Lots of good questions. But the best question will always be, what are the BELIEFS that the participants bring to the table?

Is this experiment capable of proving anything related to the discussion of this thread?

No, not as described.

Does the relocation of the water to the same research facility change the properties of the water?

Yes. See below for explanation

Would mixing different waters from different sources affect the resonance of the water? How would it affect it?

While there certainly would be some "effect" it's impossible to guess. It would be interesting to experiment with.

Does good resonance trump bad resonance or vice versa?

It would be easier to think of this not as "good" and "bad". Those are subjective opinions. What's "bad" for the American visiting Mexico is what's "good" for the Mexican. Right?

You could never really know, could you? Most people treat their "personal facts" as "absolute truths". They do not recognize them as BELIEFS. Because there's no such thing as an "absolute truth" that's true for everybody.

I always use the example of sugar or ice cream. Does it make you fat if you eat too much? Many people BELIEVE this is an absolute fact. And as such, they EXPERIENCE the results of their strong BELIEF. Many people don't BELIEVE this and they can eat all the sugar and ice cream they like. Our scietiism-ist "experts and authorities" try to explain this away with entirely unproven suppositions like genetics, "metabolism" or hormones. Not realizing that all of these are the RESULT of a person's dominant BELIEFS.

The "outer reality" is "old news", the after-effect of our BELIEFS, which are "first cause" in all matters - health, wealth, relationships, etc.

As to your question about dogs bringing no BELIEFS into the experiment, you'd get an untainted result. I'm not so sure about bringing water from other countries to say the USA. This would change the resonance of the water as its resonance is the result of "where" it is.

However, should you fly a dog from the USA to Mexico and provide it with the local water, the dog may likely get diarrhea for a day or two until it is adapted to the new resonance of the region. Key in this is understanding of course is that it's not some "bacteria" in the water that caused it. It's always the resonance.

Bacteria are CREATED BY your body, just like all your cells and tissues. We don't "catch" bacteria from "out there". Bacteria are generated by the body to remove or rebuild tissue or substances that don't belong within the sterile environment. There's no such thing as "good/bad" bacteria. Most bacteria are generated following the resolution of some form of RESISTANCE that causes the psyche to alter a person's tissue in order to compensate for their resistance (fear/judgment).

This was the main reason why scientists in the late 1800s and early 1900s blamed bacteria for causing dis-ease; because they were at the "scene of the crime". Much like you might blame firefighters at a house fire for being causative if you didn't know any better.

Several scientists attempted to "infect" themselves with dozens of different types of bacteria in the 1920s - cholera, tuberculosis, strep, typhoid, blah blah blah. None ever became sick, let alone came down with a specific dis-ease as they expected. Because there aren't "different types" of bacteria. There are different "forms" that are generated for different tasks. But they are all fundamentally the same "thing". Some remove, some rebuild, depending on the task needed. If there are no removal/rebuilding tasks needed by your body in the moment, they just return to their original form, which is effectively a "stem cell". Which isn't really a "cell" as presented by modern day scientism. A "cell" is really a cooperative collection of this thing presently called "stem cells".