Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Mind Fuck Tuesday: Psychometry Experiments Your Input Needed


So, y'all know my strongest specialty as a psychic is my psychometric skills (ability to read objects and hone in on those who have handled them). Well, recently while working on a book and reading abandoned sites, I came across a site that had been burned horribly--completely charcoal on the surface. I went through the entire house, found not one item I could read. The first time in my entire life, nothing came to mind at all. It was both blissful and scary.

That being said, I realized that there are two possibilities here; the surface contains the information I gather or the surface became too porous to read. I have a harder time with things like paper and plastic but an easier time with things like stone and metal.

That being said, I ask for your input in possibly ways I can experiment to find out if the information held in an object is only on its surface layers and, if so, how deep?

I'm curious to see what you smartie pants might come up with.

12 comments:

  1. I think an object has to have help a significant place in the owner's history or have been held by the person during an event that was particularly emotional - positive or negative.

    How about that for smartie pants!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is true. I dug up Civil War relics and gleaned a lot from them, but once they were polished and the rust removed, even more information became apparent, so my guess is the rust didn't stop me from reading what was under it. The question is...how deep in those layers before info isn't held and what does that mean about the mechanism of imprinting? Is it electrical? Radiation? What the heck is it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Magnetic recording probably, like in Stone Tapes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Echo;
    I was thinking something along those lines too. It seems the easier things to read are closer to their natural form like metal/stone and even wood and glass, but as things are more manufactured like paper and plastic, they are harder to read. Don't know if it's density or potentially their electrical properties? Perhaps I should test copper versus a less electrical conductive metal? Hmm...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Carbon dating? Is that a possibility?

    ReplyDelete
  6. CB:
    You know, I might just look into carbon dating a bit just to see if the materials that are easiest to read might be easier to carbon date, although I can't see any reason why everything should carbon date similarly simply because it must be destroyed to date it and then the density of it wouldn't matter, however, something like paper or plastic is not going to have a very old carbon dating obviously because they are newer materials and more fragile so less exposure to radiation. Hmm.... I'm curious now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fire is an elemental transformational energy. You couldn't read anything because the objects had all been transformed to another state that didn't contain the energy of their original existence. They only appeared to be what they used to be in form, but their substance was now carbon-based. They were energetically dead.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MJ;
    I like your explanation. It has some merit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting idea. I think what MJ said about the fire may have some merit. I think it's possible being porous may affect it too. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't carbon dating only for organic material?

    As far as experiments go, I guess you can find an object to read and then read it, and then burn it (obviously you wouldn't want to use a cherished heirloom for this experiment). Once it's burned, see if you can still read anything from it. To test whether anything is stored in the surface, you can cut or chip or a small thin piece of the object and see if you can read that. If not, see if you can read the rest of the object.

    If you really want to get a more complex experiment going, you could gather several objects and get another psychometrist to join you in the experiment. First, you would both read the same objects and tell someone or write down what you feel, but you wouldn't divulge what you feel to the other psychometrist until after you've both done a reading. This would be to test whether or not you both have a similar level of skill first. If you both do similar readings, then you probably have a similar level skill. Once it's established you have a similar level of skill, you'd read an object as it is, and then after that you'd burn it and the other psychometrist would attempt to read it. You'd repeat the experiment with a chipped object. And of course, you could do this multiple times and also do it the other way around...have the other psychometrist read it first and then you read it after it's been burnt or chipped off.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I meant to say chip off* a small thin piece of the object.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another idea would be to find an object you can crack or split open, and then try to read the object just from the inside split. If you can read the inside split, then the information must not only be on the outside surface.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeff;
    You are very astute! I like where you're going with that. I could potentially find something that can be shaved down layer by layer until there is no longer any "memories" left in it. As well, I'm rather curious if the particles that come off the surface can be read. Damn! I have a lot of experimenting to do.

    ReplyDelete