|
On April 11 2011 07:17 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2011 06:35 Kasu wrote:On April 11 2011 06:12 -Archangel- wrote:
OK, I have updated the OP with better links to better data that I have found in the meantime. Those links are just as full of incorrect science and incorrect or non-existent sources as all the original stuff. There is no new data at all, just more articles spouting the exact same stuff that has been so widely rejected by anyone who thinks about it critically and logically for one second. More people saying the wrong thing doesn't make it right. Yes we know radiation kills or damages organisms. Does that have any relevence whatsoever to this resonant-frequency theory? No. Yes we know glass can be destroyed by resonance from sound waves. Does that have any bearing on using electromagnetic waves to "resonate" cancer cells to death? I mean come on, what possible reason is there that it would? Its the same bullshit over and over. People who have no idea what they are talking about grabbing hold of some big "sensation" because they can't find anything that is actually meaningful to do. I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here. Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use.
Nope, looked at all (the new ones). They look exactly what they are - amateuish mock-ups of scientific articles. There are still numerous scientific inaccuracies and omissions, the sources are still missing or irrelevent. And (here is the biggest clue) if the article is filled with links trying to flog you something, its not a genuine scientific article. You don't need any scientific education to work that one out, just some common fucking sense.
Edit: Reading through it further you can find some unbelievably basic (if we assume the author has a scientific enough background to be entitled to write this stuff) mistakes. Loss of electrons makes a species negatively charged. Hydrogen is a metal.
The "extremely technical" page which offers an explanation "oriented to the scientific and research community" reads like a misspelled, barely understood, poorly connected copy of information from various wikipedia pages with the sole intention of confusing anyone who tries to read it.
Please, as someone who has seen a decent number of actual scientific papers, allow me to tell you that these websites aren't even close. "Scientific" and "talks about subjects that are considered scientific" are NOT the same thing.
|
Look I know you did look or read it. I found scientific data in some of those links. I do not understand it all but that is why I put all this info here.
|
On April 11 2011 07:17 -Archangel- wrote:
This technology is now being researched by plenty of people...
People like... music professors? Lol.
From your very first link to examiner.com:
"Rife invented the Universal Microscope with 5,682 parts. It was a miraculous machine that could see things smaller than waves of light (which was then and is still today thought to be impossible)."
....right. Not only is that sentence self-contradictory, electron microscopes have a much higher resolution than optical microscopes. And they've been around since 1933, Rife's time.
Your next link is written by a James E. Bare, D.C. That D.C. means he's a Doctor of Chiropractic. He's not a medical doctor, or an engineer, or even a research scientist.
http://nm-albuquerque.doctors.at/dr/james-bare-drjamesebaredc
I've yet to see a single MD, engineering PhD, or peer reviewed article support this load of bullshit.
|
On April 11 2011 07:46 -Archangel- wrote:
Look I know you did look or read it. I found scientific data in some of those links. I do not understand it all but that is why I put all this info here.
Lovely. The blind leading the blind.
|
LOLOLOLOL
Cancer is NOT a virus. That should be your first clue that something is wrong with this "hidden cure."
|
-Archtroll- wrote: Discuss the information given, not me. I didn't write anything presented on these links, I am just a messenger.
With all due disrespect Sir, this collection of yours is rife with bullshit. The "scientific" research on this nonsense is a real treat. Have you no shame?
I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here.
No, Sir, you should read the shit before assuming it was scientific. If you're unable to make the call whether it is indeed scientific or not (and you apparently are indeed unable to do so), you shouldn't claim it was.
Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use.
If you call a newspaper ad from 1993 and a random selection of dubious semi-ancient essays "research" then yes, I guess there exists "research" on this bs.
|
On April 08 2011 18:35 -Archangel- wrote:
I would say his story is similar to the one of Nikola Tesla (except Tesla managed to get some of his inventions into mainstream before being shut down by people afraid of him).
Oh come on with bullshit about Nikola Tesla.
Go please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Nobel_prize_and_Tesla
for a good start, and learn that the reason there is the stupid urban legend about Nikola Tesla is because of his eccentric personality and the fact he was claiming to have achieved something unbelievable every other day. That costed him his reputation and nobody listened to him anymore. That's it.
Now, you have seen The Prestige, or maybe you just played Red Alert and heard about how Soviet tried to use his invention about wireless electric transfer for military purpose or whatever, and you just repeat this prejudice that he was just "too genius" or even "dangerous" and that "they" "shut him down".
If you are trying to start a serious discussion, start with serious matter.
I think you see science as you would like it to be rather as how it is. Full of misteries, hidden genius, lost inventions, and fascinant forgotten experiment. Sorry, reality is more boring than people's imagination. If we had a way of curing cancer we would know it already. If Tesla had invented wireless energy transfer succesfully, we would know it one century after. It wouldn't actually make any sense that such a major discovery was possible at the time of Tesla and still not (re)discovered today.
|
|
|
Oh God. Sad article. People are so stupid.
|
The cure for cancer is being actively suppressed, if you don't believe it then do some research.
I was going to link you to some of the shows in my sig but I guess all the ones on cancer were before Christmas and got bumped off the archive ):
there's a reason everyone is dropping dead from cancer.
|
On April 11 2011 07:58 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +-Archtroll- wrote: Discuss the information given, not me. I didn't write anything presented on these links, I am just a messenger. With all due disrespect Sir, this collection of yours is rife with bullshit. The "scientific" research on this nonsense is a real treat. Have you no shame? Show nested quote +I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here. No, Sir, you should read the shit before assuming it was scientific. If you're unable to make the call whether it is indeed scientific or not (and you apparently are indeed unable to do so), you shouldn't claim it was. Show nested quote +Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use. If you call a newspaper ad from 1993 and a random selection of dubious semi-ancient essays "research" then yes, I guess there exists "research" on this bs.
-archtroll- hahahahahahaha 
I didn't even notice it.
|
The Science behind the "story" from the OP is bullshit.
|
Canada7170 Posts
This thread is pretty much garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
