There are no forests on earth! ~Video ~


Ready for Full Disclosure you think you are? Consider this a test… The answer may explain why it hasn’t happened yet… 

If you need help understanding the above video here’s a nice summary and explanation (but please see the above video first!):

10 thoughts on “There are no forests on earth! ~Video ~

  1. i watch the video months ago and i ask dawid wilcock about flath earth and hi said t ome that flath earth is a hoax i watched the many flath earth videos and its very hard to believe that we live on ball,i watch also this video and i now about it,but i must ask again about flath earth.i didnt read al of cobras interwiews.what hi says about flath earth?

    • Hi Marko

      I don’t understand… this video is not about flat earth. The author in the end even says “if you believe in flat earth you’re only half awake”. I even went to some flat earthers forums for curiosity sake to find out what they thought about the video just to find out they are in total disarray about it.

      In fact, IMO, this theory is very supportive of “honeycomb earth” theory. Why? Because it always confused me how could there be infrastructures between the earths crust and the mantle with all the magma inside the earth exerting pressure and boiling heat on those bases, even with their supposed exotic technology…

      So in that regard I consider this video to be most supportive of “honeycomb earth” theory which Wilcock, Cobra and Corey stud out for.

      Even if the theory isn’t 100% correct some aspects of it are enough to shred our conceived perception to pieces.

      That’s the hole point IMO. To be ready for Full Disclosure means we must be ready to give up on all our preconceived notions about what reality is.

  2. its not to important ot me if is flath earth or ball earth but i want to now the truth i will watch again this videos closely to better understending.thank you very much because i believe david wilcock and i think that you guys are doing amazing job.keep going.thank you very much.what is this ecosia is this alternative to google?

  3. wow, wow, wow and i thought i knew a lot about the disinformation we all have been programmed by…thank you for the research and narrative!

  4. I think its important to ask ourselves why we are being lied to in the first place. First of all, if this physical plane is dependent on our perceptions, then why is our perception being altered? The old if a tree falls in the forest becomes the tree is not even a tree. I accepted a long time ago that I know absolutely nothing.

  5. I write science fiction, so I know when I’m reading or watching science fiction.

    To write science fiction, the reader must be divorced from the world he knows. We see this in this fellow’s movie, by the attempts to redefine the thoughts of people smarter than he is. That’s the process of psychological mis-direction.

    Only about 5% of this man’s movie photos are compelling. For example, even he rightly claims that a quarry digging machine is oriented vertically. It is very difficult to dig vertically with a horizontal machine. Yet 95% of all the ‘quarries’ are showing horizontal features. This is consistent with the notion that many of these geographic features having been submerged in water (or liquids in some cases) and the water recedes by layers, one layer at a time. The materials at the base, are totally consistent with the notion of the erosion of the cliffs, in sections, into powders and pebbles (some large enough to break your foot on).

    Please note, fossilization does not occur to create gemstones. Science has NEVER said that. He says they did. But don’t confuse him with basic facts of the observation of what people say.

    Areas he is right in, are always true. For example, I agree that things tend naturally to form hexagonal structures. And he rightly points out that even plants and animals (like bees) use this structure for all the right reasons. But let’s not confuse him now, with lava eruptions under water, in the ring-of-fire, where these fumeroles produce lava, which is then cooled rapidly in structures that actually have some hexagonal structures to them.

    And then we need to talk about silicates versus gemstones. They are not the same, and are not even related in their formation. There are no silicate foundations built into the basic nature of conventional and well recognized gemstones. Even their crystalline natures vary quite widely. And rightly so. But here he is, suggesting that silicon based trees became gemstones. He suggests that these structures then were cut into sections. But are much more easily explained by these sedimented structures, falling over, and smashing on the ground, and breaking up into sharp-edged slices. When we see translucent structures in these linear fossilizations, these are not gemstones. Any gemologist can tell you these are are hardened structures with contaminants in the materials. Fossilizations, that first become a form of sandstone, is well recognized, and as equally well recognized is the fact hat the next stage of this process, is the compacting of these materials until they become crystalline in structure, eventually becoming a form of translucent quartz. This process can be duplicated in the laboratory. I’ve seen this process and the end results.

    I’m betting so has he. But again, please don’t confuse him, facts are so boring. If anyone is confused and deluded, it is he, for he has convinced himself of a great many things; many of which are totally unrelated processes. But again, don’t wake him up, his sleep within the framework of what he thinks is precious to him.

    He walks within his own matrix, he is happy in it. So don’t castigate him. After all, he has spent a fortune trying to place his complex and mildly compelling (at first) ideas into a 78-minute movie. Leave him alone.

    Leave him alone forever.

    • I had some additional thoughts, and thought I’d share them with the general public.

      Some of the big problems with silicon-based plants, is its own lifecycle.

      The above article, while not as precise as I would like, makes clear the many problems with silicon-based vegetation. For one thing, let’s look at carbon-based vegetation.

      Carbon-dioxide is taken in by the photosynthetic cells in the chlorophyll, and mixed with the nitrates and other bonds, brought into the plant via the venal capillaries within the plants. The output is more complex nitrogen bonds which provide fuel for the plant, and the plant exhausts excess oxygen.

      Now let’s look at the scientific guesswork, for a silicon-based plant.

      Whatever the thing is made out of, aside from it having a silicon-based eco-structure, the output is certainly not going to be oxygen. More importantly, many of the chemical bonds, generated inside the plant, will tend to be hypergolic in plain water. That means the hydrogen/oxygen bonds contained in water will break, and the atmosphere around the plant will become noxious random oxides and oxates with other materials, like nitrogen; leaving a very large amount of random hydrogen and add to the existing large percentage of nitrogen and nitrogen compounds of all kinds. The present atmosphere of Earth is more than 80% nitrogen. A higher percentage of nitrogen, will tend to squeeze out even more of the gasses required for carbon-based Life. Add to this noxious output, the hydrogen gas, that can no longer bind with a short-supply of oxygen, and now we have a really ugly atmosphere, from a Human Life perspective.

      In all that discussion, we can now ask for an answer to a terrific question. Where does this leave Human Life? The answer of course, is not in a good place. We can’t breath compounded nitric gasses or plain nitrogen. Nitrogen is not toxic in animal Life, but also provides no chemical processes animals need to be performed. In other words, it’s a carrier to maintain the 15%-oxygen mix of the present atmosphere. The nitrogen in animal Life, requires oxygen to carry out the energization of other processes within the cell-structures and organs in present Life.

      Pretty pictures of Humans wandering around in giant silicon trees notwithstanding, the entire Lifecycle of the planets’ ecosphere would be greatly changed. Let’s examine this from the author’s perspective. Trees that stretch high into the photosphere, would be so large as to preclude sunlight from reaching the surface, for huge areas of the landscape. This is true because a tree taller than 60-miles tall, would require a branch-leaf base of probably 5-times the height of the tree, to support its basic biology in gathering solar energy to fuel basic processes. That means a tree 100-miles high would have a branch and leaf system that would be 250-miles radius minimum. A few of these things could completely obliterate sunlight from reaching the ground for an entire continent. Even more importantly, much passed the 40-mile high mark, the atmosphere thins to the point that the tree would tend to branch out and spread a lot before it reaches the 60-mile altitude point, just to retain pressure balance between the tree-and-leaf system and the atmosphere around it. At 60-miles and greater, silicon-based Life begins to have the same problems as carbon-based Life, and starts operating as if it were in a severe vacuum, and starves for basic reaction gasses. The entire plant would die, passed a certain altitude. 60-miles is too high for such a life-form, or any life-form we are familiar with, even on a theoretical basis.

      Again pretty pictures don’t explain this stuff. Meaning carbon-baased vegetation would be blocked from most parts of photosynthesis. Animal Life, could not breath the air, because of the silicon Lifecycle modifications would overpower any products required for vegetation and animals that are carbon-based.
      I now wish to talk more about crystalline structures.The structures we see in the film, are not based on silicon. We can see that these are silicates based on carbon-based life-cycles. We can see this process in something called a geode. A geode is often seen around the world, and can be seen from an early point in the geology and in the medium past, and even in the very recent history.

      How do we know that? Because if you cut open a geode, what we find, depends on how old it is. In quite recent structures, we see carbon-formed silicates like granite, limestone, and related compounded rock-forms. As we go back in formation, we get an interior that has a few crystalline forms, but still fairly a solid mass of stony materials. Going even farther back, we see a hollowed out interior, because the stony forms have compressed and collapsed as the became crystals. This process does NOT require millions of years. A few millennia will do.

      These are not true gemstones, these are quartz crystals. There are many types of quartz, but the most interesting, is the ones that can be irradiated either by radiation from the Sun, or artificially radiated in factories and in laboratories. They turn varying hues of purple.

      What we know today as Amethyst. Not a gemstone, but often taken as one, because of its rare beauty. All generated by a natural process of stone fossilization. Amethyst cannot be formed within a silicon cycle. Quartz is very common. There is a piece of quartz within every piece of modern electronics. We call that electric quartz.

      We can talk about this in an even closer way to the author’s intentions. I live in Arizona. We know the world we live in was not mined. We find aquatic shells like trilobytes, on top of mountaintops. That means that at a previous epoch, the entire central 4-corners area was mostly submerged under water, in what geologists call the ‘inland sea’. The fact that we find so many life-forms, not indigenous to land-walking Life, and is entirely water Life, in places that would be, by our author’s discussion impossible; everywhere. Arizona museums are full of this stuff. All fossilized, by whatever processes you wish to describe.
      Earth being mined? Even the author presents us with the mining equipment built by Mankind. Who cares what a previous life-form did to the Earth, before we arrived on it? Even if it were true, if we weren’t here, who stole what from whom’s birthright? After all, this is the unspoken suggestion, presented by the author, as if we have a right to complain. The point is irrelevant. We are finding the bounty of the Earth, everywhere. We find mountains of mineral wealth, much sand for cement, and many other plain and specialized materials here. All of it, based on a world that was not strip-mined to the extent suggested by the movie.

      We KNOW this stuff is true. The world is too beautiful for words, and its’ riches are far in excess to our needs (aside from some rare materials, like titanium ore, and beryllium). The only enemy we ever had was ourselves.

      Pogo; “We have seen the enemy, and he are us …”

  6. Compelling to an extent, but inconclusive to me as to they were trees or just made by other natural phenomena etc. I do believe that this planet was mined. We have been visited by so so many powerful advanced races for so so long now. Why would they not want the resources. This planet is a farm, a resource, a prison etc.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: