There may be controversy and, perhaps, even skepticism for trying to determine a time when an electromagnetic signal first becomes identifiable in the biological subject. By knowing this relationship, the clinician gains higher level of understanding of his case.
This is how I began to explore this subject.
After I had found a skin site that had an ohm-meter indicator drop that could be balanced by an electromagnetic signal, I wondered how long that signal was present in the electromagnetic structure. It was like asking a patient, “How long have you been sick?” I began to ponder within myself if it was a day, a week, a month, a year and so on. Once I began thinking of time, there was an indicator drop at the test site. I repeatedly tested the site with the same signal that produced the indicator balance, thinking of different times as I tested. I observed that there was a change in galvanic skin resistance when I thought a “time” that was relevant to the subject being tested.
I could sense that there was concern about being tested repeatedly in one place without anything being said, so I decided to ask the same question out loud so as to the include the one being tested in the process. I audibly asked the question: “When did this signal enter your bio-field? Was it today, within the past week, the past month, within the past year, the past 10 years, twenty years, thirty years etc?.” If the answer was within the past week, I divided the week and asked whether it was one day ago, two days ago up to seven days. I used similar method of inquiry for weeks, months and years.
In most cases patients were amazed when a specific time was mentioned! The most frequently asked question was “How did you know that?”
My response: “We live in a three-dimensional space-time creation. All information is associated with time. How you, as a complex biological system, convert that information into changes in skin resistance at a detection site is unknown. Perhaps there are experts in the field of biological energy who can explain this phenomenon, but it correlates with your recollection of a circumstance that could have given rise to that signal”.
This technique is a way for establishing the time at which a non-coherent wave became detectable during a patient’s lifetime and is useful in establishing chronology of electromagnetic events, if the time of detection can be validated by the patient. If the time extends beyond the patients life time, it is less reliable because of a lack of confirmation by the progenitor, but it is still useful in establishing the probable time for the genesis of trans-generational information.
Another unexplainable skin response occurs when the question is asked if the code came from the maternal or paternal side. In my experience distinguishing lineage becomes less clear cut the further back one goes into the lineage.
Response of galvanic skin to questions of time, whether in this generation or trans-generational, do not have to be verbalized in order to occur. They occur because of cognitive input (thought) of the operator and/or the memory of the subject. On the other hand, cognitive input does not affect encrypted pulsed codes. They are computer generated and not innate in either the operator or the subject.
One of the redeeming and even amusing effects of detecting time is when either syphilis or gonorrhea is detected. One can sense the relief of tension between spouses when it is discerned that the signal came from “great-grand father on the maternal side 130 years ago” and not the spouse. Phew! Talk about the sins of the father being vested upon the children to the third and fourth generation. So there is a biblical and a practical side to this matter as well.
One of the criticisms of this type of analysis is that it has not proven statistically. That is true. It is just an observation but it is good observation if it adds clarity to ones understanding of the case.
For example, if the time of entry of the signal into the biofield is longer then the subjects lifetime, the signal takes on the nature of a miasm and imputes a different character to the signal than one acquired during the subjects lifetime.
Adage: Last signal in, first signal out.
Interpretation of the adage:
Signals that have been present for a long period of time have been hidden by newly acquired destructive interference signals. The older signals cannot be recognized until the more recent destructive interferences has been removed during the iterative process, the so called ‘Peeling of the Onion’ effect.
Another example: In an analysis of Kuru, a neurodegenerative prion disease in New Guinea, I found that the time for signals from human T-lymphotrophic viruses always indicated a time of 20-30 years before the time for the prion signal. This suggests that Kuru develops as a result of a slow virus infection. There is a long latent period between the signal for the virus infection and the signal for Kuru.