What's new
By:
Filters

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hatshepsut

Hatshepsut

Crusader
lkwdblds said:
....snip...
I would guess that being well ground to planet Earth is vital in certain types of healing activities where the practitioner has to duplicate the negative energy of a patient in an effort to help the patient get rid of it.
Lakey
Click to expand...

I think the world in general agrees. :p

90080949.jpg


I have often wondered Lakey if there is some factor we have 'missed' which enables this phenomena of one person's experience to transfer over and become another's. Are we really ONE underneath the illusion of separateness or is there a 'group mind' belonging to the humans that allows these transfers so easily.
 
SweetnessandLight

SweetnessandLight

Crusader
Hatshepsut said:
I think the world in general agrees. :p

90080949.jpg


I have often wondered Lakey if there is some factor we have 'missed' which enables this phenomena of one person's experience to transfer over and become another's. Are we really ONE underneath the illusion of separateness or is there a 'group mind' belonging to the humans that allows these transfers so easily.
Click to expand...

Hatty, I would tend to say "yes", to both. :happydance:
 
lkwdblds

lkwdblds

Crusader
That is a very good question!

Hatshepsut said:
I think the world in general agrees. :p

90080949.jpg


I have often wondered Lakey if there is some factor we have 'missed' which enables this phenomena of one person's experience to transfer over and become another's. Are we really ONE underneath the illusion of separateness or is there a 'group mind' belonging to the humans that allows these transfers so easily.
Click to expand...

Hat's, you have posed a very good questiion. I have lots of empirical experience dealing with this transfer phenomena but have no theoretical background in this field. One thing that I am pretty sure of is that this phenomena is not dependent on whether or not we are all really ONE underneath the illusion of separateness.

The transfer which takes place is more along the lines of the transfer of energy, actual physical universe energy. Since that energy is created by a living being, there is an apparency that a being has transfered over to the practiioner's space as well but this is not necessarily the case.

It is like running Dianetics R3R and actually being able to see your preclear's pictures. You are just viewing the preclear's pctures along with them but there has been no transfer or merging of beingness taking place.

Many of the somatics and much of the electrical charge which transfers from the patient to the practitioner in the process which I run definitely has lots of pictures from the patient connected with it.

Why does it transfer over from them to me? I believe that it transfers because I feel a lot of empathy for my patients and I want desparately to be able to help them. I am thinking that I am exterior to their problem and am not part of it myself. Therefore, I will not fall ill to the maladay which is engulfing them and I can remain detached and either as-is their harmful energy for them or better yet, just allow it to run through me into the ground. Probably msissionairies in Thrid World countries who tend the very ill, such as Mother Teresa did, have a similar mind set when they expose themselves to a serious strain of illness and figure that they will not become ill.

To the degree that the energy merely flows through me into the ground, that indicates that I am exterior to the person's problem. If the energy remains on me and causes me somatics as well, then, to that degree, I am NOT exterior to my patient's problem. I then have to work at getting their harmful energy to blow from my space. This may not always be possible and I may well come down with their malady myself.

When I put my head on my patient's head, the patient is relieved of the somatics and harmful energy and it transferes over to me. It is not as if I make copies of the energy and we both now have it. I now have it and they are free of it.

I believe most valid therapies are designed with the practitioner remaining detached and not getting personally involved with a patient's pictures or case. The practitioner just directs the patient's attention and gets him to examine his pictures, thoughts, intentions, etc. himself. The practitioner does not get involved or give opinions.

On the type of thing I devised, an intuitive massage, I decided to get involved, 3 times, just on the basis of wanting to pull out all the stops to help someone and also to do a little research to see what would happen if I blotted their head with my own head. I was able to help them, where finger pressure alone was not releasing their harmful charge but the results were not well controlled to such an extent that I decided to give up the practice of head blotting.

I think the transfer would occur if all beings were really just one being attempting to reunite or if all beings were unique beings. That particular topic of discussion is not relevant as to whether or not the transfer of energy will occur from one being to another. That is established through empathy and the willingness and ability to duplicate the other being's point of view.

P.S. Added the next morning. Why is blotting the person's head with your head able to soak up the charge and transfer it to you? For that, the only reference which I have comes from LRH and is somewhere in his large "Assist Pack". LRH states that a person's skull acts as a Capacitor, an electrical part common on electronic devices.

Here is a google definition:

capacitor (capacitance)

A capacitor is a passive electronic component that stores energy in the form of an electrostatic field. In its simplest form, a capacitor consists of two conducting plates separated by an insulating material called thedielectric. The capacitance is directly proportional to the surface areas of the plates, and is inversely proportional to the separation between the plates. Capacitance also depends on the dielectric constant of the substance separating the plates.

The standard unit of capacitance is the farad, abbreviated. This is a large unit; more common units are the microfarad, abbreviated µF (1 µF =10-6F) and the picofarad, abbreviated pF (1 pF = 10-12 F).

Capacitors can be fabricated onto integrated circuit (IC)chips. They are commonly used in conjunction with transistors in dynamic random access memory (DRAM). The capacitors help maintain the contents of memory. Because of their tiny physical size, these components have low capacitance. They must be recharged thousands of times per second or the DRAM will lose its data.


Large capacitors are used in the power supplies of electronic equipment of all types, including computers and their peripherals. In these systems,the capacitors smooth out the rectified utility AC, providing pure, battery-likeDC.

LAST UPDATED: 16 Nov 2010

This is very interesting, especially the part I put in red that capacitors help maintain the contents of memory. That could be a pro survival reason why the head of the human body has so much capacitance. If a human body is in the presence of large electrostatic fields, the capacitance of the head may protect many of the body's memories. When it comes to implants or negative type memories, the capacitance of the head could also play a role in keeping an implant type of command locked in place.

When I put my head on my patient's head, it is putting two capacitors up against one another. What seems to occur in my limited experience, just 3 times, is that a transference of memory seems to occur from my patient to myself. I will do a little more research on this but I am sure that many people on this board can make further comments about what I have said.

Lakey
 
Last edited:
CarmeloOrchards

CarmeloOrchards

Crusader
Politics as usual

Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks


Reuters – U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) addresses the group Americans for Prosperity as they hold …

By National Journal – Thu Dec 2, 11:43 am ET
By Reid Wilson
National Journal

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."
In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government overspending.
[How do deficit-cutters sell the U.S. on pain?]

"The American people are speaking out loud and clear. They have had enough of the spending, the bureaucracy, and the government-knows-best mentality running rampant today throughout the halls of Congress," Bachmann said in a July 15 statement. The group, she wrote in a letter to House Administration Committee chairman Bob Brady, "will serve as an informal group of Members dedicated to promote Americans' call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government."

Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the tea partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmark requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.
More than one member can sign onto an earmark. Still, there are 29 caucus members who requested on their own or joined requests for more than $10 million in earmark funding, and seven who wanted more than $50 million in funding.

Most offices did not respond right away to a request for comment. Those that did said they supported Republicans' new efforts to ban earmarks.
[Will Obama's winning campaign plan be used against him in 2012?]
Alexander, for one, "stands with his fellow Republicans in the House in supporting the current earmark ban. Since joining the Tea Party Caucus in July, he has not submitted any earmark requests and has withdrawn his outstanding requests that were included in the most recent Water Resources Development Act," said Jamie Hanks, his communications director.
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), who requested 25 earmarks in the last Fiscal Year at a total cost of just over $80 million, has agreed to abide by the Republican earmark ban, according to spokesman Adam Buckalew. "He supported the moratorium and the prohibition adopted recently by the Conference on House earmarks for the 112th Congress," Buckalew said of Harper.

"It's easy to be a member of the TEA Party Caucus because, like them, I agree that we're Taxed Enough Already and we've got to balance the budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes. Deficit spending is not new, but the unprecedented rate of spending in Congress is," Rehberg said in a statement emailed by his office. "Montanans have tightened their belts, and it's way past time for Congress to follow their lead. The TEA Party Caucus is about listening to concerned Americans who want to fundamentally change how Congress spends their tax dollars. On that, we're in total agreement."

Bachmann's office did not respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment.
Still, some Republicans -- albeit none who belong to the Tea Party Caucus -- have said they will not abide by the voluntary earmark ban. And, said CAGW's Williams, the anti-spending organization isn't waiting with baited breath.

"Seeing is believing. It's going to take a lot more than rhetoric to convince us," he said.

A list of Tea Party Caucus members and their earmark requests in Fiscal Year 2010, courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book:
NAME EARMARKS AMOUNT
Aderholt (R-AL) 69 $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO) 9 $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA) 41 $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN) 0 0
Barton (R-TX) 14 $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD) 19 $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL) 14 $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT) 47 $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX) 15 $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA) 0 0
Burton (R-IN) 0 0
Carter (R-TX) 26 $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC) 19 $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO) 0 0
Crenshaw (R-FL) 37 $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX) 22 $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA) 10 $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ) 8 $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA) 19 $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX) 15 $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO) 11 $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX) 16 $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS) 25 $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA) 5 $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI) 9 $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS) 12 $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA) 13 $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO) 6 $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO) 0 0
Lummis (R-WY) 0 0
Marchant (R-TX) 0 0
McClintock (R-CA) 0 0
Gary Miller (R-CA) 15 $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS) 22 $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC) 0 0
Neugebauer (R-TX) 0 0
Pence (R-IN) 0 0
Poe (R-TX) 12 $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA) 0 0
Rehberg (R-MT) 88 $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN) 0 0
Royce (R-CA) 7 $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA) 20 $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX) 0 0
Shadegg (R-AZ) 0 0
Adrian Smith (R-NE) 1 $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX) 18 $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL) 17 $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS) 39 $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN) 14 $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA) 0 0
Wilson (R-SC) 15 $23,334,000
TOTAL 764 $1,049,783,150
 
RogerB

RogerB

Crusader
Hats and Lakey,

I have some thoughts on what you have posted just above.

The first thing to do in these scenarios is to recognize the ownership and source of the "energy" and imagery you are dealing with. As in, it will be a "who" a spiritual who.

Life becomes rather sweet when you can correctly recognize who owns what, and to then correctly assign things where they belong.

Lakey, I would invite you to look at your operating premise (or I could say operating belief system/paradigm) of what you are doing.

If I recall correctly, the words you have used at various times are things like: "pull the energy out" and "letting 'the' energy 'discharge' through me" and "I absorb their energy" etc., and then you have to be grounded to let it discharge, etc., etc.

Well, that's a way of doing things . . . and I'm not invalidating it as you should know as I have thoroughly validated the magic of your abilities to heal in the past . . . but I would invite you to look at the mechanics a) of what you are doing and, b) an alternative.

Firstly, why draw the energy of? Why allow it to transfer to you?:p

It is their spiritual Life-Force we are actually talking about here :yes: Now it may have been made turbulent and turned "negative" due to impacts and abuse or negative imagery from others . . . . but it is still theirs.

I would invite you to do as you are doing on your perception thing, adding your spiritual presence and power to theirs so the encysted Life-Force opens up and "turns on" such that it can be further perceived . . . . but here's the difference: you can help them convert the/their negative Life-Force and restore it back to being freely available positive spiritual Life-Force back under their knowing control.

You don't have to (and, in my view shouldn't) "take it from them":D :no: Restore it to positive and to being available to them back under their knowing control.

That'll save wear and tear on you:yes: and also strengthen them.

If you must do your "draw the energy out of them" thing, you would be best to stand barefoot on some metal plates that are earthed to something like a pipe or the earth plug in an electrical circuit. Either that or do it outdoors . . . but barefoot or with leather shoes that allow the passage of the energy.

On the various occasions I've spiritually processed other Beings, spirit to spirit, the trick is to unlock their encysted Life-Force (charge) and restore is to them as positively available to them. That is, leave it with them. (Remember my dealing with the folk in 9/11 as posted by me here, and another such processing of one I'll not mention is polite company). Don't take it on yourself, leave it with them.

Rog
 
RogerB

RogerB

Crusader
And, as an additional thought, now that I have re-scanned what you dears have written . . . . .

I'd say and venture the explanation of "why" stuff and imagery transfers is because we are often operating on a continuum of a long ago created agreement to receive.

Certainly, the game is one wherein we perceive and reciprocate; and maybe that is a more optimum level of game. I have personally paid a fair amount of attention to getting myself off of the auto-unwitting always "receiving" and being affected by what others are emanating or producing operating basis.

I personally like to be in charge of my level of equilibrium, and not have it screwed with by others :D

Rog
 
SweetnessandLight

SweetnessandLight

Crusader
CarmeloOrchards said:
Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks


Reuters – U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) addresses the group Americans for Prosperity as they hold …

By National Journal – Thu Dec 2, 11:43 am ET
By Reid Wilson
National Journal

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."
In founding the caucus in July, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she was giving voice to Americans who were sick of government overspending.
[How do deficit-cutters sell the U.S. on pain?]

"The American people are speaking out loud and clear. They have had enough of the spending, the bureaucracy, and the government-knows-best mentality running rampant today throughout the halls of Congress," Bachmann said in a July 15 statement. The group, she wrote in a letter to House Administration Committee chairman Bob Brady, "will serve as an informal group of Members dedicated to promote Americans' call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government."

Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the tea partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmark requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.
More than one member can sign onto an earmark. Still, there are 29 caucus members who requested on their own or joined requests for more than $10 million in earmark funding, and seven who wanted more than $50 million in funding.

Most offices did not respond right away to a request for comment. Those that did said they supported Republicans' new efforts to ban earmarks.
[Will Obama's winning campaign plan be used against him in 2012?]
Alexander, for one, "stands with his fellow Republicans in the House in supporting the current earmark ban. Since joining the Tea Party Caucus in July, he has not submitted any earmark requests and has withdrawn his outstanding requests that were included in the most recent Water Resources Development Act," said Jamie Hanks, his communications director.
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), who requested 25 earmarks in the last Fiscal Year at a total cost of just over $80 million, has agreed to abide by the Republican earmark ban, according to spokesman Adam Buckalew. "He supported the moratorium and the prohibition adopted recently by the Conference on House earmarks for the 112th Congress," Buckalew said of Harper.

"It's easy to be a member of the TEA Party Caucus because, like them, I agree that we're Taxed Enough Already and we've got to balance the budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes. Deficit spending is not new, but the unprecedented rate of spending in Congress is," Rehberg said in a statement emailed by his office. "Montanans have tightened their belts, and it's way past time for Congress to follow their lead. The TEA Party Caucus is about listening to concerned Americans who want to fundamentally change how Congress spends their tax dollars. On that, we're in total agreement."

Bachmann's office did not respond to emails or phone calls seeking comment.
Still, some Republicans -- albeit none who belong to the Tea Party Caucus -- have said they will not abide by the voluntary earmark ban. And, said CAGW's Williams, the anti-spending organization isn't waiting with baited breath.

"Seeing is believing. It's going to take a lot more than rhetoric to convince us," he said.

A list of Tea Party Caucus members and their earmark requests in Fiscal Year 2010, courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book:
NAME EARMARKS AMOUNT
Aderholt (R-AL) 69 $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO) 9 $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA) 41 $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN) 0 0
Barton (R-TX) 14 $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD) 19 $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL) 14 $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT) 47 $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX) 15 $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA) 0 0
Burton (R-IN) 0 0
Carter (R-TX) 26 $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC) 19 $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO) 0 0
Crenshaw (R-FL) 37 $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX) 22 $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA) 10 $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ) 8 $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA) 19 $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX) 15 $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO) 11 $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX) 16 $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS) 25 $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA) 5 $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI) 9 $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS) 12 $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA) 13 $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO) 6 $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO) 0 0
Lummis (R-WY) 0 0
Marchant (R-TX) 0 0
McClintock (R-CA) 0 0
Gary Miller (R-CA) 15 $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS) 22 $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC) 0 0
Neugebauer (R-TX) 0 0
Pence (R-IN) 0 0
Poe (R-TX) 12 $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA) 0 0
Rehberg (R-MT) 88 $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN) 0 0
Royce (R-CA) 7 $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA) 20 $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX) 0 0
Shadegg (R-AZ) 0 0
Adrian Smith (R-NE) 1 $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX) 18 $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL) 17 $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS) 39 $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN) 14 $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA) 0 0
Wilson (R-SC) 15 $23,334,000
TOTAL 764 $1,049,783,150
Click to expand...

OY VEY ISH MIR!!!! :faceslap:
O.K. I'm not gonna cry...I'm not gonna cry....:hurt:
 
SweetnessandLight

SweetnessandLight

Crusader
lkwdblds said:
Hat's, you have posed a very good questiion. I have lots of empirical experience dealing with this transfer phenomena but have no theoretical background in this field. One thing that I am pretty sure of is that this phenomena is not dependent on whether or not we are all really ONE underneath the illusion of separateness.

The transfer which takes place is more along the lines of the transfer of energy, actual physical universe energy. Since that energy is created by a living being, there is an apparency that a being has transfered over to the practiioner's space as well but this is not necessarily the case.

It is like running Dianetics R3R and actually being able to see your preclear's pictures. You are just viewing the preclear's pctures along with them but there has been no transfer or merging of beingness taking place.

Many of the somatics and much of the electrical charge which transfers from the patient to the practitioner in the process which I run definitely has lots of pictures from the patient connected with it.

Why does it transfer over from them to me? I believe that it transfers because I feel a lot of empathy for my patients and I want desparately to be able to help them. I am thinking that I am exterior to their problem and am not part of it myself. Therefore, I will not fall ill to the maladay which is engulfing them and I can remain detached and either as-is their harmful energy for them or better yet, just allow it to run through me into the ground. Probably msissionairies in Thrid World countries who tend the very ill, such as Mother Teresa did, have a similar mind set when they expose themselves to a serious strain of illness and figure that they will not become ill.

To the degree that the energy merely flows through me into the ground, that indicates that I am exterior to the person's problem. If the energy remains on me and causes me somatics as well, then, to that degree, I am NOT exterior to my patient's problem. I then have to work at getting their harmful energy to blow from my space. This may not always be possible and I may well come down with their malady myself.

When I put my head on my patient's head, the patient is relieved of the somatics and harmful energy and it transferes over to me. It is not as if I make copies of the energy and we both now have it. I now have it and they are free of it.

I believe most valid therapies are designed with the practitioner remaining detached and not getting personally involved with a patient's pictures or case. The practitioner just directs the patient's attention and gets him to examine his pictures, thoughts, intentions, etc. himself. The practitioner does not get involved or give opinions.

On the type of thing I devised, an intuitive massage, I decided to get involved, 3 times, just on the basis of wanting to pull out all the stops to help someone and also to do a little research to see what would happen if I blotted their head with my own head. I was able to help them, where finger pressure alone was not releasing their harmful charge but the results were not well controlled to such an extent that I decided to give up the practice of head blotting.

I think the transfer would occur if all beings were really just one being attempting to reunite or if all beings were unique beings. That particular topic of discussion is not relevant as to whether or not the transfer of energy will occur from one being to another. That is established through empathy and the willingness and ability to duplicate the other being's point of view.

P.S. Added the next morning. Why is blotting the person's head with your head able to soak up the charge and transfer it to you? For that, the only reference which I have comes from LRH and is somewhere in his large "Assist Pack". LRH states that a person's skull acts as a Capacitor, an electrical part common on electronic devices.

Here is a google definition:

capacitor (capacitance)

A capacitor is a passive electronic component that stores energy in the form of an electrostatic field. In its simplest form, a capacitor consists of two conducting plates separated by an insulating material called thedielectric. The capacitance is directly proportional to the surface areas of the plates, and is inversely proportional to the separation between the plates. Capacitance also depends on the dielectric constant of the substance separating the plates.

The standard unit of capacitance is the farad, abbreviated. This is a large unit; more common units are the microfarad, abbreviated µF (1 µF =10-6F) and the picofarad, abbreviated pF (1 pF = 10-12 F).

Capacitors can be fabricated onto integrated circuit (IC)chips. They are commonly used in conjunction with transistors in dynamic random access memory (DRAM). The capacitors help maintain the contents of memory. Because of their tiny physical size, these components have low capacitance. They must be recharged thousands of times per second or the DRAM will lose its data.


Large capacitors are used in the power supplies of electronic equipment of all types, including computers and their peripherals. In these systems,the capacitors smooth out the rectified utility AC, providing pure, battery-likeDC.

LAST UPDATED: 16 Nov 2010

This is very interesting, especially the part I put in red that capacitors help maintain the contents of memory. That could be a pro survival reason why the head of the human body has so much capacitance. If a human body is in the presence of large electrostatic fields, the capacitance of the head may protect many of the body's memories. When it comes to implants or negative type memories, the capacitance of the head could also play a role in keeping an implant type of command locked in place.

When I put my head on my patient's head, it is putting two capacitors up against one another. What seems to occur in my limited experience, just 3 times, is that a transference of memory seems to occur from my patient to myself. I will do a little more research on this but I am sure that many people on this board can make further comments about what I have said.

Lakey
Click to expand...

Ah, Lakey...this got the engineer in you riled up and thinking...good! :)

Can I just share that in several other cultures, putting your face and /or forehead up close to and touching another's is a very loving and respectful greeting? :happydance:

And it's not just us...dogs do it too! A dog that REALLY likes you will come up and rest it's forehead against you. :p Kitties will bump their forehead against you! :D

So it seems to me that there is some kind of energy exchange going on there, with head to head touching transmission, as you put it. Or some kind of communication happening...in my un-engineering way of looking at things. :D

Very interesting! But I'm glad you've decided not to do this as a practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top