Featured Title:
Watchers of the Dawn DVD and ebook |
 |
| A History of Ancient Britain by Neil Oliver |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 158 guests and 6 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : davidmorgan , TimPrevett , Andy B , Klingon , MickM , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> Dowsing Avebury Stones Demonstration
|
 |
| Page 2 of 3 ( 1 | 2 | 3 ) |
| Author |
Dowsing Avebury Stones Demonstration |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 10-02-2013 at 20:01
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-10 18:42, cropredy wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-10 11:26, tiompan wrote:
Elijah ,
If reflected light from the moon can cause the rods to move then there are few places out of doors that will not produce the effect . That might make the dowsing experience even more open to interpretation .
If others can influence the rods to move why should the person holding the rods not be considered at least equally as influential ?
If others can influence the rods to move then is not possible that the sentry repeating your three step experience may have been influenced by you and not “old reflected moonbeams “ ?
If the three steps experience were caused by regularly spaced moon beams then transverse movement should result in noting diffraction , further the regular spacing would become less regular and shift in time due to the movement of the moon .
If you accept that others can influence the movement of the rods why not consider that you were the influence for the three step spacing , rather than moonbeams being the cause ?
George
|
|
Light is not reflecting or beaming at all.
That is merely the current indoctrination and accepted.
Light occurs, it does not travel, it occurs when counter rotating memory fields interact.
There is no light in space until another memory field is encountered, hence when anything is out in space light occurs locally relative to the counter memory fields, in our case the dominant memory field is the suns.
There is a vector created that appears as though it is a direct line from the sun, it is not, it is the consequence of the earths field meeting the suns field, hence why light is different at various locations between the poles and equator.
cropredy
|
|
The thread is about dowsing . Not about questioning the nature of light .If you happen to have any evidence to support Russelian beliefs like "light is not reflecting " then there are forums where that would be appropriate and any misunderstandings put right .
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-02-2013 at 20:27
Tiompan,
Thank You for Your most illuminating advice.
You are the one referencing "moonbeams", in response to the previous poster.
I will not reflect Your arrogance in telling You how many forums there are dedicated to light travelling at a set speed, as told by the plonker einstein.
I am certain You know them all.
Walter Russell was a very informed individual that recieved information at superluminal rate, and in whom I recognise many true realities, against the mass indoctrination of most .
cropredy
[ This message was edited by: cropredy on 2013-02-10 20:28 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-02-2013 at 22:18
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-10 20:27, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
Thank You for Your most illuminating advice.
You are the one referencing "moonbeams", in response to the previous poster.
I will not reflect Your arrogance in telling You how many forums there are dedicated to light travelling at a set speed, as told by the plonker einstein.
I am certain You know them all.
Walter Russell was a very informed individual that recieved information at superluminal rate, and in whom I recognise many true realities, against the mass indoctrination of most .
cropredy
[ This message was edited by: cropredy on 2013-02-10 20:28 ]
|
|
I didn't expect to hear anything in relation to the comments about dowsing or evidence to support the pseudoscience of Russel . Just the usual hollow comments about something you obviously don't understand .
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 13:01
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-10 22:18, tiompan wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-10 20:27, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
Thank You for Your most illuminating advice.
You are the one referencing "moonbeams", in response to the previous poster.
I will not reflect Your arrogance in telling You how many forums there are dedicated to light travelling at a set speed, as told by the plonker einstein.
I am certain You know them all.
Walter Russell was a very informed individual that recieved information at superluminal rate, and in whom I recognise many true realities, against the mass indoctrination of most .
cropredy
[ This message was edited by: cropredy on 2013-02-10 20:28 ]
|
|
I didn't expect to hear anything in relation to the comments about dowsing or evidence to support the pseudoscience of Russel . Just the usual hollow comments about something you obviously don't understand .
|
|
IMHO,
You have no method of knowing exactly what another poster knows relative to current accepted, or which may have been understood at the time of megalithic constructions.
Your above reply is offensive towards another poster and a personal attack .
IN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ...You can have whatever opinion You desire...as long as it is quite clearly stated that it is just YOUR , idea of another poster.
I am sick to the back teeth of Your continuous and never ending such comments directed towards Myself, along with several other posters who do and have done for years similer posts.
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 13:26
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 13:01, cropredy wrote:
You are the one referencing "moonbeams", in response to the previous poster.
I will not reflect Your arrogance in telling You how many forums there are dedicated to light travelling at a set speed, as told by the plonker einstein.
I am certain You know them all.
Walter Russell was a very informed individual that recieved information at superluminal rate, and in whom I recognise many true realities, against the mass indoctrination of most .
cropredy
[ This message was edited by: cropredy on 2013-02-10 20:28 ]
|
|
I didn't expect to hear anything in relation to the comments about dowsing or evidence to support the pseudoscience of Russel . Just the usual hollow comments about something you obviously don't understand .
[/quote]
IMHO,
You have no method of knowing exactly what another poster knows relative to current accepted, or which may have been understood at the time of megalithic constructions.
Your above reply is offensive towards another poster and a personal attack .
IN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ...You can have whatever opinion You desire...as long as it is quite clearly stated that it is just YOUR , idea of another poster.
I am sick to the back teeth of Your continuous and never ending such comments directed towards Myself, along with several other posters who do and have done for years similer posts.
kevin
[/quote]
This is supposed to be a discussion . Making comments like “I can communicate with hedgehogs “ or “ x is plonker “ without providing any evidence or supporting material is not discussing .
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 13:32
Dowsing is the natural ability to interact with wave fields.
Those fields can be detected and brought into a visual manner via the various devices utilised by dowsers.
Dowers are super sensitive to these wave fields, and learn through recognition what these different waves bring into the visual via the dowsers memory field which implodes and emmits via the palms of our hands.
Our natural condition is to think We see or feel or smell or hear, but these are only the dominant senses needed in 3D ....there are multiple further dimensions in the self same location as that 3D.
Light is not moving, it occurs relative to counter wave fronts meeting , the illusion to our dominant senses, and to current accepted sciences is of movement of light, and further ridiculously at a fixed rate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSC3m2a_sDU
Walter russell is difficult to grasp, except if You are a sensitive dowser that recognises what He was saying relative to what You detect.
The megalithic bulders will have had none of our current indoctrination , they will have had super senses and understandings of how nature operates via implosion, not the current crackpot explosion dead science.
cropredy
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 14:00
Tiompan,
In two of Your above posts YOU have basically suggested that I find other forums where light is discussed...in plain English You are saying...pissoff.
in the next post YOU talk of Russellian PSUEDOSCIENCE, which means that YOU demand that His comprehensions are not provable by the science YOU accept as the GOD science...the one and only science that You are a BELIEVER of.
Then You have the front to say this forum is about "discussion"
What Your super inflated EGO is blind to, is that it is You demanding that any discussion must adhere to Your god science, and only anything provable by that gods methods is allowable, or else You state such offensive garbage as You just have with the hollow ideas etc etc.
This thread is indeed about dowsing, the comprehension of which I am fairly certain I have a better grasp of than You.
I know You have a fabulous grasp of the said locations of rocks supposedly floating about in a vacuum, controlled by a none existant gravity.
I do not though keep telling You to go on other forums dedicated to such etc etc
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 17:01
You are still just making comments without anything to support them .
That is what distinguishes pseudoscience. The only connection is that one produces falsifiable data whilst the other doesn't . Russel was typical of those who use what appears to be science to bamboozle those who didn't have a clue .
Before you can point out the problems with the current understanding of light you have to have a grasp of that understanding . If you can't explain it simply ,and you never do , then you don't understand it .
Rather than divert this thread , I was suggesting that you take your understanding about light to a physics forum and they will show where you are going wrong long before you even manage to mention Russel .
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 18:20
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-14 16:05, hamish wrote:
Maria is a no nonsense Dowser,she says it as it is with no weird pseudo-scientific explanations.I have been round Avebury with her and Busty a few times,They say,this is what we do, try it.
I shall be back there again in April.
H
|
|
http://www.theaveburyexperience.co.uk/dowsingprofessionally.html
This is what they say ....I trust Tiompan will look at this to see if there is any pseudo science content????
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 18:32
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 17:01, tiompan wrote:
You are still just making comments without anything to support them .
That is what distinguishes pseudoscience. The only connection is that one produces falsifiable data whilst the other doesn't . Russel was typical of those who use what appears to be science to bamboozle those who didn't have a clue .
Before you can point out the problems with the current understanding of light you have to have a grasp of that understanding . If you can't explain it simply ,and you never do , then you don't understand it .
Rather than divert this thread , I was suggesting that you take your understanding about light to a physics forum and they will show where you are going wrong long before you even manage to mention Russel .
|
|
I AM NOT "DIVERTING THIS THREAD"
Other posters mentioned sensitive electromagnetic devices..moon beams etc.
YOU responded to Elijah about that post.
The origonal poster linked to some PROFFESIONAL DOWSERS.
They talk of EARTH ENERGIES.
Where in Your current science book do those origonate from, and how are they described in said book??
I was attempting to point out what imho is a total and complete missunderstanding of what light is, and moon beams come directly into that, as do so called earth energies.
To "DISCUSS" such one has to start somewhere, but You simply attack straight off accusing Me of pseudo science...along with another offensive poster called Hamish.
I look forward to Your scientific evaluation of the proffessional dowsers descriptions.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 20:54
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 18:32, cropredy wrote:
I was attempting to point out what imho is a total and complete missunderstanding of what light is, and moon beams come directly into that, as do so called earth energies.
cropredy
|
|
You made no attempt to explain why there is a misundersatnding ,you simply exclaimed "Light is not reflecting or beaming at all. " . That is not discussing .It is no different from saying " you are wrong " you have to explain why someone is wrong not simply say it . To do that you have to understand their point then show where they have gone wrong .In this case it would be about the nature of light . First you would have to understand current (had to say that ) thinking on the concept , I don't believe you do , but if you did then here is not the place to argue the point .Try it out it at a physics forum and then come back when you have refined it . If you evet do that , which I doubt , and understand where you have misunderstood you will see Russel's shortcomings .
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 21:24
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 20:54, tiompan wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 18:32, cropredy wrote:
I was attempting to point out what imho is a total and complete missunderstanding of what light is, and moon beams come directly into that, as do so called earth energies.
cropredy
|
|
You made no attempt to explain why there is a misundersatnding ,you simply exclaimed "Light is not reflecting or beaming at all. " . That is not discussing .It is no different from saying " you are wrong " you have to explain why someone is wrong not simply say it . To do that you have to understand their point then show where they have gone wrong .In this case it would be about the nature of light . First you would have to understand current (had to say that ) thinking on the concept , I don't believe you do , but if you did then here is not the place to argue the point .Try it out it at a physics forum and then come back when you have refined it . If you evet do that , which I doubt , and understand where you have misunderstood you will see Russel's shortcomings .
|
|
Russell with two LLs.
Your the one who is short.
Any comments on the proffesional dowsers???
Those who Hamish reckon are spot on, whilst I talk pseudoscience????
299792458 M/s....garbage.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 22:06
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 20:54, tiompan wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 18:32, cropredy wrote:
I was attempting to point out what imho is a total and complete missunderstanding of what light is, and moon beams come directly into that, as do so called earth energies.
cropredy
|
|
You made no attempt to explain why there is a misundersatnding ,you simply exclaimed "Light is not reflecting or beaming at all. " . That is not discussing .It is no different from saying " you are wrong " you have to explain why someone is wrong not simply say it . To do that you have to understand their point then show where they have gone wrong .In this case it would be about the nature of light . First you would have to understand current (had to say that ) thinking on the concept , I don't believe you do , but if you did then here is not the place to argue the point .Try it out it at a physics forum and then come back when you have refined it . If you evet do that , which I doubt , and understand where you have misunderstood you will see Russel's shortcomings .
|
|
Your talking tripe,
I have no need to comprehend something that is flawed to actually comprehend what I know is the true reality.
Your also giving partial quotes of what I have actually posted, and I have been attempting to specify how light actually occurs at boundery zones where wave fronts cross each other, but it is been deafened by your ego driven defense of a garbage assumption based so called scientific clap trap.
Russell produced great details about light, whilst your garbage science hasn't a single actual clue as to what light is, or life is, or basically anything.
Your science is a veil to suppress real knowledge, it is a recent creation, presented in a manner that no invidual is able to go against with high priests guarding the whole system and indoctrinating ever more mugs with false garbage.
Any idea what ENERGY is???
Those proffessional dowsers seem to know various forms of energies.
And they reckon they can tune their rods to alter energy lines.
EARTH ENERGIES is also to veil and constrain the realisation that the real so called energy is of universe, and is vibration based that induces love, has your garbage science any explanation of love??
John worrel Keely was the real deal, as was Russell, as was TT Brown.
Einstein was a total plonker.
But lets concentrate on the opening post of this thread, and our proffessional dowsers hamish so admires.
I await your comments on them instead of the continual personal attacks directed at myself, do You find their descriptions fit your sciences???
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2641
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-02-2013 at 23:06
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 21:24, cropredy wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 20:54, tiompan wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 18:32, cropredy wrote:
I was attempting to point out what imho is a total and complete missunderstanding of what light is, and moon beams come directly into that, as do so called earth energies.
cropredy
|
|
You made no attempt to explain why there is a misundersatnding ,you simply exclaimed "Light is not reflecting or beaming at all. " . That is not discussing .It is no different from saying " you are wrong " you have to explain why someone is wrong not simply say it . To do that you have to understand their point then show where they have gone wrong .In this case it would be about the nature of light . First you would have to understand current (had to say that ) thinking on the concept , I don't believe you do , but if you did then here is not the place to argue the point .Try it out it at a physics forum and then come back when you have refined it . If you evet do that , which I doubt , and understand where you have misunderstood you will see Russel's shortcomings .
|
|
Russell with two LLs.
Your the one who is short.
Any comments on the proffesional dowsers???
Those who Hamish reckon are spot on, whilst I talk pseudoscience????
299792458 M/s....garbage.
cropredy
|
|
You don't talk pseudoscience , you talk gobbledygook or spout comments with nothing to support them .
It's the stuff that you link to that is pseudoscience .
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-02-2013 at 00:28
I think we need a time out guys, this has descended into using multiple quotes which makes it hard for everyone to follow and there's a fair bit of ad hominem creeping in too.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-02-2013 at 08:19
Quote:
|
On 2013-02-11 18:20, cropredy wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-14 16:05, hamish wrote:
Maria is a no nonsense Dowser,she says it as it is with no weird pseudo-scientific explanations.I have been round Avebury with her and Busty a few times,They say,this is what we do, try it.
I shall be back there again in April.
H
|
|
http://www.theaveburyexperience.co.uk/dowsingprofessionally.html
This is what they say ....I trust Tiompan will look at this to see if there is any pseudo science content????
cropredy
|
|
Silence is golden.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-02-2013 at 11:08
Hi
I'm more interested in the Certificate of Dowsing that enables people to becaome insured as a profesional dowser.
Let's see what the problems are with this is shall we?
1. Certified by whom? There is no certifying academic institution behind the certificate; I could do that with a PC and a printer
2. You don't need a certificate to be insured. In fact as a “professional” the only insurance you need is public liability (which I note isn’t mentioned on the website so I hope they do have it if they give tours and courses)
3. You don’t need a certificate to call yourself a professional dowser as there is no professional body that regulates dowsers.
4. From the website it seems that the professional bit actually comes from charging people for the courses and authorship of books on dowsing etc.
This all makes me think why offer the certificate if it isn’t needed and doesn’t have any worth? Is it for the same reasons that the EM reading bit isn’t detailed enough to see if it has any credence? It smells very slightly of applying a layer of “establishment” over the course and the dowsing. The certification makes it seem as if there is an academic assessment and validation behind the course (which I don’t think there is) and the EM bit implies a scientific basis (which it doesn’t).
I hesitate to use the PS word but I’m worried that this approach is a science/academic veneer over belief based subjects.
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-02-2013 at 11:41
hi Karloff,
As ever, it's a tad more complicated than it seems on first glance.
2. You don't need a certificate to be insured. In fact as a “professional” the only insurance you need is public liability (which I note isn’t mentioned on the website so I hope they do have it if they give tours and courses)
You do need a certificate that's more than public liability if you are to practise, I found this for 'therapeutic dowsing'
>>Cover provided: Third party risks (ie. claims by clients and others against the therapist) including claims for loss and/or injury including legal costs in respect of:-
Section 1 Treatments risks
Product risks
Accidental injury and loss (Public liability)
Optional additional cover and policy extensions.
Section 2
All risks equipment & products protection. This section protects therapists' personal business equipment and products against loss or damage.
Policy extensions: An individual member's cover may be extended to include:-
1) Insurance for part-time teaching of their professional skills.
2) Insurance for practical work compiling case studies whilst taking a course leading to further practitioner qualifications.
The workplace : The policy is effective wherever the therapist chooses to work. this can include their own home, the client's home, salon, clinic, leisure centre, public hall etc. Treatments performed during demonstrations or lectures are also included.<<
3. You don’t need a certificate to call yourself a professional dowser as there is no professional body that regulates dowsers.
No, but there are, in line with all complementary therapies/practises, voluntary regulatory bodies which will be known to insurers. To obtain cover, you must be a "Qualified Practitioner" Not all certificated courses automatically mean "Qualification" or that you can be insured to practise afterwards, it's up to the student to check with the insurer beforehand whether that particular certificate is recognised by them or not.
Rune
[ This message was edited by: Runemage on 2013-02-12 11:54 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-02-2013 at 13:33
Listen carefully, I vill say ziz only once.
I agree with Karloff.
I going to lie down in a darkened room.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5527
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-02-2013 at 18:54
This is the place, are there any dowsing maps of it?
If not what about producing one?
http://www.avebury-web.co.uk/bhengemap2a.png
cropredy
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News