12-27-2009, 02:11 PM
Ali, and anyone else who is interested-
I'd encourage you to do a more in-depth read of David Wilcock's article, particularly the section pertaining to the Norway spiral. While he may dismiss the rocket hypothesis in a somewhat crude way, his concept of what led to the incident and why and how it happened is interesting to say the least. He ties in so many disparate sources of data into his argument, yet it all seems to fit in in the end.
I can certainly understand the general reluctance around here to really dive into David's site. One of his downfalls seems to be that he is so convinced that his train of thought is true, through his own synchronicities and dreams, that he has trouble explaining his understanding in a clear and specific manner. He also seems to get frustrated that people aren't "getting" what he's talking about, and this leads to a sometimes dismissive and needlessly argumentative tone. Lately I've noticed a negative tone on his site that I think is needless.
All that being said, I'm often impressed by the quality of David's research, not as a scientist, but as a compiler and dot-connector. I read through the whole article, and while parts of it bored me, and other parts were hard to accept, it really did lead to a clearer understanding of the political significance of the Norway spiral, as well as a few possibilities for what it may have actually been.
I'd encourage you to do a more in-depth read of David Wilcock's article, particularly the section pertaining to the Norway spiral. While he may dismiss the rocket hypothesis in a somewhat crude way, his concept of what led to the incident and why and how it happened is interesting to say the least. He ties in so many disparate sources of data into his argument, yet it all seems to fit in in the end.
I can certainly understand the general reluctance around here to really dive into David's site. One of his downfalls seems to be that he is so convinced that his train of thought is true, through his own synchronicities and dreams, that he has trouble explaining his understanding in a clear and specific manner. He also seems to get frustrated that people aren't "getting" what he's talking about, and this leads to a sometimes dismissive and needlessly argumentative tone. Lately I've noticed a negative tone on his site that I think is needless.
All that being said, I'm often impressed by the quality of David's research, not as a scientist, but as a compiler and dot-connector. I read through the whole article, and while parts of it bored me, and other parts were hard to accept, it really did lead to a clearer understanding of the political significance of the Norway spiral, as well as a few possibilities for what it may have actually been.