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

reply to post by stereologist


I did look up the quake seismic signatures and did not see anything indicative of a nuclear explosion. In his later posts DW indicates that there was not a nuclear explosion but [my words/inference here...] something that would be indicative of the kinds of interferometry or quantum potential weapons that Tom Bearden has described. Since the secretary of Defense of the USA admitted in 1997 that there are countries or factions that have deployed earthquake generating weapons, one can assume that off-planet parties keeping an eye on Earth's development could also employ similar technologies as needed. UFO's have been implicated in total temporary shutdowns of missile launch sites in the past, so it wouldn't be hard to imagine that in certain scenarios, off world forces would intervene to stop a war of mass destruction or halt a plan that could lead to that. I'm not saying you have to believe it on such slim evidence, just that it fits into the general pattern that DW claims to be describing. Use of such an advanced weapon (by a faction from Earth, or from off-world or metadimensional players) could trigger an earthquake at the same time that it achieves its immediate tactical goal.

reply to post by Pythagoras8880


One of the reasons I believe that people latched onto this rather minor incident was that the news latched onto it. The quakes and its damage are a non-issue in places where quakes are common such as Turkey, Indonesia, Alaska, Japan, and California. The damage in the town of Mineral was large.

Why would anyone bother to latch onto this geological event to suggest that something unusual had happened? Why not make some far out suggestion on other quakes?

reply to post by stereologist


I was just trying to put DW's bizarre claims in a broader context, for example the odd thing that William Cohen stated publicly, in 1997. (www.cheniere.org... , not sure if links are allowed here). I have no idea whether DW's sources are reliable, or not.

reply to post by Pythagoras8880


My recollection is that there was a little problem with his comments. The comments came in a Q&A after his speech. The link you gave does point out that it was in Q&A.

DoD News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen April 28, 1997

There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

I recall something about some fallout over that comment. I was not able to find it in the thicket of search results from wild speculations about Tesla and Bearden. The other thing I noticed was that just about everything bad natural that has happened has been attributed to these types of weapons.

@Stereologist,

Have you seen DW's latest "article?" Holy freaking hell ... Even a casual perusal left me wide-eyed thinking: "WTF is going on here? People are really buying into all this?"

divinecosmos.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> divinecosmos.com...

so, despite the disrespects that are evident earlier in this thread, The Source Field Investigations debuted at #16 on the New York Times Bestseller list in it's first week....and now has 181 5 star reviews (202 total) on Amazon.com.

and as for his blog, Just search ATS for the "Trillion Dollar Lawsuit", or "Defeating the Greatest Cover-up of All Time" for his latest...they are FULL of CREDIBLE articles which he links in order to correlate his views.

I read the Source Field Investigations and It's an awesome book. I've mainly used it for references because it's chock full of 3000 CREDIBLE scientific studies that are referenced which SUPPORT his views.

if anyone's still got some fear-based emotions about Wilcock and want to spread their hate, then try reading THIS book and stop your ignorance. ONLY THEN can you say that you're no-longer ignorant of wilcock's work and knowledgeably proceed discussion.

Reply to post by Melyanna

David is the anti-Alex Jones. His stuff resonates well with me.

However, his association with Ben Fulford makes me question his sanity. That and his overly pro-Obama stance.

I may have come off as ignorant in the last Wilcock thread I posted in. However, I am just frustrated at the lack of change that has materialized.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by metalshredmetal


So are you gullible? The book is full of baloney. I looked over some of the material and simply recognized that Wilcock can't get very much right. Just because people read it only makes it similar to books by Rush Limbaugh, Hitler, and other authors.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

So are you gullible? The book is full of baloney. I looked over some of the material and simply recognized that Wilcock can't get very much right. Just because people read it only makes it similar to books by Rush Limbaugh, Hitler, and other authors.

O rly? What portion did you read and why do you think it was incorrect?

I have the book right next to me, so I can look up the scientific study that you have a gripe with, as he has a fat bibliography of scientific sources which you call boloney.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

I have the book right next to me, so I can look up the scientific study that you have a gripe with, as he has a fat bibliography of scientific sources which you call boloney.

I did not say that the scientific studies were baloney.

I clearly stated that Wilcock is baloney.

He misrepresents study after study. See the difference?

reply to post by stereologist


hmm, i doubt he was able to "misrepresent" 3000 different studies in order to "make up" stuff that proves his theory. it would be a lot harder to misrepresent 3000 studies instead of say, 300. why didn't he just cite 300 in order to spread his "misrepresented" Source Field Theory?

it's a lot more logical to assume he found similarities, parallels, connections, congruences, and correlations in the 3000 studies that supported his theory.

which would mean that because he is basing his entire theory/opinion on these 3000 scientific studies, you are calling the scientific studies themselves "baloney". see the connection?

reply to post by metalshredmetal


He bends, fold, staples, and mutilates studies to pretend that his claim is in some vague way valid.

which would mean that because he is basing his entire theory/opinion on these 3000 scientific studies, you are calling the scientific studies themselves "baloney". see the connection?

Your claim is becoming rather ludicrous.

It doesn't matter if Wilcock can't get 1 study represented correctly or if he misrepresents hundreds or even thousands. What he does has no affect on the validity of any of the studies he decides to misrepresent.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


Which of these rather idiotic claims would you like to defend?

1. DNA is a product of a quantum energy wave, and is written into the basic laws of the Universe;
   
2. The laws that govern the formation of life on Earth also govern the behavior of matter and energy in the Cosmos;
   
3. The human design is intrinsic to this galaxy, and probably a good bit of the entire Universe;
   
4. Other humans have progressed much, much farther, spiritually and technologically, than we have;
   
5. Those humans colonized Earth in the times of Atlantis, and their skulls reveal brain capacities significantly larger than ours;
   
6. These people were largely wiped out by a self-inflicted cataclysm caused by nuclear war between rival colonies;
   
7. The survivors built pyramids to heal and stabilize the Earth on its axis in the aftermath of this catastrophe;
   
8. They had direct knowledge of a natural cycle that propels each inhabited planet through quantum evolutionary leaps;
   
9. They were aware of a physical gland in the human brain that governs ESP and is “activated” by this natural cycle;
   
10. They knew this galaxy-driven cycle had an exact end-point, measurable by a 25,920-year wobble on any inhabited planet;
    
11. They extensively encoded prophecies of this cycle, and its ultimate effects, in dozens of ancient myths worldwide;
    
12. They honor the Law of Free Will through most of a planet’s evolution, but are allowed to re-appear at the end of a cycle;
    
13. The completion of the cycle creates an energetic springboard that gives humans remarkable “Ascended” abilities;
    
14. World governments are utterly incapable of interfering with this process, regardless of what they may try to do.
    

I found this list here

I can't wait to see how idiotic Wilcock was in claiming these ideas.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

Which of these rather idiotic claims would you like to defend?

1. DNA is a product of a quantum energy wave, and is written into the basic laws of the Universe;
   
2. The laws that govern the formation of life on Earth also govern the behavior of matter and energy in the Cosmos;
   
3. The human design is intrinsic to this galaxy, and probably a good bit of the entire Universe;
   
4. Other humans have progressed much, much farther, spiritually and technologically, than we have;
   
5. Those humans colonized Earth in the times of Atlantis, and their skulls reveal brain capacities significantly larger than ours;
   
6. These people were largely wiped out by a self-inflicted cataclysm caused by nuclear war between rival colonies;
   
7. The survivors built pyramids to heal and stabilize the Earth on its axis in the aftermath of this catastrophe;
   
8. They had direct knowledge of a natural cycle that propels each inhabited planet through quantum evolutionary leaps;
   
9. They were aware of a physical gland in the human brain that governs ESP and is “activated” by this natural cycle;
   
10. They knew this galaxy-driven cycle had an exact end-point, measurable by a 25,920-year wobble on any inhabited planet;
    
11. They extensively encoded prophecies of this cycle, and its ultimate effects, in dozens of ancient myths worldwide;
    
12. They honor the Law of Free Will through most of a planet’s evolution, but are allowed to re-appear at the end of a cycle;
    
13. The completion of the cycle creates an energetic springboard that gives humans remarkable “Ascended” abilities;
    
14. World governments are utterly incapable of interfering with this process, regardless of what they may try to do.
    

I found this list here

I can't wait to see how idiotic Wilcock was in claiming these ideas.

in order to properly consider his ideas, you must read the book. then you can research all his scientific citations like any responsible and respectable intelligence which seeks answers.

this is just a list of theories and topics discussed in the book, not proven discoveries, which you seem to think they are.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

n order to properly consider his ideas, you must read the book. then you can research all his scientific citations like any responsible and respectable intelligence which seeks answers.

this is just a list of theories and topics discussed in the book, not proven discoveries, which you seem to think they are.

So you understand that his claims are junk. You know that Wilcock is one of the poorer hoaxers out there. You understand how ludicrous his claims are.

That's a start.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

in order to properly consider his ideas, you must read the book. then you can research all his scientific citations like any responsible and respectable intelligence which seeks answers.

The issue is not the scientific studies. The issue is Wilcock's inability to properly represent any of them.

this is just a list of theories and topics discussed in the book, not proven discoveries, which you seem to think they are.

They are not theories. They are incorrect speculations that he pretends are supported by the studies he cites. Scientific theories are not speculations.

Does anyone want to attempt to defend any of Wilcock's ideas?

I don't need to read any book by him to know how nutty his ideas are. It only takes a few paragraphs to realize how poorly he researches subjects if he does at all.

One of the the nutty claims by Wilcock is that he is the reincarnation of Cayce.

I can't wait for the image upload facility to be re-enabled so that I can show how trivial it is to show photos of people that have a mild resemblance. I believe that my attempt is better than anything Wilcock was able to orchestrate for his Cayce claim.

10. They knew this galaxy-driven cycle had an exact end-point, measurable by a 25,920-year wobble on any inhabited planet;

You have to love item 10. Why? Because the length of the cycle changes. How can it have an exact end-point if the cycle length changes over time?