rainerann
Star
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 4,550
What do you think the difference is between the pursuit of something like this and the history of the relationship between people that opposed pollution and the oil industry?I never bought into the 5g angle on this. If it is apparently making people this sick (exempting those who are electrically sensitive), then its safe to assume there'll hardly be anyone alive by the time 6/7g is rolled out.
Anyway, for those interested:
View attachment 34823
On September 23, 1998, 66 satellites, launched into low orbit by the Iridium Corporation, commenced broadcasting to the first ever satellite telephones. Those phones would work equally as well in mid-ocean, and in Antarctica, as in the middle of Los Angeles—a remarkable achievement.
But telephone interviews revealed that on that day exactly, electrically sensitive people all over the world experienced stabbing pains in their chest, knife-like sensations in their head, nosebleeds, asthma attacks, and other signs of severe electrical illness. Many did not think they were going to make it. Statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control reveal that the national death rate rose 4 to 5 percent during the following two weeks. Thousands of homing pigeons lost their way during those two weeks, all over the United States.
Several companies are now competing to provide not just cell phone service, but Wi-Fi and the equivalent of 5G, to every square inch of the earth from satellites in space in low earth orbit. Their target dates are 2019 or 2020. They are planning not 66 satellites, but tens of thousands of satellites. There isn’t much time to prevent a global ecological catastrophe.
The companies with the biggest schemes include:
SpaceX: 12,000 satellites
OneWeb: 4560 satellites
Boeing: 2956 satellites
Spire Global: 972 satellites
that is what I have been wondering lately. How different is it to say that there will be a global catastrophe because of increasing satellites from the arguments made about impending climate change due to global warming?
personally, I am thinking some of these things will only be stopped completely after the fact if history is set to repeat itself. There will be another equivalent of a clean air act and a consequent power struggle for 30 years or more.
however, back to the concept of hidden agendas. There has to be some way to gather support for something to be successful. Like people were sensitive to the electricity, people are sensitive to things on a different level that makes it difficult to predict the way they will respond to something when they are faced with it and if you can’t be direct with them. Then you can’t really get their support and there will be a certain degree of drift they will create by their own interpretation of available information.
so even if there are many things intended to be an influence in a targeted way, the influence can not be considered evidence of what the outcome will be.
Last edited: