Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Theory About How Ed Leedskalnin Built Coral Castle

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Here is the R&D page/site for the company that developed the lamp...makes me wonder if there is a ted talk on this... www.psyleron.com...




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Thanks! I've bookmarked it.

What would we do without this internet???



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Okay I've never heard the term "consciousness technologies" before. I like that.
edit on 12/16/12 by Mary Rose because: Remove tags



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Okay I've never heard the term "consciousness technologies" before. I like that.


So I was just digging on the inventor of this: Robert Jahn www.princeton.edu...

now this you will find definitely of interest; more proof of Scared Geometry; you're familiar with Yantras I take it? A mantra as a geometric design? On the scholarly paper page... www.princeton.edu...

Paper number 23. Exploring the Possible Effects of Johrei Techniques on the Behavior of Random Physical Systems.

snipit: Using Johrei on a so-called “Yantra” experiment, two of the three participants achieved anomalous effect sizes that were substantially larger than those typically produced by a broader range of common operators, but curiously inverted from the pre-stated directions of intention.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jeremy Stride
 


You've reminded me of the quote that you have at the beginning of one of your videos, "The New Secrets of the Universe 1 of 2 (2009)":




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
. . . more proof of Scared Geometry . . .


Something subliminal going on there?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Jeremy Stride
 


You've reminded me of the quote that you have at the beginning of one of your videos, "The New Secrets of the Universe 1 of 2 (2009)":




I touch on this in my recent article on Ed's abilities.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I am going to have to read more of Keely; I only noticed that his model of the atom; fits sciences view of a universe/flat galaxies; and a black hole at the center of every one...is the central black hole of a galaxy; the neutral medium?
edit on 16-12-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Perhaps...i didn't know if you were seeking more "non fringe" proof; this is Princeton after all...refuting and debunking them? good luck...haha



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


I wonder whether there's a term they use at Princeton that means the same thing as "sacred geometry," or close to it.

Wouldn't it be great if the word "fringe" leaves the lexicon? It's a pejorative term. Scientists should simply be open-minded, objective, and adventurous.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


I wonder whether there's a term they use at Princeton that means the same thing as "sacred geometry," or close to it.

Wouldn't it be great if the word "fringe" leaves the lexicon? It's a pejorative term. Scientists should simply be open-minded, objective, and adventurous.



Well, they wouldn't want people that didn't spend their lives studying the field outside college, like they did in college...to get credit would they? Wait we have the education and degrees for this...sorta makes them look bad; when non degree in the field people...make the discoveries instead. Fringe just makes me think of the tassels on curtains; hippie vests, a rug border...too many other definitions collide for it to bother me.
edit on 16-12-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp
edit on 16-12-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: clarity; some weird double talk confusion...probably still mangled up.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Well, they wouldn't want people that didn't spend their lives studying the field outside college, like they did in college...to get credit would they?


I think you mean to say ". . . they wouldn't want people that didn't spend their lives studying in college but are in the field people to get credit . . . "

Personally, I look for the work of self-educated scientists and inventors. It's okay if the source also has degree(s) as long as they've done their homework and they understand how badly mainstream education has been messed up by powerful, vested interests.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Well, they wouldn't want people that didn't spend their lives studying the field outside college, like they did in college...to get credit would they?


I think you mean to say ". . . they wouldn't want people that didn't spend their lives studying in college but are in the field people to get credit . . . "

Personally, I look for the work of self-educated scientists and inventors. It's okay if the source also has degree(s) as long as they've done their homework and they understand how badly mainstream education has been messed up by powerful, vested interests.



Exactly...its the money; companies donate money to a college they want a return; not Joe Bob finding the answer in his chicken coop.
Sad thing is 5 or 10 million is a lot to Joe Bob; so he sells it to the companies...either they then bury it, or turn Joe Bob's Idea into every profit pulling idea they can brain storm out of it.

Reminds me of CD technology...lets slowly dish the tech out for maximum profit. Here's a new music format can't record on it though, here's the player; cant record on it yet, heres a new player that records the cd to tape, can't record on it yet, have the market started to crawl? Now you can record on it! Oh wait you dont want to keep buying these do ya guess what? ..now you can rewrite them! yay pass the beer around. we squeezed them how many times? when they could have written and rewritten from the very beginning...shame on us for being a corporation...no wait never mind we are people; and our information is valuable to politicians who can insider trade...psst say no on human rights, and we got a solid 10 year stock portfolio for you.

Spectacular; thats how technology works...I have a laptop...but where could tech be without suppression for profit?...who knows but I feel like I am banging rocks together with a Cro-Magnon brow as I type this.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Can scientific experiments turn out differently according to the time and location of the experiment?

(I'm beginning to piece together that the attributes of the Earth's magnetic field at any particular point in time and space may have an impact on the results of experiments.)

Mainstream science insists that experiments must be repeatable. As far as I know there is no caveat that attaches to this protocol. Should there be a caveat?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


To say the cause comes from the effect it has to be repeatable; otherwise it's a correlation.

In other words: "Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.

en.wikipedia.org...

An example; of this I learned years ago was: Childrens breakfast cereal causes less cancer. The cancer data will show this as true...but it isn't a direct cause and effect of the cereal. It just happens that cancer rates in children are lower no matter what they eat...it has nothing to do with the cereal. That's an example that shows a cause and effect that can be correlated as truth, but the demographic makes the difference.

You are correct in implying certain areas or certain circumstances; there will be cause and effect that do not happen elsewhere. Throw an apple in space, it will keep going at the same speed and angle until it hits something. Do it here, same thing throw an apple, but because of gravity the effect and outcome are different.

So in science to prove something as a direct cause and effect, under the exact same settings and circumstances it should be the same; unless something anomalous is occurring to prevent a constant. To create something, such as lifting stones, to stay on topic. lifting them is the anomalous effect if it wasn't done, according to the known standard. So immediately it is cast in scientific doubt. The theory I gave in the other thread and here, fits science fact in all parts...the process used to achieve it, is whats anomalous or what will get called a mechanism yet to be discovered.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





Carreau,

I've been looking closely at the image which contains the three tripods titled "ia50c63b1.jpg" and something just doesn't seem right. The tripod in the foreground has some definite peculiarities -- the middle tripod leg appears to be closest to the camera based upon where it's positioned on the ground. If you focus on the top of the tripod, the two dark legs are clearly positioned behind the leftmost leg. In order for the tripod to remain stable, the leftmost leg would necessarily be located in the foreground, closest to the camera. If you enlarge the photo, inconsistencies related to the position of the tripod legs are more clear. Also, the way the cable is routed around the legs doesn't make sense. Again, if you focus on the top of the tripod only, it looks like the cable is anchored to the rightmost leg, then wraps around the leg closest to the camera and is then tied-off to the middle leg. If the middle tripod leg is in fact in the foreground, the cable would not hang in such a way. This inconsistency is more apparent after enlarging the photo. Please examine the photo very carefully. It looks like the cable was hand-drawn with a pencil or something. The shadows on the tripod do not make sense either. The sun appears to be roughly in the high-noon position, based upon shadows found on the castIe. If the middle leg is in the foreground, then it should not be completely blacked-out, which suggests the underside of the leg is pictured, instead of the outside. Also, the tripod has no crossbeam that Ed has been seen standing/working on. Why? Was he in the process of relocating it? I thought Ed didn't like being photographed while working. This seems suspicious. I can't say for certain, but the photo appears to have been faked and if that's the case, the notion that Coral Castle was built using only simple tools must seriously be questioned. Please look very carefully at the photo. I would suggest enlarging the photo, then re-examining the original to nail down inconsistencies. Bottom line, I hate to say it, but there's something funny going on here.

edit on 25-12-2012 by Hacker976 because: to perform image insert. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed the dots arranged in a circular pattern located on the top-center castle stone? That doesn't look natural or the result of a film-processing artifact. Yet another indication the photo has been tampered with.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hacker976

Carreau,

I've been looking closely at the image which contains the three tripods titled "ia50c63b1.jpg" and something just doesn't seem right.


You're talking about the photo I scanned from the book and uploaded?

You left out a character: ia50c63db1.jpg



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Hi Everyone, I'm Inq. the newbie here, new blood is 'sometimes' good
, Forgive me if I get things wrong or upset you, nothing is directed as personal or nasty or bossy.
I would like to make a few observations on many of your comments about the picture, it is only my own opinion. it might mean nothing or might help, My style seem to confuse people so please feel free to ask or debate or correct me for any comment or confusion I make, I dont bite


1, The three tripods/ towers, if I can identify them as Left to right - A,B & C

Tripod/tower A,
The legs IMO are almost correct and just distorted by an optical illusion, please take into account you are not actually looking at the feet on the ground, we are looking over a sloping wall in the foreground, the foot of the right hand leg is behind a block (IMO its a block to be/ing moved). This block also appears to be sitting on poles /rollers?, there appears to be more poles in a pile to the right nearer the building.. On the right of the picture same wall I think are planks not poles over the wall and partly off the ground in the bush /tree behind the wall.
There appears to be more planks under the tree, but I am skeptical if there is also a pipe there, as the end of one of these, seems to have a blob/connection on it

The middle leg - I would almost agree the sun/shadows don't make sense but the shadow on the building justifies the shading on the pole /suns position.. However the shadows are a greater mystery if this picture is the new site (I'll explain my thoughts later if you wish.)

The cable; I am "almost" ready to believe it may have been penciled in BUT . .
Taking it as a non-fake 1st, then there are TWO cables coming down and over the front wall towards the photographer, on the right of the Middle pole the 'wire' quite visible up to the wall anyway, the wire to the left of the right hand pole is not as clear but does come down and over the wall. that would give us two wires directly to the 'box'.
The wrap around three poles I tend to think it would have just been a wire stay wrapped round to keep the poles in place at that height. if this is the case then the 'stay' nearest the building is broken and Dangling/ tied up?
the way it looks to me is tied to right leg then to left leg then round back to the central leg, the third but broken tie from middle leg to right leg AKA just a simple supporting /strengthening tie? does that make any sense?

Ok the fake cable concept; or no cables, maybe it is as above just supporting ring and no electrical wire or cable, I think this is closer to the answer; The right down wire does not exist it is a pen mark, and enlarging the picture seems to give this cable too much detail and much more like a scribbled line. My reason for this is; the line/wire does not gain any thickness as it comes down and closer to the camera, also there is no drop or hanging down as it comes through the air over the gap to the wall, As said enlarging the picture it appears to be a pen ( biro) mark added later, and because of the difference in Contrast.

Phew ! sorry I do go on
.

I'll end with a short observation on B tower; it must have been one hell of a height ! It exceed the height of the building (from the cameraman view point who is at ground level, thus has to be considerably taller than tower A.
Thanks for giving me your time, I look forward to any comments


Inquiziter.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Hacker976
 


Hi Hacker, I thought the same too but, that is not the only stone in the picture like that. which would add more the the construction or use of the anti gravity/magnetic theorists. If those holes were drilled to make some coil unit then it might make some sense and going to extreme 'out of the box thinking' maybe this could have been what was inside the tower/tripod boxes. ??? No pun Intended.
I am still very much open minded about everything.and would not rule out your line of thinking.
The other marked stone is extreme right edge, at the bottom of the right leg of the right hand tower.
The position I give is visually right - but this stone is much more forward in the picture than the tower .

InQ.









 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join