muscle testing is NOT for testing the election!

[Guest guest]

> > David wrote: Have the tester and tested turn their back to a

group

> so they have no visual cues, have someone use a hand signal to tell

> >the group to try to strengthen or weaken the person with positive

> >thoughts or negative thoughts, and a good tester will score far

> >better than chance-- I've seen Donna get 100%.

 

I wonder what would happen 'if' they had their doubts and negative

beliefs FIRST taken care of?

 

BOTH the testor and the testee need this clearing done.

 

I was at that event (Jupiter Beach 1999?) and I noticed one lady that

was very good at energy testing get all choices wrong until she shook

it off, and then 'went for it' from a different 'state'.

 

Then she got the 9 remaining tests correct.

 

> > I like this example because it is an example in which the energy

> >concept is an appealing alternative to explain the results. If a

> >person consistently scores 100% then science has a hard time

finding

> >any alternative explanation. I have seen Donna get 100% too, but I

> >have not seen any other person perform the same feat.

 

Haha.

 

I got all 18 choices wrong, even though I could 'sense' what was in

the container as I held it, correctly.

 

Nothing like being homolateral while energy testing...

 

....or of not taking care of setting up a clear set of energy testing

rules before the test. Which was more my being unclear about what to

d and what not to do than the 'given instructions'.

 

Just to be clear here group...

 

What is Energy Testing really for?

 

John La Tourrette, PhD