04-22-2009, 08:39 PM
I'd suggest that any body of information should be judged separate from it's source or method of transfer. This isn't exactly practical I admit. We often need quick judgements to guide us.
But if you want to know for really really sure. You'll need to analyze what was said. Cross reference it, hold it up against the light of your intuition. And try to poke holes in it.
I have no connection to Davids channelings. I've read some but can't find much interest. Only after he does the cross referencing and things begin to come together does it hold my interest. And in that case usually very much so.
The strong point for me about the man is that he supplies references in a very methodological almost scientific manner. So basically almost everything he says is checkable. The bad point is that some of the information he uses is so rare that even on the internet you can only find one or two sources and that makes cross referencing difficult. I've been trying to verify the Pacheco experiment. (Heat up beach sand till it is white hot, keep it in a sterilized container. And see life appear out of nothing) To me this experiment would be the smoking gun evidence that this stuff is real. But it's only posted on one site I can find and some other sites have copied it and link to each other. The problem is that all those sources essentially are based on one source. I would like to get my hands on the original research papers and know if it's been peer previewed. Until that happens it's just not scientific enough. One relatively unknown source of information just doesn't hold in the scientific community.
But overall, I think David is reliable because the "check it yourself" references he gives. I'm a critical bastard. And he's really one of the very few sources I find credible.
But if you want to know for really really sure. You'll need to analyze what was said. Cross reference it, hold it up against the light of your intuition. And try to poke holes in it.
I have no connection to Davids channelings. I've read some but can't find much interest. Only after he does the cross referencing and things begin to come together does it hold my interest. And in that case usually very much so.
The strong point for me about the man is that he supplies references in a very methodological almost scientific manner. So basically almost everything he says is checkable. The bad point is that some of the information he uses is so rare that even on the internet you can only find one or two sources and that makes cross referencing difficult. I've been trying to verify the Pacheco experiment. (Heat up beach sand till it is white hot, keep it in a sterilized container. And see life appear out of nothing) To me this experiment would be the smoking gun evidence that this stuff is real. But it's only posted on one site I can find and some other sites have copied it and link to each other. The problem is that all those sources essentially are based on one source. I would like to get my hands on the original research papers and know if it's been peer previewed. Until that happens it's just not scientific enough. One relatively unknown source of information just doesn't hold in the scientific community.
But overall, I think David is reliable because the "check it yourself" references he gives. I'm a critical bastard. And he's really one of the very few sources I find credible.