The Source Field Investigations (30 page)

Pacheco’s photograph of what appears to be a complex, multicellular organism, with a head and defensive spikes, formed out of a sterile solution of sand and water.

Niles Eldredge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History, discussed the speed with which complex life suddenly appeared on earth.

J. R. Norman, a zoologist from the British Museum of Natural History, said in 1975 that “the geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes.”
³⁰
In 1960, W. E. Swinton, also from the British Museum of Natural History, said, “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”
³¹
Professor Derek Ager, from the Imperial College of London’s Department of Geology, wrote in 1976 that “it must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been ‘debunked.’ ”
³²

The Darwinian crowd has naturally fought vigorously against this opposition, claiming there have been new advances—but in light of all the evidence we’ve been presenting, along with many other data points, the theory simply doesn’t hold up very well. The fossil record consistently shows us one type of creature, which then upgrades into a new, improved, more evolved version over a very short period of time, geologically speaking. There are very few transitional fossils that could support Darwin’s original theory. We don’t see any examples of fish where the skeleton is half in and half out of the body—we have shellfish and bony fishes, with nothing in between. And that’s just one of many curious examples. Even in the case of human evolution, there are significant and unsolvable problems. If you remember hearing about the search for a so-called missing link, a transitional species that can explain how human brain size suddenly doubled in a short time, bear in mind that it still hasn’t been found. According to Lord Solly Zuckerman, Chief Scientific Advisor to the United Kingdom and a professor of anatomy at the University of Birmingham, “If man evolved from an apelike creature, he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record.”
³³

If it’s not Darwinian “random mutation” causing these changes to occur, then what is it? Two University of Chicago paleontologists, David Raup and James Sepkoski, may have found the answer. Together, they carefully assembled the largest collection of marine fossils ever accomplished—comprising an incredible 3,600 genera of ocean life. In 1982, they first published an article in the journal
Science
describing four mass extinctions they’d found in the fossil record, as well as a fifth one that was less significant.
³⁴
As they continued to process this data, they faced a perplexing problem—patterns were increasingly appearing in the fossil record that shouldn’t be there. Yet, the more research they did, and the harder they tried to get rid of it with the facts, the stronger the pattern became. In 1984, two years after they released their initial paper, they came clean—publishing their astonishing results, which still haven’t had the effect on the scientific community that they should have. In short, new species were spontaneously appearing in short bursts in the fossil record—in a repeating cycle of approximately 26 million years.
³⁵
This pattern extended back some 250 million years—out of a total of 542 million years of fossils they cataloged.

The story became even more interesting in 2005, when Dr. Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at University of California, Berkeley, and his graduate student Robert Rohde discovered another cycle of evolution in Raup’s and Sepkoski’s data. This time, it went all the way back to the beginning of the marine fossil record—some 542 million years ago. Muller and Rohde found that every 62 million years, more or less, all life on earth went through a relatively spontaneous upgrade—transforming the existing species into newer, more evolved forms.
³⁶
In a
National Geographic
article that same year, Muller said, “I wish I knew what it all meant . . . I’m betting it will be astronomy, and he’s betting it will be something inside of the earth.”
³⁷

In a
Daily Galaxy
article originally from 2009, Muller seemed to be closer to winning the bet. As it turns out, astronomers have discovered that our solar system travels in a long, see-sawing wavelike motion, continually moving above and below the galactic plane as it goes along. One complete cycle of up-and-down movement takes approximately 64 million years—suspiciously close to the 62-million-year cycle discovered by Muller and Rohde. Obviously, such long-range astronomical calculations could be slightly incorrect, and the real figure for the galactic see-saw could actually be 62 million years. University of Kansas professors Adrian Mellott and Mikhail Medvedev believe this galactic cycle is the answer to the puzzle. The top half of our galaxy faces the Virgo cluster as we shoot through space, and Mellott and Medvedev believe this area should have an increased number of charged particles and cosmic rays—just like we see at the front end of our solar system from galactic dust. Their theory is that every time we rise out of the magnetic fields of the galactic plane and move into the northern area, we get a boost in cosmicray exposure. This radiation could then lead to more genetic mutations, and possibly create new species.
³⁸

That’s certainly one possible explanation—but now that we are armed with our breakthrough research into the Source Field, there may well be other answers that move us even closer. This galactic see-saw theory also doesn’t account for the roughly 26-million-year cycle that was originally discovered by Raup and Sepkoski. Something else has to be going on here. It does seem very likely that galactic energy fields will be responsible—and in Part Two, I’ll present a new model that neatly explains everything, and gives us a solid, scientific way to map out these changes.

Adapted from Raup and Sepkoski, Rohde and Muller graphs by David Wilcock.

We’ve already seen how living bacteria and other species, complete with their DNA, could spontaneously emerge from seemingly nonliving matter. If DNA can be “created out of nowhere,” and both Popp and Gariaev’s research proves that DNA stores and releases light, then why couldn’t DNA actually be reprogrammed and rewritten with the right light frequencies? Let’s not forget that when Gariaev zapped a poisoned rat with the wave information from a healthy pancreas, its devastated pancreas regenerated in only twelve days. Budakovski found that the hologram of a healthy raspberry plant was all he needed to transform seemingly dead tumor tissue back into a perfectly normal new plant. What we’re seeing is that coherent ultraviolet light can carry complex code that directly affects the structure and behavior of DNA—transforming diseased tissue back into full health. Are there any clues that the source code of DNA could indeed be like a jigsaw puzzle that has more than one correct solution, when given the right information? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

Many spiritually oriented people feel a great affinity with dolphins—and there appears to be much more to that story than most of us ever imagined. In 2000, NOAA scientist Dr. David Busbee discovered something truly astonishing.

This is quite amazing, as humans and dolphins certainly do not look alike. Then, in 2004, the BBC News published the work of Dr. David Haussler from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his team. When Haussler’s team compared the DNA codes of human beings, rats and mice, “they found—to their astonishment—that several great stretches of DNA were identical across the three species.” Chickens, dogs and even fish also had almost identical DNA codes to human beings as well—although sea squirt and fruit flies were less similar. Dr. Haussler said, “It absolutely knocked me off my chair. . . . It’s extraordinarily exciting to think that there are these . . . elements that weren’t noticed by the scientific community before.”
⁴⁰

If the DNA of humans, dolphins, rats, mice, chickens, dogs and fish are all so similar, and the DNA molecule can absorb and release coherent light, then we get tantalizingly close to the idea that all DNA is ultimately the product of a single wave, which undergoes relatively minor modifications to produce different species.

If this is true, then could we change the wave by feeding it new information—and actually rearrange one species into another, directly at the DNA level? Indeed, if we think back to Dr. Alexander Golod’s pyramid on Seliger Lake, this appears to have already happened. A variety of seemingly extinct plants began growing in the land surrounding the pyramid. Do we have any other evidence that could verify such a fascinating effect? The answer arrived in 1989, when a major chemical company known as Ciba-Geigy patented a process that allowed them to cultivate new and original forms of plants and animals. The process is deceptively simple—they place seeds between two metal plates, and run a weak DC current through them for three days as they germinate. When they zapped an ordinary fern seed using this process, they were astonished to find that it transformed into a formerly extinct species that had only ever been found in fossils from coal deposits. The “extinct” fern had forty-one chromosomes rather than the expected thirty-six. Furthermore, within four years, the original plants mutated into a wide variety of different strains of fern—some of which normally only grew in South Africa.
⁴¹

When Ciba-Geigy tried the same technique with wheat, they were able to revert it back to a much older and stronger variety—from a time before it had been heavily over-bred. This wheat could be fully harvested after only four to eight weeks—and the norm is seven months. This, of course, has marvelous implications for impoverished areas where people suffer from starvation. When they tried it with tulips, they found thorns appearing on their stems—and this appeared to be an original trait that gardeners had long since bred away. The effect didn’t just work on plant seeds either. When they tried the same experiments with trout eggs, they found that a much stronger and more disease-resistant trout was formed. Best of all, they tried out the process on 200-million-year-old spores that had been found in a salt deposit 140 meters deep in the ground. Even though nothing else had been able to revive these spores, simply zapping them with the electrostatic field brought them back to life—as if the 200 million years didn’t even matter.
⁴²

Unfortunately, this was a chemical company—and a large part of their business depends on agricultural plants being weak and vulnerable, so they require chemical fertilizers. Once Ciba-Geigy realized that these plants could put them out of business, they quickly stopped pursuing this new technique. Thankfully, the original papers survived—so this information was not lost.
⁴³

Another weird discovery emerged in
National Geographic News
from 2009. Scientists from the University of Rennes in France drowned 120 different spiders, from three different species, in water. They probed the spiders every two hours until they appeared to be completely dead, which took twenty-four hours for the forest species and either twenty-eight or thirty-six hours for the two marsh species. Once the spiders had apparently died, the scientists left them out to dry, so they could be weighed. Amazingly, the spiders’ legs began twitching and they came back to life—with the longest time interval being two hours for the marsh species that took thirty-six hours to die. Of course, the scientists assume this is the result of a coma rather than actual death, but it raises fascinating questions.
⁴⁴
Life may be far more resilient than we normally give it credit for. Just like we saw in the 34,000-year-old bacteria that reanimated after two and a half months, or in Gariaev’s dead seeds from Chernobyl, if you have genetic material that is already fairly close to being alive—even if it is technically dead—a little jump-start may be all you need to reanimate it. This is obviously a much easier and faster process for the Source Field to use, rather than creating life out of otherwise inanimate molecules.