And just for any other "experts" out there that may be under the impression that I am not fully versed in all of the logistics of attaining information in this manner, this is a cut an paste of a response that I gave in the Manticore Forums about factors effecting dowsing accuracy. This was posted after I dowsed up the whole list of Camelot Interviewees and before the Peterson interview was published.
Quote:
I must add that it is 100% impossible to get accurate results if you have any personal vested interest with ego or otherwise in the data you are trying to dowse about. The truth is that I do not really care which one of the Camelot Witnesses are accurate and which ones are not because there is almost no logistically valuable information in any of these interviews for my own personal path and development. Being able to recognize this before I did the dowsing gave me a neutral frame of mind from which to dowse the information from.
To be 100% honest, the best way to insure accuracy is blind dowsing. This was not possible here because I had already watched most of these interviews, and I was doing the work on my own. I only consciously remembered who had said what when it came to a couple of the interviewees.
Therefore, the chances of most of my dowsing data being accurate is higher than someone who has clear recolection of each interview. For example if I was Bill or Kerry attempting to dowse the accuracy of these testimonies the chances of accuracy would be much less. This is because they have a vested interest in how much of it is true or not.
A true blind dowsing of this data would be to take an experienced dowser who had never seen or been to the Camelot web page and give them the list of names and ask them to dowse for the accuracy of the testimony. This would remove 100% of the chance of the subconscious mind stepping in a squewing results.
Another way one could blind dowse would be a numbered or lettered list. In other words you would have a friend list the names of the people in a random order on a piece of paper and then put that paper face down or in some sort of covering so that you can not see it. They would either put numbers or letters (alphabetical order) on another page for you to write the dowsed data on where the names are not present, only the letters.
I guess that the only one of these testimonies that I did a blind impression on was the Pete Peterson testimony. The only people who have seen that are those present during the taping and also the editors of the vids.
|
For a recap, the Peterson information had dowsed up 32% total factual accuracy before I ever saw a single word of it. This was not just the content of the interview it was also everything he had disclosed to the interview team. How do you like those apples Tango
