Strange results in darkfield microscopy - crystals, conspiracy, or something else?

[Budbudbud4]

Hello everyone!

I must confess I know absolutely nothing about microscopy. I am in second year biomed undergrad, and our use of microscopes so far has been incredibly limited.
I'm here to ask about something strange I found on the internet regarding darkfield microscopy.
Today I came across this archived post from what looks to be a covid conspiracy website called masksaredangerous.com which can only be accessed via archive.md. Here is the link: https://archive.md/O8uUS

In it, a physician shows some darkfield microscope images of what he says is the Pfizer CORMINATY vaccine. The images display strange geometric patterns which he concludes is, "obviously some sort of nano-tech chips linked by “cords”. The cords may be made in part from fibrin."

I won't lie, 'nano-tech chips linked with cords' sounds dumb as hell to me, but since I know nothing about darkfield microscopy I spent an hour or so researching the technology and various images produced by the microscopy method to try and get a better understanding. However after this (admittedly brief) research I have found no images that produce results similar to the ones displayed in the article.
My best guess right now is that the geometric patterns are some sort of crystalline structure, as it reminds me of electron micrograph images I've seen of crystals. Nanotech inside the vaccine seems unlikely.

Is there anyone here experienced with this microscopy technique who have seen similar images to this? If so what produced it? And if not, then what do you think produced these results?
I'm mostly curious at this point to be honest

[richbart]

Where I live, they refer to that as the excrement of a male bovine.

[imkap]

One could dry something out (sea or whatever) and look for something that looks like a microchip from a Sci-fi film... And these images don't look like they were made with high magnification. It could be 20x or whatever. If I would do this kind of work, my main tool would be Photoshop...

[dtsh]

All I can say is, if anyone is having a slow day and you want to read some howling at the moon level kookery, that link it the place to go. (https://archive.md/O8uUS)

"Because of my previous extensive microscopy experience, learning to use a dark field microscope didn’t take a huge amount of education. I took a 12 week course on live blood analysis using the most sophisticated dark field microscope and camera, that my money could buy. It magnifies up to 4000x"

It just gets better from there.

[josmann]

Good example of why not to implicitly trust people with PhDs I went to a pretty reputable engineering university and we had this electrical engineering professor who had a very thoroughly developed crystal healing website he ran in his personal time. Loopy folks can get fancy degrees too!

Would love to know what this guy's set up is - he's getting some nice images! Looks to me like he's observing mostly good old sodium chloride forming crystals in a thin layer. I would assume saline is a major component of many shots.

Wanting better graphics, I purchased a gaming PC laptop. The software was then useable and I could take future images from the video program attached to the camera, for better definition.

lmaoooooo wait are we sure this isn't satire?

[imkap]

lmaoooooo wait are we sure this isn't satire?

I do believe that the authors of this were having a blast... I see no other explanation.

[Budbudbud4]

Would love to know what this guy's set up is - he's getting some nice images! Looks to me like he's observing mostly good old sodium chloride forming crystals in a thin layer. I would assume saline is a major component of many shots.

Ah, thanks for posting your thoughts on the images. It sure sounds a lot more likely than evil alien mind-control chips
I have no idea if the article is satire or not, but I found it in a chat where people were discussing graphene content in the vaccine and someone posted the link as 'proof'. I was tempted to go in and rebut, but i realised I had no idea what I was talking about either so I'm glad I checked with people who know their stuff hahaha

[Alexander]

I do believe that the authors of this were having a blast... I see no other explanation.

Maybe they did not wear their aluminium hats properly and got contaminated with cosmic radiation.

[dtsh]

There is a ton of legitimate research around nanotech as delivery agents for drugs, including the so-called "vaccines." They have been working on the stuff for decades. Carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide ribbons, nano-antennas, nano-bubbles, quantum dots, graphene hydroxides, and so on. They are all called "nanotech" because of their sizes. And yes, they have found stainless steel, titanium, graphene, chips, ribbons, parasites, and all manner of deadly crap in the injections. It's all very real. Check out RichPlanet.Tv - that's the best (long) discussion of what's in the jabs and a comparison with the literature.

Discussions here tend to be more evidence oriented. Claims of over unity energy, conspiracies, mind control, ufos, and other unsubstantiated claims made on that site aren't likely to be too well received here.
It's an oft-heard accusation that a skeptic doesn't have an open mind, but I ask you, "What would change your mind?" For me that answer is typically, "repeatable, verifiable evidence". If the answer is "Nothing", you've found your closed mind.
The old saying, "It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out” likely applies here.

[imkap]

There is a ton of legitimate research around nanotech as delivery agents for drugs, including the so-called "vaccines." They have been working on the stuff for decades. Carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide ribbons, nano-antennas, nano-bubbles, quantum dots, graphene hydroxides, and so on. They are all called "nanotech" because of their sizes. And yes, they have found stainless steel, titanium, graphene, chips, ribbons, parasites, and all manner of deadly crap in the injections. It's all very real. Check out RichPlanet.Tv - that's the best (long) discussion of what's in the jabs and a comparison with the literature.

Buy yourself a microscope and look for all this... Please share if you find something

[dtsh]

There is a ton of legitimate research around nanotech as delivery agents for drugs, including the so-called "vaccines." They have been working on the stuff for decades. Carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide ribbons, nano-antennas, nano-bubbles, quantum dots, graphene hydroxides, and so on. They are all called "nanotech" because of their sizes. And yes, they have found stainless steel, titanium, graphene, chips, ribbons, parasites, and all manner of deadly crap in the injections. It's all very real. Check out RichPlanet.Tv - that's the best (long) discussion of what's in the jabs and a comparison with the literature.

Buy yourself a microscope and look for all this... Please share if you find something

Unfortunately, I doubt that would help. They would likely see crystals (saline) and weird things that don't belong (crud from poorly cleaned slides) because they don't really know what they're looking at, so *everything* will be seen as stuff that doesn't belong there. Admittedly, some of it is stuff that shouldn't be there....because it wasn't there in the first place; dirt, oils from their hands, and everything else that one sees when things are not prepared in a clean and proper manner. Seen through the lens of conspiracy where actual evidence isn't neccessary, it's all poof of whomever they're painting as the evil THEM. One of the videos I painfully watched (can't fairly mock something sight unseen) did exactly that.

[kkkwj]

I am amazed at all the unsupported comments and opinions responding to my post, even though I identified the best discussion of nanotech that I have found or heard in probably two years of research. Did anyone actually go and watch the excellent video on RichPlanet.tv?

Scientists have been doing research and publishing papers on nanotech for decades. Probably a dozen different labs around the world have published microscopy images of metals, spectroscopy results, and nanotech carbon structures of various kinds that have been found in the jabs. Brightfield, darkfield, phase contrast, TEM transmission electron microscopes, SEM scanning electron microscopes - images from all of them.

It is surprising to see someone claim that all they are seeing is crud from dirty slides. Wow.

[EYE C U]

GREW A CITY OUT OF INSULIN...

Screen Shot 2022-04-15 at 8.52.11 PM.png (465.62 KiB) Viewed 5010 times

[dtsh]

I am amazed at all the unsupported comments and opinions responding to my post, even though I identified the best discussion of nanotech that I have found or heard in probably two years of research. Did anyone actually go and watch the excellent video on RichPlanet.tv?

I did, if that's the best you could find, you really need to sharpen your search skills.

Scientists have been doing research and publishing papers on nanotech for decades. Probably a dozen different labs around the world have published microscopy images of metals, spectroscopy results, and nanotech carbon structures of various kinds that have been found in the jabs. Brightfield, darkfield, phase contrast, TEM transmission electron microscopes, SEM scanning electron microscopes - images from all of them.

It is surprising to see someone claim that all they are seeing is crud from dirty slides. Wow.

That's what the video I watched showed, some salt crystals and what looks like crud from poorly cleaned slides; calling it an excellent video would be giving it way more credit than it deserves. Most of the sources from the video weren't even journals, but rather things like the Globe, Daily Mail, and other tabloiids; such are rarely sources of accurate reporting about scientifc information.

Got some links to some of these published papers showing this stuff in the vaccines? I've not seen anything of the sort in credible journals, but that doesn't mean it's not out there. What little i have seen of such stuff has been from unreiable sources, such as the site you're promoting and others like it, such as the link that started this thread, the usual conspiracy hubs, and the like.

[Phill Brown]

I only have a basic knowledge accompanied by less understanding of how the universe works.
Which of those equates to resolution or empty magnification changes on a given topic.
If looking for a pattern this seems to be an example of something that can't support its self so requires help to give it legs.
I have just helped it along but tried not to interfere with its course, adding some momentum to the journey of the thread into the unknown only.
I don't have a degree and the diploma in horology was only a byproduct of what I needed to know to start that journey.
There are few threads that merit being deleted but this is redeemed for me by including the insulin city image.
Happy days.

[kkkwj]

@dtsh Who knows what video you watched. I admit could have done a better job hunting down the link for you, but I didn't figure it was worth the time, given the seemingly universal and self-congratulatory tone of the comments on the video link of the original poster. One guy called the video BS. Another one called it a result of Photoshop (knowing nothing about Photoshop; any junior graphics design person would know that kind of image would be done in Illustrator with probably 100 layers in the image file).

Despite the unsupported hostile opinions and ad hominem attacks on this thread, here is a PDF link to the scientific papers on nanotech that were cited in the video that I watched. https://cdn1.richplanet.net/pdf/0495.pdf. The nanotech industry is alive and well.

If you can disparage my Internet search skills (knowing nothing about them), I'm sure you have the skills to find many more images like the ones posted by the doctor in his video. I could easily find them, even with my limited search skills. Good luck!

[imkap]

If you can disparage my Internet search skills (knowing nothing about them), I'm sure you have the skills to find many more images like the ones posted by the doctor in his video. I could easily find them, even with my limited search skills. Good luck!

Just buy a microscope...

[kkkwj]

Good grief. As if I don't have one already. Oh well.

[dtsh]

Despite the unsupported hostile opinions and ad hominem attacks on this thread, here is a PDF link to the scientific papers on nanotech that were cited in the video that I watched. https://cdn1.richplanet.net/pdf/0495.pdf. The nanotech industry is alive and well.

Kindly point out the "unsupported hostile opinions" and ad hominem attacks on this thread.

A bunch of links to bitchute, twitter, and some conspiracy sites isn't what one expects when using the term "scientific papers".
Several of the people cited in that "paper" are not experts in their field and several of them have a history of making unfounded claims and promoting medical claims for which there is evidence that the claims are entirely unsupported and factually incorrect. You can believe what you like, but that "paper" is just more of the same unsubstantiated claims and in some of the examples, claims that are demonstrably false.

If you can disparage my Internet search skills (knowing nothing about them), I'm sure you have the skills to find many more images like the ones posted by the doctor in his video. I could easily find them, even with my limited search skills. Good luck!

All I know is that you claimed a video on a conspiracy site as "the best discussion of nanotech" you had managed to find in years. It would be handy to know *exactly* which video you were talking about, but without knowing I can only presume. What *I* saw was a bunch of conjecture and unsubstantiated claims, which seems to fit with everything else I've seen at that site.

If you can disparage my Internet search skills (knowing nothing about them), I'm sure you have the skills to find many more images like the ones posted by the doctor in his video. I could easily find them, even with my limited search skills. Good luck!

I can find countless images which people base all manner of absurd assumptions about, that doesn't make the claim valid. In some of the cases it's obvious that the person sees something, but they don't understand what it is or the proper methods to use to get valid, repeatable results. Rigorous application of the scientific method would help.

Unless there's some actual evidence provided, something that can pass peer-review, I don't think there's anything here worth continued discusion.

[enricosavazzi]

There is a ton of legitimate research around nanotech as delivery agents for drugs, including the so-called "vaccines." They have been working on the stuff for decades. Carbon nanotubes, graphene oxide ribbons, nano-antennas, nano-bubbles, quantum dots, graphene hydroxides, and so on. They are all called "nanotech" because of their sizes. And yes, they have found stainless steel, titanium, graphene, chips, ribbons, parasites, and all manner of deadly crap in the injections. It's all very real. Check out RichPlanet.Tv - that's the best (long) discussion of what's in the jabs and a comparison with the literature.

Buy yourself a microscope and look for all this... Please share if you find something

Unfortunately, I doubt that would help. They would likely see crystals (saline) and weird things that don't belong (crud from poorly cleaned slides) because they don't really know what they're looking at, so *everything* will be seen as stuff that doesn't belong there. Admittedly, some of it is stuff that shouldn't be there....because it wasn't there in the first place; dirt, oils from their hands, and everything else that one sees when things are not prepared in a clean and proper manner. Seen through the lens of conspiracy where actual evidence isn't neccessary, it's all poof of whomever they're painting as the evil THEM. One of the videos I painfully watched (can't fairly mock something sight unseen) did exactly that.

I remember that somebody published a paper, some 30 years ago or so, describing dozens of microscopic princesses, horsemen, dragons, etc. found fossilized in sediment samples. Naturally, they were all microscopic mineral concretions, hand-picked among thousands of other randomly shaped concretions just because they resembled the shapes of this type of things. Nonetheless the author or authors did manage to get a paper with SEM images of these things published in some science journal, probably not a very respectable one, or one that ordinarily did not publish about micropaleontology.

The principle is the same as when people stare at the (randomly shaped) clouds in the sky, until they see one that reminds them of a familiar shape (the recognition is often automatic rather than a conscious process, and can startle the watcher for this reason). For the same reason an unexperienced microscopist looking at crystal structures would doubtlessly "discover" random shapes resembling syringes, catheters, test tubes and other medical items, or geometric patterns that may look technological to an untrained eye but are just ubiquitous natural self-assembling structures.

I cannot find any reference to this paper about microscopic princesses etc. In its day, it was met with ridicule by professional micropaleontologists (as it should have), but for this very reason it ended up being quoted numerous times in the scientific literature. Does anybody remember anything about this paper and its authors?

[karhukainen]

Hilarious stuff! I actually need to create images that resemble the ones (the "nano chip" stuff) in the beginning of this site. What kind of substances might give good results?

[xioz]

Excellent rebuttal dtsh!

I like kkkwj claim of "two years of research" and references to "Internet search skills". Conspiracy minded people have started encouraging people do do their own research because some people will find these sites and fall down the rabbit hole like they did, and this way they don't have to defend their claims in a public forum.

My working definition is that "True research" is very difficult without guidance, criticism and training from peers & experts and without being systematic and good at documenting any findings. There are so many pitfalls /traps you can fall into, it seems to me.