My point was simply that proof of one does not extend to proof of the other. The moving mites proves that cover slides were not used, but this does
not prove that the movement is caused by air currents - simply that the movement could have been caused by such. I know it wasn't your intention to
be misleading, but proving that a cover slide was not used does not prove that air currents caused the movement we saw. Minor point though.
You mention the height and angle affects the movement, which is understandable. What I'm wondering is this: if an object is to be studied
microscopically and has
height and angle, wouldn't flattening it with a cover slide affect the observation? For example: if we assume, for the
sake of argument, that the movement witnessed was indication of some kind of intelligence or programming. Is it not possible that a cover slide would
weigh on the fibre and stop it from being able to make such movement?
I'm not saying this is the case: it may be, it may not. What I'm saying is it seems possible that a cover slide could conceivably interfere with
objective observation if the item being examined had substantial height. Understandably a cover slide does limit certain external influence on the
observation, but it seems it does add some too.
Here is the video where the hydrogen peroxide is added to the sample:
There are 4 in the series, as is explained on the video description - the first two identify the sample, the second two show the hydrogen peroxide
reaction. The video I have linked is the third (it's one of the ones originally posted by kozmo on the last page. What stands out is that the person
who has posted the video claims this is 'Proof Positive Morgellons is an Infection':
The last two Videos show a SURPRISE IN ACTION!!! Watch as an eyedropper adds a drop of Hydrogen Peroxide to this sample, and instantaneously the
"Infection is Revealed" before your very eyes.
Source as per above Youtube link.
Which it may well be, I just don't understand why this is proof positive of this claim. This guy sure does seem to have a penchant for quotation
In terms of the CDC site, I understand that there is no official diagnosis, let alone official recognition of this condition. I certainly wouldn't
expect any such posting on the site. But considering a task force has been formed for this phenomena, has been operating for 12 months, and even has
an official spokesman (Dan Rutz), I find it very strange that there is absolutely nothing
on the site.
Add to the above the fact that there is a press release for pretty much any and every little thing the CDC does on the site, plus the fact that this
task force has obviously been formed due to public pressure, you would think there would be at least a small amount of info advising the public that
such a task force exists and is studying the phenomena at present - if for no other reason than to relieve some of the pressure from the public.
Out of curiosity, where did you read about the task force being delayed six times? I would be interested to read that info.
"We're going into this with an open mind," said Dan Rutz, spokesman for the CDC Morgellons task force that first met in June 2006.
Maybe they're having trouble finding those open minds
With that said, I have to say I really appreciate yours on this subject. It's good to have
a scientific sounding board for this stuff instead of the pure speculation I'm usually only capable of
A few additional points. This seems very confusing and contradictory to me:
So...the key is fairly sizeable in nature. You'd have to have a nanomachine with a viruslike key... and that puts it of a size to get
"noticed" by the cell. If it gets noticed, it gets walled off and expelled.
The problem I have is this: if the key makes something of a size to get "noticed" which means it is rejected by the cell, how does this work for
viruses? If the key can go unnoticed in a virus, then why not in some kind of nanotech.
I also wonder - and this is very abstract - what your take is on the military technology at least twenty years ahead of civilian technology concept.
It seems to be apt here, in that a lot of your reasons for Morgellons not being nanotech is that it is too difficult to get a nanomachine to achieve
what Morgellons does.
The reason I mention this is it seems to me as though the nature of scientific breakthrough is that something is 'too difficult' to do, right up
until we have a scientific breakthrough. Then it becomes achievable. It's going down the completely unverifiable, unprovable, pure speculation
conspiracy angle, but is it not possible that military technology has had a breakthrough in the last 'twenty years', that has made these impossible
[edit on 13-4-2007 by TheStev]