Re: Molar Cracked in two. Anecdotal Reporting

[Guest guest]

Oh Geez here I go again. Have to clear something up. I realize that

Rife's work wasn't finished, but that his machine was successful in curing

terminal cancer patients, and people hear this and want to know how.

wrote: 'snip' " Shiela, you sound as if you've concluded that Rifetech

is developed enough

that it can simply be cook-booked. IMHO, though Rifestuff is more of a

nutznboltz technology than radionics, it's still chok-a-blok with question

marks and problematic assertions, missing and often contradictory, easily

misunderstood documentation. For a sampling about that matter, read Aubrey

Scoon's latest posts to the list as well as make a visit to his website,

<http://www.scoon.co.uk/>. Click on the " Electrotherapy " link on his intro

page, fasten your seat belt and settle back for an assumption-bumping

ride. " 'unsnip'

I do hate to see people re-invent the wheel. If his machines were doing so

good at curing cancer then those are the ones that should be built today.

From reading between the lines today I am left with the impression that

there isn't a machine available that is known to be an actual Rife machine?

And no one is sure the schematics for a 'Rife' machine are actually

'Rife'? If you don't want to answer these questions because I haven't done

my homework then that is fine.

(Sorry the following just came to me as I was writing this message.) If

Rife had dabbled in radionics would you have expected him to talk about it?

LOL Look at the furor that this topic raised here. Then think about the

trouble he got into with his " Rife " technology that he used to cure those

terminal cancer patients. Oh and please don't panic, this was just a what

if question, I am not saying he did or didn't dabble.

Question? What I am wondering is this, were there some of the frequencies

in the higher ranges that were potentially deadly? Something that could be

accidentally hit upon and lethal? So perhaps Crane or others were trying to

develop the lower frequencies as they were safe, and might achieve the same

results. Asking these questions I now am almost thinking I will have to

read about Rife to find out why he started drinking heavily. Why didn't he

continue his research on his own? Do any of Rife experts have time to

answer questions? Not about the technical aspect of his life, but about

the personal happenings. I am curious to know if there could have been

something that he discovered that made him an alcoholic.

I know that I definitely had good results in using my contact machine

conventionally for everyday maladies. Say a toothache, backache or even

gall bladder problems. (Of course I have had the same results using it

that other way. LOL Sorry ) Yet my husband used the machine in contact,

faithfully everyday after we got it, running all of the cancer frequencies

and he departed anyway. Although I am not 100% sure I do think it kept any

pain at bay until he stopped using the machine. I am not sure because I

wondered every time I asked him if he was telling me the truth when he

would say he didn't have pain. Looking back I can see many things that we

didn't do correctly, but at the time there wasn't much information

available.

People come to these lists to find answers about what they can use for

their particular problem. The manufacturers can't say much so they come

here to see if there is someone on the list that has been through what they

are going through, and successfully beat it. Most know it isn't a totally

finished product, and certainly not tested fully. Yet it might be the only

hope they figure they have. There has to be success stories out there, but

where is the information. I posted in one of my messages about recording

anecdotal information in a standardized format, anonymous of course, and

not one person commented on that idea. Everyone was more interested in

protecting Rife's name and telling me in other words that I am a kook (a

crown I wear proudly, Thank you)! LOL At least I posted something about

using the machine and getting some kind of results.

Sheila

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheila,

I'm getting rather attached to the subject line.....! :-)

I'll answer your questions below:

>

> I do hate to see people re-invent the wheel. If his machines were

doing so

> good at curing cancer then those are the ones that should be built

today.

> From reading between the lines today I am left with the impression that

> there isn't a machine available that is known to be an actual Rife

machine?

> And no one is sure the schematics for a 'Rife' machine are actually

> 'Rife'? If you don't want to answer these questions because I

haven't done

> my homework then that is fine.

That's basically correct. Unfortunately we literally do need to

reinvent the wheel in this case. We don't know exactly what Rife did.

Now, anyone would suppose that a good engineer could work it out, but

the real problem is that so much of the Rife stuff is fragmentary,

contradictory and in some cases, technically impossible or

meaningless. So a layperson sees some " spec " for a machine and

thinks, " it should be easy for an expert to make one of those " ,

whereas in reality the expert sees it as a total mess or a can of

worms he'd really rather not open!

That's one of the reasons I keep harping on the technical side. All

the obvious things have been tried one way or another over the years

with only limited success. What this tells me is that there must be

something wrong with the basic assumptions we (engineers) use when

looking at these things. So I've tried approaching it from a

different viewpoint and have come up with some very interesting

correspondences that nobody has spotted before. I'm trying to

encourage others to try a few paradigm shifts, let go of old ideas and

have a new look from a different angle. So far it's going well.

> (Sorry the following just came to me as I was writing this message.) If

> Rife had dabbled in radionics would you have expected him to talk

about it?

> LOL Look at the furor that this topic raised here. Then think

about the

> trouble he got into with his " Rife " technology that he used to cure

those

> terminal cancer patients. Oh and please don't panic, this was just

a what

> if question, I am not saying he did or didn't dabble.

Rife didn't dabble in Radionics. There's a long story to this so I'll

just try to give you some highlights. Radionics (in the " official "

definition of the term) was a system invented by a Dr called Albert

Abrahms somewhere between 1910 and 1920. Now Abrahms came up with the

idea of " spondylotherapy " which involved tapping people on the stomach

and listening for changes in the sound. He reckoned he could diagnose

like this and also extended the technique to tapping the stomach of a

" test person " which he called a " reagent " while that person (facing

west!) held a photograph or handwriting sample of another person - in

order to diagnose the second person remotely.

Because he was working with sounds he thought that each disease had

its own frequency. So he got some engineers to do electronic

experiments to make a machine that would put out variable frequencies

he could use to treat patients. That machine was called an

oscilloclast. Now surprisingly what is not generally known is that

machine actually worked and had a sound electrical basis. It was a

specialised form of what is known today as a magnetostrictive

transducer, it actually causes intense ultrasonic pulses. But Abhrams

set the machine up in such a way that the patient was actually in the

ultrasonic beam and also connected to the electrical circuit, so in

effect if one followed the instructions to the letter, the patient was

actually being electrically zapped and blasted by ultrasonics at the

same time. So despite Abrahms wierd ideas, his original electrical

machine was actually valid.

But somewhere along the line, things deteriorated. Abrahms didn't

manufacture his own machines personally and at some point they started

shipping out machines that were not actually wired up inside. But

Abrahms insisted that he was still getting the same results just by

setting the dials on imaginary machines! So after about 1919 Abrahms

machines were just empty boxes or contained strange and illogical

wiring that didn't actually do anything. Abrahms became a millionaire

through selling these junk boxes, but people fell for it every time

and carried on buying them. Eventually after many complaints (because

his patients were dying) the fledgling AMA cracked down on him. He

carried on regardless. Ironically, despite all his so called curative

powers he died of a major illness (I think pneumonia) in 1924. By

that time he had a huge following of cranks who wanted to carry on his

ideas. They formed an organisation called ERA (called the Electronic

Research Association) and promoted Abrahms ideas which they also

called " ERA " , the " Electronic Reactions of Abrahms " . The ERA still

exists and is a mystical and religious sect today. It might surprise

you to know that what you're advocating is actually a cult religion!

Anyway, Rife did not subscribe to this but many researchers suspect he

was interested in Abrahms fundamental idea that diseases would respond

to frequencies and this may have inspired his own work. But Rife was

a real scientist and not crazy like Abrahms (although he wasn't THAT

crazy since he made millions from it!). But Rife did test the

original oscilloclast (the one with the real wiring) and actually said

that he found that it worked. Going purely from memory, Rife's words

as I recall them were something along the lines of " the much maligned

apparatus of Abrahms gives a true waveform " .

So Rife clearly knew of Abrahms and radionics, but its absolutely

obvious from his various writings and letters that Rife was a hard

core scientist who wanted to see proofs. He was not closed minded and

was very open to new ideas even fringe ones, but he always came back

to rigorous scientific methods. So I don't think Rife was into the

quasi-religious stuff that passes for radionics today.

Whilst on the subject I think one thing needs to be made clear. You

are no doubt aware of the " quackwatchers " . They have a simple agenda

to destroy ALL alternative medicine. But it is VERY hard for them to

find any technical fault in the basic principles of Rife. So they

don't try. In order to discredit Rife in the eyes of the generally

ignorant public, they tell everyone that Rife is just an example of

radionics. When most people look up the real history of all the

craziness that passes for " radionics " they dismiss Rife as just more

of the same.

That's why some people don't like you associating Rife with radionics.

Rife is scientifically credible, radionics isn't. Every time someone

associates Rife with radionics you give ammunition to the

quackwatchers to use in their disinformation campaign. Your public

postings associating Rife with radionics may actually be in use at

this moment by quackwatchers who are trying to mislead other people

into dismissing Rife. I really mean this, if you take a look at some

of the message lists those people use, you'll find they often grab

postings from alt health lists and groups and post them to their own

lists as evidence how crazy all of us are! Now YOU might be crazy (no

offence, I'm joking :-) ) but I'm not, and I don't want my name

associated with radionics!

, the owner of this list can confirm this, we've seen it

happening. And if you don't believe me take a look at the quackwatch

site and see what they have to say about Rife.

> Question? What I am wondering is this, were there some of the

frequencies

> in the higher ranges that were potentially deadly? Something that

could be

> accidentally hit upon and lethal? So perhaps Crane or others were

trying to

> develop the lower frequencies as they were safe, and might achieve

the same

> results. Asking these questions I now am almost thinking I will have to

> read about Rife to find out why he started drinking heavily. Why

didn't he

> continue his research on his own? Do any of Rife experts have time to

> answer questions? Not about the technical aspect of his life, but about

> the personal happenings. I am curious to know if there could have been

> something that he discovered that made him an alcoholic.

It's possible that there are harmful frequencies although nobody has

ever reported any. That's not why Rife took up drinking. Rife worked

with an engineer called Hoyland in the 1930's. It was Hoyland who

built all the machines for Rife from 1934 to 1939. Hoyland

contributed a lot to the development of the machines and Rife assigned

him rights as the co-owner of the technology. They formed a company

called Beam Rays to develop and sell the machines, but Rife didn't

take much part in it, he stayed working in the lab. Hoyland was a lot

more involved in the commercial side. In 1937/38 Rife started

negotiations with some British doctors who wanted the rights to

distribute Rife microscopes throughout the world. But there is some

indication that they also wanted to distribute the machines as well.

Anyway, there were some unusual stock transfers between the partners

of Beam Ray and Hoyland for some reason appeared be getting less

shares than the others (there were several partners). It was fairly

obvious that because Rife was personally involved and talking money

with the British, Hoyland thought Rife was going to do a deal with the

British behind his back, and that, combined with the stock transfers,

was enough to prompt Hoyland to bring a legal action against Rife and

Beam Rays. Hoyland obviously thought they were trying to cheat him out

of his share.

Hoyland subpoened Rife to give testimony at the trial. When Rife

heard that he had to testify in court he went to pieces and started

drinking (a doctor suggested he should take a small drink at night to

help him sleep) but according to Rife's long time friend, Ben Cullen,

Rife had an " addictive personality " and taking up regular drinking was

the worst thing for him, he never stopped. WHY the idea of testifying

frightened Rife so much we don't know, until more data is found it's

just a matter of conjecture.

Rife won the court case but Beam Rays was all but destroyed. Rife

ended up in control but didn't operate the company as a going concern,

and they had no funds anyway. Rife's drinking impaired his own

abilities and also Rife was not aware of the technical details of all

of Hoyland's developments, so according to Crane (who he met in

1950) Rife was unable to make a working machine after Hoyland left.

Crane did his own research and experiments but he never had the

resources that Rife had in the 1930's and they spent many years just

getting to the stage of being able to produce a machine (the AZ-58),

but they basically had to start from scratch and lacking the full

laboratory resources that Rife had before, they never even reached the

same stage that Rife did in the 1930's. That's why the technology

never got properly developed.

We have the same problem today. Few people have the lab resources and

equipment that Rife did in the '30's. That's why we haven't been able

to duplicate all his work today.

> I know that I definitely had good results in using my contact machine

> conventionally for everyday maladies. Say a toothache, backache or even

> gall bladder problems. (Of course I have had the same results using it

> that other way. LOL Sorry ) Yet my husband used the machine in

contact,

> faithfully everyday after we got it, running all of the cancer

frequencies

> and he departed anyway. Although I am not 100% sure I do think it

kept any

> pain at bay until he stopped using the machine. I am not sure because I

> wondered every time I asked him if he was telling me the truth when he

> would say he didn't have pain. Looking back I can see many things

that we

> didn't do correctly, but at the time there wasn't much information

> available.

>

> People come to these lists to find answers about what they can use for

> their particular problem. The manufacturers can't say much so they come

> here to see if there is someone on the list that has been through

what they

> are going through, and successfully beat it. Most know it isn't a

totally

> finished product, and certainly not tested fully. Yet it might be

the only

> hope they figure they have. There has to be success stories out

there, but

> where is the information. I posted in one of my messages about

recording

> anecdotal information in a standardized format, anonymous of course, and

> not one person commented on that idea. Everyone was more interested in

> protecting Rife's name and telling me in other words that I am a kook (a

> crown I wear proudly, Thank you)! LOL At least I posted something about

> using the machine and getting some kind of results.

Some people are only interested in protecting Rife's name. I don't

care about that specifically, I'd rather protect my OWN name! As a

known " rifer " with some small degree of " fame " in the public

perception for my magazine article about Rife, I wouldn't want people

to think that I was an advocate of radionics. I suspect some others

feel the same but maybe don't want to admit it.

Like I said before, you are perfectly entitled to believe in radionics

and neither I nor anyone else has the right to stop you. But I would

hope you can understand that others have different perceptions of

radionics than you do. For example, to me it's just Voodoo. In

Voodoo you can harm someone by sticking pins in a photograph of them,

you say you can heal them by zapping the photograph. Same difference

in my mind. To others, radionics is the cult religion promoted by

Abrahms or the ERA. And so on. I'm not saying you should stop

telling people your experiences but it helps to be aware that you're

in a touchy area here and coming dangerously close to stomping on some

people's religions - ALWAYS a difficult area.

BTW you DO know there's a radionics Yahoo group, don't you? You must

be, surely - after all, you radionics types should have psychically

divined its existence with your pendulums or whatever! For the sake

of those of you whose pendulums are broken and in the repair shop, the

address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radionics :-)

Best wishes

Aubrey

[Guest guest]

What a wonderful post, Thank you Aubrey. I really appreciate this nutshell

summary of Rife and the problems associated with Rife technology I must say

for such a 'scientific' dude why couldn't he keep better records? Why

couldn't he duplicate his machine? Something that you have put together

yourself must surely be duplicatable by the person who assembled it in the

first place.

Now Nina I am sorry but I haven't had the time to sit down and read your

book from cover to cover. I use it as a reference manual. I also have the

Blast It book that is for reference. You are right I could get off from

here and read instead of discussing with you people, and actually I have

decided to put this list on web only today since I do have a business that

can use more of my time. Don't everyone jump up and down for joy now!

But I am going to send one more message and it will repeat something that I

have included in a few emails and that no one has bothered to respond too.

I added it to the last message and was hoping that Aubrey in his post would

make mention of what I said, and the point was totally missed. Someone

else posted almost the same thing and I was a bit miffed with their post

for other reasons, but noted that no one responded to what they had to say.

I am sorry that the word radionics causes such stress that very important

suggestions are missed. It is unsettling to me that you have to agree with

everyone or be vilified by some because you have a different view of

things. It seems to me that most discoveries are made by people who live

outside the box. But I guess the outside the box people have their limits

too.

, thank you for your tolerance. I was aware that you could have

stopped the discussion at any time. You must realize that a little lively

debate educates. The lists, I feel, are more interesting when there is a

give and take of information, and discussion of differing points of view.

To me the people who have bothered to study these things should want to

discuss them to find out what each other believe, and thereby perhaps learn

something new. But this also goes for the human side of things as well as

the technical aspects. If you just go off and study on your own you may

miss an important point. By helping a person who doesn't have the time or

inclination to study the subject as much as another all can learn. More

then once in just describing a situation to a friend, I have come up with

solution.

Ciao for now.

Sheila

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Hi Sheila,

I'm getting rather attached to the subject line.....! :-)

I'll answer your questions below:

>

> I do hate to see people re-invent the wheel. If his machines were

doing so

> good at curing cancer then those are the ones that should be built

today.

> From reading between the lines today I am left with the impression that

> there isn't a machine available that is known to be an actual Rife

machine?

> And no one is sure the schematics for a 'Rife' machine are actually

> 'Rife'? If you don't want to answer these questions because I

haven't done

> my homework then that is fine.

That's basically correct. Unfortunately we literally do need to

reinvent the wheel in this case. We don't know exactly what Rife did.

Now, anyone would suppose that a good engineer could work it out, but

the real problem is that so much of the Rife stuff is fragmentary,

contradictory and in some cases, technically impossible or

meaningless. So a layperson sees some " spec " for a machine and

thinks, " it should be easy for an expert to make one of those " ,

whereas in reality the expert sees it as a total mess or a can of

worms he'd really rather not open!

That's one of the reasons I keep harping on the technical side. All

the obvious things have been tried one way or another over the years

with only limited success. What this tells me is that there must be

something wrong with the basic assumptions we (engineers) use when

looking at these things. So I've tried approaching it from a

different viewpoint and have come up with some very interesting

correspondences that nobody has spotted before. I'm trying to

encourage others to try a few paradigm shifts, let go of old ideas and

have a new look from a different angle. So far it's going well.

> (Sorry the following just came to me as I was writing this message.) If

> Rife had dabbled in radionics would you have expected him to talk

about it?

> LOL Look at the furor that this topic raised here. Then think

about the

> trouble he got into with his " Rife " technology that he used to cure

those

> terminal cancer patients. Oh and please don't panic, this was just

a what

> if question, I am not saying he did or didn't dabble.

Rife didn't dabble in Radionics. There's a long story to this so I'll

just try to give you some highlights. Radionics (in the " official "

definition of the term) was a system invented by a Dr called Albert

Abrahms somewhere between 1910 and 1920. Now Abrahms came up with the

idea of " spondylotherapy " which involved tapping people on the stomach

and listening for changes in the sound. He reckoned he could diagnose

like this and also extended the technique to tapping the stomach of a

" test person " which he called a " reagent " while that person (facing

west!) held a photograph or handwriting sample of another person - in

order to diagnose the second person remotely.

Because he was working with sounds he thought that each disease had

its own frequency. So he got some engineers to do electronic

experiments to make a machine that would put out variable frequencies

he could use to treat patients. That machine was called an

oscilloclast. Now surprisingly what is not generally known is that

machine actually worked and had a sound electrical basis. It was a

specialised form of what is known today as a magnetostrictive

transducer, it actually causes intense ultrasonic pulses. But Abhrams

set the machine up in such a way that the patient was actually in the

ultrasonic beam and also connected to the electrical circuit, so in

effect if one followed the instructions to the letter, the patient was

actually being electrically zapped and blasted by ultrasonics at the

same time. So despite Abrahms wierd ideas, his original electrical

machine was actually valid.

But somewhere along the line, things deteriorated. Abrahms didn't

manufacture his own machines personally and at some point they started

shipping out machines that were not actually wired up inside. But

Abrahms insisted that he was still getting the same results just by

setting the dials on imaginary machines! So after about 1919 Abrahms

machines were just empty boxes or contained strange and illogical

wiring that didn't actually do anything. Abrahms became a millionaire

through selling these junk boxes, but people fell for it every time

and carried on buying them. Eventually after many complaints (because

his patients were dying) the fledgling AMA cracked down on him. He

carried on regardless. Ironically, despite all his so called curative

powers he died of a major illness (I think pneumonia) in 1924. By

that time he had a huge following of cranks who wanted to carry on his

ideas. They formed an organisation called ERA (called the Electronic

Research Association) and promoted Abrahms ideas which they also

called " ERA " , the " Electronic Reactions of Abrahms " . The ERA still

exists and is a mystical and religious sect today. It might surprise

you to know that what you're advocating is actually a cult religion!

Anyway, Rife did not subscribe to this but many researchers suspect he

was interested in Abrahms fundamental idea that diseases would respond

to frequencies and this may have inspired his own work. But Rife was

a real scientist and not crazy like Abrahms (although he wasn't THAT

crazy since he made millions from it!). But Rife did test the

original oscilloclast (the one with the real wiring) and actually said

that he found that it worked. Going purely from memory, Rife's words

as I recall them were something along the lines of " the much maligned

apparatus of Abrahms gives a true waveform " .

So Rife clearly knew of Abrahms and radionics, but its absolutely

obvious from his various writings and letters that Rife was a hard

core scientist who wanted to see proofs. He was not closed minded and

was very open to new ideas even fringe ones, but he always came back

to rigorous scientific methods. So I don't think Rife was into the

quasi-religious stuff that passes for radionics today.

Whilst on the subject I think one thing needs to be made clear. You

are no doubt aware of the " quackwatchers " . They have a simple agenda

to destroy ALL alternative medicine. But it is VERY hard for them to

find any technical fault in the basic principles of Rife. So they

don't try. In order to discredit Rife in the eyes of the generally

ignorant public, they tell everyone that Rife is just an example of

radionics. When most people look up the real history of all the

craziness that passes for " radionics " they dismiss Rife as just more

of the same.

That's why some people don't like you associating Rife with radionics.

Rife is scientifically credible, radionics isn't. Every time someone

associates Rife with radionics you give ammunition to the

quackwatchers to use in their disinformation campaign. Your public

postings associating Rife with radionics may actually be in use at

this moment by quackwatchers who are trying to mislead other people

into dismissing Rife. I really mean this, if you take a look at some

of the message lists those people use, you'll find they often grab

postings from alt health lists and groups and post them to their own

lists as evidence how crazy all of us are! Now YOU might be crazy (no

offence, I'm joking :-) ) but I'm not, and I don't want my name

associated with radionics!

, the owner of this list can confirm this, we've seen it

happening. And if you don't believe me take a look at the quackwatch

site and see what they have to say about Rife.

> Question? What I am wondering is this, were there some of the

frequencies

> in the higher ranges that were potentially deadly? Something that

could be

> accidentally hit upon and lethal? So perhaps Crane or others were

trying to

> develop the lower frequencies as they were safe, and might achieve

the same

> results. Asking these questions I now am almost thinking I will have to

> read about Rife to find out why he started drinking heavily. Why

didn't he

> continue his research on his own? Do any of Rife experts have time to

> answer questions? Not about the technical aspect of his life, but about

> the personal happenings. I am curious to know if there could have been

> something that he discovered that made him an alcoholic.

It's possible that there are harmful frequencies although nobody has

ever reported any. That's not why Rife took up drinking. Rife worked

with an engineer called Hoyland in the 1930's. It was Hoyland who

built all the machines for Rife from 1934 to 1939. Hoyland

contributed a lot to the development of the machines and Rife assigned

him rights as the co-owner of the technology. They formed a company

called Beam Rays to develop and sell the machines, but Rife didn't

take much part in it, he stayed working in the lab. Hoyland was a lot

more involved in the commercial side. In 1937/38 Rife started

negotiations with some British doctors who wanted the rights to

distribute Rife microscopes throughout the world. But there is some

indication that they also wanted to distribute the machines as well.

Anyway, there were some unusual stock transfers between the partners

of Beam Ray and Hoyland for some reason appeared be getting less

shares than the others (there were several partners). It was fairly

obvious that because Rife was personally involved and talking money

with the British, Hoyland thought Rife was going to do a deal with the

British behind his back, and that, combined with the stock transfers,

was enough to prompt Hoyland to bring a legal action against Rife and

Beam Rays. Hoyland obviously thought they were trying to cheat him out

of his share.

Hoyland subpoened Rife to give testimony at the trial. When Rife

heard that he had to testify in court he went to pieces and started

drinking (a doctor suggested he should take a small drink at night to

help him sleep) but according to Rife's long time friend, Ben Cullen,

Rife had an " addictive personality " and taking up regular drinking was

the worst thing for him, he never stopped. WHY the idea of testifying

frightened Rife so much we don't know, until more data is found it's

just a matter of conjecture.

Rife won the court case but Beam Rays was all but destroyed. Rife

ended up in control but didn't operate the company as a going concern,

and they had no funds anyway. Rife's drinking impaired his own

abilities and also Rife was not aware of the technical details of all

of Hoyland's developments, so according to Crane (who he met in

1950) Rife was unable to make a working machine after Hoyland left.

Crane did his own research and experiments but he never had the

resources that Rife had in the 1930's and they spent many years just

getting to the stage of being able to produce a machine (the AZ-58),

but they basically had to start from scratch and lacking the full

laboratory resources that Rife had before, they never even reached the

same stage that Rife did in the 1930's. That's why the technology

never got properly developed.

We have the same problem today. Few people have the lab resources and

equipment that Rife did in the '30's. That's why we haven't been able

to duplicate all his work today.

> I know that I definitely had good results in using my contact machine

> conventionally for everyday maladies. Say a toothache, backache or even

> gall bladder problems. (Of course I have had the same results using it

> that other way. LOL Sorry ) Yet my husband used the machine in

contact,

> faithfully everyday after we got it, running all of the cancer

frequencies

> and he departed anyway. Although I am not 100% sure I do think it

kept any

> pain at bay until he stopped using the machine. I am not sure because I

> wondered every time I asked him if he was telling me the truth when he

> would say he didn't have pain. Looking back I can see many things

that we

> didn't do correctly, but at the time there wasn't much information

> available.

>

> People come to these lists to find answers about what they can use for

> their particular problem. The manufacturers can't say much so they come

> here to see if there is someone on the list that has been through

what they

> are going through, and successfully beat it. Most know it isn't a

totally

> finished product, and certainly not tested fully. Yet it might be

the only

> hope they figure they have. There has to be success stories out

there, but

> where is the information. I posted in one of my messages about

recording

> anecdotal information in a standardized format, anonymous of course, and

> not one person commented on that idea. Everyone was more interested in

> protecting Rife's name and telling me in other words that I am a kook (a

> crown I wear proudly, Thank you)! LOL At least I posted something about

> using the machine and getting some kind of results.

Some people are only interested in protecting Rife's name. I don't

care about that specifically, I'd rather protect my OWN name! As a

known " rifer " with some small degree of " fame " in the public

perception for my magazine article about Rife, I wouldn't want people

to think that I was an advocate of radionics. I suspect some others

feel the same but maybe don't want to admit it.

Like I said before, you are perfectly entitled to believe in radionics

and neither I nor anyone else has the right to stop you. But I would

hope you can understand that others have different perceptions of

radionics than you do. For example, to me it's just Voodoo. In

Voodoo you can harm someone by sticking pins in a photograph of them,

you say you can heal them by zapping the photograph. Same difference

in my mind. To others, radionics is the cult religion promoted by

Abrahms or the ERA. And so on. I'm not saying you should stop

telling people your experiences but it helps to be aware that you're

in a touchy area here and coming dangerously close to stomping on some

people's religions - ALWAYS a difficult area.

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheila,

You're welcome!

> What a wonderful post, Thank you Aubrey. I really appreciate this

nutshell

> summary of Rife and the problems associated with Rife technology I

must say

> for such a 'scientific' dude why couldn't he keep better records?

Supposedly he did, but the story goes that his lab was supposed have

been burned down in the 1950's and much of it was destroyed. That's

according to Crane and Bud Curtis.

But a lot of it did survive and remains in private collections. The

people who have it don't necessarily want to release it. For various

reasons. Some are scared of being persecuted. Some just want to make

a profit out of it and will only sell things for ridiculous prices.

But also some are truly interested in helping people are just making

sure it ends up in the hands of the right people and won't go to

people who will abuse it, distort it, suppress it or just try to

profit from it.

> Why

> couldn't he duplicate his machine? Something that you have put together

> yourself must surely be duplicatable by the person who assembled it

in the

> first place.

Now this a dangerous question to ask! :-) Some people get VERY upset

if you ask this! I've been asking the same question myself for the

last 2 years. The only logical conclusion I can reach from this is

that Rife DIDN'T invent the machines himself. I've explained at

length in the past why I believe that Hoyland had a lot more

to do with all this than he is credited for. But the fact remains

that Rife had a machine before he met Hoyland so Hoyland didn't invent

it as such, although I believe he perfected it somewhat. The real

question is, if Rife DIDN'T invent the original machine, then who did?

Some people get upset because they think that this line of

speculation denigrates Rife. I don't think so. Rife wasn't God or

Superman and if there is some aspect of the machine that he didn't

come up with by himself it hardly demeans him, especially in the light

of all his other achievements. There is no doubt whatsoever that Rife

was one of the most brilliant optical engineers in history, and he

achieved much more than that.

> But I am going to send one more message and it will repeat something

that I

> have included in a few emails and that no one has bothered to

respond too.

> I added it to the last message and was hoping that Aubrey in his

post would

> make mention of what I said, and the point was totally missed.

O.K. I admit I don't know what you're referring to. Spell it out for

me and I'l try to answer if I can.

Best wishes

Aubrey

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

> Aubrey,

>

> Thank you for your most enlightening explanations about Rife and the

development of his and Abram's Radionics. This ties up a lot of loose

ends.

You're welcome. There are many more things in the history that I

think need to be clearly explained, it throws a completely different

light on the whole area. I understand why people have written popular

accounts of the history but often it introduces misconceptions that I

think need to be cleared up. This is nobody's " fault " as such, it

depends largely on the information available at the time. As more

info becomes available, more things become clear.

> The success of the early Rife devices, which subsequently no-one

has been able to duplicate is quite fascinating and perplexing - but

not unprecedented ( vide Keely, for example). It implies that there

was some extra - and essential - element at work here, that has

subsequently defied definition and replication.

Yes, this is what I've been arguing for some time. Either that, or

the historical accounts are wrong and that some of the things we think

happened, didn't! For what it's worth I don't think the historical

accounts are very far out and that most of the things attributed to

Rife DID happen, but not necessarily in as clear and simple a way as

we might think.

> I am reminded here of the subtle energy components which have

recently been proven statistically by Tiller

Whoa! Hold on here! Be very careful with that word " proven " , it's

dangerous! The reason why, is that as soon as most people see that

word " proven " they assume something must be true and stop asking

questions. What most people think constitutes " proof " in everyday

terms does not qualify as such in a scientific sense. And the rules

of science are there to stop us getting caught up in mistaken ideas.

I would like to state categorically that NOTHING can be proven

statistically. A proof requires an exact answer and statistics never

gives an exact answer, it just gives us a probability. You may think

this is just a picky pedantic distinction but it isn't. Take my reply

to Nina about the Fscan for example. I started by explaining that I

found a statistical correspondence in the machine reponse. That in

and of itself is pretty convincing but it's NOT a proof. The actual

proof comes further on when I describe some other things I did to

confirm it.

A 99% probability of something being true does NOT make it true. To

give an example, let me make up a story. Let us say that you have a

neighbour who has been previously convicted 20 times for car theft.

Late one night you hear a noise and look out of your window and you

see that neighbour with a tyre iron trying to force his way into a car

outside his house. Now you know what his car looks like and that is

not his car. So what's the probability he's trying to steal it?

Given his history it's pretty likely that's exactly what he's doing.

But at the same time you can't rule out other less likely

possibilities. For example the car could belong to a friend of his

who was visiting him, his friend locked his keys in his car and asked

the neighbour if he could break into the car and get the keys to save

him cost of calling a tow truck. Or maybe there was someone locked

inside the car who had a heart attack and was unconscious and the guy

was trying to break in to get to him and save him! And so on. There

are numerous (unlikely) possibilities. But the mere fact they are

unlikely doesn't rule them out completely. The basis of a scientific

proof is that it has to be so certain that all other possibilities ARE

ruled out.

> in his work with Intention Imprinted Electronics, where his

'treated' electronic components behaved rather differently from

identical, 'untreated' ones, and were capable of changing the rate of

- for example- cell division in a repreatable manner. I am aslo

reminded of the work of Benveniste on the memory of water where the

induction of the 'effect' was more effective using a magnetically

self-cancelling coil than one where a magnetic flux was generated.

I tend to follow the current scientific community view that these

things are far too vaguely defined to accept them as being real

effects. That's not to say that they are not, but rather that any

evidence in favour of them tends to be scanty, inconsistent and not

reproducible under all conditions.

I'll give an example. Let's say that I am convinced of the existence

of some " intention field " , I have no doubt in my own mind of its

existence and I set up an experiment where I connect some electronic

circuit to an oscillocope and try to alter the readings by intention

alone. I take 100 readings and in 99 of them there appears to be a

correlation between what I " intended " and what was observed. The 1

other reading clearly shows no correlation between the intention and

the effect. Now is this proof that intention affected the circuit?

The answer is no for several reasons. Firstly there is the extremely

remote and unlikely (but nonetheless possible) possibility that the 99

correlations were pure coincidence or random chance and that the 1

anomalous reading was the only " true " one.

Reason 2: I have done nothing which establishes that my intent

affected the circuit itself. What if my intent affected the

oscilloscope instead? So what? You might be tempted to say, it's the

same thing isn't it? Well the answer is no, and it depends on the

experimental circumstances. Let us say that I was leaning on the

oscilloscope during the experiments, and that every time I expected a

result my body temperature varied slightly in anticipation of a

positive result. The change in temperature was transmitted to the

oscilloscope and altered the reading. Did my intention affect the

oscilloscope? Yes, indirectly. Did it prove subtle energy? No, the

effect on the oscillocope was a simple temperature change that

required nothing beyond currently accepted physics to explain.

Reason 3: Was my interpretation of the oscilloscope reading

objective? For example, was I so keen on finding a positive effect

that I actually fooled myself into seeing something in the

oscilloscope trace that wasn't really there? Maybe not, but such

things do happen, and more often than most people think.

Reason 4: When I wrote down the scope reading, did I actually write

down what I saw, or did I unconsciously write down what I wanted to

have seen instead without realising it? Again, this happens much more

often than most people realise.

And so on. There are numerous such possibilities, and I haven't even

touched on other things like indirect influences by conventional but

unexpected means.

This is why these kinds of findings need to be verified objectively in

other laboratories with other equipment by other researchers. And

when this is done, more often than not, the results come out

differently. So it leaves us in the rather strange situation where

nothing is proved at all either one way or another. There is no

absolute proof that such effects happen, nor is there any that they

DON'T happen!

Now Tiller is a good scientist, but he's also extremely religious and

enthusiastic about his ideas of " intention fields " and the like. So

much so that all his work starts from the predicate that such a thing

exists and is designed to prove it. But this starting assumption is

NOT scientific. NO assumptions are scientific.

Benveniste is embittered by the rejection of his ideas by the

" scientific establishment " . He would dearly like to prove them all

wrong and vindicate himself. Does that give him a motive to possibly

delude himself? Of course it does. Now I'm not suggesting for one

moment that he IS deluding himself. But his results have not been

unequivocally verified and some scientists believe his experimental

setup is flawed. Now I don't know if it is or not, so I just try to

keep an open mind and neither believe nor disbelieve his findings. So

far it's just raw data that doesn't seem to prove much one way or

another. It certainly indicates the need for further investigation

and it IS very wrong for mainstream scientists to dismiss his results

out of hand as some certainly have done.

What I'm saying is that personally I'm much more likely to believe

someone who is rather cold and objective and doesn't care if the

results come out one way or another. Very few people fit this

description, scientists or otherwise.

For what it's worth I do believe that such things exist and need to be

investigated, but I think in all cases, before resorting to " subtle

energies " , it is necessary to eliminate (and/or measure) all the

conventional ones. And to date I've NEVER seen anyone doing that in

these kinds of experiments.

The human body has an electromagnetic field around it. That field

varies with the emotions and intent of the person. So the probability

that this field (which is quite conventional) has some effect on

external circuitry is extremely high. In fact the idea that it

doesn't, is somewhat ridiculous in itself. So what I say is, why do

we need to propose subtle energies to explain that some intent or

emotion could affect an external system? Especially when we already

know for certain that there is a conventional field that does just that?

Anyway, I'm not arguing, just some food for thought here.

> In the latter case it therefore appears that the magnetic vector

potential - the A field -which is undetectable by electronic means (

except by using a phson Junction device) was the key factor in

inducing the message into the water. This all leads me to wonder

whether it might not be the potential fields - rather than the

derived, measurable fields - which are being harnessed, and are the

principle ingredient used by Rife in his original devices.

Now this is somewhere where I DO agree we need to look further. There

is a question as to whether the A field is a physical reality or a

mathematical artifact. The Aharonov-Bohm experiment provides a

mathematical proof but that proof is flawed in that it is not

invariant to a gauge transform. The experimental results seem to be

more credible but again there are anomalies that I for one am not

satisfied have been properly investigated. For example, Aharonov and

Bohm believe that there is no flux field outside the magnetic coil and

this means that only a A field could affect the electron diffraction.

However, I can't see any way that it is possible by shielding or

otherwise to totally eliminate the flux field, for the simple reason

that magnetic flux ALWAYS follows a closed loop, and if you could

shield the flux in such a way as to break the loop, you'd

automatically invalidate the very equations that predict the existence

of an A field! It may be that my understanding of this is somehow at

fault but I haven't seen anything which would account for this.

Anyway, the above aside, I DO believe that vector potentials are

something we should look at. But only after we've eliminated all the

conventional fields, forces and fluxes. And so far nobody has even

tried to accurately measure even ONE of the conventional energies in

something like the Rife effect. So I think we're still a long way off

needing to invoke vector potential fields as an explanation.

In my own papers on the Rife effect I've proposed an unconventional

theory of my own, which is that there is an equivalence between a

Poynting vector and juxtaposed electric and magnetic force fields

which would mathematically amount to the same thing as that Poynting

vector, at any point in space. This is really very conventional in

nature, not requiring any special or unusual energies and quite within

conventional science. But there is not one scientist who can say for

certain whether this idea is true or not!

>This looks like rather slim evidence as it stands here, but there are

other instances where similar 'anomalous' effects have been noted, for

example in the area of torsion fields, and one consequently wonders

whether certain components of what we - very loosely - term as the

'vacuum' or ZPE, might not be involved here ( and I might add -

perhaps sticking my neck out - that Radionics -particularly the work

of Heironymous, might be tapping these potential (information??)

fields comprising the vacuum.

> Certainly I do believe that we need to 'think outside tthe

proverbial box' when addressing the mechanisms of real Rife effects.

I agree. But I think we need to think BOTH inside and outside the box!

:-) To my mind too many people are thinking " outside the box " because

they simply have never learned how to think INSIDE it! In my ideal

world there wouldn't be any box at all and everyone would just THINK,

period! :-)

P.S. Anyone care to prove the existence of the " box " ? That one

should be very entertaining! :-)

Best wishes

Aubrey

[Guest guest]

At 01:07 PM 08/02/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>P.S. Anyone care to prove the existence of the " box " ? That one

>should be very entertaining! :-)

The box *must* be there or Shrodinger's cat would have had no place in

which either to exist or not. Or both. Or neither.

-=d=-