Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dr. Semir Osmanagich Regarding Pyramids Found All Over the World

page: 18
53
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




David Wilcock's the "Point Source Investigations

There's some pretty crazy stuff in there. I figure all you need is a lack of bias and you can be conscious of anything anywhere ... and understand. Plus for all the possible answers we wish we might have all we needed was the correct question.


I wouldn't say crazy, just unorthodox. However, in The Source Field Investigations almost everything presented is backed up with studies and research - though most of these studies and research have been buried and/or ignored by mainstream science.

The question is WHY.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I wouldn't say crazy, just unorthodox. However, in The Source Field Investigations almost everything presented is backed up with studies and research - though most of these studies and research have been buried and/or ignored by mainstream science.


Yeah one example is Russian physicist Professor Simon Scnoll that was published around 1985. I think it has something to do with graphs of waves not looking like a bell curve.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Looks like you have done your homework. I've really only been awake to all these alternatives to our current mainstream science for less than a year, so I have much catching up to do.


I've been at it for about six years. One advantage I have, though, is that I'm retired so my time is my own; I don't have to go to work each day.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

So, for this thread, forget it!



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.


A waste of time.

Like carving a pyramid out of a mountain in Bosnia?

Harte



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, Wikipedia can not be trusted for any subject that is controversial.

For subjects that are not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. But if the subject is controversial, I don't even check it, personally. It's a waste of time.

So, for this thread, forget it!


I agree. Anything that that infringes upon hidden knowledge/secrets will not be uncovered in Wikipedia, if people do not recognize this they are either the uninitiated or part of the oligarchy (or it's bootlicking minions).

A great alternate source to Wiki for controversial topics is this:

The ANTI Wikipedia

Peace and good luck in your quests for the truth.

edit on 14-12-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Have you verified Wilcock's sources or have you simply taken his word that they say what he claims? I mean Michael Cremo provided a ton of sources in Forbidden Archaeology but when you actually follow them up they don't support Cremo in any way.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Can you give one example of that?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


The account of the pressure that has been brought to bear to keep this project from going forward is disgraceful. No true scientist behaves in this manner. No true journalist, either.

The mavericks will drag the mainstream along, kicking and screaming.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Have you verified Wilcock's sources or have you simply taken his word that they say what he claims? I mean Michael Cremo provided a ton of sources in Forbidden Archaeology but when you actually follow them up they don't support Cremo in any way.


I have looked at about half the studies he brings up in The Source Field Investigations and they all exist and are as he says.









 
53
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join