David Wilcock: New Blog And Radio Interview

reply to post by Dave157

all you did in this thread is get off on Wilcocks failed predication date.

Oh no, my friend.

That one is just my favorite. There are many.

you claim to be a serious follower in Ufology, what exactly is this?

does it regard just unidentified flying objects, or ET entities in general?

Not serious in the sense of professional or collector.

Just serious in the way that I use my brain before accepting something.

He obviously got that predication date from a inside source, which turned out to be wrong, but how in the world does that take away from his overall message or goal?

He obviously made it up to make money from it, and since it was made up, it would eventually end up in the ground. Like the OTHER dates he released to do more hype for his lectures and books.

Yes, of course it takes his overall message, because he builds that message under lies.

Again, I don't understand this duality in moral compasses, that we accept a liar just because in the end, his "overall" is good.

Like I said, I'm not half-honest.

just please, point out where wilcock is wrong in his thinking or theories.

Otherwise stop using the single argument of a failed disclosure date to discredit this guy.

It's not just A disclosure date.

There is more than one!

And his thinking and theories are as vague as mine or yours, he is not special for his theories, he has attention because he claims to have inside sources.

He claims to have knowledge about what is going on in the governaments about disclosure, and the way they act, and the time in the TV that they reserve.

I mean, seriously, if a persone LIES once, twice, three times. He is not just "wrong" on something, HE IS A LIAR TAKING PROFIT FROM LIES.

A cult appears, and the leader says "hey, there is a higher good. If we are peaceful, and graceful, and friends with everyone, we will live in peace forever. But we got to kill ourselfs to enter the mothership that is in orbit".

Do you buy it? Well, guess what, the leader is honest, he just "got it wrong" with the mothership arrival date.

DO YOU ACCEPT THIS HAS A GOOD THINKING?

I know this example is a bit extreme, but I'm just raising the point that a part-lie, to me, is a lie. You think it's a mistake.

It isn't.

If you don't believe he is a hoaxer, be my guest. Everyone is free. To me, all the proof points the other way.

and just a question, who do you think took down the twin towers, also do you believe the Egyptians built the pyramids?

Let me ask YOU this...

...I've had the will to go to Egypt, and I've been there, and studied it, and found my own answers.

HAVE YOU?


...I've spent my OWN time, reading and studying the subjects relating to the 9/11, and some even fit into my professional area.


HAVE YOU?


I don't read and digest all the other people work, and then make their opinion mine.

I build my own opinion. That says enough.

reply to post by Malcram


Dude, just wake up for life, okay?


You fall from the air, wanting a debate that was made several times here on ATS.

If you were not here when we talked about it, TOO BAD.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by rainfall

 

David Wilcock is interesting to listen to. To me sometimes he comes off a little spacy and arrogant but much of what he has to say "feels true".

Thank you for sharing.

Hi friend...

Thanks for posting....I feel the same way, he can be a little arrogant, but everything he says resonates with me......it feels right...

PEACE and LOVE...

Originally posted by Tifozi

[regarding the concept of 'prediction] Oh no, my friend. That one is just my favorite. There are many.

Provide evidence Wilcock 'predicted' disclosure. ('predicted' is a rather metaphysically loaded word, don't you agree? Especially so when used of Wilcock) And what 'many'?

He obviously made it up to make money from it, and since it was made up, it would eventually end up in the ground. Like the OTHER dates he released to do more hype for his lectures and books.

Obviously? So you are claiming that he's lying and he was not told this by a source as he claimed? Provide evidence for this, and I shall provide evidence that he was told by a source.

Again, I don't understand this duality in moral compasses, that we accept a liar just because in the end, his "overall" is good.

What lies? Prove his is a liar with verifiable evidence.

Like I said, I'm not half-honest.

No, you're far from being "half honest".

It's not just A disclosure date.

There is more than one!

Can you provide evidence for this please?

I mean, seriously, if a persone LIES once, twice, three times. He is not just "wrong" on something, HE IS A LIAR TAKING PROFIT FROM LIES.

I'd be happy if you could substantiate you accusation that he is a liar with evidence just once.

If you don't believe he is a hoaxer, be my guest. Everyone is free. To me, all the proof points the other way.

Should we believe he's a hoaxer without proof? Don't just talk about 'proof'. Provide it.

I build my own opinion. That says enough.

Not if you try to pass off your opinion as fact, as you have done here. Then you have to prove it, with evidence. For which I'm still waiting.

Don't tell me you can't actually substantiate a single thing you claimed in this post?


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Malcram

 

Dude, just wake up for life, okay?


You fall from the air, wanting a debate that was made several times here on ATS.

If you were not here when we talked about it, TOO BAD.

So, because you can't provide evidence now, you claim it was provided at some unspecified point, but I missed it? That's convenient. I was there, and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The accusations against Wilcock didn't stand up to scrutiny then, and they don't now.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

Even if its fake, its still REAL entertaining.

Y'what? So someone making profit from lies is entertaining to you? Riiiiigght.

As far as I'm concerned, Wilcox released that bombshell disclosure stuff to hawk more of his wares, so he could buy some xmas prezzies.

However, I'm hearing from lots of people, including those whose accuracy I trust, who are having dreams portending that a very epic sequence of changes is about to unfold.

So some of his sources are 'dreamers'? Hell, this sounds legit.

Originally posted by Internet Explorer
Y'what? So someone making profit from lies is entertaining to you? Riiiiigght.

This is amazing. What lies? Do people just throw around the most base accusations without feeling the slightest obligation to provide evidence for them? Apparently so.

As far as I'm concerned, Wilcox released that bombshell disclosure stuff to hawk more of his wares, so he could buy some xmas prezzies.

While that could be true, you have no proof, so this really just stems from cynicism. We do have evidence that he was told this by a source, but we don't know his motivation for releasing it.

I wonder if some of the same members who care not one jot about providing evidence for their various accusations against people are the same who demand overwhelming evidence and absolute proof for ETH related claims? I'll have to keep an eye out for that inconsistency.


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Tifozi


i asked you simply, do you think the Egyptians built the pyramids, and who was responsible for the 9/11 events.
in your opinion of course.

no i have not been to Egypt. what does that have to do with anything?

and yes i have studied the events of 9/11 and i just cannot accept the way world trace center seven fell, or how the twin towers fell for that matter.

again, you base your discredit of Wilcock on his failed disclosure date.

Let me ask you this, if say Disclosure happened next week.

Than what?

Is Wilcock still so evil? is he still all BS?

seeing as that's your only valid argument.

nao, buddy boy.

Who built the the great pyramids? this question ties into this more than you think.

reply to post by Malcram


It's amazing to me that the people criticizing Wilcock can't seem to spell his name right....that tells me they don't know his work...

Maybe they should 'look before they leap' ....still water run deep...

Originally posted by Malcram
This is amazing. What lies? Do people just throw around the most base accusations without feeling the slightest obligation to provide evidence for them? Apparently so.

How about this one?

Wilcocks: 'Disclosure is definitely happening before the end of 2009, it's real'

End of 2009: ~tumbleweed~

It would be pretty cool if he was right, but every 'prediction' I've ever read from this field has proved false - Wilcock is only adding to the farce.

reply to post by Malcram


David?

Originally posted by Internet Explorer

Wilcocks: 'Disclosure is definitely happening before the end of 2009, it's real'

End of 2009: ~tumbleweed~

Where can I find that quote you just gave to verify that it's real, rather than something you have just made up?

reply to post by LiveForever8


LOL. Noel?

Nope. Not David. Just someone who doesn't like ATS mobs making unrestrained, unsubstantiated and malicious accusations.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Well it's nice to see you have a sense of humour. Unfortunately I have to side with the 'ATS mob' on this topic. It seems that so far you have argued over mere semantics and not actually given you viewpoint on David. If you have and I missed it I apologise. What exactly do you believe/disbelieve when it comes to Davids claims?

You seem like quite a logical person so I find it hard that you would take seriously somebody of Davids nature.

Maybe you are just sticking up for the underdog but I have never once seen or heard anything from Wilcock that is credible or can be proven. He uses vague sources and 'contacts' that never reveal themselves or provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims.

Originally posted by LiveForever8

I have never once seen or heard anything from Wilcock that is credible or can be proven. He uses vague sources and 'contacts' that never reveal themselves or provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims.

By your quote that I posted I can tell you have not seen or read ANY of Davids work.....you should know all the facts before you voice your opinion....

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Well it's nice to see you have a sense of humour. Unfortunately I have to side with the 'ATS mob' on this topic. It seems that so far you have argued over mere semantics and not actually given you viewpoint on David. If you have and I missed it I apologise. What exactly do you believe/disbelieve when it comes to Davids claims?

You seem like quite a logical person so I find it hard that you would take seriously somebody of Davids nature.

Maybe you are just sticking up for the underdog but I have never once seen or heard anything from Wilcock that is credible or can be proven. He uses vague sources and 'contacts' that never reveal themselves or provide sufficient evidence to back up their claims.

Well, Arr Kid,

It is all about language. David said very specific things, using specific words, and those words simply don't allow for the interpretations people are trying to force on them in order to accuse him, that's why people are so reluctant to post actual quotes. They prefer their skewed interpretations of what he supposedly meant which are exploded as soon as you show his actual words, in context. So, yes, I'm arguing words, because that's the evidence we're dealing with.

My viewpoint on David? I think he appears to be a nice guy, sincere, doing what he loves. I think he's extremely positive and optimistic, which has value in itself and which is often underestimated, IMO. He has some very interesting things to say. He has a 'spiritual' perspective which I do find reasonable and credible, even scientifically (science has entered some very strange territory recently, with Physicists sounding ever more like Non-dual Buddhists or Advaitins these days). All aspects of this perspective can't all be proven, although much of it is pretty well evidenced and argued, IMO, but then people don't have to believe it, just consider it. (I don't 'believe' or 'disbelieve', I'm open minded and don't feel the need to reach a definite conclusion one way or the other)

I'm not sure what you mean by his 'claims'. Do you mean this C2C interview regarding disclosure? There is evidence that he was given the info he reported in that interview by a source, whereas there is no evidence he "made it up". He has since named the source, after others did so and consequently he became convinced this disclosure would not occur as per the timetable he was given - so it's not vague - but he didn't do so beforehand, for obvious reasons. So I have no reason to doubt his claim that he was simply reporting what his source said, and that he thought it quite possible that it could occur.



[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by rainfall


Wow, what an ignorant and speculative post, well done

Could you please provide some of his 'work' which reveals these so called facts?

reply to post by Malcram


If one represents a source, one answers for that source. It happens with journalists, it happens with presidents, it happens with bosses, it happens with authorities.

It happens with anyone.

If you show your face out to the world DEFENDING a source that said that disclosure is about to happen, you're associated with that source, thus, as wrong.

What lies?

Listen, a source informed me that Obama will tell all of us tomorrow that he is a homosexual, and that he enjoys very much of dancing "I'm a lollipop" with a banana suit on.

*Flashforward to tomorrow*

Oops. Nothing happened, Obama didn't say anything.

Well, I guess it was a lie.


See how hard it is to understand?

While that could be true, you have no proof, so this really just stems from cynicism.

And when are you going to understand that you can't prove Wilcock good will either?

Considering all factors, he has more lies and mistakes in his portfolio than good things.

To me, and to many, that means that he has no credibility.

If he just said something like "there are rumors about a possible disclosure, and there are drafts about a plan to do a 2 hour event in TV to make people aware of alien life", it would be A LOT different.

David Wilcock would just be a guy with a good imagination, or reasonably good sources, with some good scenarios.

But he didn't do that. He said (that is all over C2C) that a source (that he can't reveal) told him, that the Obama administration was putting in action a plan to do a 2 hour tv event, and that disclosure would happen all over the world, and he makes the whole statements look as it is something SURE TO HAPPEN.

He talks, and gives you the idea that it's going to happen, either on 27th of November, and when that fails, the source now says its before the end of 2009, and NOTHING HAPPENS.

And now, Wilcock doesn't digest all that, saying "I was wrong, I made a mistake, I trusted the wrong sources".

No, he shuts up a few weeks, so that people forget about that crap, and now he goes on to make profit from 2012.

Well, at least with 2012 he has 2 years to make profit from it, right?

I mean, if you don't share my view of a fraud, and someone passing for something that he isn't, fine. It's your call.

To me, he is a fraud, he keeps fooling people with vague words and passive suggestions, claiming to have a lot of knowledge and secret sources about different subjects, without, at the same time (like you so well have been pointing out) saying anything clear, making all the connections with him, and at the same time, not making any connection at all.


If people can't see this pattern of behavior, too bad. I'm not the one who is going to feel bad when the expectations put forward by him fail AGAIN.


And like many others have already said: I would LOVE to be wrong about him. But for now, things are:

Wilcock 0 - 2 Reality.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by rainfall

 

Wow, what an ignorant and speculative post, well done

Could you please provide some of his 'work' which reveals these so called facts?

Promise me you'll watch the whole thing ....and take notes...you might learn something...

divinecosmos.com...

reply to post by rainfall


I have seen that video before, along with all of his contributions to Project Camelot and his Coast To Coast appearances.

I would love to spend the next 40 minutes coming up with my summary of this and his other 'works', but it's late here and I need my beauty sleep. So instead I will cheat by copying and pasting a strangers summary of it from the wonderful world wide web However, I agree fully with all of the following and would like your response to it if possible.

His grasp of logic is so terrible, his fundamental research skills are nonexistent, and his willingness to draw ridiculous overarching conclusions from tiny, specific amounts of (often unverifiable or simply flat-out incorrect) 'evidence ' all conspire towards an unmistakable conclusion: David Wilcock is just not worth the time it would take to explain every single mistake he makes. Instead, we can tell him that his very thought processes themselves, the very way he evaluates evidence and arguments, is completely broken.

"The 2012 Enigma" is a wandering, meandering, unfocused whirligig complete guided tour through every single piece of bunkum, flim-flammery, hocus-pocus, nonsense, fluff, prattle, bull#, and chicanery that exists in the established canon of 2012 apocalypticism. We get psychics. We get reincarnation. We get energy crystals. We get quantum this-and-that. Aliens. Ancient Mayans. Wormholes. Screenshots from the movie "Contact." It's all there. But if you asked me what "The 2012 Enigma" was about exactly, I wouldn't be able to tell you, even though I've watched it a dozen times right now. It's just an aimless rant that tries to squeeze as much disconnected nonsense into a semicoherent narrative as possible.

And if you asked me about Wilcock himself...

There are certain modes of behavior or tendencies that people have that should make us suspicious straight from the outset. People who routinely make casual errors that could be corrected by even token amounts of research typically are people who have not done the research and who have no interest in doing the research. People who make sweeping generalizations about complicated topics in physics or mathematics (but who do not even once get into specific details about those topics) are probably trying to cover up the fact that they don't know what they're talking about; they speak quickly and casually to make it seem like what they're saying is totally obvious and very simple, even if it is total crap. People who habitually cite crappy, discredited research without explaining why are people who are ideologically committed to an "everything we know is wrong" mentality. They want you to believe without question that "the Establishment," meaning usually accepted solid science, is hiding something serious from you and that only the crank in question has The Truth.

nibiruchallenge.blogspot.com...

Please read the rest. You may not like it but I believe that it is a very fair and logical assessment of Davids ideas and beliefs.