China Wuhan Virus Pandemic

There are groups out there claiming that shortly after people were vaccinated, they started giving off Bluetooth signals with an address containing an unrecognized vendor code. These are people with no phones or other Bluetooth devices on their body, and they walk up to a device with a signal analyzer and it picks up a signal coming from inside them.



People need to take the threat of the Internet of Bodies seriously.

The Internet of Bodies

This Article introduces the ongoing progression of the Internet of Things (IoT) into the Internet of Bodies (IoB)—a network of human bodies whose integrity and functionality rely at least in part on the Internet and related technologies, such as artificial intelligence. IoB devices will evidence...
scholarship.law.wm.edu
 
Iconoclast said:
There are groups out there claiming that shortly after people were vaccinated, they started giving off Bluetooth signals with an address containing an unrecognized vendor code. These are people with no phones or other Bluetooth devices on their body, and they walk up to a device with a signal analyzer and it picks up a signal coming from inside them.
Click to expand...

What sort of device does one need? I would like to test this.
Would a normal bluetooth-capable smartphone pick it up?
 
Scottty said:
What sort of device does one need? I would like to test this.
Would a normal bluetooth-capable smartphone pick it up?
Click to expand...
Repeating the experiment to test it and see if it’s nonsense would be a good idea.

Smartphone firmware can’t be trusted to pick it up. I’ve heard reports of these signals disappearing from BT analyzer apps after device updates, so it’s possible they’re being filtered. An older “eBay Special” laptop with USB Bluetooth antenna and analyzer software is a better setup.

I can’t personally vouch for the accuracy of people analyzing vax contents and claiming they contain nanotech. A lot of these reports are way off-base, or single out something innocuous (no, salt crystals under a microscope are not “nanochips”). On the other hand, there is a great deal on this sort of technology being published in reputable journals. Look up the papers of Josep Jornet and Ian Akyildiz in IEEE. It’s paper after paper of things like intrabody terahertz communications with plasmonic nanoantennas, backscatter communication inside the body, RF harvesting, implantable nanosensors, IoB, 6G metasurface antennas and how they can power implants wirelessly and communicate with them, and so on and so on.
  • They have done the path loss calcs for T-waves inside the body and know that relays need to be spaced millimeters apart.
  • They are actively pursuing various forms of ground-up, self-assembly of implanted devices.
  • They have written and published papers on things like hijacking the gut-brain axis to propagate digital signals throughout the body, by using “molecular communication” to convert them to analog chemical signals and then back to digital.
  • They have published papers on how to use bioelectronics to manipulate cell and organelle behavior and even to alter gene expression (look up “electrogenetics”).
  • They are developing wireless BCIs that don’t require surgery (see DARPA N3).
This is not tinfoil-hat Alex Jones stuff, either. It’s published in plain sight, in top journals, by guys with doctorates.
 
I am going to definitely say that seems very untrue just based on knowl3dge of how BT works.
It would need a power source, and we would need something to keep it going long term. Bluetooth signals are not always something small especially once they connect.
As is, the range of these would small to miniscule in scale. You would have to he right on tje person to even connect, as anything needed to connect to satellites for instancewould need a lot of power.
 
Zachowon said:
I am going to definitely say that seems very untrue just based on knowl3dge of how BT works.
It would need a power source, and we would need something to keep it going long term. Bluetooth signals are not always something small especially once they connect.
As is, the range of these would small to miniscule in scale. You would have to he right on tje person to even connect, as anything needed to connect to satellites for instancewould need a lot of power.
Click to expand...
Not if the signal is being produced by backscatter. Battery-free wireless energy harvesting is absolutely a thing.
 
Passively powered devices need to be low power, and due to the physics of how light works, that means any passive RF device needs to big enough to be visible. The smallest implantable chips I can find are 1/4 inch long.

The blue tooth and radio stuff is controlled opposition, stuff propped up to make anti-vaxers look crazy.
 
Doomsought said:
Passively powered devices need to be low power, and due to the physics of how light works, that means any passive RF device needs to big enough to be visible. The smallest implantable chips I can find are 1/4 inch long.

The blue tooth and radio stuff is controlled opposition, stuff propped up to make anti-vaxers look crazy.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying.
It would never be small enough to work.
Because Radio Wave Theory shows the idea of how waves work and how much power is needed
 
Doomsought said:
Passively powered devices need to be low power, and due to the physics of how light works, that means any passive RF device needs to big enough to be visible. The smallest implantable chips I can find are 1/4 inch long.

The blue tooth and radio stuff is controlled opposition, stuff propped up to make anti-vaxers look crazy.
Click to expand...
“It needs to be bigger than the wavelength”.

Conventional wisdom would say yes. However, that is only true for traditional antennas. It is not true for antennas that make use of surface plasmon resonance to capture frequencies of light larger than themselves, a.k.a. “subwavelength plasmonic nanoantennas”. THz-range nanoantennas can pick up wavelengths of RF that are substantially larger than the actual antenna, because of a little quirk of physics that isn’t very widely known.

Also, for larger antennas and longer wavelengths, like the 2.4 GHz signals used for BT, you have to take into account self-assembly approaches, synthetic biology, biophotonics, et cetera. I have seen serious proposals to use human sweat glands as antennas. I have seen proposals to use amyloids to cast metal nanowires in vivo. You are not taking into account anatomical features and materials already present in the body and how they can be manipulated.
 
The body can not stop RF is true. But at the same time, a mass scale of any thing using tje body as an antenna.
Plus the output of it would not be really useful.

Easy way to test. Get some hacker because BT signals arnt really encrypted.
Plus everyone in my field would be out of jobs if they were emitting them
 
I've been gathering papers on all of this for quite some time, now. There is a semi-secret, Manhattan-Project-Like push for wireless, implantable nanotech that is powered by energy harvesting. Whether or not the technology is good enough to do any of this in a human right now, or if it's still a ways off and the existing claims about people giving off MAC addresses are spurious, the fact of the matter remains that significant funding from entrenched interests and man-hours from committed PhDs are pouring into this.

pastebin.ai

Nanotech - Pastebin.ai

Nanotech
pastebin.ai pastebin.ai







 
Wouldn't this be easy enough to verify by sitting in a faraday cage and then sticking a radio receiver inside? You may not be able to decode the output but if there's a BT signal being given off then it will be in a proscribed RF frequency range, within a certain band of transmission power given by the ultra-low power standards for BT, and will not be just random noise (even with minimal encryption). Have any papers running that experiment @Iconoclast ?
 
posh-goofiness said:
Wouldn't this be easy enough to verify by sitting in a faraday cage and then sticking a radio receiver inside? You may not be able to decode the output but if there's a BT signal being given off then it will be in a proscribed RF frequency range, within a certain band of transmission power given by the ultra-low power standards for BT, and will not be just random noise (even with minimal encryption). Have any papers running that experiment @Iconoclast ?
Click to expand...
Not if the power source is harvested RF. If you seat someone inside a Faraday cage who has RF-harvesting nanotech inside their body, it will simply stop functioning. There will be no backscattered signal. The whole thing will go dead. If it harvests energy directly from the body, however (i.e. movement, metabolism), that's a different story.



Technically, @Doomsought is right about one thing. Some of these things are not amenable to being scaled down to sizes smaller than the naked eye can see. To see the sorts of capabilities that they're after with this stuff, you need to examine a very broad array of hypothetical technologies that cover the entire gamut of implantable objects; semiconductor nanoparticles, DNA computers, biomimetics, self-assembling systems, synthetic biology, and so on. Granted, it's not magic. There's only so much that can be done with current technology. However, there are many fundamentally different technologies being developed in parallel right now that could make for some very weird Black Mirror shit if they were all integrated together in a single platform.

For instance, DARPA's N3 program are working on nanotransducers that receive RF, electromagnetic fields, ultrasound, and/or infrared light. These nanotransducers activate neurons when they're hit with wireless energy, by producing a minute current or heat and opening stimuli-receptive ion channels, forcing neurons to spike.

Various other groups are working on various kinds of synthetic biology constructs, like de novo gene and protein synthesis with AI assistance. This includes things like designing new proteins from scratch that could be used as the basis of biophotonic systems, such as biolasers.

What if you inject light-sensitive nanotransducers into someone's brain, and then inject engineered tissue into their brain that pumps the nanotransducers with a biolaser when those cells are triggered by, say, a concentration of a particular drug or biomolecule?

This is just one example, out of countless examples, of how these emerging technologies can be combined and engineered into something wholly new.
 
Last edited:
There is no active way to test this unless you know someone vaccinated, and can easily get pre covid Bluetooth and RF detectors.
So...fairly easily.

Add in the freq would be easily hackable by any and all that have any knowledge

Aka, extremely stupid to try anything like this if you want to have anyway to spy on people
 
Iconoclast said:
Not if the power source is harvested RF. If you seat someone inside a Faraday cage who has RF-harvesting nanotech inside their body, it will simply stop functioning. There will be no backscattered signal. The whole thing will go dead. If it harvests energy directly from the body, however (i.e. movement, metabolism), that's a different story.

Click to expand...

Ah, right. yeah, that is a pickle. In my head, I had the conception was that it was chemical or mechanical scavenging and not EM scavenging. Then in this theoretical experiment, you could put a distinct radio signal from a transmitter inside the faraday cage. Something with a known frequency, amplitude, and power far outside the BT radio specifications that can be easily filtered out. That should cover powering the tech within the cage and collection of signal by simple filtering.
 
Iconoclast said:
Repeating the experiment to test it and see if it’s nonsense would be a good idea.

Smartphone firmware can’t be trusted to pick it up. I’ve heard reports of these signals disappearing from BT analyzer apps after device updates, so it’s possible they’re being filtered. An older “eBay Special” laptop with USB Bluetooth antenna and analyzer software is a better setup.

I can’t personally vouch for the accuracy of people analyzing vax contents and claiming they contain nanotech. A lot of these reports are way off-base, or single out something innocuous (no, salt crystals under a microscope are not “nanochips”). On the other hand, there is a great deal on this sort of technology being published in reputable journals. Look up the papers of Josep Jornet and Ian Akyildiz in IEEE. It’s paper after paper of things like intrabody terahertz communications with plasmonic nanoantennas, backscatter communication inside the body, RF harvesting, implantable nanosensors, IoB, 6G metasurface antennas and how they can power implants wirelessly and communicate with them, and so on and so on.
  • They have done the path loss calcs for T-waves inside the body and know that relays need to be spaced millimeters apart.
  • They are actively pursuing various forms of ground-up, self-assembly of implanted devices.
  • They have written and published papers on things like hijacking the gut-brain axis to propagate digital signals throughout the body, by using “molecular communication” to convert them to analog chemical signals and then back to digital.
  • They have published papers on how to use bioelectronics to manipulate cell and organelle behavior and even to alter gene expression (look up “electrogenetics”).
  • They are developing wireless BCIs that don’t require surgery (see DARPA N3).
This is not tinfoil-hat Alex Jones stuff, either. It’s published in plain sight, in top journals, by guys with doctorates.
Click to expand...
Career scientists get paid to write all sorts of stuff, however unfeasible, crazy or technically unimplementable...
Publish or perish is real.
Ok then, if it's BT or any other public protocol based stuff, then it's fully testable.
Don't trust firmware, even open source?
Ok then, get any sort of electronic gear that's fully protocol agnostic, meant to test RF pollution standard compliance, detecting pirate radio stations, drones, and this sort of stuff, go into a Faraday cage and see if anything changes if a person with this supposed nanotech enters.
Lower end of this stuff is not hard to get either:

RF Explorer — Handheld RF Spectrum Analyzer

rfexplorer.com rfexplorer.com
 
Marduk said:
Career scientists get paid to write all sorts of stuff, however unfeasible, crazy or technically unimplementable...
Publish or perish is real.
Ok then, if it's BT or any other public protocol based stuff, then it's fully testable.
Don't trust firmware, even open source?
Ok then, get any sort of electronic gear that's fully protocol agnostic, meant to test RF pollution standard compliance, detecting pirate radio stations, drones, and this sort of stuff, go into a Faraday cage and see if anything changes if a person with this supposed nanotech enters.
Lower end of this stuff is not hard to get either:

RF Explorer — Handheld RF Spectrum Analyzer

rfexplorer.com rfexplorer.com
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. It should be tested, again and again, by multiple groups of independent researchers, to make sure it isn't BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top