Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

David Wilcock: Full Disclosure and Introduction to ET by years end?

page: 42
143
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   


Ok good point I hadn't considered that. However I do seem to recall that after the Blossom GoodChild incident people were all over blasting about it. I was kinda just hoping to see if any one could or would offer any kind of rational as to why there wasn't disclosure.


One of the more popular "channelers" did come out later and say the reason that the Goodchild event did not take place was that by giving out the specifics, and because of the probability of government involvement, they decided not to go ahead because, not that they feared the govt, but they feared for the lives of the general population on the ground if they were attacked in the air (due to fallout possibilities). They did say the were there, in the sky, they just never decloaked.

This past event, and Blossom's, and personal sources leads me to believe that they (the government or the ETs) will most likely not come forward if the time and place has been put out in public. However, most sources, including my own, indicate that at some time before 2012 the ETs WILL have to come forward, whether they or the government want to, because the ETs have a time-table they have to meet.

My indications are that the "must" date is probably at least as far out as November of this year and maybe later. As Bashar is fond of saying, "The more you want us [ETs] to show up, the less likely it is to happen."




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Can we just stop for a moment and question how this thread made it to 42 pages? This subject is questionable to begin with, but when saddled with such ignorance it becomes almost impossible not to laugh at.

Seriously guys, go back and read this thread. If it doesn't make you shudder I don't know what will.....



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
just dropped in to laugh at all those anxious believers.

LOL guys, i thought the party was over. :-]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I just came across this on Digg... It's nothing really concrete but there are two things that stood out... The first being an address by the President that will override one of two MAJOR television shows that are expected to garner HUGE audiences, and the second being that it mentions a 2 hour time slot. 99% chance this is completely nothing, but still it's probably the most likely time for anything to be announced, if they were to do it at all that is.

PS: I am a believer but not in this. Just thought I'd post it for those that are.


www.eonline.com...



[edit on 8-1-2010 by Temperamental69]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Temperamental69]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Temperamental69
I just came across this on Digg... It's nothing really concrete but there are two things that stood out... The first being an address by the President that will override one of two MAJOR television shows that are expected to garner HUGE audiences, and the second being that it mentions a 2 hour time slot. 99% chance this is completely nothing, but still it's probably the most likely time for anything to be announced, if they were to do it at all that is.

PS: I am a believer but not in this. Just thought I'd post it for those that are.


www.eonline.com...



[edit on 8-1-2010 by Temperamental69]

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Temperamental69]

But that is probably just the regular State of the Union address, which usually takes 2 hours and is done annually. There's nothing there to indicate alien disclosure in any way



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Can we just stop for a moment and question how this thread made it to 42 pages?


I want to know if we can stop for a moment and ask how Seircam wrote this...


Originally posted by seircram
One of the more popular "channelers" did come out later and say the reason that the Goodchild event did not take place was that by giving out the specifics, and because of the probability of government involvement, they decided not to go ahead because, not that they feared the govt, but they feared for the lives of the general population on the ground if they were attacked in the air (due to fallout possibilities). They did say the were there, in the sky, they just never decloaked.


...with a straight face.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
its now the 11th of january, nothing has changed, i never caught this very quiet disclosure on television



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
 


Nope.

What you did there was quote someone else's claims about what Wilcock said.

You did not quote Wilcock himself.

I made one simple request - back up accusations about what Wilcock said with direct quotes from Wilcock. That's not too much to ask is it? Yet neither you nor anyone else has stepped up. The request for evidence has been dodged. I wonder why?

If you are going to accuse him of something then at least provide the actual quotes (in context, which is crucial) you feel provide evidence for it, rather than simply repeating the claims of others, which is no evidence at all.

I have read the transcript and listened to the show in question - again - specifically to see if the accusations made against Wilcock were legitimate or not.

There were not.

But as I said, maybe I missed something crucial. So, provide direct quotes in context from Wilcock to back up your claims. Otherwise, I must continue to conclude that the case made here against DW is basically malicious BS.

I can understand many people taking a dislike to Wilcock's spiritual perspective and being suspicious of his motives and methods (although suspicion isn't proof). That's fair enough. But I have found the recent campaign against him at ATS to be fueled largely by false accusations and distortions, which is disappointing.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I am sure that another date will been given in the not to distant future of when it is to happen and which TV channels are setting time aside for the showings. The problem with these constant unfulfilled promises is that interest in the subject will wane at a quicker and quicker rate.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Archangel
I am sure that another date will been given...


Wilcock didn't 'give a date'.




The problem with these constant unfulfilled promises...

Wilcok didn't make a promise. Actually he did exactly the opposite.

This is what my post above is referring to. There is what Wilcock actually said and the ATS urban myth about what he said. They are very different and Wilcock is being falsely accused. But who cares about the truth when slandering someone who is unpopular at ATS? Why let the facts get in the way of a fun witchhunt?



[edit on 10-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by The_Archangel
I am sure that another date will been given...


Wilcock didn't 'give a date'.




The problem with these constant unfulfilled promises

Wilcok didn't make a promise. Actually he did exactly the opposite.

This is what my post above is referring to. There is what Wilcock actually said and the ATS urban myth about what he said. They are very different and Wilcock is being falsely accused. But who cares about the truth when slandering someone who is unpopular at ATS? Why let the facts get in the way of a fun witchhunt?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by Malcram]


I am not attacking Wilcock as I think that he has a great deal of infomation to offer the masses. I am pointing out the fact there are a number of people who are quick to proclaim the discloser announcement is nigh, leaving the sceptics to beat the hopefull with BS stick.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Archangel

I am not attacking Wilcock as I think that he has a great deal of infomation to offer the masses. I am pointing out the fact there are a number of people who are quick to proclaim the discloser announcement is nigh, leaving the sceptics to beat the hopefull with BS stick.


Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

I mistook your comments to be specifically about Wilcock and his recent comments seeing as this thread is about them.

I definitely agree that there are many primed and eager to lash out with the 'stick' at any and every opportunity. Unfortunately, it's clear that if the opportunity does not legitimately arise that some of them are dishonest enough to fabricate one with false accusations.

As for the effect you suggest. You may be right, at least in the case of some individuals. However, I'm not really sure anything could dampen the obsession with disclosure overall.

Not even the mobs of stick wielders at ATS.



[edit on 10-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I keep hearing a lot of claims in this thread and elsewhere about what Wilcock is supposed to have said - or 'predicted' or 'promised'


From the Coast to Coast web site:



But the Illuminati's agenda could be halted by a full-scale disclosure of the ET presence, Wilcock asserted. His sources have told him that such a disclosure is planned to occur before the end of 2009, and a 2-hour international TV special has already been booked that will introduce an alien species, similar to humans, to the world. Yet, a variety of ET species are visiting the Earth, including the Annunaki, who are reptilian in appearance, and a controlling force behind the Illuminati, he continued.


and from the transcript:



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.

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 special.

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.

DW: It’s before Christmas but after where we are now. It’s definitely... As I said, the television time has been booked.

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.”

GN: And “Here they are”? [laughs]

DW: Yes. And here they are. They can speak telepathically, but they can also use the primitive-dialup-modem kind of speaking through their mouth.



I don't get it Malcram, are you denying David went on the radio and said these things?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
A person who is highly profiled like Wilcock is, should be very certain about their predictions because in an instant, their reputation can be tarnished. And that's what happened to David. And to add insult to injury he 'blames' it (why this didn't occur) on the Internet. He said it was too leaked. Whatever. A fraud is a fraud no matter what their intentions are. I also think he's Andrew Basiago. Take a listen:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
You are all silly...don't you SEE it?

TIME TRAVELERS from 2009 are coming to give us disclosure.

You just didn't know that ET disclosure also comes with a side order of Time travel disclosure as well.

So good news!

SCORE for DAVE!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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 2009.


What this amounts to is "DW tells us that his sources say Disclosure is planned for late 2009 and he thinks it could happen".

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 claims, 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 special.

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 not give a specific date and the timeframe he gives is in the context of what he was told. Not what he "predicts".

He explicitly 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 promises.

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.

They don't.

What he actually said proves the accusations to be false.



[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I cant believe this is still alive, some of you guys are so guilble



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I'm denying your claim that what he said justifies the accusations made against him.


Nah, I never made that claim. What are the accusations against him?

I said he was full of BS, but it seems you're lumping me in with a bunch of the previous posters in this thread.

I showed you where David made some outrageous claims about an event that was supposed to happen before December 25th and it never happened. If you still feel David is worth defending then there is nothing I can type or quote to change your mind about that.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by Malcram
I'm denying your claim that what he said justifies the accusations made against him.


Nah, I never made that claim. What are the accusations against him? I said he was full of BS, but it seems you're lumping me in with a bunch of the previous posters in this thread.


Yes you did. I listed the accusations is my first post here, saying they were false, which you quoted and challenged, saying:


You must be joking? All you have to do is go back and read the original post of this thread.


You lumped yourself in with them. You came to the defense of the false accusations, claiming they were justified, so you must know what they are. However, I'm pleased to see you distancing yourself from them now.


I showed you where David made some outrageous claims about an event that was supposed to happen


No you did not. I showed you clearly that you are wrong in calling them his claims (yet you continue this fakery). They are his report on the statements of his sources, which he did not say would definitely occur. That's very different. The only claim he made was that his sources told him this. Since you can't prove that they didn't, you can't legitimately call that "outrageous".


If you still feel David is worth defending then there is nothing I can type or quote to change your mind about that.


Nice try. You have nothing to type because the facts don't support your position. This isn't about David Wilcock. It's about me getting tired of some members lying and distorting in order to smear and condemn certain people. I'd respond the same whoever was the target, because I think this kind of low, dishonest tactic demeans ATS, and sadly is becoming standard M.O. here.

That said, this isn't about you either, Zenarchist. I'm talking about the attitude and accusations of a mob, not you specifically.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
I showed you where David made some outrageous claims about an event that was supposed to happen


No you did not. I showed you clearly that you are wrong in calling them his claims (yet you continue this fakery). They are his report on the statements of his sources, which he did not say would definitely occur. That's very different. The only claim he made was that his sources told him this.


Malcram, David has no sources.
He has no "insiders".
He made it all up.

If you want to entertain the idea that the shadow government is leaking highly classified information to an internet psychic in order to get the word out early to the C2C listeners, then ok I can see your point that they are not his claims.

He still has no evidence of anything, he's brings nothing to the table but hearsay, fills gullible people with false hope, and muddies the water for anyone looking for real information. Either way I think he's not to be taken seriously.





new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join