Again, we have information (which looks quite accurate, but what do I know) from AIM (”Q is a Psyop”). Is A.I.M. and ‘Aim4Truth’ the same people?
Until someone not tainted with overt agenda confirms all this (the conspiracy part), I’ll personally take it under advisement and not share without strong caveat.
I’m told patent law is quite arcane. Even the drawings ae only allowed to be done by specialized draftsmen and the attorneys charge above the going rate for the usual business services. I once tried to get a patent on something and the attorney set all my red flags and alarms blaring at 11+. When he realized I did not have deep pockets, he suggested a *design patent* and terminated the conversation.
I am suspicious of IoT and ready to believe the worst of the political figures named. But I want evidence that isn’t circumstantial.
For instance: IIRC, Abel Danger maintains Hillary, Michelle and I forget which other First Ladies have a group that owns the sensor patent. I can’t find any authoritative evidence.
This article says it’s an engineer who publicly owns patents while working for a DS/CIA front. Unless he’s a strawman paid off to be a cut-out, this looks shifty in an evidentiary sense.
BTW, who/what would be the trusted remote activity controller? Military personnel? CIA? The schematics shows something so large as to be suspiciously unwieldy. Too hackable, as well.
The ‘personal viewing device’ looks like SmartGlasses or whatever they were called. I’ve seen articles on contacts with web access, too.Pretty simplistic drawing, if that’s supposed to be the super-sophisticated patent drawing.
-- I'm told patent law is quite arcane. Even the drawings ae only allowed to be done by specialized draftsmen and the attorneys charge above the going rate for the usual business services. I once tried to get a patent on something and the attorney set all my red flags and alarms blaring at 11+. When he realized I did not have deep pockets, he suggested a *design patent* and terminated the conversation. --
I practice patent before the USPTO, more or less as a sideline. Drawing standards have relaxed considerably, except in the area of design patent. If a patent practitioner suggests a design patent without describing what it coveres (ornamental appearance) and what it does not cover (function), he is setting the mark up for a fleecing. VERY common.
As for the cited patents being essential or related to an explout that strips aircraft control from the pilot, well, ROTFL. When it comes to control of the flight surfaces, we are dealing with specific SYSTEMS, that even though they may follow the generic flow diagram in a patent, the failure and takeover modes have to be studied in the context of the aircraft, not the patent. The subect patents, at a glance, are SENSORS only. Radial position, with the possibility to do time-based derivative functions (velocity, accelleration, jerk).
The article I cited is tin-foilery. Maybe somebody has composed one that shows how flight control can be taken away from the pilot. I have yet to see such an article that expresses an accurate understanding of the hydro-electro-mechanical I/O and control loops.