Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser
Lucky Dip
- Details
- Category: Lucky Dip
- Hits: 1485
2022-06-07
We spend a lot of time promoting freedom and decrying those people and concepts that limit our freedom, but what does it mean to be truly free?
We also spend a lot of time suggesting that we should make up our own mind about the articles and information that comes our way, because our freedom to choose wisely is totally dependent upon our ability to discern truth from falsehood and to interpret correctly those nuances of meaning that might not be entirely familiar to us.
Freedom is of little use if we cannot discern the truth upon which to base our decision-making, so meaningful freedom requires access to truth, which these days appears to be deliberately hedged about on many major issues of the day by the authorities.
Socrates is reported by Plato to have believed that he knew nothing, and that is a concept rooted in the logic that all our senses can be deceived, and that any article on the internet and traditional media could be fake news!
But then we have undoubted (?) instances of intuition, extra-sensory perception, call it what you will, that perhaps most of us have on rare occasion, and some more frequently than others. Do these provide a tantalising clue that perhaps we have other means at our disposal to (at least sometimes) catch a direct glimpse of a truth that wasn't otherwise apparent?
No doubt we could argue about that for days but what if there might actually be a scientific explanation for such glimpses? What if we could train our minds to seek them out?
That would be a whole new ball-game!
Dowsing is a case in point.
It is well known that some people dowse for water, some others are said to dowse for all kinds of things - buried pipes, cables being an obvious example.
They don't always use the traditional dowsing rods, some can dowse for stuff using a pendulum and don't even have to be on location but can dowse over a map! Some even dowse for ley lines (whatever they may be).
As a total failure at dowsing I'm not qualified to comment, but I have come to the understanding that if you can train your subconscious mind to indicate a yes/no result (eg: by affecting the swing of a pendulum suspended from the fingers) then you can ask your subconscious any yes/no question and it will give you the answer.
That implies that our subconscious mind has access to a trove of information - sometimes referred to as the akashic records - that we could tap into if only it could speak back to our conscious mind - so we devise work-arounds to enable our subconscious to communicate.
Is dowsing scientific? Surely if it works, then "science" should be able to offer an explanation for it or "science" must be regarded as incomplete.
OK - are you ready to follow the science to the next level? Prepare for take-off ...
(79 minutes)
Like / Dislike this video here.
- Details
- Category: Lucky Dip
- Hits: 4673
2022-06-05
Some of us "know", and some of us are beginning to suspect, and some of us think it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory that can safely be ignored.
However far down this rabbit hole you have ventured (or not), this presentation will likely cause you to reassess your viewpoint - always assuming of course that it isn't faked ... but wouldn't that ... ?
(2 hrs 17 mins)
- Details
- Category: Lucky Dip
- Hits: 1261
2022-06-04
It's taken him 15 years to note these but it's nevertheless a rather good collection of truths about humanity that maybe we would rather not recognise.
It's a lighthearted ramble around the human psyche and entertainingly presented - watch, laugh, and ruefully admit that - yes - as Dr Kiosk used to declaim as everybody made a dash for the doors ... "We Are ALL GUILTY" !
- Details
- Category: Lucky Dip
- Hits: 2289
2022-05-29
Water has one oxygen atom, peroxides have two, and now trioxides which have three have been discovered to exist in our atmosphere, at least temporarily, under some conditions.
But before we press the panic button, blame chemtrail aerosols, or otherwise jump to incorrect conclusions:
"These compounds have always been around -- we just didn't know about them"
Huh? If you didn't know about them, how can you say they were always around? Maybe they were, but maybe this observation isn't science.
"But the fact that we now have evidence that the compounds are formed and live for a certain amount of time means that it is possible to study their effect more targeted and respond if they turn out to be dangerous"
" ... there could be plenty of other things in the air that we don't yet know about. Indeed, the air surrounding us is a huge tangle of complex chemical reactions ... "
... hard to disagree one might think, especially since jets started leaving huge trails in the sky that spread all over to blot out the sunshine.
"The research team also has the trioxides under strong suspicion of being able to penetrate into tiny airborne particles, known as aerosols, which pose a health hazard and can lead to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases"
"While aerosols also have an impact on climate, they are one of the things that are most difficult to describe in climate models. And according to the researchers, there is a high probability that hydrotrioxides impact how many aerosols are produced"
So the science isn't up to predicting the effect of these geoengineering chemtrails. Why am I not reassured?
"It's quite significant that we can now show, through direct observation, that these compounds actually form in the atmosphere, that they are surprisingly stable and that they are formed from almost all chemical compounds. All speculation must now be put to rest"
But wait ...
"these experiments are performed in an environment that is nearly identical to the atmosphere, which makes the results very reliable and comparable to the atmosphere. Measuring the hydrotrioxides was made possible by using incredibly sensitive measuring instruments"
Ah, so they didn't actually measure the real atmosphere, they simulated the atmosphere in a lab and extrapolated the results - which rather begs the question, how many different parts of the atmosphere did they simulate in the course of these experiments, how many of the infinitely variable factors (changes of pressure, solar radiation, cosmic rays, volcanic eruptions, jet trails etc etc) did they take into account?
- Details
- Category: Lucky Dip
- Hits: 1314
2022-05-24
I found this clip stirred memories for me, as in 1968 I had already been trained as a new-fangled "computer programmer" and I was about to start a sandwich course at a polytechnic for a BSc in "Computer Science and Data Processing" (which turned out to be more like Maths and Stats with some computing thrown in as an afterthought).
Looking back to those days I would have rejected out of hand the idea that a computer could control anybody, even in the relatively elementary manner posited - they were nowhere near sufficiently sophisticated, there was no internet, and although radio comms as a technology was clearly feasible it certainly lacked the coverage (unless the controlled person would be held in confinement).
We could just about run a payroll for a large corporation after months / years of development and testing, on machines that read their data off punched cards and then stored it on magnetic tapes - no ubiquitous discs for us at that time. Happy days!
Of course the technologies may have been kept secret for military / black ops purposes. Whilst still a student I joined the local TA as signaller in an artillery regiment. They already had comparatively physically small (compared with a commercial machines) fire control computers installed in the mobile command post. They still required the gunners to set up and aim, load and fire the guns manually, and their interface with the operator was still a technical process that was computer-oriented rather than operator-oriented. I'm assuming that as TA we were not exactly at the forefront in deploying technology, so the real army would have been given more advanced kit.
All of which is only to say that the BBC clip is more likely to be a glimpse of things then still to come rather than a statement of existing technology at that time. Still, the idea that the mentioned "deception" was just as much a hoax as the "moon landings" hadn't occurred to me, and still seems implausible ... but we are learning to challenge more "facts" every day, aren't we?
Enjoy:
(28 minutes)
Like / Dislike this video here.
- If you Like a Traditional English Cuppa ...
- Down the Rabbit Hole 8 - Halls of Records
- Down the Rabbit Hole 7 - The Conscious Cosmos
- Space Travel - Where Are We?
- The Higher Calling
- Do the Vatican's Astronomers Hold The Key?
- "Unveiling the Fundamental Mystery of the Universe"
- 5D or 5G? Scientific or Spiritual?
- Seen it Before? - Somewhere?
- Dark to Light - The Great Awakening in 8 Minutes
