Morgellon's Identified!!!

Originally posted by TheStev...is it not possible that military technology has had a breakthrough in the last 'twenty years', that has made these impossible things possible?

Actually, as far as the real level of the military's technological sophistication is concerned, yes, it is, and advanced enough to have done stuff like this hundreds of times over. I believe they are at least 1000 to 1500 years ahead of the private sector based on their advancement acceleration from 1947.

And no, I cannot provide documentation to back this claim. It is not publicly available, if I did have access I would have no idea what I would be looking at, and that would be the least of my troubles at that point. Just store this little piece of data away for now, and when you come across some corroborating evidence you will recall what I have said here.

Originally posted by MatyasActually, as far as the real level of the military's technological sophistication is concerned, yes, it is, and advanced enough to have done stuff like this hundreds of times over. I believe they are at least 1000 to 1500 years ahead of the private sector based on their advancement acceleration from 1947.

Nope.

My brother and father both were high ranking officers and both worked in long-range military planning. My brother worked at the Pentagon, and I did get to hear (after the fact) about things he'd been involved in. My husband also works in the defense industry. My son did... and will again after he finishes college and gets his engineering degree.

The window is actually 5-20 years (some of the unusual weapons proposals.)

They contract from the private sector, remember. They actually don't manufacture or have a division of combat scientists. They just take proposals (my husband has had to do those) and buy what they think fits their needs (my brother funded research for the new combat bandages) and negotiate for things they want.

Indeed... I bid a contract to develop a particular piece of hardware for the Marines. Suffice it to say my technical expectations were somewhat exaggerated.

Originally posted by TheStevYou 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?

Not at the size shown. Remember, amoebas (which are about the size of the tiniest filament) swim just fine even though you've got a cover slip on it. So do pond scum microbes.

What stands out is that the person who has posted the video claims this is 'Proof Positive Morgellons is an Infection':

Okay. I know why they did this... and it's basically a misunderstanding of science and medicine.

H2O2 is an antimicrobial agent. However, they believe the ONLY time it bubbles is when it's in contact with germs. This is not true. It bubbles in contact with blood and many other substances.

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.

Or that there's anything about the task force. I didn't look up the CDC budget to see if there's been any changes.

Out of curiosity, where did you read about the task force being delayed six times? I would be interested to read that info.

I'll have to google for it again. I'm not sure how valid it is, but if that's so then it really kinda bothers me. I would suspect a higher-up dismissing the research to put the money into his own private favorite disease.

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.

The key simply lets it in. Once inside the cell, the virus proceeds to destroy the cell and make a lot of replicas. Meanwhile the body's immune system starts reacting to the invaders.

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.

True, according to what my brother, dad, son, and husband told me... and what I've seen elsewhere.

As to the engineering... they're more interested in reengineering viruses to work inside the cells. They already have the parts to let themselves in and they already have the parts to modify RNA and DNA and to make other substances. There's no point in trying to nano-engineer the thing from the ground up when you could just use something that already does most of what you want and modify that to work.
www.dukemednews.org...

Nanotech's a long long way away from that.

I am going to reply generally bacause I am not here to derail the thread or get into it with anybody.

I will say this though.

I have seen a few unclassified documents, one was the LUNEX document which revealed then aerospace engineering's capability to put a man in orbit around Venus or Mars.

I also saw a document by a defense contractor, Goodyear, which developed a rubber that could withstand 2000 deg. F.

Lately I see they have been working on "stargates". The math is matrices of equations on BOTH sides of the equals mark.

The LUNEX document was from 1962, and it was used for the Apollo program. That was 45 years ago, and we are still trying to figger it out?

Goodyear's work was from 1967. And J Bigg's idea for inflatable roach motels in space is considered new?

I would like to add just because an outfit is technologically advanced doesn't mean they excell in the social area, or where efficiency and common sense counts. Yeah, I heard the same thing too when I was in, "Oh, these were twenty years old when they came off the drawing boards", but why stock up on armor and conventional weapons when you can do Rods from God?

What we see is only 10% or less of their advances, even if we dig. There is probably far more technology shelved then even what is being worked on, and non lifers are not going to know about all of it, TS clearance or higher. I am more at ease with two more zeros on the end of that estimate.

Originally posted by Byrd

"Or that there's anything about the task force. I didn't look up the CDC budget to see if there's been any changes. "


Greetings Byrd,

I am wondering, Could you actually do this???? Or maybe explain how a person such as myself, would go about finding out this type of information? I would really like to find this out.

Thanks

Southcty

Originally posted by Southcty
I am wondering, Could you actually do this???? Or maybe explain how a person such as myself, would go about finding out this type of information? I would really like to find this out.

Oh yes! I'm taking a graduate level course this semester in government documents. The government posts its mission statements and budgets and all online...there's a wealth of information there.

So, what you'd do is look up the Mission statement first and see if it changed:

Google for US government poratl. This gives you www.usa.gov...
Search that for "CDC BUDGET" You get this page: usasearch.gov...

The second item is budget updates... you can see it for a number of years (and check it with the Wayback machine to see if anyone's edited the pages and not said anything.)

The department has more than one mission statement (and at least one is missing in action). These are vital documents, because they divide the labor in the department so that one group doesn't horn in on another's funding or territories.

Organizational charts are full of information, and you can google to find out who's in what position and who changed jobs recently:
www.cdc.gov...

You can browse something called The Plum Book to find out which jobs are appointments and get some idea of the pay scale. You can find out how many staff there are in each division -- except for Cheney's staff. He filed a lawsuit to keep the details of his staff private:
www.gpoaccess.gov...

This course has been quite an eye-opener.

Originally posted by Byrd
Not at the size shown. Remember, amoebas (which are about the size of the tiniest filament) swim just fine even though you've got a cover slip on it. So do pond scum microbes.

Now I'm getting a bit confused. Didn't we establish that one of the reasons the experiment is flawed is that we don't have a reference for size? How do we know what size is shown? I also don't understand your size comparisons. My understanding is morgellons fibres can be seen with the human eye. Amoeba cannot. By 'the tiniest filament', do you mean the tiniest filament known to man or the tiniest morgellons filament?

H2O2 is an antimicrobial agent. However, they believe the ONLY time it bubbles is when it's in contact with germs. This is not true. It bubbles in contact with blood and many other substances.

Thanks for the very understandable explanation, my curiosity has been satiated on this one.

The key simply lets it in. Once inside the cell, the virus proceeds to destroy the cell and make a lot of replicas. Meanwhile the body's immune system starts reacting to the invaders.

Again, not quite following. Let me rephrase: If a nanomachine which was a similar size to a virus contained one of these keys, why would it be kept out?

There's no point in trying to nano-engineer the thing from the ground up when you could just use something that already does most of what you want and modify that to work.
www.dukemednews.org...

I disagree based on one point: we don't know what the intended purpose is. If we're assuming that this is something that has been engineered to serve a particular purpose, then we can't state with any certainty what would and wouldn't be easiest/most productive/most useful without knowing the intended goal. Would you agree that there would be some things which could not be achieved by viruses etc and would need a nanomachine?

So far I follow what you're saying... however, I think I'm following what some other folks are saying. Let me see if I can join the two arguments together. I, like others, believe that the term "Nano-tech" is a bit of a misnomer here. Sure, "Nano" refers to molecule or particulate size BUT given the advents of development in this field I don't necessarily believe that it HAs to refer to size. It seems that "Nano" has developed to cover particles that exhibit behavioral characteristics OR size.

Let's keep in mind that Dr. Staninger was talking about materials that a.) self-replicate, b.) self assemble, c.) contain a power source AND can tap into bio-electric generators. Wouldn't it be possible that the individual nano-particles are assembling into something large enough to be seen by the human eye? Wouldn't also make sense that alone, these particle do nothing, but once assembled exhibit a specific set of behaviors for which they were engineered? I keep going back to the chystals that are often found withi the nano-machines. My days in IT have taught me that chrystals are liekly to be the next data media as vast amounts of data can be stored three-dimensionally within a chrystal's structure. There's soemthing there but I need to dig some more.

Regarding the "Keys" that you discuss with respect to viruses. Aren't these "keys" simple proteins on the surface of the cell - a receptor point if you will? When a virus' surface protein is recognized my a cell's receptor isn't that when the cell wall permits passage of material? It seems to me that perhaps what they are doing is taking simple snippets of DNA or RNA (Which can be publicly bought and sold) and simple proteomes and packaging these into a nao-tube. When the cells receives the protein it allows for the passage of the RNA or DNA molecules into the cell to reassmeble forming some type of new "entity" cell that has a new set of instructions to do something.

I don't have your level of knowledge or understanding on this so any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

What I do belive however is that Morgellon's IS related to chemtrail spraying. I believe that the nano-particles are being sprayed on the population in pieces parts and that these machines are self-assembling within the human body to perform certain functions. It seems to me that HAARP is probably tied into this whole program as well - as science has already taught us that the human brain responds in varying ways to different frequencies. It is my opinion that the human brain operates much like a computer modem - receiving data at different frequencies and the data is manipulated through the harmonics and wavelengths. These molecules, in addition to performing a biological function, could be performing a psychological one as well - enhancing our ability to receive these frequencies and subconscioulsy decode the transmission and program us. It seems wierd that so many people are experiencing such deep mood swings, violent tendencies, increases in Autism, ADD, ADHD etc... I believe the program is there to create such confusing background noise in our psyche so that we cannot concentrate enough to reason our way to the truth of what is happening.

Couple that with physiological changes - joint pain, fatigue, pulmonary problems, cancer etc... and I believe that we are under a multi-pronged attack against humanity.

The obvious question... Why aren't the politicans affected? They are... at least MOST of them. I would find it hard to believe that anybody would engineer something that didn't also have a cooresponding treatment - and that treatment is reserved only for those people who are deemed to be "At the top level" of this.

I dunno - just thoughts. I probably sound crazy but I honestly belive that I've followed this long enough to understand the general jist of what is going on here. I wish I had a better grasp of biology - but I feel that technology is about 20-30 years ahead of what I could ever learn from a text-book anyway. It's divide and conquer - break the program down into pieces so that NO ONE can put it all together. Chemtrails = weather modification. Nano-tech = bio-engineering for cures to diseases. HAARP = study of the Aurora phenomenon and the ionosphere for communications. BUT, when fully assembled, we have a bigger and more dangerous program. Any thoughts on my theory?

Hey, Koz, thanks for the heads-up (or thumbs-up, in this case ).

I think you're right on target with your theory, it is actually stunning to realize that suddenly there is virtually zero difference between "science fiction" and the practical, safe "real world" we all inhabit. This is the sneakiest, creepiest attack that certainly I can think of, invading your body and mind as you breathe!

I'm actually breaking from design work, but wanted to add my 1-cent to the thread...I'll actually get to read from start to finish later on...have you discussed the nano-emulation of thought neurons, thereby allowing them to illegally access my thoughts and send my deepest fantasies and fears to HAARP? After realizing that this could actually be a real issue, I kinda just threw up my hands. I mean, they watch and listen as I'm thinking of ways to beat it

I guess we could all stand real close to an EMP blast, if one could be found . .

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by Byrd
Not at the size shown. Remember, amoebas (which are about the size of the tiniest filament) swim just fine even though you've got a cover slip on it. So do pond scum microbes.

Now I'm getting a bit confused. Didn't we establish that one of the reasons the experiment is flawed is that we don't have a reference for size?

"size shown" actually meant the power of the microscope, which I can guess from the appearance of things (and from having seen lots and lots of things under microscopes.) The lack of size measurement refers to professional microscopes, which have size markings in the lens so you can approximate the measurement of the wee beastie you're ogling. In the classroom, we do this with clear rulers that we place on the slide, but in professional microscopes they have the markings included.

The key simply lets it in. Once inside the cell, the virus proceeds to destroy the cell and make a lot of replicas. Meanwhile the body's immune system starts reacting to the invaders.

Again, not quite following. Let me rephrase: If a nanomachine which was a similar size to a virus contained one of these keys, why would it be kept out?

It wouldn't. However, these are notoriously difficult to engineer.

There's no point in trying to nano-engineer the thing from the ground up when you could just use something that already does most of what you want and modify that to work.
www.dukemednews.org...

I disagree based on one point: we don't know what the intended purpose is. If we're assuming that this is something that has been engineered to serve a particular purpose, then we can't state with any certainty what would and wouldn't be easiest/most productive/most useful without knowing the intended goal. Would you agree that there would be some things which could not be achieved by viruses etc and would need a nanomachine?

Yes and no.

I'd agree that a nanomachine was the only way to go on ultrathin and ultrasmall computer components or manufactured components. But in dealing with (say) inserting a gene into a section of a cell's gene, no. We have virus tools that do this and it's quicker and easier than trying to build some sort of machine.

Did that make sense?

Kozmo, apologies... I'm very tired and need a bit of sleep. I will answer you later on, okay? You've asked a lot of good questions and I don't want to respond with a tossoff one or two liner.

Kozmo I think your theories are very good and on target.

It fits on many levels when you put it all together.

Let's keep in mind that Dr. Staninger was talking about materials that a.) self-replicate, b.) self assemble, c.) contain a power source AND can tap into bio-electric generators. Wouldn't it be possible that the individual nano-particles are assembling into something large enough to be seen by the human eye? Wouldn't also make sense that alone, these particle do nothing, but once assembled exhibit a specific set of behaviors for which they were engineered? I keep going back to the chystals that are often found withi the nano-machines. My days in IT have taught me that chrystals are liekly to be the next data media as vast amounts of data can be stored three-dimensionally within a chrystal's structure. There's soemthing there but I need to dig some more

I think this paragraph is somehow figured in with the holographic looking thing I had on my arm and it may very well have came out of my body through a skin pore as I was slightly dehydrated at the time of the observing it.

The fact that is was self illuminating, and that it became to show a visible picture after a flash of external light hit it is also confusing, while at the same time telling of it's potential.

It appeared to be like glitter at first, light gold, but looking closer it was more like a crystallized film of something, rough around the edges.

Okay, so forget about my above post, I don't want to kill the thread by going off in left field, it is just that I can find no explanation for what I observed and there does seem to be a possible link to foreign things in our bodies, in tiny nano form. I have searched and found many patents for holographic imagery, but no real evidence of anything tangible.

I can't even say that it was a hologram, just that it had images which moved in a wavy fashion.

Not the same thing as fibers, so maybe we can get back on track.........

Edit to add: I know that at least 99% of you aren't too concerned about what I am talking about, or even believe I saw such a thing, I probably wouldn't think much about it either except that I did see it, so I will continue to look for anything that may relate.

And then again we have this thread on Smart Dust
www.abovetopsecret.com...

All in a day, eh?



[edit on 18-4-2007 by interestedalways]

Have a look here.
/2eywut
/2nfxhj
/2nxe32
/3dxyvs
/3y9eqn

Okay...homework worked, and sleep acquired. Sooo....

Originally posted by kozmo
Sure, "Nano" refers to molecule or particulate size BUT given the advents of development in this field I don't necessarily believe that it HAs to refer to size. It seems that "Nano" has developed to cover particles that exhibit behavioral characteristics OR size.

It really has (by definition) to do with size.

Let's keep in mind that Dr. Staninger was talking about materials that a.) self-replicate, b.) self assemble, c.) contain a power source AND can tap into bio-electric generators. Wouldn't it be possible that the individual nano-particles are assembling into something large enough to be seen by the human eye?

There's the other big stumbling block -- the scale. Nanoparticles are dwarfed by the cells they're in -- the same sort of scale as you standing in the middle of Omaha, Nebraska (and nobody else around. You have Omaha all to yourself.)

So let's say you're an industrious nanoparticle and you want to build a big tower that surrounds the entire city of Omaha and is 50 miles high (because the theory is that these fibers are extruded from cells... so that means they're at least 1 cell (and actually probably many cells) in thickness.

We can assume that the 'fibers' are braided fibers from individual cells, if you like.

But each cell has to build a 'hair/fiber'. If they emit nanofibers, the nanofibers will break off before they emerge very far (these things are incredibly tiny.)

I'm glossing over a lot of stuff. Another issue is 'build it out of what'? Building can't be done by "grab a stray molecule and whack it together".. it has to be done chemically.

Wouldn't also make sense that alone, these particle do nothing, but once assembled exhibit a specific set of behaviors for which they were engineered?

Not really. For instance. crystals exhibit predictable properties that don't depend on the size.

I keep going back to the chystals that are often found withi the nano-machines.

Which ones? I haven't seen any info on this. Could you link, please?

Regarding the "Keys" that you discuss with respect to viruses. Aren't these "keys" simple proteins on the surface of the cell - a receptor point if you will? When a virus' surface protein is recognized my a cell's receptor isn't that when the cell wall permits passage of material? It seems to me that perhaps what they are doing is taking simple snippets of DNA or RNA (Which can be publicly bought and sold) and simple proteomes and packaging these into a nao-tube. When the cells receives the protein it allows for the passage of the RNA or DNA molecules into the cell to reassmeble forming some type of new "entity" cell that has a new set of instructions to do something.

Correct... however, they don't form an 'entity cell.'

It seems wierd that so many people are experiencing such deep mood swings, violent tendencies, increases in Autism, ADD, ADHD etc... I believe the program is there to create such confusing background noise in our psyche so that we cannot concentrate enough to reason our way to the truth of what is happening.

I think it's because you don't do a lot of reading on the details of history. Believe me, we've been a lot more psychotic and violent... the days of the Black Death and the witchcraft scare come to mind.

The fact that the organism contains three nuclei is a good indication that it is man-made.

From what I see of the organism; it is fast replicating, and is able to mend itself meaning that those who are suffering there is no known cure. The genetics behind the manufacturing of this thing is scary.

The victims of this disease will suffer for the rest of their lives. The cells are programmed like nanobots to perform certain specific functions.

As it is like the Rhodophyta, having studied biology and microorganisms this organism will continue to grow back once it is in the system.

What I would like to know is how this organism was introduced to the public and why?

Are these people being used as guinea pigs in a project to which they were involuntarily sequestered.

Originally posted by rachel07
The fact that the organism contains three nuclei is a good indication that it is man-made.

Where do you see this? Do you have a link to pictures? (not critical of you, but I am wondering if the person who posted the pictures actually knows what a nucleus looks like.

From what I see of the organism; it is fast replicating, and is able to mend itself meaning that those who are suffering there is no known cure.

Any links as proof?

As it is like the Rhodophyta, having studied biology and microorganisms this organism will continue to grow back once it is in the system.

So far, I haven't seen any proof that it's like Rhodophyta. I see a bold and blanket statement, but no microscopic evidence, etc. I'd like to see something other than "this guy says it's true."

I think that asking for microscopic evidence and other proof is reasonable, given tht rhodophyta is actually red seaweed/algae:
tolweb.org...

This just get's more and more scary by the minute!

Found this article. It discusses reactions of carbon nano-tubes with bacteria AND mamalian cells (Of which WE are comprised). It seems that even those IN THE FIELD of nanotech are calling for more stringent regulations and safeguards.

This, friends, is much more dangerous than we realize. If private and University lab technology is just uncovering this data now, then I have a hunch that defense contractors and the military-industrial complex has been doing this for 15 to 20 years.

We are guinea pigs and we have poisoned and infected - the questions is: Was it deliberate and if so why or was it accidental and now they are kkeping it quiet to evaluate the effects?

Final thought: Carbon nano-tubes destroy human cells and actually CONTRIBUTE to the growth and development of bacteria. Just a theory, but could it be that the nano-tubes are not carrying anything at all, just there to reduce immune system response and that bacterium have been developed independently and are being either a.) sprayed amongst the chemtrails or being delivered through the food chain to perform some other purpose?

Originally posted by kozmo
This just get's more and more scary by the minute!

Found this article. It discusses reactions of carbon nano-tubes with bacteria AND mamalian cells (Of which WE are comprised). It seems that even those IN THE FIELD of nanotech are calling for more stringent regulations and safeguards.

You need to note that these are two studies and they found that (a) you can grow e.coli on nanotubes (you can grow e.coli on a lot of things, including porcelain) and if they embed in muscle tissue they can interfere with it.

The photo shown is of e.coli sitting on the tubes (remember, I talked about scale.) Look at the size of the bacteria (that's an electron microscope picture) and the stuff it's sitting on is the nanotubes.

...which comes to the point I've been making for this thread -- the fibers in Morgollon's can't be carbon nanotubes or any kind of nanomaterials.

I agree there's need for regulation, particularly after seeing these two studies. BUT... so far we've seen proposed that Morgollon's is absolutly:
1) nanobots messing with us
2) red algae type cells

...and a lot of other things.

This, friends, is much more dangerous than we realize. If private and University lab technology is just uncovering this data now, then I have a hunch that defense contractors and the military-industrial complex has been doing this for 15 to 20 years.

They haven't been able to do much with nanomaterials until fairly recently.

Final thought: Carbon nano-tubes destroy human cells and actually CONTRIBUTE to the growth and development of bacteria. Just a theory, but could it be that the nano-tubes are not carrying anything at all, just there to reduce immune system response and that bacterium have been developed independently and are being either a.) sprayed amongst the chemtrails or being delivered through the food chain to perform some other purpose?

Carbon nanotubes aren't food. They can't be easily broken down by cells. They provide a stable surface to which the bacteria cling while they can grow.

I think we could start up a thread in technology section about nanotech. There's some interesting things being done about and with it, including possible cancer treatment. Not many folks here know about this kind of tech and mostly hear about it from scare stories by writers on Rense and the like, who really don't know much about the topic at all.