The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock

reply to post by FraudSlayer


Again, fraud. For what? For passionately sharing, subjects you don't approve of, but millions are very much interested in, with many examples of the lifelong work others?

So anything you don't personally endorse is a fraud.

en.wikipedia.org...

I feel many corporations, banks and governments commit this, but don't feel that way about authors. You either are interested or not, for we are entitled to dig for truth and alternative belief systems.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Unity_99

Its really odd, that you maintain slander with the word: FRAUD. Because that means something, legally. FRAUD.

And it is slander to throw that word around without cause.

Just because a word might have a legal meaning does not mean that that is applicable here.

Just because someone chooses to place their ideas in print does not make the ideas more or less correct. The issue is the contents. When the contents are examined we see that Wilcock misrepresents or more likely lies the work he uses as a basis.

So, what you are really saying is, I don't agree with his premises!

Clearly a misrepresentation. The disagreement is based on Wilcock telling lies and misrepresenting the work of others.

Fine, don't. But there are countless millions that do and consider the mainstream to be criminally lying and suppressing evidence, I'd like to see them getting consequences for what they've done to humanity!!!!!!

Just because you can find others that have similar attitudes does not make Wilcock more or less correct. If Wilcock lies then he lies.

To name call others who don't agree with you is actually more than rude, its slander and if in writing, libel.

You might want to look up those words and learn a little before making more mistakes.

reply to post by Unity_99

Again, fraud. For what? For passionately sharing, subjects you don't approve of, but millions are very much interested in, with many examples of the lifelong work others?

No for telling lies about the work of others and thus misleading people into thinking that others support his false ideas.

Misrepresenting the works of others?

This is a really big point. When a person writes a thread, and there is supporting DATA, they have 8 links say, and they're providing some quotes. Do they have to draw the same conclusion in their threads premise as every one of the writers of the article does?

Does data have one conclusion?

In fact, what is so faulty about our so called modern mainstream scientists, (who to me are more like priests worshipping false theories) is that the conclusion they draw, is only 1 of a list of possiblities and probabilities, not the only one. And to complicate matters, since we have ant hill science, its a list of known possibilities and probabilities.

In other words, no.

And I have done a little research on the various topics brought up in his videos. This is my first book I've purchased of his, and its very good. But if there is the odd person who is saying he is twisting their words, I have only found dovetailed evidences.

In other words, nothing here even begins to validate the meaning of fraud.

I am not sure with this book, after all the evidence and information is given, when I get to his end, or conclusion, that I will even support that.

But I'm fair, I don't believe we have to agree on conclusions. I have my own inner knowing and directions. With 7 billion people you're going to get a lot of different conclusions.

Its the information complied in one place, that is good.

So the other ones, did they think that their data shouldn't be touched unless one shared the same conclusion?

Originally posted by Unity_99

Again, fraud. For what? For passionately sharing, subjects you don't approve of, but millions are very much interested in, with many examples of the lifelong work others?

So anything you don't personally endorse is a fraud.

Thanks for the response. This is my last to you in this thread.

If you refuse to see the obvious regarding Wilcock's fraud, there is nothing I can, will or wish to do for you highly inclusive is to attempt-waste my time changing your tightly closed, wholly deluded mind.

Again, thanks for the response, I will be off now.

reply to post by FraudSlayer


Hey, I do want to point something else, I don't share any of his Law of One beliefs, but do share some of his metaphysic beliefs.

I just read your post on the Remote Viewing thread.

This book, at least in the 1/6 th I've gotten through with family. We're listening to the auditory together, before the book arrives from amazon. But, its shared alot of information on the Source Field and the studies into plant and living organism, even cells, responding at a distance, to the field, even how information seems to come all at once, not just one scientist thinks of a solution. But many around the world.

It talks about how information is around us in the field. Now I'm not going to look this up so it may be a sloppy job, but certain birds were drinking the milk deliveries in UK and Holland. So the Gov in Holland banned the delivery of milk for the number of years it would take to deplete that generation????/ I think it was Holland.

Then started the deliveries up again. And low and behold, those birds were very well fed on milk in no time.

Or about a particular puzzle that took x length of time for a group to solve. But when you did it in another location with those who hadn't learnt this, it was much shorter each time.

I am reading the book without prejudice, for the information and really enjoying it.

Information which supports what you said on the thread about RV.

Because this is partly why the RV works.

And please note, this isn't about his conclusions, haven't reached those yet to see whether that interests me or not.

How is alternative theory fraud?

Especially theory that supports Psi, RV, and human potential?

reply to post by Unity_99


Wilcock goes beyond misrepresentation. He lies.

Let's take an example. Wilcock claims that DNA was teleported. He cites a study by Montagnier.

No where in that study is teleportation suggested. In fact, Montagnier has a completely different mechanism.

In other words, nothing here even begins to validate the meaning of fraud.

So when Wilcock lies about the work which he does time and time again he is a fraud.

He is not coming to a different conclusion. He simply lies about the references he uses.

I posted an article written for the military on the RV about teleportation. So we're really going to have to agree to disagree on what we consider truth. False paradigms with suppression of information is not truth.

reply to post by Unity_99


The report produced for the military was obvious a short report that lists events. It was produced for $25K, a trivial amount. The report was a collection of info without much analysis.

In that report was the claim of the Chinese doing some phenomenal work. The strange part of it is that there has been only 1 follow up by the Chinese. Other than that it has been quiet for 30 years. That is no different than the commotion around comet Elenin. Lots of chatter and then all of the idiotic claims went silent when the comet fell apart. The silence is there for a reason. The claims are dead ends. None of the claims were true.