Karl ! - wanted to congratulate your new Leica setup. Visibly, the photos are MUCH better than your original setup. Another thing, I wanted to commend you on reporting "reasonable" magnifications. Briefly, a couple months ago we saw everybody jump on the bandwagon of extremely high "magnification." We saw claims of 2000x, 5000x even 10,000x - which in truth only made me smile. Such claims have fallen into the trap of "empty magnification." Sure... one can "magnify" an image to the size of a highway billboard, say a "million x", but the RESOLUTION stays at 300x or 800x. The best objective lenses Leica sells are "only" in the range of 120x, provided oil immersion is used. Phase contrast might be able to boost resolution a bit, but not that much, maybe an added 100x considering TOTAL magnification. The objective is where the resolution comes from. The eyepieces, or oculars, most commonly are 10x, rarely you will find 20x in use. Why so low? Because the eyepiece does not provide increased resolution; it only provides magnification of the image provided by the objective. This means resolution is the SAME with a 10x eyepiece, or a 20x eyepiece. Another limitation is higher eyepiece magnification provides a narrower field of view, so you really cant scan over a large sample area nearly as fast as with a 10x. Here is a useful link that explains all this, which also defines the limit of optical microscopes: https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/microscopy-basics/beware-of-empty-magnification/ Best wishes!
Observationally, at Tuft's University, Michael Levin is doing a tremendous amount of work with his lab of 32 people on synthetic life. He is pretty wide open to communication though first I'd suggest reviewing some of his Youtube channel. I would be very interested, and I am sure you would be as well, in any observations. And I think he would as well. If he is unaware of this phenomena that too would be interesting. https://youtu.be/4d2SC3MFTBI?t=64
I think he is in the same team as the guys in the biology today video. Funded by d.o.d. and others. Listed at the end of the biology today video. Approach with caution perhaps?
Exactly. The purpose is asking him. He is big on independent pov. And he is big on field of Consciousness. And I doubt if he condones wide spread introduction of synthetic biology. I feel after all if there are science experts nothing is lost reaching out to enquire. Only do not know. I mean on Sub-Stack people trust M.D's! They are not trained observers per se in this new field.
Karl - To me, the most curious object in the above photos is the assumed "microcapsule" from which a fiber emanates or growing. Would you care to speculate on what kind of fiber that may be and/or what its function may be? Do these types of fibers interact with other objects that you can see. You seem to suggest it's rare.
We really couldn't at this point. Too many nano fibers on the market, with too many functions. It's too early to know if these are intentional in this design, if they have function, or if they are defects of enviremental flaws in the chemistry surrounding them.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. I think he meant the blood sample is 2 days old, not that the jab was 2 days prior, but perhaps he did convince a recent jabee to give up some blood.
Karl ! - wanted to congratulate your new Leica setup. Visibly, the photos are MUCH better than your original setup. Another thing, I wanted to commend you on reporting "reasonable" magnifications. Briefly, a couple months ago we saw everybody jump on the bandwagon of extremely high "magnification." We saw claims of 2000x, 5000x even 10,000x - which in truth only made me smile. Such claims have fallen into the trap of "empty magnification." Sure... one can "magnify" an image to the size of a highway billboard, say a "million x", but the RESOLUTION stays at 300x or 800x. The best objective lenses Leica sells are "only" in the range of 120x, provided oil immersion is used. Phase contrast might be able to boost resolution a bit, but not that much, maybe an added 100x considering TOTAL magnification. The objective is where the resolution comes from. The eyepieces, or oculars, most commonly are 10x, rarely you will find 20x in use. Why so low? Because the eyepiece does not provide increased resolution; it only provides magnification of the image provided by the objective. This means resolution is the SAME with a 10x eyepiece, or a 20x eyepiece. Another limitation is higher eyepiece magnification provides a narrower field of view, so you really cant scan over a large sample area nearly as fast as with a 10x. Here is a useful link that explains all this, which also defines the limit of optical microscopes: https://www.leica-microsystems.com/science-lab/microscopy-basics/beware-of-empty-magnification/ Best wishes!
Observationally, at Tuft's University, Michael Levin is doing a tremendous amount of work with his lab of 32 people on synthetic life. He is pretty wide open to communication though first I'd suggest reviewing some of his Youtube channel. I would be very interested, and I am sure you would be as well, in any observations. And I think he would as well. If he is unaware of this phenomena that too would be interesting. https://youtu.be/4d2SC3MFTBI?t=64
Hi Stegiel,
I think he is in the same team as the guys in the biology today video. Funded by d.o.d. and others. Listed at the end of the biology today video. Approach with caution perhaps?
Thanks, matt
Exactly. The purpose is asking him. He is big on independent pov. And he is big on field of Consciousness. And I doubt if he condones wide spread introduction of synthetic biology. I feel after all if there are science experts nothing is lost reaching out to enquire. Only do not know. I mean on Sub-Stack people trust M.D's! They are not trained observers per se in this new field.
Karl - Just to be clear, do you perceive that the mycelium spore network is wholly separate from the fibers / filaments?
I think they are all related but differing branches of the unfolding technology
Karl - To me, the most curious object in the above photos is the assumed "microcapsule" from which a fiber emanates or growing. Would you care to speculate on what kind of fiber that may be and/or what its function may be? Do these types of fibers interact with other objects that you can see. You seem to suggest it's rare.
We really couldn't at this point. Too many nano fibers on the market, with too many functions. It's too early to know if these are intentional in this design, if they have function, or if they are defects of enviremental flaws in the chemistry surrounding them.
Are "they" building 👷♀️ organic machines in "their" human herds? What, pray tell, shall we become? Eloi? Or Molochs...
Dr Ana Marie’s post.
It even mentions Morgellons
https://open.substack.com/pub/anamihalceamdphd/p/is-nano-domestic-quell-government?r=z8zvk&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Amazing images! Thank you Matt. Question, at this point Where did you find someone who was jabbed 2 days prior to letting you take a peak?
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting. I think he meant the blood sample is 2 days old, not that the jab was 2 days prior, but perhaps he did convince a recent jabee to give up some blood.
Yes as below, 2 days old. Also Matt J.O.B made a comment, but I am Karl. Thank you for following! Hope you are well
See new post for hope.