- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Coghill
Author Message
tom1
Member
# Posted: 11 Sep 2007 11:42
Reply 


Hi,

I realize it's a little off topic, but I was hoping for an opinion on something. I'm not sure how to interpret Roger Coghill's imaginary dialog on Atlantis with Michael Faraday:

http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/prehistory.asp

On the one hand it may be a dead pan joke, on the other hand it kind of reminds me of Robert O. Beckers interpretation of ancient healing myths.

Thanks,

Tom

tom1
Member
# Posted: 11 Sep 2007 11:51
Reply 


Oops, while there was a picture of Faraday at the top of the page and the article is written to 'Michael'. I think it's Michael Claek of the NRPB that he's referring to.

What can I say... late night.

None the less, my question stands.

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 11 Sep 2007 13:57
Reply 


Hi tom1,

I skimmed the Coghill history lesson once and I'll check it again - but in the meanwhile some great Mike Clark soundbites:

Mike Clark can't calculate:
"Being on a phone for 20 minutes is equivalent to 1 year in a wifi classroom"

Mike Clark reveals that he knows it's all about the moneeeeeeey!:
Interviewer: "Are we all guinea pigs in some global multi-billion pound commercial experiment?"
Mike Clark: "In a way, yes, we are."

Mike Clark doesn't understand the significance of modulation vs. strength in regard to health effects:
"If wi-fi should be taken out of schools, then the mobile phone network should be shut down, too — and FM radio and TV, as the strength of their signals is similar to that from wi-fi in classrooms."

Mike Clark doesn't wonder at all about the atmospheres protection from evil cosmic rays:
"Dr Michael Clark, spokesman for the UK's Health Protection Agency, says you will receive no more radiation on a tour around Chernobyl than on a transatlantic flight."

tom1
Member
# Posted: 11 Sep 2007 16:33
Reply 


Henrik,

thanks for your speedy reply.

I'll add your quotes to the list of things to think about. Some day soon I plan to have a site like yours to write them down on.

Anyway, I guess another way of asking my Coghill question is, how significant do you think, for want of a better description, 'New Age' thinking like this is to the debate?

Regards,

Tom

Henrik
Admin
# Posted: 12 Sep 2007 12:42 - Edited by: Henrik
Reply 


Hi tom1,

Well, in a debate like this where the word "science" is used by everyone all the time, such NewAge statements are always like handing your opponent a stick to publicly smack you with. Roger Coghill is a top scientist, no doubt, and he has alot of courage.

What his NewAge thinking does say is that even in primitive times people were aware of the dual nature of everything and many old societies with no connections to each other discovered this duality of matter and energy. Thousands of years ago the Chinese incorporated it into their medicine which is a marriage of chemistry and subtle energy therapy: herbs and acupuncture. Even older societies developed subtle energy therapies as a part of their medicine. "Cross Currents" describes ancient magnetic field therapy (I think I remember).
You might recall from "The Body Electric" that bone is a fine conductor and when someone sticks a needle in your skin a "current of injury" is triggered. If the needle is placed in a acupunture point, the current that appears there will flow along it's "meridian". Look at a chinese meridian chart and you might notice that most acupunture points are located along bone.
Simple "tapping" of acupuncture points works aswell because bone contains piezoelectric crystals that generate electricity upon "mechanical stress".

tom1
# Posted: 12 Sep 2007 18:36
Reply 


Henrik,

Thanks for your email. I think I pretty much agree with you. What surprises me most is that he hands his opponents the stick. I guess to some degree I'm impressed with his honesty. I think, generally, people are very honest about their views in this debate, if only one thinks to ask.

I think we also agree on how Becker and Coghill etc.. link together a theory of ancient knowledge and a modern idea of electromagnetism and healing.

I think you hint that everybody uses the word science, but mean slightly different things by it. Coghill and Becker are using an idea of Science that can accept the plausibility of Atlantis, the WHO, or whoever, don't. For my money this difference in definition is a significant part of the 30+ year debate on EMF. It's certainly not necessary to use this Coghill/Becker definition of Science to hold a 'mobile phones are dangerous position', but it's muddled in there deep.

One problem, I think, is that in the campaigning activities this different use the 'Science' isn't always apparant. Like I say, when asked people are pretty open about it.

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.
 

These forums are running on PHP forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2024