Please forgive me if this has already been posted. But I think its important that we see all the data out there on the leaders of the 2012 movement, even the not so nice stuff and then make a judgement for ourselves. Please read and understand my take on DW before you go to the page claiming he is a fraud.

Now I actually like David Wilcock's web site, divinecosmos. I think he presents a wealth of VERY INTERESTING information that TPTB rather not be common knowledge. A lot of the information he presents, if true, (and to me that's still a big if, especially when he talks about experiments of making a frog embryo grow into a salamander simply by shining laser light through a salamander at the developing frog embryo.) is simply amazing. I wish he would give more references when talking about such amazing experiments. I know SOME of the stuff he talks about is true do to my own research and experiences. So I said his data is awesome and points to the fact that us humans, have much more power than we realize, as far as what the natural human consciousness is capable of. And the fact that this power is magnified when more people concentrate on the same goal. And there surely MANY MANY more 'have nots' than 'haves'. If we were not so divided, we could concentrate on getting the TPTB to become TPTW (the powers that were)

So this stuff which he presents is awesome. Than it starts getting a little hairy in two areas for me, which makes me think twice about DW.

Firstly when he talks about his 'Montauk' contact he happened to randomly meet in some diner. This makes me think he's totally gullible because all the stuff this guy told him, I had read on the internet in the late 90's on saturday nights in college at 3 am in the morning when there was nothing better to do than surf internet drunk after coming home from the parties. Don't know how David could take what this guy presented as fact and then use it in his presentations. To me it sounds like the guy was just having a little fun with David, sensing his gullability. Perhaps David was gullible in the fact that what the guy was spueing out to him was exactl what he wanted to hear due to David having such a great interest in the subject... as if David wanted what he said to be true. So he took it as fact based on emotion. I just thought he would have seen this for what it is. How could he possibly prove to David that anything he said was true and that this guy wasn't reading the same conspiratorial dis-info quasi sci-fi stuff I was.

Secondly and most importantly... Though David's research and information is awesome. His correlation to how this all adds up to some great ascension in 2012 is weak at best. And that is being generous. He takes great leaps of faith in going from healing a tumored rasberry with laser light shined on it through the hologram of a healthy rasberry to we are all going to ascend in 2012 and things will be '100 times more harmonious' on earth. When you take leaps of faith like this, what you are lecturing about becomes more of a religion than solid science

So this is my opinion of David Wilcock. As I said I enjoy reading his site and I enjoy his view on the world. Its very interesting and I share a lot of the same ideas he does. But I just can't make those leaps of faith he does. And if he is doing this for egotistical reasons or financial gain then this will come back and bite him in the rear. Afterall, if he is right, we will all be happy 4th density humans. If he is wrong than I'm sure booksales will go down and he will quickly become irrelevant. (reminiscent of nancy leider and Zeta-talk)

That being said, i sincerely hope DAVID IS RIGHT IN ALL HE SAYS

With this in mind consider the following link below. I surely hope that this is just dis-info against David and it is not true. I'd like someone who is adept at reverse speech to confirm or deny this.

Link below in next post (ran outta room in this 1)

[edit on 16-9-2009 by insideNSA]

Interesting.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever pertaining to situations where EVP has been used and what has been alleged in reversal was actually proved to be true?

I dont deny that there is apparently phenomena within the EVP approach, andn also some very interesting scenarios that come from EVP conversations that should not be ignored or dismissed - but i have a problem accepting that just because an EVP shows something different from that which is being "actually spoken", that what remains in EVP is truth or somehow absolute.

Would love to see some examples of EVPs that proved positive as this would go a long way towards supporting your position on the validity of EVP - by this I do not mean a string of "hard science" type experiments that deliver the same results each time, as I do not believe that EVP can be fully understood or measured by the hard sciences as yet . But surely a weight of evidence showing how EVPs have proved "true" over time versus those that have not proved "true" over time would be a good indicator to begin with.

I tend to look for the "actions" that people undertake in order to ascertain their motivations, as opposed to their words, which are often cheap and changre according to the weather and for example, ability to pay the bills at the end of every month.


Thanks

Bravo

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Bravo111]

I've always thought DW to be "out there" but harmless for the most
part. what I do like about him is his take on current events that
puts a positive spin on things. I've found it both heartening and inspiring.
If he's really a fraud I don't want to know, he makes me feel better
which is more important to me than the truth.

Apologies - I assumed wrongly it seems that Reverse Speech was in actual fact a sub-division of the ELECTRONIC VOICE PHENOMENA genre.

Secondly as stated, i dont doubt the phenomena exists in many forms and that there is research that proves beyond doubt that words and sentences are discovered in this manner - this is not my issue.

I do question the source and accuracy of the information and ones ability to then act or be reliably informed from this information - if not all it can ever provide is a tantalising insight - have we not all had enough of these already?

For example: Given the current/recent developments and deaths around Illinois/Chicago politicians such as Blagojevitch and his cronies i would suspect that if you did Reverse Speech analysis on this particular person that you could probably come somewhere near to valuable insight within weeks - and with that I would be heartily impressed.

Certainly given the amount of airtime that Blagojevitch has had and his somewhat readily apparent dubious personal character, there should be plenty of material that can be discovered via RS!

Keep up the good work!

Thanks

Bravo

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
If he's really a fraud I don't want to know, he makes me feel better
which is more important to me than the truth.

Is that you Cypher of the Matrix?

Cypher: You know, I know that this steak doesn't exist. I know when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, do you know what I realize?

Ignorance is bliss.

just kidding... but of course you know... you are a Cypherite

[edit on 16-9-2009 by insideNSA]

I dont know how credible this "reverse speech" technique is;
and I dont think it would pass double blind experiments/tests....

I see people posting about reverse speech from time to time, and I can not figure out why anyone believes it works. I mean, politicians lie and when we make words in a sentence backwards it usually makes it say something the speaker didn't intend to say. But that doesn't prove that the two are related.

Reverse speach as far as I'm concerned, is like using the supernatrual or paranormal to disprove the supernatural or paranormal. Like one magician pointing to another one claiming they're the real fraud. ( angels vs Demons)

David Wilcock is interesting, but would seem to be more of a disinformant. The meeting he had seems more scripted and likely mind control in some way as well.

I'd like to see some tests on him such as a polygraph, FMRI and voice stress analysis. Mind control still might possibly defeat those. idk

[edit on 16-9-2009 by aleon1018]

Originally posted by DjSharperimage
I dont know how credible this "reverse speech" technique is;
and I dont think it would pass double blind experiments/tests....

Actually it has passed several double blind exps. Its a very easy thing to prove.

This is to address you and the other poster that have their doubts about reverse speech. PLEASE PLEASE do your research before you make statements about something you know nothing about. If you do a little research you will be shockingly surprised.

it seems whimsical and new agey and i totally thought it was a load of BS at first. But research David Oates and the history of it. And just listen to some of the reversals. They are absolutely stunning.

I hate to back something that seems so whimsical. But I must say, the truth is the truth no matter how strange. And reverse speech is VERY EASY to prove or disprove. After decades of research and proof there is no denying it works.

When someone is REALLY stressed they will actually say in reverse the exact same thing they are saying forward. For instance someone's house was burning down and somehow it was recorded on a tape recorder that was running. You can here the person saying 'Fire Fire' you play it in reverse and you here 'Fire Fire' very clearly.

This is just one example of thousands you can find online. And its not like you are just picking up muddled sound in the noise and letting your mind interpret the garbage so its so unclear you could claim it to be anything. At first i thought this is what was going on. But no, in reverse you'll hear phrases, sometimes complete sentences that are as clear as someone saying them in normal speech.

I really didn't want this to turn into a 'Is reverse speech real or not' Please ATSers that know about this. Please speak up and educate those on this thread.

Lastly there is a windows sound recorder on your computer. Try talking into it then playing the stuff in reverse. Try to do this during normal conversations in which you are talking with someone else, and try to ignore the fact that you are being recorded... be as natural as possible. The reason being reverse speech doesn't turn up in EVERY sentence. I forgot the actual avg ratio between reverse speech phrases that come out of normal speech. But you can surely find that info at reversespeech.com or other sites that are similar. usually things you say with emotion will produce a phrase or sentence from the subconscious in reverse that relates to what you are saying forward very clearly. YOU WILL AMAZE YOURSELF, and it will probably only take you 20 minutes to find some reversals. ahhh modern technology.



[edit on 16-9-2009 by insideNSA]

You know the more I hear reverse speech the more I think there might be something to it. I'm interested though can this catch someone saying the truth in a good way? This method seems to only catch deceptive words.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
You know the more I hear reverse speech the more I think there might be something to it. I'm interested though can this catch someone saying the truth in a good way? This method seems to only catch deceptive words.

Yes it can catch something in a good way. But I'm guessing most of the researchers go for the excitement of pointing out the negative that public figures say. sort of like the news reporting the bad stuff for ratings. but i have seen examples of both.

Well a lot of his theory has been inspired by the information in the law of one channelings, and whether or not those are true are the crux of his viewpoints. Personally I think he would be doing a disservice to himself (he said this himself in an interview) if he really was "negative" or a "disinfo" agent. Because the stuff he's talked about has helped me 'wake-up' as it were. I think that is the case for most of the people who have been paying attention to him over the past couple of years.

David Wilcock is entertaining.. but that's all I have to say for it's merit.

The guy is a fraud, in a sense. I think it started out as a fraud but he grew to believe everything that he sold to people. Now he is so far in he can't even realize it.

reversing speech is just plain creepy no matter what it means.
I would have to have it done to me to ever believe it.