Featured Story

432 Equinox Sacred Sounding

Hi there I am Brian T Collins, one of the original promoters of 432Hz since the late 1980s. I write Celestial Music and I help people improve their quality life though a sound healing modality I created called the Harmonic Sound Experience . I am blessed to have a life always exploring new fronteers and possibilities.

I journey a lot to sacred places where I spend time with the earth energies and connect with the spirit of the land.  I believe pilgrimages to sacred places is a way to embody more life force within one’s lifetime and by living a purposeful life dedicated to the ancient ways, I can follow in the footsteps of my ancestors. I have helped many people as a catalyst for change and my music had helped enrich tens of thousands.

Just before the equinox I ran a little poll on facebook live and on my main website.

The result was to send me to one of two places, Tulum or Chichen Itza. I ended up going to Chichen Itza by one vote, so I got up in the early morning darkened hours in Playa Del Carmen and went for the day. The sun was already scorching hot as I approached the unesco site. As usual there are more rules than sense regarding world heritage sites, so I was denied entry for having a camera tripod. I returned to my hotel accommodation that was beautiful and reasonably priced to drop it off. I went back hoping they would not stop me from bringing my flute so I asked the spirit of the ancestors to let me pass. I was not bothered by the guards this time and got into the site early on a bright day. I only had a small window to sound my sacred flute in between tours so I sat down and began to play in the scorching sun of the Mexican Jungle.

I then demonstrated in the video one of the special sound phenomenons at Chichen Itza. The standing wave refraction that creates an unusual chirping against the stone of the pyramid. The builders were very advanced in the knowledge of sound and astrological alignments. Once I dowsed the exact spot, I stood in the sweet spot of the telluric vortex and sounded the sacred 432 flute tuned to a D note 144 for world peace and healing intent once again. As in other places, the still air began to stir as the wind around me began to pick up. There is a special phenomenon that occurs with my ‘magic’ flute around sacred sites and I was thrilled to feel the energetic presence of this spiritual connection to nature. It is a profound experience that cannot be measured.

Most pyramids are constructed to a north south alignment, however the pyramid at Chichen Itza is aligned to the equinox so equal amounts of day and night (43,200 seconds each) create an event that many from around the world come to witness on this special day. The event starts with light and shadow upon the staircase cast by the rays of the sun. This is known as the great feathered serpent as light moves down to stone serpents head at the base of the pyramid and the underworld shadow moves up as moving serpent coils. As a metaphor this shows the internal movement between life and death as the great dualistic nature of consciousness and nature. As soon as the Shadow tip creates a triangle upon the lip of the stairs, the mayan elders would sound out a conch shell announcing the scales of the serpent. Cheers arose from the crowd of thousands gathered in pilgrimage at the base of the pyramid. I was blessed to have made it right to the very base as first inline to film time lapse of the event.

There are 9 platforms leading up to the top hinting at this divine proportion related to the reduction of numbers that we find in many sacred places and temples around the world.

We find sacred geometry and stone tied to sound and numbers around the world and the ancients wanted to embody these numbers into proportion lest we forget as they lived in connection with nature.

I would like to share this video that no matter what is introduced by fear events performed around special esoteric days like solstices and equinoxes by the current ruling establishment that we as a species can rise to the occasion in peace and harmony as one with our environment. Here is the video to the sacred sounding on the equinox, Enjoy.

Bless you all, Brian T Collins


The Musical Pitch Conflict

“The internet is awash with deception in argument between 3 opposing points of view between music pitches A=440Hz A=432Hz and A=444Hz all of them arguing to confuse You to their point of view rather than promoting to you to TRY. This is called a controlled triangle of mind control or Psy-op. Only people create division, tones do not!

“This” “Versus” “That” is your problem right there!
It keeps you divided from the hands on experience of tone and keeps argument sustained whilst stopping true change. The only way true change can happen is through real life individual participation. When you change, your world changes!

You can Never experience anything outside of yourself, so why are you seeking outside of yourself for the answer of what music pitch you like?

You must FEEL IT for yourself. The cells of your body do not care about numbers, logic or philosophy. The body only knows the sensations of “feeling” and “experience” that tone can bring, the two very factors that are NOT allowed to be used in Scientific Study!

Music is about feeling, Use what Feels Right for You!

Don’t let those with agendas dazzle you with confusion of logic you can’t understand. If someone is trying to sway you to their point of view rather than asking you to try what feels right for you, then they have a controlled consensus agenda!

Everyone is different and there can NEVER be an accurate study done on the sensation of tone and how it effects You, and Your subjective consciousness. I am the only one who says you must TRY to FEEL the difference. Whatever you choose is RIGHT for You and You alone.

I ALONE EMPOWER YOU to choose what’s right for You!

Get out of the box of argument and into the experience of LIFE.”

The Peer Review Hypocrisy

Breaking the Academic Stranglehold

The Peer Review Hypocrisy

Original Article  HERE

“The overwhelming flaw in the traditional peer review system is that it is listed so heavily towards consensus that it showed little tolerance for genuinely new findings and interpretations.”

David O’Leary, The ID report, Jun 15, 2006

The peer review process in the world of academic publishing.  The process by which, it is assumed, peers of an academic field review peers in that field.  The situation is fraught with meddling and distortion.  Blind review is truly blind – reviewers often fail to read their allocated papers in full.  Then come other issues: editorial limitations, concerns about timing, topicality and vested interests. Ever was the ivory tower shut from full view and inspection.

The peer review system also foists upon its readers a fundamental paradox: the good may well be rejected; the poor might well be accepted.  Capture the intellectual fashion of the moment and the editorial board will be won over.

Some of the best research in history has not found its way into the technocratic drivel of refereed literature.  The Stakhanovites that preside over academic institutions these days would have been puzzled to confront such publications as Darwin’s Origin of the Species.  In the US Supreme Court decision of Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), it was held that, “Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, and in some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published.”

Little wonder then that cell biologist and Nobel Prize winner Randy Schekman of the University of California Berkeley, is fed up.  Having won this year’s prize in medicine, he has proclaimed an academic boycott of the holy trinity of science publishing.  “I am a scientist.  Mine is a professional world that achieves great things for humanity.  But it is disfigured by inappropriate incentives.”  Such incentives, argues Schekman in The Guardian (Dec 9),[1] come in the form of “professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly, NatureCell and Science.”

Then, a confession, and a pledge.  “Like many successful researchers, I have published in the big brands, including the papers that won me the Nobel Prize for medicine, which I will be honoured to collect tomorrow. But no longer. I have now committed my lab to avoiding luxury journals, and I encourage others to do likewise.”  The pointed suggestion here is that such luxury journals damage science the way the banksters have damaged finance and banking.

These gripes are standard and hard to fault. NatureScience and Cellhave popular pitches, claiming to drive the pioneer’s vehicle into uncharted waters. That said, the dirt under the nails is not regarded as important.  Glamour is what wins over, chic science, the sort that makes a splash. Editorial inclinations feed author expectations – a vicious cycle is thereby created.

This is not to say that all work of the holy three falls into that category.  But their critics have a point, and the stranglehold is hard to avoid. If you wish to succeed – to do, for instance, what Schekman has done – the door is hardly ajar to those who do not publish in the very journals he has repudiated.  Like François de La Rochefoucauld’s aphorism on the elderly, sagacious advice tends to be given by those who no longer have a use for it.

The problems of the scientific aristocracy and its seemingly dour emphasis on a narrow range of acceptable topics is indicative of broader trends in the academic field.  The curse of specialisation, claimed the British comedian Kenneth Williams, is that it can become so acute one ceases to be an expert on anything.  The entire field of academic pursuit has succumbed to a fit of constipation, at least as far as the pursuit of hard original research is concerned. One churns out papers for the sake of publication, a mechanical drive that repels rather than gathers knowledge.  Contradictions are avoided.  Grants are awarded on a narrow range of acceptable topics.  Speculative research is shunned.

Such trends also seen an inevitable orthodoxy develop on academic boards.  Academics are recruited to protect rather than falsify hypotheses.  The pressure to publish can also, as Schekman points out, lead to the “cutting of corners”.  Science found itself in hot water when it had to retract papers on stem cell research after finding out that claims to have created new lines of human embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos was based on false data.[2]

Such is the curse of that terrible term to have “outputs” on one’s research profile.  Shoddiness and shabbiness in research is bound to emerge.  That inventory is further measured by means of Research Assessment exercises or the equivalent.  Novel approaches are looked upon with suspicion, as well as they might.  A paper that invalidates years of work by others, taking the carpet from under an entire establishment, is bound to be seen as dangerous.

Open Access journals have come as something of a revelation regarding the supposedly elite segments of science publishing.  Such a scheme targets the profit incentive big journals have, taking the shine off the luxury. It opens the findings to a broader audience.  Such avenues for publishing have multiplied.  There is eLife (edited by Schekman), PLOS and BioMed Central (BMC), among others.  Michael Eisen, also of the University of California Berkeley, co-founded the Public Library of Science (PLOS) for that very reason.  “My career has flourished without publications in the ‘big three’, and PLOS is now a major player in the publishing world.”[3]

His suggestions should be taken on board. Start sending the best work to those journals, though one is sceptical whether “most scientists are ready.”  Any revolution in this field, to make sense, will have to come from within the establishments – the grant making bodies, the editorial committees.  The pointless experiments will stop. The luxury tag will drop.  Well, that’s at least the theory.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was as Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Powered by WishList Member - Membership Software