Why 432hz Tuning?

Apparently, 432Hz, 528Hz and 7 others are naturally found in the earth's rhythms. They somehow correspond to our bodies as well. The former classics, Bach, Beethoven ect. made there music in 432 Hz. I do not remember the year that was given, but it was the French who started tuning their instruments in 440 Hz to make a difference to the Italians who shared a large advantage at the time. Somehow, the 440 Hz, although an unnatural band to us, seems to have won over and stuck. Whatever your opinion is, it does make for a real cool research project. There is a lot of science involved in tuning and at which frequency. I personally like to review the findings of how these different Hz cycles affect the psychic well-being or ill-being of ourselves as psychology is my field.

This is nothing but a silly wheeze. If the instruments had been tuned to 432hz, the resulting overtones would have been part of the recording. Simply electronically transposing the recording cannot reproduce something that isn’t there. The whole thing smacks of marketing superstition

As appealing as tuning into the frequency of the universe is, the '432 Hz is bollocks' argument is infinitely more persuasive.

That is why I call it relative pitch.

@antigrunge2. 
“If the instruments had been tuned to 432hz, the resulting overtones would have been part of the recording. Simply electronically transposing the recording cannot reproduce something that isn’t there.”
Thank you for this great point.  
You are correct in the inherent silliness of electronically changing the pitch of a recording after the fact.  
“Ooooo, now we can listen at 432, honey!”  
🤣🤣🤣

Seeking out recordings that were actually recorded in 432, okay.  
Now we have something here.

I suspect that convenience, not wanting to change from the norm, and a sense that the 432 argument is “just woo woo gibberish” has kept us from adopting 432 as the norm.  
Based on the evidence, I don’t see why we wouldn’t just make 432 the standard.  
It seems to be what we like more.