You have to see how you are being seen. You are no better than the guy who says "There are no zebras. Watch the video." No, not unless you can articulate in a sentence or two what your claim is and why it makes sense. I assume you know all about slippery soap boxes from personal experience?
You're still missing the point and giving 'soap box' advice at the same time. Your advice is unwelcome. You seem not to be an advocate of Dale Carnegie.
Well, I don't suffer fools gladly, as one acquaintance described me. I have worked for 40 years in advanced weapon systems design, producing over 40 technical reports and 400 technical memoranda, and making briefings I can't count. Including teaching South Korean government officials a 2-week crash course in system engineering. I know whereof I speak. And what I am saying is true: if you can't express the essence of your point in a few sentences, you don't really understand it. (It is a clue. You might want to try and do it.)
I also am an astute observer of the exposition process. I have noticed, without exception, that the crank method of argument is to make categorical claims---and refer the reader to a video or videos. Videos are audio-visual performances that cannot be scrutinized after the fact (except very laboriously). They are a moving target having no references or citations that can be checked. They also take a longer time (factor of 3) to receive the subject matter, which makes them tiresome and irritating. There is a reason why the crank community does not want to write anything down for publication: it would not withstand close scrutiny. It suffices to impress the aspiring ignorant, those who do not know but like to think they are capable of knowing. But, not knowing to begin with, they fall like wheat to the scythe of sophisms and higher levels of ignorance. Flat Earth. Moon Hoax. Chemtrails. It is all depressingly the same.
So, I am holding you to a higher standard---a standard that is merely minimal in my profession. Get used to it. Live up to it. You will be the better for it.
"I have worked for 40 years in advanced weapon systems design, producing over 40 technical reports and 400 technical memoranda, and making briefings I can't count. Including teaching South Korean government officials a 2-week crash course in system engineering. I know whereof I speak."
This is pretty sound proof of not being able to communicate or write. Trying to validate being an authority is in my experience an easy identifier of the classic fraudster and huckster. They love to broadcast their 'claimed' credentials. Buyer beware! As I mentioned earlier, the central thesis I made was found in the 1st paragraph. Because you never identified this, you get a failing grade for comprehension. And your post gets another 'F' for not being convincing and an obvious fraudster. Please go away.
Unfortunately, you missed the entire point, which was given in the first paragraph.
"What is seen on electron microphotographs are not an isolated 'virus' or even 'purified'."
The rest of the information (and URLs) backs up this statement.
Also, there's no such thing as 'free' words of wisdom. The soap box is especially slippery when one wets his own pants.
You have to see how you are being seen. You are no better than the guy who says "There are no zebras. Watch the video." No, not unless you can articulate in a sentence or two what your claim is and why it makes sense. I assume you know all about slippery soap boxes from personal experience?
You're still missing the point and giving 'soap box' advice at the same time. Your advice is unwelcome. You seem not to be an advocate of Dale Carnegie.
Well, I don't suffer fools gladly, as one acquaintance described me. I have worked for 40 years in advanced weapon systems design, producing over 40 technical reports and 400 technical memoranda, and making briefings I can't count. Including teaching South Korean government officials a 2-week crash course in system engineering. I know whereof I speak. And what I am saying is true: if you can't express the essence of your point in a few sentences, you don't really understand it. (It is a clue. You might want to try and do it.)
I also am an astute observer of the exposition process. I have noticed, without exception, that the crank method of argument is to make categorical claims---and refer the reader to a video or videos. Videos are audio-visual performances that cannot be scrutinized after the fact (except very laboriously). They are a moving target having no references or citations that can be checked. They also take a longer time (factor of 3) to receive the subject matter, which makes them tiresome and irritating. There is a reason why the crank community does not want to write anything down for publication: it would not withstand close scrutiny. It suffices to impress the aspiring ignorant, those who do not know but like to think they are capable of knowing. But, not knowing to begin with, they fall like wheat to the scythe of sophisms and higher levels of ignorance. Flat Earth. Moon Hoax. Chemtrails. It is all depressingly the same.
So, I am holding you to a higher standard---a standard that is merely minimal in my profession. Get used to it. Live up to it. You will be the better for it.
This is pretty sound proof of not being able to communicate or write. Trying to validate being an authority is in my experience an easy identifier of the classic fraudster and huckster. They love to broadcast their 'claimed' credentials. Buyer beware! As I mentioned earlier, the central thesis I made was found in the 1st paragraph. Because you never identified this, you get a failing grade for comprehension. And your post gets another 'F' for not being convincing and an obvious fraudster. Please go away.