More DOF E-Meter Videos

[Dulloldfart]

Here's a new C-meter video to really get up AO's nose. This is viewing my last death and subsequent between-lives period. I've viewed this death scene several times before, and it is not uncomfortable at all, but it still reacts a bit on the meter. There is some other meter action going on, which is interesting. I tried exploring a bit of one of the between-lives areas researched by Dr. Michael Newton, the "Screening Room of Future Lives."

I put a few annotations in the video for blind people watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1V76Fe5iU

Paul

 

[Ted]

Here's a new C-meter video to really get up AO's nose. This is viewing my last death and subsequent between-lives period. I've viewed this death scene several times before, and it is not uncomfortable at all, but it still reacts a bit on the meter. There is some other meter action going on, which is interesting. I tried exploring a bit of one of the between-lives areas researched by Dr. Michael Newton, the "Screening Room of Future Lives."

I put a few annotations in the video for blind people watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1V76Fe5iU

Paul

Very well done, Paul.

 

[AnonOrange]

"last death and subsequent between-lives period"

And you want me to take this seriously?

 

[Dulloldfart]

"last death and subsequent between-lives period"

And you want me to take this seriously?

Of course not. But some here will appreciate it. Did you like the Rubik's Cube video I just posted?

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

This is new data, a confirmation of a previous suspicion. Here is a decent C-meter underwater video. I just dunked three fingers from each hand in two cups of salty water, with wires (no cans) in the cups hooked up to the C-meter at sensitivity 32. I braced my fingers against the top and bottom of the cups so they wouldn't move around, and the water level was pretty still.

The needle action is a pretty good reflection of my usual in-air loose needle action, although at sensitivity 32 instead of sensitivity 6.

AO may consider this to be capillary action of water creeping up and down my nose hairs, sorry finger hairs, but we'll see. Oh, I don't have any finger hairs, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=now694JmYnE

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

This is new data, a confirmation of a previous suspicion. Here is a decent C-meter underwater video. I just dunked three fingers from each hand in two cups of salty water, with wires (no cans) in the cups hooked up to the C-meter at sensitivity 32. I braced my fingers against the top and bottom of the cups so they wouldn't move around, and the water level was pretty still.

The needle action is a pretty good reflection of my usual in-air loose needle action, although at sensitivity 32 instead of sensitivity 6.

Paul, you always miss the obvious. The sensitivity is 5.3 times higher than normal any you KNOW the needle hardly moves when underwater at a normal sensitivity. THAT'S THE ISSUE: WHAT MAKES THE NEEDLE MOVE (MOSTLY) AT NORMAL SENSITIVITY IS THE CONTACT QUALITY.

How can you attribute "normal floating needle movements" to your body's internals, when dry, but ignore the fact the needle hardly moves at the normal sensitivity when the electrodes are underwater!?

Now, why does the needle still move underwater at high sensitivity, well firstly, that's the remaining 5% of the problem, and secondly maybe you should try to stop talking while you do this same test and be COMPLETELY still for a minute. Some silicone or butter at the root of your fingers may prevent water riding up as it was suggested previously.

Also Paul, you "see stuff", but that's not what's observed impartially. In that test the needle DOES NOT FLOAT, but rather drifts slowly and continually mostly in ONE DIRECTION. Re-watch the video, look at the chart below, from 1:00 to the end where you remove your fingers.

BTW, this is not the exact test I had asked for. (Four fingers, four cups, which was to prove the uselessness of solo e-metering).

Could you please at least this one test: wash your hands well, ONE finger in each cup for one minute, no chit chat. (you can add silicone to the part of the finger at the water level.

 

[Ted]

Paul, you always miss the obvious. The sensitivity is 5.3 times higher than normal any you KNOW the needle hardly moves when underwater at a normal sensitivity. THAT'S THE ISSUE: WHAT MAKES THE NEEDLE MOVE (MOSTLY) AT NORMAL SENSITIVITY IS THE CONTACT QUALITY.

How can you attribute "normal floating needle movements" to your body's internals, when dry, but ignore the fact the needle hardly moves at the normal sensitivity when the electrodes are underwater!?

Why does the needle still move underwater at high sensitivity, well firstly, that's the remaining 5% of the problem, and secondly maybe you should try to stop talking while you do this same test and be COMPLETELY still for a minute. Some silicone or butter at the root of your fingers may prevent water riding up as it was suggested previously.

You are still an e-meter ignoramus!

You serve best carrying a sign and protesting.

 

[AnonOrange]

You are still an e-meter ignoramus!

Come on, you can do better insults than that!

You still have not explained why the needle moves less when underwater. My explanation stands.

Let me paraphrase myself: I understand the primary characteristics of the E-Meter's needle movement better than ANY scientologist or freezoner.

I think I'll attend the frezzoner convention and present a paper!

 

[Dulloldfart]

AO, I mainly do these tests for my own interest. If they coincide with yours, too, that is a bonus. You know we have different views on interpretation. Yelling at me isn't likely to get me to see something you have decided I have overlooked. I know the sensitivity is different, and that if I used the same sensitivity (6) as in dry air the needle motion would be much reduced.

Your tests are mostly silly in my estimation. Do them yourself, but with an e-meter or proper FZ meter for Christ's sake, not some Radio Shack ohmmeter that you have decided is equivalent when it clearly isn't.

My talking has NOTHING to do with it, at least in terms of the physical mechanics of it. There is a mental aspect in that expressing something out loud can cause TA action, needle motion to the right, but that depends on the content. The mere action of normal speech has no effect one way or the other. You can determine this for yourself by looking at some of the earlier videos where I am talking or not talking. You will see that there is no obvious general correlation, although there will be an occasional correlation.

Yes, you're right, there is a general drift of TA upward, which could be caused by various factors. Guess I'll have to do another video. Sigh. But not tonight as I'm not meterable any more.

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

AO, I mainly do these tests for my own interest. If they coincide with yours, too, that is a bonus. You know we have different views on interpretation. Yelling at me isn't likely to get me to see something you have decided I have overlooked. I know the sensitivity is different, and that if I used the same sensitivity (6) as in dry air the needle motion would be much reduced.

Your tests are mostly silly in my estimation. Do them yourself, but with an e-meter or proper FZ meter for Christ's sake, not some Radio Shack ohmmeter that you have decided is equivalent when it clearly isn't.

My talking has NOTHING to do with it, at least in terms of the physical mechanics of it. There is a mental aspect in that expressing something out loud can cause TA action, needle motion to the right, but that depends on the content. The mere action of normal speech has no effect one way or the other. You can determine this for yourself by looking at some of the earlier videos where I am talking or not talking. You will see that there is no obvious general correlation, although there will be an occasional correlation.

Yes, you're right, there is a general drift of TA upward, which could be caused by various factors. Guess I'll have to do another video. Sigh. But not tonight as I'm not meterable any more.

Paul

It's not silly to do a PROPER baseline test and repeat the test with ONE parameter changed. The idea is to isolate error sources such that the main dependent variable is examined as clearly as possible. That's experimental science. Instead you do a bunch of random tests that dance around the main point to be tested, which is: Trying to detect body changes that would affect the e-meter.

"My talking has NOTHING to do with it". Just try it then. A full minute, absolutely still. I've asked that a dozen times.

BTW, you are "meterable" anytime. Just go wash your hands thoroughly with soap an water.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dulloldfart]

BTW, you are "meterable" anytime. Just go wash your hands thoroughly with soap an water.

By meterable I mean the needle is loose (i.e. reactive to changes in mental state) and the TA fairly low. Having the needle stuck and the TA high shows nothing of use to me.

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

By meterable I mean the needle is loose (i.e. reactive to changes in mental state) and the TA fairly low. Having the needle stuck and the TA high shows nothing of use to me.

Paul

The needle is stuck in the high TA ranges because your hands are oily, dirty. No shame in that, just go wash them.

 

[Ted]

The needle is stuck in the high TA ranges because your hands are oily, dirty. No shame in that, just go wash them.

Er, ah... Mr. KnowItAll, the TA will go higher when hands are washed free of natural oils.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Er, ah... Mr. KnowItAll, the TA will go higher when hands are washed free of natural oils.

Even the Radio Shack meter will show TA changes due to oily/dry skin. Check it out, AO.

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

Er, ah... Mr. KnowItAll, the TA will go higher when hands are washed free of natural oils.

Exactly WRONG, Mr. KnowNothing. See the Trailer Trash metering video, where we washed the hands and the resistance went from 20K Ohms down to 5K Ohms. Oils do not conduct electricity (or very little). Less conductance makes the needle on an E-Meter go to the LEFT, therefore MORE TA.

I'm willing to give you a break for screwing that up, since your suggestion of using water buckets was pure providence!

Even the Radio Shack meter will show TA changes due to oily/dry skin. Check it out, AO.

Paul, I KNOW THAT, which is exactly why I said: go wash your hands. Wash your hands and you will find the conductance has increased and the needle will move to the RIGHT: LOWER TA.

 

[AnonOrange]

I still have a good time watching at 3:50 when you say: Wow this is amazing! And note that when you stood still (before you wiggled your fingers), the needle was ROCK SOLID, unlike the first part of the test (dry) where the needle was all over the place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR5Kmw2zHhw

 

[Dulloldfart]

Paul, I KNOW THAT, which is exactly why I said: go wash your hands. Wash your hands and you will find the conductance has increased and the needle will move to the RIGHT: LOWER TA.

So you want me to wash my hands carefully before immersing them in water to do the test? Isn't there something vaguely illogical in that?

Try testing the different hand conditions a bit more. One part of an auditor's training on Level 0 involves doing a "False TA Checklist." This isn't something where one just reads and learns the Word of God, so to speak, but where one gets the hands dirty and learns for onself about different hand conditions. At least, that is the way it is supposed to go. One is supposed to have normal skin oil contact with the cans. If the hands are too dry or calloused, one uses hand cream to increase the moisture. If the hands are too wet, i.e. sweaty, one uses a towel and maybe talc or anti-perspirant to deal with the excess liquid, maybe after washing the hands too. It is not an ideal solution, but it is a familiar one to professional auditors.

To assume that a professional auditor doesn't know how different skin conditions affect TA, when he has possibly dealt with it hundreds of times, while you after one test do, is somewhat short-sighted.

Paul

 

[AnonOrange]

So you want me to wash my hands carefully before immersing them in water to do the test? Isn't there something vaguely illogical in that?

I responded directly to your comment:
"Even the Radio Shack meter will show TA changes due to oily/dry skin. Check it out, AO."

If your hands are oily, the resistance will be higher, therefore so will the TA.

But even then, my statement still applies. Put you dry hands in vegetable oil and after go do some underwater metering! You'll see that the TA will be higher, much higher.

To assume that a professional auditor doesn't know how different skin conditions affect TA, when he has possibly dealt with it hundreds of times, while you after one test do, is somewhat short-sighted.

I showed you on two different videos (Pope's and mine) that the scientology auditors do not understand the hand conditions that affect the TA. In Pope's case, his hands were wet and the auditor offered cream. In my case I said my hands were wet and the Tustin auditor said it didn't matter.

Paul, face the facts, scientologists don't understand the E-Meter. I do.

 

[programmer_guy]

AnonOrange,

IMO, you should stop relying on Paul to do your work for you at this point in time. This is irresponsible.
Go on eBay and get yourself an old Mark IV and do the work yourself.

 

[AnonOrange]

AnonOrange,

IMO, you should stop relying on Paul to do your work for you at this point in time. This is irresponsible.
Go on eBay and get yourself an old Mark IV and do the work yourself.

Then FOR SURE none of you will believe the results. Having an ExScientologist do the work is the best way to prove my case.