Resonance: Beings of Frequency

RESONANCE is a sensational eye opening documentary which reveals the harm we are doing by existing in an ocean of man made wireless frequencies.

Two billion years ago life first arrived on this planet; a planet, which was filled with a natural frequency. As life slowly evolved, it did so surrounded by this frequency. and Inevitably, it began tuning in.

By the time mankind arrived on earth an incredible relationship had been struck; a relationship that science is just beginning to comprehend.

Research is showing that being exposed to this frequency is absolutely integral to us. It controls our mental and physical health, it synchronizes our circadian rhythms, and it aids our immune system and improves our sense of wellbeing.

Not only are we surrounded by natural frequencies, our bodies are filled with them too. Our cells communicate using electro magnetic frequencies. Our brain emits a constant stream of frequencies and our DNA delivers instructions, using frequency waves. Without them we couldn’t exist for more than a second.

This delicate balance has taken billions of years to perfect. But over the last 25 years the harmony has been disturbed. and disturbed dramatically.

Mankind has submerged itself in an ocean of artificial frequencies. They are all around us, filling the air and drowning out the earth’s natural resonance.

To the naked eye the planet appears to be the same. But at a cellular level it is the biggest change that life on earth has endured; the affects of which we are just starting to see and feel.

Join The Conversation

66 Comments / User Reviews

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Some factual inaccuracies (bees are responsible for 1/3rd of pollination not 70%) and spurious claims

  2. I think the negative comments on this documentary are from science deniers and probably Trump supporters at that. It seems as though they have an ingrained “knee jerk” reaction to defend corporate maleficence and their profits against any threat, real or imagined. Their constant refrains of “fake science” and “fake news” illustrates their, dare I say, genetic disorder to error on the side of excessive skepticism toward things they don’t/can’t/won’t understand or feel threatened by. I don’t blame them as much as I do the corporate thugs and their water carriers like Fox News for manipulating this disorder.

  3. What an eye-opening documentary. I believe God created this very complex ecosystem. There is no way mindless evolution could have produced a perfect symbiotic relationship between bees, crops and humankind by blind random chance.

    • Believe what ever you’d like, but don’t spread sloppy (giving you the benefit of doubt, you could be malicious) thinking by equating evolution with “blind random chance.” How irresponsible.

  4. Nikola Tesla showed it in the early 1890ties.

    • Dare I say… suffer from the same condition you accuse the trump followers.
      Since you leave out the other wing of the same bird.
      You think Biden is fit to lead your country or that he decides for anything at all when it is clear that he suffers from acute dementia and who knows what else?
      According to you the problem is Trump and fox news.What about the majority of the corrupt and unethical MSM spreading lies daily,covering up and acting as public relations agents for the system instead of doing their job.
      I hope you are still young and eventually you will understand how decide and conquer works and you break free from your enslavement.

  5. It makes a lot of sense that bee’s communicate at these frequencies and would have nature’s quantum microdots inside them, we should look at the nanoscale and see this, can also test.. that they vibrate to send and signals received come as electrical impulse. I have bilateral tinnitus and can relate, can be that sound is there, a certain frequency and why i hear it is because the frequency range has changed at the point of injury..

  6. I found this video very informative, one must give and take from what is being said, but it sure is helpful as to spreading awareness to the population in terms of the discussed risks of EMF on our overall lives.
    Even if this doc isn’t in any way alarming to you, given the argument that cell phones and cell phone masts aren’t lethal to humans by their own, shouldn’t the simple existence of devices such as HAARP be taken as a potential threat?

  7. Speculation is one thing, there is no proof in this documentation, this leaves us wondering, why even make a film in the first place. Waste of money. Waste of time.

  8. Obummer is a Shabez Goi!

  9. This documentary is a complete load of nonsense. Come up with some fucking evidence, THEN make a documentary.

  10. The person who put this video together is an idiot. It is very distracting to have those buzzing screen blanks every 5 seconds… it’s cute for the first 20 seconds.. but dude wtf? It makes it un-watchable!!!! I just want to watch the stupid video not be distracted by endless screen buzzing and screen clearings!!!! WTF!!!!

  11. The narator’s voice gave the game away,is he Zeitgeist?

  12. What’s up with some of the critics here? Even the cellphone manufacturers themselves advise people to keep the phone 25mm away from the body. Even regulation stipulates that there are certain limits to be adhered to. Certainly the effect of mobile phones is not a healthy one. To what degree it’s potentially dangerous, I have no idea. Maybe we should do some more studies before we enter into stupid arguments on the internet?

    • Sheep! I say survival of the fittest. Education is a choice. The freedom to educate yourself or be ignorant is to each their own. The tragedy lies in not being able to control our exposure (study or no study), but that can be said for assholes too.

  13. There is no scientific evidence that radio waves have any effect on the human body. This documentary is obviously about pseudo-scientific ilk and in no way reflects actual science or the scientific method.

    • “There is no scientific evidence that radio waves have any effect on the human body.”\
      You don’t need any scientific evidence, just stick your head in your microwave while it’s running and you’ll experience the affect of microwave… for about 20 seconds.

      • Microwaves aren’t radiowaves.

        • ummm….. yes they are. With very small wavelengths so small you might call them micro.

          • If we are going to say that all wavelengths have the same effects then we’d have to say that infra-red has the same effect as x-rays. Clearly that is nonsense. X-rays are just a different wavelength, sure, but that change in wavelength makes the world of difference.

  14. An excellent documentary. I really appreciate the comparison with tobacco. As a smoker, we are now all treated as an outcast of society. The more people quit smoking, the more the government raises taxes to maintain their revenue stream, because they are more addicted to money then the smoker is to the nicotine. This is precisely why cell phone regulations are stagnant, and the dangers are ignored. (greed – the worst of all addictions)
    Imagine the outcry if parents started their kids smoking at the age of 8. Better yet; imagine taking the government, or corporations to court regarding the effects of second hand electromagnetic exposure. (good luck) At least you can see the tobacco smoke.

  15. There are technologies that utilize non-damaging frequency based around golden mean phyllotaxis, and suchumann resonance. though it should be the only way.

  16. Mobile phones do not cause cancer and if you watch the film it does not claim that. What is says is that mobile phones and man made electromagnetic fields interrupt the production of melatonin and melatonin is the bodies natural defense against free radicals – the probable cause of all cancers.

  17. Thank you a TON for this great documentary.I had heard about the bad effects of electromagnetic fields a lot but this documentary was an additional cause to help me make my mind and be careful.Thanks !

  18. The effects of frequency on biologial beeings seem to be the topic of this movie.

    if what they say is true, it would mean we might sleep at night, but we do not recover as well as we used to in our sleep. This could mean people could die of cancers at their 60 while u might think with all the medical advances u will reach 120.

    infact u are not letting ur body rest? the lights are always on..

  19. most of the claims are somewhat backed by some science or theories, but the part about “free radical cells” really hurts the film’s credibility. the narrator/writer seems to have no clue that free radicals are reactive compounds (usually metabolites) not “cells that attack healthy cells”. this doesn’t make the argument invalid, just shows that they might not understand everything they’re explaining

  20. Looks like most of you are in denial of scientific proof, real facts, and most certainly lack common sense….as most of the sheeple of the globe. I’ll bet that you same individuals also think that the O’s and X’s and #’s that you see in the sky most every day are jet exhaust trails, and not aluminum/barium/and other heavy metals dispense thru the geoengineering programs conducted daily around our globe which have been scientifically proven to have a negative effect on most every species of plant and animal life. …just google it…..VERY GOOD film.

  21. this is an insult to ones intellect

  22. Hilarious, 10/10, would watch mildly retarded adults with no scientific knowledge humiliate themselves for my amusement again.

  23. Excellent and informative. Sound scientific and well presented. Thank you for posting 🙂

  24. Hellooo – this is why god gave us tin foil – make your hats, people!

  25. I checked out on of the papers they were claiming was supporting them. I will copy and paste the conclusion for those of you who cannot gain access to this paper.

    In our opinion, overall the studies published to date do not demonstrate a raised
    risk within approximately 10 years of use for any tumor of the brain or any
    other head tumor. However, some key methodologic problems remain—for example,
    selective nonresponse and exposure misclassification. Despite these
    methodologic shortcomings and the still limited data on long latency and long-term
    use, the available data do not suggest a causal association between mobile
    phone use and fast-growing tumors such as malignant glioma in adults, at least
    those tumors with short induction periods. For slow-growing tumors such as
    meningioma and acoustic neuroma, as well as for glioma among long-term users,
    the absence of associations reported thus far is less conclusive because the
    current observation period is still too short. Currently data are completely
    lacking on the potential carcinogenic effect of exposures in childhood and

    I thought some of this documentry had some good reasoning behind it, until I actually looked into it. What a shame…

  26. I’ve seen a lot of scare-tactic, nonsense, pseudoscience in my time, and this video fits the bill perfectly. A complete load of nonsense. For a start, cell-phones do NOT cause cancer. Read it and weep:

    • Ok just for fun i’m going to poke a hole in this argument, because its such an obvious oversight on your part for not checking up on the writer of the article which in such a big claim just seems prudent to me and your bad luck i was bored enough to read your article linked in your post.
      So who wrote this article? A man by the name of Stan Schroeder, who if you follow his picture will tell you the following:
      “He lives in Zagreb, Croatia, and spends his free time pursuing his many interests, which include speaking at conferences, startups, mobile development” etc.

      Now just going on that basis, i’m not so sure you can really count anything he has to say on the subject to be all that reliable considering he’s interested in mobile development. The article, whilst obviously of the opinion that there is no link between mobiles and cancer, has to end with the fence sitting quote by the authors of the study saying
      “However, the authors warn that “a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy (cellphone) users” cannot be ruled out, which calls for further studies on large populations.”

    • great yet another scientific study in the ocean of info. How do you know this test is any more or less legit than any of the botched tests illustrated in this film? How do you know that every one of these or other tests isn’t slanted in favor of the money researching them? Were you present for ANY of them? Isn’t your time our time too? Jackass…

    • The study seems moot for one (very solid) reason. In this study they sample people with mobile phones and conclude that there is no change in cancer rates from them and the control group. One main argument in this film is the danger of mass amounts of radio waves may cause people harm/discomfort (of some sort…not just cancer). So the study isn’t really flawed, but it finds the answer to an irrelevant question because regardless of weather we own cellular phones or not we are all exposed to the radiation the towers omit.

      I am not saying this is a fantastic docu based on only the most sound science — but they make m a n y valid points and it is a topic that should be looked at.

      • the two dickheads above you need to learn from your logical process how to have a balanced conversation that doesn’t draw conclusions they can’t prove. Well said..

  27. This is clearly another pseudo-scientific junk film, waste of the server space it occupies.

    • Heavy cell phone user, are you?

    • and what are your qualifications to make this statement? I suppose all the info about who funds research is not true also?

    • You’re the hyperbole of a fucking moron.

      • Why? Because he’s right?

        • “evidence in the video”….I didn’t see any peer-reviewed, high-impact journal references…but perhaps if you don’t consider ‘evidence’ to actually be indisputable, tried & tested widely accepted and scientifically based (even indisputable!), then yes, even my arsehole has ‘evidence’ for the pseudo-crap spouted in this load-of-nonsense, well based purely upon the basis that is can talk shit.

        • how do you know the gender of rememberthescience when the profile is locked?

        • There is enough evidence in the video to indicate this research is based more on fact then fiction, but you go right along not looking up the source data that has been presented to you.

  28. There are so many things wrong with the introductory write up that there is no point in watching. It is obviously based on junk “science”. (Read: “We’re making it up as we go along.”) It’s amazing, throw in a few real scientific words (no matter if the sentence is factually wrong) and people will believe it. (Mostly the people writing it I’m guessing.)

    Anyway, move along… nothing to see here I’m sure. (But you never know, I could be wrong)

    • So you just wasted ten minutes of your time making a half assed intellectual statement for the hell of it just to nullify its point with “you never know I could be wrong”??? Why dot you leave the science to the people making the movies you’re critiquing? When you make one of equal caliber I’ll make sure to bash it unnessecarally too.

      • It is a viewers right, no less responsibility to respond to information given. Without a plethora of thoughts and opinions most viewers become complacent and trusting of any information. (See: TV.)

      • Ouch…. well I guess I better go lick my wounds. I’m much too ill-equipped to compete with this intellect. Hey look at that, I spelled all the words correctly.

        By the way, leave science to scientists and not movie makers please.

    • There are no non-backed up claims in the introduction. What they are speaking about is referenced throughout and if you really wish, any one of the viewers could go and take on the arduous and painstaking task of finding all of these studies for evidence. Or you could let the documentary makers do it for you. But, they give you the choice. Referencing for the win.

      • Please scroll down and read my reply to Goldencompass CA
        It’s no “arduous and painstaking task” to simply point out the basics that are wrong in what was written.
        If you can’t get the basics right, how in the world can you form any kind of serious argument?

    • I watched it. It was obviously a scare piece. However, everything that they stated appears to be backed up by some evidence. The whole message is that we need to be asking questions about our long term safety with a brand new technology that saturates huge parts of the planet. That is not unreasonable.

    • cognitive dissonance – noun –
      Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information…. when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists (1). Look this describes you completely Memolandi

      • No, I’ve already pointed out that I could be wrong. I actually like being wrong as that is one more thing for me to learn (of many). I realize that I am just as prone as anyone else to cognitive dissonance (I am already very familiar with the term but thank you anyway for the definition). I don’t mind being challenged with new information but in this written introduction, the basis of the information is flat out wrong. It’s like saying “Look, the sky has purple polka dots.” No, it doesn’t. It’s a factual falsifiable statement as is most of the introduction to this video.

        for example: “our DNA delivers instructions, using frequency waves” . Really? Let’s ask a cellular biologist shall we? DNA works through chemistry. No “frequency waves” involved at all. While we are on this little tiny bit of the whole intro, there is no such thing as “frequency waves”. Frequency is an attribute of a wave but there is no wave called a “frequency wave.”

        Like I said, no cognitive dissonance on my part. All you will find in this video is bad (no) science.

        • maby you dont know everything… and maby not all scentest know everything, if you dont test than you dont know, lock add this articel, and there are meny more 😉

          some other facts for you,
          the best scientest in the world would not be able to tell you hou it is that a wing will couse lift they know the mechanisme on how to do it (under and upper presure) but they wil not be able to tell you how it is posble

          nuwtons law, does not explain spin… the famous experiment you have 2 vacuem tubes in one of the tubes you heve a tenisball and in the other you have a boling ball, if you drop them add the same time they wil land add the same time, but if you spin one of the objects it wil drop slower en wil hit the botut after the non spinning opject. this can not be explaint in nuwtons law, but we use it every day in every thing,
          so science does not know everything but they stil use the old ways that fitt the most to there theorys, and maby they sould rething there theory of gravaty becous everything Spins

          for a Transformer (or a wave or rediowave/microwave) to work you need a medium to sent it true “the magnetic waves”, just like sound waves need a medium like air..
          we can cal this medium the ether or 0(.) or what ever u like this is known in quantum mechenics, but the Classical physics model is not allowd.. so ask a scientest what is the medium for radiowaves/ or microwave… they cant tel u, einstein did found out that there was a ether, nicola tesla found this to be true as well, but still its not allowed in the standerd physics model, This is beouse if there was a ether, there would be a way to almoost unlimmited energy, and some puople in this world would not like that 😉
          tesla know a way to transmit potentoly unlimmitad energy true the ionic cavaty of the earth, by the same netrual ways lighning work, and was able to supply the whole world with safe wireless unlimmeted energy, his finencer whas J.P Morgen en he made some vere big investmints in copper wire, and did not like the idear of free unlimmitad wireless power… so he burnd his laberatory, and tesla was redicueld for the rest of his life…

          so you see science is not fact its a theory and if someone likes that theory the will tray to hold that theory for as long as they can,

          so please use your commen sens and think about what you may not know This wil bring you allot more knowlige and whissdom.. Love and peace

        • Actually, a French virologist Luc Montagnier (nobel prize 2008) theorizes that DNA communicates electromagnetically. This position is also supported by Stephen Hawking, and Ed Witton, and is refered to as hyper communication. Time to bone up on your ‘science’ before passing judgment on others, and calling it ‘bad science’. Blogger Goldencompass CA above stated it eloquently; “when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists”.

        • Saying “i could be wrong” doesn’t change the fact that you fit the definition. That is just a catch-all. In fact you have the phrase ‘i’m sure’ immediately followed by ‘i could be wrong.’ Then you claim no cognitive dissonance… If i have sex with your wife then say “i could be wrong” am i an adulterer? I hope you see the point, its really not why i’m responding.

          I, in fact, have been educated in the nuances of interactions of genetic material through chemical processes with respect to physical chemistry and organic chemical pathways. You say “DNA works through chemistry.” Now, that’s not the most articulate statement, but it is basically true. You go on to say, however, “No ‘frequency waves’ involved at all.” This statement, though no less inarticulate, is a more porous argument. You see, all chemical interactions are fundamentally based on the flow of electrons and charge potentials. This is ultimately the same concept as electricity on a more macro scale. Each and every one of these particles and then in turn the larger molecular structures are oscillating and spinning, often in very complex, but repetitive patterns that give them a frequency. A wave is nothing more than a repetitive pattern (frequency) moving through a medium. Your argument that there is no wave called a ‘frequency wave’ is semantic rather than scientific and it could easily be countered that all waves could be referred to as frequency waves, though i agree that would be something of a redundancy.

          Below you refer someone to your reply to Goldencompass CA above and i would like to point out 2 things about the statement you made: First, recognize that what is written in the description is not necessarily from the filmmakers. Second, you say it was no arduous task to point out the ‘basics that are wrong in what is written’ yet you did a poor job of that, as i pointed out earlier. The only argument you make that is specific to this documentary and its description is the comment about the semantic validity of the phrase ‘frequency waves.’

          I can’t believe i even just wasted my valuable time to write this. I’ve gotta get to work but i implore any who might read this to understand this is not a bashing and to take it to heart. We should all think better. And demand it from others.

          • Thank you for taking the time to write this. It confirms what I thought I recalled from my high school chemistry many years ago. It wasn’t a subject I completely understood, but I did grasp that electrons were exchanged in a chemical reaction. I am very interested in the subject of frequencies and how to protect ourselves from EMF, so your articulate and obviously well-informed response to the previous comments is very useful to me. Thank you again! You did not waste your time.

          • Good job, well said, and straight to the point. Live long and prosper an actual chemist!

          • By far one of the most collected, logical PWN’s I’ve seen in a while. Kudos, Chemist.

          • Well put. In fact, very well written and a joy to read. I do not wish to argue with your points as I agree with you. I do however wish to make a couple of clarifications:

            1. In this matter I do not fall prey to cognitive dissonance. (In order to do that, you have to hold two opposing views simultaneously in your mind.) I will however concede the point the I could fall victim to confirmation bias which is what I believe the first poster really meant. (Small point but I just thought it should be pointed out and acknowledged.)

            2. I take your point about the waves as you have written it but I have a hard time believing that was what the authors meant when they used the statement. I simply chose that sentence to talk about because it was short and I could illustrate my point with it quickly.

            3. Usually the description for a film is written by the filmmakers or by the distribution company and is a fair assumption to make.

            4. You are right, I did not point out where they got the basics wrong. I did a very poor job of that but I wasn’t trying to do that. I was not interested in writing a great deal about this documentary. However, this discussion has snowballed a bit and I have used a great deal of time responding to people. Perhaps I should not have written anything to begin with.

            Whoever you are actual chemist, I have truly enjoyed reading your post. Your thoughts were very well articulated and your typing did not go to waste.

            Thank you.