01 May 2021. More on the sticky topic of: The Place for belief here. Not to disparaging anyone's beliefs, but... A few words on Youtube channel: World News Report Today (50.4K subs)
This group is founded upon looking at the actual graphs and data, from the antenna-detector units. My job here is to technically explain what you're looking at in the graphs, and scope meter readings.
The technical aspects to understanding these charts requires a bit of background research. I'm coming at this with 30+ yrs. as a technician, working on radio, and electronics, with a familiarity of how to interperate meter readings.
Not everyone invoking to name of Schumann resonances knows how to read these meters and graphs. In case it is not obvious, there are many people guessing now how to read these graphs. Many of you who are out there have been looking to find the technical explanations on alot of this stuff, which is being misappropriated to sell a certain narrative, at this time.
Schumann resonances is an actual geo-physical phenomena. This group is not intented as a clearninghouse of whack-job theories, nor for assertions not-based in actual real-world data.
We are not here to put-down other groups, or channels in how they are conducting their business. If you're watching a video and it plays an ad before, furing or after, then that channel is monetized. If another channel is using the Schumann resonances to assist their monetization efforts, that is on them misappropriating the science, and/or the actual data. This is on them.
It's not up for us to validate, or support any other groups' or channels' versions of what is happening. Most of the commentators discussing the Schumann Resonances do not have a basic grasp of most of the principles involved in understanding the atmospheric electromagnetics. World New Report is a fabulous example of a YT commentator, without a firm grasp of the basics.
I'll be clear. I don't care what his says on his channel. It's when folks come here, confused and bewildered from some crack-pot think he's said, that it now becomes relevant, and imperative to this channel, and me personally. I spend alot of time of this group, attempting to keep it on track. I have alot of myself and my time invested in this group. This place was set-up as a refuge, so one can get good, solid information on this subject.
There is a level of belief to all of human experience. This is the quantum realm, to reveal a great truth. There's a ower behind this, which is invisible, yet it's there, eternally shaping things around us. In this group, we can not quantify this force, yet we know it exists. As a person's consciousness focuses, so therein is a person's reality shaped. Once a thought is planted in the head, it becomes difficult to remove it, without a greater effort of will of the individual.
This is the "DC circuit" of the spoken word. Once it goes out, it hits its target' the damage has been done. Words themselves have no inherent power, except what we give them. We might prefer our words to be ground-in by facts, and factual data.
By presenting this philosphically, or ideologically, it precludes the need for factual data. Here in this group, have we presented actual technical, scientific data, from the field, and from actual researchers. This is what separates this group from most of those who are commenting on "The Schumann".
I'm considering "belief" equal to the means that this person employs to make his living. This channel is one I consider as the Disney-version of the narrative. This is the money-making venture, in a cynical way of putting it. Agenda-based, might be a way of looking at it, not sure...simply a hunch. I'll call it 'produced', or scripted,,,perhaps. Hard to tell exactly.
That's not my place to call-out this channels administrative mission. I simply know how the real-world (dys-)functions, lol. My point here is to evaluate his contribution. based on his level of technical expertise in evaluating the graphs, and information, which he is presenting.
Without getting into any details, nor specifics--I'm made numerous comments here where applicable--I am going to classify the observational reports of this channel under "Belief."
Either the person(s) is simply intending to derail the validity of the dialog, or he's technically incompetent, or is misinformed, and not interested in learning how it actually works, or perhaps they are not interested in looking at this from the perspective of the actual research, Or... something else more nefarious, who knows, can't tell, don't care.
A person is known through the fruits of their labor. I've given alot of information, free-of charge, and given a lot of my time in answering specific questions, and welcome the dialog on the SR, and related topics. I have worked dilligently to break-down these technical concepts and words into the most basic manner possible.
However, there is a learning curve to understanding the atmospheric electromagnetics. This is how alot of the charletons manage to get folks caught, because they know a bunch of the words, and throw-around the terminology to baffle the watcher/reader a little bit. Once dazzled by the vocabulary, it's difficult to become grounded in the actual reality of what's happening with the atmosphere itself...and then how this information gets transduced into useful information distilled onto a public platform which we can digest simply at the click of a button.
Not everyone has had experience in actually working with radio signals, antenne-detectors, nor the measuring, amplifying, recording equiptment. I've worked 30+ (I'm 52) years, with antennae, radios, CB, HAM, as a hobby, educationally, and professionally in addition to having actual college education in engineering, and design. I hae vocational training in electronics repair at the hardware and software levels. I have certifications in network engineering, although I've forgotten much of it because I don't use it in my daily life.
So, from my own personal experience, I have a much higher technical standard for understanding how things in general work, yet specifically, the SR and atmospheric electromagnetics in general, along with Earth currents, and Birkelunds, etc. From my own actual experiences I simply have a technical manner of looking at these things that not many folks do, or can.
Therefore, I'm not looking at anyone critically for their failings to see this from a technical point. What is objectionable is when somone is unable to amend the faulty thinking, once presented by the actual research, and accepted facts for the research of those who are actually measuring these phenomena.
It's fine that one does not understand the science. Yet, one can not misappropriate the science and technical information, to be presented for "clickbait." I don't know a better way to put it, than to summarize like that.
_
Comentários