Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
From the Coast to Coast web site...
First of all I'm not really interested in what anyone else - C2C included - says
DW said. I'm only interested in what DW actually said and
the context it was said in. Those are the only facts we should be dealing with: what he actually said and what the immediate context was. However,
what the C2C blurb says is:
But the Illuminati's agenda could be [Mal. not "will be"] halted by a full-scale disclosure of the ET presence, Wilcock asserted.
His sources have told him that [Mal. not "David predicts/promises that"] such a disclosure is planned to occur before the end of
What this amounts to is "DW tells us that his sources say
Disclosure is planned for late 2009 and he thinks it could
Big deal. Nothing to hang him with there. Nothing to justify the anti-Wilcock hysteria.
Your next quote is directly from DW. But this was given in response to my request for proof of supposed "promises" and "predictions". You do
realize that what you quoted IN NO WAY
substantiates the claim that DW promised or predicted anything? You also do realize the difference
between someone saying "I am saying this and it is going to happen" and "I was told this and I am passing it on. I don't know if it will happen"?
The difference is absolute and crucial and is being ignored, because people want to pass off what David reported as if they were his own predictions,
so that they can condemn him. That's deceptive and dishonest. It's a bait and switch.
Let's look at what he actually
said (and TwoPhish, I hope you're reading too):
DW: Now, the thing I will tell you is that the Disclosure thing is not so nebulous.
We have one source, in particular, who has now heard [about Disclosure] from three different highly-placed sources in the
intelligence community that he’s in contact with. These are people who don’t know each other and are not speaking to each other, but they do speak
to him. They all have independently told him that a formal government Disclosure is being planned -- [likely] before the end of the year.
You see what's being said here and why I have underlined certain phrases? DW is reporting
what he was told. He is not making his own
, at least we have no proof whatsoever that he is. He is certainly not making any personal "promises" or "predictions". It continues:
They all had the exact same date for when this would happen, which I cannot say what it is. They all had the basic
sequence of events that would happen. They’re all saying that the television time has already been booked internationally for a two-hour
GN: And now... when you say you 'can’t' say the date? Or you won’t say the date?
DW: If I said the date, I could potentially be hurt, [laughs] so I’m not going to say what the date is.
GN: All right. But you know the date.
DW: I know the date.
GN: All right.
Again, his claim is consistently that this is what he sources told him. It is not a personal claim or prediction. Journalists do this all the time and
often protect their sources. It's standard procedure. And you note he refused to give a specific date, despite the fact that he has been repeatedly
accused of making "promises" regarding a specific date for the announcement?
DW: It’s before Christmas but after where we are now. It’s definitely... As I said, the television time has been booked.
The context here is explicitly what he has been told by his sources, not his own prediction. You can tell he finds his sources credible, and yet note
key first word in the very next sentence:
If this does happen, it’s not just going to be something where we are told that this is true. It’s going to be, “Hey, this is true
-- and let me introduce you to several different members of these other human species who are out there who, incidentally, look very similar to us --
with only minor differences.”
The context throughout is ALWAYS 'this is what my sources tell me'.
He does not
claim it definitely will happen.
He does no
t give a specific date and the timeframe he gives is in the context of what he was told.
Not what he "predicts".
states he's not staking his reputation on it happening (C2C interview. DW: "Well, I’m not going to stake my whole
reputation on it
He makes no
He makes no
predictions. Repeating what a source has told you is not a prediction.
Now I know it's irritating when people desperately want to pin some trumped up 'charge' on someone they dislike, yet the facts of the matter simply
don't allow for it, but that's life. If you think DW is lying about having sources, as some others do, then prove it
, otherwise such
suspicions are unfounded and worthless. If you can't prove it - and you can't - then we have to deal with what he actually said
. And what he
said - consistently - was that he was reporting what sources had told him.
I don't get it Malcram, are you denying David went on the radio and said these things?
I'm denying your claim that what he said justifies the accusations made against him.
What he actually
said proves the accusations to be false.
[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]