Skip to content

Beyond the Little White Book.

November 6, 2017

I mentioned in my last post how in the Gummy Bear Tarot I had acquired, I found the most amazing little white book ever. That I lived the sayings and the feelings invoked by the descriptions of the cards. Well, given that I’ve possessed maybe a dozen packs of Tarot since I started reading, that’s quite a compliment. I found it even better, to be honest, than most proper books I have bought.

But now I have found my very favourite tarot book ever. Really. This book just sucked me in like a good novel. I simply love the author’s writing style.

I’ll be honest. I had every intention of reading the important bits, just enough to be able to write an honest review, but I was unable to skip anything. I have enjoyed reading every page of this book. I didn’t enjoy the next day so much after a missed night’s sleep! I’ll start at the beginning with the contents pages. I loved this book as soon as I saw the contents pages. One way I personalise my cards is to attach a little saying to each. For example, “Wish upon a Wishing Star”, “Pride Comes Before a Fall”, “When the Student is Ready the Teacher will Appear” and “Smooth Sailing” are all among my repertoire of key phrases. Well, Liz includes similar catchphrases right there, from the outset in the contents page. I love that I am given a sense of each card before I even go and take a closer look at it. There are really no illustrations so I suggest that you have your cards handy and sorted in order so that you can effectively use your own illustrations. That makes sense anyway… it’s how we become familiar with our cards. As an aside, when I first started learning tarot I chose a floaty deck which I could swim away into… but the Minor Arcana wasn’t illustrated. So I found it very difficult to learn their meanings. But as I started to keep a journal I printed a cheat sheet of the RWS tarot. That way, any notes I made were linked in my head to those illustrations… and with time I came to recall the images for each card automatically… which triggered what I had learnt about each card. Beyond the Little White Book keeps to the time honoured format of introducing the cards, then going through first the Major and then the Minor Arcana. That makes it easy to navigate. But… I will say right here that the layout of each card is a little confusing. The standard format is:

  1. Intro to card
  2. Positive aspects of cards
  3. Challenges
  4. Applications at work
  5. Applications in relationship spreads
  6. Other applications
  7. Challenges at work
  8. Challenges in relationships
  9. Other challenges.

This sounds simple enough. But these are the exact titles for each and every card, and due to the scattered layout, it sometimes took a few seconds after a moment of distraction to scroll and find mention of which card I was reading about. I’d prefer to see each card name mentioned in each title. I also prefer to have all of the information about the cards in their inverted position together. That saves me flicking between pages to find information about the same aspect. About the inverted cards. Most books give about 10% of space for each card to inversions. Liz gives them equal space to the upright cards. And that I respect, because I believe that using inversions effectively doubles the number of cards available to us and massively broadens the scope of our readings. I feel that each time a card is inverted, it’s because we have a lesson to learn from it. Often we might have a block in a particular area, or an issue that we are refusing to acknowledge. Inverted cards play the role of educating us about what we need to do to grow. And yet many readers hide from them. Most professional readers I have seen at fayres actually turn reversed cards the right way up as they lay them. That practise baffles me. Advice and guidance is exactly what the cards are about. Why hide from that? Liz doesn’t. She refers to them as Challenges, and guides us on how to address these challenges. Well handled indeed. Each card has at least four pages dedicated to it… and these pages are full of gems. I found new phrases, aspects I hadn’t noticed before, on almost every card and I copied many over into my journal… and I recommend that you have your journal handy when you read this too. Each card concludes with a good handful of questions to ask yourself when the cards arises… and I suspect these questions will be very handy to guide new readers through their early readings. So all in all I would say this is now the best book on tarot I have read to date. I love the positive spin Chloe puts on her cards and the valuable lessons she helps us learn about them ll in each of their aspects. I highly recommend this book to readers at all levels. To beginners who want to get to know their cards. To confident readers who wish to develop their understanding of the cards in their reversed aspect. And to seasoned practitioners who want a gentle read, a pleasant trip down memory lane, reminding us of what we’d forgotten, and even pointing out plenty we had simply missed along our journey. Thank you, Liz, for making those fourteen hours on planes very pleasant hours!


Protected: Psychic Awareness Level One

November 3, 2017

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: The Career Spread

October 23, 2017

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: The Warehouse

October 7, 2017

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

The Pigeons

June 17, 2017

It’s time to start writing again. I’ve deleted FB from my phone… had a few issues with privacy. Well… actually the issues were with the app. It stopped working and wanted me to send a report giving permission for them to access my meta data etc. So I uninstalled it. And to reinstall it I need to give permission for them to send emails to my contacts from my calendar but without my permission. So bye bye FB app. And hello again WordPress. 

Anyway I’ve been watching the Pigeons in the garden for the last few weeks on account of how I’ve been sitting in the garden more or less non stop since I got out of hospital. 

I had my collar bone broken during my first ski holiday with Marc. Some arsehole wiped me out from behind and I cartwheeled on my shoulders breaking both of them (splitting my left along the length and shattering the right) and my nose. 

The sunglasses survived surprisingly enough. 

It was a pretty cool sight… I was spitting out blood from the nose so folks thought I was dying. And they tried rolling me into the recovery position which of course just hurt the shoulder even more. So anyway they fixed it… thank God for Bupa. Or at least I thought they fixed it. But actually although they put a plate in it never healed. 

CT scan of upper body showing a clearly broken collar bone with excess growth.

This is me!

Amazing what they can do with the imagery nowadays. This MR scan shows the bone which kept trying to heal but just grew without joining. Pushing on the brachial plexus which was causing compression of the nerves and blood vessels. Which meant it hurt to ride my bike, hang the washing and scrape the paint off the picture rails which is a bum when you’re trying to renovate a Georgian house single handed and don’t have a car!

So last week they shaved the excess bone and re plated it.


The proportions seem a little wrong. In real life the wound is massive…!

And now it hurts more than ever. I guess the sore wrist will heal… but not so sure but the constant pins and needles in the arm and hand. It’s like the pain that annoyed me when I was doing what I had to do just hurts the whole time now. And from experience I know it takes years for nerve damage to dissipate.  

So anyway. Been sat in the garden for a week and a half now watching the Pigeons mate in our bush. It’s their favourite place and even the dogs have stopped hassling them. It’s taken two years but it seems the dogs are finally ok with bird sharing their back garden. Well, pigeons and sparrows and Robins and wrens. They still hate the magpies.

But wouldn’t you know when I just went to take a photo they buggered off. Never mind… they’ll be back. 


The Fire Glow -it glowed like this…!

January 11, 2017

The biggest enigma for me is still what caused that plane to glow?  We’ve been given several plausible explanations, but not of them fit what I’saw. Alternatives have included solar glow, volcanic ash, fluorescent paint and even cloaking technology (although I didn’t touch that here…) but I’m still not convinced by any of them.

This one from Youtube. An airplane wing catches fire on the runway. The glow which I have circled was similar to what I saw but here you can clearly see a fire source. I couldn’t see a fire out there.  And the glow I saw was brighter and more uniform across the whole plane:



Or this one but again brighter, and more uniform across the entire body of the plane, and no visible fire:

Now this one was a halon extinguisher. This reminded me right off of the glow. The one the was right around the plane…

And then this one was a nuclear fuel rod.  I saw this and I wondered. I truly wondered if what I saw was being heated by something like this. But of course not, and plane that got that hot would immediately disintegrate.  So not this then. But it’s still good for trying to explain the glow.


And of course we mustn’t forget the image which Lizzie worked on very hard for months…

EFortuin Mar2015 -

Graphic illustration of the plane I saw Best viewed on tablet in the dark.

Note the ONLY source of light I could see were the cockpit windows which were bright YELLOW….

MH370 – A Lithium Fire and the Sparkler Effect?

January 11, 2017

OK. So I just found this post in my drafts folder, and now seems as good a time to publish as any… Just as a reminder I’m pasting a copy of Lizzie’s graphic recreation of what I saw. At one stage I was wondering if the glow I saw was caused by a fast moving object creating a trail. Ie, perhaps the illumination I saw was from the cockpit window and that was leaving a trail. Like a sparkler?

EFortuin Mar2015

Graphic illustration of the plane I saw [pending correction to remove logo]

Well maybe we’ll never know.  But this lengthy but very interesting post from the esteemed Duncan Steel goes a way to explaining why it might have been possible…

Duncan posted the following on his forum, with my permission. His response is worthy of a look…

Kate (the Sailoress) sent me the following message, and I replied as appended. With Kate’s approval I am posting both her original message and my reply below. The suggestions I made are open for debate, discussion, disproof, dumping in the circular file (i.e. the trashcan).




There is some stuff I want to run by you, but am not ready to post yet. Two days is a long time, when sanding decks, to reflect. I am ready to enlarge upon the cockpit windows which Henrik asked about.

Even though I am certain this is a real memory, I have been unwilling to share it, and I don’t know why. But it’s a memory that filled me with fear. I have been having visions of it coming at me face on, so I am not sure if my memory has morphed on this. But it was at a distance, and I think it came between when I thought it was a missile and when it became ‘elongated’ and I realised it was a plane. Therefore it was far away, and it doesn’t make sense that I could see it in that detail. The windows were illuminated. Orange, not white. That makes me wonder if Bobby’s theory of the interior fire is close to the truth, except for his altitude.

The first thing I want your opinion on, is whether this would even have been possible for me to have seen this much detail. AT that distance – But I am sure it’s a real memory, since I remember the jolt (internal scream would be a better description) I felt at the time when I realised it was a plane on fire, before I put that aside.

All the best,


Kate, Sorry for the delay.

First, I have not been following the discussion and analysis of the visual aspects of your sighting as closely as many others obviously have, nor the work that Bobby has done. This past week or so I have been excruciatingly busy with other matters, only getting a few hours of sleep a night, which is why I often approve comments at weird hours (given that I am currently in the UK). That is, every so often I check the website and approve things that look sensible without giving them detailed thought. A peculiarity of me (and I guess a lot of scientists) is that we only give considered answers after giving a matter due consideration! For me, on a piece of research, that sometimes needs a week of doing not much else but think about it, and sometimes far longer. Our asset is not so much remembering facts, but the developed capability to think long, hard, and with a certain quality. (Again, I am just a little lad from Midsomer Norton, and there are lots of other people out there far smarter than me.)

OK, now what Bobby was talking about when he was addressing “diffraction limited” and “Rayleigh criterion” is the *theoretical* limit of resolution that any optical system can have. (Theoretical limit means “best possible” here.) The reality is that light does not travel in straight lines! A “perfect” optical system has a limited resolution, which is set by what is called diffraction. For an aperture (e.g. a telescope mirror, or a camera lens aperture, or your eye’s pupil) of width D that limit is 1.22 times the wavelength divided by D. That is what Bobby calculated, and found that your eye (if it were “perfect”, and no eye actually is or can be in terms of the physics of image forming) might be able to distinguish two passenger windows separated by one metre at a distance of 5 nautical miles (I think it was). All that means is that you might be able to see a row of pinpricks of light, rather than an overall glow. And the latter seems to be what you saw. That seems to make sense, in terms of Bobby’s analysis of the theoretical limit.

Next would be the overall shape of the aircraft. Given suitable background illumination (e.g. from the Milky Way, and from cities over the horizon for you at sea level but not for the aircraft at say 10,000 feet) you would be able to make out its broad shape, just as you described. That is, you could tell it was a large jet, and not a small commuter plane or a fighter jet. But you would not be able to tell much more than that. Not knowing the distance to within a factor of 2, for example, it would be easy to confuse a 747-sized airliner with a 737-sized airliner, unless you could count the engines.

On the cockpit windows, these are rather larger than the passenger windows/portholes. Still, at the distance involved one would not expect you to see any detail (e.g. shape of the windows). What you would/might see would be light emanating from there, especially if full cockpit lights were on (as opposed to the dim displays at night): similar to having internal lights on in a car at night. This would especially be the case if the passenger cabin lights were off or dimmed (as is usual for a landing approach). On the other hand, one would not expect the internal cockpit lights to be on for a landing approach, especially at night.

Overall, one would have expected the main lights to be seen to be the navigation lights, and the landing floodlights, if they were on. The apparent fact that the navigation lights were NOT on indicates a problem on board, of some description.

My interpretation of what you saw is NOT that you were seeing light produced by an internal fire. A fire like that soon extinguishes due to lack of oxygen, unless there is a gaping hole in the aircraft, and even then the oxygen supply to feed a fire would be difficult to explain.

My suggestion early on of a fire on board causing CO poisoning of the crew and passengers was not a thought of any flames at all. Flames produce mainly CO2. A slow, smouldering fire due to (e.g.) Li-ion batteries is what I had in mind. Especially if in the hold no-one would be aware of it, possibly, and it would not compromise the physical integrity of the aircraft: it would just knock the crew and passengers out. Again, though, this is just one possibility, one suggestion that cannot yet be excluded.

It would be interesting to know if, in the case of a power interruption (prior to 18:40) and subsequent re-powering, whether the cockpit internal lights come on as a default. That would make sense to me in that the crew need to see their controls first so as to AVIATE, with the next step being NAVIGATE, then COMMUNICATE. That is, the highest priority, hence the default, one might expect to be: lights in the cockpit (as opposed to passenger cabin, navigation lights, landing lights) along with power to control surfaces etc. Top priority after a power loss: enable the crew to keep the aircraft in the air; anything else is secondary until they have done that (and I think here that they were incapacitated by then, and so unable to move on from that default).

Thus: my best explanation for what you saw would be a “zombie” MH370 flying on default modes, automatic pilot, and so on. The lights you saw from the cockpit windows were internal lights, not a fire: especially at a low light level such lights would appear orange (try turning down the voltage on an incandescent light bulb and see what I mean). No light or very little light from passenger portholes, with the line of windows simply looking fuzzy and orange-ish again: your eyes (or anyone’s eyes) simply cannot resolve separate light sources that are closely-spaced from such a distance, because the physics makes it an impossibility!

In summary: what you have reported makes sense (at least to me) in terms of physics, and also what I might anticipate in terms of a zombie MH370 as aforesaid, although I would like to know from aviation experts what the default re-power configuration would be for the B777 in terms of both the aircraft systems, and also the autopilot system (which I regard as being a separate computerised system).

I can understand why you reacted to the sighting the way you did, but although I suspect that a fire on board may have been the original cause of the catastrophe, as I wrote above I do not think a big fire with flames occurred; and so what you saw was not that, but rather light from the internal cockpit lights being the major emission visible to you, of course on a dark night, far from city lights, and with the Moon long since set. I’ve spent hundreds of nights on mountaintops using telescopes under those conditions, and few people nowadays know what a truly dark night is like, and how a light source that is intrinsically dim can appear when all around is virtually black. It happens that a *moving* light source of this type is also more easily picked up by our brains, which are essentially hard-wired to detect moving objects against a stationary background: just as well, else our distant ancestors would have been eaten by dinosaurs and other predators.

Kind regards to yourself and Marc,


Witches Walk

Embracing your energy and finding your power

Saucy Sailoress

Start here for MH370 full report:

Charlotte's Blog

Start here for MH370 full report:


Live Small, Venture Wide



Sailing Sereno

Adventures in sailing, one couples story

MAP Wave Analysis

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein