A response of considerable magnitude and clarity (if you`ll excuse the pun). You have illustrated a simple necessity viz.: that we must first check thoroughly that we are not just making assertions but that there exists unequivocal , factual evidence that supports a proclaimed truth for without this principle, we will leave reason in darkness.
When I first began exploring your work, your mention of the Rife microscope was the first I'd heard of it. I was excited by the idea, so I tried to learn what I could about how it worked. This exploration led me to the same conclusions you patiently explained here. It's impossible to get around the limit of the wavelength of visible light without using something besides visible light (that provides greater resolution without being destructive). I had pondered how polarization might possibly offer a way around this inconvenient obstacle, but that is beyond me. I'd like to think Rife had really discovered something to this effect, but the evidence paints a less fantastic picture. However, I'd much rather settle for a disappointing truth than commit to believing an exciting lie.
Do you always turn any challenge to your views into a circus? Is it only through the showcase of your prowess abilities to intellectually “dissect” any dissenting view in front of a crowd, a way to secure a footing?
.
.
Jeff green: "Furthermore, the pictures of the various microscopes he produced clearly demonstrate an overbuilt and unnecessarily complex design, particularly in the case of his 'universal microscope'. If one lacks knowledge of machining or an understanding of microscopy principles, they may not recognize the evidence pointing to the unnecessary complexity of Rife's microscope."
David Roy: I don't understand. You hand wave someone's entire life's work based on an assessment of a few who couldn't figure out how his microscope worked?
.
.
JG: "The document explicitly states that the microscopes did not function as described and primarily relied on magnification rather than truly enhancing resolution and sharpness."
DR: Perhaps he was using different technology. In September 1998, Tom Bearden talked about Rife's microscope and speculated that Rife may have been generating gravitons (a mythical subatomic particle) to gain that high resolution.
Again, I'm baffled why you are so quick to dismiss someone's life work. I've noticed you've done the same in your previous post about Neassans work. Are you aware of all the components and the ingenuity they have put in their devices?! Today anyone can be a “truth warrior” behind a keyboard sitting high above in an ivory tower, yet have no real understanding grounded in the real world.
.
.
JG: "And that statement is quite fitting because it seems that you are engaging in a similar pattern as described by the author in your comments."
DR: Where exactly do you see in my comment that I engage in a similar pattern as described by the author?
It goes both ways.
Anti-Rife propaganda has circulated since the 1930s, and his microscope is dismissed by orthodoxy today, but images taken with his microscopes survive, which prove the “impossible” results that Rife’s microscope achieved.
.
.
JG: "Despite the abundance of evidence demonstrating that these devices were exaggerated and based on falsehoods, you are asserting that they functioned as described, despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims."
DR: Where do you see in my comment that I assert that they (microscopes) functioned as described? and why do you call such an assertion ‘falsehood’? Who is the authority to claim an absolute on such a matter?
.
.
JG: "And more to the point of conspiracy—the more someone appears to be challenging established beliefs, the more likely people are to believe their assertions, even in the absence of evidence."
DR: What absence of evidence? I have provided an article that provided a possibility for the fact that Mr. Rife has gone beyond the Abbe limitation with his universal microscope. Who gets to validate which evidence is worthier? Why are you quick to dismiss evidence that is contrasting to yours?
.
.
JG: "Moreover, I want to emphasize that neither I nor the author attacked Rife."
DR: The Author claims in the end of his article: "Rife 5 didn't do what Rife said it would, either. This smacks of fraud on any reading. "
I don't know about you, but this sounds to me as a personal attack equivalent to defamation, especially when the guy is no longer around to defend or explain himself.
.
.
JG: "Regarding Rife, it is possible that he was genuinely striving to develop a new invention for a specific purpose. Rife also incorrectly stated that cancer is caused by microorganisms as well as viruses. But we now know that cancer is a result of imbalance from toxicity and is multifactorial, and is not caused directly by bacteria or viruses. Viral infections that occur alongside cancer has actually been shown to reduce or reverse cancer, not progress it."
DR: Are you aware that your dismissal of such thinking is done from a hindsight, almost a hundred years later? It's really easy to handwave something in a hindsight. Everyone can do that with the access everyone has to the same pool of information.
.
.
JG: "It appears he figured out he could market his microscopes for profit to potential customers by overstating their abilities when he found their ultimate limitations, …Either way, that veers off from the actual evidence available.
DR: So why did he die penniless, and why did he never capitalize on his inventions while living?
Rife had help refining his frequency device from an electrical engineer named Philip Hoyland. A company was formed to build and sell the frequency generators. It was called Beam Ray, and Hoyland, Rife, James Couche (a doctor who had been using the frequency device to treat patients for years), Ben Cullen (a long-time friend of Rife's), and a promoter named Hutcheson were the company’s owners.
The company made 14 frequency devices, and they were used with phenomenal success. Cancer, cataracts, and other diseases simply melted away with the device, properly calibrated to the disease forms.
One doctor, Richard Hamer, was running 40 cases a day through his San Diego clinic, and the results were miraculous.
Milbank Johnson was trying to gather enough clinical evidence to prove beyond any doubt that Rife's treatment worked, and they were trying to keep their patients quiet about their treatment.
Were Dr. Hamer, Milbank Johnson, Philip Holman, James Couch, Ben Cullen and Hutchison all in on the fraud too?!
Through his agents in Los Angeles, Fishbein approached Beam Ray and tried buying into the company, and their offer was rebuffed.
After Beam Ray rejected the AMA's offer, the AMA funded a lawsuit to try seizing the company. The lawsuit led to a trial. The brutal realities of America's legal system were too much for Rife's constitution. The trial destroyed Rife and stopped Beam Ray in its tracks.
They hunted down all the doctors using the device. Everybody was threatened with losing their license if they kept using the Rife frequency device. Hamer quickly gave up his device. Milbank Johnson, however, was not intimidated.
Apparently on the brink of making a very public announcement about Rife's device, Johnson suddenly took ill in 1944 and died. His death remains mysterious. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, two federal inspectors examined Johnson's hospital records and concluded that he was likely poisoned.
During the same period when Johnson suddenly died, a new technician in Rife's lab stole one of the quartz prisms from Rife's microscope, rendering it inoperable.
Just before that theft, Dr. Raymond Sidel published a description of Rife's microscope in the Smithsonian, in which Sidel ran the censorship gauntlet that the AMA had dropped on Rife's work. In the Smithsonian, Sidel described how the cancer virus "may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies."
Those surviving micrographs from Rife's scope came from Sidel's article. That public exposure made somebody irate, for soon after the article was published, Sidel became aware that somebody was following his car and a bullet crashed through his windshield. Dr. Couche defied the AMA and continued using Rife's frequency device until the 1950s, when they revoked his license.
The judge in Hoyland's lawsuit was accusatory of Hoyland when rendering the verdict, telling Hoyland that he thought he was crooked, and he ruled in favor of Beam Ray. The judge even told Beam Ray that he would be happy to represent them in a lawsuit against the AMA, but the trial had bankrupted Beam Ray. Ben Cullen even lost his house in the ordeal. Rife was a ruined man who never recovered from the 1939 trial.
Just prior to the AMA-funded attack on Rife, the other quality "electronic medicine research lab" in America mysteriously burned to the ground in New Jersey, while that lab's owners were visiting Rife's lab in California, for another "coincidence."
Why, if Rife was such a fraud, did Morris Fishbein go after his company with the intent of getting it out of business? Was it solely to defend the purity and sanctity of the medical profession at the time?
.
.
JG: "It appears that you hold a willingness to accept the notion that Rife possessed the ultimate microscope, even in the absence of any tangible evidence—other than hearsay—to substantiate such a claim. This lack of evidence encompasses both physical proof and logical deductions based on the principles governing optical lenses, among others. The introductory and closing section of the document was unequivocal and effectively emphasized how individuals often believe in something regardless of the evidence presented. Interestingly, some of your own remarks have also illustrated this tendency and have veered off path. The majority of your questions can be addressed quite easily once contemplated, much like I am doing in this response."
DR: You haven't addressed my points 5 and 6. It seems you cherry pick the points that are easier for you to refute, but neglect those that aren’t aligned with your “substantive analysis” that tries to prove I’m wrong to question your cardinal verdict.
Secondly, logical deduction without providing historical evidence, oftentimes leading to unintentionally creating misinformation.
My response and conclusion continue in part 2 below.
A response of considerable magnitude and clarity (if you`ll excuse the pun). You have illustrated a simple necessity viz.: that we must first check thoroughly that we are not just making assertions but that there exists unequivocal , factual evidence that supports a proclaimed truth for without this principle, we will leave reason in darkness.
When I first began exploring your work, your mention of the Rife microscope was the first I'd heard of it. I was excited by the idea, so I tried to learn what I could about how it worked. This exploration led me to the same conclusions you patiently explained here. It's impossible to get around the limit of the wavelength of visible light without using something besides visible light (that provides greater resolution without being destructive). I had pondered how polarization might possibly offer a way around this inconvenient obstacle, but that is beyond me. I'd like to think Rife had really discovered something to this effect, but the evidence paints a less fantastic picture. However, I'd much rather settle for a disappointing truth than commit to believing an exciting lie.
1/2
Do you always turn any challenge to your views into a circus? Is it only through the showcase of your prowess abilities to intellectually “dissect” any dissenting view in front of a crowd, a way to secure a footing?
.
.
Jeff green: "Furthermore, the pictures of the various microscopes he produced clearly demonstrate an overbuilt and unnecessarily complex design, particularly in the case of his 'universal microscope'. If one lacks knowledge of machining or an understanding of microscopy principles, they may not recognize the evidence pointing to the unnecessary complexity of Rife's microscope."
David Roy: I don't understand. You hand wave someone's entire life's work based on an assessment of a few who couldn't figure out how his microscope worked?
.
.
JG: "The document explicitly states that the microscopes did not function as described and primarily relied on magnification rather than truly enhancing resolution and sharpness."
DR: Perhaps he was using different technology. In September 1998, Tom Bearden talked about Rife's microscope and speculated that Rife may have been generating gravitons (a mythical subatomic particle) to gain that high resolution.
Again, I'm baffled why you are so quick to dismiss someone's life work. I've noticed you've done the same in your previous post about Neassans work. Are you aware of all the components and the ingenuity they have put in their devices?! Today anyone can be a “truth warrior” behind a keyboard sitting high above in an ivory tower, yet have no real understanding grounded in the real world.
.
.
JG: "And that statement is quite fitting because it seems that you are engaging in a similar pattern as described by the author in your comments."
DR: Where exactly do you see in my comment that I engage in a similar pattern as described by the author?
It goes both ways.
Anti-Rife propaganda has circulated since the 1930s, and his microscope is dismissed by orthodoxy today, but images taken with his microscopes survive, which prove the “impossible” results that Rife’s microscope achieved.
.
.
JG: "Despite the abundance of evidence demonstrating that these devices were exaggerated and based on falsehoods, you are asserting that they functioned as described, despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims."
DR: Where do you see in my comment that I assert that they (microscopes) functioned as described? and why do you call such an assertion ‘falsehood’? Who is the authority to claim an absolute on such a matter?
.
.
JG: "And more to the point of conspiracy—the more someone appears to be challenging established beliefs, the more likely people are to believe their assertions, even in the absence of evidence."
DR: What absence of evidence? I have provided an article that provided a possibility for the fact that Mr. Rife has gone beyond the Abbe limitation with his universal microscope. Who gets to validate which evidence is worthier? Why are you quick to dismiss evidence that is contrasting to yours?
.
.
JG: "Moreover, I want to emphasize that neither I nor the author attacked Rife."
DR: The Author claims in the end of his article: "Rife 5 didn't do what Rife said it would, either. This smacks of fraud on any reading. "
I don't know about you, but this sounds to me as a personal attack equivalent to defamation, especially when the guy is no longer around to defend or explain himself.
.
.
JG: "Regarding Rife, it is possible that he was genuinely striving to develop a new invention for a specific purpose. Rife also incorrectly stated that cancer is caused by microorganisms as well as viruses. But we now know that cancer is a result of imbalance from toxicity and is multifactorial, and is not caused directly by bacteria or viruses. Viral infections that occur alongside cancer has actually been shown to reduce or reverse cancer, not progress it."
DR: Are you aware that your dismissal of such thinking is done from a hindsight, almost a hundred years later? It's really easy to handwave something in a hindsight. Everyone can do that with the access everyone has to the same pool of information.
.
.
JG: "It appears he figured out he could market his microscopes for profit to potential customers by overstating their abilities when he found their ultimate limitations, …Either way, that veers off from the actual evidence available.
DR: So why did he die penniless, and why did he never capitalize on his inventions while living?
Rife had help refining his frequency device from an electrical engineer named Philip Hoyland. A company was formed to build and sell the frequency generators. It was called Beam Ray, and Hoyland, Rife, James Couche (a doctor who had been using the frequency device to treat patients for years), Ben Cullen (a long-time friend of Rife's), and a promoter named Hutcheson were the company’s owners.
The company made 14 frequency devices, and they were used with phenomenal success. Cancer, cataracts, and other diseases simply melted away with the device, properly calibrated to the disease forms.
One doctor, Richard Hamer, was running 40 cases a day through his San Diego clinic, and the results were miraculous.
Milbank Johnson was trying to gather enough clinical evidence to prove beyond any doubt that Rife's treatment worked, and they were trying to keep their patients quiet about their treatment.
Were Dr. Hamer, Milbank Johnson, Philip Holman, James Couch, Ben Cullen and Hutchison all in on the fraud too?!
Through his agents in Los Angeles, Fishbein approached Beam Ray and tried buying into the company, and their offer was rebuffed.
After Beam Ray rejected the AMA's offer, the AMA funded a lawsuit to try seizing the company. The lawsuit led to a trial. The brutal realities of America's legal system were too much for Rife's constitution. The trial destroyed Rife and stopped Beam Ray in its tracks.
They hunted down all the doctors using the device. Everybody was threatened with losing their license if they kept using the Rife frequency device. Hamer quickly gave up his device. Milbank Johnson, however, was not intimidated.
Apparently on the brink of making a very public announcement about Rife's device, Johnson suddenly took ill in 1944 and died. His death remains mysterious. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, two federal inspectors examined Johnson's hospital records and concluded that he was likely poisoned.
During the same period when Johnson suddenly died, a new technician in Rife's lab stole one of the quartz prisms from Rife's microscope, rendering it inoperable.
Just before that theft, Dr. Raymond Sidel published a description of Rife's microscope in the Smithsonian, in which Sidel ran the censorship gauntlet that the AMA had dropped on Rife's work. In the Smithsonian, Sidel described how the cancer virus "may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies."
Those surviving micrographs from Rife's scope came from Sidel's article. That public exposure made somebody irate, for soon after the article was published, Sidel became aware that somebody was following his car and a bullet crashed through his windshield. Dr. Couche defied the AMA and continued using Rife's frequency device until the 1950s, when they revoked his license.
The judge in Hoyland's lawsuit was accusatory of Hoyland when rendering the verdict, telling Hoyland that he thought he was crooked, and he ruled in favor of Beam Ray. The judge even told Beam Ray that he would be happy to represent them in a lawsuit against the AMA, but the trial had bankrupted Beam Ray. Ben Cullen even lost his house in the ordeal. Rife was a ruined man who never recovered from the 1939 trial.
Just prior to the AMA-funded attack on Rife, the other quality "electronic medicine research lab" in America mysteriously burned to the ground in New Jersey, while that lab's owners were visiting Rife's lab in California, for another "coincidence."
Why, if Rife was such a fraud, did Morris Fishbein go after his company with the intent of getting it out of business? Was it solely to defend the purity and sanctity of the medical profession at the time?
.
.
JG: "It appears that you hold a willingness to accept the notion that Rife possessed the ultimate microscope, even in the absence of any tangible evidence—other than hearsay—to substantiate such a claim. This lack of evidence encompasses both physical proof and logical deductions based on the principles governing optical lenses, among others. The introductory and closing section of the document was unequivocal and effectively emphasized how individuals often believe in something regardless of the evidence presented. Interestingly, some of your own remarks have also illustrated this tendency and have veered off path. The majority of your questions can be addressed quite easily once contemplated, much like I am doing in this response."
DR: You haven't addressed my points 5 and 6. It seems you cherry pick the points that are easier for you to refute, but neglect those that aren’t aligned with your “substantive analysis” that tries to prove I’m wrong to question your cardinal verdict.
Secondly, logical deduction without providing historical evidence, oftentimes leading to unintentionally creating misinformation.
My response and conclusion continue in part 2 below.