new thread
Have you guys heard of this before? I've known about it for a while, and personally think it is true.... so the theory is that our hair is an antenna, it receives energy and keeps us more conscious. That is why women have the "mother instinct" it's because they follow their intuition which is greatly influenced by the energy around them. The world leaders know this, that is why it is mandatory to get a hair cut in the military to keep you more "dumb" and so you follow orders and don't rebel. They used this on slaves...also why they demanded all natives get their hair cut when they committed their horrible American holocaust to reteach them what they wanted them to know.
Here is a link if you guys wanna read a little more about this subject http://www.harisingh.com/newsHair.htm
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan)
I am unconvinced.
--Val
I understand how you feel but then again we are the only ape that lost all our body hair but not on our head?(and armpits, penis, face etc)and why are we the only primates that grow long hair? Kinda makes you wonder. Well to each his own.
Hey Val,
Excellent quote there, and I can't help but agree with you. Hair not having any nerve endings themselves, or at least not set up anatomically in the same way as many insects have with their antenna, a claim like that does mean that more scientific data should be included as evidence to support such a bizarre statement.
Oh well, at least this post has some "entertainment" value (LOL)!!
- Ken
who said you need nerve endings to recieve energy? lol i said ENERGY, not feeling solid objects...dont forget that if you rub a balloon on your head it will create friction causing static ELECTRICITY and making your hair stick up, which proves that hair can conduct electricity(a type of ENERGY)....another observation i made is when somebody is staring at you and you feel like your being watched could it be that their creating a type of signal with you? just a theory, but just cause we dont understand something doesnt make it not true.
I'm Looney tooney hurray, im the easter bunny hurray!!!! LOL
I don't believe it. I also don't believe in any of that other energy stuff like feng shui, ki, etc.
My hair is 6-7 inches long (depending on the area) currently, and I feel no different than when my hair wasn't even a half inch long.
As a scientist (and one who has his students read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World), I have to say this is pseudoscience.
I would like to quote general Norman Schwartzkopf when a cnn reporter made a statement to him during the 1st gulf war,his reply was " i consider that bovine scatology" LOL !!!!!!
Did you ever get to watch that film THE MEN WHO STARED AT GOATS? About a special group of soldiers stationed somewhere in Iraq doing some mind over goat business.
Apparently the US military did get up to some bizarre experiments.
Duncan
so does curly hair have a higher SWR?
in my opinion, yes. i have curly hair and i sometimes feel the energy, i get good vibes and bad ones and i have african american friends with dreadlock and they feel it too, sound like some scifi stuff but i believe its true... maybe straight hair gets a weaker signal?...then again only by testing the SWR we could know, and you cant with hair lol
P.S the people who disagree all have straight hair, maybe they never felt this energy vibe? so that why they dont believe it
No, but the signals are circularly polarized.
I get great FM if I hold my hair out in a dipole :-)
- Oren
Damn, Oren, that finally explains why we are all listening to FM now more than AM. As we've gotten older our hair length has decreased, causing the resonant frequency of our manes to get higher!
Bill
To get a half wave dipole on the FM BC band (aka VHF Band 2), quarter wave per side would be a length of somewhere about 30 inches, working it out roughly in my head. Definitely do-able.
The trouble with your theory is that to resonate as a half wave dipole in the AM BC band (aka medium wave), your hair would have to be about 80 yards long, give or take, again based on my mental arithmetic.
Hey, I know you can work out the numbers as well as I can, I'm just having a laugh.
That is unless you used to have hair 80 yards long when you were younger, Bill? That would have been impressive!
Alun
No, but I had loading coils: CURLS!
unlurking...
I'm not sure if my hair is an antenna; but it can be a lightning rod.
My head is warmer now that I have long hair, so this antenna theory must explain it!
But now I'm scratching my warm head because I still can't get Sacramento rock stations....
Bill, that is some funny funny stuff, these are some of the funniest post ive ever read on this board. im laughing my ass off. i think this would make really make a good snl sketch or maybe the whitest kids i know.or mad tv . take care of your antenna, James /Tampa,Fl
I'll keep it simple: Nonsense.
just because you have never experienced it doesnt make it nonsense. thats like saying the great wall of china is a myth just you have never visited it. you guys need to keep an open mind, maybe thats why you have never experinced it you dont believe that your capable of more, blame it on your ego lol
And just because you have 'experienced' it, doesn't mean it's caused by what you think it is. Remember a simple point, "correlation does not equal causation". In other words, just because this feeling of 'power' came at the same time as your longer hair, doesn't mean the two are connected in any way.
Frodo
I'm not going name any names, but someone may need some deprogramming , and if that doesn't work, a radiator hose and a fresh car battery with nipple clamps LOL. James / Tampa,Fl
I think your silly , im just saying to you what bugs bunny would say, " I like him he's silly" James / Tampa,Fl
The only time my hair/head is an antenna is when I have tin foil on my head, at least it keeps the government from reading my thoughts and I don't have to worry about martian anal probes.
Don't know about hair being an antenna... I personally don't believe it, because it's a bit wacky and too "out there", if you get what I mean. However, I do think having long hair represents freedom and probably does connect you with nature and true beauty in a way.
It is a beautiful theory, though! I don't think anyone should dismiss anything so easily, because it shows ignorance. For me, I believe anything is possible, because we as people understand nothing.
I would simply reiterate what someone already said that it is merely a pseudo-scientific comment. I would equate longer hair growth on men with those who often think outside the box (religion, politics, art, etc) and associate with those who do as well. Also, they are generally more of an art/artsy focused group, which is known to be filled with those more in tune with their emotions, and how to express them. As for the military comment, the army is not for those that want to "think outside the box," it is conformity at its best. I am not saying this is a negative, but that is the institution, you need to work as a cohesive unit and a lot of the rules and regulations are there to promote that unit mentality. Slavery and other atrocities are simple logical deduction, freedom is the ability to choose ones actions. Being unable to choose something as simple and basic as hair growth is demeaning, and a method to keep people in line. So I would say "antenna" is a bit over-the-top, and that most of these are coincidences.
Ziggy
none of you have ever had an experience like mine? well i guess there is only a few of us in this world with this kind of "power" lol i hate to call it that but you guys make it sound like some kind of out of this world thing. maybe im psychic, but i doubt it since i know people who have had similar experiences.....i think everybody poses the ability to use this "antenna" but you have never exercised this ability or maybe you have, but you ignored it, and didnt even notice with all the stress, insecurity, egoism ,and busy citys now a days you wouldnt even notice. well i encourage all of you to meditate and purify your mind and you will discover new things about you...stay blessed and have a good day
Alex,
Posts such as you made in all smaller case letters are not acceptable. You need to use proper capitalization so that what you write is readable. People from all over the world post here and for many English is not their native language. This requirement is laid out in the FAQ for this site.
As a native speaker myself, I could barely make out what you're saying. Please post in a manner that will be more easily readable in the future.
Thank you.
Jason (one of the moderators at MLHH)
---------------------------------------------------
***As a woman, mother, and veteran, I disagree with some of the statements in this post:
Most human beings, including older children -- not just adults, not just females -- have an instinct to take care of those who are younger/incapable of taking care of themselves. For the past 27 years, I have been involved in some capacity with typically developing children, special needs children, and special needs adults. There is no "instinct" that only women possess; both males and females can, will, and do rise to the challenge of parenting and/or caregiving whomever is in their charge.
In the military, only males are required to cut their hair short. Females must wear their hair within regulations, usually braided, bunned, or otherwise put up, and CAN - but do not have to - cut their hair shorter. Males are also required to shave their facial hair with the exception of mustaches that are grown within regulatons. Some of this is for sanitary reasons (we are in the field, jungle, etc. and it is easier to see and therefore remove tics and other pests), and some for safety reasons (the gas masks do not always have an airtight seal when there is facial hair present). And following orders is called 'obedience', not 'dumb.' It is a *choice*, just as when you drive a car you choose to follow the rules of the road - otherwise everyone would be all over the roads going in all different directions, with numerous accidents occuring. People choose to obey certain rules, in the military as well as in many other aspects of everyday life.
***But I also agree, or at least have an open mind about other statements in this post:
Yes, slaves, natives, adulterers, and others have been shorn of their hair to emphasize their position of submission, embarrassment, subordination, etc.
I believe that everything has an 'energy signature' (or whatever the proper terminology is) -- how else could we use carbon dating or other scientific testing methods? And I believe that some people are more receptive to some types of energy than other people. But I don't believe that all long hairs are more receptive than all short hairs.
And I wholeheartedly believe that men with long hair TOTALLY ROCK!!!! And there should be more of them. :) :) :)
Just found this helpful "primer" for rational thinking online...
Carl Sagan's essential tools in his baloney detection kit
by Dylan Otto Krider
In Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, he lays out the essentials of the scientific method to help you avoid the traps that usually ensnare pseudoscientists. Here are the tools in his toolbox to help build up your resistance to baloney:
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts".
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight - "authorities" have made mistakes in the past.They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you have simply run the with first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are thruths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
If there's a chain of argument,everylink in the chain must work (including the premise) - not just most of them.
Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle - an electron, say - in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
[Editorial note: This is taken from the chapter "The Dragon In My Garage" in Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.]
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons — to say nothing about invisible ones — you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages — but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" — no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it — is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
I dont care i believe in dragons because the easter bunny told me they exist!!!!! LOL