reply to post by littlebunny
I am NOT David Wilcock and I specifically sight his work through out my posts & embedded his and the other references I've sighted too. I'm not
selling this crap, I'm just spewing what my take on the model of physics that is currently in discussion in regards to this phenomenon. I'm not a
physicist, but I understand physics & enjoy it as I do science & researching in general. So I agree quite a bit with what David Wilock, Richard
Hoagland, Joseph Farrell, Nassiem Haramein, and other models similar say. So what am I supposed to do, make up references? I'm not saying this is
theory either; If anything , I'm just coining a phrase, "waves of wtf"
I guess you can call me a shill if you want to because I'm supposed to be helping David with graphics for a sequel to his 2012 Enigma Video, but I
definitely do not claim responsibility for the theories they've formulated, I just happen to agree with the larger portions of them
So easy on
accusations especially when I'm blatantly sighting them while describing
my take on what the implications of us standing on the ground will be.
I personally do not think a "switch" will be thrown, I think there will be an "apex" of energetic influx though. What are the implications of
that? Don't know...hence the waves of wtf?!
Personally I think radiation, heat, vibration, etc are a form of cascading resonance from that "hyper" dimension to this 3rd dimension partially or
entirely initiated in this dimension.. Gravity however is another subject, if Nassim Haramein is correct part of the cause of that gravity is due to
the black hole or "singularity" that atoms create as they spin around in that quantum vortex that we define as it's structure. Just like the
Russian scientists & the aforementioned researchers would also give rise to those torsion fields.
As far as the potentially dangerous things we might have to contend with, I talk about the major ones I've seen (not to say there might not be more
of course) HERE
As far as what's the deal with Hoagland's figures being "approximate" in a way; David talked a bit about that in the sense that at those specific
points, things fractally started to form. He had a sweet map I hope he includes in his next video illustrating this. Not to mention markers on
geologically active planets will move as the crust does. But we do see them like the active volcano in Hawaii. From what I've heard listening to
other researchers, Hoagland is aware of this as are other researchers and they are all trying to find & fit the right piece to the puzzle as the model
seems to have quite a bit of merit. Dr. Brian O'Leary specifically talks about those discrepancies in his latest
Project Camelot interview
. Maybe you can figure something out?
What's the catalyst to all of this? Motion, or animation, or life...depending on which term you prefer & impeccable timing
Thanks for thinking I'm The Wil-Cayce though, he's pretty smart & funny