The Earth is travelling along a trajectory (primarily around the Sun). The Moon is travelling with the Earth and at the same time around the Earth, so the Moon's trajectory describes a helix. This is what actually happens and is in no way a disputable fact. As you have become aware, Nassim Haramein has produced an animation showing that the planets also describe a helical path as they travel along with the Sun. However, a point of potential dispute is in the significance, or not, of the helical path. That is to say, is the helical path a primary function or is it simply an unimportant consequence of "orbital rotation"?. Clearly, what is absolutely the case, is that an orbit, and indeed ANY rotation, ends up describing a helix and not what we terrestrially perceive as a simple "rotation" about an axis. That this is the factual reality is not in itself any proof or demonstration that the helical trajectory is the operational method of orbit (and rotation), but it does at least cast some doubt on the ellipse/circle as being the operational method of orbit.
One particular point of interest is that orbits have been historically defined, described and calculated as being elliptical/circular. However, latterly we have come to understand that the Sun travels round the galaxy and the galaxy travels through cosmic space, so at no level can there possibly be a true circular motion, it simply has to be a helical trajectory. One could attempt to justify the elliptical/circular orbit by taking the view that orbits relate to some sort of inertial frame of common underlying velocity vectors. However, orbits are associated with, and in no small part facilitated by, "forces" shared between bodies. The force effects of both gravity and electromagnetism must rely on, and be conveyed by, some virtual/aethereal property of space in order to operate, yet travel of bodies through "space" is given no thought or credit - the logical contradictions are multiple and obvious.
I am not really happy with theresonanceproject presentation of this, as it tends towards the appearance of "neo-hippy spiritual" nonsense that is seemingly portrayed in an anthropocentric light. As such the scientific importance gets pushed to one side, rather than being the primary focus.
Starting from the premise that action-at-a-distance is impossible and so the universe/space must contain, or consist of, a virtual energy field or aethereal field (choose your preferred nomenclature), I did an analysis of gyroscopic function and how an object would need to move to travel, or even to exist in, a randomly moving particle field. The logical answer is quite clear. First of all the object must spin - unless all collisions by the field were directed at the precise centre of the object, then the object must be set spinning. (When I say object, I am principally referring to electrons and protons, i.e. matter.) Secondly, a spinning object with motion relative to a particle field will have to move with a helical trajectory. Even an absolutely stationary object is moving, relative to a moving particle field, so what we detect/perceive as an electron or proton is actually a particle inside a range of motion. So electrons and protons are always in motion and in fact it is that range of motion that defines the object and its interactions with other matter. Furthermore, that inherent, innate, intrinsic motion that defines the object is helical.
Because a matter particle (electron or proton) receives energy from the field (effectively in the form of spin) there is a localised loss of energy density in the vicinity of the matter, which produces a property of matter that we refer to as mass. Thus there is a net loss of ambient field energy-density away from the object with mass; that is, there is more energy-density toward the object than away from the object. So, objects with mass (i.e. matter) cause an effect called gravity.
If the field collides with the electron and provides it with energy, then it is sensible to assume that the electron will in turn collide with the field particles. This will result in a "flow" of energy-density directed away from the electron, which provides the property of matter we refer to as charge. The field energy toward an object can be characterised as random or ambient. But, the charge energy away from the object is a result of the objects innate motion, which is helical. So charge energy away from matter is characterised as helical. One of the defining properties of a helix is that it is handed or chiral, so depending on the "emitting" object or the relative direction of interacting objects, the handedness of charge "photons" (helical energy pulses) results in the effects labelled as positive and negative or north and south.
So, matter receives/takes energy from the field as spin and hence mass, and then "radiates" that energy away again as charge "photons".
If you are interested, you may like to take a look at the "Motion of Matter" thread in the "Future of Science" forum. You will also find links to my paper "On the Motion of Matter". I am aware that the concept of the "true" nature of motion are alien to many of my fellow terrestrials, who prefer to view the universe via straight lines and inertial frames. Matter does not and can not move in straight lines and this is confirmed by an objective examination of our astronomical neighbourhood.