David Wilcock - The open letter

Raskarcapac · 01-20-2010, 09:54 PM

This post raises good questions.

Although I think the spiral is the result of electromagnetic waves, Wilcock's explanations does not constitute irrefutable proof.

As some pointed, he is a great spiritual teacher but he lacks a clear understanding of electromagnetism and physics in general. It even more shows in his books Shift Of The Ages and The Science Of Oneness.

I can only praise his attempt to synthesize all this information (God knows it is a herculean task), but he tends to jump at conclusions without any solid (scientific) proof.

I am also concerned by his following which is increasingly showing signs of a personality cult.

Two weeks ago I tried to post on the Divine Cosmos forum a critique of Sitchin's work (available here on Avalon at http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19269) which was rejected without any explanation. In his books Wilcock cites some of Sitchin's assertions which are proven to be wrong, and I think it is important to point out these mistakes, intentional or not.

Does this mean that anything David Wilcock says or writes cannot be contradicted ?

01-20-2010, 09:54 PM	#11
Raskarcapac Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Montpellier, France Posts: 5	Re: David Wilcock - The open letter This post raises good questions. Although I think the spiral is the result of electromagnetic waves, Wilcock's explanations does not constitute irrefutable proof. As some pointed, he is a great spiritual teacher but he lacks a clear understanding of electromagnetism and physics in general. It even more shows in his books Shift Of The Ages and The Science Of Oneness. I can only praise his attempt to synthesize all this information (God knows it is a herculean task), but he tends to jump at conclusions without any solid (scientific) proof. I am also concerned by his following which is increasingly showing signs of a personality cult. Two weeks ago I tried to post on the Divine Cosmos forum a critique of Sitchin's work (available here on Avalon at http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19269) which was rejected without any explanation. In his books Wilcock cites some of Sitchin's assertions which are proven to be wrong, and I think it is important to point out these mistakes, intentional or not. Does this mean that anything David Wilcock says or writes cannot be contradicted ?