Still waiting for you to ask me what information I have that you do not have that leads me to conclude that this practice is legitimate.
Until you can humble yourself enough to ask a fucking question, I'm going to remain toxic towards you.
Ask a question before you throw stones.
What information you have that I do not have that leads you to conclude that your hand is not an uncontrolled variable and does not have any effect on the results?
On blind trials in which I didn't know what to expect, I got correct results 100% of the time. I know because after I got my results, I looked up what should happen according to the progenitor of applying this practice to this application.
I tested.
I observed perfectly consistent results which, for 3 pyramids tested multiple times apiece quickly becomes rather astronomically ridiculous odds to consider as being the case. The pendulum could pull counter-clockwise and enter a circular swing, swing straight, or pull clockwise and enter a circular swing. That's (1/3)^n for n number of trials. Just for the sake of calculating an example, if I tested each pyramid twice, that's a 1 out of 729 chance that I got lucky. Given that it was blind, it couldn't have been me thumbing the scale somehow.
There have been many more than 6 trials and I've done trials on other things besides the pyramids too, including a specific symbol printed on a piece of paper, pages colored with one solid color, etc. All trials went as they ought to have.
Thank you for the respectful question.
How did you make the trial blind?
I tested.
I observed the test results.
Then I looked up what ought to have been the test results according to the progenitor of applying this practice to this application. There are a few sources where I would look for information like that. The others are the progenitor's family members and the one person the progenitor licensed to teach his research who unfortunately died earlier in 2025. I have the progenitor's books and the website of the person who passed earlier in 2025.
Test, observe, look up what should have happened, compare, perfect results, astronomically low odds that it could have been luck.
Ok, so a true double blind experience which would be the gold standard in this case would be that neither the experimenter nor the holder have any knowledge of which pyramid is being tested.
Reading your response it appears that you think a blind trial is not knowing what the results should be before starting, am I correct in thinking that?
If I don't know what to expect, how does it matter which pyramid is being tested?
All 3 gave the correct readings.
I'm not talking about the modification part.
I'm talking about testing the two ~6 cm pyramids prior to even considering doing any modifications. The modifications came later as a result of the initial testing and then looking up why I was getting the results I was getting in the progenitor's first book. I found the answer and then decided to modify one of the pyramids.
The experiments prior to any of that is what I'm talking about as having been the blind tests. You can be pedantic if you want about the definition of blind. I'm speaking practically. What matters is that on the initial testing of the 3 unmodified pyramids, I went better than 6/6. I don't know what it was but it was n/n and it was at least 2 tests per pyramid. If I didn't know what to expect and I got correct results every time (confirming that fact afterwards) in what functional, practical way is that not blind?
Iām not being pedantic and the definition of āblindā.
You are presenting this as a scientific experiment. In a scientific experiment blind is as I have described it. Believing that you no not know what will be observed does not make it a blind test.
I did not invent the double blind experiment, someone far smarter than me did and if you want to show that the holder has no influence on the outcome that is what needs to be done.
Clearly you care about showing that this particular effect is real so do a proper double blind study to prove it to yourself if nothing else.
Pedantic flies in the face of the practical.
I think we're sorting out the confusion. You were focused on the videos from the OP.
If you're going to question the validity of what I'm doing, then I'm not going to point to the unmodified pyramid vs modified pyramid trials for that.
I'm going to point to the trials I did before even learning about the indentations on the Great Pyramid.
Ok, but what I am trying to highlight is that as far as the scientific method is concerned you have not adequately controlled for you influencing the results.
You have seen an effect, Iām not disputing that.
If I wanted to prove that the effect is real and attributed to EMF explanation you gave I would do a double blind trial.
And as I mentioned before double blind means not knowing what is being tested, and not being unaware of what the observations should be. This is an important and critical distinction.
I think we figured out the issue. You were thinking that my blind trials were the modified vs unmodified trials.
No.
The blind trials preceded the modified vs unmodified trials.
You haven't seen the blind trials.
I didn't post about the blind trials.
We were talking past one another because you kept assuming I was stupid and don't understand what blind means. I did blind trials, just not the ones you saw in the OP.
I wasn't planning on having what I was doing attacked. I didn't post the trials I would post if I was trying to demonstrate the legitimacy of the practice. I was posting about what I found in a subsequent experiment after I had already determined mathematically that the results I'd been getting doing all sorts of tests couldn't have been luck or self-fulfilling.
I have, as you asked, humbled myself and asked the question you wanted me to ask. I would ask you to humble yourself and accept that your methodology may not be the gold standard for proving what you are trying to.
Have we at least figured out that I am not using the modified pyramid vs unmodified pyramid as my justification for the legitimacy of the practice?
I'm using blind trials you have not seen videos of where the odds of getting those results were 1/729, and, furthermore, the results went against my ignorant, uneducated (at that point in time) expectations.
No I donāt think so.
I think youāre still referring blind as meaning not knowing what outcome to expect instead of it being not knowing what is being tested.
If you did previous trials were they with and without a pyramid present where the holder had no knowledge of if the pyramid was or was not present?
I agree we were talking past each other and the concept of what a double blind protocol is is still the issue. I still do not believe that you can claim the results as valid unless itās a double blind protocol.
Another question is does what the pyramid is made of affect the results? If weāre talking about EMF being the cause of the result I would expect the composition of the pyramid will have some effect.
āI still do not believe that you can claim the results as valid unless itās a double blind protocol.ā
And I donāt think you can justify this assertion. What are you isolating by this? Nothing.
I told you I had only uneducated expectations going into the blind trials and the results were 100% correct, and those 100% correct results contradicted my, at the time, ignorant expectations.
Thatās functionally a blind trial. There is nothing to be gained from the double blind trials you are talking about.
This entire conversation has been a shit show and itās because you donāt know how to investigate something respectfully.
āWhat are you isolating by this?ā
Removal of the holder being able to have an influence on the results.
There is not way to scientifically prove that you had no knowledge of what the results would / should be. If this is a real effect that is not caused by any influence of the holder it will still happen in a double blind test. If you really want to know if the effect is real and not caused in any way by you holding the pendulum this is the gold standard of proving it.
āThis entire conversation has been a shit show and itās because you donāt know how to investigate something respectfully.ā
I could say the same about you refusing to accept challenges to your methodology.
I see, so we're back to asshole mode. In other words, I'm a liar. GFY.
I havenāt called you a liar or any other name for that fact.
You have called me an asshole multiple times.
I have not personally attacked you and have kept my arguments focused on your methodology. If you canāt make a distinction between the two that is a you problem and not on me.
You have attacked me personally when you didnāt like what I had to say.
I apologised for my bluntness of my initial criticisms and engaged on your terms.
I asked questions as you requested I did but wasnāt satisfied with the answers you were able to provide.
Iām simply trying to point out to you that to scientifically prove the effect you are claiming your methodology requires modification.
If you donāt care about having a defendable protocol then ignore me and carry on but anyone who understands the scientific method is going to accept your results.
Go ahead and call me an asshole again if it makes you feel better.
If you wish to argue for the sake of arguing, he will entertain you until all that follow his posts get tired of it. Otherwise if you are at all intrigued by the premise of what he is talking about look to the source. He is like someone who learned to do multiplication and is trying to share it. Let his enthusiasm excite but look to the Greek who wrote the laws of mathematics for proof. (Egyptian architect Dr. Ibrahim Karim Biogeometry)
PS I can demonstrate far more as Iāve actively used the principle in daily life for a year + for practical purposes. I will Not attempt to prove it as that has already been done by more scientifically trained individuals.
Actually I already muted wymike after he essentially called me a liar.
Muted BushRat too
Thatās fine, I have no personal beef with them and am excited to share Biogeometry with those interested regardless.
That's fine, I didn't ask about any of that though. I was just correcting your presumptuous former post in which you acted like you could predict how I would behave. I look forward to the day when you will stop thinking you have me in a box.
Dare I ask what practical purposes or will that also make me an asshole?
Absolutely! The method in question can be tuned to various frequencies and I personally use it in energy healing and testing what I consume. The creator of Biogeometry has participated in medical trials in Egypt as well as agricultural experiments and more.
1) I did a bit of reading on Dr. Karim. While there does appear to be some anecdotal evidence I could not find any rigorous studies that support his hypothesis. If you know of any please share them.
2) I have an immediate family member who trained as a raiki master. They told me point blank there was no point in giving me a treatment because I did not believe that it would work. This is a significant red flag for me since if it only works because I believe then itās psychosomatic and not, as the raiki practitioners claim, them doing something with energy.
Sorry if my differing life experiences and opposing view points are making me an asshole again.
He takes things personally, I donāt.
1)I have not looked for outside material on him. From his former student and American teacher of his system Iāve learned a bit. https://www.biogeometry.ca/biogeometry-hepatitis-c-research Iām sure independent sources could be found.
2.) I donāt know what to say about your family member. I took my first Reiki class less than 2 years ago. I donāt know if they are coping for not being proficient or what. You do not have to believe in it to work. I was taught, and karmically itās better, to ask for the recipients permission. Iāve not seen that even suggested in any of the handful of healing systems Iāve learned about.
3.) At the time of my taking that class I had not ever experienced anything I knew to be āsupernaturalā. I now have a conceptual model that has many forces beyond the physical plane but nothing supernatural. So now I daily do energy healing and exploration of nonphysical phenomena. From checking which food is the most strengthening to doing Fung Shue by directly perceiving those elements and balancing them. Mostly still needing the pendulum like a magnifying glass as the perceptions are mostly quite feint.
Again, wrong. It's not personal. It's called dealing with resistance in pursuit of a noble goal.
There are people, including many innocents, suffering and dying in this world because of egotistical charlatans masquerading as pious. People claim adherence to traditions that espouse the Golden Rule, yet almost no one gets the Golden Rule, including you.
Every religion teaches a variation of the Golden Rule which tells us that it's important and humans suck at it. If you haven't had an enlightenment experience, the easiest thing to point to is a lack of adherence to the Golden Rule.
As for the requirement of belief, science spends billions of dollars every year controlling for this crazy, inexplicable phenomenon called the Placebo Effect. It's almost like belief matters or something...
Belief does matter, the human brain is extremely powerful. We try to control for it to understand what is causing the effect.
For both of you I guess. I never said it didnāt matter. I said it was Not a Requirement for Reiki to work. Belief may correspond to lack of resistance to the treatment. It can indicate that a person is karmically in a position to receive. It can indicate that the person is going to unconsciously contribute to the effect themselves. Belief is not a required component for Reiki.
Yeah. I wasn't trying to correct you on that. I've experienced Reiki from a position of neutral belief and that experience very much pushed me into the "Reiki is legit" camp.
I brought up the Placebo effect because wymike keeps banging the captain scientist drum pretty hard and seems to think that belief is not a valid variable which is a demonstrably absurd position to hold.
No, that doesn't make you an asshole. That's a positive question to ask, not a negative one.
Presumably you had some preconceived ideas that there would be an effect otherwise you would not have tested it in the first place. How did you control for that? Have you run a double blind trial with people who have no idea of what is being tested?
Right, that's why I'm talking about the part where I tested the two ~6 cm pyramids and the one ~3 cm pyramid in their original, unmodified form.
I tested all 3 of them and didn't know what to expect.
I got perfect consistency in the results.
The results actually violated my expectations. I wouldn't have expected the pyramids to put forth a detrimental vibrational quality so I looked it up and found, to my surprise, that this is what is to be expected. Then I learned that the pyramids I had were not exactly shaped like Cheops Great Pyramid which has the indentations which seem to mute the detrimental vibrational quality from being emanated.
Ignore the modification trial. That's not the one I'm focusing on.
I'm focusing on having gone like at least 6/6 on 1/3 odds prior to any of the modification stuff.
What is your explanation for the effect that you are observing?
