5G light-emitting diode (LED) network and planned neural connection to the 5G grid
Looks like all that turning into pure clown show now.
Congratulations, ignorant bastards, who don't bother to learn anything, you successfully muted all really important questions about 5G with your stupid clown crap.
How do we know they are ignorant bastards and not glowies just muddying the waters
We don't. They could be both - ignorant glowies. I would not be surprised at all, if a shit of paper with something like "grant payments of project 1234-XYZ" stored in some file on some shelf in some state building. We saw similar papers about different hoaxes numerous times, and while we don't know if they are exist in that case, it is more than valid theory.
Looking at all consiracists scene, I see two distinct groups of participants - one group are those who question everything, try to find the answers by themselves, generate some theories and trying to connect the dots, and others who just copypasting some narratives round and round without adding anything or questioning anything at all. Latter could look wery interested in what they share, looking closely it is obvious, that they are not interested in what they share at all. They are more interested in sharing and protecting what they share than about digging deeper or questioning what they share.
F.e., if you are really interested in that 5G stuff, why not to try to find out what that 5G is, how it works, how it differ from 4G and so on?
F.e. a picture in that article is a cut out from frame from infamous hoax video with "cell company worker" with some board in hands who tells that they was ordered to put that board on cell towers. However, the board is from old DVB set top box Cisco 4585DVB with typical SCART TV connector that had never used in anything cellular. IIRC that set top box production was canceled even before 5G become adopted standard. You could even see the case of 4585DVB on the hood of "workers" car in that video. https://skelbiu-img.dgn.lt/1_5_3514572942/cisco-4585dvb-virgin-media-kabelinis-imtuvas.jpg
Who and for what purpose will spend time to shoot and spread the completely fake video that could be (and AFAIK was, with following scream in MSM about "banning misinformation") easily debunked?
Who will spend time 2 years later and write insane article about 5G and vaccines and use a frame from already widely debunked video?
There is definitely some game ongoing, and I think it is well paid by those who want to silence any reasonable questions about 5G, coronahoax, vaccinehoax and other shit.
The question really is only about those who post that crap here. Are they doing that because of ignorance, or is it their job?
Of course. It is definitely some conspiracy with 5G, but not one they try to push.
If so, what are they?
Shortly: 5G main official advantage over 4G is higher bandwidth and more clients for one BS. But significantly higher bandwidth you could get only in Frequesncy Range 2 (27GHz and 38GHz bands). But that bands barely works inside buildings, not even talking about outside - they are easily muted even by rain or fog. And even inside you need antennas in sight of each other to get some Gbit speeds. So, in reality, 5G gives slightly wider bandwidth and more clients for Base Station.
And now the most interesting thing - Base Station is definitely not the endpoint of your high bandwidth connection. You need thick fiber channels from BS - uplinks to some backbone. But nobody upgrade that uplinks. And that uplinks are the bottleneck of cellular networks.
4G hardly utilise 30% of it's possible capacity because uplinks can't provide necessary bandwidth. Even in towns. Situation in suburban and rural areas much worse, because even 1Gb radiolink is often a luxury for rural base station. And nobody want to bury fiber under all that fields and forests. So, 1000 clients who have 1Gb connection to base station will fight for that 1Gb uplink with all consequences. Changing 4G to 5G gives nothing in terms of real bandwith and number of clients.
So the question is - why they need 5G, when they can't even utilize 4G?
They often tell us about IoT crap in connection with 5G. Here the larger number of clients will be a significant advantage. But more spying devices will need much more bandwidth. So, all IoT traffic should be terminated on the base station. And here comes my theory - they will collect all surveillance from 5G IoT devices right on the BS. When they will need an info about you they will just downloand only data recorded from your devices using that narrow uplink.
So, 5G is a prerequisite for total surveillance network with local storage of all raw surveillance on BS with access to it provided to agencies and businesses.
Pretty logical scheme - you turn every base station into local network storage without any need to buld giant datacenters and upgrading uplinks and backbone. 4G base stations don't have large enough storages, and have lower maximum number of clients. So, add 5G modules to the base stations, and you get state wide surveillance storage that could hold data on every single person who use any smartphone, IoT device or use cellular network for internet access.
That concerns about creation of country-wide distributed storage surveillance network with enormous capacity was rised in the early days of 5G rollout. "What the fuck, we can't even utilize 4G, why roll out 5G instead of upgrading all BS uplinks?" Even Apple founder (real one) Stieven Wozniak rised that concern at the time, but all that was quickly buried under the insane "5G health issues" storm.
Hardly today any questions about 5G will be heard and answered.
Looks like all that turning into pure clown show now.
Congratulations, ignorant bastards, who don't bother to learn anything, you successfully muted all really important questions about 5G with your stupid clown crap.
We don't. They could be both - ignorant glowies. I would not be surprised at all, if a shit of paper with something like "grant payments of project 1234-XYZ" stored in some file on some shelf in some state building. We saw similar papers about different hoaxes numerous times, and while we don't know if they are exist in that case, it is more than valid theory.
Looking at all consiracists scene, I see two distinct groups of participants - one group are those who question everything, try to find the answers by themselves, generate some theories and trying to connect the dots, and others who just copypasting some narratives round and round without adding anything or questioning anything at all. Latter could look wery interested in what they share, looking closely it is obvious, that they are not interested in what they share at all. They are more interested in sharing and protecting what they share than about digging deeper or questioning what they share.
F.e., if you are really interested in that 5G stuff, why not to try to find out what that 5G is, how it works, how it differ from 4G and so on?
F.e. a picture in that article is a cut out from frame from infamous hoax video with "cell company worker" with some board in hands who tells that they was ordered to put that board on cell towers. However, the board is from old DVB set top box Cisco 4585DVB with typical SCART TV connector that had never used in anything cellular. IIRC that set top box production was canceled even before 5G become adopted standard. You could even see the case of 4585DVB on the hood of "workers" car in that video. https://skelbiu-img.dgn.lt/1_5_3514572942/cisco-4585dvb-virgin-media-kabelinis-imtuvas.jpg
Who and for what purpose will spend time to shoot and spread the completely fake video that could be (and AFAIK was, with following scream in MSM about "banning misinformation") easily debunked?
Who will spend time 2 years later and write insane article about 5G and vaccines and use a frame from already widely debunked video?
There is definitely some game ongoing, and I think it is well paid by those who want to silence any reasonable questions about 5G, coronahoax, vaccinehoax and other shit.
The question really is only about those who post that crap here. Are they doing that because of ignorance, or is it their job?
Of course. It is definitely some conspiracy with 5G, but not one they try to push.
Shortly: 5G main official advantage over 4G is higher bandwidth and more clients for one BS. But significantly higher bandwidth you could get only in Frequesncy Range 2 (27GHz and 38GHz bands). But that bands barely works inside buildings, not even talking about outside - they are easily muted even by rain or fog. And even inside you need antennas in sight of each other to get some Gbit speeds. So, in reality, 5G gives slightly wider bandwidth and more clients for Base Station.
And now the most interesting thing - Base Station is definitely not the endpoint of your high bandwidth connection. You need thick fiber channels from BS - uplinks to some backbone. But nobody upgrade that uplinks. And that uplinks are the bottleneck of cellular networks.
4G hardly utilise 30% of it's possible capacity because uplinks can't provide necessary bandwidth. Even in towns. Situation in suburban and rural areas much worse, because even 1Gb radiolink is often a luxury for rural base station. And nobody want to bury fiber under all that fields and forests. So, 1000 clients who have 1Gb connection to base station will fight for that 1Gb uplink with all consequences. Changing 4G to 5G gives nothing in terms of real bandwith and number of clients.
So the question is - why they need 5G, when they can't even utilize 4G?
They often tell us about IoT crap in connection with 5G. Here the larger number of clients will be a significant advantage. But more spying devices will need much more bandwidth. So, all IoT traffic should be terminated on the base station. And here comes my theory - they will collect all surveillance from 5G IoT devices right on the BS. When they will need an info about you they will just downloand only data recorded from your devices using that narrow uplink.
So, 5G is a prerequisite for total surveillance network with local storage of all raw surveillance on BS with access to it provided to agencies and businesses.
Pretty logical scheme - you turn every base station into local network storage without any need to buld giant datacenters and upgrading uplinks and backbone. 4G base stations don't have large enough storages, and have lower maximum number of clients. So, add 5G modules to the base stations, and you get state wide surveillance storage that could hold data on every single person who use any smartphone, IoT device or use cellular network for internet access.
That concerns about creation of country-wide distributed storage surveillance network with enormous capacity was rised in the early days of 5G rollout. "What the fuck, we can't even utilize 4G, why roll out 5G instead of upgrading all BS uplinks?" Even Apple founder (real one) Stieven Wozniak rised that concern at the time, but all that was quickly buried under the insane "5G health issues" storm.
Hardly today any questions about 5G will be heard and answered.