Re: Testing Rife Frequencies on Bacterial Cultures

[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

[Guest guest]

As my Pappy always says, " a little perception goes a

long way " . You make it obvious that perception is not

one of your strong suits. You say that the British

group came to the same conclusion that you did, that

the second Hartley oscillator was just a demo sketch.

This demonstrates your incompetence regarding at least

this subject. If I was an engineer with 35 years

experience, I would be utterly embarrassed and ashamed

for making such a blunder. The first question that

Jim s asked when he first saw the Gruner

schematic was, " how did they tune it? " Without the

second Hartley oscillator, which is the only part of

the schematic that has any frequency tuning

components, viz., the tuning capacitor, all you have

left is a fixed frequency RF oscillator with a fixed

frequency audio modulation. Needless to say, that

wouldn't do much good. The photos of the Beam Ray

machine clearly show the dial for a tuning capacitor.

The main oscillator in the Gruner schematic doesn't

have a tuning capacitor. The logical conclusion

therefore, is that the second Hartley oscillator is

not just a demo sketch, but is a necessary part of the

whole schematic to make a functional machine.

Another old adage is that, " the proof of the pudding

is in the eating " . The assumptions and conclusions

are being presented as if proven fact because of the

proven fact of the machines that have been built based

upon these assumptions and conclusions. As Jeff

pointed out in a previous post, there are many points

that we definitely know and accept as proven fact,

such as the frequency range of the Rife frequencies,

the frequency range of the Kennedy machines, and the

photographic evidence. Another most important fact is

that there are real-world limits to what the

technology was capable of back then. As I said, the

proven fact of the real-world machines that have been

built based on the logical and practical assumptions

and conclusions that were made, is the reason that

the assumptions and conclusions are being presented as

proven fact. If Jeff had revised and released his

paper before the working machines had been built, then

there would have been no justification for presenting

the assumptions and conclusions as fact. But you keep

overlooking the proven fact that the assumptions and

conclusions that were made lead to working machines

that fill the bill for operational parameters of what

we know of Rife's machines. I suppose that about now

you'll remind us that these machines have yet to

demonstrate the Rife effect. This is true, but this

work is still very new and needs time to get this

testing done, however, it in no way negates the fact

that we now have operational machines that can deliver

Rife's original frequencies, in a manner similar to

the way that he delivered them.

As far as you not being interested in proving anything

regarding your credentials, I think it's becoming

increasingly obvious that you have nothing that you

can prove. Your arguments demonstrate that at least

regarding this old style Rife technology, you're

incompetent. I suggest that you stick to allegedly

building advanced pad machines.

Regards,

--- Nielsen wrote:

>

> >, 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

[Guest guest]

As my Pappy always says, " a little perception goes a

long way " . You make it obvious that perception is not

one of your strong suits. You say that the British

group came to the same conclusion that you did, that

the second Hartley oscillator was just a demo sketch.

This demonstrates your incompetence regarding at least

this subject. If I was an engineer with 35 years

experience, I would be utterly embarrassed and ashamed

for making such a blunder. The first question that

Jim s asked when he first saw the Gruner

schematic was, " how did they tune it? " Without the

second Hartley oscillator, which is the only part of

the schematic that has any frequency tuning

components, viz., the tuning capacitor, all you have

left is a fixed frequency RF oscillator with a fixed

frequency audio modulation. Needless to say, that

wouldn't do much good. The photos of the Beam Ray

machine clearly show the dial for a tuning capacitor.

The main oscillator in the Gruner schematic doesn't

have a tuning capacitor. The logical conclusion

therefore, is that the second Hartley oscillator is

not just a demo sketch, but is a necessary part of the

whole schematic to make a functional machine.

Another old adage is that, " the proof of the pudding

is in the eating " . The assumptions and conclusions

are being presented as if proven fact because of the

proven fact of the machines that have been built based

upon these assumptions and conclusions. As Jeff

pointed out in a previous post, there are many points

that we definitely know and accept as proven fact,

such as the frequency range of the Rife frequencies,

the frequency range of the Kennedy machines, and the

photographic evidence. Another most important fact is

that there are real-world limits to what the

technology was capable of back then. As I said, the

proven fact of the real-world machines that have been

built based on the logical and practical assumptions

and conclusions that were made, is the reason that

the assumptions and conclusions are being presented as

proven fact. If Jeff had revised and released his

paper before the working machines had been built, then

there would have been no justification for presenting

the assumptions and conclusions as fact. But you keep

overlooking the proven fact that the assumptions and

conclusions that were made lead to working machines

that fill the bill for operational parameters of what

we know of Rife's machines. I suppose that about now

you'll remind us that these machines have yet to

demonstrate the Rife effect. This is true, but this

work is still very new and needs time to get this

testing done, however, it in no way negates the fact

that we now have operational machines that can deliver

Rife's original frequencies, in a manner similar to

the way that he delivered them.

As far as you not being interested in proving anything

regarding your credentials, I think it's becoming

increasingly obvious that you have nothing that you

can prove. Your arguments demonstrate that at least

regarding this old style Rife technology, you're

incompetent. I suggest that you stick to allegedly

building advanced pad machines.

Regards,

--- Nielsen wrote:

>

> >, 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