Activate Your Stargate

 i am also fascinated with this guy, who is purportd to be the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce and returned to put Cayce's spiritual philosophy on a scientific footing. The paper that he wrote with Richard Hoagland on how 2012 might represent a high energy phase-state change in the solar system is very fascinating. It also fits perfectly with Nassim Haramein's work on torsion physics and hyperdimensional geometry - www.theresonanceproject.org . In fact, there may be a very profound and world-transformative knowledge system reassembling here!!!

"Will the transformation."-Rilke

Just when I thought I had illuminati-fatigue, along comes this compelling, provocative and engaging speaker and and thinker. The furious hyperlinking that followed led me to Ezra Pound, a most interesting figure who I knew very little about, but seems to be one of the earliest public figure to advocate this idea that central banks are covertly subverting democracy. A deeply controversial figure, of course, what with his support of fascism and his anti-semitism, though there are indications that he renounced that toward the end of his life.

More interesting still is Wilcock's notion that our biology (the pineal gland) has this pivotal role in the creating of our consciousness. All of this begs further investigation, of course, but it is damn compelling stuff. Couldn't find much supporting material on the Interwebs, at least not in my initial searching.

I also find listening to Wilcock's voice curiously soothing. I played this for a good part of the day yesterday and found it oddly pleasurable even as the material amped me up.

I'd love to hear a dialogue between David and Daniel. A future Evolver, mayhap?

I found this video quite thought provoking, especially the section on the pineal gland. However most of it is at best completely unverifiable and at worst complete crap. I like his philosophy and he seems like a "good guy" so I suspect that either the supposed black ops informers are inaccurately describing the events and technology's or they are quite simply lying (assuming they even exist).

I am a physics undergrad so although I am by know means a professor I can confidently say that he most definetly does not have an "acute knowledge of physics". Some of the things (emphasis on SOME!) he proposes could maybe be possible but not in the ways he describes.

Let me highlight a few of his more obvious errors:

First of all his understanding of spacetime is very inaccurate. The use of the sheet as a metaphor for spacetime is a layman's description. In reality there is no "underside", the sheet is everything! It's possilbe, in fact it is quite likely that there are more dimensions to reality (string theory for example predicts up to 20 of them) and I don't think it is inconceivable for there to be a reality in which there are three dimensions of time and only one of space but it would have to be an entirely different universe which we would be unable to get to. Also a wormhole as theorized in physics connects two points in spacetime, not one form of spacetime to another.

His interpretation of quantum mechanics is also off, there is no turning "inside out" of buckballs. In fact they do not change into anything at all, they just exhibit wave like properties. That does not mean they spontaneously turn into a wave.

Some other smaller mistakes are made in his description of the looking glass experiment. The idea that the three rotating rings are shielding the insides from EM fields and spacetime itself is quite ridiculous for two reasons. The first is that all you need to block out all EM waves is a Faraday cage which is little more than a box of copper mesh. Second is the idea that you can shield yourself from spacetime. Quite simply that is not how spacetime works. If you could shield yourself from spacetime you would be shielding yourself from reality itself and would therefore be in a void of inexistence.

The last glaring problem that I remember is his description of the Philadelphia experiment. It is absolutely impossible for a black hole to be created accidentally by a super powerful arc welding machine. The most obvious reason is that it simply wouldn't have enough power. An average industrial arc welder generates about 28,000J/s of energy whereas the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will produce 10,000,000J of energy and even that will only possibly be enough to create a black hole the size of an atom which then proceeds to evaporate in less than a nanosecond. On top of this is the way he describes the black holes as causing tools to randomly disappear. If somehow they did manage to accidentally create a real black hole (which did not evaporate) it would simply suck up the ship and eventually the whole solar system.

So in conclusion I see no reason to believe most of what is proposed in this video. It is definitely good for leading yourself in interesting lines of thought and I liked Wilcock's thinking, especially during the section right at the end. But, for the most part, it does not prove a thing.