He used "control" 3 times in one paragraph. Obviously he thought that was right word. Nice try to cover for him though. Placebo has nothing to do with genetics. It's a psychological, likely even a chemical effect...but not genetic. Where are you learning basic science from? Also, you cannot influence your genetics consciously whether you are "mentally aware" of it or not.
Perhaps not directly, but I was merely using it as an example of mind over matter. Whether or not you can consciously influence genetic expression has yet to really be researched in depth, however I certainly don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility.
there's no research on it because it has absolutely no physical evidence of being a real thing. Well let me edit that a little, it has as much chance of being a real thing as emotions effecting the shape of ice crystals forming in water.
I'd highly suggest that you just tell me because I'm really high and not about to watch your stupid video....
You science heads are all retards! This has already been proven on this website here. DNA Activation " It is love that activates the information within the recessive genes[...]" And here 11:11 Phenomenon -11:11 Digital Time Code - Crystalinks And for the killing blow I have these here youtube videos. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCGioQYL5hs]Vogel Crystals and Apollo Crystals HOW TO the BASICS and Science of Crystal DNA Healing - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xSWfa3sPkY]Dr Marcel Vogel - Crystal usage technique - Phase 1 - YouTube[/ame] BAM! Science fails again!
It's been my intention here to keep Jason talking (and talking and talking) about his beliefs as long as possible so that we all have a chance to listen to the full reach of his theory in his own words rather than watching his movies. I think what he says and how he says it pretty much condemns it for most of us here. Anyone who thinks numerology is a valid means of deduction needs a serious re-think. Now that he has babbled his way through much of it, it's time for a debunk. His theory is a house of cards, a chain of 'facts' that we're meant to accept, that will lead us ever deeper into silliness. The trouble with this is that if any of the facts in the chain are proven wrong then the whole thing falls apart. Nobody needs to disprove the entire series, just to break that chain. His theory rests on the idea that the Coral Castle was built using an anti-gravity machine, the pyramids were, and that he has found a secret numerological code at the CC that shows the math. If we debunk the CC, no code. If we debunk the Egyptians, no CC, no code. All of that is easy to do. I'll do it in two parts, firstly the Coral Castle. When told that the Coral Castle had been debunked he said that it had been studied by important scientists and had never been debunked., but that of course is not true. Jason's assertion that it has been studied by scientists: "...Many sources suggest that the castle is scientifically inexplicable. One typical magazine article claimed, "The question that has perplexed engineers and scientists for decades is how such a tiny, uneducated man single-handedly built such a place." According to the castle's Web site, "Coral Castle has baffled scientists, engineers, and scholars since its opening in 1923." It's easy to claim the castle defies scientific explanation, but searches for the investigations made by perplexed and baffled scientists come up empty. Despite the information on their Web site, the Coral Castle information booth was unable to identify a single scientist or engineer who had specifically examined the castle. This puts the claim in a whole new light, since "hasn't explained" is clearly not the same as "can't explain." The Coral Castle site states that "if anyone ever questioned Ed about how he moved the blocks of coral, Ed would only reply that he understood the laws of weight and leverage well." He also stated that he had "discovered the secrets of the pyramids", which of course could be interpreted in either esoteric or engineering terms...." Can one man move large blcoks of stone by himself? Of course, using very very primitive methods, much more so than those used at the CC: "...Meet Wally Wallington, a retired construction worker in Michigan. He's building a Stonehenge replica in his back yard, and he's using only levers and fulcrums. His equipment consists of sticks and stones. No wheels, no cranes, no pulleys, no metal or machinery. His favorite tool, and best ally, is gravity. There's a YouTube video of Wally raising a 19,200-lb concrete beam up into the air and tilting it up onto its end, just like at Stonehenge. He can also raise these beams horizontally into the air as high as you'd like, with little apparent effort. It's simply good old fashioned human ingenuity. All he does is lever the block enough to slide a fulcrum under its center, turning it into a giant teeter totter. Weight down the east end, and slide more wood in just west of the center. Move the weight to the west end, transferring the mass onto the west end of the fulcrum, and slide in more wood just east of the center. Back and forth, back and forth, going higher each time, rocking its way into the sky..." The Mysterious Coral Castle: A Fanciful Myth | LiveScience Remembering that he was a stone mason in his home country of Latvia, and had worked as a lumberjack in the years when much was done using leverage and pulleys. Ancient History. Fact or Fiction? Coral Castle The above is an excellent link, where you can see Ed the builder actually at work and a full explanation of the methods he used. So, if there was no anti-gravity at the CC, there is no hidden code. No hidden code, end of movies, as the rest are just appalling remakes of work that has been around for years. I'll do Egypt and anti-gravity next. MelT
[COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial] [/FONT] [B][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Jason: [/FONT][/SIZE]There's a 1170 Ton unfinished Obelisk in Egypt (Aswan Quarry) and many others in this same weight class. This is what it takes to lift a 1000 Ton stone-block or object using one of our modern cranes:[/B] [B]So you're telling me that primitive people built those megaliths using ONLY PRIMITIVE TOOLS? Okay....Let's move on...[/B] [SIZE=2][FONT=Arial] [/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]We have [I]hundreds [/I]of the stone and copper tools used by the workers who made the pyramids. We can see the worker's tool marks on stones, and we have the actual pounding stones used to shape blocks, which are found alongside unfinished blocks on some sites. [COLOR=#9999FF][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial] 1 The egyptians are meant to have invented an anti-gravity machine, but they still have to use stone balls to shape blocks and statues? Do you not wonder why they didn't also invent an advanced form of cutting blocks too? A machine that dressed rock accurately would be far easier to make than an anti-gravity machine, it doesn't make sense to think that a people who invented anti-gravity could not also go beyond pounding rocks with other rocks to shape them. Marks on the stones, marks on the blocks, they match. 2 There are pictures showing them dragging statues on sledges and loading an obelisk onto a boat. So apparently in this instance (see below in italics) they don't go for using anti-gravity, but take 3 years to move a new obelisk instead. "Guys look, I think you've been having it too easy. No more anti-gravity until you've cleaned your rooms, k'? We're not going to levitate this one, but tie up two thousand men, and supply them with food and lodging for three years instead...!" 3 No mention has ever been found of seeing blocks being levitated, either by workers, pharaohs, visiting dignitaries, historians. There are no pictures of it, no mentions in architectural or religious texts. And what's wrong with that is the egyptians were a proud race who took every opportunity to brag about what they could do. You also have to think about what seeing something like that happening would do to anyone watching. Egypt was just like any other place in the world, you can only hide so much when you're building monuments that are visible hundreds of meters away. Hiding levitating blocks is, well, you know already... 4.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]If the Egyptians were using advanced technology, then why were they so shoddy in building the Great Pyramid and others? On the outside they look fine as long as you don't look too closely, but it is certainly not a series of finely-shaped blocks of stone, most are mis-shapen. So, they had anti-gravity, but couldn't be bothered to cut all the blocks to true? 5 The Egyptians were involved in a series of battles, some imperative to their survival as a race and the loss of egypt itself to foreigners - but their anti-gravity machine was never used against anyone in any battle. No high technology machine, or even magic machine, was mentioned by any of the civilisations they battled with, or historians. They built almost 120 pyramids, apparently did strange and wonderful things with red granite over years and years, but they never figured out a super-duper weapon to protect themselves. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial] 6 No out of place objects have ever been found in Egypt in at least 200 years of excavations across hundreds of sites. No washers, coils, rivets, scraps of metal. Nothing that should not be there. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial] [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]7 The obelisk: "...[/FONT][/SIZE]The unfinished obelisk offers unusual insights into ancient Egyptian stone-working techniques, with marks from workers' tools still clearly visible as well as ocher-colored lines marking where they were working.[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]..." [I]Stone[/I] tools beside it, and evidence of their use on the obelisk, but Jason wants you to think they had anti-gravity. [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]Anti-gravity and stone chisels...does that sound feasible yet? 8 Here is an account from that period of an obelisk being moved in that period: [FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]"...Herodotus described moving the \t\t\t\t580 ton "Green Naos" under Nectanebo II: "This took three years \t\t\t\tin the bringing, and two thousand men were assigned to the \t\t\t\tconveying of it ..." ([I]History[/I], 2.175) [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] So rather than using anti-gravity to move it they use 2, 000 men and take three years? I'm assuming that anti=gravity had gone down for that period and they were just waiting for Microsoft to bring out a patch to fix it... Here's another account: [FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][I][SIZE=2]"...according to Callixenus, it was \t\t\t\t\tconveyed by Phoenix, who by digging a canal brought the \t\t\t\t\twaters of the Nile right up to the place where the obelisk \t\t\t\t\tlay. Two very broad ships were loaded with cubes of the same \t\t\t\t\tgranite as that of the obelisk, each cube measuring one \t\t\t\t\tfoot, until calculations showed that the total weight of the \t\t\t\t\tblocks was double that of the obelisk, since their total \t\t\t\t\tcubic capacity was twice as great. In this way, the ships \t\t\t\t\twere able to come beneath the obelisk, which was suspended \t\t\t\t\tby its ends from both banks of the canal. The blocks were \t\t\t\t\tunloaded and the ships, riding high, took the weight of the \t\t\t\t\tobelisk. (Natural History, 36.14).[/SIZE][/I][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] [CENTER][FONT=Verdana] \t\t\t[IMG]http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/Images/countries/Egyptian%20pics/obeliskhahshepsut.gif[/IMG][/FONT][/CENTER] [FONT=Verdana] \t\t\t [CENTER][I][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]This image \t\t\treveals an important engineering factor for moving large stones: \t\t\tNamely, that they are lighter in water... The transport of heavy \t\t\tstones by water is suspected at several ancient sites such as \t\t\tStonehenge, Giza and Carnac.[/SIZE][/FONT][/I][/CENTER] [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=arial][SIZE=2][COLOR=black] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][B]The carving procedure[/B] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obelisk_building_02.jpg"][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Obelisk_building_02.jpg/150px-Obelisk_building_02.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obelisk_building_02.jpg"][IMG]http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf3/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/IMG][/URL] Tip of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_obelisk"]unfinished obelisk[/URL] with rounded marks that show clearly the use of Diorite balls as carving tools [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obelisk_building_03.jpg"][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/77/Obelisk_building_03.jpg/150px-Obelisk_building_03.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obelisk_building_03.jpg"][IMG]http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.20wmf3/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png[/IMG][/URL] Symmetrical marks at the quarry of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_obelisk"]unfinished obelisk[/URL] showing the perforation to be filled with wood in order to detach the stone pieces from the bed The carving was done on granite directly on the surface of the stone at the ground, by cutting four sides. It is now known that the tools employed for carving the granite were small balls of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diorite"]diorite[/URL]. Once the sides were cut off, the stone piece had to be separated from the ground. A series of perforations were made, again using diorite tools. Obelisks made out of softer rock other than granite (i.e. sandstone) were carved with wooden spikes. These perforations were then filled with wood and these wood pieces were water saturated. The small pieces of wood expanded with the humidity breaking the separations between successive perforations and then effectively separating the carved piece from its bed. Many residues left at the rock beds and measuring nearly the size of many famous obelisks (for example the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra%27s_Needle"]Cleopatra's Needles[/URL]) are now known to exist at the Unfinished Obelisk open air museum. No egyptian anti-gravity, so none for the CC builder to rediscover. No math hidden at the CC, no theory for Jason to defend. I write the above for the more sensible amongst us, as I can guarantee that Jason's response to this will be more Woo, a claim that I represent modern science, don't understand my subject, or I'm just a really really bad person. Please make up your own minds MelT [/COLOR]
On a more serious note, I've read a few interesting articles about very interesting epigenetic influences, and this one caught my attention. Essentially, the cool part of this kind of research is the idea that the behaviour of those around you have a biochemical influence on you, and those biochemical repercussions have the potential to turn genes off and on. Under stressful conditions a mother will do things that calm her infant, essentially regulating endocrine responses to stress. That can have an impact on the expression of genes that are associated with responding to stressful situations. Don't confuse my post, I'm not about to argue that it's plausible to consciously modify genes or anything like that. Just thought this was pretty cool. MATERNAL CARE, GENE EXPRESSION, AND THE TRANSMISSION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN STRESS REACTIVITY ACROSS GENERATIONS - Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1):1161 "Naturally occurring variations in maternal care alter the expression of genes that regulate behavioral and endocrine responses to stress, as well as hippocampal synaptic development." "The nexus of this hypothesis is not to underestimate the importance of genetic-based inheritance but to underscore the potential for traits to move from one generation to another via a behavioral mode of transmission that involves variations in maternal behavior." "In addition to the long-term effects described above, maternal care has immediate impact on endocrine function in infant rats. Tactile stimulation derived from mothers serves to dampen HPA activity in neonates, protecting the animals against the highly catabolic effects of adrenal glucocorticoids during a period of rapid development (see Levine 1994). Likewise, tactile stimulation from mothers stimulates the release of growth hormone (Schanberg et al 1984). Pups exposed to prolonged periods of maternal separation show increased levels of glucocorticoids and decreased levels of growth hormone. These effects can be reversed with “stroking” with a brush, a manipulation that mimics the tactile stimulation derived from maternal LG."
I have no problem with epigenetics, it's an accepted part of science and only to be expected. It all falls apart when it comes to the 'work' of Emoto and Bruce Lipton. Even Emoto discredited his own findings on snowflakes and 'memory water'. MelT
So, back to the pyramids, are you trying to tell me that we don't need to employ explanations about ancient secret, super powerful, technology in order to understand how the pyramids were built, because we already have a more reasonable and testable explanation?
I'm saying that simply because we don't know the full story about how the pyramids were built does not mean they were built with ancient technology. We have proof of the level of technology they had attained, we have no proof that they exceeded it. As well as having their tools and descriptions of transporting materials, we now have a specualtive theory, backed up with radar and other items, by Houdin that internal ramps were used. With no reason to suppose that they had such fantastic power, it's purely a leap of faith to assume they possessed it. It's not my aim to show that the Egyptians were not clever, I'm interested in Egyptology because they were. My aim is to show that they did not possess anti-gravity. MelT
Well, that just sounds completely unreasonable! I think that you're being a little closed-minded there buddy... /sarcasm
Just do a little real research! Not YouTube! Not "for profit" sensationalized books! Real research! All of these half cocked crazy ass Ancient Astronaut theories are just that, CRAZY! Just because a block of stone that was moved by an ancient civilization was heavy, doesn't mean they used anti-gravity.
This thread is full of circular arguments, and we are still at the exact same spot we started it at. Don't think either side will be budging anytime soon, because we all have reasoning behind what we believe. What I will say is that the credibility of the Scientific community is often questionable, and it's better to take any and all information worth a grain of salt. The fact of the matter is that whatever you perceive as truth is most likely not from personal experience, and therefore ultimately conjecture. Just a general statement, for everyone to think about.
Can you provide a link where Emoto discredits all his own work himself? I've heard several people say this and would really like to see it myself.. I do hope you realize you can perform the rice experiment yourself and see other people's results on youtube or other websites..
it isn't memory water as you called it. it is more appropriately called FREQUENCY ADJUSTED WATER. water that has been imparted with a specific frequency. now.. i didn't buy it either. but i wasn't ignorant and closed my mind like you have.. i did however realize that Mighty Wash is just that and indeed does work. it is frequency adjusted water, just water, and it kills mites. so not only is it true, its in practice.
hmmm, because 'frequency adjusted water' makes so much more sense than memory water. I'm having trouble finding information about this frequency adjusted water, would you mind citing some supporting research? I can't find anything about frequency adjusted water in the literature. Apparently there's a lot of people on the web trying to find out exactly what's in Mighty Wash. According to one forum, it is 98.8% water, and the rest are inert products. Some forums also claim that it's a scam, like homeopathy for plants. If you adjust the frequency of water you are essentially heating it up. It's not like you turn a nob and voila, the frequency of water has changed and is now suitable to kill Mites. That's ludicrous.
This Mighty Wash thing is intriguing The website talks about frequency in terms of Electromagnetism and the quote reads, "The building blocks of life and the technology to put them together." With that information I can infer that they are likely just aligning the water to a certain frequency. Could possibly be similar to the technology used for MRIs. Frequency does indeed give birth to form, so there may be something to this water after all. However I'm not sure what would allow the water molecules to maintain that form through shipping, etc. I'm also lost as to how the different structures of water molecules can kill mites, but still definitely intriguing.
Sounds like woo woo. Sounds like you don't really understand these topics. Have you got any publications I can read?
what it probably is is just one version of H20 filtered out. There are 3 different oscillations that it (h20) can have. Your microwave operates at one of them (3.2 _Hz wanna say Mhz but it's obviously in the microwave band). when they make it they probably filter out one of the three and call it frequency adjusted water because technically that is what it would be. once they do that they probably just put in some really powerful nerve agent for mites or some such thing and dilute it enough that it makes the proportions they have on the bottles. You can't really do much else other than either excite one version of the water molecule and give it enough energy to do something different than the other version. If you did that though all that would happen is you heat up the water and then when it cools off it would be the exact same as it was before (assuming your working with distilled water of course) Only know any of this because one day my physics teacher got so annoyed with no one responding to him that he spent the class talking about the three version of the water molecule and how each vibrates in a different way and how a microwave takes advantage of one of the versions to heat up your food. And then he went into polarization of light but it was one of the few interesting days of physics class. In any case I wouldn't put too much weight behind the words they use. 90% of them are made up by marketing people who don't actually understand the science behind it so they rename processes used so that they sound incredible.