AnonOrange
Gold Meritorious Patron
If you're measuring it on one hand, then it's the blood pulsing.
And do we really need pleasantries like "good morning"? This is SRS BSNS!
More DOF E-Meter Videos
- Thread starter Dulloldfart
- Start date
If you're measuring it on one hand, then it's the blood pulsing.
And do we really need pleasantries like "good morning"? This is SRS BSNS!
Paul
First very well done on all these metering videos, some of it is quite interesting.
I was wondering if amongst it all you have conducted any testing on the validity of remote metering. Personally I feel this concept of the auditor metering themselves to establish charged areas on a remote pc to be highly dubious if not a scam. I am open to being proven wrong though.
Have you already done a test along this line?
I imagine such a test would be easy to set up and could even be done with auditor and pc in the same room sitting across from each other. The auditor though would of course for this test be holding the cans himself. The control meter would be connected to the pc but its dial out of site to the auditor. It would need to be out of sight I feel so that the auditor is not distracted by what is occuring on the control meter as his reaction to observing it may cause further reactions in the meter he is holding and so cloud the results.
The challenge would be to some how set this all up so that the two meters are visible to the camera but only one visible to the auditor. No special auditing would be needed and a juicy list such as scientology List One could be assessed (with or without prefix) as this would contain different charged areas for both pc and auditor. Alternatively simple lists from the emeter drill book could be used.
Perhaps a third person might be needed to keep the needle on the dial of the control meter if a scio meter is used.
I certianly hope you add such a test as this to your videos, I would be most interested in the results.
First very well done on all these metering videos, some of it is quite interesting.
I was wondering if amongst it all you have conducted any testing on the validity of remote metering. Personally I feel this concept of the auditor metering themselves to establish charged areas on a remote pc to be highly dubious if not a scam. I am open to being proven wrong though.
Have you already done a test along this line?
I imagine such a test would be easy to set up and could even be done with auditor and pc in the same room sitting across from each other. The auditor though would of course for this test be holding the cans himself. The control meter would be connected to the pc but its dial out of site to the auditor. It would need to be out of sight I feel so that the auditor is not distracted by what is occuring on the control meter as his reaction to observing it may cause further reactions in the meter he is holding and so cloud the results.
The challenge would be to some how set this all up so that the two meters are visible to the camera but only one visible to the auditor. No special auditing would be needed and a juicy list such as scientology List One could be assessed (with or without prefix) as this would contain different charged areas for both pc and auditor. Alternatively simple lists from the emeter drill book could be used.
Perhaps a third person might be needed to keep the needle on the dial of the control meter if a scio meter is used.
I certianly hope you add such a test as this to your videos, I would be most interested in the results.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Marty,
Thanks. For a couple of years I couldn't think with the idea of remote metering at all, then eventually it made sense to me how it could theoretically work. Then I had about 60 hours of auditing from Robert D and got a personal reality on its workability, at least with Robert. He said that for him it only worked when he was in session with someone, and that it didn't work when he was just chatting to someone, i.e. he's still holding the cans while chatting, the other person being unaware of that fact. He audits raw public, and they don't know about the meter either, but in session they still react on his meter.
I've tried a couple of sessions where I remote metered the other person and it didn't work for me. I wasn't too concerned about that, as I still had attention tied up in the mechanics of it all and not enough on the pc.
Long story short, I can't do a sensible (!) remote meter test. It won't work on meter drills. Also, Robert told me he needed to run it at high sensitivity to get the other person to register. My needle is usually pretty loose, and my metering isn't up to picking up reads through a loose needle. The mechanics of doing such a test aren't too hard, as long as the auditor is familiar with remote metering and auditor and pc have video feeds and audio feeds, like a speakerphone. Needs synchronising of two video recordings, split screen basically, but not impossible.
Paul
Thanks. For a couple of years I couldn't think with the idea of remote metering at all, then eventually it made sense to me how it could theoretically work. Then I had about 60 hours of auditing from Robert D and got a personal reality on its workability, at least with Robert. He said that for him it only worked when he was in session with someone, and that it didn't work when he was just chatting to someone, i.e. he's still holding the cans while chatting, the other person being unaware of that fact. He audits raw public, and they don't know about the meter either, but in session they still react on his meter.
I've tried a couple of sessions where I remote metered the other person and it didn't work for me. I wasn't too concerned about that, as I still had attention tied up in the mechanics of it all and not enough on the pc.
Long story short, I can't do a sensible (!) remote meter test. It won't work on meter drills. Also, Robert told me he needed to run it at high sensitivity to get the other person to register. My needle is usually pretty loose, and my metering isn't up to picking up reads through a loose needle. The mechanics of doing such a test aren't too hard, as long as the auditor is familiar with remote metering and auditor and pc have video feeds and audio feeds, like a speakerphone. Needs synchronising of two video recordings, split screen basically, but not impossible.
Paul
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
AnonOrange said:
Of course not... aren't we supposed to be talking about the SKIN (not the whole body)?
AnonOrange said:
As soon as one immerses a body (or body part) into water we get effects like vasoconstriction and maybe a change in the skin conductivity.
I wouldn't want something like water that would change the skin pH and other effects.
Maybe ditch the water idea and go with some sort of conducting paste that cannot be absorbed into the skin? I don't know...
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Thanks for digging up this thread, He-man. Interesting discussions with Anon Orange, with his view that finger/hand micro-twitches cause meter reads. Very interesting videos of never-done-before e-meter experiments. As far as I know, no-one else has put similar experiments online, and it's now 10 years later! AO might have said some silly things, but he was the catalyst that got me to do many of the experiments/demos in the first place.
Paul
Paul
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
No one, including L Ron Hubbard, has adequately explained how the emeter works.
freethinker
Sponsor
Well if you don't know how it works then you can't say that.
