Don Croft Daily Reports

---

Powerwand Succor Punch (SP) Holy Handgrenade (HHG) Tower Buster (TB) Chembuster (CB) Earth Pipe (EP) Big Secret
Harmonic Protector (HP) Terminator II U.S. Cell Phone Tower Locator Croft Daily Reports Index Zap Checker Gifting

My First Post on Warrior Matrix: A Worthy Board

By Don Croft <terminator3@turbonet.com>
http://educate-yourself.org/dc/firstpostatwarriormatrix16mar05.shtml
March 16, 2005

Someone had insinuated that mentioning 'Don Croft' in a favorable way there was 'idol worship' and I'd have let that pass but when my lonely, only claim was openly challenged there I had to jump into the thread ;-)

It kind of felt like I streaked through it, rather, because when someone attacks your most cherished claim in public you feel kind of naked.

This is the URL for the start of that thread:
http://warriormatrix.com/viewtopic.php?t=285

~B. Head

************

This thread has generated considerable discussion among some folks off the board, including me, and ordinarily I don't feel inclined to defend my own honor anywhere except on my own board but in this case someone's stomped on my corns about the relevance of single, funky TBs :twisted: which is the only unqualified, substantive claim I've ever made, I think.

I don't honestly know how someone might get the imression that I ever recommended more than one TB to disable a single death transmitter because I spent three uncomfortable weeks slogging through town after city in hot Southern Idaho during August, 2002, to prove the very point (to myself) that one TB per ordinary (sic) death transmitter is at least adequate to the task. Since then a whole lot of prolific gifters, here and abroad, have found this simple claim to have merit through their efforts and consistent 3D and sensory confirmations. Some are energy sensitive and some aren't but in fact the reason I didn't take my lovely wife along on that campaign was to ensure others that my observed results were not at all tempered with a psychic/sensitive's intel. I knew then that if she'd come along anyone would be able to say or even think, 'Yeah, sure, Croft--but I'm not psychic so I won't see those results!'

My good friend and fellow adventurer, Laozu Kelly, has personally deterimed and confidently stated that no less than three is required to do this and I humbly suggest that all I've ever demonstrated is that one TB within a quarter mile of a tower , assuming one has busted at least a dozen or so contiguous death transmitters and HAARP arrays, will likely get the requisite results of obliterating chemtrails overhead, ending drought, immediately erasing smog and generating more healthy ambience than may have existed in the area before the death towers were thrown up three or so years ago.

I stress, 'likely,' becuase there have been a few notable exceptions. In those cases there are extraordinary influences, though, and gifting farther afield to get distant, more powerful HAARP arrays and/or taking care to gift the underground facilities with earthpipes, as Kelly and I have had to do extensively where we live, has gotten the happy results..

Grandpa Kelly's standards are a little different than mine and so is his capacity as an energy sensitive--he's a perfectionist, which is why I appreciate his research efforts so much. Also, he's extremely sensitive to deadly energy as well as to healthy ch'i.. He feels that it takes 3 TBs, close around a tower site, for him to achieve an acceptable level of comfort in that spot. Why wouldn't I honor his personal conclusion?

Carol and I gifted a major vortex, not far from here, over three years ago, which has a lot of death towers in it. We put enough orgonite there to stop the DOR from leaving the site and were satisfied with that, based on what Carol saw and felt on site. Kelly felt inclined, two years ago, to add more orgonite there until he was satisfied according to his comfort level..

Also, three years ago, Carol and I marched up through the snow on Moscow Mountain, just north of our town, to disable a big, nasty array there and attempt to heal the vortex. We did a halfass job, admittedly, and a year later Kelly took some new forms of towerbusters and HHgs, made with energized water in waterbased resin, to the mountain top and by the time he got down the mountain to our house a huge, isolated thunderhead was expanding out from the mountaintop. It dropped a dense deluge on the valley, then shrank quickly back toward the mountain and disappeared. The rest of our pristine sky that day, before, during and after the phenomenon, was filled with puffy little white cumuli. I'd never seen anything like it! Carol was gifting in Ireland at the time but Kelly and I knew that he did that. He looked like the cat that ate the canary.

The reason I'm reporting this is to suggest that we're both right if you fullyl consider the parameters and to make it clear that Carol and I greatly value and appreciate Kelly's supreme talent and personal integrity. He's made discoveries, through research and observation, that are unique and priceless, some of which we've adopted, and he will no doubt keep doing that.

Recently, a few days after he had some knee surgery and was driving to Southern California, he saw a source of DOR beyond the horizon, drove hundreds of miles out of his way to find the source (the remote Mount Lasssen area, souhteast of Shasta), then hiked uphill through deep snow for a couple of hours to reach it and gift it to his satisfaction. His injured knee was bleeding by the time he got back to his Jeep.

Who's ever even witnessed that level of dedication? His effort apparently paid off becasue he soon saw a broad, healthy corridor of ch'i extending from the Sierras in SoCal to Vancouver Island, British Columbia. We don't even know what the corridor signifies yet but he's probably opening up a new panorama of gifting possibilities with this field research.

I think one of Kelly's gifting associates in the Seattle area who helped with one stage of that project is posting on WM but dyslexics like me have a hard time associateing whimsical IDs with familiar names.

Dooney mentioned that I welcome substantive disagreements and there's an example. Dooney sure doesn't agree with everything I say, either, by the way, and why should she? I'd saw my left arm off, though, before I'd do or say anything to drive her from my board and the same goes for Grandpa Kelly
('laozu' is 'grandpa' in Mandarin Chinese).

I make a clear personal distinction between idle contention and substantive disagreement, as perhaps anyone should . Calling idle contention 'discussion' is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. Substantive disagreement can lead both parties to a fuller understanding of reality if they have personal integrity but idle contention destroys the vital spirit of a conversation faster than if one were to fart in a crowded elevator after having gorged on liver and onions.

Anyone who has met me would laugh at the notion of me seeking a following or insisting that people accept my mere opinions as unbiased. The demostrated fact is that one funky TB, within a quarter mile, functionally turns an average death tower into a life force generator, based on physical evidence in the atmosphere and improved ambience in hte vicinity of the tower. That's not an opinion; it's a simple lcaim backed up by a massive amount of corroborative reports from many people over the years.

If anyone here has substantive evidence that I'm mistaken then he's obligated to present the evidence, I think. If anyone strongly disagrees with our findings it might be helpful to settle the issue with more research and observation that shows another conslusion. One energy sensitive's contrary claim isn't ever a subsitute for proof, no matter how good that person's reputation is.

The reason I did all that field research to begin with was so that when challenges like this show up I can at least hold the challenger accountable to produce proof, as I have done.

I appreciate the comedy in the fact that of all the things people feel inclined to contend with me about this is the only one I'll actually fight to defend ;-) Most people who read my reports don't believe any of it but the fact that they read it at all is quite flattering to me. That might ultimately prove my point that truth is more bizarre and more interesting than the best science fiction or fantasy, not that I can objectively state that anytihng I report is true, of course, except the Towerbuster claim.

I've also challenged DB to prove that a single 1.5oz TB from ethericfire.com his will disable a tower. He's making that claim on his site. For what it's worth, Carol feels that one of those will bust a tower when DB is the tosser, at least, but she feels that at least two are needed, otherwise.

DB and Kelly have fine, well earned reputations. Kelly says that it takes 3, 3oz TBS in a triangle to disable a tower and DB says that it takes one of his 1.5oz TBs to accomplish that. I'm kind of in the middle with my claim but I'm the only one, so far, who has widespread, demonstrable & consistent evidence that my approach works.

As I see it, my main job, after accidentally starting this grassroots, global network four years ago, has always been to facilitate it but to otherwise stay out of its way as it continues to expand and consolidate. This is more your network than it is mine and that puts some responsibility on you, reader and poster, to guard its integrity and foster it's growth.

I'll restate, here, that the use of gems, fancy crystals and coils is clearly appropriate for personal devices but has not been conclusively shown to be necessary or appropriate for field devices.

Our older, slightly more complicated recommendations, like putting five crystals in a HHg instead of one slightly larger one, are superceded when appropriate by newer findings. Also, the only time Carol and I ever use double-terminated crystals is for the Big Secret, which is the simplest device we ever came up with. D/T xtals are not necessary for any other device we've invented.

Our info is on dozens of sites and I gave up, long ago, the notion of keeping all of that updated. I rather just send out the Gifting Compendium to people who correspond with me and keep it updated on EW. That document is the product of many contributors, of course.

I constantly strive to simplify my presentations, in fact, when it can be backed up with at least empirical evidence and rational explanation, because I know that the simpler the approach is, the more people will do this essential work. Or maybe I'm just a simple person :oops:--either way the approach is working extremely well, so far.

If people feel inclined to add fancy stuff to field pieces, as most of the energy sensitives instinctively do, there's certainly no harm in that, either, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.

If I didn't make the clear, emphatic distinction between personal and field devices then this movement would only appeal to a few energy sensitives--can you see that? Allowing for and appealing to a wide diiversity of personal and cultural thought processes and perspectives is the only way to expand any progressive effort, of course.

Any interest group tends to force its will on others. It's a human characteristic that we're doomed to contend with as a specie for awhile longer, Grid willing. Energy sensitives are an interest group and they speak to each other in a language that the rest of us just don't understand.

Carol's an energy sensitive and never gave this issue much thought until I explained it to her recently, and after that she still didn't feel it was personally important, I think.. It's not her job to be much concerned about the political (janitorial?) aspects but when I make a clear point like this at least she doesn't fight me over it. It's only become an issue for me recently becuase more energy sensitives have been taking up space on the boards with posted implications that the fancy stuff is essential.

It's a personal issue for me because what is perceived as a majority view reflects on me directly. The unbiased observer sees whatever gets the most play as the majority view, naturally.

Energy sensitives are just like any other group. Computer aficionados, artists, musicians, squaredancers, butchers, cops, signpainters, flimflam men, Saturn drivers and other subgroups congregate instinctively, often exclusively and when you don't understand their language they don't generally understand why you don't understand, nor are they much inclined to associate with people who don't understand what they're talking about because it's not comfortable for any of us to learn to express ourselves in new way in order to facilitate broader understanding. See my point?

Most of us have to be coaxed to stop expressing ourselves in platitudes and with rote, proprietary expressions, so I openly challenge folks to express what they know in common language, instead. I see consultation among divergent groups as a survival skill right now in light of the current trend toward accountability and personal freedom and in the lingering shadow of tyranny and genocide, which is what might still be in store for us if we don't finally band together and put the tyrants down ASAP. It takes some frank, efficient consultation to reach that level of consensus.

Allowing one group or another to control this orgonite network isn't an acceptable alternative for me, nor should it be for you. This is why I'm growing my little corner of this network, EW, like a flower garden: if there were only one specie of flower there (energy senstives, for instance) it would be boring but the more I can increase the variety, form, color and substance the more visitors will wish to hang out there, sample our offerings and then get their gifting @$$e$ in gear. My aim is to use EW to increase the number of substantive people who will gift, in other words. I don't tolerate foppery or chest pouding there.. Gifting, to me, is the ultimate, selfless public service right now.. A close personal second is predator blasting 8)

I think WM is shaping up in a similar way now because the shy, substantive ones here have come out of the woodwork and are not letting the ones with more specific and apparently very urgent personal interests take and hold the field any more (take up more than their share of space on WM), which is why I feel bold enough to post here, finally.

One of my personal weaknesses is that I rather dread the gratuitous confrontation and idle contention of self-seekers. I can see that there's enough healthy peer pressure here, by now, to at least strongly discourage idle contention, space wasting and character assaults.

May we now move past the unspoken assumption that mentioning 'Don Croft' is somehow associated with idol worship? I think that if anyone knows Jersey Jim in more than a superficial way he/she wouldn't ever make that accusation.

It's the odious unspoken rules like this one, which are never based on more than outmoded herd survival instinct and blatant mind control programming, that are the most disgusting and insidious to me. People who have been associated with my board efforts in the past four years understand that anyone who even hints at assaulting someone else's character will immediately be treated to both of my accelerating size fourteen boots on the south endof their northerly moving selves. Genuine people simply never behave viciously in polite company, nor do they generally seek to have a social advantage by insulting another's character.

One reason I rarely have to moderate my own board is because there are no unspoken or arbitrary rules there. Another is that I invite people to join based on their demonstrated good reputations or on other potential contributions. WM's got different (not worse or better) parameters but it's clearly heading toward the same status that EW enjoys: little or no need for moderating because the majority of participants feel vested in the board's viability and vitality.

I'm going to answer anyone who disagrees with me on this board. If I feel the disagreement is substantive, I'll respond to that respectfully and if I feel that the disagreement or criticism is unwarranted, I'll speak to that issue in a generic way and explain my position.

If this were my board I'd instantly boot out anyone who stoops to idle contention but this isn't my board, of course, so I'll deal with that another way. I won't ever answer directly to someone who posts insulting or insinuous material becuase that would be like wrestling with a pig in the mud: I would get filthy and exhausted and the instulter would just enjoy him/herself in the process. I learned that from hard experience, perhaps so that you won't have to repeat my lessons.

I now have a vested interest in the viability and vitality of WM and will exercise my birthright of free speech here.

I hope everyone will fee free and confident to do the same but, mainly, I hope that everyone here will rather choose to focus on whatever will heal our beleaguered world and otherwise enhance the quality and substance of this board's content. My suggested formula might quickly put the brakes on
gratuitous chestpounding, pi$$ing contests and idle contention--who knows?.

It's time for all of us to be held accountable and when one makes a public mess, as whe one assaults another's character in a post, the accounting ought to be done publicly , too, in as humane, indirect and compassionate a way as possible. This world's very arrogant folks' feelings will never be hurt by this and the genuine contributors won't ever find themselves in that position because harming others or seeking a personal advantage in a group discussion is unthinkable to the wise. The rest of us need to take our licks ;-) and move ahead.

~Don

© Copyright 2005 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.