TV set. I can't find the link at this time, but this could be a red herring for the 5G distraction. I recommend moving this to the 5G thread.
Agreed anonjedi2 - here's the YT link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEGdM04ajW8

not sure if this even has to make on to this forum except perhaps as proof of an ongoing 5G distraction campaign?

Post Reply