EMF Exposure

[dugdeep]

You can watch the documentary 'Resonance - Beings of Frequency' on Youtube, just do the search there with these keywords "resonance beings frequency" (without the quotes) and check the video length to be just one hour and 28 minutes.

Ytain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5vb9R0x_0NQ

 

[LQB]

You can watch the documentary 'Resonance - Beings of Frequency' on Youtube, just do the search there with these keywords "resonance beings frequency" (without the quotes) and check the video length to be just one hour and 28 minutes.

Ytain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5vb9R0x_0NQ

Thanks much guys - I didn't think of searching YT!

 

[LQB]

You can watch the documentary 'Resonance - Beings of Frequency' on Youtube, just do the search there with these keywords "resonance beings frequency" (without the quotes) and check the video length to be just one hour and 28 minutes.

Ytain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5vb9R0x_0NQ

Very good film - I highly recommend it - and a good one to pass around. Prof Denis Henshaw makes a good showing in it!

 

[Scottie]

At 50/60Hz, the current travels on the surface of my skin (just like current on a wire travels on the surface of the wire). At these frequencies I look like a metal conductor. If I ground myself, this current goes up by a factor of 65. No harm though because this current passes on to ground. But the high frequency noise does not pass to ground - it is absorbed in tissue because I no longer look like a good conductor - more like a big resistor. So energy is absorbed in my body at the higher noise frequencies, and 65 times higher (in this example) if I ground myself.

Well, at 60Hz, the skin depth for copper wire is about 8.5mm. Given that the norm for carrying 20A max is 2.5mm2 wire, that would mean that the diameter of the wire is 1.78mm, which is way less than the skin depth. At 50Hz, the skin effect is even lower in a copper wire. At 1GHz, it's a whole other story. Skin effect is a function of the frequency and the conductor.

As for the human body, I'm not even sure how to begin modeling it as a conductor. It's clear that EM waves at different frequencies will have some effect (especially on the brain as we have seen), but there are so many variables to consider, and the body is so NOT a homogeneous conductor, that personally I don't even know where to start.

This is why I think grounding yourself in the home for long periods habitually is not good.

I also think this whole "let's ground ourselves while we sleep" thing is a bit fishy. The main reason is that "ground" is not 0V. The 120V or 230V AC that comes out of your wall socket is 120V or 230V relative to the earth. But, we strongly suspect that we're living in an electric universe. It seems likely that much of the "opening up" of the earth lately is due to changes in current flows due to foreign objects entering the solar capacitor. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but then the question remains: Is there another current flow at the next level up from the solar system. What is it? Where does it come from? What effect does it have?

Well, that's another kettle of fish, so back to the earth "opening up"... If the overall charge on the earth itself is changing, then how do we know that "grounding" ourselves isn't a BAD idea? It's possible that when the earth is over/undercharged, it's bad for us just as it seems to be bad for the earth (unless you like sinkholes, earthquakes, and so on). Perhaps during "normal" times, physically grounding ourselves to the earth is good, but maybe it isn't right now? I really don't know.

I guess I have 2 main points:
1. Be very wary of anyone selling you something to fix a problem that they quite obviously don't fully understand
2. When even our DNA appears to have a strong electrical component, maybe this is not something we want to experiment with too wildly. I would first get my body in good shape with a better diet so that I was more healthy, resilient, and prepared for whatever madness comes next.

But, that's just me.

 

[LQB]

At 50/60Hz, the current travels on the surface of my skin (just like current on a wire travels on the surface of the wire). At these frequencies I look like a metal conductor. If I ground myself, this current goes up by a factor of 65. No harm though because this current passes on to ground. But the high frequency noise does not pass to ground - it is absorbed in tissue because I no longer look like a good conductor - more like a big resistor. So energy is absorbed in my body at the higher noise frequencies, and 65 times higher (in this example) if I ground myself.

Well, at 60Hz, the skin depth for copper wire is about 8.5mm. Given that the norm for carrying 20A max is 2.5mm2 wire, that would mean that the diameter of the wire is 1.78mm, which is way less than the skin depth. At 50Hz, the skin effect is even lower in a copper wire. At 1GHz, it's a whole other story. Skin effect is a function of the frequency and the conductor.

My understanding of skin depth is that it refers to the penetration of the material due to impinging RF TEM wave at that frequency. These considerations are used (for example) to specify the thickness of a metal room/walls to attenuate the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) due to nuclear blast. The gauge (thickness) of a wire for a given current capacity is driven by the external surface area of the wire. This is why, for very high current applications, bundles of very small diameter wires are used - the effective surface area for current flow is huge compared to a single large wire of the bundle diameter.

As for the human body, I'm not even sure how to begin modeling it as a conductor. It's clear that EM waves at different frequencies will have some effect (especially on the brain as we have seen), but there are so many variables to consider, and the body is so NOT a homogeneous conductor, that personally I don't even know where to start.

You model the body as an amalgamation of materials, water, dielectric, etc. You the model the circuit and the source (capacitive coupling), and then numerically compute the frequency response in terms of absorption (in the body) and transmission to ground. There is a clear transition between absorption and transmission in the neighborhood of 2KHz - for capacitive coupling. I have not seen the data but I'm sure that David Stetzer has chosen his filter/meter cutoffs correctly.

This capacitive coupling is not the same mechanism as an incident wave in free space. The home/grid wiring is not matched to free space, so EM radiation does not occur. EM radiation does occur in the case of a cell phone because the antenna is matched to free space impedance and energy from the battery is radiated to free space via the transmitter at RF. When you put the cell phone next to your head, your head is in the very near field of the antenna and subject to a radial component of the EM field (not to mention a healthy fraction of the entire radiated power). In this case it is easier to just measure the energy absorbed in a physical model of the human head in an RF anechoic chamber (specific absorption ratio - SAR) - as presented in the video linked above.

This is why I think grounding yourself in the home for long periods habitually is not good.

I also think this whole "let's ground ourselves while we sleep" thing is a bit fishy. The main reason is that "ground" is not 0V. The 120V or 230V AC that comes out of your wall socket is 120V or 230V relative to the earth. But, we strongly suspect that we're living in an electric universe. It seems likely that much of the "opening up" of the earth lately is due to changes in current flows due to foreign objects entering the solar capacitor. Well, that's all fine and dandy, but then the question remains: Is there another current flow at the next level up from the solar system. What is it? Where does it come from? What effect does it have?

I think you can say that just the threat from high frequency noise on the grid is well-established in the current epidemiological evidence, and enough to discourage "grounding" in the home grid environment for extended periods.

Well, that's another kettle of fish, so back to the earth "opening up"... If the overall charge on the earth itself is changing, then how do we know that "grounding" ourselves isn't a BAD idea? It's possible that when the earth is over/undercharged, it's bad for us just as it seems to be bad for the earth (unless you like sinkholes, earthquakes, and so on). Perhaps during "normal" times, physically grounding ourselves to the earth is good, but maybe it isn't right now? I really don't know.

The question might be, what is the voltage of earth ground relative to, say, Venus or cometary incoming, and does this matter? I would think so especially if plasma discharge was going on. There is also the possibility of interaction with the grid itself. So I don't know either.

 

[LQB]

My understanding of skin depth is that it refers to the penetration of the material due to impinging RF TEM wave at that frequency. These considerations are used (for example) to specify the thickness of a metal room/walls to attenuate the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) due to nuclear blast. The gauge (thickness) of a wire for a given current capacity is driven by the external surface area of the wire. This is why, for very high current applications, bundles of very small diameter wires are used - the effective surface area for current flow is huge compared to a single large wire of the bundle diameter.

Skin depth is used a lot in printed and microwave circuits to evaluate losses and aid design.

As applied to shielding effectiveness, here is a quote from: _http://xfel.desy.de/localfsExplorer_read?currentPath=/afs/desy.de/group/xfel/wof/WPG/WPG04-operation//wp39-emc/Basics/Kapitza-Shielding_Remarks.pdf

Shielding effectiveness is a measure of the reduction in magnetic and/or electric field strength caused by a shield.
The incident wave is partially reflected from a metal barrier at each interface, with a reflection coefficient that depends on a ratio of wave impedance to metal impedance. Inside the metal, the wave is attenuated at a rate of ~9 dB per skin depth.

It is the impedance mismatch (reflection) at the interface that gives the most protection at low RF.

The power companies are also very much concerned with losses over the long haul. Here is a statement from: _http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/skindepth.cfm

There may be some small savings on resistance due to skin depth but considering there is no electric field between the adjacent lines (in the same phase), this would not justify the added expense. The reason for using multiple cables on a single phase is to increase the equivalent radius (aka GMR, geometric mean radius) of the cable. This in turn both raises the distributed capacitance and increases the breakdown voltage (the sharper the edge, the lower the breakdown voltage). Thus, two small, cheap cables are electrically the same as a thick, expensive cable.

Where skin depth does help in 60 Hz power transmission is in cable strength. Rather than make the cables out of pure aluminum, a steel core is added for strength. Since steel has a non-unity relative permeability, this has a significant effect on skin depth. The 60 Hz power guide is kept mainly in the aluminum outer cladding while the core provides the physical backing for the cable.

 

[Scottie]

Skin depth is used a lot in printed and microwave circuits to evaluate losses and aid design.

Yeah, this is where I'm most familiar with the concept.

As applied to shielding effectiveness, here is a quote from: _http://xfel.desy.de/localfsExplorer_read?currentPath=/afs/desy.de/group/xfel/wof/WPG/WPG04-operation//wp39-emc/Basics/Kapitza-Shielding_Remarks.pdf

Shielding effectiveness is a measure of the reduction in magnetic and/or electric field strength caused by a shield.
The incident wave is partially reflected from a metal barrier at each interface, with a reflection coefficient that depends on a ratio of wave impedance to metal impedance. Inside the metal, the wave is attenuated at a rate of ~9 dB per skin depth.

Here, I don't know very much, but I do know it's really not a simple thing to shield something effectively. Most people have this idea that if they just wrap their house in aluminum foil and ground it, they're done. No way, Jose! :)

Where skin depth does help in 60 Hz power transmission is in cable strength. Rather than make the cables out of pure aluminum, a steel core is added for strength. Since steel has a non-unity relative permeability, this has a significant effect on skin depth. The 60 Hz power guide is kept mainly in the aluminum outer cladding while the core provides the physical backing for the cable.

For high-current lines that would necessarily be much thicker than household wiring, this makes a lot of sense, and is actually pretty clever.

Well, anyway, I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion or anything. Carry on then!

 

[LQB]

Just a note to beware this document that attempts to describe why earthing oneself in the home is a good thing:

www.earthinginstitute.net/statements/understanding_earthing.pdf

Understanding Earthing (Grounding)
Gaétan Chevalier, Ph.D., and James L. Oschman, Ph.D.

This is a "white paper" not published in any Journal. It looks to be more of a political statement in favor of "earthing" oneself in the home. The authors clearly do not understand what they are discussing - and the paper contains some major BS. The fact that this even exists raises a big red flag planted squarely on "earthing oneself in the home".

 

[dugdeep]

Just a note to beware this document that attempts to describe why earthing oneself in the home is a good thing:

www.earthinginstitute.net/statements/understanding_earthing.pdf

Understanding Earthing (Grounding)
Gaétan Chevalier, Ph.D., and James L. Oschman, Ph.D.

This is a "white paper" not published in any Journal. It looks to be more of a political statement in favor of "earthing" oneself in the home. The authors clearly do not understand what they are discussing - and the paper contains some major BS. The fact that this even exists raises a big red flag planted squarely on "earthing oneself in the home".

Here's the thing, LQB - this paper you've linked to is straight-forward using easy to understand language that explains logically why earthing is a good thing. It's referenced, it makes sense. All the detractor information presented here and that I've found online essentially requires a Phd in electrical engineering to understand. So I'm left in a tough position. On the one hand, I'm noticing a personal benefit from earthing and can understand logically why that is, given the information like that in the paper you've linked to and in the "Earthing" book. On the other hand, "LQB says this is bad," but I have no ability to decode why that is, and won't be able to without a serious investment of time and resources into studying electrical theory. So far I'm not really seeing a reason why I should stop this earthing experiment, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is because of my ignorance. So I'll ask - is there any straight-forward information, understandable to the layman, of why earthing in the home is a bad thing?

And while I'm at it, I'll add these questions - is what you're talking about, the negatives, only a potential for complications in earthing or is it straight up bad for everyone in all situations? Are there no benefits, even in potential? What about this paper is BS? Why is it "obvious" that the authors don't know what they're talking about? How do detractors explain the benefits people seem to be experiencing from earthing?

 

[LQB]

Just a note to beware this document that attempts to describe why earthing oneself in the home is a good thing:

www.earthinginstitute.net/statements/understanding_earthing.pdf

Understanding Earthing (Grounding)
Gaétan Chevalier, Ph.D., and James L. Oschman, Ph.D.

This is a "white paper" not published in any Journal. It looks to be more of a political statement in favor of "earthing" oneself in the home. The authors clearly do not understand what they are discussing - and the paper contains some major BS. The fact that this even exists raises a big red flag planted squarely on "earthing oneself in the home".

Here's the thing, LQB - this paper you've linked to is straight-forward using easy to understand language that explains logically why earthing is a good thing. It's referenced, it makes sense. All the detractor information presented here and that I've found online essentially requires a Phd in electrical engineering to understand. So I'm left in a tough position. On the one hand, I'm noticing a personal benefit from earthing and can understand logically why that is, given the information like that in the paper you've linked to and in the "Earthing" book. On the other hand, "LQB says this is bad," but I have no ability to decode why that is, and won't be able to without a serious investment of time and resources into studying electrical theory. So far I'm not really seeing a reason why I should stop this earthing experiment, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is because of my ignorance. So I'll ask - is there any straight-forward information, understandable to the layman, of why earthing in the home is a bad thing?

And while I'm at it, I'll add these questions - is what you're talking about, the negatives, only a potential for complications in earthing or is it straight up bad for everyone in all situations? Are there no benefits, even in potential? What about this paper is BS? Why is it "obvious" that the authors don't know what they're talking about? How do detractors explain the benefits people seem to be experiencing from earthing?

dd, I think I have said that, based on the studies I have seen, earthing is probably a good thing and can help many with chronic complaints. These studies took some care to isolate and install a dedicated/shielded ground for the experiments. They probably took other measures that weren't mentioned. What I am saying is that using the house ground in the home grid environment exposes one to risks, and that one should be aware of these before/during any personal application.

The biggest risk (imo) is increasing the coupling of the home grid noise to your body through contact with the ground. I have suggested that folks measure and minimize this before sleeping on a ground sheet. I think you have done this, so this risk may not apply to you. I also said that I was not asking you to stop experimentation if you perceive benefit, but maybe limit exposure in terms of chronic long-term use. The mechanism of harm (through coupling to the home grid) may be entirely different that the mechanism for benefit from the ground - and it makes sense to minimize the known harmful one. So, I think you are in good shape to continue and maybe optimize your setup when/if you move to new quarters.

The problem I have with the paper is that the authors suggest that the 50/60Hz radiates from the home grid wiring - it does not. The mechanism is capacitive coupling through the electric field produced through unshielded wiring and receptacles. In order for the home wiring to radiate (couple to free space and radiate as RF) there must be an impedance match to free space just like the antenna on your cell phone. The home grid does not act like an antenna (except at high frequencies and fortuitous geometries - rarely). The authors also suggest that filtering (a la GS/GW filters) is not of benefit. There is much epidemiological evidence to the contrary, that they do not address.

If you want me to, I'll take the paper point by point.

 

[dugdeep]

Just a note to beware this document that attempts to describe why earthing oneself in the home is a good thing:

www.earthinginstitute.net/statements/understanding_earthing.pdf

Understanding Earthing (Grounding)
Gaétan Chevalier, Ph.D., and James L. Oschman, Ph.D.

This is a "white paper" not published in any Journal. It looks to be more of a political statement in favor of "earthing" oneself in the home. The authors clearly do not understand what they are discussing - and the paper contains some major BS. The fact that this even exists raises a big red flag planted squarely on "earthing oneself in the home".

Here's the thing, LQB - this paper you've linked to is straight-forward using easy to understand language that explains logically why earthing is a good thing. It's referenced, it makes sense. All the detractor information presented here and that I've found online essentially requires a Phd in electrical engineering to understand. So I'm left in a tough position. On the one hand, I'm noticing a personal benefit from earthing and can understand logically why that is, given the information like that in the paper you've linked to and in the "Earthing" book. On the other hand, "LQB says this is bad," but I have no ability to decode why that is, and won't be able to without a serious investment of time and resources into studying electrical theory. So far I'm not really seeing a reason why I should stop this earthing experiment, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that this is because of my ignorance. So I'll ask - is there any straight-forward information, understandable to the layman, of why earthing in the home is a bad thing?

And while I'm at it, I'll add these questions - is what you're talking about, the negatives, only a potential for complications in earthing or is it straight up bad for everyone in all situations? Are there no benefits, even in potential? What about this paper is BS? Why is it "obvious" that the authors don't know what they're talking about? How do detractors explain the benefits people seem to be experiencing from earthing?

dd, I think I have said that, based on the studies I have seen, earthing is probably a good thing and can help many with chronic complaints. These studies took some care to isolate and install a dedicated/shielded ground for the experiments. They probably took other measures that weren't mentioned. What I am saying is that using the house ground in the home grid environment exposes one to risks, and that one should be aware of these before/during any personal application.

The biggest risk (imo) is increasing the coupling of the home grid noise to your body through contact with the ground. I have suggested that folks measure and minimize this before sleeping on a ground sheet. I think you have done this, so this risk may not apply to you. I also said that I was not asking you to stop experimentation if you perceive benefit, but maybe limit exposure in terms of chronic long-term use. The mechanism of harm (through coupling to the home grid) may be entirely different that the mechanism for benefit from the ground - and it makes sense to minimize the known harmful one. So, I think you are in good shape to continue and maybe optimize your setup when/if you move to new quarters.

The problem I have with the paper is that the authors suggest that the 50/60Hz radiates from the home grid wiring - it does not. The mechanism is capacitive coupling through the electric field produced through unshielded wiring and receptacles. In order for the home wiring to radiate (couple to free space and radiate as RF) there must be an impedance match to free space just like the antenna on your cell phone. The home grid does not act like an antenna (except at high frequencies and fortuitous geometries - rarely). The authors also suggest that filtering (a la GS/GW filters) is not of benefit. There is much epidemiological evidence to the contrary, that they do not address.

If you want me to, I'll take the paper point by point.

Thanks LQB. I don't think the point by point analysis is necessary. I guess some of my frustration was coming out in my last post. All this information is difficult to try to keep straight.

On a different note, I actually got some greenwave filters, on your recommendation, and am quite happy with them. I did a few tests comparing the Stetzer to the GW and they do seem to work better (plus you don't lose an outlet). I've got my freezer and laptop powerbar going through the filters now, which helps lower the dirty electricity load considerably, according to the Stetzer meter.

Anyway, I didn't want to imply that the information you're giving here isn't appreciated, because it is. I guess I just feel a bit invested in this stuff and am hoping I'm not throwing money down the toilet :/

 

[LQB]

Thanks LQB. I don't think the point by point analysis is necessary. I guess some of my frustration was coming out in my last post. All this information is difficult to try to keep straight.

It is difficult to keep straight - there is a real jungle out there in the anti-EMF world and a huge amount of money to be made. Most folks do not understand the various EMF source mechanisms or the conditions/mechanisms under which anti-EMF devices work, don't work, or make things worse. The reason I'm going into all of this is not to point a finger at you - it is to help others understand these mechanisms so that they can make informed choices.

On a side note, I talked with a distributor/reseller of GW filters who also sells the grounding units. He had some of the same concerns I have mentioned regarding the risks. He asked the manufacturer to add a (short) list of warnings - naturally (as expected), the manufacturer refused.

On a different note, I actually got some greenwave filters, on your recommendation, and am quite happy with them. I did a few tests comparing the Stetzer to the GW and they do seem to work better (plus you don't lose an outlet). I've got my freezer and laptop powerbar going through the filters now, which helps lower the dirty electricity load considerably, according to the Stetzer meter.

Excellent! What were your average before/after readings? Check the sockets in your bedroom as well since this is where you use the grounding sheet. You could also ask building management for the electrical layout of your unit - which circuits are on separate breakers?. Your panel box should be near your meter (wherever that is).

Anyway, I didn't want to imply that the information you're giving here isn't appreciated, because it is. I guess I just feel a bit invested in this stuff and am hoping I'm not throwing money down the toilet :/

Well, you are a researcher/experimenter in this home grounding, and in that sense, your experience is valuable to others - so in either case (good/bad/indifferent) you are not throwing your money down the toilet. :)

Keep us informed as time goes on.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

[quote author=Gertrudes]
[quote author=parallel]
Barrie Trower, former MI5 agent, that was mentioned here is interviewed by white.tv. He talks about how agencies target groups and individuals, but also talks about genetic EMF damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxrBLO1rAMM&feature=share

Although very distressful to watch, at least for me, I found it well worth it.
[/quote]

Watched this last night and as you said, it was, for me too, very distressful. Seems this interview followed a conference in Sweden and i made a few point notes (these are not actual verbatim quotes and did not continuously take notes - likely some errors here):

- Gives some history over the last 60 years.

- Target people at low levels over 16 months – 2 years.

- Dangerous frequencies – all countries were experimenting, as they are today – had list of 50 indices - hertz/pulses per second - 6.6 = sexual aggression et al. Glands, Heart. I knew then about 30 pulses, now there are 600.

- Delivered (simple he says), to anybody, anywhere, by any government, day or night, while you are sleeping...

- Through walls, concrete, almost anything.

- Hundreds of thousands are targeted. It is incredibly easy, breaking the average person down in just 30 hours – you are hallucinating. Synthetic telepathy (microwaves) to the brain – can say anything - plant voices about anything in anybody – you will come to rely on this voice – like heroin.

- Can’t prove anything – you are just mad, locked away.

- Discussed someone he knew who was killed; possibly this way. [reminded me of Dr Kelly (who knows)].

- There are people who can resist.

- % who can or can’t? I know that they took 500,000 people – they did not publish (10% not, 80-90% can - not really sure).

- 1960’s – 30,000 soldiers (English) injected with toxins – much suffering in life and then agenizing death. The few (handful) that remand, sued the English government and not one scientist can be named – they have total anonymity – they can kill for the government and never be named. Same with CIA, MKUltra program et al.

- About Princess Dianna – he says MI5/MI6 would never allow, via the monarchy, her to marry or have child with a Muslim – the Monarchy is a business.

- To deflect waves – the only way is to have something like an enormous gravitational field – really something (speed of light) would be a black hole around your neck. Possibly something to jamb, sending something out, can neutralize or deflect.

- Discussion about Neutrinos...

- Cell Phones & Routers = our brains are like water, effect ripples - beams change the cells, the induction (33:00min.).

- Microwaves effect bees and ants – navigational fields collapse in the brain – animals get lost or leave the field. There are mass agricultural implications.

- Experiments carried out with pregnant woman – miscarriages 57 % at low levels. In schools, on girls (WiFi), they will have later risks; dna disruption; their eggs suffer 10 times more than any other dna. It carries along down the line until there is no more line. Boys are slightly different because of production at intervals, but sperm can be damaged.

- Scalar waves collect neutrinos – new systems; if it does work. (related to new technologies).

- The perfect sports drug – produces adrenalin; cortisone. Target adrenals and other glands. Use gun/scope type apparatus - Just takes a few seconds to produce these effects – discusses thinking while watching the Olympics why England so excelled…

[...] stopped notes.

- He ends with what we should do and blasts our systems of controls and the lies upon lies that have become the norm.
[/quote]



Wow, great job finding this video! Just read your notes and boy, I'll watch this video as soon as I have enough time because I need an update on this.

And as I am writing these lines, I can see the huge cell phone tower on the top of the Mount Royal (in Montréal) just by looking through the window (I'm on a 5th floor so I can see quite far). Yep, 35,000 micro watts per square meter downtown Montréal. That is waaayyyy too much. I can almost hear their brains frying from here.

*Sigh*

 

[Deleted member 8431]

Very interesting - and frightening - video.

The discussion about scalar waves and neutrinos caught my attention.

This session came right away to my mind when he discusses them.

Session 27 May 2000

(L) Moving along to the next question: we have been discussing memories and how memories of, say, past lives are stored, and that leads to the question of what is the structure and composition of the soul? How does the soul remember? How does it carry its memories from lifetime to lifetime, from body to body, whether simultaneous or sequential? How does the soul "store" them?

A: Has to do with atomic principles. These with gravity present the borderland for the material and the nonmaterial. Which theoretical atomic particulates would you think form the basis here?

Q: (L) How about tachyons?

A: Maybe neutrons?

Q: (A) Neutrons? Or neutrinos?

A: Neutrinos.

Q: (A) Well, first they say neutrons, then neutrinos. Or "maybe neutrons." I say "neutrinos" and they say "yes." So a "maybe" is only a pointer. Neutrinos are funny particles because they are massless. But, some people don't believe that neutrinos exist. My guess would be neutrinos. Do they exist?

A: Okay, we are going to throw caution to the "winds," and say yes. [Laughter.]

Q: (L) In terms of these neutrinos and soul composition, how are memories formed or held or patterned with these neutrinos?

A: Contained within for release when and if suitable.

Q: (L) Memories are contained within the neutrinos?

A: Sort of.

Q: (L) Are they contained within patterns formed by the neutrinos?

A: Closer.

Q: (L) So, that means that if one "consciousness unit," or soul, has more memories or experiences than another consciousness unit, it would have more neutrinos?

A: No.

Q: (B) Different patterns?

A: No.

Q: (L) What's the difference?

A: More data per unit, sort of.

Q: (L) Does that mean that an individual neutrino can be, in and of itself, more "dense" in data, so to speak?

A: So to speak.

Q: (L) Does this increased density of data change the nature or function of the individual neutrino?

A: Maybe it changes the function of the awareness, thus the environs.

Q: (L) Is there a specific number of neutrinos that constitutes a consciousness unit, or soul?

A: Number is not quite the right concept. Orientation is closer.

Q: (L) What are the orientational options?

A: Vibrational frequencies.

Q: (L) Do the vibrational frequencies increase or decrease with density of data?

A: Change; better not to quantify.

Q: (A) We are talking about soul. Soul is what density, in concept?

A: Ark, are neutrinos related to the concept of a bridge into pure energy in some way?

Q: (A) Yes. I was going in that direction. I was wondering why you speak about neutrinos and not photons, because photons are also a bridge to pure energy, I would say. The difference between photons and neutrinos is that photons are bosons and neutrinos are fermions. Neutrinos have to dance so that they don't touch each other. Bosons are like pairs of neutrinos and photons, as bosons, are free to move in space any way they want.

A: We would mention photons in terms of this discussion, but for the tendency of some reading the WebPages to misinterpret in terms of the "love and light" fantastic.

Q: (L) Well, the "light fantastic" was a dance around the turn of the century, so that refers back to the remark about "dancing." (A) Are neutrinos the fundamental building blocks of everything? The most fundamental particle, so to speak?

A: More like a midpoint with spherical outward expansive quality. Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon.

Now this has me thinking a lot.

If indeed targeted people are still affected even being in a faraday cage, then it means something can pass right through.

I think there is more than just EMF involved here. And knowing how important neutrinos are according to the C's, I can only just barely immagine the concequences of being able to "manipulate them".

 

[Deleted member 8431]

You can watch the documentary 'Resonance - Beings of Frequency' on Youtube, just do the search there with these keywords "resonance beings frequency" (without the quotes) and check the video length to be just one hour and 28 minutes.

Ytain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5vb9R0x_0NQ

Very good film - I highly recommend it - and a good one to pass around. Prof Denis Henshaw makes a good showing in it!

Well I must say that this documentary is brilliant.

It puts so many things in perspective.

But quite frankly, at the same time, I realized that the EMF problem is FAR greater than I thought. It is actually disastrous. It literally is destroying life on this planet.

And just thinking that we are barely starting to see the concequences makes it even more terrible.

I just can't beleive that this is happening. How is that supposed not to bring us even closer to extinction? I have no idea.

Thanks for the link. I'll make sure to pass it out.