It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Original Rife Microscope for sale

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:


posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Never heard of this till about 20 mins ago, but it is a rather interesting piece of equipment. Since I have just started reading about this, I have little to contribute, but in and of itself I felt the need to post this.

The idea of seeing a live virus and the "science" needed to do this is going to atleast take me some time to get my head around.

[url=http://cgi.ebay.com/Royal-Rifes-Famous-Microscope-AZ58-Rife-Machine-more-/200616975822?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb5b41dce]cgi.ebay.com[/ur l]
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Interesting, I've never heard about his microscope, but I've heard of Royal Raymond Rife. He's one of the many to suffer misfortunes after a major scientific breakthrough. His being the use of frequencies to cure most ailments.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
Interesting, I've never heard about his microscope, but I've heard of Royal Raymond Rife. He's one of the many to suffer misfortunes after a major scientific breakthrough. His being the use of frequencies to cure most ailments.


He in fact did no such thing, but moving on.

An interesting piece of nostalgia, if it's real. Good find.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Ugh... It's on Bearden's site...

Give this a little thought.

I do not know if Rife's microscope did what he claimed, but if it did:

1) is anyone sure that this is the real deal and not just some scammers
trying to make a quick buck ? (It's on Bearden's site, makes me suspect)

2) If these clowns had the real microscope and it functioned as advertised
why would they need to sell on the cheap ? Seems like it would be
worth much more than a quarter mil...

3) If they had the real microscope and it functioned as advertised then why
don't they disassemble it and make a bunch of them to sell ?

I doubt it is the real deal or if it is the real microscope it doesn't do what Rife
claimed.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Thanks OP.

Hope someone can buy this who wants to challenge the status quo.

The Rife microscope, capable of seeing live viruses, is critical to a proper understanding of the processes that are occurring, that TPTB don't want us to know about.

Electron microscopes are more powerful now, but everything we are "allowed" to see, is DEAD. The reason is because if a live "virus" is observed, it could become something entirely different. You read that right. Like a worm, that becomes a butterfly.

Probably explains why the government has four of the six ever made. One was destroyed, and this is supposedly the only one left.

This could really upset the medical / pharmaceutical industry, so my guess is that this would not be a good "investment" for anyone capable of making waves. Could find it has an "accident", a building burns down, etc. Could even be "fatal" for the person who really wants trouble.

JR



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Thanks OP.

Hope someone can buy this who wants to challenge the status quo.

The Rife microscope, capable of seeing live viruses, is critical to a proper understanding of the processes that are occurring, that TPTB don't want us to know about.

Electron microscopes are more powerful now, but everything we are "allowed" to see, is DEAD. The reason is because if a live "virus" is observed, it could become something entirely different. You read that right. Like a worm, that becomes a butterfly.

Probably explains why the government has four of the six ever made. One was destroyed, and this is supposedly the only one left.

This could really upset the medical / pharmaceutical industry, so my guess is that this would not be a good "investment" for anyone capable of making waves. Could find it has an "accident", a building burns down, etc. Could even be "fatal" for the person who really wants trouble.

JR



The power of the microscope(s) Rife made has been far surpassed in recent times, as you noted. And FYI, a virus cannot be dead since it is not a living organism to start with, merely an obligate parasite.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Version100

Ugh... It's on Bearden's site...

Give this a little thought.

I do not know if Rife's microscope did what he claimed, but if it did:

1) is anyone sure that this is the real deal and not just some scammers
trying to make a quick buck ? (It's on Bearden's site, makes me suspect)

2) If these clowns had the real microscope and it functioned as advertised
why would they need to sell on the cheap ? Seems like it would be
worth much more than a quarter mil...

3) If they had the real microscope and it functioned as advertised then why
don't they disassemble it and make a bunch of them to sell ?

I doubt it is the real deal or if it is the real microscope it doesn't do what Rife
claimed.



I would put my money on snake oil salesman. Sadly, it is pretty much all Royal Rife's name is actually famous for these days.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
He in fact did no such thing, but moving on.


Pretty interesting considering I know people who have used Rife technology with great results, and have talked to plenty of others who have said the same thing. I did a bunch of research of it when my mom thought she had cancer. You might want to do a little more before claiming your information as factual.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by scojak

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
He in fact did no such thing, but moving on.


Pretty interesting considering I know people who have used Rife technology with great results, and have talked to plenty of others who have said the same thing. I did a bunch of research of it when my mom thought she had cancer. You might want to do a little more before claiming your information as factual.


Oh, but I have. You reckon you've done your research, then find me one credible, primary source that actually implicates Rife in this area.

Or, alternatively you could read the following, which is a post I made in another related thread:



Alright, so to start with I should say that I myself am an organic chemist by trade and have access to a multitude of scientific journal search engines to available to me. This wasn't a simple matter of 'Googling' the answer. Normally, you can find a pretty good basis of information starting from Google scholar and sometimes the references in wikipedia. Being as I had no real knowledge of Royal Rife, I started with the wikipedia article. The article itself linked a few pages related, claiming to be articles from papers such as the San Diego Evening Tribune and various others. I have a few problems with these links. Firstly, of the ones that are supposed to reference Rife's 'frequency machine', not a single one of them was an actual news article or journal article. They were either manually transcribed articles (for which I could find no archived original), blog type articles with no real credibility at all, or they simply weren't available.

So I went further and decided to go hunt through web of science, which is a search engine I use frequently via my university's proxy server to search for articles. I tried all manner of combinations in the topics, author and year section to no avail. I'll admit I was quite skeptical Rife even existed at this point. I went to Google scholar and searched 'Royal Rife'. Of the listed links, I found only two actual articles that weren't from bias, 'government's hidin' my cancer cure' type sites.

The first one is an article by Rife himself, proving that he did exist and he did do something:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The main point of this article is essentially to communicate a novel microscope technology. One in which an observer could view images at a much higher resolution than ever before and one in which would could generate moving pictures. Pretty nifty for the 1930's, but it has nothing to do with cancer or any supposed 'cure'. As well, though novel at the time, its limits have been massively outrun in recent years.

The second one is this:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The only thing relevant to this post is in the introduction, which states that any details of the study mentioned in the various sites touting Rife as a hidden genius who cured cancer are vague and the studies themselves, untraceable. I found this quite interesting and it confirmed my initial suspicions that this was all quackery. I'll admit, I did expect to find at least some trace of these studies though.

I can also confirm what the authors of the above paper are saying is indeed true. It is simply impossible to find any primary sources for these studies proving some sort of EMR-deried 'cure' for cancer (and every other disease, ever...apparently). No website listing his achievements in these studies can tell what journal the results come from, let alone when it it was published. It is an odd thing indeed, considering the fact that anything like this, especially the purported human trials, would have been published and subsequently archived within the journal's website. According to my rather extensive search, as well as that of others, no such thing exists. Of course, this is a conspiracy site, so many of you may jump to the 'cover up' conclusion. At this point I suppose that's an assumption I cannot falsify.

But wait, yes I can!

I thought I might then take a trip back to wikipedia and have a read of the discussion page, so see if anyone there has a suggested reference. I was directed to this:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is much for much the same thing as Rife was meant to have discovered - and yet he is mentioned no where? It occurred to me then that, 'well how is this paper's study any different to normal radiation therapy?' Answer: it's not, really. It just uses lower energy electromagnetic radiation to target cancers. From what I read, Rife's 'frequency machine' used radiowaves (if it even existed, but I doubt it), which makes it no different to the above paper. It is similarly no different to current methods of radiation therapy, except in the energy of the beams that need to be employed. It would, I should think, take sometime longer to treat though.

Anyway, my point is that if Rife had of invented this then there's no logical reason it wouldn't be able to be found. Firstly, the authors of the above link clearly have not been silenced, which you would expect since what they published is more or less the same deal. Secondly, since what Rife is claimed to have invented is just another version of radiation therapy, I really have no idea why pharma, doctors or whoever else wouldn't want to cash in on it.

So why is this a thing? To me it seems as though Rife, by some accident, spawned himself a sub-culture for something he didn't do. There is no such thing as a Rife machine, except in the garages of the people claiming that they can 'cure you of cancer' (for a small fee). It is unfortunate that his name has been some bastardised and used in such a manner - defrauding the seriously ill is not something I would want my name to, that's for sure. He was a good scientist for the work that he did. Sadly though, it seems that he has become famous for the work he did not do.

I hope that puts some light on the matter for you.


From this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth

Electron microscopes are more powerful now, but everything we are "allowed" to see, is DEAD.



Everything viewed using an electron microscope is dead because it has to be in a vacuum.

If the scanning chamber wasn't evacuated then it would require an electric arc discharge to
break the resistance of the air in order for the electron beam to flow.

It would be like lightning and it would destroy the specimen.

In a vacuum the electrons can be produced, and steered via magnets, to form a much lower
power stream that illuminates the target rather than destroying it.

This is why all CRTs and Vacuum Tubes are evacuated.

It has nothing to do with not "allowing" people to see live specimens with an SEM, it just
isn't possible...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 




It has nothing to do with not "allowing" people to see live specimens with an SEM, it just isn't possible...


"If" the Rife microscope could see "live" organisms the size of viruses (irrespective of the above poster who thinks using the word "live", and "virus" is somehow silly), then what "might" we see? (Suspend the thought that alternate ideas are automatically "impossible" for a moment.)

Could an organism "morph" into something "different"? This is the point, and this is what Rife found, and the implications are staggering. We generally accept that science "knows" about this sort of thing, and yet, how much could they know, if they are not able to observe an entire living process? Is an "amoeba", always an amoeba?

Sure, it's a lot of speculation at this late date, but if we allow that Rife was able to observe living processes with his microscope, that modern equipment can't seem to do today, then maybe we can leave the door open a bit.

OR, is there a new microscope that can see very small living samples now? If not, why? I'm not saying we need to get down to individual atoms, but how far down can we go, without requiring death? Was Rife's machine finding something controversial? Could this be why the government supposedly has 4 of the 6 machines?

Sounds a lot like what we hear about Tesla, and how the government confiscated a lot of his material. Maybe we should just "trust" that they have our best interests at heart, and were just protecting us from wanton discoveries?

JR



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 




And FYI, a virus cannot be dead since it is not a living organism to start with, merely an obligate parasite.


You know very well that viruses are for all intents and purposes very "alive", and quite capable of reproducing, as long as there is a host. Sure, we could speak of them as so much dried-out powder, with "potential", and without a host, they would be...well, "dead" perhaps.

Considering there is viral DNA that can easily be damaged, by radiation, heat, etc, I wonder if it isn't "completely" retarded to conceive of a "virus" as being "dead" at some point?

Nah! It isn't alive to start with!

NOT helpful, IMO.

JR



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


And yet it is well documented that the government confiscated all of teslas research that had not already been released at the time of his death



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Fair enough. So maybe he didn't invent it, but there is no proof of that, just no evidence that he did. But the technology exists, and works. And if it is just radiation therapy, why isn't it used to cure more than just cancer? The majority of people I have talked to have used it for things other than cancer. Seems it would be ludicrous (in the eyes of the medical industry) to not profit on as many ailments as possible.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by Version100
 




It has nothing to do with not "allowing" people to see live specimens with an SEM, it just isn't possible...


"If" the Rife microscope could see "live" organisms the size of viruses (irrespective of the above poster who thinks using the word "live", and "virus" is somehow silly), then what "might" we see? (Suspend the thought that alternate ideas are automatically "impossible" for a moment.)


Only silly in the sense that viruses are not living organisms and thus cannot ever be considered dead, since they would first have to be alive.



Could an organism "morph" into something "different"? This is the point, and this is what Rife found, and the implications are staggering. We generally accept that science "knows" about this sort of thing, and yet, how much could they know, if they are not able to observe an entire living process? Is an "amoeba", always an amoeba?


Yes. It happens all the time in nature. However, I will repeat my above sentiment that Rife discovered nothing but a new microscope with which to view microorganisms with. Even current optical microscope technology surpasses his resolution.



Sure, it's a lot of speculation at this late date, but if we allow that Rife was able to observe living processes with his microscope, that modern equipment can't seem to do today, then maybe we can leave the door open a bit.


On the contrary, modern technology can do exactly that.




OR, is there a new microscope that can see very small living samples now? If not, why? I'm not saying we need to get down to individual atoms, but how far down can we go, without requiring death? Was Rife's machine finding something controversial? Could this be why the government supposedly has 4 of the 6 machines?


Yes, but it's not new. Rife's machine saw Bacillus typhosus. Not exactly controversial.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 




And FYI, a virus cannot be dead since it is not a living organism to start with, merely an obligate parasite.


You know very well that viruses are for all intents and purposes very "alive", and quite capable of reproducing, as long as there is a host. Sure, we could speak of them as so much dried-out powder, with "potential", and without a host, they would be...well, "dead" perhaps.

Considering there is viral DNA that can easily be damaged, by radiation, heat, etc, I wonder if it isn't "completely" retarded to conceive of a "virus" as being "dead" at some point?

Nah! It isn't alive to start with!

NOT helpful, IMO.

JR


No, they are not. They are not classified as living organisms since their action is 100% dependant on host machinery. Look it up.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuroSlam
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


And yet it is well documented that the government confiscated all of teslas research that had not already been released at the time of his death


I fail to see the relevance in this post.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by scojak
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Fair enough. So maybe he didn't invent it, but there is no proof of that, just no evidence that he did. But the technology exists, and works. And if it is just radiation therapy, why isn't it used to cure more than just cancer? The majority of people I have talked to have used it for things other than cancer. Seems it would be ludicrous (in the eyes of the medical industry) to not profit on as many ailments as possible.


There is no reason for his work to have been covered up, for reasons listed above.

e technology does exists and maybe it works, I don't really know and I don't trust the hundreds of scammers trying to make a quick buck. I have found a few papers working on treatments using radio waves and they seem to have high success. As I mentioned, there is no reason why pharma would no be interested in this technology. They could quite easily make a lot of money from it. I suspect that there needs to be a little more R&D, however.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I think the conclusion as to why the drug companies, with the help of the FDA, shut down Rife was because he discovered that a relatively simple electronic device potentially could kill any pathogen. The drug companies were not happy to hear that.
And to clarify, his treatment was different than todays radiation treatment in that it relied on resonance. Similar to a modern microwave. It would destroy or damage certain vital parts of the pathogen killing it or rendering it unable to reproduce.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join