Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

[Guest guest]

>, Mike; I think you guys are just running around

>in circles and going nowhere. It seems that you don't

>want to accept the explanations from people who are

>actually building and testing systems based on the

>available evidence, but you aren't building and

>testing systems based on your own interpretations.

Thanks for the complements, . But no new information. Only those

pesky gophers making bumps in your nice even turf. The defensive

stance kind of shows. Not really conducive to new possiblities.

Gophers are cute and inquisitive. I don't think they need or

appreciate a lecture; let alone from a member of a group that

publishes hypotheses as fact. I am referring to the Beam Ray

heterodyning. Sure, it lights the tube, but what else? If it's so

revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it in his new design. Something

about " simplicity " ?

I am certainly aware of the historical " evidence " you list. There

could be any number of explanations for the discrepencies you choose

to see. I am also aware that your preferred interpretation has never

yielded the Rife effect. Typically, this is different from last

year's unequivocal interpretation. And on it goes, as speculative as

anyone else's, replete with rationalizations about any recent changes

in viewpoint. You must be the guy who is always right. Yes, we have

heard it all before. That's the point.

I hope people will not be put off sharing ideas here simply because

others seem to believe they have a monopoly on the truth. May I

suggest you adopt a more deferential attitude until you can deliver

the goods? IMO anyone who is interested in this topic deserves respect.

Contrary to your baseless insinuations, I do build and test equipment

based on the principles we have been discussing. This is what happens

to people who think they have all the facts. The idea that they do

becomes more important than the facts themselves.

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

> Thanks for the complements, .

Glad to be of service.

> But no new information.

Why do you want new information when you're not even

making use of the information that already exists?

> Only those pesky gophers making bumps in your nice

> even turf. The defensive stance kind of shows.

As I've said before, you've presented nothing of real

substance that needs to be defended against. And I

wouldn't need to defend against it. If you had

something worthwhile, I would gladly accept it.

> Not really conducive to new possiblities.

You're talking about new possibilities? Truly new

possibilities have been presented, but all we've heard

from you is naysaying.

> Gophers are cute and inquisitive. I don't think they

> need or appreciate a lecture; let alone from a

member

> of a group that publishes hypotheses as fact. I am

> referring to the Beam Ray heterodyning.

The Beam Ray heterodyning was presented as a workable

solution to the discrepancies that existed in it.

Real-world devices have been constructed that can be

tested. I've seen nothing practical result from

anything you've said on the subject. And sometimes

" gophers " need a lecture whether they appreciate it or

not!

> Sure, it lights the tube, but what else?

Why don't you build one and find out?

> If it's so revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it

in > his new design. Something about " simplicity " ?

You obviously aren't paying attention. Jeff hasn't

abandoned the Beam Rays design; he just built a

special version of the AZ-58 specifically for cancer

only. It basically does just the 1604 kHz frequency,

with the ability to sweep up and down a bit. Jeff

pointed this out.

> I am certainly aware of the historical " evidence "

> you list. There could be any number of explanations

> for the discrepencies you choose to see.

If you are aware of the historical evidence and feel

you have better explanations, why don't you build it

and show us what you have?

> I am also aware that your preferred interpretation

> has never yielded the Rife effect.

Oh really? When has my preferred interpretation been

tested? From the very beginning I said that it made

no sense to run an audio frequency if the true

frequency was a higher harmonic of it. For years I

have been calling upon the tech guys to design and

build machines that could run Rife's original

frequencies, even before we had the chart for the #4

machine. All I ever got was talk and excuses. Jim

s was the first person to come along and actually

build a device that could run the original frequencies

and deliver them in a manner similar to what Rife was

doing. When he had completed one prototype, he

couldn't believe that someone else hadn't already done

it before. That just goes to show how bankrupt real

Rife research has been.

> Typically, this is different from last year's

> unequivocal interpretation.

Even if the interpretation was presented confidently,

I don't think it was presented unequivocally. It was

presented as a practical solution. As Jim said, it

was the only way that the schematic made any sense.

> And on it goes, as speculative as anyone else's,

> replete with rationalizations about any recent

> changes in viewpoint.

It's not as speculative as anyone else's. As I keep

reminding you, it has resulted in working devices that

can be tested. Where are the devices based on your

speculations? And we don't need to rationalize

anything. If new information or test results come to

light, we change our viewpoint accordingly. That's

called progress.

> You must be the guy who is always right.

I'm the guy who recognizes important, ground-breaking

work that is contributing to the recovery of Rife's

lost technology.

> Yes, we have heard it all before. That's the point.

Yes, you keep on hearing, but you don't listen.

That's the point.

> I hope people will not be put off sharing ideas here

> simply because others seem to believe they have a

> monopoly on the truth.

Neither I or Jeff have claimed or suggested that we

have a monopoly on the truth. What I have suggested

though, is that with the building of these new

devices, a new standard has been set. We have a new

understanding and interpretation of Rife's early

machines, and new, testable prototypes have been built

as a result of this new knowledge. If someone has

differing ideas, they should step up and build a

testable prototype. It's no longer good enough to

talk in endless speculations. We're in a new era.

> May I suggest you adopt a more deferential attitude

> until you can deliver the goods?

I don't think so. Even if it turns out that these new

prototypes don't " deliver the goods " as you say, it is

still a huge step forward in true Rife research. It

is just as important to know what doesn't work as well

as what does work. It's certainly better than endless

speculations that lead nowhere.

> IMO anyone who is interested in this topic deserves

> respect.

Then why haven't you shown any respect for the

excellent work that Jim and Jeff have been doing? All

we've heard out of you is naysaying, with nothing

better to offer instead. I can't respect that.

> Contrary to your baseless insinuations, I do build

> and test equipment based on the principles we have

> been discussing.

Why haven't you reported your test results? Why

haven't you reported that your test results show

Jeff's and Jim's interpretations to be incorrect?

> This is what happens to people who think they have

> all the facts. The idea that they do becomes more

> important than the facts themselves.

Well, now you're twisting the facts. You forget that

both Jeff and I have had to adjust our thinking based

on the new information that has come to light. If we

thought we had all the facts, we wouldn't have done

that. At least we're moving forward and making use of

whatever facts we have, and whatever new facts come to

light.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

> Thanks for the complements, .

Glad to be of service.

> But no new information.

Why do you want new information when you're not even

making use of the information that already exists?

> Only those pesky gophers making bumps in your nice

> even turf. The defensive stance kind of shows.

As I've said before, you've presented nothing of real

substance that needs to be defended against. And I

wouldn't need to defend against it. If you had

something worthwhile, I would gladly accept it.

> Not really conducive to new possiblities.

You're talking about new possibilities? Truly new

possibilities have been presented, but all we've heard

from you is naysaying.

> Gophers are cute and inquisitive. I don't think they

> need or appreciate a lecture; let alone from a

member

> of a group that publishes hypotheses as fact. I am

> referring to the Beam Ray heterodyning.

The Beam Ray heterodyning was presented as a workable

solution to the discrepancies that existed in it.

Real-world devices have been constructed that can be

tested. I've seen nothing practical result from

anything you've said on the subject. And sometimes

" gophers " need a lecture whether they appreciate it or

not!

> Sure, it lights the tube, but what else?

Why don't you build one and find out?

> If it's so revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it

in > his new design. Something about " simplicity " ?

You obviously aren't paying attention. Jeff hasn't

abandoned the Beam Rays design; he just built a

special version of the AZ-58 specifically for cancer

only. It basically does just the 1604 kHz frequency,

with the ability to sweep up and down a bit. Jeff

pointed this out.

> I am certainly aware of the historical " evidence "

> you list. There could be any number of explanations

> for the discrepencies you choose to see.

If you are aware of the historical evidence and feel

you have better explanations, why don't you build it

and show us what you have?

> I am also aware that your preferred interpretation

> has never yielded the Rife effect.

Oh really? When has my preferred interpretation been

tested? From the very beginning I said that it made

no sense to run an audio frequency if the true

frequency was a higher harmonic of it. For years I

have been calling upon the tech guys to design and

build machines that could run Rife's original

frequencies, even before we had the chart for the #4

machine. All I ever got was talk and excuses. Jim

s was the first person to come along and actually

build a device that could run the original frequencies

and deliver them in a manner similar to what Rife was

doing. When he had completed one prototype, he

couldn't believe that someone else hadn't already done

it before. That just goes to show how bankrupt real

Rife research has been.

> Typically, this is different from last year's

> unequivocal interpretation.

Even if the interpretation was presented confidently,

I don't think it was presented unequivocally. It was

presented as a practical solution. As Jim said, it

was the only way that the schematic made any sense.

> And on it goes, as speculative as anyone else's,

> replete with rationalizations about any recent

> changes in viewpoint.

It's not as speculative as anyone else's. As I keep

reminding you, it has resulted in working devices that

can be tested. Where are the devices based on your

speculations? And we don't need to rationalize

anything. If new information or test results come to

light, we change our viewpoint accordingly. That's

called progress.

> You must be the guy who is always right.

I'm the guy who recognizes important, ground-breaking

work that is contributing to the recovery of Rife's

lost technology.

> Yes, we have heard it all before. That's the point.

Yes, you keep on hearing, but you don't listen.

That's the point.

> I hope people will not be put off sharing ideas here

> simply because others seem to believe they have a

> monopoly on the truth.

Neither I or Jeff have claimed or suggested that we

have a monopoly on the truth. What I have suggested

though, is that with the building of these new

devices, a new standard has been set. We have a new

understanding and interpretation of Rife's early

machines, and new, testable prototypes have been built

as a result of this new knowledge. If someone has

differing ideas, they should step up and build a

testable prototype. It's no longer good enough to

talk in endless speculations. We're in a new era.

> May I suggest you adopt a more deferential attitude

> until you can deliver the goods?

I don't think so. Even if it turns out that these new

prototypes don't " deliver the goods " as you say, it is

still a huge step forward in true Rife research. It

is just as important to know what doesn't work as well

as what does work. It's certainly better than endless

speculations that lead nowhere.

> IMO anyone who is interested in this topic deserves

> respect.

Then why haven't you shown any respect for the

excellent work that Jim and Jeff have been doing? All

we've heard out of you is naysaying, with nothing

better to offer instead. I can't respect that.

> Contrary to your baseless insinuations, I do build

> and test equipment based on the principles we have

> been discussing.

Why haven't you reported your test results? Why

haven't you reported that your test results show

Jeff's and Jim's interpretations to be incorrect?

> This is what happens to people who think they have

> all the facts. The idea that they do becomes more

> important than the facts themselves.

Well, now you're twisting the facts. You forget that

both Jeff and I have had to adjust our thinking based

on the new information that has come to light. If we

thought we had all the facts, we wouldn't have done

that. At least we're moving forward and making use of

whatever facts we have, and whatever new facts come to

light.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

> I am referring to the Beam Ray

> heterodyning. Sure, it lights the tube, but what else? If it's so

> revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it in his new design.

Something

> about " simplicity " ?

>

> Nielsen

>

,

I explained to you why I built the different design. And now you go

and say that I am not using the heterodyning design. Implying that I

have somehow abandoned this heterodyning design. What don't you

understand? I told you I built it because it was easier to use. Now I

will explain it a little further in hopes that you will understand. I

know a 63 year old lady that has stage 4 cancers. It is in her bowls,

liver and lungs and they sent her home to die. I cannot treat anyone.

I like my freedom to much. She did not have the ability to use the

Beam Rays instrument. I can run it without any problems. A doctor

could run it on a patient very easily. But she had problems running

it. Hoyland's instrument didn't have both oscillators variable. He

had one fixed and one variable. I wanted to have the one I built with

both oscillators variable so I could do more testing. This lady

needed something that she could understand and use. This is why I

built this simpler instrument that had the ability to run the

1.604MHz without having to adjust a second oscillator. But this

instrument is limited because it cannot run any of Rife's frequencies

below 1MHz. The Gruner Beam Rays heterodyning design that we have

built was the only way we could see this schematic work that would

output all of Dr. Rife's original #4 frequencies. And this

heterodyning design does do this. At least it meets the #4 frequency

criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

but contrary with what we have been doing. In the first paragraph of

my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is subject

to change at any time as we learn new things. I have changed this

paper three or four times as new information has been found. I never

intended to write this paper but many people asked me to please write

things down so they could read it. People started sharing the paper

and it ended up on the web. So I decided to ask Stan Truman to put it

on his site. If this new work does not bring any results I will be

changing my paper again. But one month of testing is not enough time

to learn anything. This will take several months of use by people to

find out how well it will work. I have to build each instrument by

hand and then let people use them. I have built three instruments so

far but need to build at least three more. This takes time and money.

I have to fund this out of my own pocket at considerable expense. I

am sorry that this is not going fast enough for you but it is the

best that can be done. If I had to do it over again I would not have

released this new information.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

> I am referring to the Beam Ray

> heterodyning. Sure, it lights the tube, but what else? If it's so

> revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it in his new design.

Something

> about " simplicity " ?

>

> Nielsen

>

,

I explained to you why I built the different design. And now you go

and say that I am not using the heterodyning design. Implying that I

have somehow abandoned this heterodyning design. What don't you

understand? I told you I built it because it was easier to use. Now I

will explain it a little further in hopes that you will understand. I

know a 63 year old lady that has stage 4 cancers. It is in her bowls,

liver and lungs and they sent her home to die. I cannot treat anyone.

I like my freedom to much. She did not have the ability to use the

Beam Rays instrument. I can run it without any problems. A doctor

could run it on a patient very easily. But she had problems running

it. Hoyland's instrument didn't have both oscillators variable. He

had one fixed and one variable. I wanted to have the one I built with

both oscillators variable so I could do more testing. This lady

needed something that she could understand and use. This is why I

built this simpler instrument that had the ability to run the

1.604MHz without having to adjust a second oscillator. But this

instrument is limited because it cannot run any of Rife's frequencies

below 1MHz. The Gruner Beam Rays heterodyning design that we have

built was the only way we could see this schematic work that would

output all of Dr. Rife's original #4 frequencies. And this

heterodyning design does do this. At least it meets the #4 frequency

criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

but contrary with what we have been doing. In the first paragraph of

my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is subject

to change at any time as we learn new things. I have changed this

paper three or four times as new information has been found. I never

intended to write this paper but many people asked me to please write

things down so they could read it. People started sharing the paper

and it ended up on the web. So I decided to ask Stan Truman to put it

on his site. If this new work does not bring any results I will be

changing my paper again. But one month of testing is not enough time

to learn anything. This will take several months of use by people to

find out how well it will work. I have to build each instrument by

hand and then let people use them. I have built three instruments so

far but need to build at least three more. This takes time and money.

I have to fund this out of my own pocket at considerable expense. I

am sorry that this is not going fast enough for you but it is the

best that can be done. If I had to do it over again I would not have

released this new information.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

: I would rather believe I am running around an

Archimedes Spiral.

Old Mike

>

> , Mike; I think you guys are just running around

> in circles and going nowhere. It seems that you don't

> want to accept the explanations from people who are

> actually building and testing systems based on the

> available evidence, but you aren't building and

> testing systems based on your own interpretations.

>

> Regarding more than one frequency for an MOR, did you

> miss the photo of just one Kennedy machine set up?

> Did you miss the lab film where Rife set just one

> oscillator? Did you miss the fact that Rife always

> talked about the MORs in the singular? Did you miss

> the fact that Siner's reading of the BX research

> report mentioned a meters figure that was equal to the

> CPS figure?

>

> It seems that you guys need explanations that are more

> complicated than is necessary. Each form of an

> organism has a single frequency as its MOR,

> notwithstanding the practical possibility that there

> may be harmonics or other frequencies that are also

> MORs for a particular form. But Rife was dealing with

> just a single variable. If he had to adjust more than

> one variable to get his MOR, it would have been

> practically impossible to get anything done. He said

> that it took him sometimes months to find a single

> frequency, and that's working sometimes 16-20 hours a

> day. The gating frequency, even if we granted that it

> was variable, would had to have been inherent to the

> system he was using. If he had to find a correct

> combination of RF frequency or frequencies, and audio

> gating frequency, it would have taken orders of

> magnitude longer to find an MOR; it would have been

> practically impossible.

>

> The waveform tracing of the #4 machine on the lab film

> shows that there was an audio gating frequency, but

> there's no mention of it in the frequency charts that

> Hoyland made. Rife just set the switch and dial for

> one of the main oscillators and that was it. We also

> now know that the tracing on the lab film was

> reversed. We don't know whether the oscilloscope was

> set to scan from right to left, or whether they

> reversed it to hide the true waveform, but the linear

> distortion on the left side definitely shows that it

> is reversed from normal. That means that the waveform

> was a damped form, and not an exponential growth pulse

> as would be the case if it was super-regenerative.

>

> Regarding the frequencies, we don't have a

> good handle on those. We don't know that they came

> shortly after the Beam Rays trial. The general idea

> is that Rife was inactive during the war, and closed

> his lab in 1946. It may be that the

> frequencies were some type of gating or quenching

> frequencies from the original machines that

> misinterpreted as being MORs. At any rate, unless

> someone can demonstrate the Rife effect with the

> frequencies, they're not MORs. If you have

> other theories regarding them, the only way you're

> going to find out is if you build a device and test it

> out.

>

> On the point about some diseases needing two

> frequencies, Rife said that he had found this to be

> the case only with TB. He had to run the MOR for the

> rod form and the filterable form to successfully treat

> TB. But you don't need to run them simultaneously;

> you could run them consecutively. It would just take

> twice as long.

>

> In my opinion, the explanations that have come out of

> the work done by Jeff Garff and Jim s are

> simpler, more coherent, and better fit the bigger

> picture of what Rife was doing. We still don't have

> the final word, but the new work has produced

> workable, real-world devices. I'm still waiting for

> your theories and speculations to produce some

> functional hardware that can be tested. As Jim s

> said, it's amazing how many little mysteries clear up

> when you actually build and test something out.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

: I would rather believe I am running around an

Archimedes Spiral.

Old Mike

>

> , Mike; I think you guys are just running around

> in circles and going nowhere. It seems that you don't

> want to accept the explanations from people who are

> actually building and testing systems based on the

> available evidence, but you aren't building and

> testing systems based on your own interpretations.

>

> Regarding more than one frequency for an MOR, did you

> miss the photo of just one Kennedy machine set up?

> Did you miss the lab film where Rife set just one

> oscillator? Did you miss the fact that Rife always

> talked about the MORs in the singular? Did you miss

> the fact that Siner's reading of the BX research

> report mentioned a meters figure that was equal to the

> CPS figure?

>

> It seems that you guys need explanations that are more

> complicated than is necessary. Each form of an

> organism has a single frequency as its MOR,

> notwithstanding the practical possibility that there

> may be harmonics or other frequencies that are also

> MORs for a particular form. But Rife was dealing with

> just a single variable. If he had to adjust more than

> one variable to get his MOR, it would have been

> practically impossible to get anything done. He said

> that it took him sometimes months to find a single

> frequency, and that's working sometimes 16-20 hours a

> day. The gating frequency, even if we granted that it

> was variable, would had to have been inherent to the

> system he was using. If he had to find a correct

> combination of RF frequency or frequencies, and audio

> gating frequency, it would have taken orders of

> magnitude longer to find an MOR; it would have been

> practically impossible.

>

> The waveform tracing of the #4 machine on the lab film

> shows that there was an audio gating frequency, but

> there's no mention of it in the frequency charts that

> Hoyland made. Rife just set the switch and dial for

> one of the main oscillators and that was it. We also

> now know that the tracing on the lab film was

> reversed. We don't know whether the oscilloscope was

> set to scan from right to left, or whether they

> reversed it to hide the true waveform, but the linear

> distortion on the left side definitely shows that it

> is reversed from normal. That means that the waveform

> was a damped form, and not an exponential growth pulse

> as would be the case if it was super-regenerative.

>

> Regarding the frequencies, we don't have a

> good handle on those. We don't know that they came

> shortly after the Beam Rays trial. The general idea

> is that Rife was inactive during the war, and closed

> his lab in 1946. It may be that the

> frequencies were some type of gating or quenching

> frequencies from the original machines that

> misinterpreted as being MORs. At any rate, unless

> someone can demonstrate the Rife effect with the

> frequencies, they're not MORs. If you have

> other theories regarding them, the only way you're

> going to find out is if you build a device and test it

> out.

>

> On the point about some diseases needing two

> frequencies, Rife said that he had found this to be

> the case only with TB. He had to run the MOR for the

> rod form and the filterable form to successfully treat

> TB. But you don't need to run them simultaneously;

> you could run them consecutively. It would just take

> twice as long.

>

> In my opinion, the explanations that have come out of

> the work done by Jeff Garff and Jim s are

> simpler, more coherent, and better fit the bigger

> picture of what Rife was doing. We still don't have

> the final word, but the new work has produced

> workable, real-world devices. I'm still waiting for

> your theories and speculations to produce some

> functional hardware that can be tested. As Jim s

> said, it's amazing how many little mysteries clear up

> when you actually build and test something out.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- beamray53 wrote:

> : I would rather believe I am running around an

> Archimedes Spiral.

LOL!! Okay, fair enough; just don't spiral out of

control. ;^)

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- astroboy84088 wrote:

<snip>

> If I had to do it over again I would not have

> released this new information.

I guess didn't realize that his " healthy

skepticism " could put you off for sharing new ideas

too.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

>I explained to you why I built the different design. And now you go

>and say that I am not using the heterodyning design.

I didn't say you weren't using it, Jeff.

>I told you I built it because it was easier to use.

It doesn't make sense to me that you would do this if the hetero

version was the breakthrough you originally stated. Why provide a

dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less effective? You

don't seem like that kind of guy.

>At least it meets the #4 frequency

>criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

My mind was already clear on this. It may meet the frequency

criteria, but that does not mean it will produce an MOR, or that the

schematic has been correctly interpreted. These were assumptions on your part.

> From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

>but contrary with what we have been doing.

Not true. I congratulated you unreservedly on this list, based upon

your presumed credentials as a researcher. On second look, a

difference of opinion emerged. But only on the few points I

indicated. Instead, you question my overall motives. Noble intentions

aside, this is just a fact of life.

If you are so sensitive, then why tempt fate by publishing

supositions as fact. It can tarnish both your reputation and that of

Rife therapy in general. Present all the possible explanations to

your readers without bias, not just your personal favorite.

>In the first paragraph of

>my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is subject

>to change at any time as we learn new things.

Really? You stated on this list that, after your rebuild of the Beam

Ray, the " only remaining mystery " was the origin of the audio

frequencies. I think the paper also gives that impression. I question

the motive for this. It may be just enthusiasm and eagerness to

share, but it's not appropriate in my book. Furthermore, IMO it is

not really great science to effectively disclaim everything in a

paper with an opening sentence, and then use this, when questioned,

to justify saying whatever you please.

>If this new work does not bring any results I will be

>changing my paper again.

I see a pattern here, as per past revisions of your work. Remnants of

discredited theories are the bane of Rife literature. One alternative

would be to adopt a more forgiving " lab notebook " style. A record of

progression, instead of premature conclusions that may need

retraction. I appreciate the latter is not pallitable for anyone,

such as yourself, who has invested alot personally. But that does not

change the reality of the present situation. Surely there is a better way.

>This takes time and money. I have to fund this out of my own pocket

>at considerable expense. I

>am sorry that this is not going fast enough for you but it is the

>best that can be done.

Yes, and you are one of the rare ones who is doing it. To me, it's

not a question of how long it takes, but the consistency and

objectivity with which the findings are presented. Otherwise, it is

difficult to establish a common understanding.

>If I had to do it over again I would not have

>released this new information.

If you are trying to make me feel guilty, or a public scapegoat, it's

a bit pathetic. If sharing information is conditional upon others

turning a blind eye to any irregularities, then I would say you have

an ethical dilemma. Why blame it on someone else?

How about just relaxing the defensive posture and admitting that some

of your comments regarding the Gruner circuit were perhaps

exaggerated? In return, I will apologize for any emotional damage

caused by my " healthy skepticism " .

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

>Glad to be of service.

, I appreciate that you have made a response, but do not agree

with the content or attitude. As far as I can see, it only justifies

the observations about your approach in my previous post. If

alternative views are taken personally, and those offering them

called " naysayers " , then I really have nothing further to say to you

on this matter. I would prefer to focus on more practical matters.

For a bit more detail, see my reply to Jeff.

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff,

I really appreciate all the work and effort you have put into the paper and

testing out designs.

I'm like you, I need to test instruments out, but I must agree with ,

we can take our modern traditional Rife frequency devices and give them to

someone with a cancer, herpes, Hep, Staph, HIV or Lyme, and they have a good

response and get better, but this doesn't prove we are killing pathogen as

Dr Rife did. Not until we can knock these critter over with 100% success

rate when viewing them via a microscope, can we say we have duplicated Dr

Rife's work.

Once we get to this level of repeatability, then the real interesting work

starts, and we have to demonstrate we can do it in a living chemical

electromagnetic biological entity such as mice and pets to avoid the placebo

effect.

I recently viewed a movie called placebo, made in the USA. In it doctors

gave cancer suffers sugar tablets and told them it was chemo therapy. A huge

number of people, much more than 30%, closer to 60% experienced gum bleeds,

their hair fell out and their tumors shrunk. Now this was just using the

medication of " belief " - and this belief works at a sub-conscious level, not

at a conscious level, so if a person spent thousands of dollars buying a

Rife machine, and it is associated to Dr Rife's work in generating 100%

remissions with cancer, then we have a huge placebo effect working here.

That Dr who bought the Photo Genie just recently, if he believes it will

cure cancer, then his beliefs will be transferred to his patients, and he

will probably experience a huge cure rate for his cancer suffers in Mexico.

If he stops believing his new expensive Photo Genie will help cancer, then

he will fail at helping his clients.

Now, putting aside the placebo effect, we have close to 15 different

verified physiologic effects these machines generate in all test cases, be

them mice or people. And these effects all work for the improvement of the

immune system in fighting disease, and some of these effects are even

upsetting the pathogens ability to reproduce, or cancer cells to divide, or

interfering with its DNA functions, but this is not blowing them up with

their MOR as Dr Rife displayed.

The closest Dr Rife could display that his frequencies were blowing up

pathogen in tissue was to place the bugs in dead horse meat, and view the

results from there. This was good 70 years ago, but with what we know today

about the dynamics of the body and its complex immune system, then it is

going to make it a very difficult task in proving we are blowing up the bugs

in the body via MOR, because there are so many other aspects of biology

contributing to the pathogens demise when we use our frequency therapy

devises.

But we can do what suggests, and get 100% in test tubes. This alone

will raise the placebo effect 20% or more not to mention the real science

behind this application.

Very frustrating to Rife researchers, but all positive for people who have

sick pets or suffer a chronic disease that traditional medicine can't help

with. We have a long history with high success rates for diseased people,

pets and animals. Much more is happening than simply moving the lymph along,

this can easily be achieved via simple self massage, no need for expensive

equipment here, my CHIamp software and a home amplifier system does this

extremely well for $90. The B/R and EMEM's are doing a lot more amazing

things than simply moving the lymph along, they are generating complex

reactions in the body's immune system and upset pathogen big time. No wonder

medical authorities look at us and shake their head at our research, but I

bet they have big grins on their face as they would be well aware of the

difficulties we face in proving this technology works in the body utilizing

one specific mode of application such as destruction of pathogen via MOR.

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

* FreX - REBS - PLC - ERS - GNLD

Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

> I am referring to the Beam Ray

> heterodyning. Sure, it lights the tube, but what else? If it's so

> revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it in his new design.

Something

> about " simplicity " ?

>

> Nielsen

>

,

I explained to you why I built the different design. And now you go

and say that I am not using the heterodyning design. Implying that I

have somehow abandoned this heterodyning design. What don't you

understand? I told you I built it because it was easier to use. Now I

will explain it a little further in hopes that you will understand. I

know a 63 year old lady that has stage 4 cancers. It is in her bowls,

liver and lungs and they sent her home to die. I cannot treat anyone.

I like my freedom to much. She did not have the ability to use the

Beam Rays instrument. I can run it without any problems. A doctor

could run it on a patient very easily. But she had problems running

it. Hoyland's instrument didn't have both oscillators variable. He

had one fixed and one variable. I wanted to have the one I built with

both oscillators variable so I could do more testing. This lady

needed something that she could understand and use. This is why I

built this simpler instrument that had the ability to run the

1.604MHz without having to adjust a second oscillator. But this

instrument is limited because it cannot run any of Rife's frequencies

below 1MHz. The Gruner Beam Rays heterodyning design that we have

built was the only way we could see this schematic work that would

output all of Dr. Rife's original #4 frequencies. And this

heterodyning design does do this. At least it meets the #4 frequency

criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

but contrary with what we have been doing. In the first paragraph of

my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is subject

to change at any time as we learn new things. I have changed this

paper three or four times as new information has been found. I never

intended to write this paper but many people asked me to please write

things down so they could read it. People started sharing the paper

and it ended up on the web. So I decided to ask Stan Truman to put it

on his site. If this new work does not bring any results I will be

changing my paper again. But one month of testing is not enough time

to learn anything. This will take several months of use by people to

find out how well it will work. I have to build each instrument by

hand and then let people use them. I have built three instruments so

far but need to build at least three more. This takes time and money.

I have to fund this out of my own pocket at considerable expense. I

am sorry that this is not going fast enough for you but it is the

best that can be done. If I had to do it over again I would not have

released this new information.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff,

I really appreciate all the work and effort you have put into the paper and

testing out designs.

I'm like you, I need to test instruments out, but I must agree with ,

we can take our modern traditional Rife frequency devices and give them to

someone with a cancer, herpes, Hep, Staph, HIV or Lyme, and they have a good

response and get better, but this doesn't prove we are killing pathogen as

Dr Rife did. Not until we can knock these critter over with 100% success

rate when viewing them via a microscope, can we say we have duplicated Dr

Rife's work.

Once we get to this level of repeatability, then the real interesting work

starts, and we have to demonstrate we can do it in a living chemical

electromagnetic biological entity such as mice and pets to avoid the placebo

effect.

I recently viewed a movie called placebo, made in the USA. In it doctors

gave cancer suffers sugar tablets and told them it was chemo therapy. A huge

number of people, much more than 30%, closer to 60% experienced gum bleeds,

their hair fell out and their tumors shrunk. Now this was just using the

medication of " belief " - and this belief works at a sub-conscious level, not

at a conscious level, so if a person spent thousands of dollars buying a

Rife machine, and it is associated to Dr Rife's work in generating 100%

remissions with cancer, then we have a huge placebo effect working here.

That Dr who bought the Photo Genie just recently, if he believes it will

cure cancer, then his beliefs will be transferred to his patients, and he

will probably experience a huge cure rate for his cancer suffers in Mexico.

If he stops believing his new expensive Photo Genie will help cancer, then

he will fail at helping his clients.

Now, putting aside the placebo effect, we have close to 15 different

verified physiologic effects these machines generate in all test cases, be

them mice or people. And these effects all work for the improvement of the

immune system in fighting disease, and some of these effects are even

upsetting the pathogens ability to reproduce, or cancer cells to divide, or

interfering with its DNA functions, but this is not blowing them up with

their MOR as Dr Rife displayed.

The closest Dr Rife could display that his frequencies were blowing up

pathogen in tissue was to place the bugs in dead horse meat, and view the

results from there. This was good 70 years ago, but with what we know today

about the dynamics of the body and its complex immune system, then it is

going to make it a very difficult task in proving we are blowing up the bugs

in the body via MOR, because there are so many other aspects of biology

contributing to the pathogens demise when we use our frequency therapy

devises.

But we can do what suggests, and get 100% in test tubes. This alone

will raise the placebo effect 20% or more not to mention the real science

behind this application.

Very frustrating to Rife researchers, but all positive for people who have

sick pets or suffer a chronic disease that traditional medicine can't help

with. We have a long history with high success rates for diseased people,

pets and animals. Much more is happening than simply moving the lymph along,

this can easily be achieved via simple self massage, no need for expensive

equipment here, my CHIamp software and a home amplifier system does this

extremely well for $90. The B/R and EMEM's are doing a lot more amazing

things than simply moving the lymph along, they are generating complex

reactions in the body's immune system and upset pathogen big time. No wonder

medical authorities look at us and shake their head at our research, but I

bet they have big grins on their face as they would be well aware of the

difficulties we face in proving this technology works in the body utilizing

one specific mode of application such as destruction of pathogen via MOR.

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

* FreX - REBS - PLC - ERS - GNLD

Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

> I am referring to the Beam Ray

> heterodyning. Sure, it lights the tube, but what else? If it's so

> revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it in his new design.

Something

> about " simplicity " ?

>

> Nielsen

>

,

I explained to you why I built the different design. And now you go

and say that I am not using the heterodyning design. Implying that I

have somehow abandoned this heterodyning design. What don't you

understand? I told you I built it because it was easier to use. Now I

will explain it a little further in hopes that you will understand. I

know a 63 year old lady that has stage 4 cancers. It is in her bowls,

liver and lungs and they sent her home to die. I cannot treat anyone.

I like my freedom to much. She did not have the ability to use the

Beam Rays instrument. I can run it without any problems. A doctor

could run it on a patient very easily. But she had problems running

it. Hoyland's instrument didn't have both oscillators variable. He

had one fixed and one variable. I wanted to have the one I built with

both oscillators variable so I could do more testing. This lady

needed something that she could understand and use. This is why I

built this simpler instrument that had the ability to run the

1.604MHz without having to adjust a second oscillator. But this

instrument is limited because it cannot run any of Rife's frequencies

below 1MHz. The Gruner Beam Rays heterodyning design that we have

built was the only way we could see this schematic work that would

output all of Dr. Rife's original #4 frequencies. And this

heterodyning design does do this. At least it meets the #4 frequency

criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

but contrary with what we have been doing. In the first paragraph of

my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is subject

to change at any time as we learn new things. I have changed this

paper three or four times as new information has been found. I never

intended to write this paper but many people asked me to please write

things down so they could read it. People started sharing the paper

and it ended up on the web. So I decided to ask Stan Truman to put it

on his site. If this new work does not bring any results I will be

changing my paper again. But one month of testing is not enough time

to learn anything. This will take several months of use by people to

find out how well it will work. I have to build each instrument by

hand and then let people use them. I have built three instruments so

far but need to build at least three more. This takes time and money.

I have to fund this out of my own pocket at considerable expense. I

am sorry that this is not going fast enough for you but it is the

best that can be done. If I had to do it over again I would not have

released this new information.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

Hello Ken,

I agree with what you are saying. This is why we are going to start

testing this instrument on B-coli. If we can get an M.O.R effect then

we will try a few other strains of B-coli. If we can get the same

results then maybe more people will be interested in doing the same.

Jeff Garff

>

> Hi Jeff,

>

> I really appreciate all the work and effort you have put into the

paper and

> testing out designs.

>

> I'm like you, I need to test instruments out, but I must agree with

,

> we can take our modern traditional Rife frequency devices and give

them to

> someone with a cancer, herpes, Hep, Staph, HIV or Lyme, and they

have a good

> response and get better, but this doesn't prove we are killing

pathogen as

> Dr Rife did. Not until we can knock these critter over with 100%

success

> rate when viewing them via a microscope, can we say we have

duplicated Dr

> Rife's work.

>

> Once we get to this level of repeatability, then the real

interesting work

> starts, and we have to demonstrate we can do it in a living chemical

> electromagnetic biological entity such as mice and pets to avoid

the placebo

> effect.

>

> I recently viewed a movie called placebo, made in the USA. In it

doctors

> gave cancer suffers sugar tablets and told them it was chemo

therapy. A huge

> number of people, much more than 30%, closer to 60% experienced gum

bleeds,

> their hair fell out and their tumors shrunk. Now this was just

using the

> medication of " belief " - and this belief works at a sub-conscious

level, not

> at a conscious level, so if a person spent thousands of dollars

buying a

> Rife machine, and it is associated to Dr Rife's work in generating

100%

> remissions with cancer, then we have a huge placebo effect working

here.

>

> That Dr who bought the Photo Genie just recently, if he believes it

will

> cure cancer, then his beliefs will be transferred to his patients,

and he

> will probably experience a huge cure rate for his cancer suffers in

Mexico.

> If he stops believing his new expensive Photo Genie will help

cancer, then

> he will fail at helping his clients.

>

> Now, putting aside the placebo effect, we have close to 15 different

> verified physiologic effects these machines generate in all test

cases, be

> them mice or people. And these effects all work for the improvement

of the

> immune system in fighting disease, and some of these effects are

even

> upsetting the pathogens ability to reproduce, or cancer cells to

divide, or

> interfering with its DNA functions, but this is not blowing them up

with

> their MOR as Dr Rife displayed.

>

> The closest Dr Rife could display that his frequencies were blowing

up

> pathogen in tissue was to place the bugs in dead horse meat, and

view the

> results from there. This was good 70 years ago, but with what we

know today

> about the dynamics of the body and its complex immune system, then

it is

> going to make it a very difficult task in proving we are blowing up

the bugs

> in the body via MOR, because there are so many other aspects of

biology

> contributing to the pathogens demise when we use our frequency

therapy

> devises.

>

> But we can do what suggests, and get 100% in test tubes. This

alone

> will raise the placebo effect 20% or more not to mention the real

science

> behind this application.

>

> Very frustrating to Rife researchers, but all positive for people

who have

> sick pets or suffer a chronic disease that traditional medicine

can't help

> with. We have a long history with high success rates for diseased

people,

> pets and animals. Much more is happening than simply moving the

lymph along,

> this can easily be achieved via simple self massage, no need for

expensive

> equipment here, my CHIamp software and a home amplifier system does

this

> extremely well for $90. The B/R and EMEM's are doing a lot more

amazing

> things than simply moving the lymph along, they are generating

complex

> reactions in the body's immune system and upset pathogen big time.

No wonder

> medical authorities look at us and shake their head at our

research, but I

> bet they have big grins on their face as they would be well aware

of the

> difficulties we face in proving this technology works in the body

utilizing

> one specific mode of application such as destruction of pathogen

via MOR.

>

> Regards,

> Ken Uzzell

> http://heal-me.com.au

> * FreX - REBS - PLC - ERS - GNLD

>

>

> Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

>

> > I am referring to the Beam Ray

> > heterodyning. Sure, it lights the tube, but what else? If it's so

> > revolutionary, why is Jeff not using it in his new design.

> Something

> > about " simplicity " ?

> >

> > Nielsen

> >

>

> ,

>

> I explained to you why I built the different design. And now you go

> and say that I am not using the heterodyning design. Implying that

I

> have somehow abandoned this heterodyning design. What don't you

> understand? I told you I built it because it was easier to use. Now

I

> will explain it a little further in hopes that you will understand.

I

> know a 63 year old lady that has stage 4 cancers. It is in her

bowls,

> liver and lungs and they sent her home to die. I cannot treat

anyone.

> I like my freedom to much. She did not have the ability to use the

> Beam Rays instrument. I can run it without any problems. A doctor

> could run it on a patient very easily. But she had problems running

> it. Hoyland's instrument didn't have both oscillators variable. He

> had one fixed and one variable. I wanted to have the one I built

with

> both oscillators variable so I could do more testing. This lady

> needed something that she could understand and use. This is why I

> built this simpler instrument that had the ability to run the

> 1.604MHz without having to adjust a second oscillator. But this

> instrument is limited because it cannot run any of Rife's

frequencies

> below 1MHz. The Gruner Beam Rays heterodyning design that we have

> built was the only way we could see this schematic work that would

> output all of Dr. Rife's original #4 frequencies. And this

> heterodyning design does do this. At least it meets the #4

frequency

> criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

>

> From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

> but contrary with what we have been doing. In the first paragraph

of

> my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is

subject

> to change at any time as we learn new things. I have changed this

> paper three or four times as new information has been found. I

never

> intended to write this paper but many people asked me to please

write

> things down so they could read it. People started sharing the paper

> and it ended up on the web. So I decided to ask Stan Truman to put

it

> on his site. If this new work does not bring any results I will be

> changing my paper again. But one month of testing is not enough

time

> to learn anything. This will take several months of use by people

to

> find out how well it will work. I have to build each instrument by

> hand and then let people use them. I have built three instruments

so

> far but need to build at least three more. This takes time and

money.

> I have to fund this out of my own pocket at considerable expense. I

> am sorry that this is not going fast enough for you but it is the

> best that can be done. If I had to do it over again I would not

have

> released this new information.

>

> Jeff Garff

>

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

>

> >Glad to be of service.

>

> , I appreciate that you have made a response,

> but do not agree

> with the content or attitude. As far as I can see,

> it only justifies

> the observations about your approach in my previous

> post. If

> alternative views are taken personally, and those

> offering them

> called " naysayers " , then I really have nothing

> further to say to you

> on this matter. I would prefer to focus on more

> practical matters.

> For a bit more detail, see my reply to Jeff.

, the only thing I have further to say on this

matter is that until you build a working, testable

device based on any interpretations you have of the

Gruner schematic, you're not in a good position to

criticize the interpretations of Jeff and Jim, who

have built working devices. You keep evading my

challenge to build a device according to your

interpretation. Your excuse is that you can't do

everything and that you build pad devices. That's

fair enough, but if you're not able or willing to back

up your ideas regarding the vacuum tube devices, you

should defer to those who are backing up their ideas.

Your engineering knowledge makes you think you know

what you're talking about, but the real world is often

very different than the laboratory of the mind,

especially when dealing with these old vacuum tube

devices. Theory divorced from experiment is

effectively meaningless. That's where your ideas

stand at present regarding the Gruner devices and

interpretations. You accuse Jeff and I of taking your

alternative views personally. This is not true. What

I take personally is you tossing off in front of us.

That's what your " healthy skepticism " amounts to. If

you have alternative views, that's fine. Build

something that can be tested. Jeff isn't afraid to

step forward and hold what he has up for scrutiny. I

want to see you do the same.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

>

> >Glad to be of service.

>

> , I appreciate that you have made a response,

> but do not agree

> with the content or attitude. As far as I can see,

> it only justifies

> the observations about your approach in my previous

> post. If

> alternative views are taken personally, and those

> offering them

> called " naysayers " , then I really have nothing

> further to say to you

> on this matter. I would prefer to focus on more

> practical matters.

> For a bit more detail, see my reply to Jeff.

, the only thing I have further to say on this

matter is that until you build a working, testable

device based on any interpretations you have of the

Gruner schematic, you're not in a good position to

criticize the interpretations of Jeff and Jim, who

have built working devices. You keep evading my

challenge to build a device according to your

interpretation. Your excuse is that you can't do

everything and that you build pad devices. That's

fair enough, but if you're not able or willing to back

up your ideas regarding the vacuum tube devices, you

should defer to those who are backing up their ideas.

Your engineering knowledge makes you think you know

what you're talking about, but the real world is often

very different than the laboratory of the mind,

especially when dealing with these old vacuum tube

devices. Theory divorced from experiment is

effectively meaningless. That's where your ideas

stand at present regarding the Gruner devices and

interpretations. You accuse Jeff and I of taking your

alternative views personally. This is not true. What

I take personally is you tossing off in front of us.

That's what your " healthy skepticism " amounts to. If

you have alternative views, that's fine. Build

something that can be tested. Jeff isn't afraid to

step forward and hold what he has up for scrutiny. I

want to see you do the same.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

>I told you I built it because it was easier to use.

>It doesn't make sense to me that you would do this if the hetero

>version was the breakthrough you originally stated. Why provide a

>dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less effective?

You

>don't seem like that kind of guy.

I will try and explain it to you one more time but if you cannot

understand I will not explain it to you again. I did this for a lady

who is dying of cancer. It is too hard for her to run this

heterodyning instrument. I was just trying to help this lady out. She

has no health insurance and no way to pay for medical care. Dr. Rife

himself preferred an instrument like the #4 instrument that could run

the fundamental frequency. This AZ-58 type instrument with the

variable oscillator can run the fundamental frequency of 1.604MHz

without using the heterodyning method. It is easier for her to use.

She does not need all the other frequencies, just the 1.604MHz. This

is why I built it. What part of " I am just trying to help her out "

don't you understand.

Dr. Rife's #4 instruments that could run the 1.604MHz was not a less

effective instrument. Why would you think it was? What does it matter

if I use the fundamental frequency or heterodyne to get it as long as

the 1.604MHz is produced? Why would you attack my character over

doing this? With you being an engineer I would have thought that you

would have understood these principles.

>At least it meets the #4 frequency

>criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

>My mind was already clear on this. It may meet the frequency

>criteria, but that does not mean it will produce an MOR, or that the

>schematic has been correctly interpreted. These were assumptions on

your part.

Above, you admit that this instrument meets the #4 criteria by the

fact that it will produce the frequencies of the Rife Ray #4

instrument. I have not said that it will produce an M.O.R. What we

have said is its waveform matches one of the waveforms shown by Dr.

Rife in his lab film and that we do not think that this is just

coincidence. Testing will only determine if it will produce the Rife

effect M.O.R.

You are correct that these are assumptions on our part. But two other

people I know who are experts in old tube technology looked at this

schematic and they felt that Jim s assumptions were correct. One

is 65 and the other about 83. The 83 year old owned a business

repairing tube equipment. He helped me out on the AZ-58 several years

ago. Again I would also point out that by your own admission this

assumption of ours of the Gruner schematic, does produce all of the

frequencies used in the Rife Ray #4. Would this not be the goal of

Philip Hoyland the builder of Beam Rays instrument?

I would like to ask you a few other questions. I know you are an

engineer. Are you and expert in old tube technology? If so how many

years did you spend building old tube transmitters like the AZ-58,

Aubrey Scoon or the Gruner Beam Rays instrument or anything else made

of old vacuum tubes? If you are such an expert in old tube technology

why don't you build your own design assumptions and see if they

produce the Rife Ray #4 frequencies. Please note, whatever you build

it must fit into the dimensions of the original Beam Rays cabinet.

You also have to use the same Gruner Hoyland schematic as we did. And

please do not give us any excuses that you can't do everything

because you are working on your other projects. It's time to come out

of the laboratory of your mind into the real world and build a real

working instrument that at least fits the criteria of the frequencies

of the #4 instrument. This is what we had to do. All the assumptions

in the world will not be of any good unless it works in the real

world. The instrument we built does. It outputs all of Rife's #4

frequencies. Now it is time for you to do the same. No more excuses

, build an instrument.

> From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been nothing

>but contrary with what we have been doing.

>Not true. I congratulated you unreservedly on this list, based upon

>your presumed credentials as a researcher. On second look, a

>difference of opinion emerged. But only on the few points I

>indicated. Instead, you question my overall motives. Noble

intentions

>aside, this is just a fact of life.

After your first comments both and I have felt that all you

have been is contrary, just to be contrary. Sorry this is just the

way we see it.

>If you are so sensitive, then why tempt fate by publishing

>supositions as fact. It can tarnish both your reputation and that of

>Rife therapy in general. Present all the possible explanations to

>your readers without bias, not just your personal favorite.

In my paper I tried to put out the information that we have found. I

have not said it was absolute fact because I said if any new

information was found it would be updated. Sorry this is not good

enough for you.

>In the first paragraph of

>my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is subject

>to change at any time as we learn new things.

>Really? You stated on this list that, after your rebuild of the Beam

>Ray, the " only remaining mystery " was the origin of the audio

>frequencies. I think the paper also gives that impression. I

question

>the motive for this. It may be just enthusiasm and eagerness to

>share, but it's not appropriate in my book. Furthermore, IMO it is

>not really great science to effectively disclaim everything in a

>paper with an opening sentence, and then use this, when questioned,

>to justify saying whatever you please.

Im sorry I made a mistake by saying " the only mystery " . A thousand

pardons please. My motives were just to get this information out in

hopes that others might be willing to also build it and see what kind

of results they would get. When people thought (wrongly) that

Ringas had held onto the schematics of the AZ-58 without sharing them

they unjustly attacked him. It was in the spirit of sharing that this

information was put out.

>If this new work does not bring any results I will be

>changing my paper again.

>I see a pattern here, as per past revisions of your work. Remnants

of

>discredited theories are the bane of Rife literature. One

alternative

>would be to adopt a more forgiving " lab notebook " style. A record of

>progression, instead of premature conclusions that may need

>retraction. I appreciate the latter is not pallitable for anyone,

>such as yourself, who has invested alot personally. But that does

not

>change the reality of the present situation. Surely there is a

better way.

What is the better way? Changes were made as new information came

out. From what you are suggesting we should not put anything out

until we know everything and our information is perfect. At least I

am willing to change things as new information comes out. This has

not been the case in most of the Rife information that is now

available.

>If I had to do it over again I would not have

>released this new information.

>If you are trying to make me feel guilty, or a public scapegoat,

it's

>a bit pathetic. If sharing information is conditional upon others

>turning a blind eye to any irregularities, then I would say you have

>an ethical dilemma. Why blame it on someone else?

>How about just relaxing the defensive posture and admitting that

some

>of your comments regarding the Gruner circuit were perhaps

>exaggerated? In return, I will apologize for any emotional damage

>caused by my " healthy skepticism " .

> Nielsen

I am not trying to make you feel guilty or make you a public

scapegoat. So don't flatter yourself. You take too much credit. The

only thing I meant by what I said was; next time I will fully test

things before I release them.

Healthy skepticism is good. You have caused me no emotional damage.

You like to take little pot shots and then act like you said nothing.

Such as this statement of yours where you attack my character. " Why

provide a dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less

effective? You don't seem like that kind of guy. " This statement

implies that I have no character and I would give a dying person

something of no value.

I can clearly see that these discussions between you and me will

probably go no place and they are wasting both of our efforts and

time. I have not wanted to be abrasive but I have to say something.

The best that we can do is agree to disagree.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

Maybe we can talk again when the smokescreen clears. Excuse me for

saying so, but what a load of self-justifying BS. And what's the

" thousand pardons " bit? Is it really such a big deal to admit someone

has a valid point? You appear intent on distorting the issues I

raised. That's why this discussion is going nowhere. I thought this

was science, not a word game.

So you think anyone who has not duplicated, or bettered, your work is

not entitled to an opinion? That's pretty rich. Have you duplicated

Rife's work, MOR? You haven't even proven your own theories. How

should we relegate your opinion? The " at least I'm doing it " thing

doesn't really cut it.

FYI any opinion I might foolishly offer is based upon thirty five

years in electronics and the alternative medical field. I have built

and seen things both you and have never even heard of. Unlike

yourself, I am not making unsupported claims regarding the validity

of my research. I am not selling " Rife " products. I have no interest

in preserving a reputation.

>The only thing I meant by what I said was; next time I will fully test

>things before I release them.

Great, and wasn't that my main point all along? Why didn't you just

say this when I first brought it up instead of putting on a sideshow.

Feel free to " release " anything, anytime. It's not what you present,

but the context. This obviously determines the type and degree of

scrutiny it attracts.

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

--- Nielsen wrote:

<snip>

> FYI any opinion I might foolishly offer is based

> upon thirty five

> years in electronics and the alternative medical

> field. I have built

> and seen things both you and have never even

> heard of. Unlike

> yourself, I am not making unsupported claims

> regarding the validity

> of my research. I am not selling " Rife " products. I

> have no interest

> in preserving a reputation.

<snip>

I suppose now is a good time to ask you what evidence

you have to support this claim? Pretty much everyone

else has put what they have out on the table, whether

for sale or otherwise. Perhaps I missed it, but I

don't recall you putting out anything you claim to

have done. Perhaps you could do us all the courtesy

of recounting what practical contributions you've made

to the Rife community?

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Jeff

I applaude you for wasting your precious time and energy and keeping

your cool with the continual uneccessary unfounded critiscism that

continually displays in this forum.

Healthy debate is one thing but the line that Nielsen

continually takes could prevent the amazing findings that Jim and you

have discovered being disclosed to genuine researchers like myself.

People like you and Jim add to this forum and we have all benefited

enormously. I guess I am being a little selfish but without your

collective ideas we would have had nothing to grow on. And I feel we

are growing at the moment.

I have nearly completed a new device based on the spark gap

transmitter and hope to be testing it on E Coli in the next couple of

months. As I have to wind all the coils by hand it is a very slow

process and labour intensive. I would like to share the results and

circuitry on the forum so others will be able test it out for

themselves but I certainly will not be sharing it if this is the crap

one has to put up with.

Regards to all, Mike

>

>

>

> >I told you I built it because it was easier to use.

>

> >It doesn't make sense to me that you would do this if the hetero

> >version was the breakthrough you originally stated. Why provide a

> >dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less effective?

> You

> >don't seem like that kind of guy.

>

> I will try and explain it to you one more time but if you cannot

> understand I will not explain it to you again. I did this for a

lady

> who is dying of cancer. It is too hard for her to run this

> heterodyning instrument. I was just trying to help this lady out.

She

> has no health insurance and no way to pay for medical care. Dr.

Rife

> himself preferred an instrument like the #4 instrument that could

run

> the fundamental frequency. This AZ-58 type instrument with the

> variable oscillator can run the fundamental frequency of 1.604MHz

> without using the heterodyning method. It is easier for her to use.

> She does not need all the other frequencies, just the 1.604MHz.

This

> is why I built it. What part of " I am just trying to help her out "

> don't you understand.

>

> Dr. Rife's #4 instruments that could run the 1.604MHz was not a

less

> effective instrument. Why would you think it was? What does it

matter

> if I use the fundamental frequency or heterodyne to get it as long

as

> the 1.604MHz is produced? Why would you attack my character over

> doing this? With you being an engineer I would have thought that

you

> would have understood these principles.

>

> >At least it meets the #4 frequency

> >criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

>

> >My mind was already clear on this. It may meet the frequency

> >criteria, but that does not mean it will produce an MOR, or that

the

> >schematic has been correctly interpreted. These were assumptions

on

> your part.

>

> Above, you admit that this instrument meets the #4 criteria by the

> fact that it will produce the frequencies of the Rife Ray #4

> instrument. I have not said that it will produce an M.O.R. What we

> have said is its waveform matches one of the waveforms shown by Dr.

> Rife in his lab film and that we do not think that this is just

> coincidence. Testing will only determine if it will produce the

Rife

> effect M.O.R.

>

> You are correct that these are assumptions on our part. But two

other

> people I know who are experts in old tube technology looked at this

> schematic and they felt that Jim s assumptions were correct.

One

> is 65 and the other about 83. The 83 year old owned a business

> repairing tube equipment. He helped me out on the AZ-58 several

years

> ago. Again I would also point out that by your own admission this

> assumption of ours of the Gruner schematic, does produce all of the

> frequencies used in the Rife Ray #4. Would this not be the goal of

> Philip Hoyland the builder of Beam Rays instrument?

>

> I would like to ask you a few other questions. I know you are an

> engineer. Are you and expert in old tube technology? If so how many

> years did you spend building old tube transmitters like the AZ-58,

> Aubrey Scoon or the Gruner Beam Rays instrument or anything else

made

> of old vacuum tubes? If you are such an expert in old tube

technology

> why don't you build your own design assumptions and see if they

> produce the Rife Ray #4 frequencies. Please note, whatever you

build

> it must fit into the dimensions of the original Beam Rays cabinet.

> You also have to use the same Gruner Hoyland schematic as we did.

And

> please do not give us any excuses that you can't do everything

> because you are working on your other projects. It's time to come

out

> of the laboratory of your mind into the real world and build a real

> working instrument that at least fits the criteria of the

frequencies

> of the #4 instrument. This is what we had to do. All the

assumptions

> in the world will not be of any good unless it works in the real

> world. The instrument we built does. It outputs all of Rife's #4

> frequencies. Now it is time for you to do the same. No more excuses

> , build an instrument.

>

> > From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been

nothing

> >but contrary with what we have been doing.

> >Not true. I congratulated you unreservedly on this list, based

upon

> >your presumed credentials as a researcher. On second look, a

> >difference of opinion emerged. But only on the few points I

> >indicated. Instead, you question my overall motives. Noble

> intentions

> >aside, this is just a fact of life.

>

> After your first comments both and I have felt that all you

> have been is contrary, just to be contrary. Sorry this is just the

> way we see it.

>

> >If you are so sensitive, then why tempt fate by publishing

> >supositions as fact. It can tarnish both your reputation and that

of

> >Rife therapy in general. Present all the possible explanations to

> >your readers without bias, not just your personal favorite.

>

> In my paper I tried to put out the information that we have found.

I

> have not said it was absolute fact because I said if any new

> information was found it would be updated. Sorry this is not good

> enough for you.

>

> >In the first paragraph of

> >my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is

subject

> >to change at any time as we learn new things.

>

> >Really? You stated on this list that, after your rebuild of the

Beam

> >Ray, the " only remaining mystery " was the origin of the audio

> >frequencies. I think the paper also gives that impression. I

> question

> >the motive for this. It may be just enthusiasm and eagerness to

> >share, but it's not appropriate in my book. Furthermore, IMO it is

> >not really great science to effectively disclaim everything in a

> >paper with an opening sentence, and then use this, when

questioned,

> >to justify saying whatever you please.

>

> Im sorry I made a mistake by saying " the only mystery " . A thousand

> pardons please. My motives were just to get this information out in

> hopes that others might be willing to also build it and see what

kind

> of results they would get. When people thought (wrongly) that

> Ringas had held onto the schematics of the AZ-58 without sharing

them

> they unjustly attacked him. It was in the spirit of sharing that

this

> information was put out.

>

> >If this new work does not bring any results I will be

> >changing my paper again.

>

> >I see a pattern here, as per past revisions of your work. Remnants

> of

> >discredited theories are the bane of Rife literature. One

> alternative

> >would be to adopt a more forgiving " lab notebook " style. A record

of

> >progression, instead of premature conclusions that may need

> >retraction. I appreciate the latter is not pallitable for anyone,

> >such as yourself, who has invested alot personally. But that does

> not

> >change the reality of the present situation. Surely there is a

> better way.

>

> What is the better way? Changes were made as new information came

> out. From what you are suggesting we should not put anything out

> until we know everything and our information is perfect. At least I

> am willing to change things as new information comes out. This has

> not been the case in most of the Rife information that is now

> available.

>

> >If I had to do it over again I would not have

> >released this new information.

>

> >If you are trying to make me feel guilty, or a public scapegoat,

> it's

> >a bit pathetic. If sharing information is conditional upon others

> >turning a blind eye to any irregularities, then I would say you

have

> >an ethical dilemma. Why blame it on someone else?

>

> >How about just relaxing the defensive posture and admitting that

> some

> >of your comments regarding the Gruner circuit were perhaps

> >exaggerated? In return, I will apologize for any emotional damage

> >caused by my " healthy skepticism " .

> > Nielsen

>

> I am not trying to make you feel guilty or make you a public

> scapegoat. So don't flatter yourself. You take too much credit. The

> only thing I meant by what I said was; next time I will fully test

> things before I release them.

>

> Healthy skepticism is good. You have caused me no emotional damage.

> You like to take little pot shots and then act like you said

nothing.

> Such as this statement of yours where you attack my character. " Why

> provide a dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less

> effective? You don't seem like that kind of guy. " This statement

> implies that I have no character and I would give a dying person

> something of no value.

>

> I can clearly see that these discussions between you and me will

> probably go no place and they are wasting both of our efforts and

> time. I have not wanted to be abrasive but I have to say something.

> The best that we can do is agree to disagree.

>

> Jeff Garff

>

[Guest guest]

Mike,

I completely agree with you. has completely passed the point of

constructive criticism. His ego is so involved in his negative

responses that his belabored points offer little useful information.

I too applaud Jeff for the work he is doing and his taking the trouble

to openly share it. He shouldn't have to put up with s continual

abuse.

Ron Wormus

protech@...

> >

> >

> >

> > >I told you I built it because it was easier to use.

> >

> > >It doesn't make sense to me that you would do this if the hetero

> > >version was the breakthrough you originally stated. Why provide a

> > >dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less effective?

> > You

> > >don't seem like that kind of guy.

> >

> > I will try and explain it to you one more time but if you cannot

> > understand I will not explain it to you again. I did this for a

> lady

> > who is dying of cancer. It is too hard for her to run this

> > heterodyning instrument. I was just trying to help this lady out.

> She

> > has no health insurance and no way to pay for medical care. Dr.

> Rife

> > himself preferred an instrument like the #4 instrument that could

> run

> > the fundamental frequency. This AZ-58 type instrument with the

> > variable oscillator can run the fundamental frequency of 1.604MHz

> > without using the heterodyning method. It is easier for her to use.

> > She does not need all the other frequencies, just the 1.604MHz.

> This

> > is why I built it. What part of " I am just trying to help her out "

> > don't you understand.

> >

> > Dr. Rife's #4 instruments that could run the 1.604MHz was not a

> less

> > effective instrument. Why would you think it was? What does it

> matter

> > if I use the fundamental frequency or heterodyne to get it as long

> as

> > the 1.604MHz is produced? Why would you attack my character over

> > doing this? With you being an engineer I would have thought that

> you

> > would have understood these principles.

> >

> > >At least it meets the #4 frequency

> > >criteria. I hope this clears this up in your mind.

> >

> > >My mind was already clear on this. It may meet the frequency

> > >criteria, but that does not mean it will produce an MOR, or that

> the

> > >schematic has been correctly interpreted. These were assumptions

> on

> > your part.

> >

> > Above, you admit that this instrument meets the #4 criteria by the

> > fact that it will produce the frequencies of the Rife Ray #4

> > instrument. I have not said that it will produce an M.O.R. What we

> > have said is its waveform matches one of the waveforms shown by Dr.

> > Rife in his lab film and that we do not think that this is just

> > coincidence. Testing will only determine if it will produce the

> Rife

> > effect M.O.R.

> >

> > You are correct that these are assumptions on our part. But two

> other

> > people I know who are experts in old tube technology looked at this

> > schematic and they felt that Jim s assumptions were correct.

> One

> > is 65 and the other about 83. The 83 year old owned a business

> > repairing tube equipment. He helped me out on the AZ-58 several

> years

> > ago. Again I would also point out that by your own admission this

> > assumption of ours of the Gruner schematic, does produce all of the

> > frequencies used in the Rife Ray #4. Would this not be the goal of

> > Philip Hoyland the builder of Beam Rays instrument?

> >

> > I would like to ask you a few other questions. I know you are an

> > engineer. Are you and expert in old tube technology? If so how many

> > years did you spend building old tube transmitters like the AZ-58,

> > Aubrey Scoon or the Gruner Beam Rays instrument or anything else

> made

> > of old vacuum tubes? If you are such an expert in old tube

> technology

> > why don't you build your own design assumptions and see if they

> > produce the Rife Ray #4 frequencies. Please note, whatever you

> build

> > it must fit into the dimensions of the original Beam Rays cabinet.

> > You also have to use the same Gruner Hoyland schematic as we did.

> And

> > please do not give us any excuses that you can't do everything

> > because you are working on your other projects. It's time to come

> out

> > of the laboratory of your mind into the real world and build a real

> > working instrument that at least fits the criteria of the

> frequencies

> > of the #4 instrument. This is what we had to do. All the

> assumptions

> > in the world will not be of any good unless it works in the real

> > world. The instrument we built does. It outputs all of Rife's #4

> > frequencies. Now it is time for you to do the same. No more excuses

> > , build an instrument.

> >

> > > From the very beginning of the Beam Rays work you have been

> nothing

> > >but contrary with what we have been doing.

> > >Not true. I congratulated you unreservedly on this list, based

> upon

> > >your presumed credentials as a researcher. On second look, a

> > >difference of opinion emerged. But only on the few points I

> > >indicated. Instead, you question my overall motives. Noble

> > intentions

> > >aside, this is just a fact of life.

> >

> > After your first comments both and I have felt that all you

> > have been is contrary, just to be contrary. Sorry this is just the

> > way we see it.

> >

> > >If you are so sensitive, then why tempt fate by publishing

> > >supositions as fact. It can tarnish both your reputation and that

> of

> > >Rife therapy in general. Present all the possible explanations to

> > >your readers without bias, not just your personal favorite.

> >

> > In my paper I tried to put out the information that we have found.

> I

> > have not said it was absolute fact because I said if any new

> > information was found it would be updated. Sorry this is not good

> > enough for you.

> >

> > >In the first paragraph of

> > >my paper it states that this is a work in progress and it is

> subject

> > >to change at any time as we learn new things.

> >

> > >Really? You stated on this list that, after your rebuild of the

> Beam

> > >Ray, the " only remaining mystery " was the origin of the audio

> > >frequencies. I think the paper also gives that impression. I

> > question

> > >the motive for this. It may be just enthusiasm and eagerness to

> > >share, but it's not appropriate in my book. Furthermore, IMO it is

> > >not really great science to effectively disclaim everything in a

> > >paper with an opening sentence, and then use this, when

> questioned,

> > >to justify saying whatever you please.

> >

> > Im sorry I made a mistake by saying " the only mystery " . A thousand

> > pardons please. My motives were just to get this information out in

> > hopes that others might be willing to also build it and see what

> kind

> > of results they would get. When people thought (wrongly) that

> > Ringas had held onto the schematics of the AZ-58 without sharing

> them

> > they unjustly attacked him. It was in the spirit of sharing that

> this

> > information was put out.

> >

> > >If this new work does not bring any results I will be

> > >changing my paper again.

> >

> > >I see a pattern here, as per past revisions of your work. Remnants

> > of

> > >discredited theories are the bane of Rife literature. One

> > alternative

> > >would be to adopt a more forgiving " lab notebook " style. A record

> of

> > >progression, instead of premature conclusions that may need

> > >retraction. I appreciate the latter is not pallitable for anyone,

> > >such as yourself, who has invested alot personally. But that does

> > not

> > >change the reality of the present situation. Surely there is a

> > better way.

> >

> > What is the better way? Changes were made as new information came

> > out. From what you are suggesting we should not put anything out

> > until we know everything and our information is perfect. At least I

> > am willing to change things as new information comes out. This has

> > not been the case in most of the Rife information that is now

> > available.

> >

> > >If I had to do it over again I would not have

> > >released this new information.

> >

> > >If you are trying to make me feel guilty, or a public scapegoat,

> > it's

> > >a bit pathetic. If sharing information is conditional upon others

> > >turning a blind eye to any irregularities, then I would say you

> have

> > >an ethical dilemma. Why blame it on someone else?

> >

> > >How about just relaxing the defensive posture and admitting that

> > some

> > >of your comments regarding the Gruner circuit were perhaps

> > >exaggerated? In return, I will apologize for any emotional damage

> > >caused by my " healthy skepticism " .

> > > Nielsen

> >

> > I am not trying to make you feel guilty or make you a public

> > scapegoat. So don't flatter yourself. You take too much credit. The

> > only thing I meant by what I said was; next time I will fully test

> > things before I release them.

> >

> > Healthy skepticism is good. You have caused me no emotional damage.

> > You like to take little pot shots and then act like you said

> nothing.

> > Such as this statement of yours where you attack my character. " Why

> > provide a dying person with an easier-to-use device that is less

> > effective? You don't seem like that kind of guy. " This statement

> > implies that I have no character and I would give a dying person

> > something of no value.

> >

> > I can clearly see that these discussions between you and me will

> > probably go no place and they are wasting both of our efforts and

> > time. I have not wanted to be abrasive but I have to say something.

> > The best that we can do is agree to disagree.

> >

> > Jeff Garff

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>Maybe we can talk again when the smokescreen clears. Excuse me for

>saying so, but what a load of self-justifying BS. And what's the

> " thousand pardons " bit? Is it really such a big deal to admit

someone

>has a valid point? You appear intent on distorting the issues I

>raised. That's why this discussion is going nowhere. I thought this

>was science, not a word game.

you seem to want to make a person an " offender for a word " . BS

comes from someone who knows little or nothing about the technology

they are pretending to be an expert in.

No it is not a big deal for me to admit when someone has a valid

point. If I was afraid to admit that I had made a mistake I would not

be willing to change may paper with new information when it comes to

light. I have tried to stay on point but most of the questions you

have been asked, you do not answer. I have tried to always answer

your questions. In some cases I have had to answer them two or three

times. I think distorting the issues are more on your side of this

conversation.

>So you think anyone who has not duplicated, or bettered, your work

is

>not entitled to an opinion? That's pretty rich. Have you duplicated

>Rife's work, MOR? You haven't even proven your own theories. How

>should we relegate your opinion? The " at least I'm doing it " thing

>doesn't really cut it.

I do not have a problem with anyone else's opinion or their work.

What I do have a problem with is someone who attacks another's work

when they know nothing about that technology. At least " doing it " is

better than doing nothing. I think not doing it is what really

doesn't cut it.

>FYI any opinion I might foolishly offer is based upon thirty five

>years in electronics and the alternative medical field. I have built

>and seen things both you and have never even heard of. Unlike

>yourself, I am not making unsupported claims regarding the validity

>of my research. I am not selling " Rife " products. I have no interest

>in preserving a reputation.

You still avoided my questions about you expertise in this field. It

is apparent that you know very little or nothing about old tube

technology. How can you judge or criticize someone else's work in an

area that you know little or nothing about? Thirty five years of

electronics work does not make you an expert in old tube technology

unless you worked in this field. The engineer that builds all of my

solid state equipment was not willing to work with old tube

technology because he said he knows nothing about it. He recognized

his limitations. Yet he can build anything I want in it solid state.

Both Ringas and Jim s make no money selling anything. This

has been a joint effort. Yes, I sell pad equipment but this work is

with ray tubes. Right now the work I am doing may help my competitors

more than me. I do not care where the truth is or how it may change

things. I just want to figure out how Dr. Rife accomplished what he

did. Working in the real world is the only way to do this. If this

can work in pads as well as with a ray tube it may benefit all. What

is the problem with that?

>The only thing I meant by what I said was; next time I will fully

test

>things before I release them.

>Great, and wasn't that my main point all along? Why didn't you just

>say this when I first brought it up instead of putting on a

sideshow.

>Feel free to " release " anything, anytime. It's not what you present,

>but the context. This obviously determines the type and degree of

>scrutiny it attracts.

Nielsen

You have constantly criticized our assumptions allmost from the

beginning. Yet we now know you really know nothing about old tube

technology. You may not want to know how we came up with our

assumptions but others might. We did not just pull or parameters out

of a hat.

1. Dr. Rife's #4 instrument frequencies were from 139,000 hertz to

1,604,000 hertz.

2. These frequencies were read and verified by Hoyland off of the

Kennedy equipment.

3. The #4 instrument documents show that it output one frequency for

each organism. Tuberculosis being the exception since it had both the

rod and the virus that needed a separate frequency for each organism.

4. The #4 documents showed that it had no audio oscillator. Its

frequency range was from about 87,000 hertz to 22.5MHz. If it used a

variable audio gate frequency it would have had to have had a

variable audio oscillator.

5. The Beam Rays instrument was designed and built over about a six

month period of time from the summer of 1936 to the end of that year.

6. It had one oscillator dial on the front of it.

7. The Beam Rays instrument had no band switches that would have been

necessary if it had a variable audio oscillator. An audio oscillator

would have also been needed if a variable gate frequency was used in

this instrument.

8. An audio tank coil would be too large to fit into the case with

all the other components. A fact you so easily dismiss because you

know very little about tube technology. I might add, Rife said that

9/10ths of criticism is just a cloak of ignorance.

9. All the audio instruments we have any information on at this

present time were built after the Beam Rays instrument. This places

these audio instruments in the 1940s and 1950s.

These known facts were the basis of our assumptions. The Gruner Beam

Rays schematic was a viable schematic with only a few part values

incorrect. Building it easily fixed these. There was really only one

question left on the schematic for us to make an assumption on. How

could Philip Hoyland produce the #4 instrument frequencies out of

this device? The only possible way was to take the second diagram on

the schematic of a Hartley Oscillator and hook it up to the other

side of the ray tube as the schematic suggests. It could not be an

audio oscillator because it would not be able to produce the #4

instrument frequencies. Hooking the ray tube it back to the same

Hartley oscillator as others have suggested will not produce these

frequencies. I decided to test this theory in the real world and

hooked it back to the same Hartley Oscillator, it didn't work. This

is why we have said you have to build the device.

I know that none of this logic matters to you but this is how we came

to our assumptions. Right or wrong, whether you like it or you don't,

the instrument produces the #4 frequencies through the heterodyning

method. It also has a damped wave audio gate frequency which matches

one of the waveforms in Dr. Rife's lab film.

We know that Dr. Rife preferred an instrument that worked like the

#4. We know that Philip Hoyland changed the instrument and it worked

on a different principle. There is no question this Gruner Beam Rays

design works fundamentally different that Dr. Rife's instrument. Will

our assumptions on this instrument produce the M.O.R effect? I do not

know. I have said this several times and will say it again, I do not

know. But that will not stop us from testing it. I know one thing;

the people we have worked with have far more knowledge about old tube

technology than you do. I prefer to work with people who really know

something about this technology instead of listing to someone who

knows very little about it. Your criticism is of no real value unless

you have worked in old tube technology and tried to build this

instrument using the parameters that the documents and schematic give.

Jeff Garff

[Guest guest]

>I would like to share the results and

>circuitry on the forum so others will be able test it out for

>themselves but I certainly will not be sharing it if this is the crap

>one has to put up with.

Sharing is one thing. But presenting opinion and unverified

conclusions as fact is quite another. Irrespective of whatever

technical contribution Jeff may have made, he has, without any doubt,

done this, both in his papers and on this list. And I suspect he,

being a fundamentally sincere person, is not spending all this time

responding to my posts because he is entirely comfortable with the

situation. This seems to be a matter of reputation for him, given

that impuning mine is the last ditch line of defence he has taken.

ly, I don't care. I initially raised only two issues regarding

his claims and interpretation of the Gruner circuit. Not unreasonable

I thought. These will apparently remain unresolved until the relevant

work is done. That much should be obvious to everyone by now. Excuse

me now while I wipe my inbox.

Nielsen

[Guest guest]

" But presenting opinion and unverified

conclusions as fact is quite another "

, when do assumptions and all the knowledge that is known at a

particular time become conclusions! Jeff has spent considerable time

and effort in keeping this forum advised of his work, in conjunction

with others, and unselfishly assisted others in their quest.

If you are serious and want to assist the Rife forum and you are the

brilliant engineer you claim with experience in the medical field,

then lets see some evidence. I support and throw the gauntlet

down. Lets see one circuit that has not been published elsewhere or

copied out of an electronics manual that fellow forum members can use.

Don't empty your inbox when the heat is on you to perform, get that

poison pen to work and do something constructive.

Regards to all, Mike

>

>

> >I would like to share the results and

> >circuitry on the forum so others will be able test it out for

> >themselves but I certainly will not be sharing it if this is the

crap

> >one has to put up with.

>

> Sharing is one thing. But presenting opinion and unverified

> conclusions as fact is quite another. Irrespective of whatever

> technical contribution Jeff may have made, he has, without any

doubt,

> done this, both in his papers and on this list. And I suspect he,

> being a fundamentally sincere person, is not spending all this time

> responding to my posts because he is entirely comfortable with the

> situation. This seems to be a matter of reputation for him, given

> that impuning mine is the last ditch line of defence he has taken.

> ly, I don't care. I initially raised only two issues regarding

> his claims and interpretation of the Gruner circuit. Not

unreasonable

> I thought. These will apparently remain unresolved until the

relevant

> work is done. That much should be obvious to everyone by now.

Excuse

> me now while I wipe my inbox.

>

> Nielsen

>

[Guest guest]

>, when do assumptions and all the knowledge that is known at a

>particular time become conclusions!

Prompted by the debate, I revisited Jeff's paper. Below are a few

examples of the kind of questionable statements I have been referring to.

The Gruner section starts off with, " We will now discuss the _key_ to

understanding Philip Hoyland's design. " Emphasis mine. " Jim s

noticed that the British group had overlooked a second Hartley RF

oscillator that was in the lower left corner of the Gruner

schematic. " They didn't " overlook " it. They came to the same

conclusion as I did. It was a demo sketch.

Then we find a series of assumptions, relating primarily to Hoyland's

methodology, all presented as if proven fact. " By using the ingenious

method of connecting the ray tube between the two Hartley

Oscillators, one fixed, one variable, Philip Hoyland ... " . " The

positive side of the ray tube is supposed to be hooked to the second vari-

able Hartley Oscillator " ... etc. Need I go on?

And, to sum it all up, the author claims, " We finally know from the

rebuilding of this Beam Rays instrument the waveform Dr. Rife used,

how he created it, and the method that should be used for doing MOR research " .

It's all there for anyone who wants to read it. Personally, I feel

this is conjecture posing as fact. It is bound to mislead some

readers who are unfamilliar with the historical informality Rife research.

As far as my credentials go, I am not interested in proving anything.

Nielsen