It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'm actually about halfway into reading the book right now. So far it's been very interesting but I have yet check any of his sources as there are some very shall we say large claims made various researchers and their work.

One doesn;t have to 100% correct to write something of real value. In fact I'm not sure I've ever read anything that was 100% correct. Anything that challenges the current paradigm of scientific knowledge is worth consideration. Our understanding only grows bits and pieces at a time.

So far, so good and please don't give away the ending!


Peace.
ATA
edit on 23-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


I think certain researchers an alternative personalities are common targets for disinformation specialists who pose themselves as "whistle blowers" to discredit certain theories and personalities.
Would it surprise anyone that if the Trillion dollar lawsuit was real that such a thing would happen?
I think it's legit and that's why Wilcock would become a target.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
If this were a real scientific theory then Wilcock would take it a conference where he could get feedback from peers. This is not science. This is a book to earn a living.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Monts
 


I think certain researchers an alternative personalities are common targets for disinformation specialists who pose themselves as "whistle blowers" to discredit certain theories and personalities.
Would it surprise anyone that if the Trillion dollar lawsuit was real that such a thing would happen?
I think it's legit and that's why Wilcock would become a target.


I agree asktheanimal but who is starting it? Who is putting it out there for people to choose a side? Who ? Why is stereologist allowed to post? Why is there no fairness in Light of his disdain?

I am in wavelength with David. He is angry, he is hurt, he is wanting relief yet none comes.

I am putting you to the test of Love-Light. Be it known.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RainbowsnUnicorns
 


Stereologist is every bit as entitled to his opinion as any of us. It would be a boring world if we all agreed and there is no better way to find the truth that I know of than to debate, research and test. We should all refrain from making personal comments about other members. It's not only against the rules but personally I find it to be in poor taste.

He very well could be right and I be wrong.
It wouldn't be the first time.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Who is putting it out there for people to choose a side? Who ? Why is stereologist allowed to post? Why is there no fairness in Light of his disdain?

It's not choosing sides. The issue is getting people to ask the questions that need to be asked, which is whether or not the claims of people are valid.

In the case of Wilcock it is pretty obvious that he is not truthful and that he misrepresents. That earns him a living. Maybe it is not as large as the amount earned by Bernie Madoff, but both Wilcock and Madoff misrepresented situations to earn their money.

I gave several examples both recent and a little dated that show Wilcock being wrong and misrepresenting.

So Wilcock is hurt by being revealed as a charlatan. So let him get into another line of work or maybe he can clean up his act.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ste3138

i for one totally agree with everything you said!


Why not I ask? What I say is nothing less nor nothing more than Ra-David's own Light. Step into it. Feel the warmth of a thousnd suns and the protection of the redeemed.

I have only 2 peerages for David Wilcock:

"Thank you for all of a sudden virtually (Take Over) Ben Fulford's story!

Thank you for becoming a 'Financial Journalist'..?"

Enough said..!



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I read the book several times over I thought it was a pretty good read. Some of his sources arn't too bad a good amount of Russian science and such cited. And most of the things he talks about seem pretty plausible to me and could ring true. Its certainly not "his" research in the book, he takes a large amount of work from others but he does acknowledge that. Isn't that what most people do anyways use others research to try and find an answer.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I would like to point out that I am very open to being shown wrong. Posters such as Xcalibur254 have shown me wrong. I freely admitted it and posted a recant of my statements. Why not?

There is a big difference between being wrong and purposely posting baloney.

There is a big difference between being a scoffer and a skeptic.

Many of the issues posted by Wilcock are testable. One of the simplest means is to check to see if he reports a study as it was reported. I find that almost every time he does not report the study correctly. Everyone can check for themselves. Compare and decide.

It might be interesting for someone to point out something they think is solid for Wilcock and then a comparison can be done. Maybe together we can find a study where Wilcock does report what was found instead of making up a false story.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Brandon88
 



Isn't that what most people do anyways use others research to try and find an answer.

Exactly. No one can do all of the work themselves so they rely on others.

The problem with Wilcock is that he misrepresents the work of others.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Slevinq
 

I'm reading it right now. Lots of information in there about the theory, and David is a good writer. I know he has a lot of enemies in here, some are those who wish people like him would not tell so much, I am certain. Looks like a good read.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Hes just trying to support his theory with the information. What he views may not be the same as another's ideas and in a sense I guess you could say he misrepresents it. Just like with a computer program though with so many copies of one thing there is bound to be discrepancies some where along the line of exchange.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Let's all focus on the way to change this, let's all focus on who can lead us out of this mess while they say it's to wake us up so we can do it, but wait, there's more......

We all know what freedom is internally. We had it stolen from us when we first lost alloidal titles. We all lost it when our communities were industrialized and we became cogs in a wheel. We all lost it when we lost our roots. Ever wonder why the "new age" movement is so focused on first learning how to ground? Roots are vital for a plant, a person, a community to grow, to show love and care about one another you have to feel secure and know with whom you are yoked and know it's equal.

There is no equality if 99% never know security.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Brandon88
 



What he views may not be the same as another's ideas and in a sense I guess you could say he misrepresents it.

That is not at all by what I mean misrepresent.

Consider this, does Wilcock claim that DNA has been teleported in an experiment?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Not teleported but transferred by laser light yea, through eggs or something like that I know which part your talking about though I'd have to reread that section for the actual wording but go on.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Brandon88
 


The question is very simple. Does Wilcock claim that DNA was teleported?

The answer might be yes or no.

Then we will follow back from his claim to the paper where he states this was observed or demonstrated. We can compare what Wilcock says is in the paper with what is actually in the paper.

Then everyone can decide if Wilcock misrepresented the scientific work or not.

Are you ready to answer the question?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yea I'll have a little bit of time in the morning to compare the two before class so I'll wait till then so I can give you an accurate answer that okay with you.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brandon88

Not teleported but transferred by laser light yea, through eggs or something like that I know which part your talking about though I'd have to reread that section for the actual wording but go on.


This is only a suprise to David Non-Believers those with antennae and agendae



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Brandon88
 


Part of the problem is that the internet is rife with claims that Wilcock states that DNA was teleported.

It would hardly be fair to decide the issue on what others state. It is important to take the time to see what Wilcock wrote and to read the study itself. In this case we are not dealing with a peer reviewed article. Instead we are dealing with an unpublished report. That fact is not important. The issue is whether or not Wilcock and the report match up.

Let me give you an example of misrepresentation.

In the scientific literature it was chique for a while to use a 1543 book by Cavalieri as a reference. The technique was even named the Cavalieri method. The problem was that Cavalieri did not invent the technique and his work did not lay the foundations for the technique mislabeled as the Cavalieri technique. It was an interesting effort to backtrack the error to 1902 and a paper that first named the technique erroneously. What they did in 1902 was to apply the Cavalieri principle to a situation that did not match the math written down in 1543.

The error was observed and reported almost immediately. Still the error managed to be repeated and right up into the 1990s.

The error in the Cavalieri case is much more subtle. The math is correct. All of the studies are correct. The problem is the reference to the wrong math.

By 1996 one paper took this error to extremes. Using the wrong math the paper made recommendations the lead to significant errors.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

the Cavalieri method.


No one is interested in your demonics of plowing the natural sacrament of the human body open and exposed for your measurements that you have no right to observe; the body so sacred to Ra and Order. Your attempts to drive off topic David's flock of followers are of no use everyone knows that you cannnot be trusted yet to argue for the sake of the theatre lights.

Sometimes the world tests our determination, and it is then up to us to stand for the values we hold dear, to hold to our integrity, no matter the cost against the lizard's tongue so sharp.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join