Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 43
143
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

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.




Please tell us how you know he has no sources or insiders. I want proof to that fact, and just telling us is not enough. How much have you brought to the table as far as proof goes for your conclusion? I believe Malcram has a good point, and I feel the same as he does about this, as I also have listened to and read up on all of this.




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FiatLux
Please tell us how you know he has no sources or insiders. I want proof to that fact, and just telling us is not enough. How much have you brought to the table as far as proof goes for your conclusion? I believe Malcram has a good point, and I feel the same as he does about this, as I also have listened to and read up on all of this.


I'm sorry FiatLux but I can't disclose my sources


Why aren't you holding David Wilcock to the same standards? You should be demanding to see proof of his wild claims. I believe the responsibility is on the person making the wild claims to provide evidence to back up their case, and not on someone else to try and find evidence that proves or disproves it.

And I do not consider the possibility that David has no inside sources to be an outrageous claim. I think it's the most likely.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FiatLux
Please tell us how you know he has no sources or insiders. I want proof to that fact, and just telling us is not enough.


He is the one making the claim he has insiders, it is up to him to back that claim up, not others disprove it.

He lied about the International tv space being booked, he actually has not bought any valid information forward from his so called "insiders"



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by FiatLux
Please tell us how you know he has no sources or insiders. I want proof to that fact, and just telling us is not enough. How much have you brought to the table as far as proof goes for your conclusion? I believe Malcram has a good point, and I feel the same as he does about this, as I also have listened to and read up on all of this.


I'm sorry FiatLux but I can't disclose my sources


Why aren't you holding David Wilcock to the same standards? You should be demanding to see proof of his wild claims. I believe the responsibility is on the person making the wild claims to provide evidence to back up their case, and not on someone else to try and find evidence that proves or disproves it.

And I do not consider the possibility that David has no inside sources to be an outrageous claim. I think it's the most likely.



A claim is just that.......a claim, and it works both ways. He isn`t here to give proof to his "claims", but you are. So where is it? Like I stated, I saw the video, and read the transcripts of it just as Malcram did, how about you? If you want to "claim" someone is not telling the truth, then prove it. Show that he isn`t being truthful with something to back it up. How do you know that he has no inside sources? The only way you would know this, is if you know him and are around him often. Do you know him, and are you around him often?

What I find amazing, is the fact that people come here to vent this, and not take it to him as it should be. He doesn`t come here just to read what you and I say. When I get the feeling that someone is not being truthful with me, I take it to them.....not a forum such as this where I know they do not visit. Now, you made a claim about his sources and insiders and I`m here asking for your proof that you don`t have.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

I'm sorry FiatLux but I can't disclose my sources


Why aren't you holding David Wilcock to the same standards?


Why aren't you willing to abide by the same standards you insist of someone else? That's called hypocrisy. I'm seeing a lot of that in this anti-Wilcock sentiment. People are making claims they have no evidence whatsoever for, such as that Wilcock is a liar and has no sources. You don't know that and can't prove it.



You should be demanding to see proof of his wild claims


I've already exposed this lie point by point. He made no claims except that he has sources who told him this. Saying you have sources is not a "wild claim", unless you can prove he has no sources - which you can't.

You have no case.

In fact we know that he has sources because one of them was interviewed at length ON CAMERA with Wilcock. (DW did later identify one of them when he became convinced the event could not now happen: "Dr. Pete Peterson, a very credible insider, had three different high-level sources in media and government tell him the same story in June 2009, independently -- that Disclosure is indeed imminent. The date had been set for November 27, 2009") Now, whether or not you consider his sources credible is a different matter and is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is we already know DW has sources, so your claim that he does not and is lying is bogus.


I believe the responsibility is on the person making the wild claims to provide evidence to back up their case


He didn't make any "wild claims", and you know it, because I've explicitly proven it. You're being dishonest. His claim is simply that his sources told him this and that he thought it COULD happen. End of. He has no responsibility to prove that he has sources (we already know for a certainty that he has at least one) because doing so would compromise their identity. He was clear that he would not reveal their identity in that initial C2C interview and that he was reporting what he had been told. The listener had to take it or leave it, on that clear basis. That's standard procedure. But the anti-DW mob want to make something out of nothing and distort what was said in order to condemn him.


And I do not consider the possibility that David has no inside sources to be an outrageous claim. I think it's the most likely.


You didn't say it was a "possibility". You stated it as a fact that he has none. You said, and I quote:



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


You and others have claimed he is a liar. You made a slanderous claim you have not the slightest evidence for (and there is evidence to directly disprove your claim). You are hypocritical in accusing him of something you have no evidence for and yet doing exactly what you accuse him of yourself. You make claims yet can't meet the burden of proof.

You're championing the pseudo-skeptical equivalent of a malicious hoax.

First the false claim was made that DW himself had "promised" and "predicted" Disclosure before the year's end.

That lie was demolished.

Now the claim is being made that he has no sources and made it all up himself.

Prove it. Put up or shut up. However, this claim too is false, as shown above.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I've heard that the CIA black ops on Christmas day is one of the reasons for pushing it out. Obama is for it, but he has to have all his ducks in a row and the appropriate attention.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by blujay
 


That is a pretty huge claim to make - without any evidence to back it up.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 
Argh, you people and your insatiable desire for proof
The source is at your discretion. My mind has been open for quite a while now:



14. We know that you who are aware of the imminent official acknowledgement of other civilizations’ existence are eager to hear the latest word regarding its progress, and we have asked Hatonn to speak about this.

15. HATONN: Thank you, Matthew. I’d love to report that a good deal of progress has been made, but I can’t. We knew there would be a slowdown in the momentum during Earth’s holiday period and we anticipated the strong possibility of a diversion tactic thrown in the wheels. We weren’t disappointed in that expectation, but the diversion is causing more ruckus and delay than we anticipated.

16. That Christmas day airplane terrorist attempt was the kind of CIA black ops act that we can’t prevent. It was the perfect ploy to get your whole world up in arms again about “global terror” and it has President Obama’s primary concentration. As if the foot-dragging on the healthcare bill and his country’s unemployment rate weren’t enough to occupy his attention in the past months! He was the driving force in discussions, and until he can get the former momentum up to speed again, the talks will continue to be more bickering than constructive.

17. It’s just as well that no decisions are being made without Obama’s involvement. He strongly favors extensive and speedy disclosure and most of your other principal participants are being squeamish about both. We can suggest and recommend but not impose our judgment upon your representatives, much less take any action because it can be considered arbitrary at best or unilateral at worst. So we are being patient. That’s the only thing we can do until either your representatives reach agreement on all the important issues pertaining to the TV program or God in His wisdom decides what shall be done and when.

18. Understand that Earth’s course is set, it’s her people who have a timetable to meet or get left behind. They need a wake-up call like being told that there are a lot of us in this universe with you.




lightworkers.org...

Peace



[edit on 12-1-2010 by blujay]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Disclosure has been "around the corner" for decades. I won't get to excited untill I see something concrete...



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I think david means well and his heart is in the right place. But i all too often hear him borrow other peoples work. I would hear him repeat the same stuff and rehash it in his interviews and he seems to be running out of steam. As for the end of 2009 disclosure realistically knew it was not going to happen. Too many factors like Obamas schedule and the economy , health care bill , jobs ect. I would say he could do it late next year if he had the time.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Obama wants to do it. Tonight i had a dream where i sat right next to him in his room, talked to him for about 10 minutes of earth time. He may look like another Rockefeller faction NWO scum on the outside to some, but he has his own plans for good. He is in the same situation JFK was "I want to tell the public, but i have my hands tied."



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
well the disclosure is not anytime soon because of what happen in Haiti



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
well the disclosure is not anytime soon because of what happen in Haiti



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
well the disclosure is not anytime soon because of what happen in Haiti



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



"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". "


That is a very comfortable and secure way to "predict" something, using a proxy, in this case "reliable sources" which can not be revealed at this moment in time. If nothing happens, no one can blame DW directly only the unknown sources, or so it seems. Its just as DW made these claims himself, there is no difference really.

Nothing happened before the end of 2009 and that is bad for DW and his reputation.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by rhines]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I've heard that there's a slight chance that some form of disclosure could happen during Obama's State of the Union speech.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhines



That is a very comfortable and secure way to "predict" something, using a proxy


Except that whether by proxy or personally, Wilcock DID NOT in any way, shape or form "predict" that disclosure would happen, as I've already demonstrated. So your point is not valid on that basis.

His position was always that he was told this (there is cast iron proof that he was told this by another party, again, as I've already shown) and he said that he did not know if it would happen, that he was categorically not staking his reputation on it happening, but he thought it certainly could happen.

None of that adds up to anything vaguely like a "prediction", either personally or by proxy.



In this case "reliable sources" which can not be revealed at this moment in time. If nothing happens, no one can blame DW directly only the unknown sources, or so it seems. Its just as DW made these claims himself, there is no difference really.


Except that we know the name of one of these sources and we know for a fact that he gave DW this information, so again, your suggestion that Wilcock may have been faking having sources in order to push his own information is simply not valid.


Nothing happened before the end of 2009 and that is bad for DW and his reputation.


Only if your judgement is based on being unaware of - or choosing to ignore - the facts of the matter.

While some infantile members here were continuing a snide countdown to the end of 2009 and the supposed failure of what they falsely claimed was Wilcock's "promise" and "prediction" of disclosure before Christmas, Wilcock himself was, at the very same time, saying that the turn of events (the leaking, by others, of the specific date, etc) meant that disclosure could not now proceed as his sources had suggested it might.


[edit on 13-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sam_inc
well the disclosure is not anytime soon because of what happen in Haiti


Why is that? Because "disclosure" can only happen when there is nothing better to talk about or tend to? Get the small stuff out of the way so as not to distract people when they drop the big news?

Seriously??



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The day disclosure happens is the day the 'powers that be' have had their hands forced or a sub-Superpower decides to stand tall and used their revelation for their owner greater good and status.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Well, this was all BS. The first quarter of 2010 is finished, and it doesn't look like anything is going on.

The Governments have their own problems - especially Obama.

This isn't going happen coming from the governments. It may not even happen in our lifetimes...

Damn.





new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join