posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 10:27 PM
Red Cairo -
You are right of course, I should not have brought other unaccepted by science into the discussion, and it just illustrates the point I made. Science
does not like to think there are other vibrations which are out there and can only accept known ones.
The point I was trying to make was to do with the frequency/vibration/energy was this.
If the original inventor/discoveror had found some way which was not yet verified by science, then he would have a very hard time convincing people it
was a valid discovery. Folks much prefer to have products described in a way they can understand with respect to what they know already from school
So, what I was throwing out there was that even if you do not find it works as a repeatable experiment, his produced product may still work. He may
have made up something which 'should' work as far as science is concerned, but contains the inventors 'secret' within HIS product. I was
suggesting that if you do not find it works in the lab, then it may well be that there is something else (apart from the frequency circuit) which
makes it effective in his product.
The fact that I brought other energy methods into the discussion was a way of illustrating the kind of things I was referring to in my post. That is
also why I asked you if you did not find it working in your lab, would you class it as invalid. As far as accepted science goes, I am sure you would.
There is also the case that the inventor has to get anything which is electrical to pass the safety tests. If there is no known 'test' for his
product, then he will not get it passed. Sometimes you have to give people what they expect so they can feel good about it.
I suspect that is why the specific pests are not mentioned.