Guys, with no disrespect but Ive seriously got to question wether any more than one or two of you have done any background at all on this, such as
reading any relevant part of any of ickes books or watching/listening to any relevant video or audio
The biggest point of all about this is that Icke is hardly alone in presenting this information (re: dimensions)...its concurrent throughout human
history, particularily beyond the limitations of the knowledge found to be socially acceptable through much of western history since the start of
Roman Catholisism
I'm not particularily interested in debunking a debunk but a couple of hours study can make a world of difference
Im happy to link you up but Im not looking to impose, theres volumes of amazing info out there if your willing to put some effort in
A few pointers all the same:
Firstly, if Ickes especially distastefull for you, perhaps Michael Talbot or Deepak Chopra might be more informative
And it might be of interest to know that the human eye (brain really, but thats a more involved issue) is capable of seeing only a small fraction of
the ordinary electromagnetic spectrum, and that the electromagnetic spectrum encompasses the vibrational frequency of far less than 1% of the known
mass of the universe, at least if advanced physics is right about anything at all...
And that latest research coming out of Russia indicates that "things" are only solid when interacting with the vibrational frequency of the matter
composing a body to interpret the quantum waveforms? and without a body (an experiential suit) nothing "solid" can ttuly be said to exist?
Hence, extending the hypothesis goes "the spirit world" etc, another dimensional frequency outside of the perception of this one
Where you also aware that, according to more apocryphal sources, marconi used his early experiments in radiography to communicate with the "other
side", and that the frequency range of standard radio was by extension set below the required Hz ranges to access the same?
Somehow Im not sure that a bit of word play quite counts for a "debunk" there...


