CureZone   Log On   Join
You may be able to find soe point I am amking here..
The_Comeback_Kid Views: 6,261
Published: 17 years ago
Status:       R [Message recommended by a moderator!]

You may be able to find soe point I am amking here..

From: "The_Comeback_Kid"
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:05 am
Subject: Re: GB 4000

It is hard to understand some of this because it is a reaction to two other posters and them puffing up contact devices. For the record, Jeff received John Marsh's devices and paraphenilia after John's death as was given it by John's nurse. A man by the name of Rockfield claims to have known John Crane and inherited all his devices and knowledge. He is currently shooting his mouth off about revealing an amzing machine this year that will put other manufacturers to shame. He has a poopr reputation and worst credibility. I'll say nothing further cuz I know little.

Me speaking""""
Please excuse my ramblings folks...I can't sleep. Hopefully you can
find something of value here.

Jeff, are you not Jeff Garth of AAA productions who is the same
gentlemen/father team involved in the
manufacturing/commissioning/production of the Ultimate B3 and GB4000?
Since you are discussing the GB4000, I would like that to be known
here if I have that correct. Jeff does frequent the Rife forums and
it would make sense that he would appear here as his GB4000 has been
just released. Again Jeff, are you Jeff Garth and if so can you come
a little closer and not talk so much about the machine from a
distance. What I mean is, could you give us as much of its specs as
possible please. We would like to know.

Waveform rise and fall times?
32 Bit DDS?
I see it has 10% to 90% duty cycle? Adjustable for everything in
between too? Resolution?
Voltage in full positive offset?
100% modualtion of the carrier and modulating(mor) waveform?
What is the device shielding like?
Could it be safely used as the signal source in a 300 watt Rife/Bare
radiant setup without troubling its circuitry,etc?

"All other frequency generators can only run one frequency at a time."
I dont understand? The f160 runs 2 freqs at a time. Modulated or
unmodulated. The tga 1242 runs 2 modualted/unmodulated. The tga1244
runs 4 freqs simultaneously. Sure they cost $, but it is not a true
statement above.

Quoting the above website about what "Other Frequency / Function
Generators have:"

"Only have two hookups." Can a bnc splitter not run many different
electrodes simultaneously? On the same person or multiple people?

"Can only run one frequency at a time." Not true. Plenty of 2
channel fg's out there.

"Contains 2000 channels available for user custom programming."
Could I go to the CAFL and copy and paste a strig of freqs for candida
that included for example 100 frequencies. Save that as a file called
"candida", call that up off my hard drive anytime in the future and
run those 200 freqs one after another? Additionally, could I program
how long EACH DIFFERENT one of those 100 freqs would run in
seconds/minutes, and program each one a distinct duty cycle?

I answered my own first question. I see each channel holds 48 freqs.

Does the gb4000 do "converges" where one waeform ascends to a
preprogrammed freq..say 2000hz and another waveform descends down to
that same 2000 hz. Each waveform starting at say 100hz below and
above the 2000hz. The lower waveform moving from 1990 hz up to 2000hz
in 1hz increments. The higher wave moving down fro 2100 to its target
convergance of 2000hz in 1hz increments. And can I set the time in
seconds I want the frequencies to each run as they
sweep/converge/wobble toward the 2000hz?

I think if I had a problem it is this Jeff and Doc. When
manufacturers of Rife equipment..and yes that includes fg's as their machines to the public many of them simply don't
provide nearly as much data/specifications on the very equiipment they
sell. Take a look how, TTI or say a BK Precision makets their fg's.
You will notice they are LONG ON OUTPUT DATA and short on marketing
hype. When I look at alot of Contact devices and even some Rife
equipment, I see FAR LESS specifics. Yes, we want to know features.
Of course, but many of us want to ALSO learn about specifications and
equipment output.. so better to make informed purchases by comparing.

Wow, am I the only one interested in features AND specifications.
When I want to by a laptop computer, I want to know its capabilities.
To thoroughly understand that, i need to know all its specifications
by the manufacturer. Are all of us Craners and Rifers trying to hide
the tech behind this equipemnt?

Jeff you wrote,
"Yes, I have always wondered about the claimed effectiveness of a beam
tube at a distance. I agree, AAA is a top notch company with excellent
products. Jeff

I was under the impression that you were jeff garth as you posted here
in the past. Can yo clear that up for *me*. My apologies if I have
that incorrect.

Additionally, you have stated that you have always wondered about
radiant distance of a tube and its affects/penetration on the body?
Well, there are plenty of us that think similair thoughts and feel
there are plenty of similiar shortcomings and equal unknows about

Was Rife not capable of "blowing" a hemetically sealed microbe 7 miles
away from mhis machine? Can someone answer that? Rumor? We sure
know he didn't do it with a contact device. Did Rife not penetrate 16
inches of slab in his basement with his radiant machine and blow a bug
under the mic? Well, one things for sure, if we plasma Rifers can't
create that kind of distance today, looks like Rife himself sure
didn't have any problems in the past. Sure different man, different
equipment, different legalities.

Now I had thought that James Bares previous plasma devices were
effective well over 50 feet before 1999? And he and other Bare
patented plamsa manufactures have *narrowed* that distance i the last
years? By desire. My memory is poor, but if that was somewhat
correct, looks like freq radiance and penetration in a bare setup may
not be quite as questionable as a contact setup. Dunno?

Didn't Scoon blow a bug that was in a sealed container across the room
(accidently and not repeatedable) with a plasma device?

DOC, you said"""""""
""""People that claim that you can put the beam tube way
back and treat a large area really don't know what they are saying.""

What do you mean by this, Doc? EMEM or R/B? Are you telling me that
at the Rife Con in the late 90's Don Tunney did not receive all those
written testimonials when subjecting 200 participants to his Bare syle
plasma machine? At distance i na large room? My candida does wonders
on brain fog, so could you make corrections where I am wrong above?

Jeff, if you are Mr. Garth, I found it interesting how you said in a
previous post you really didnt care who was using what means( plamsa
or contact)... and how 50 years back. Yet the clearly wants to strongly support that
contact is as good if not better than plasma. (Not
words). When reading, it really does look like the Garth DO care
about how things were done. Actually, after reading about Dr.
Staffords use of the handheld plasma, were't you more encouraged to
finally bring out a machine that DID ionize gas? And interesting, we
now see the latest b3 (GB4000) matriculate into a device with plasma
capabilities (forth coming). You have the audio tape of Rife himself
saying in court that "contact" does function very well too. So after
proving that he said that, why would you vere from a contact only
device and start making one that has plasma capabilities? Is it
possible plasma has capabilites contact does not? Did all of Dr.
Straffords successes with plasma affect your decision to know offer

Can you straighten this out about the Garth family. Are they the
family that inherited what John Crane left behind. Through Crane's
nurse? hHas ALL of that information been made public?

Why did John Crane change Rife's freq's? Well, many truly and firmly
believe that. And I am hearing/seeing more talk positively about John
Marsh's contributions in comparsion to John Crane. That Marsh was in
fact the man that brought Rife back in the game...according to Stan
Truman documents. But again, are these a Garth provided doc or
Ringas? I find it interesting that John Marsh carried on with RIFES
work using/creating machines WITH PLASMA(!), while John Crane created
a conatct device which I believe he exhibited many times for sale at Inn? Did, Crane merely attempt to create a much
cheaper plasma device and came up with something significantly
different with his contact electrode machine? Wasn't Crane a business
man? Interested in profits I imagine? I've read somewhere it may
have just made alot of sense for him to create a machine that the
public could actually AFFORD TO BUY. Doctors could rarely afford a
true rife plamsa setup. So is it possible that Crane made compromises
in his contact design in order to get public sales of his machine?

If it would have cost the same to produce for Crane back in the 50's,
do you think he would have ditched the plamsa tube, the carrier wave
and used significantly lower freqs than what Rife used in the
20's/30's???? Or would Crane have avtually stuck with his cheaper,
simpler contact model?

I think we know how John Marsh votes on that question. He voted with
his wallet AND years of research. He voted to expand and continue to
contribute to RIFE TECH. He knew John Crane for decades and had
access to Cranes contact device plans for certain. They worked
together until their disagreements.

So why did John Marsh (who truly wanted to expand on Rife tech plasma
devices) choose to cast his vote and devote his life (when
possible/feasible) to "Rife Plasma Tech" INSTEAD of "Crane Contact
Tech"? I think it is obvious, but the reader should work that out.

I think there are still John Marsh and John Crane "Rife Equipment"
manufacturers today. I feel it imperative for interested parties to
thoroughly research the differences between what these 2 man represent
with respect to what Royal Raymond Rife wanted to acheive AND how he
acheived it.

Jeff. my apologies if I have you confused with someone else.
As far as your comments Doc and Jeff on plasma radiance penetration
and distance, I'll defer to James Bare. I think he may have quite a
bit to say about those comments.

--- In, Jeff wrote:
> Yes, I have always wondered about the claimed effectiveness of a
beam tube
> at a distance.
> I agree, AAA is a top notch company with excellent products.
> Jeff
> At 06:33 PM 4/22/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> >DOC:
> >Let me just say that Rife always did spot treatments. That's why he
> >great results. I saw diagrams that Henry Marsh had in his notes
given to a
> >friend of mine in SLC, Utah. On some conditions...he saw the need
to treat
> >larger areas of the body. He had an overhead track that ran the
beam tube
> >up and down the body. If you use a Trifield Meter to measure the RF,
> >Magnetics and EM will see that it's very strong right
at the
> >tube and as you back's gets weaker and weaker. This is the
> >with any machine. People that claim that you can put the beam tube way
> >back and treat a large area really don't know what they are saying.
Get a
> >meter and see for youyself. I'm sure the new GB 4000 will be a great
> >machine. Like no other group...the Garff's have really done their
> >IMO ijn the B3 and now the GB 4000.
> >
> >

Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2021

0.438 sec, (6)