That's what I wanted! Thank you!
Well this video cements it for me. Julian said "very small electronics" but didn't use the word "nanoparticles" or "nanomachines" or anything on the nano-scale. What I got from what he said was that it was electronics on the scale of RFID or NFC tags, which are small yes, but far from nanoparticles. All the points of information gathering were spoken of from the point of view of mobile phones collecting this data instead of "intelligent dust". Even that term, "intelligent dust" seems to be just a metaphor for the vast array of smartphones and other smart devices all through our world, like dust. Putting these small GSM powered devices in paper, paint, books- all of that can be done with the current flat RFID/NFC tag devices we have now so that also makes the metaphor more likely to be only a descriptor than a fact. I'm convinced now...
If this was really what other people have made "intelligent dust" out to be, I think Julian would have elaborated on it more or at least come off with more alarm or concern than he did. He's really just talking about it on a casual level and being very light on the details here. I'm now convinced that he was talking about non-extraordinary spy type technology that has been around for some time now and not new exotic nano-tech. I always suspected that was the case but far too many people have run away with the idea that it is highly advanced technology and added their own flavor of doom to the mix. That's why I only wanted Julian's words on the matter since everyone else is just speculating and making up stories to feed the fears. There is much to fear here, but it's more mundane fear than extraordinary fear.
I remember watching a video on the concept a few years ago. It was basically a network of very very small RF powered sensors. They envisioned air dropping them via plane or conventional drone the powering them via an orbting plane. Then they'd relay whatever data back. It was a bunch of different sensors, vibration, temp etc. With millions of them they could paint a pretty good picture of a huge area.
Fuck if I could find that vid again - it was years ago. Like one of those Discovery Channel peices where they talk about shit like that at a high level. Or how they used to anyways.
I remember watching a video on the concept a few years ago. It was basically a network of very very small RF powered sensors. They envisioned air dropping them via plane or conventional drone the powering them via an orbting plane. Then they'd relay whatever data back. It was a bunch of different sensors, vibration, temp etc. With millions of them they could paint a pretty good picture of a huge area.
I have seen something like that as well, but the technology was far from "nano-scale" and quite rudimentary in terms of data collection. It was definitely based on the RFID concepts of the time and we really haven't improved much in that area since its initial development decades ago. I'm sure someone will disagree with that statement, but it's true because scaling down doesn't always work out well for most electronic technologies. Sensors have limits to their scale and antennae lose efficiency when made very small. It's just physics being physics and humans being frustrated with that.
Anyway, if there were such fantastical nano-scale technology that could be "intelligent dust" worthy, then why would they bother with all the other data gathering technologies such as smart devices and such? Why not just covertly collect the data and keep mum on the idea of smart devices being spy tools? I'm sure I'd get some interesting arguments and counterpoints on that, but I doubt anyone has enough facts to back things up, including myself. Technology keeps improving, but having worked in it my many decades long career(s), I just don't think we're far enough along to have "intelligent dust" to worry about.
Epstein was on the board of lifeboat, as were/are very well known scientists. They discuss smart dust and homes that will seal the stuff out by a sort of nanotech defenses. Julian is not a scientist, so he just discussed the work of those in the nanotech industry. Remember the Harvard scientist Lieber arrested for China/tech/smuggling info to the commies? He works with nanotech/self-assembling microscopic bots/systems. I suggest some links to read. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2001/11/liquid-computing.html https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2011/01/virus-sized-transistors https://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/microscopic-smart-dust-sensors-are-set-to-revolutionise-a-range-of-sectors https://lifeboat.com/blog/2017/01/smart-dust-the-future-of-involuntary-treatment-of-the-public https://lifeboat.com/blog/2019/07/smart-dust-and-nano-bots https://nextbridge.com/smart-dust-and-future-of-nanotechnology/ https://bernardmarr.com/smart-dust-is-coming-are-you-ready/
My question is, why are you acting dismissive of the darpa-driven discoveries?
My question is, why are you acting dismissive of the darpa-driven discoveries?
You suggest I'm being dismissive of "DARPA-drive discoveries", but no one has any proof that such things actually exist. If this technology were being used pervasively, then someone would have discovered it by now. There are many professional and amateur scientists with access to equipment quite capable of finding this so called "intelligent dust". Surely by now these nano-structures would have been detected and at least rudimentarily analyzed, but there's nothing anyone can show concretely. Sure there are plenty of videos of sketchy discoveries made by ordinary people such as all the supposed nano-structures found in the (((vaxx))) or tap water or what-have-you, but those are always too hokey to be believed. I've never seen any of those videos that didn't include compulsive commentary that is intended to turn off the viewer's critical thinking so that the narrative message could be delivered cleanly. They just reek of manipulation and agenda-driven fear porn.
People who believe this stuff outright have an incentive to believe it and spread it around. They are either addicted to the brain chemicals produced from fear or they are working as propagandists/mouth pieces for those who wish to keep us in fear. I've never seen one of these people be truly skeptical and questioning rather than simply stating what they found is absolutely real and you should believe it outright. I'm looking for real truth not speculation, conjecture, false fear and manipulated information. I want some real intelligent research and analysis by people who don't speak like half-wits or draw conclusions that are not demonstrable. I want truth. I don't want fear porn. I am a skeptic and a critical thinker. I have done plenty of my own looking around using capable equipment and other experimental means and nothing has materialized for me, including the "mask worms" and "hydras" and other fear porn from the jewflu era. Funny how that all disappeared, right?
So no, I'm not being dismissive. I'm being skeptical and inquisitive while simultaneously asking for intellectual honesty and truth in the matter. Julian Assange isn't a scientist, but neither are all the people who will simply believe that DARPA or anyone else has such capabilities. It's far too easy for lies to be conjured out of thin air and spread around by useful idiots so that the common person believes the lies. Don't you think the (((government))) has an incentive to want us skeptical people to believe "intelligent dust" is real so that we self-police our communications, actions and interactions? They don't need actual nano-spy machines to keep us in line if they can convince us that they are already everywhere and we can't escape them. It seems that too many people will just take things at face value rather than seek the truth. They made us change our behavior with only the concept of such technology. Doesn't that seem more like a psyop than actual technology?
Excellent response
(post is archived)