# Have any of you heard of 'Ley Lines' that bees are supposedly attracted to?



## Ben Franklin

Wow this makes sense. I have three oak logs in my back yard. There were three different hives in this tree. These logs have bees in them again.
And I will be out witching for ley lines.


----------



## Specialkayme

John Harding wrote a book about it titled _An Holistic Way In Saving The "Honeybee"_

It isn't long, only about 78 pages, but it's all (or mostly) about divining and the correlation with bees. He calls it the "Electromagnetic Geopathic Stress Curtain Lines". It was an interesting thought, which is why I bought the book. I shouldn't have though. The first half of the book is just ramblings, partly about bees (and rantings about how everyone is destroying them), partly about his divorce (seriously). He uses very large font in extremely odd places to do what I can only suspect is increase page numbers. In the end, he talks about the success that his hives do on "stress lines" but offers only guesses as to why it is. Under benefits of using his system, he just lists a number of "possible" benefits, including 2 or 3x honey yield, "possibly no feeding", "possibly [bees that are] easier to handle", and "very little or no varroa mites." In the end, he had little information to write a book about, but did anyway. He can't tell what his system is doing, what effect it has, or how successful it is. It would have been nice to read a more scholarly article or book about someone that actually tested the system, instead of just rambling on about what it is and how good the "possible" benefits are.

As far as the theory itself, the book turned me so off the topic, I wasn't interested in trying it myself. Perhaps others were more successful.


----------



## PatBeek

.

For what it's worth. Phil Chandler interviewed a lady who believes in this phenomenon. She's a little nutty, but just may be on to something. Who knows:

*(Audio):*

http://traffic.libsyn.com/biobees/ValerieSolheimInterview.mp3

*Here's her website:*

http://www.healingbees.org/



> So, today's podcast is an interview I recorded in Denver, Colorado, last November with Valerie Solheim, who has some very interesting experiments running with bees.
> 
> This interview will be of particular interest to people who have considered the possiblility that there is more to hive location than just choosing a level piece of ground. Valerie suggests that we may need to take account of 'geopathic stress', as her findings suggest that the health of bees may be influenced by forces of which we currently have little knowledge.
> 
> I think there is still a lot of work to be done in testing her theories, and I hope some of you will be inspired to carry this forward. Valerie has just published a book about her work called The Beehive Effect, and you can read part of the first chapter at her web site - healingbees.org


----------



## awebber96

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. 

Moreover, the fact that divining (aka dowsing or water witching) is cited as the way to "detect" these ley lines should send everyone running. http://www.skepdic.com/dowsing.html
http://youtu.be/gjC64cnxl0k

Isn't there enough pseudo-science, guesswork, and superstition in this hobby without injecting the supernatural into it? 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go ritually sacrifice a goat in front of my hives to drive the evil spirits away to ensure a good honey harvest...


----------



## JClark

Almost sounds like an offshoot of biodynamic farming.

Read a few books on this for fun but it is a little nutty. Involves using obelisks to increase geomagnetic energy and homemade concoctions known as biodynamic preparations for application on fields. One such concoction involves stuffing a cow horn w/ cow manure and burying it in the ground for the winter. Dig it up the following spring, add a little to a vat of water, mix vigorously in one direction then reverse repeatedly for a long period of time while making a high pitched screeching noise into the vat. Simply spray this on your field (during a new moon, I think) and you won't need anything else. Add a little to compost and it will be the best you ever had.

Some of it makes sense--like planting during new moon phases. I do this w/ sweet corn and almost never have issues w/ corn ear worms. This is mainly because the corn is silking out during a new moon phase when the moths can't orient as easily at night, not due to some mystical property.

Believe I also have a book that claims you will live for 150 years or longer too if you "potenteize" the water you drink (this is done w/ the high pitched screeching and mixing).

Since bee navigation systems are based on polarized light and not geomagnetic sensing (not sure they even have the receptors to detect) I would imagine any ley line--if truly real--would have little effect on survival but everything is science fiction until proven otherwise.


----------



## shannonswyatt

I tried to catch swarms by placing traps along lay lines, but it didn't work. To be in the center of the intersection of the lay lines I found that I had to put a post in the ground to mount the hive, otherwise the hive would actually be outside of the lay line intersection. Every time I started digging to put the pole in the ground I hit either an oil gusher, a water well or a pot of gold.


----------



## Daniel Y

I gathered 4 swarms and witnessed a fifth in the same tree on the same limb in exactly the same spot this past spring. When I first looked into why this would be I found that one swarm may have left behind an odor that woudl attract further swarms. I thought this reasonable except for the time between swarms. sometimes two weeks or more. I did not think that enough of an odor would still remain to make a difference. It does seem to me that there are other factors that influence this consistency in hang out selection. I won't say it is lay lines, I won't say it is not. What I will say is it is obvious there is more than meets the eye. Far more than makes since. I don't think anyone is intelligent enough to know what since is. THey used to say the same thing about gravity and germs.


----------



## ForrestB

shannonswyatt said:


> I tried to catch swarms by placing traps along lay lines, but it didn't work. To be in the center of the intersection of the lay lines I found that I had to put a post in the ground to mount the hive, otherwise the hive would actually be outside of the lay line intersection. Every time I started digging to put the pole in the ground I hit either an oil gusher, a water well or a pot of gold.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

awebber96 said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go ritually sacrifice a goat in front of my hives to drive the evil spirits away to ensure a good honey harvest...


No need to sacrifice a goat, just make sure all your hives have, "good chee" (also translated as "qi" or "chi".) Will solve all your problems.

cchoganjr


----------



## delber

Hey pretty cool a new icon!!! In all seriousness Although I have a hard time with it I do work with a guy that his previous job he worked on a construction crew working with water mains. He said that they could find a main better with the "fork" than he could with their machinery. He said that there's a specific length and diameter of rod that was important, but he said it worked. Now he is a little "quirky" but not "spiritually" wacked out or anything that I'm aware of. (in truth aren't all of us "quirky"?) I've also talked with someone that has come out of major medical stuff that is able to find out where some of these underground geothermal lines and stuff is. To be honest it doesn't make sense to me either, but this person also isn't a mess either. I do remember something about these "lines" but I'll have to ask again. If this is true, then I'd like to put my traps on these lines. Hey I haven't had much luck with any of my other traps in 3 years. Even when I know there are hives in the area. (my hive swarmed at least twice and totally ignored my traps last year)


----------



## marshmasterpat

Cleo - I just ripped my top bar apart so I can rebuild it according to my consultant's Fung Sway guidance, and redesigning my bee yard for maximum production. Once I get some bees they are going to make more honey and no swarms will ever leave. 

hehehee


----------



## Danpa14

For all you nonbelievers....go get a wire coat hanger, cut two 9" or so pieces, put a 90 degree bend to fit your hand. Now go out to where your water line or electric line is and walk across the known line with the coat hangers held loosely in each hand held out from your body with your arms level. For some of you your nonbelief will be removed. I tried it after the electric company came to mark existing lines at my new office site. Guy pulls up,gets out of the truck pulls his custom dousing rod out of the holster on his hip, can of spray paint in his other hand and marked where the rod showed. After my chin hit the ground I asked how else he would check the line, he said this was the most accurate way, got in his truck and left. As far as bees using it, that does seem farfetched. I am an eye doctor and very skeptical about anything I hear, but when I felt the coathangers move I was pretty amazed. Try it you may be amazed too.


----------



## shannonswyatt

I have seen people use dowsing rods and was pretty impressed. On the other hand whenever there is a double blind study it shows they don't work. My neighbor got a 30 gpm well dug recently (at 200 feet). The well digger used dowsing rods to find the best location. But my other neighbor got a well that was 800 feet with 3 gpm by the same well digger using the same rods. As a kid we would use dowsing rods and we could find the water line in the yard with them. On the other hand, we knew were the water line was.


----------



## delber

What my friend said is there's something about the water that changes the gravitational pull or something like that. I'm VERY interested in trying it myself. Thanks for the coathanger idea.


----------



## adson

skip the coat hanger, a green Y branch from an apple tree works better.
I was asking my father last month where the water source was for a pipe that was bubbling up in the middle of his field.
he had followed the underground pipe up the hill to a well he didn't know about 
I had almost forgotten that he has used this skill for years as a civil engineer


----------



## Specialkayme

Danpa14 said:


> I tried it after the electric company came to mark existing lines at my new office site. Guy pulls up,gets out of the truck pulls his custom dousing rod out of the holster on his hip, can of spray paint in his other hand and marked where the rod showed. After my chin hit the ground I asked how else he would check the line, he said this was the most accurate way, got in his truck and left. As far as bees using it, that does seem farfetched. I am an eye doctor and very skeptical about anything I hear, but when I felt the coathangers move I was pretty amazed. Try it you may be amazed too.


You don't see any fault in that?

For one, just because the electric company's employee marked the area doesn't mean that it was accurate. Did anyone dig up the line and verify that where he had marked it was correct?

For two, when the lines were already marked and you attempted to find them yourself, there is a bias element that was presented. The theory of dousing says that if you keep your arms level and loose, your body becomes a conductor, so if mild amounts of electricity run through you the two rods can attract or repel each other. It also says that it allows your subconscious to take over a little bit, and find objects that your subconscious is aware of but your conscious isn't (or doesn't want to fully realize). 

As you walked over the line, you wanted the rods to move. And move they did. Right where you knew the other guy had marked them.

If you really want to prove it, go to a new field. You use your dowsing rods first. Then call the electric company to come mark them. See if they are the same. If they are, dig up a spot to see if you were both accurate.

I can take some rods and find "magic spots" in the back yard. Doesn't mean they are worth a **** though.


----------



## Danpa14

Specialkayme said:


> You don't see any fault in that?
> 
> For one, just because the electric company's employee marked the area doesn't mean that it was accurate. Did anyone dig up the line and verify that where he had marked it was correct?
> 
> For two, when the lines were already marked and you attempted to find them yourself, there is a bias element that was presented. The theory of dousing says that if you keep your arms level and loose, your body becomes a conductor, so if mild amounts of electricity run through you the two rods can attract or repel each other. It also says that it allows your subconscious to take over a little bit, and find objects that your subconscious is aware of but your conscious isn't (or doesn't want to fully realize).
> 
> As you walked over the line, you wanted the rods to move. And move they did. Right where you knew the other guy had marked them.
> 
> If you really want to prove it, go to a new field. You use your dowsing rods first. Then call the electric company to come mark them. See if they are the same. If they are, dig up a spot to see if you were both accurate.
> 
> I can take some rods and find "magic spots" in the back yard. Doesn't mean they are worth a **** though.


Oh well.....


----------



## delber

Ok I'm honestly a bit confused. . . Dowsing is looking for water, but are Ley lines simply some sort of underground water path? If that's the case and if this info is accurate then all we need to do is put swarm traps up right over a water main? Can someone please explain the difference here? In one sense we're talking about underground water. (My friend used dowsing rods to find water main lines) and yet if you look up in wikipedia it seems to be many different things. (from geological, to human made landmarks, to buildings etc) When were talking about ley lines can we first define it please?


----------



## Specialkayme

For those that believe in dowsing, it isn't just to find water lines. The book I cited to above said that you can find anything, literally anything that is underground if you focus on that one item. Water lines. Underground caves. Electricity lines. Even (theoretically) gold or burred treasure. I've heard of an individual using it to find his lost watch in the desert (within a few acres of known lost territory). Some claim that the electricity, electromagnetism, or various frequencies of the items you are looking for transfer through your body. Others refer to it as "good vibrations" of some sort, where the energy of the universe guides the rods. Some call it witchcraft. 

But no. It's not just to find water lines.

Ley lines are best described in the article, or the book I referred to above. Going off memory, its where underground caverns, streams, or caves change the earth's natural resonance frequency. The change in the frequency (for whatever reason, sometimes underground natural streams, sometimes underground man made streams, some times not) is what the ley lines are.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Check your horoscope first. It will be about as accurate. Maybe more so.


----------



## Harley Craig

Danpa14 said:


> For all you nonbelievers....go get a wire coat hanger, cut two 9" or so pieces, put a 90 degree bend to fit your hand. Now go out to where your water line or electric line is and walk across the known line with the coat hangers held loosely in each hand held out from your body with your arms level. For some of you your nonbelief will be removed. I tried it after the electric company came to mark existing lines at my new office site. Guy pulls up,gets out of the truck pulls his custom dousing rod out of the holster on his hip, can of spray paint in his other hand and marked where the rod showed. After my chin hit the ground I asked how else he would check the line, he said this was the most accurate way, got in his truck and left. As far as bees using it, that does seem farfetched. I am an eye doctor and very skeptical about anything I hear, but when I felt the coathangers move I was pretty amazed. Try it you may be amazed too.



I'm throwing the BS flag on this one, I'm in the Utility Locating business, and although I know dowsing does work for some people( I am one of them) there is no way a company would mark an electric line with that method, for starters it's against the law in every state. Secondly, I can't see any company risking the liability of a mis mark on dowsing.


----------



## shannonswyatt

I have been using (rather successfully I may add) dowsing rods to locate ice cream. 

Ley Line detector.  This would be more impressive if you know an address in GB. Otherwise just use the samples.


----------



## Danpa14

Harley Craig said:


> I'm throwing the BS flag on this one, I'm in the Utility Locating business, and although I know dowsing does work for some people( I am one of them) there is no way a company would mark an electric line with that method, for starters it's against the law in every state. Secondly, I can't see any company risking the liability of a mis mark on dowsing.


I said my jaw dropped when he marked them. And they could have come back later and located the lines another way but I did not see them do so. Well maybe this is more believable then. A patient of mine who ran the local water company and used dowsing in this job and has now retired , is assisting one of our local college professor,s in locating graves of Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears in southern Illinois. The general site is known historically but all graves were unmarked and laid out haphazardly. Some of his located sites have been excavated and have shown a high rate of success.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

Dowsing rods do work for locating both electrical and water lines, and underground streams of water. I too was not a believer when I first heard of the practice, but after seeing it done and having the rods work for me, I have changed my mind about dowsing.

Ley lines I have never heard of.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Some of you guys may want to go to Vegas! They have lots of cool magic shows!


----------



## awebber96

Anyone who thinks they can prove they can dowse or detect their ley lines should should immediately go collect their $1 million. If anyone collects on the Randi prize, I will be the first to congratulate them. Hell, I'll add $100 to it.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2009/02/debunking-dowsing/

Again, I repeat my plea that started this thread: isn't there enough guesswork and superstition in this hobby without this nonsense?


----------



## ForrestB

shannonswyatt said:


> I have seen people use dowsing rods and was pretty impressed. On the other hand whenever there is a double blind study it shows they don't work.


There have been MANY studies, and in all of them dowsing produced no better results than chance.



awebber96 said:


> isn't there enough guesswork and superstition in this hobby without this nonsense?


Amen to that.


----------



## Daniel Y

I have a problem with them making claims about something they gathered no data on. such as the chance of guessing. they did not test these people for guessing. it indicates there conclusions are biased and corrupt that they even speak of random chance when they did nothing to measure the accuracy of random chance. Why conduct a test of dowsing to then speak on what they did not test? Random chance woudl be 1 in 6. the dowsers achieve 2 in 6. twice as accurate as guessing. Such an alteration of the odds would put mega million dollar casinos out of business. Dowsing rods would be illegal in Vegas. Considered cheating.


----------



## Specialkayme

Daniel Y said:


> they did not test these people for guessing. it indicates there conclusions are biased and corrupt that they even speak of random chance when they did nothing to measure the accuracy of random chance.


Did you read the whole study, or just watch a short youtube clip on it?


----------



## Daniel Y

I only watched the video(s) Randi is a joke that simply refuses to pay up.
The other they show them conducting a test to measure the accuracy of dowsing. then compare those results to methods they did not bother to measure. Basically comparing actual results to assumptions. Then they try to skew even those assumed results in their favor.

Sorry if you want to use random guessing in the study. measure random guessing. Otherwise all you know is that dowsing resulted in 2 out of 6 successful attempts at locating. random guessing woudl be 1 in 6. But you would have to conduct hundreds of thousands of tests to measure that int eh first place. Otherwise you are blatantly ignore in fundamentals of odds.

If I rill a dice once and get a 6 I can claim I roll 6's 100% of the time. now do it 100,000 times. extreme example but does show how the numbers are the only way to truly reveal the actual odds.


----------



## Specialkayme

Daniel Y said:


> I only watched the video(s)
> . . . . then compare those results to methods they did not bother to measure.


You don't know they didn't measure "random guessing." You watched a short clip on a study that a guy did, in the middle of him doing it. You didn't read the study. It's best not to criticize someone's methods or practices until you actually read their results, including the description of their method.

For all you know he also had a control group that didn't have dowsing rods and guessed at random. Point is, you don't know.


----------



## Harley Craig

Ok their double blind study consisted of finding a half liter of bottle water stuck in a trash can?


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

I don't intend to get in this discussion of Ley Lines, however, there seemes to be a misconception of control groups, statistics and how many times you must duplicate a result for confidence in the study, or how many attempts you must measure to be confident of the results.

For those schooled in statistical analysis, you know you do not need large numbers of studies, or large sample sizes, to arrive at an accurately predictable conclusion. You can use very small sample sizes, and depending on the deviation from the norm you are willing to accept, and level of confidence you need in the results, you can accurately predict probilities. To determine the number of times a pair of aces will be drawn from a shuffled deck, you don't need to draw but precious few times to accurately predict how many times it will occur from now on.

cchoganjr


----------



## gmcharlie

shannonswyatt said:


> I tried to catch swarms by placing traps along lay lines, but it didn't work. To be in the center of the intersection of the lay lines I found that I had to put a post in the ground to mount the hive, otherwise the hive would actually be outside of the lay line intersection. Every time I started digging to put the pole in the ground I hit either an oil gusher, a water well or a pot of gold.


Okay, now that was hilarious....


----------



## ForrestB

Daniel Y said:


> I have a problem with them making claims about something they gathered no data on. such as the chance of guessing. they did not test these people for guessing. it indicates there conclusions are biased and corrupt that they even speak of random chance when they did nothing to measure the accuracy of random chance. Why conduct a test of dowsing to then speak on what they did not test? Random chance woudl be 1 in 6. the dowsers achieve 2 in 6. twice as accurate as guessing. Such an alteration of the odds would put mega million dollar casinos out of business. Dowsing rods would be illegal in Vegas. Considered cheating.



"A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[16] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results.[5] A 2006 study of grave dowsing in Iowa reviewed 14 published studies and determined that none of them correctly predicted the location of human burials, and simple scientific experiments demonstrated the fundamental principles commonly used to explain grave dowsing were incorrect.[17]
More recently a study[18] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate. However, the results were no better than chance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing


----------



## shannonswyatt

C'mon, don't let facts and statistics get in the way of superstition and magic.


----------



## Daniel Y

Cleo C. Hogan Jr said:


> I don't intend to get in this discussion of Ley Lines, however, there seemes to be a misconception of control groups, statistics and how many times you must duplicate a result for confidence in the study, or how many attempts you must measure to be confident of the results.
> 
> For those schooled in statistical analysis, you know you do not need large numbers of studies, or large sample sizes, to arrive at an accurately predictable conclusion. You can use very small sample sizes, and depending on the deviation from the norm you are willing to accept, and level of confidence you need in the results, you can accurately predict probilities. To determine the number of times a pair of aces will be drawn from a shuffled deck, you don't need to draw but precious few times to accurately predict how many times it will occur from now on.
> 
> cchoganjr


The test did not ask the dowsers to calculate the odds. it asked them to demonstrate them.

Can you demonstrate that the odds are 1 in 6 or 5 to 1 that you will roll any given number on a dice by just rolling the dice 6 times? how about 12? No? how about 60? still no? give it a try and see if you get exactly 10 ones rolled in 60 attempts. it is the chance after all. The reason this happens is that there is a basic and universal misunderstanding of chance. and that is that when you roll the dice for the first time you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a one. so what are your chances on the second roll? exactly the same. your chance never gets better, and they are not good.

In this study they also had a 1 in 6 chance of finding the container with the water. Random guessing should have at best shown they where correct only once. and often not even that many times. yet at one point it is stated that most found the water twice out of 6 attempts. That is not a close to guessing result. I realize it woudl sound like it is to most people. but then most people can't do math and do not even begin to understand things like odds or chance and how much even a small variation from that is significant.

So in all to actually demonstrate that rolling a certain number on a dice is in fact a 1 in 6 chance. you would have to roll the dice hundreds or even thousands of times. To calculate it you don't need a dice at all. It has 6 sides. each side has a different number so the chance is in fact 1 in 6 or 17% for rolling any one number. the dowsers where correct on average 33% of the time. If they had just been guessing they would have been correct only 17% of the time.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

This is all in fun, so PLEASE don't get upset or feel that I am challenging your manhood. The misconception here, is how to compute probalilities and be able to predict a given event.

Surely you don't believe that Las Vegas rolls the dice, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of times, or pulls aces out of a deck, thousands of times, in order to figure the probability of an event occuring. Of course not. They use the law of probabilities, deviation from a norm, and level of confidence, to predict what will occur in any series of events. Then the payout on gambling is based on these results. Sometimes Las Vegas is wrong, and people win BIG. Most often they are correct, and if you continue to play, using their odds, you will lose. Conclusion here..... Win a good payoff early in the game, and quit playing. Same with dowsing, and random chance. You will not get the same results every time. We all know that the probability of winning the lottery is roughly 14 million to one. But, that one win, can occur on the first drawing, or on the last drawing, anywhere in between, or not at all. But, we can calculate your probability of winning, and advise you as to that probability. You may play 100 million times, and still not win, or, you could win on your first try. That is probabilities. Same with dowsing. You may find the object 33% of the time in one experiment, and then find the object 0 % in another, and then find it 100% in another. This tells you there is a probability, and it ranges from 0% to 100% and will change with each set of circumstances. This is really true when humans, with preconceived notions, or bias, are conducting the experiment 

It is easy to compute random chance for any event. Flip a coin, (assuming the coin is perfectly balanced) it is 50-50 because you have two sides. In dice you have 2 dice. Now you have thousands of combinations and permutations from two dice and six sides each.

In fact, Daniel, you shot your own conclusion down, when you stated you would need to roll a dice hundreds or even thousands of time to predict or demonstrate a certain chance, then, in the next sentence you stated the probability of rolling a given number, based on the fact that a dice has 6 sides.

As I said, I don't have any experience in dowsing, so I will stay out of this discussion. But, here we are talking about probabilities of an event occuring, and comparing it to random chance. To do this accurately, we need to know the laws of probabilities, combinations and permutations, deviation from a norm, and level of confidence. Then you can predict. Will it be 100% accurate every time. No!!! That's why it is called predictions. Same with dowsing. Dowsing is not accurate 100% of the time, but, true predictions do occur. To evaluate, you can compare it to random chance, but that will not remain constant over a given number of events, states and stages.

And, Daniel Y. .., I highly respect you, your posts, and your knowledge. I know nothing about dowsing, and even less about ley lines, .So.. I will leave that to you and others who have that knowledge. 

cchoganjr


----------



## WestTexasLawrence

Ley lines. 

Yes, the magnetic ley lines of the Earth. Many birds, fish, and insects have a small amount of magnetite in their brains that reacts to the magnetic ley lines of the Earth and allow them to migrate long distances without getting lost. 

Tornadoes also generate their own static electric field which has a magnetic component....and the tornado follows the magnetic ley 
lines of the Earth from southwest to northeast in the northern hemisphere. 

Google magnetic ley lines and read all about it. 

WestTexasLawrence


----------



## shannonswyatt

Yup, if you find it on google there has to be something to it! 

Interestingly, the first hit I got for magnetic ley lines after the wikipedia link for just ley lines was this one (I kid you not):

Magnetic ley lines...l

Good reading too! I recommend it for everyone.


----------



## ForrestB

shannonswyatt said:


> Yup, if you find it on google there has to be something to it!
> 
> Interestingly, the first hit I got for magnetic ley lines after the wikipedia link for just ley lines was this one (I kid you not):
> 
> Magnetic ley lines...l
> 
> Good reading too! I recommend it for everyone.


Lol, that was a good read.


----------



## Daniel Y

Looks to me more like someone with an excuse to spew insults and exorcise there ability to form creative degrading phrases to me. not much in the way of support for his opinions that I can see. and all opinions are equal. equally useless.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

Daniel Y.. I agree. Not much there in proof or support for position.

Actually, I believe that article was meant to be more "tongue in cheek", than conclusive. Notice the title. "It is ALL random, MOSTLY",.... contradictive to say the least.

cchoganjr


----------

