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
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
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
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]