Film: Resonance Beings Of Frequency

Resonance reveals 60 years of scientific research into the harm being caused to life by man made wireless frequencies.

Two billion years ago life first arrived on this planet; a planet, which was filled with a natural frequency. As life slowly evolved, it did so surrounded by this frequency. and Inevitably, it began tuning in.

By the time mankind arrived on earth an incredible relationship had been struck; a relationship that science is just beginning to comprehend.

Research is showing that being exposed to this frequency is absolutely integral to us. It controls our mental and physical health, it synchronises our circadian rhythms, and it aids our immune system and improves our sense of wellbeing.

Not only are we surrounded by natural frequencies, our bodies are filled with them too. Our cells communicate using electro magnetic frequencies. Our brain emits a constant stream of frequencies and our DNA delivers instructions, using frequency waves. Without them we couldn’t exist for more than a second.

This delicate balance has taken billions of years to perfect. But over the last 25 years the harmony has been disturbed. and disturbed dramatically. Mankind has submerged itself in an ocean of artificial frequencies. They are all around us, filling the air and drowning out the earth’s natural resonance.

To the naked eye the planet appears to be the same. But at a cellular level it is undergoing the biggest change that life on earth has endured; the affects of which we are just starting to see and feel. ‘Resonance’ sensationally reveals how our reliance on a technology that is proving to be unsafe, could result in us paying the ultimate price…

Studies in animals and plants suggest that cryptochromes play a pivotal role in the generation and maintenance of circadian rhythms

1 Like

Sorry Chris, there’s a lot of actual scientific info contained in the video, but the theory proposed is in fact pseudo-science.

Where it goes wrong is trying to meld “schuman resonance” with “Alpha waves” - both legitimate science, but no connection.
The video builds on the ideas of Luc Montagnier, which have been pretty much universally scorned by the scientific community. If you scroll to "responses and criticisms, in the following, you may see things differently?

It makes further pseudo-scientific claims regarding “Electro-magnetic hyper-sensitivity”, maybe this Wikipedia quote helps explain this:

“However, there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure.[2]
The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields,[3][4] and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. Since a systematic review in 2005 showing no convincing scientific evidence for it being caused by electromagnetic fields,[3] several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause to be the nocebo effect.[5][6][7]”

It really is clever how these things work. It’s difficult to extricate the science from the pseudo-science.
I don’t know if you posted this to discuss or advocate…just saying my take on it.

The “sciencey” bit seems to be that as Radio waves interfere with the navigation systems of those animals that utilise the Earth’s magnetic field for navigation (via cryptochromes )- the inference is being made that, as cryptochromes are involved in regulation of the circadian rhythm in Humans, then radio waves can disrupt sleep patterns…maybe?

Yes that’s the part I found interesting, the second half of the film regarding cell towers is debatable…

Sometimes you have to go with your gut… before the high priests of the day declare it’s science, after all that’s how humanity has been controlled for a very long time i.e keeping knowledge to themselves.


An example would be monitoring the movement of the Sun over the course of one year (GOG) and it’s relation to 666

The famous quote from the bible that folks get excited:

The one who has understanding must calculate the number of the beast, because it is the number of a man. His number is 666

i.e the Magi that has the scientific knowledge of the movement of the sun has massive advantage

How? with a measuring staff something like this :

The course of the Sun over 9 months (human incubation) as shown below, gave the Magi the ability to predict when a baby would be born.


Knowing the movement of Sun and Moon gave these guys a huge advantage and probably forms the basis for a lot of pagan belief systems. So if a JC was warning of the beast, maybe it was a warning against the hoarding of knowledge that holds back humanity.

666 ‘the beast’ 999 ‘the catholic church/preists of amun’ :wink:

I find that post quite ironic, as in reality, it has been Religion throughout the ages that has tried to keep knowledge to itself and has desperately been trying to keep the populace ignorant of reality/science from day 1. :smile:

The word “Apophenia” springs to mind… :smile:
It only springs to mind because I’ve just read a book on Psychology that covered it…it wouldn’t have otherwise… :wink:

FYI this information regarding the movements of the Sun, comes from a set of 4 films titled Secret Code of the Freemasons of Sydney which can be had for $10.

Knowledge incorporated into architecture survives book burnings…I find that fascinating, so many folk never look up at their buildings. Secret codes everywhere :smile:

1 Like

Rupert Sheldrake did some experiments and went some rounds with the skeptics claiming that there electro magnetic directional sense did not explain homing pigeons, behavior that something more like “quantum holism” was needed suggesting that two things that touch for ever resonate together and can therefore be drawn together. According one of our favored grand metaphysical stories everything was energetically mixed up and touching in the singularity. The implication is the pigeon could find it homing site know matter where it went because of this resonance.

Knock-out in first round actually :smiley:

Yes, no probs with this. I find the whole Freemason thing interesting and will research further - I know very little about it tbh. I could definitely see how it connects with Religious power structures in certain ways. The idea is the same in regard to hoarding the info for the benefit of those “in-group”.
I would argue that in contrast, “Science” has been trying to disseminate real information throughout the ages, or others “ring-fence” the science to their own ends.
By Science, I’m talking about the Scientific method of investigation, which I believe is demonstrably the best approach to investigating the nature of reality.

I don’t believe the skeptics scored a knock out because when the ships moved no one told the birds where they were going and the birds were able to fly right to the ships even if they had changed course by thousands of miles. A technique used in the world wars and way before to deliver messages. As far as I know, no one has come up with anything but exotic explanations for the carrier pigeon mystery. .

The very first site that popped up when I googled “homing pigeon mystery” from a very low level science site seemed to provide a much more plausible explanation with scientific reason to believe it, than the ridiculously “exotic” explanation of “quantum holism”.

We’ve been here before many times - Rupert Sheldrake’s TED video was removed for the specific reason that it was un-scientific. In other words, “quantum holism” explains the phenomenon in exactly the same way as “Wizardry” would.
It baffles me why you cling to these pseudo-scientific explanations for things, yet demonstrate you have properly researched and understand and grasp other more complex political ideas.
I don’t understand why you appear to defend this stuff despite all the criticisms and information given…it feels almost like a religious effect…ignore the evidence kind of thing. Maybe “confirmation bias” at work …just saying.
It was the same with the Religion post you made. It started off really promising, then went awry.
The basic proposition you were making, was to replace Religion with pseudo-Science…and I don’t see the benefit. There are useful societal aspects to Religion that we could retain when thinking of a “replacement” and this would have been a more interesting conversation to have for me; :smile:

Did you watch that Sheldrake Ted talk? I tried to rework the religion post a bit earlier. Martini had Gary Schwartz in the second chapter. I thought Schwartz made some good points. I don’t know what he’s done with his career but at the time of his tenure at Yale he was supposedly the youngest professor to be granted tenure. Schwartz with his research at the University of Arizona went gold plated, invented or at least employed a “triple blind” to work with skeptics and get them to look at the data. According to Schwarts after rounds the skeptics were accusing him of manipulating the results with his own mind over vast distances, which he found ironic. I think we don’t want religious or dogmatic science, that’s the last thing we want.

Formula for religion post is something like: if you take away the crutch of death you’re stuck with 100% responsibility, there is nothing and no one to blame. As for pseudo science after a dive in Greene’s book Hidden Reality (which isn’t a speculation book at all but explores 9 hypotheses that mainstream science is trying to test) its clear that reality and even science are stranger than any science fiction. Even the best case doesn’t leave us with a linear solution, its a world full of paradox in the math and beyond. A lot of mainstream people are still apt to think most of what someone like Tesla did was pseudo science or quackery. For me science doesn’t establish truth it only points to it, and hopefully we get better and better approximations on a universe that isn’t wiggling around. The physicist Lee Smolin has a new book, he says we can understand the universe if we assume the physical laws change and evolve, and its a book about time. That something the supposedly delightful crackpot has been saying for decades, speed of light has been shifting etc.

A pseudo-science believing sceptic of pseudo-science…yes that would be ironic…c’mon… :smile:

What is your definition of dogmatic science? Do you mean dogmatically following the Scientific method? This would be equivalent to saying “dogmatically think rationally”…it literally makes no sense to do otherwise.

Got to do a few hours work now…chat later

Ok later.

There is this massive issue on interpretation of the data and its implications. Even where there is agreement on the data and the method, everyone brings their own metaphysics even those who deny the possibility of metaphysics. If I am not mistaken philosophical metaphysics is all about language claims and their entailing necessity or not but you know what I mean. Its like Max Planck supposedly said, paraphrasing: proponents, even in science, are generally not persuaded, they just die off.

But with homing pigeons I don’t think that explains it. You keep the pigeon sealed off in a cage and then move the ship with the other cage where ever you want and it flies right to the ship. That’s what made them the precursor to cryptography. It looks like the transparency theme I like so much. There are two types of skepticism closed and open minded. Its not always easy to tell which one we tending toward.

Yes, that’s why it’s a honey-pot for every crackpot pseudo-scientific theory. I have read Greene’s “The Elegant Universe” which explains String Theory and the reason for the extra dimensions. I have no issue with Greene’s ideas, they are speculative but a reasonable guess as to what might explain and unify Relativity and Gravity in a simple way. The guess is based on the interpretation of the available data. The next step to take is to discover if the Theory is falsifiable - ie could any observation or experiment prove/disprove the Theory - if the answer is “No”, then it is just speculation. Luckily, I think there may be a way to detect anomalies in observed Relativity effects which could be explained by String Theory. Even this would not “prove” String Theory", just that it hasn’t been falsified yet. It would give us more reason to believe we were on the right path though and warrant further investigation. This is the Scientific method.
All kinds of scam artists use the “mysteries” of Science to promote and advertise their own brand of pseudo-Science - its analogous to the way Religion works, or the way Advertisers mis-inform to sell their product,- It is just extremely clever Advertising and mind control. Yes Science is stranger than Science-fiction, this does not make it equivalent to it.

It would depend on what it was that “Tesla did” that you are referring to.

I largely agree, everyone can make up a “theory” about the Universe, however some are more grounded in Science than others and therefore have more “weight” behind them. Greene’s theory would carry more weight than Smolin’s, though its interesting enough for me to investigate further. I could honestly make up a theory right here and now and I could ask you to prove me wrong…it would be the same thing.

I have no idea what philosophical metaphysics is, but if Smolin’s theory is anything to go by, at first sight it looks like philosophy and physics don’t mix too well…it appears more philosophical than scientific to me.
Edit: On second sight Smolin’s ideas do not seem without merit but I’m struggling to get my head round the different philosophical arguments between the Anthropic Principle and Time being “real” so to speak. Definitely interesting arguments though, but like I say, more philosophical. I would have to read a lot more to be able to form an opinion - just saying Jury’s out on Smolin for the moment
Edit 2:
Definitely interesting and I agree with his general statements about science. I found the following review a very good source for a condensed version of all the relevant and thought-provoking arguments - definitely not pseudo-Science and of a higher order of magnitude than run of the mill ideas/theories, scientific or philosophical. Please read it and give me your thoughts. Cheers:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jun/06/time-regained/

“Better not to think of science as a quest for timeless truths. Science, he writes, creates “effective theories.” These are models—incomplete by definition. They are effective in limited domains, and they are approximate. That doesn’t have to be a failing. Science can construct better and better theories, approaching the truth with closer approximations. But a perfect model of the universe would have to be the size of the universe. We humans are finite creatures, with little brains.”

Agreed…

The underlying question to me is – Is it not consciousness that is moving within the “Real Time Universe”, rather than the Universe itself? I think I’m getting at what Einstein was getting at:

“People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

However, I’m also troubled by the concept of the “Now”, which isn’t surprising as its an alternative way of saying “consciousness” – the very hard question of Science.

1 Like

Yes, I think Smolin would have been the kind of physicist even the the more skeptical and conservative scientist could support. He may have been dragged kicking and screaming to present considerations. Exciting times. I’ll check out the link.

We’ve all heard that Taoist refrain “naming is the origin of the 10 thousand things,” and there was a book “Naming and Necessity” by Saul Kripke where I think part of the point was that our necessity claims come from out naming conventions- the point is our necessity claims always seem to want to shut down discourse in some direction and strike me as entirely political to the point of being attempts at thought policing. Both orthodox religion and the orthodoxy of science seem to want to do something similar. The orthodoxy in science will say things like: There is no evidence for… But how could they know that? We don’t want priests.

So in general I can’t stand necessity statements because in my opinion there isn’t a human or group of humans qualified to make those type of statements on any subject not even with the weight of apparent evidence or logic behind them. Statements about practicality or odds are another thing. But I don’t like the pretention behind the issuance of necessity statements. Suppose that we discover that the most aware, most qualified most developed human intellect happen to reside in one human person who was open to making some statements about the world. Suppose further that this person can also consult the web and any reference and any authority they choose on the fly before rendering an answer to a question- we want to make sure it’s their best answer. We also have another unseen unspecified authority figure in the background. We now have contest on the quality of answers given about the state of things and likely outcomes for both the practical place of humanity in the universe and ultimate statements about the possible and reality.

Naturally people in the audience begin to speculate about the identity of the challenger. Early on some of our skeptics are calling the challenger a crack pot and a quack. As the questions develop we find that the mystery figure is stating that humans will develop in a pretty linear fashion for at least another million years and that even a million years from now something like a mind or intellect will be present. At the end of the contest the challenger steps forward from the mist. It’s the corresponding representative from human kind a million years hence forth and it truly is to us as we are to our mutual ancestor from a million years prior. The closed minded skeptics have egg on their face. The open minded skeptics aren’t disappointed.
From my perspective, we also don’t want the scientific endeavor to end or end prematurely. I want it to continue to be shockingly fascinating and with surprise beyond our wildest imagination indefinitely. I don’t want science to die a premature death of boredom. I want the wonder, I want the mystery alive and intact still supporting human motivation endlessly. And I want that to be the case for any area of science that we look at. Like an infinite fractal along every dimension that we can never quite compass. I feel we need this for our own forward development. Otherwise time becomes an infinite pain, the worst kind of hellish dull pain, the kind the political priests, secular and otherwise are always threatening us with in their attempts to drive us with fear. They seek to hand us involuntary nullifying lives, because our volition, our will is seen as a contradiction to their own, they want us unconscious and in denial. Their prime enforcement tool is the necessity claim, because it locks us out of our own growth path. Its enclosure not transparency, and its comes down to increasing power and even money by restricting access. It’s all very consistent.

On the other hand there are the scientists who become skeptics about their field and feel the need to speak out before they reach the top of the pyramid. With foreknowledge they take the ostracism, ridicule and loss of career path it takes to move us forward. They also set the example of being able to question. They could be wrong but they demonstrate integrity which inspires trust.

I haven’t but I take the point. Richard Feynman made a similar point and its one I totally agree with - hence why I’m more interested in the processes/concepts, than what they are called.

I’ve just recently had issues on a thread about exactly this thing:

Because no evidence would have been available…or are you saying there is potentially evidence for everything, just not found yet? Smolin is suggesting all alternate theories are thrashed out and given funding, however obviously funding goes to where positive results might be found. The answer is to make convincing arguments and provide evidence - then funding would stream that way. I don’t think there is an “Orthodoxy” in the way you portray it. You kinda lost me after that.

Are you actually saying that however knowledgeable a person is about a subject, or however much evidence they provide or logical their argument, you will continue to advocate pseudo- science for some undefined reason, other than knowledge, logic and evidence? This would suggest that it is entirely pointless in continuing to discuss anything, as you are not actually interested in discussing anything
To then lecture about “closed-minded skeptics” seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Meant to type “that there isn’t a human or group of humans qualified,” to make absolute statements with god like authority. We’d need to first confirm our own omniscience. There is only weight of the evidence and our tentative interpretations, which we try to build on. We’ve had some very bright and aware people in the past think the Earth was flat. With time and more people to consider the issue we changed our minds, but we have to keep our track record in mind and how many times we’ve had deep corrections. Now we theories of how the planet formed and high def pictures of the planet but if there are other dimensions or hidden worm holes traveling with the planet we may still be missing a lot of the picture. We’ve even had gross corrections on what we though the majority of the universe was made of with discovery of the dark stuff.

On the other hand we have a polar ice cap about melted off and measured rising of ocean levels and measured increases in global average temp and measured increases in CO2 and we have people telling us that this is fantasy. So we want to be skeptical but open skeptical. We don’t want to throw out any data that might later prove useful because it doesn’t fit with present theories, not do we want to readily discount stuff, and this holds especially when guns are being held to scientists heads over funding. Their courage in dissent must be honored and recognized especially when its taking us in the direction of caution.

Two fairly recent papers backing up the premise in this film


Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones

Conclusion: Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.


Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use

This study confirmed previous results of an association between mobile and cordless phone use and malignant brain tumours. These findings provide support for the hypothesis that RF-EMFs play a role both in the initiation and promotion stages of carcinogenesis.