The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock

There are plenty of forums this thread could be made in, but since most of the information pertains to 2012, I'm putting it here.

Now that the book has been released, I may give the audio book a go. What intrigues me about the book is that David has stated that all his information is backed up by scientific fact. At 560 pages, it will take a couple of weeks for readers to full assess and begin to verify or debunk the information presented. Has anybody here begun to read/listen to this book yet?

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
What intrigues me about the book is that David has stated that all his information is backed up by scientific fact

He said that about the last 3 books, but it wasn't the case so I'm not holding my breath for this one. David's idea of a "scientific fact" differs to any actual scientist. He states that he is a pseudo scientist (though not in those words), he claims that he starts with the answer then sifts through mountains of data to find bits and pieces that support his view, while ignoring the other 99%.

I'm going to wait for an e copy to surface somewhere before I comment further.

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
There are plenty of forums this thread could be made in, but since most of the information pertains to 2012, I'm putting it here.

Now that the book has been released, I may give the audio book a go. What intrigues me about the book is that David has stated that all his information is backed up by scientific fact. At 560 pages, it will take a couple of weeks for readers to full assess and begin to verify or debunk the information presented. Has anybody here begun to read/listen to this book yet?

You do realize that the reason this "field of study" (if you can call it that) keeps being flooded with half-truths, outright lies, gargantuan exaggerations, ignorance of actual data, bad interpretations, and bad science, is because there are saps out there who, despite all evidence that the authors of this nonsense are complete charlatans, will still buy every stupid thing they publish, right?

I mean, if it weren't for people like you, people like David Wilcock would have to get a real job.

reply to post by polarwarrior


Yeah, I'm also going to wait until it appears online for free.

reply to post by vexati0n


Who said I was buying anything? David has stated on countless occasions that you don't have to buy anything that he makes. Buying to him equates to donations. I've yet to see a single torrent or downloads of any of his e-books and audio books be removed for copyright infringement.

I gotta say that David tries real hard! He has a lot of enthusiasm for his subject.

I have seen his intro video, and from my perspective, he gets a lot right, but he also plugs his book too much.

He's real excited that he has achieved an extensive understanding of the situation, and I wish him well.

I just don't really think he's made it all the way yet.

ummm, i'v never read that book....but wasn't this forum about 2012... i'm confused

Originally posted by polarwarrior

 

He said that about the last 3 books, but it wasn't the case so I'm not holding my breath for this one. David's idea of a "scientific fact" differs to any actual scientist. He states that he is a pseudo scientist (though not in those words), he claims that he starts with the answer then sifts through mountains of data to find bits and pieces that support his view, while ignoring the other 99%.

I'm going to wait for an e copy to surface somewhere before I comment further.

I don't even believe that I will read an e-copy.

While I do believe that we can further ourselves by reading and/or researching both sides of our thought processes. I also believe that you have to recognize sheer conjecture and piece-mealed theories for what they are; thoughtless ramblings. It is one thing to present a theory that throws out all popular theories based upon evidence that supports your theory while maintaining the integrity of the experiment. It is completely different when you take popular theories and trash the parts that have no evidenciery backing within your theory or expiriment.

Hmmm, e=mc^2? Nah, there is no energy, only bubbles. And what is with this constant stuff, doesn't eveyrthing change, shouldn't it be dynamic? So now our new equation becomes, b=md^2, where bubbles equals matter * a dynamic variable, squared. The more matter you have the more bubbles you can produce, it makes sense. I must have a best-seller on my hands with that one.

-saige-

reply to post by saige45


ha ha... actually, no.. you don't have a best seller there… but David Wilcock does

I'm a big fan of David's work ... I don't care if he's 100% accurate or pulling his information out of his butt... his ideas are refreshing and he has a interesting way of connecting the dots…. he's definitely taught me a thing or two over the years... and I'll gladly pay money for that. I enjoy he's books, his blogs and his appearances on the Ancient Aliens series. I pre-ordered his new book, The Source Field Investigations and I'm looking forward to digging in to it. If you visit his website he has a new presentation up that covers some of the topics in his new book – www.divinecosmos.com. Go to the blog section.

P.S. - for those who asked, this is in the 2012 forum because David has some very interesting theories on 2012.. and I hope he's right. David believes that 2012 is the next step in human evolution… a time where we will see great change in human consciousness. When you listed to David or read his books… there’s no doom and gloom. According to David, the world isn’t going to end in 2012.. it’s going to begin.

=)

reply to post by Wolf Eyes
Yup, your right. Just got off the phone with an editor. Took them a good 10 minutes to stop laughing. Then after they finished, they laughed some more. *sigh* Guess I'll have to go back to the drawing board.

-saige-

David Wilcock is an excellent example of an author that dumbs people down. He does not educate or enlighten, rather he demonstrates how easy it is to delude the gullible with false facts, and bad inferences. I'm sure he enjoys all of his donations.

reply to post by stereologist


so are you going to list an example of some of the "false facts" David has made? Or just make general statements that he's wrong? I'm sure he's made a few flase claims.. why don't you point a few out for us? David has really dumbed me down so I need you to educate me. You up to the task?

www.divinecosmos.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...&title=What_is_consciousness

OP - I think you'll like this. Huffington Post put together a little article containing some of Davids work. Very quick/ easy read. Check it out.

A little off topic comment: ALOT of people dont realize that science is like gravity, It can be defied. Sooo just because science shows that something doesnt exist doesnt mean it doesnt. Science can only prove what we want it to prove...If that makes sense lol

And even then, you dont need science to prove what you believe is real and what is happening, If you feel that what you believe is correct then thats all the proof you really need. Huh? Whos with me??

reply to post by Wolf Eyes


If nothing else, David Wilcock sure is entertaining. I can't wait to watch (and by watch, I mean on watch on YouTube) his "Hollywood-level" 2012 video when it comes out.

reply to post by Wolf Eyes


I have seen threads where stereologist had blew hot air for more than 10 pages in a row. I would love to see him back up his statements by countering said false facts.

reply to post by Wolf Eyes


Yeah, I already checked that out. That slideshow has got some pretty cool looking pictures.

reply to post by Wolf Eyes


One of the first places I bumped into Wilcock was in the area of geology. Here is a statement from him he gave on Coast to Coast in 2004.
www.enterprisemission.com...

And one of the things we’re talking about in this [HD] Model has to do with the emergence of this charged energy … like ozone (or plasma, as it is called) – this luminous sea of electrons, protons.

Ozone is plasma? Are you kidding me?
A luminous sea of electrons? Are you kidding me?

It has to do with the ice caps, the regions that are at the poles being tilted more towards the sun -- and they [NASA] claim that because that’s going on, that it warms up the planet and melts the ice caps.

So here we have Wilcock dismissing what is observed on Earth. Warming comes to the poles when the tilt of the planet brings that region into a period of longer days.

But, because these planetary changes in obliquity occur so slowly -- over literally millions of years-- that CANNOT be used to explain the sudden, dramatic melting of Mars’ poles – and its current “global warming” – that we’re seeing now. Thus, the mainstream (NASA) model trying to account for these unquestionable Mars climatic changes … fails! That leaves the HD Model.

This is a great example of Wilcock not showing the model used by NASA and then claiming that there is only a choice of 2 models. That is a typical logical absurdity that Wilcock relies on.

I’ll say that again: the amount of sulfur gas, which obviously smells like rotten eggs, decreased dramatically between 1978 to 1983.

Here he clearly does not understand that the sulfur is not in the form of hydrogen sulfide. He also did not read the material or he purposely chose to misrepresent what the authors wrote.

Here is what it states in the article by the authors

In 1984, LASP colleague Larry Esposito used data from NASA's Pioneer Venus satellite to determine that concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the high clouds declined dramatically from 1978 to 1983, indicating a massive volcanic eruption occurred a decade before.

www.colorado.edu...
www.boulder.swri.edu...

But what does Wicock have to say

And where did all the sulfur go?

We’re talking about the whole world’s atmosphere [Venus is almost a twin of Earth, in size] -- all at once -- having a dramatic decline in sulfur … in [just] five years!

That's not what the article states. It states that sulfur dioxide in the HIGH CLOUDS declined, not the WHOLE WORLD'S ATMOSPHERE.

So after misrepresenting the data he also dismisses the finding that this is indicative of a volcanic eruption. His reasoning? He gives none.

I could go on and on but this is David Wilcock. He misrepresents. He lies. He can't present a logical story.

reply to post by Wolf Eyes


Consider the article you linked to.

Ancient prophecies foretold a coming Golden Age in our very near future

Can anyone provide an example? People have been claiming the 2nd coming and whatever for 2000 years.

Space, time, matter, energy and biological life may be the result of a Source Field that is conscious and alive in its own unique way - on a scale far too vast for the finite mind to fathom. Over 1000 different references, predominantly from mainstream scientists, make the case.

Can he name anyone at all that is a mainstream scientist. I don't believe Sheldrake is considered a mainstream scientist today.

There is mention of Dr. William Braud. He isn't a mainstream scientist. His works which claim things such as prayer works has not been found to be effective in almost all other studies. Working at a 95% confidence interval we would expect a 5% chance of a false positive. Maybe Braud got lucky with a false positive.

Notice how the next section discusses multiples such as calculus and the theory of evolution? This has nothing to do with Braud, but Wilcock would like you to make that assumption. He doesn't explicitly state it maybe because he knows it is a false idea. What makes it false is that these issues were openly being discussed.

Wilcock writes:

There is wonderful, abundant proof that "extrasensory perception" is a natural gift we all possess -- but these groundbreaking studies have received very little publicity.

Seriously? Show me one study. If the studies were really groundbreaking then a Nobel prize would be in the making.

In 2011, Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier demonstrated "DNA teleportation,"

Remember that the results have not been replicated by other labs. Also, this is not teleportation. That shows Wilcock's inability to report Montagnier's work. The study reports that the material was replicated at a distance. Nowhere does it suggest that the DNA was teleported.
DNA Waves and Water
Notice that the article is not peer reviewed. There are plans to try and publish their work in peer reviewed journals, but until that time the details are being left out.

Some of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the tube with pure, sterile water transformed into DNA -- by a process still unknown to Western science.

This is just plain wrong. There is no such claim in the paper. Apparently, Wilcock does not understand how PCR works. That's not surprising to me.

Sir Edmund Hoyle? Is that the name that was intended.
This is the name of the card player. There was an astronomer named Fred Hoyle. None of these people were involved with DNA.

Sir Edmund Hoyle, the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, and Chandra Wickramasinghe noticed that 99 percent of all the dust in the galaxy had peculiar optical properties. The only material that could create these effects in the laboratory was freeze-dried bacteria.

Besides the obvious name screw up and the claim of being a DNA co-discoverer screw up there are other problems with this.
1. They were not working in the optical spectrum - they were looking in the IR part of the EM spectrum
2. They showed that dust was organic - that does not mean it had a biological source

From the New Scientist November 24, 1983 we learn

The observations already provide strong evidence against the controversial view that the grains are "freeze-dried" bacteria , as espoused by 2 scientists Hole and Chandra Wickramasinghe (last issue p482)

books.google.com... YInmxkLQ&hl=en&ei=XgBXTpuFI6r20gHpzqHIDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hoyle%20Wickramasinghe%20freeze%20dried&f= false
So almost immediately the evidence is against this claim. Had Wilcock actually done any research at all he would have seen this.

And so it goes

Yea i'm sorry But Wilcock is a Looney Tune.

I was wayyyyy turned off when he became such a narcissistic fellow. Read any one of his blogs, and count how many times he writes: ME , I , MYSELF , MY FECAL MATTER IS GOLD. (jkkkk)

But really, that Pineal gland - pine cone stuff was interesting.

Originally posted by stereologist
Can he name anyone at all that is a mainstream scientist.

That is what needs to be found out. Once a version of the hardcover appears on the Internet for download, we can go over the reference pages in the back of the book. According to this website, "Over 1000 different references, predominantly from mainstream scientists...", so if we can get the list of references, we can cross check all the names ourselves. It's hard to believe that all 1,000+ scientists that are being named are all crackpots, and if they are, that's an impressive feat in of itself that he could find so many.

reply to post by stereologist



OK... I'll just assume you are right and that David mis spoke/ lied/ made up everything he said on this Coast to Coast episode on 2004.

That being said, can you address some of the information that's in his new book? This post was started because David came out with a new book where he talks about things like the pineal gland, DNA mutation and hypnosis. ect. These are the topics I'm interested in and I would like to know if David is misleading / stretching facts us on these subjects. I’d like to know whether or not the science he references in the new book or some of his more recent material is false.

For example, in his new book he mentions that under hypnosis, people have the ability to look through object. A hypnotists puts a subject under.. tells them they can’t see a specific object. Then, under hypnosis, the subject is able to actual see through the object as if it wasn’t there. They are able to read things that are behind the object as if the object wasn’t there. He references everything in his book. Is that BS? I don’t know for sure… but it’s sure interesting.

Not that you don't have a good point with what you put up.. but I just don't see the connection to these topics. This is some interview on coast to coast that is 8 years old... I respect David's work, but I don't think everything he says is pure fact. Who knows what he read or where he got his facts from about this one particular topic. That doesn't mean everything else he said his complete BS too... and again, this was on a radio show and something he put into a book... or did he?

reply to post by SonicInfinity


Thus there are no named mainstream scientists and yet the claim is over 1000. Hmmm, sounds fishy. Besides, it is not unusual for charlatans to make reference to articles which do not support the claims and then claim they do.