"The Source Field Investigations", the new book by David Wilcock

reply to post by skywalker_

He cites a lot of russian research on pyramids, and says how pyramid technology could have remarkable healing potential ...

Pyramids were in vogue in the 1970s. People used to do all sorts of wacko things like build pyramids to hang over their beds. Pyramid power is a hoax and not a good one at that.

Looking up Russian pyramid power we see all sorts of goofy claims.
www.articlesbase.com...

Dr Patrick G. Flanagan is an other pyramid well known pyramid researcher. He has written a book "Pyramid Power". He has brought a very interesting observation that in fact the word "Pyramid" is merged from two words "Piros" and "Amid", Therefore translating literally the Pyramid means "Fie in the Middle".

That is wrong - quite wrong.
www.word-origins.com...

Egypt seems a likely ultimate source for pyramid, but its earliest known ancestor is Greek puramís, which passed into English via Latin pyramis.

The rest of the article is anecdotal comments about feeling better.

Here is another article about the Russian pyramids
www.iol.co.za...
Here is my favorite quote from the article. Yes, I am cherry picking humor.

Objects kept in the pyramids like water, rocks and crystal matrices also seem to absorb and convey positive effects if removed.

This guy Alexander Golod who built these pyramids should be a Nobel prize winner if he could actually prove anything he has claimed:
1. Pyramids reduce disease - Nobel in medicine
2. Pyramids reduce radioactivity - Nobel in physics
3. Pyramids change the shape of space - Nobel in physics

So where does all of this lead if the people with the remarkable claims do not seem to be capitalizing on their discoveries? Can you say denarios, moolah, bucks, scratch? Yes, this is about money and not about all of the other unsubstantiated rubbish.

For only $349 you can get yourself a mini pyramid! Any proof it works? Nope, but you get to read anecdotal testimonials for free.

The matrix helped me get rid of intestines inflammation.

My organism has many deviations: bronchitis, anemia, gastritis, pielonephrit, colitis, and arthritic rheumatism. And for the past 5 years my lower back problems have worsened as well.

Wine tasters always notice wine from the pyramids because of its unique taste and aroma.

This really humorous. All of these people deceiving themselves into pyramids. After some of these poor souls get separated from $349 they can't afford to be without they have to delude themselves into believing that pyramids work.
www.pyramidoflife.com...

reply to post by stereologist


I can see your POV about pyramid being just another possible money laundering scam .. But honestly your explanations doesn't seem to explain why the ancients would go through such pain and effort to create pyramids all around the world .. I see the possibility of them actually having some potential in some sense, which modern sciences chooses to ignore ..

I did search for pyramids on amazon, and was surprised to see it costed like more than a hundred bucks.. and no I am not investing my money on a pyramid product.. I'd rather build my own cheap pyramid, and then see the results for myself .. But did the book influence me on this decision of mine , rather than a prejudiced view that its just a hoax thats not worth exploring ? Yes it did .. Do I think it is worth exploring ? yes I do .. Maybe its my curiousity with the egyptian culture that is pushing .. but hell yeah I will ..

But for you to claim it to be a hoax, I would rather have you visit the sites where the pyramids were actually implemented in Russia and actually see and photograph the hoax it truly is .. Otherwise honestly, theres nothing much of value in the opinion you present ..

The book also talks about a lot of research on DNA, and its light capturing effects, and more importantly how quickly DNA of different species around the world evolved quickly at a much faster pace than is suggested by evolution .. These are genuine scientific studies .. It simply opens a lot more possibilities than is offered by modern science ...




And let's simply be honest about how the free energy technologies have been censored due to pressure

reply to post by stereologist


DW's work can be so appealing to some people at first glance. For a while I was really interested in all the different fields he was aggregating. I obviously, and quickly, became extremely disenfranchised.

DW's work falls apart, almost instantly, under even the most casual of scrutiny.

You pointed out some fantastic points, Stereo. If these scientific breakthroughs are happening ... they would be happening, lol.

There were several nails in the coffin for me, but the funniest one was when he decided to be a rock star. and decided his album was worth $99.99 To anyone who is a genuine musician, like myself, who has produced a CD, and played live shows, and actually garnered fans, this is such an absurd thing to do it is hardly even possible to emphasize that enough.

*wipes brow* Wow ...

I've read a lot of his material. I know what to expect with this book. I'm curious to read it, but I'm actually not buying it because I don't want my dollar to vote for it. Seriously.

reply to post by skywalker_


The pyramids all over the world are not built the same way or are the same shape. If you make a pile of rocks it tapers towards the top. That's pretty simple to understand for a number of reasons.
1. It gets harder and harder to raise rocks as the pie increases in size.
2. A tapered pile is more stable.
3. Piles used as ceremonial places need to have a small area on top to hold the small select that are allowed up there.

When people talk about pyramids all over the world they are lumping together a wide range of structures. There are few true pyramids. True pyramids are found in very places in the world. There are true pyramids in Egypt, Nubia, Greece and Rome. There are no true pyramids in the Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Indonesia, India, Korea, China, Peru, Malta, Nigeria, Mesopotamia, or any of the other places structures are labeled pyramids.

But for you to claim it to be a hoax, I would rather have you visit the sites where the pyramids were actually implemented in Russia and actually see and photograph the hoax it truly is .. Otherwise honestly, theres nothing much of value in the opinion you present ..

I've visited pyramids in Egypt, Mexico, and Guatemala. None of those visits makes my opinion any better when it comes to pyramids. Pyramid power is a modern claim stemming from the 70s. It is based on anecdotal claims, outright lies, wishful thinking, but not on facts.

The book also talks about a lot of research on DNA, and its light capturing effects, and more importantly how quickly DNA of different species around the world evolved quickly at a much faster pace than is suggested by evolution .. These are genuine scientific studies .. It simply opens a lot more possibilities than is offered by modern science ...

A hallmark of a good hoax is to pretend that there is evidence for the hoax. It does not matter if the scientific studies were done or not. It is the application or interpretation of the studies that is of concern. Hoaxers such as Wilcock misrepresent time and time again. I have shown in this very thread a number of his misrepresentations. The reason he does it is that he is a fraud.

reply to post by stereologist

I've visited pyramids in Egypt, Mexico, and Guatemala. None of those visits makes my opinion any better when it comes to pyramids. Pyramid power is a modern claim stemming from the 70s. It is based on anecdotal claims, outright lies, wishful thinking, but not on facts.

Your visit isn't valuable because you haven't been able to directly provide proof contradicting the conclusions that were obtained by the Russian studies that are mentioned in the book .. It's not your visit to the pyramid that matters, but whether you can directly provide proof that would say that the Russian studies that are mentioned in the book was hoax .. So until that happens, the russian pyramid studies simply have more leverage ..

A hallmark of a good hoax is to pretend that there is evidence for the hoax. It does not matter if the scientific studies were done or not. It is the application or interpretation of the studies that is of concern. Hoaxers such as Wilcock misrepresent time and time again.

If you read the book, you would realize that he was merely "repeating" the conclusions reached by many scientists all over the world.. that the rate of evolution observed in nature is not in accordance with the law of natural selection , or is much more rapid .. These studies have opened the idea that DNA isn't a fixed thing but can be changed through different means ... Please read the book and directly contradict the studies that are referred to there ... That is more valuable than simply blaming another personality , for which we have many of them to call out in the first place ..

DW selling rock albums made me laugh too .. I never buy music in the first place LIke I mentioned above, seriously I don't care about DW , but the information he presents .. And that doesn't mean I am in full agreement with what "he" has to offer .. But his book opens up a lot of good information and with that possibilities worth exploring ...

As far as i recall... the idea of 'The FIELD' was the creation of a woman, probably an Englander... i ran acrossd the stuff maybe 5-8 years ago on the web..

i feel this wilcocks guy is a johnny-come-lately trying to horn in on someone elses copy/ theories





i did a quick search for 'The Field'
i found nothing about this woman's work...
the 'Field' was dsomethjing like the Star Wars 'Force'

the Field was like some electromagnetic spectrum or continium/Aether or Luminiosity, infused with stuff like Karma... so it was both personnal and universal

just too much hookum for me... but DW seems to have endured and outlived the originator of 'THE FIELD' concept and massaged it into his own creation ; albiet [" Source FIELD" instead of just 'The Field'


what phoney baloney !

reply to post by skywalker_

Your visit isn't valuable because you haven't been able to directly provide proof contradicting the conclusions that were obtained by the Russian studies that are mentioned in the book

You have the burden in the wrong place. The burden is on the people in the book, not me or you or anyone else. There is nothing there but anecdotes. There is no evidence let alone proof.

The Russian anecdotal claims are no better than all of the other rubbish claims that have been made about pyramids since the 70s.

If you read the book, you would realize that he was merely "repeating" the conclusions reached by many scientists all over the world.. that the rate of evolution observed in nature is not in accordance with the law of natural selection , or is much more rapid .. These studies have opened the idea that DNA isn't a fixed thing but can be changed through different means ... Please read the book and directly contradict the studies that are referred to there ... That is more valuable than simply blaming another personality , for which we have many of them to call out in the first place ..

The issue is not the studies. It is the misrepresentation of those studies by Wilcock. For example, the rates of evolutionary change just point out that there are issues with the prediction of molecular clocks. I believe I have already pointed out that Wilcock misrepresented those studies.

A good hoax uses actual good work as a means of claiming some legitimacy. Wilcock's hoaxes are not that good. It is much too easy to spot his misrepresentations.

reply to post by stereologist

You have the burden in the wrong place. The burden is on the people in the book, not me or you or anyone else. There is nothing there but anecdotes. There is no evidence let alone proof.

Visit this link , and formulate your opinion : www.gizapyramid.com... .. Maybe this time you could place the burden on the right people .. or go further and provide proof that all these studies are total hoaxes ..

For example, the rates of evolutionary change just point out that there are issues with the prediction of molecular clocks. I believe I have already pointed out that Wilcock misrepresented those studies.

Prediction of molecular clocks ? Even if we have issues with that, that is still pointing to the fact that evolution could be function at a rate that is much rapid than 1000s of years as we are taught in schools... That is a big paradigm shift for many .. And that itself opens the doors to unlocking secrets to the 97% of the "junk" DNA present within the human genome .. I find it hard to believe that nature would go so far to create over 90 % of junk DNA ..

Honestly .. I don't see any issue with DW when he is presenting these studies ... His interpretation over all these studies , again , can be found in numerous Eastern philosophy or other esoteric texts about an intelligent universe , and really isn't nothing new .. So honestly he doesn't even have anything new to say .. So I find all this DW bashing totally pointless considering the information he has simply presented ...

reply to post by skywalker_

Visit this link , and formulate your opinion : www.gizapyramid.com... .. Maybe this time you could place the burden on the right people .. or go further and provide proof that all these studies are total hoaxes ..

There are no studies there. There are all sorts of comments, but no studies. There are claims that things were done, but no studies. You do realize the difference don't you?

I got a chuckle out of a long winded discussion of the origin of the word pyramid which is actually derived from a Greek. This etymological discussion just slips right into claims of energy transformation without any reasoning given as if this is obvious fact. This is a typical practice by hoaxers such as that link.

Prediction of molecular clocks ? Even if we have issues with that, that is still pointing to the fact that evolution could be function at a rate that is much rapid than 1000s of years as we are taught in schools... That is a big paradigm shift for many .. And that itself opens the doors to unlocking secrets to the 97% of the "junk" DNA present within the human genome .. I find it hard to believe that nature would go so far to create over 90 % of junk DNA ..

Why would you be surprised? Nature is not perfect or efficient. There are all sorts of odd things out there that work, but are not well designed such as the blood supply for our eyes being in front of the retina.

The problem with the fraud Wilcock is that he misrepresents study after study after study. You may not see that because you are not checking what he claims. You may not see it because you are not asking tough questions about his claims - the sort of claims that real scientists and researchers have to deal with constantly.

And you are correct to point out that Wilcock comes up with no new ideas. He simply attempts to hijack other people's work and present it as his own.

So now I read that Einstein could be wrong because CERN was able to push a particle over the speed of light limit.

And what do you know, In DW's new book, I happen to be on page 255 and the topic is "Mass Decreases as We Reach the Speed of Light", then he goes on to talk about Vladimir Ginzburg books and papers..

Then there is this quote from Vladimir that DW shares in his book:
"You may not be prepared to abandon immediately the century-old relativistic equations. But once you are ready to do so, you will discover many amazing things: Only when a particle is at rest, it may be considered as pure matter. As soon as the particle begins to move, its gravitational mass and electrical charge will start to decrease....so a part of [that] matter will converted into a field. when the particle velocity V becomes = to the ultimate spiral field velocity C [the speed of light], its gravitational mass and electric charge become = to zero. At this point, matter will be completely converted into a "pure" field."

I just find it fascinating that DW has in his "new" book that there may be something that is faster than the speed of light, then CERN came out with their possible facts within the past 72 hours...

reply to post by syrinx2112


Right, but let's put it into context.

1. The scientists claiming that clocked a nuetrino allegedly traveling faster then the speed of light (by 60 nanoseconds, with a +- of 10 nanoseconds) are not yet claiming a discovery. They are doing science. They are double-checking everything and encouraging peer review.
   
2. Nobody in the scientific community expects this to stand up to scrutiny. Obviously if this were true it would be a big deal in the physics community, but it would not disprove any of the well-established physics doing work all day everyday. It doesn't mean that pseudoscience (sometimes incorrectly called "fringe" science) is real or valid.
   
3. Making such a calculation is extraordinarily and extremely difficult. If anything, vectors, angles, measurements, calibrations, etc, are even slightly off, then the experiment proves to be a bust.
   
4. People make faster than light claims relatively frequently. None of them stand up to scrutiny.
   
5. Wilcock believes that stargates and time travel technology already exists and are being used by shadow factions of our government to perform work on human bases on Mars and the Moon. He already believes that faster than light travel is possible, but has no credible evidence that such a thing has ever happened or is happening.
   
   
   I do think that it is cool that this story broke at the same time you're reading his book. That's a neat coincidence. But, do't pop the champagne on this one just yet, and definitely don't be fooled by Wilcock.

reply to post by skywalker_


I read the "Cayce" book several years back, and just bought Source Field and have read a few chapters and skipped around a little. I think the kinds and quality of information he has gathered are really remarkable; even when he touches on a topic I've already done a little reading and research on, I see some new data that I wasn't aware of, and he is connecting the dots in a compelling and interesting way. If some people have a beef with him redistributing other people's ideas, here they are always credited and footnoted, and honestly none of the things he covers is nearly as important or useful in isolation as they are in the synthesis that DW is developing.

Frankly I found the "Cayce" claim somewhat convincing, but if you haven't also read more scholarly works on the evidence for reincarnation, like Dr. Ian Steveson's books (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson), perhaps you don't have enough exposure to this controversial topic to even evaluate the claim being made. If reincarnation is true (whatever it is or means), then SOMEONE could be connected to Cayce, and why not DW. It isn't egoistic to make that claim if the evidence supports it, which in my humble opinion, it may. The Dalai Lama is not an egomaniac for accepting the validity of the proofs/tests which other lamas conducted on him as a child; right or wrong, the process has a certain logic and it's up to us to give it some relative credence, or not. If you haven't read the "Cayce" book then I don't think you are in a position to have ANY opinion about his claim, period. Whether the accounts and claims of certain experiences in the book are accurate or fabricated is a separate issue, but frankly just look at the pictures of Cayce and DW's family and close friends--if you don't see the pattern, then maybe it isn't a subject you should be worrying about.

The real significance of TSFI is that it shows conclusively that our current scientific paradigm is just way to narrow and limited to explain the true nature of reality. It's that simple. I used to wonder if Thomas Phipps critique of Einstien, or say Halton Arp's critique of the standard model in Cosmology, were really viable. Now I suspect that not only could they be right, but the truth is likely to be so different from the dominant ideas about physics and cosmology, it is actually shocking how completely screwed up the dominant ideas must be.

reply to post by stereologist


"There are no studies there. There are all sorts of comments, but no studies. There are claims that things were done, but no studies. You do realize the difference don't you?"

With all due respect (and I certainly appreciate the value of the epistemological rigor of science, in most mundane fields), a "study" by definition is something that makes it into peer reviewed journals. People who can only afford to eat and live in a house if their peers publish their "studies" will go to basically ANY length necessary to self-censor, to the point where they simply will not even CONSIDER any idea which could put them at odds with the ruling accepted wisdom on what kinds of "studies" are acceptable.

Those who choose to buck the system, like Halton Arp for example, find themselves with no access to telescopes, and have to move to Europe in order to have even the faint hope of generating any further "studies". Or you have to be an outsider like T. Phipps, who can question the value of relativity without directly jeopardizing his career in mathematics (vs. physics or cosmology). The lumbering paradigm, unfettered by the need to actually model reality, then lurches forward in the hands of the faithful until we find ourselves unable to find 95% of the matter and energy that would be expected to keep the universe intact. Arp's bizarre galaxies with their clear proof that redshift must relate more to age than recessional velocity are simply ignored, because the "peers" in peer review are completely comfortable ignoring the evidence. After all, they know they are right.

how come whenever there is a wilcock thread, we get a ton of ppl with fairly brand spanking new accounts coming here apologizing and prosthelytizing for wilcock? this guy is a pure charlatan and if you cant realize that, then maybe you do deserve to be ripped off.

reply to post by Pythagoras8880

People who can only afford to eat and live in a house if their peers publish their "studies" will go to basically ANY length necessary to self-censor, to the point where they simply will not even CONSIDER any idea which could put them at odds with the ruling accepted wisdom on what kinds of "studies" are acceptable.

Guess you don't get around to many scientific meetings. You actually think current studies are pointless and do not need to be done because they are afraid to rock the boat? This is a joke.

Those who choose to buck the system

The point of scientific research is to learn and if the evidence shows that current thinking is incorrect and requires a replacement or modification it is done.

You mention Halton Arp. There are lots of astronomers that have trouble getting time on telescopes. Take Arp he has yet to explain why there are no blue shifted quasars? Let's say blue shifted relative to the galaxies he claims they were expelled from. The redshifts are always greater for the quasars.

Arp's bizarre galaxies with their clear proof that redshift must relate more to age than recessional velocity are simply ignored, because the "peers" in peer review are completely comfortable ignoring the evidence.

Sorry. Arp offers no such proof. No evidence is being ignored.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Pythagoras8880

 

People who can only afford to eat and live in a house if their peers publish their "studies" will go to basically ANY length necessary to self-censor, to the point where they simply will not even CONSIDER any idea which could put them at odds with the ruling accepted wisdom on what kinds of "studies" are acceptable.

Guess you don't get around to many scientific meetings. You actually think current studies are pointless and do not need to be done because they are afraid to rock the boat? This is a joke.

** You're way overgeneralizing from what I said. Most science works fine. But Thomas Kuhn, for example, described how sometimes the process fails. You've heard the quote about how progress in science often requires the death of a generation of thinkers so that fresh ideas can take hold--human nature is what it is. Add in a dose of greed and lust for power that can motivate covert players to get involved to keep certain ideas off the market (and I believe that happens occasionally), and you can create a very difficult situation for genuine science to thrive in (for a few specific topics of concern). **

Those who choose to buck the system

The point of scientific research is to learn and if the evidence shows that current thinking is incorrect and requires a replacement or modification it is done.

** Sure, usually. But you're just blandly asserting that the adjustment will always happen smoothly. I think that is a little naive based on the history of science. Funny, after all the # they gave the original "Cold Fusion" researchers, the half-hearted attempts at replication, and the efforts at MIT to falsify results to make it look like there was nothing to it, which Gene Mallove exposed--in a month or two the first commercially viable model of LENR energy generation will have been publicly demonstrated, even though all those tremendous "studies" didn't see it coming. **

You mention Halton Arp. There are lots of astronomers that have trouble getting time on telescopes. Take Arp he has yet to explain why there are no blue shifted quasars? Let's say blue shifted relative to the galaxies he claims they were expelled from. The redshifts are always greater for the quasars.

** So educate me here, why do you think some of them should be blue shifted? If he's making the claim that processes in the cores of galaxies can create and expel quasars, could they not all be severely red shifted for reasons we don't yet understand? There are numerous other ways to explain red shift, there just isn't a big market for a new explanation since the profession only recognizes recession speed as a possible explanation, so naturally unless you have a career death-wish, you aren't going to waste your time trying to flesh out one of the alternatives... you'll have to leave that to the "cranks". **

Arp's bizarre galaxies with their clear proof that redshift must relate more to age than recessional velocity are simply ignored, because the "peers" in peer review are completely comfortable ignoring the evidence.

Sorry. Arp offers no such proof. No evidence is being ignored.

** When you say he offers no proof, are you saying, you've look at the imaging he's done, and you don't accept that there are connections between the objects that he tries to link to substantiate his ideas? You're saying he is misinterpreting each and every photograph he has made and offered as evidence? **

Just wondering what ATS thinks of Wilcocks latest interview with Fulford where he covers the Aug 23rd earthquake being two huge underground cities were destroyed. What say you ATS? divinecosmos.com...

reply to post by wtfisginon


The photo of the lightning strike on the Washington monument is a terrible photoshop job. Then again it fits the needs of that fraud Wilcock.

Quakes and nukes leave different seismic signatures. Wilcock basically knows that his followers are too stupid to figure that out. He also hasn't been to Mineral, VA to see that there is no military base there. Excuse me, his followers are too stupid to figure that out.

reply to post by Pythagoras8880


Please edit your post. It is unreadable and appears to be nothing more than spamming the thread.

reply to post by stereologist


My responses are the ones demarcated by asterisks. Please don't feel obligated to respond, although it would be interesting to know why you believe blue shifted quasars are essential to substantiate some of Arp's claims.