1934 Rife 'clinic'

[Guest guest]

Jeff Garff wrote:

> Another interesting fact is Hoyland in the 1939 trial said Rife had not

> measured the

> frequencies correctly which he used in the 1934 machine. Hoyland said he

> measured the

> frequencies when Rife had devitalized the organism when looking

> through the

> microscope.

> Hoyland said he then gave Rife and the correct frequencies. These

> frequencies

> were then used in the Rife Ray #4 built in 1935 by Hoyland. If this is

> correct, and there

> is no reason to believe it is not because there was no argument made over

> this fact in court.

> Then all the lab note frequencies measured and recorded by Rife prior to

> 1935 are not correct.

> We have evidence to support this possibility. On the Rife CD's Henry

> Siner

> reads the lab note of the

> BX and gives the frequency of 1,604,000 as the M.O.R. This is the Rife

> Ray

> #4 frequency.

>

It seems there is something being missed. For one thing Rife and the radio

community used wave meters for tuning which mechanically oscillated directly

from the radio output frequency. From what is written these meters were very

accurate, like a tuning fork of course.

How ever Rife calibrated his device he surely used a calibrated instrument that

would serve as an accurate baseline, this would without a doubt make the whole

range of frequencies used very close to what they were and definitely the spans

between frequencies used for different organisms would be very accurate and

consistent no matter how far off the measuring instrument was so long as it was

calibrated.

With this in mind take a look at Hoylands frequencies, from what I remember the

spans between frequencies for the same organisms are not even close to Rifes.

This is why I believe there is more to it. Didn't Hoyland say he was using

harmonics and if so the only sense would be he made it more confusing by

possibly using different harmonics that would work for the same organism then

the spans between the same organisms Rife tested would not be the same. This

seems the only logical thing if indeed what was said is accurate.

Some thoughts,

Dave T.

and KathyTrebing

Rife Technologies http://www.home.earthlink.net/~vibrnthealth

vibrnthealth@...