It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

23 days left for David Wilcock's prediction.

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by Malcram
 


Wilcock said on coast to coast that his sources told him that disclosure would happen by the end of 2009 and a two hour tv slot was already booked to announce it to the world.


Yes he informed us what his sources had told him, sources he feels are credible. He did not make a 'prediction'.

He was clear that he wasn't staking his reputation on it happening and has since explicitly stated that it will not. Childishly continuing a countdown to a 'prediction' someone never actually made regarding an event they themselves have long since said won't happen makes no real sense and pretty clearly indicates that some are more interested in baseless mockery than the facts.

Most of the criticism of Wilcock regarding this issue has been based on willful distortions of what he actually said in a cynical attempt to tear him down. Standard tactics of some here here at ATS.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
Wilcock said on coast to coast that his sources told him that disclosure would happen by the end of 2009 and a two hour tv slot was already booked to announce it to the world.


So why didnt he bother checking when and where that 2 hour tv slot was?

Because he has no sources, he simply makes it up as he goes along!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Nichiren
Wilcock said on coast to coast that his sources told him that disclosure would happen by the end of 2009 and a two hour tv slot was already booked to announce it to the world.


So why didnt he bother checking when and where that 2 hour tv slot was?

Because he has no sources, he simply makes it up as he goes along!


Who says he didn't? Who says Wilcock didn't know when it was supposed to be? He wasn't willing to give the date when he was interviewed so why would he be willing to give the exact time?

Or perhaps he asked and his sources replied "I don't know. I have been told about the time being allotted, not exactly when it is?"

Or perhaps they did know but weren't willing to tell him?

There are many possibilities.

But no, it's more fun to pretend there is only one possibility and slander the guy anyway, right?


Why bother with your first sentence since it's pointless anyway? Why not just say - "I hate David Wilcock!"?

At least then I could commend you for being honest.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Who says he didn't?


As there were no 2 hour slots booked by the government.... he never bothered checking!


Who says he didn't know when it was supposed to be.


because there were no tv bookings...


He wasn't willing to give the date when he was interviewed so why would he be willing to give the time?


He could give neither, as he knew there was no booking as was claimed


But it's more fun to pretend there is only one possibility and slander the guy anyway, right?


There was only one possibility, as no such booking was made. So he just made it up, like all his other claims

[edit on 31/12/09 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

As there were no 2 hour slots booked by the government.... he never bothered checking!

because there were no tv bookings...

He could give neither, as he knew there was no booking as was claimed

There was only one possibility, as no such booking was made. So he just made it up, like all his other claims



You can't prove a single thing you said here.

And you have a problem with David supposedly 'making it up'?


[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by dereks

As there were no 2 hour slots booked by the government.... he never bothered checking!

because there were no tv bookings...

He could give neither, as he knew there was no booking as was claimed

There was only one possibility, as no such booking was made. So he just made it up, like all his other claims



You can't prove a single thing you said here.

And you have a problem with David supposedly 'making it up'?


Yea david making stuff up is a problem.
There was no pre announced 2 hour tv slot. That is something that you can look up. (and I did when it was announced)

GG though david wilcock is a rook



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You can't prove a single thing you said here.

And you have a problem with David supposedly 'making it up'?


There was no tv booking like David claimed, how about you telling us all when it was made for if such a booking existed.

Now I know it must upset you when someone you apparently look up to tells porkies, but that is what he did here



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by dereks

As there were no 2 hour slots booked by the government.... he never bothered checking!

because there were no tv bookings...

He could give neither, as he knew there was no booking as was claimed

There was only one possibility, as no such booking was made. So he just made it up, like all his other claims



You can't prove a single thing you said here.

And you have a problem with David supposedly 'making it up'?

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]


WOW

Maybe there will be a MIRACLE in 2010

For the first time, E V E R , I AGREE with Dereks.

Now I'm truly scared



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


You don't know if the Government had arranged for TV time in some manner.

You don't know if David attempted to find out if this was the case.

You don't know if it would be possible to find out seeing as any such arrangement would likely be kept strictly confidential (to put it mildly).

You don't know that 'David could give neither' (actually he was given a date, but chose not to release it. It was Bill Ryan who did that)

You don't know that David was lying rather than passing on info from sources as he said.

As I said, your post is a torrent of baseless claims. If you attack David as someone who you insist makes baseless claims, then you really are being a hypocrite.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Malcram
You can't prove a single thing you said here.

And you have a problem with David supposedly 'making it up'?


There was no tv booking like David claimed, how about you telling us all when it was made for if such a booking existed.

Now I know it must upset you when someone you apparently look up to tells porkies, but that is what he did here


In a scenario in which the Goverment had arranged to secure such TV time for such a world shattering announcement, do you really think that we would be able to definitely confirm allocation of this time beforehand?

Please.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Sir

I have read your postings , you are truly a well versed man,

in-depth and precise.

Methinks you are tieing your wagon to the wrong horse on

this issue



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by Malcram
 


Sir

I have read your postings , you are truly a well versed man,

in-depth and precise.

Methinks you are tieing your wagon to the wrong horse on

this issue


LOL Thanks.

But you'd be wrong to think I'm tying my wagon to any horse. I'm not a "David Wilcock supporter". I'm an opposer of ill-willed, dishonest, sneering lynch mobs. That's all.

Wilcock is being unfairly treated and misrepresented in this particular issue.


[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You don't know if the Government had arranged for TV time in some manner.


Yes I do actually - you see, there are procedures for these bookings, they are done in advance and in this case, there was nothing at all.


You don't know if David attempted to find out if this was the case.


If he attempted to find out he would have found out that there were no such bookings.


You don't know if it would be possible to find out seeing as any such arrangement would likely be kept confidential.


You obviously have no idea how these bookings are made, they cannot be kept confidential


You don't know that 'David could give neither'


Yes I do, as no date existed


You don't know that David was lying rather than passing on info from sources as he said.


Yes I do, as he has no sources


As I said, your post is a torrent of baseless claims.


David Wilcock is the one making the baseless claims here


If you attack David as someone who you insist makes baseless claims, then you really are being a hypocrite.


Pointing out someones baseless claims does not make one a hypocrite. You apparently believe anything he says, and are getting upset as your idol has been caught out!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Malcram
You can't prove a single thing you said here.

And you have a problem with David supposedly 'making it up'?


There was no tv booking like David claimed, how about you telling us all when it was made for if such a booking existed.

Now I know it must upset you when someone you apparently look up to tells porkies, but that is what he did here


Sigh. I don't "look up to Wilcock". Typical underhand tactic. If someone questions the slander of a chosen target, pretend they are only doing it because they are supposedly deranged disciples of the target.

No.

I just don't like to see anybody unfairly accused and bad-mouthed and the dishonest campaign against DW at ATS eventually got too ridiculous to ignore.

The truth is none of us know for sure if there was an arrangement for TV time or not. So you are making a claim on something you don't know for sure. As I said, had there been such an arrangement it would be impossible to confirm beforehand.

What we know is that no announcement was made. That doesn't prove that an arrangement for TV time had not been made.

But even if it had not been made, there is no way that any of us - Wilcock included - could have confirmed this because, if it was true, it would have been kept strictly confidential and enquiring would have met with a "No, there is no such TV time booked" and if it wasn't true, the same response would have been given.

So, if Wilcock was told this by his sources he has no way of confirming it as true or not, even now. He just has his estimation of the credibility of his sources based on his past interaction with them. Even if it was a lie, (which we can't know) this doesn't mean Wilcock lied. It would mean he was lied to.

You can assume otherwise if you like, but it will just be an assumption based on personal feelings about DW. There is nothing in what Wilcock said that is not consistent with his having told the truth about this from the beginning.



[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
The truth is none of us know for sure if there was an arrangement for TV time or not. So you are making a claim on something you don't know for sure.


There you go again, making things up - you do not know what I do for a job where I work or who I know


As I said, had there been such an arrangement it would be impossible to confirm beforehand.


Sorry, you saying something you know nothing about does not make it true. There was no such booking


What we know is that no announcement was made.


That is all YOU know


That doesn't prove that an arrangement for TV time had not been made.


The only true thing you have said, but there are people and systems that would know a booking was made, and none was made.


it would have been kept strictly confidential and enquiring would have met with a "No, there is no such TV time booked" and if it wasn't true, the same response would have been given.


But people and systems would have known, and they knew nothing at all about it


So, if Wilcock was told this by his sources


Except he has no sources, he makes it up as he goes along!


There is nothing in what Wilcock said that is not consistent with his having told the truth about this from the beginning.


as he does not know, he just makes it up!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
23 days? HA

you know, after those 23 days, there will be another counter... and then another... and then another.... so on and so forth.

i will say this again, because this is how i see it.

DISCLOSURE WILL NOT HAPPEN AS A PLAN, it will happen when WE the HUMAN race is ready for contact.

If we were, we'd already be talking to them now.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Yes I do actually - you see, there are procedures for these bookings, they are done in advance and in this case, there was nothing at all.


Are you serious? You think that if an ultra secret arrangement had been made at the highest levels for TV time to announce the most paradigm-shattering and destabilizing information the world had ever known that you or I would be able to confirm it by checking 'procedures'? Get real. That's ridiculous. What would you do? Google it? Find the 'paperwork'?

There are so many possibilities. Maybe what DW sources got wind of was actually pre-arranged satellite time, or forced satellite access, in order to get essentially hacked, forced, worldwide TV access with only a handful of people knowing about it? We just don't have a clue. What's the verifiable 'procedure' for that scenario, eh?


If he attempted to find out he would have found out that there were no such bookings.


You don't know what he attempted. But likely he's not daft enough to think that such an announcement would be detectable beforehand through regular channels or by a trail of 'procedure' , as you bizarrely claim it would.

"Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence", remember? Didn't your "idol" say that? (Is Sagan your idol? I don't know. But seeing as you can make false claims about who my "idols" are then I'm not going to sweat it.
)


You obviously have no idea how these bookings are made, they cannot be kept confidential


Hmm, you're right I have no idea how "these bookings' for the first announcement of ET contact with Earth to the entire world proceed. Obviously you're all clued up on exactly how events that have never occurred before are routinely handled. Do you have a manual? A memo?


Yes I do, as no date existed


You don't know that and can't prove it.



Yes I do, as he has no sources


You don't know that and can't prove it.



David Wilcock is the one making the baseless claims here


You haven't proved that at all, but have made many yourself.



Pointing out someones baseless claims does not make one a hypocrite. You apparently believe anything he says, and are getting upset as your idol has been caught out!


Your a hypocrite because you are making baseless claims in your accusation of DW. You can't prove anything you've said.

And your last line is another false claim and the exact same dishonest tactic that you used in the last post. So, I'll give you the same response, just so it penetrates:



Sigh. I don't "look up to Wilcock". Typical underhand tactic. If someone questions the slander of a chosen target, pretend they are only doing it because they are supposedly deranged disciples of the target.

No.

I just don't like to see anybody unfairly accused and badmouthed.


Now I've made several hundred posts here over a couple of years and your welcome to search them for references to Wilcock (my supposed "Idol".
)

You'll find I only discuss him during the past few of days or so regarding this recent unrestrained orgy of sneering malice, based on deception, that has erupted against him at ATS over the past couple of months.

I'd respond the same way no matter who it was who was being unfairly slandered.



[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Malcram
The truth is none of us know for sure if there was an arrangement for TV time or not. So you are making a claim on something you don't know for sure.


There you go again, making things up - you do not know what I do for a job where I work or who I know


Oh so, you're an insider now? And I'm supposed to take your word that if there was or was not TV time allocated, you would know??

Wow, now I feel just like Wilcock, having to weigh up the reports of his sources! LOL. But I'm afraid I don't trust you. You can't back up your claims and have been underhand and so I'm not going to accept your word based on vague insinuations of insider knowledge.


Sorry, you saying something you know nothing about does not make it true. There was no such booking


Insider knowledge again? Sorry, I don't trust you. You will need to back up your claims.




What we know is that no announcement was made.


That is all YOU know


Ah, wow. More insider scoop I should trust?

Your position is becoming more hypocritical by the second.



[edit on 31-12-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I dont get how people didnt realize that IF the gov need make a announcement of that scale the gov need book 2 hours like some a little commercial.

People, wake up. If ANY gov want 2 hours in the TV... They will just phone a few tv companies/ news agencies and say "Hey guys. The president will say something very important in 1 hour. An emergency broadcast. Get your guys ready to broadcast the signal" And its done. Who needs book a stupid 2 hours? The whole idea of booking 2 hours is stupid.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
i hope you can all see now what fools you are to believe this man and how you should never believe in people who predict the future.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join