Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Main forum to discuss RTL-SDR related topics.
owb24
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by owb24 » Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 am

These things are happening in Vienna as well:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/austria-in ... s/46795058

Austrian and US authorities are investigating.

On the one side the culprits use portable devices (battery driven weapons, pocket size). But there is also a weaponization of 5G it seems. 5G is like an RF laser. The culprits use apps to focus 5G on their target. The target person is first contaminated with some thing sensitive to 5G, heavy metals, yeast. Unbelievable stuff.

There is a group of people who would give you a call for phony reasons and then during the call you feel the attack, you move out of the ray, and it follows you. It is like coming from a 5G antenna. No usual criminals, in my case it was two lawyers and one senior banker. It is a big scheme, organized sabotage.

Here 33 thousand scientific and medical articles about all this:

https://www.emf-portal.org/en

sharmaayushb
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:10 am

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by sharmaayushb » Tue Jul 20, 2021 9:45 am

Thanks a lot for the software recommendation.

radiolistener
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by radiolistener » Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:55 pm

owb24 wrote:
Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:58 am
On the one side the culprits use portable devices (battery driven weapons, pocket size). But there is also a weaponization of 5G it seems. 5G is like an RF laser. The culprits use apps to focus 5G on their target. The target person is first contaminated with some thing sensitive to 5G, heavy metals, yeast. Unbelievable stuff.
I don't believe that. Technically 5G has ability to focus RF beam at some points. It really works like laser working at RF spectrum. But such things you're talking about doesn't have sense. What is reason to use expensive equipment and a lot of power just to make some headache for some people? This is stupid :)

The things you're talking about more looks like ionizing radioactivity effect, which doesn't related with 5G. Did you measure radioactivity level with dosimeter?

owb24
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by owb24 » Tue Jul 20, 2021 8:50 pm

@radiolistener

For the same reasons Stalin wanted to sabotage thousands of his political opponents and any other form of social and economic independence of his regime. Back then he needed a lot of informants and agents. Today all you need is a few apps, some Spyware, and 5G.

What is the goal of whoever is doing this?

- control of capital (e.g. some bankers will pretend it is a free market, but the moment you prepare to get a bank license and compete with them, you start feeling sick, unable to work, but doctors find nothing and there is no one to blame or sue)
- Control of laws, policies, and international agreements (e.g. the case of US diplomats)
- Control of public opinion (try setting up a news outlet)

Just from the cases of the many US diplomats affected you get the dimension of how big this game is.

So, no, that 5G equipment is expensive for you and me, but not for whoever controls a mobile phone company, or whoever owns a bank license.

It seems it is a big scheme going on here, most likely a criminal one, and not run by your friends ;-)

snn47
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:00 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by snn47 » Wed Jul 21, 2021 3:02 am

@owb24
On the one side the culprits use portable devices (battery driven weapons, pocket size). But there is also a weaponization of 5G it seems. 5G is like an RF laser. The culprits use apps to focus 5G on their target. The target person is first contaminated with some thing sensitive to 5G, heavy metals, yeast. Unbelievable stuff.
!
Which frequency range are you talking about? 5G may operate in different bands which results in large variation in antenna size,gain and the radiated power .
RF is not like coherent like a Laser, the beam widens with distance and therefore the power reduces with 1/R².
Antenna of 5G stations are designed to track 5G cellphones, so if you or a person close by use a 5G cell phone the base station antenna will focus on him, but 5G also minimizes the EIRP to a minimum required to provide stable operation.
Depending on wavelength you have a more or less large and heavy antenna, which requires a mechanical mount capable for the weight while providing precise azimuth and elevation control to point the antenna. Such an antenna would have to be in direct unobstructed line of sight and you therefore should be able to see such an antenna.
How would anyone know where the person of interest is at a time to focus a 5G beam, when he does not have a 5 G phone and moves arround, without targeting also other persons close by? Electronic beam steering is not just a simple pushing a few buttons or few command lines. Antenna Beam is an integrated part of a base station.
Also portable device are limited by the battery capacity and therefore limited to short operation when you need high power.
You wrote
Today all you need is a few apps, some Spyware, and 5G.

You gave us the answer to all your claims
Unbelievable stuff.

Unbelievable stuff is the only thing I can I agree with you so far, since you do not want to discuss facts, but only want support why you are right and everyone else is not since
all you need is a few apps, some Spyware, and 5G.
Yes pigs can also fly, they just need a few apps, some Spyware, and 5G to power them.

owb24
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by owb24 » Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:07 am

@snn47

Unless you are trying to deflect away from the issue, I don't see why you would call this flying pigs. If you don't believe our employees are suffering headaches at the same time V/m goes up and electronic devices are disrupted, then why would 120 US diplomats come out and state similar issues?

I have posted measurements, and lab results, if those are not facts, what are they? Also user pdm is reporting similar issues.

As to 5G, I haven't said, I am delivering proofs. Any proofs we gathered so far went straight to the courts. If this all was flying pigs, why would Bill Burns, the CIA head, publicly say, he is being updated daily on the investigations. Same goes for Anthony Blinken, the US secretary of State. I am sure these guys are reading along here, and will sure want to know, why someone would be interested to publicly and vehemently deflect away from founded suspicions.

snn47
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:00 pm

You Can't Beat Physics, even if you wish for it

Post by snn47 » Thu Jul 22, 2021 6:49 pm

Like MMcC wrote before the NARDA is RF Exposimeter and as such not a measurment device.
The Narda RadMan 2 XT is built referencing ITU-T K.145. Maybe you should read K.145 "Assessment and management of compliance with radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure limits for workers at radiocommunication sites and facilities Recommendation" to understand the distinction, the download page is https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-K.145-202012-I/en. In short the purpose is to ensure that workers are not overexposed to a RF field of a transmitter or antenna that they have to work on or test if it is transmitting or not.
If you view the video on the webpage you may have noticed that the NARDA will and can also provide false alarms, e.g. even if the transmitter of interest is turned and the antenna is not radiating, e.g. if signals of one or more strong transmitter are reflected close by, which is also explained in the video at the NARDA webpage.

The NARDA is not a frequency selective measurement device, that is designed to measure accurately the frequency and power density detected at the probe or the frequency of the signals. The NARDA will most likely not only detect/trigger to the strongest field within it's defined frequency range (E-Field 50 MHz to 8 GHz and H-Field 50 MHz to), which can be anything from electric discharge, lightning to strong BC, TV transmitter which can exceed 100 000 W EIRP or Radar-Stations at airports like Zurich Kloten. In addition to pulse detection it can also provide RMS the RMS sum of the RF-energy of all strong sources.

Again the NARDA was designed for a quick and reliable check for the Assessment and management of compliance with radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure limits for workers at radiocommunication sites and facilities Recommendation nothing more.
If you don't believe our employees are suffering headaches at the same time V/m goes up and electronic devices are disrupted, then why would 120 US diplomats come out and state similar issues?
I have posted measurements, and lab results, if those are not facts, what are they? Also user pdm is reporting similar issues.
Your colleagues have problems, the source does not necessarily has to be RF-exposure.

Neither the NARDA nor are SDR something that can be called a "measuring device", they may at best give some indication, therefore you did not provide measurements, just bits and pieces of possible sources at various frequencies that suit your own chain of argumentation, while you ignore the possibility of false alarms and those replies that do not suit your theories.

E.g. the unanswered questions from radiolistener
What is the frequency of this emission? If RF emission is so strong and can cause headache, then you can easily measure it's frequency with a frequency meter with piece of wire inserted into input connector.
Does neon lamp glowing in the hand when this thing happens? You can also use compact fluorescent lamp instead of neon lamp for testing. If the lamp glows in your hands, then this is a strong indication that you are indeed under the influence of powerful electromagnetic fields.


Your answer to @Ben 321 question
What makes you think it's directed and not an omnidirectional in its transmission pattern?
was
Well it was pretty obvious: the signal was appearing only on one of the desks in our office. The moment the spectrometer is moved away from that desk the signal faded away. Back on the desk, the signal reappears. That is why the assumption of directed.
Ben is correct that it does not have to be directional, again I refer to the NARDA webpage on false alarms.

Just by ignoring Physics won't mak you chain of reasoning true, even if you wish for it
You Can't Beat Physics. The "laws" of physics govern everything around us.

owb24
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by owb24 » Thu Jul 22, 2021 7:50 pm

@snn47

We are working with a reserve army officer with PhD in high frequency technology from the military university in Hamburg. He is co-author of patents for the German army about the detection of microwave pulsed weapons. Yes “Microwave weapons”, that is how the Patent is called, you can look it up. He is still investigating, but one thing he is sure of, those are weapons and it is likely sabotage. So we are 100% sure about the “what”. What is still missing is the “Who”. What we are working on right now is how to get the culprits and bring them to court.

Personally, I was trained as an aerospace engineer at RWTH Aachen which is a top tier engineering school in Germany. I would say, I know enough about physics. I also know enough about math and probability theory. The issue at hand is readily provable with conditional probabilities and the Bayes theorem, no physics needed. We do have a list of suspects to whom all the math applies. Unfortunately the courts need hard proofs, math is not enough, and we are working on it.

As to physics, I would suggest you look at induction lenses, not Antenna. Antenna are too big for this. May be it is some other technology. The culprits use some very innovative technology, it seems. And it is not just waves, it is waves in combination with a contamination with either yeast or heavy metals. For this physics is not enough, you will need molecular biology. Here is a collection of 33’000 articles about the topic: www.emf-portal.org

Also even without any measurement devices you can show the attacks are directed. We have put 20 Mint plants everywhere in our office. We placed them on a Cartesian grid. Our employees were stunned to see that only a couple of plants on the same geometric line withered within 2 minutes, and on the same line was the desk of one of the employees that suffered headaches. So, yes it is directed, proven with rudimentary means :) I have already posted pictures of the Mint plants before and after. Check them out on my other thread:
Tracking/Triangulating pulsed RF Signals

I have posted measurements around 2.4 GHz and around 70 MHz, to provide clues. I am fully aware those ore not definitive proofs. The reason I posted on this forum is mainly to see if there were similar cases. And there is at least one: pls see pdm’s post. Another reason is to see if someone can give further hints on the triangulation of energy attacks. So anyone with hints please feel free to get in touch at [email protected]
Last edited by owb24 on Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

owb24
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 4:26 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by owb24 » Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:29 pm

@snn47

I have to say, you write as if you were the attorney of the culprits. You explain that Radman is not frequency selective - we know this btw - and then you try refuting our claims. If we had all the answers, we won’t be asking a forum. As I said, we had an energy peak correlating with electronic devices being disrupted and people having headaches, not once, but many times at different locations. Statistically those are not random events anymore. People in a forum usually think along, suggest solutions, avenues on how to investigate etc. In your case, you are focusing on refuting that the energy attacks were on purpose, pretend you know all physics. What about induction lenses, have you heard about RF laser for skin treatments? I would say that is also physics. You say Narda is not frequency selective and stop just there, you do not suggest other measurement devices for instances. That is indeed remarkable.

Why would someone technical be just focusing on refuting that criminals are at work here, although all conditional probabilities say they are with 100% probability. And as I mentioned, a German army engineer came to the same conclusion.

snn47
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:00 pm

Re: Directed RF at our Office Causes Headaches

Post by snn47 » Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:56 pm

you do not suggest other measurement devices for instances
You did not ask for advice on measuring equipment!
I would suggest a Bi-Conical Antenna suitable for the frequency range (e.g. Schwarzbeck) , an attenuator that is suitable to attenuate the peak power that you expect to receive and a Spectrum Analyzer (SA e.g. R&S) that can cover a 500 MHz segment simultaneously. Some SA provide also a way to record signals, to review the recorded signal or generate this signal via a suitable Vector Generator having also 500 MHz bandwidth.
Measurement over a large dynamic range and board segment is at best possible at a compromise, and create and display also Inter Modulation (IM) if other strong signals are present. When you adjust the Attenuator enough to eliminate IM mostly you have reduced sensitivy to much to be able to measure weak signals. If in addition to the signal of interest other strong signals are present at the SA input, that are not attenuated and/or rejected (enough) by the internal filters, additional Bandpass or Bandreject-Filter are required to get the SA back into the IM free condition. Since you are looking only for strong signals that should be possible, while for me detecting signals down to ~10 dB above the SA sensitivity in presence of a strong Cell stations a few 100 m away proved difficult and at the cost of a varying sensitivity.
Why would someone technical be just focusing on refuting that criminals are at work here, although all conditional probabilities say they are with 100% probability. And as I mentioned, a German army engineer came to the same conclusion.
I have been part in a number of EMC studies and practical tests. One party was endorsing a new system x while as beeing not dangerous to existing systems, while others had to ensure that the new system, once in operation will reliably 24/7 not harm the existing safety of life systems. Therefore I look at the information presented and evaluate based on the documented impact from a presented or previous studies and/or test results. They often contradict each other by ignoring facts or specifically defining study or test conditions under which the desired effect to prove compatibility can be achieved. Another problem is that RF propagation depends on to many factors to have a unique model solution to calculate propagation loss under any (weather) condition, otherwise there would not be so many propagation models and ITU recommendations. Since in your case it is the power density and not the sensitivity of Rx to RFI it comes down to the power density that can be generated over a certain distance.
What is the power density you assume necessary for effects you describe and how far do you assume the source of the radiation is away, that you cannot see the antenna? All antenna have in common that, while they get smaller with reduced wavelength, gain requires large antennae’s. For the 70 MHz/4.2 M wavelength you gave as an example I would assume antenna gains of <20 dB. Such antennas are to large for indoor concealment and still so large that they should be easily spotted over a distance directed at you. For 2.4 GHz/12.5 cm you mentioned, a 36 dBi dish would be still to large for indoors use and still visible outdoors. Only once the wavelength is smaller e.g. 3 cm/10 GHz, would such an antenna fit indoor, but then the wall loss and propagation attenuation would make it useless for it’s. Then there would be the mechanical problem to accurately point the narrow beams at you, which is not easy since size also means wheight, and if outdoor it has to be stable enough during wind.
Despite a relatively large gain high gain antenna would require very strong transmitter and the generated power density would be dangerous for those who operate it. To avoid such overexposure the NARDA was developed.
I am not aware of any equipment using a induction lense to generate RF over a large distance, therefore I cannot comment on such a device. If it were Laser if would require direct line of sight, which limits the directions it comes from and therefore visible, and why would someone bother to direct it at the plants?
And the pattent you said to look up, only US10295313B2 and US7051636B1 were found, both are for destruction of distant electronic targets similar to a EMP, but not for attack on humans?

Post Reply