I was talking about frequencies and principles of physics, the part of it I understand. If you are thinking about marketing that's your concern. You talk about things that are related only as tangents. You are discussing (parts of) definitions that do exist, but you are not relating them to killing parasites. The way you use these basic principles of Science
that you talk about in your post as applied to the zapper is not correct. Dr. Clark used these same principles of Science
and worked out a way to make them work through the zapper.
You bring in so many irrelevant things, no one wants to go through them all. For instance, who cares about better gear when you don't define for what purpose the better gear is used for. Just because it is a much more expensive piece of equipment does not mean it is better for the purpose Dr. Clark intended. But you fail to note this. Why would a scientist like Dr. Clark want to use more expensive electronic gear like she started her experiment with (a frequency generator) when through trial and error she discovered she did not want the result she was getting? She discovered the negative part of the frequency wave, or the trough, was giving her the opposite result (more parasites). So like any good scientist would, she tossed out that part and switched to using only positive--which killed the parasites
at the right frequency.
A person holding the zapper handles, one in each hand, completes the circuit. Why you
fail to see that this is not the same as holding one handle and putting the other into a container of cheese, I don't know. Electrons run through a circuit. The cream cheese example you described is not a circuit. Therefore electrons don't run through it. If electrons are not running through it then you don't have a complete circuit. That is a basic priniciple of science. And Dr. Clark used this same basic principle to make the electrons run and to make the zapper work effectively against parasites
without damaging any organs.
Did it ever occur to you that the cell membrane of our cells has a mild charge? It has to maintain a certain polarity. Do the components of your cream cheese example have this same amount of charge/polarity? Because if they don't, as I suspect, then you don't have a fair example for comparison do you? You are not comparing apples and apples. The slight conductivity is effectively used by the zapper (to make a current/closed circuit).
The body is a living thing and Dr. Clark's zapper is adjusted to work with that living thing. Her methods do not treat the body as an inanimate object like a container of cream cheese.
By the way, I said, in my first post, to look up frequency in a Science
book so you could see a picture of it, rather than breaking it down into electrons and talking about that. You have to understand that definition before you can understand how Dr. Clark applied this principle usefully. You brought up things like there isn't any ground or reference point. I think a scientist would probably know where the ground is and if you are not getting the right reading then check your meter. Since not all meters are the same, you would need to know which meter to use in order to measure or check to see what she, Clark, was getting. If your meter can't measure that type of wave, then you won't see it will you. It's my guess you are using the wrong meter. (I don't think you said what meter you used or what rationale for picking that meter.)
As far as using the term "offset" in regard to positive, it is a short-cut term that Dr. Clark uses to describe the kind of wave to create so that she does not have to go through all the principles of physics and electronics that are relevant every single time that term is used (or condition is created). You may know the definitions but you do not understand how Clark applied them, and you don't seem to be reading what she wrote about it either. There are facts in the Zapper Forum
messages or simply go to a link where Clark explains how it works. Maybe you should read that for a while. Or type in "positive offset" in the Search box and read what you find on the Curezone site. (I saw 14 links come up.)
I'm sure if the zapper had been explained to you in a class like chemistry, biology, physics or electronics and you used it along with having to memorize how Clark uses the definition, you would have understood that also. Clark is the one who defined the zapper, you cannot redefine the zapper for her so that the frequency wave it uses contains the negative part of that frequency. Maybe you could find a safe use for whatever it is you are creating there using the negative (wave).
The purpose of Dr. Clark trying different equipment was not just to create new frequencies but to connect that to a parasite
in some relevant way. Something you haven't done. There is nothing inherently wrong in only talking about half of Clark's experiment like you did. But eventually you have to work your way to the end, to the purpose of that experiment. In this case, the purpose or end was to kill the parasite. After Clark found a less expensive way to do that (zapper), why would she go back to one of the other more high tech ways, like the frequency generator she started with when that method gave a bad result?
Lets suppose it took 2,000 experimental variations for Edison to find just the right type of metal wire and thickness to light the bulb without melting it (or the wire filament). Once that happened he knew what kind of metal he used because he put it there. Why would he want to go back to one of the other 1,999 ways that didn't work and didn't light up the light bulb, and use one of those (metals)? Once he found the correct way, why would he go back to one of the wrong ways? He wouldn't. And once Dr. Clark found out that using a frequency that had a complete cycle, or both a positive and a negative part in it, was enabling parasites
to survive, Clark dropped the negative. Dr. Clark found a new way to apply this fact. Something you haven't done. Once Dr. Clark found out the correct wave for the correct result, why go back to one of the wrong ways she had been experimenting with earlier? Clark wouldn't, anymore than Edison. Once the parasite
was killed Clark WOULD KNOW WHAT TYPE OF FREQUENCY DID IT BECAUSE SHE PUT IT THERE (generated it).
It looks like you are trying to say the positive offset wave does not exist in the manner Clark described and/or it cannot be generated that way. As I mentioned before, you have to move on to the purpose for creating a positive offset wave. In the instance of the zapper, by having a positive offset wave means you don't have a negative one. However, just arguing definitions doesn't go anywhere. It has to be tested in the environment. Dr. Clark did this. But you didn't. You cannot be spoonfed the actual experience of removing parasites from your body. This is something you have to do in order to experience it. Someone else cannot experience it for you. You cannot kill parasites by a virtual experiment that you do only mentally. But you can kill parasites by holding the zapper in your hands and thus completing the circuit. Since you defend your position by knowing a lot about electricity, electrons, frequencies, oscillators, etc. then you know what this means.
A positive offset frequency/wave will kill parasites. If you don't have the science background to accept this knowledge, then do as others suggested and read Rife. This knowledge is also based on years and years of painstaking work under microscopes done by Dr. Royal Raymond Rife.
When parasites are killed, then you will know the frequency in the zapper was a positive offset wave. Where is the proof the parasites are gone? Some of your pain would be gone. And you would have to do reading on CureZone for other evidence/signs, perhaps found in the toilet. Not only that, but you would have to follow the protocol others have described well in the related forums. While each individual step is simple, they all must be followed. Do you have a mind that is big enough to bring all this in, or is there only room in your mind for discussing how long the positive wave is according to a meter, or counting how many electrons might be in the (positive) frequency wave?
While many people, perhaps like yourself, can handle facts presented in biology, are good at memorizing definitions and can reply to biological questions, they seem to be unable to take a small risk. The more frightened they are, the more impossible they make the task appear. All kinds of reasons are brought forth for why it is impossible. There are people who believe that when they grasp the zapper's handhelds, they will be killed. So they have to stay as far away from it as possible. Amusingly, they believe they will be killed by the very positive-offset-frequency (wave) you say doesn't exist. Or you can't prove it exists and so you're confused.
Now you probably don't believe trying it would kill you, but then how frightened you are depends on how much you know about it. The more you know about it the less frightened you are. Everyone takes small risks every week (ie. driving a car). If using the zapper feels like a dangerous proposition to you, then why not watch a friend use it who does not have his head filled with that fear. While you stand by to see what happens to him and calmly drink a glass of water to steady your nerves.
If you don't have that fear but think the zapper doesn't do anything and is harmless, then what harm could there be in watching the zapper kill parasites (for example, of a friend). When it kills the parasites, then you will know the positive offset wave functioned and was there. You won't need a meter. I haven't used the zapper, but I feel certain that if you wanted to try out the zapper as an experiment on yourself, there would be plenty of people in one of the Zapper Forum
s who would help answer any real questions you had.
You should know Dr. Clark got a Master of Arts degree (6 yrs. college) with High Honors from McGill University. One of the other universities she attended afterward to continue her studies was the University of Minnesota where she studied biophysics and cell physiology. Do you think that Clark along with all the other graduate students who were in her classes, and professors who taught those classes were talking gibberish?
Did Clark pass her classes because the professors there had taught her gibberish?
There's some talk on some posts about being polite. I guess you felt you were being polite in your post when you talked about Dr. Clark's reasoning on positive offset as being gibberish. So I guess you won't mind when I call your confusion over whether it (that frequency) exists, gibberish.
Definitions for those who find them usefull:
gibber............to speak rapidly and inarticulately
inarticulate......not able to put one's ideas into words
..................not able to speak one's mind
..................not said clearly
..................not said for the purpose of being understood by the listener