David Wilcock: New Blog And Radio Interview

Originally posted by Tifozi

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.

Really? So, all those news agencies who reported the Governments claim that there was cast iron evidence for WMDs in Iraq are wholly discredited for reporting what they were told? No. Journalists often report what their sources have told them and make it clear that they are simply reporting something from sources they find credible. That doesn't mean that they are to be vilified, called liars and worse, or that the reports should be later misrepresented as their words.

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 do you mean 'defend'? He said that he found these sources credible, so that this event was quite possible, as far as he was concerned, and this episode doesn't actually prove that they were not credible - if one is reasonable, which you are not.

For instance, let's say for the sake of argument that the source is credible and the plan was real. Plans change, for various reasons. The actual disclosure date was leaked beforehand - not by Wilcock - and he said that when this happened, he thought it would stall the plan for disclosure. Perhaps the sources were credible - as in honest - but they were lied to? There are many possible reasons why this didn't happen in which the source is still 'credible'. But people like you ignore reason and focus straight in on the one negative explanation, as if it were the only possible explanation, because your goal is not to be reasonable, but to condemn.

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?

LOL Did your source actually tell you that? If so, you weren't lying, but honestly reporting what your source said. You accused Wilcock of lying, but if his source told him that - and there is evidence that he did - then Wilcock was not lying, and you are wrong to accuse him. You have no evidence whatsoever that David was lying. What is so hard to understand about that?

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

Since the beginning? I haven't tried to prove that. His motivations are an unknown. But we do know there is evidence he was telling the truth about his source, so we have no evidence to conclude he was lying.

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

Prove it. And whatever "good things" he brings, you don't appreciate. Others do.

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.

He didn't say very much more than that, in substance, but seeing as it was an interview, he spoke at length. Why shouldn't he inform people of what he was told?

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.

See the vital phrase there is "that a source told him". (He has since revealed the source. Not beforehand, for obvious reasons - such as it blowing the whole thing) But he absolutely did not say or imply that is was "SURE TO HAPPEN", that is your fabrication. He said "If this occurs....", and when asked if he thought it could happen he replied "Well, I'm not going to stake my reputation on it", but that he thought it certainly could. You are trying to stake his reputation on it, in contradiction of what he actually said.

To me, he is a fraud, he keeps fooling people with vague words and passive suggestions

At least stick to the same story. Which is it? He makes explicit statements indicating it's "SURE TO HAPPEN", or uses "vague words and passive suggestions". Make up your mind.

And like many others have already said: I would LOVE to be wrong about him.

Seeing as you have spent so much energy adding to and twisting his words, I doubt that very much. You seem fairly committed to frantically bashing your self-made Wilcock strawman.


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by rainfall

 

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.

I'm disappointed with you LiveForever8.....You copied and pasted a 'nibiru blog' site to speak for you.......

Watch the video when you have time and really scrutinize it......

Then tell me what was not fact...you can U2U me if you want....I won't hold a grudge...

reply to post by Malcram

Really? (...) words.

So when Bush said "My sources tell me that Iraq has WMD's, we are going to war".

Who do people start not to respect? His sources?

Right...

Again. Semantics.

What do you mean 'defend'? He said that he found these sources credible, so that this event was quite possible, as far as he was concerned, and this episode doesn't actually prove that they were not credible - if one is reasonable, which you are not.

Semantics.

For instance, let's say for the sake of argument that the source is credible and the plan was real. Plans change, for various reasons. The actual disclosure date was leaked beforehand - not by Wilcock - and he said that when this happened, he thought it would stall the plan for disclosure. Perhaps the sources were credible - as in honest - but they were lied to? There are many possible reasons why this didn't happen in which the source is still 'credible'. But people like you ignore reason and focus straight in on the one negative explanation, as if it were the only possible explanation, because your goal is not to be reasonable, but to condemn.

Oh no!

You see, what you do, FROM YOUR PERSONAL point of view (that you have been so hard to put forward as the real one) is to believe that the source is real and that Wilcock is fair and got his sources wrong.

While from my experience, and many others, this pattern of behavior shows that he made up those sources, and there was no plan AT ALL.

He is no different from past hoaxers and charlatans.


A guy comes from nowhere, saying "hey, I have sources that tell me disclosure is about to happen. BTW, I have new books about the subject, and I give lectures which you must buy the ticket".

Not once, but TWICE the guy is completely wrong, and took profit from peoples beliefs.

That is in what I base my opinion. PERIOD.

If you don't like it, too bad.

Did your source actually tell you that? If so, you weren't lying, but honestly reporting what your source said. You accused Wilcock of lying, but if his source told him that - and there is evidence that he did - then Wilcock was not lying, and you are wrong to accuse him. You have no evidence whatsoever that David was lying. What is so hard to understand about that?

No, it didn't. I made it up. See how easy it is? Amazing.

Do you have any proof that I lied, other than the above sentence? No! So untill tomorrow, you will have to trust my word (according to your point of view), and when tomorrow I'm proven wrong, I'll just make up another excuse, and get my butt out of the equation, and people start looking like morons, because they believe in my comments.

That's what Wilcock did.

And NOTHING about his behavior shows a honest person. NOTHING.

After he got caught lying(or wrong "information", according to you), he kept quiet for more than a month (funny how that falls close to the end of 2009) and NOW he returns with a TOTALLY different subject (2012), without giving any VALID explanation to what happened to his sources, or his 2 hour tv show, or anything else for that matter.

If the source told him that, HE IS AN IDIOT. If the sources didn't told him that, HE IS A LIAR.

Either way, he is not very credible.

But we do know there is evidence he was telling the truth about his source, so we have no evidence to conclude he was lying.

Oh really? Which evidence?

Prove it. And whatever "good things" he brings, you don't appreciate. Others do.

Prove it? Again...?

See the vital phrase there is "that a source told him". (He has since revealed the source. Not beforehand, for obvious reasons - such as it blowing the whole thing) But he absolutely did not say or imply that is was "SURE TO HAPPEN", that is your fabrication. He said "If this occurs....", and when asked if he thought it could happen he replied "Well, I'm not going to stake my reputation on it", but that he thought it certainly could. You are trying to stake his reputation on it, in contradiction of what he actually said.

Same old blah blah blah about semantics.

Get over it.

At least stick to the same story. Which is it? He makes explicit statements indicating it's "SURE TO HAPPEN", or uses "vague words and passive suggestions". Make up your mind.

Don't change the meaning of what I said. That is just wrong and stupid. It's playing word games to prove your point.

Everyone understood what I said, you're the only one pretending to be a English teacher.

Seeing as you have spent so much energy adding to and twisting his words, I doubt that very much. You seem fairly committed to frantically bashing your self-made Wilcock strawman.

Cry me a river.

The world didn't change when he said it was going to change, twice, in recent times.

That says all.

[edit on 7/2/10 by Tifozi]

reply to post by Tifozi


Tifozi...why are you so negative......can't you even think of something positive....?.......

A lot of people get out of their comfort zone when forced to imagine something positive.....

I guess you're just more comfortable staying miserable and fearful in your little box...

Thanks for the link rainfall!

I read this yesterday, the whole article, and it was quite a good read. I was going to post it, but had to go on a ski-trip, so I wasn't going to have the time to take in all the instant flaming and bashing that I knew would inevitably come.

I know it's terrible seeing all the fighting and bickering/trolling going on, but remember that even if 1 person finds the info to have some meaning to them, then it is 100% worth it.

Once again, people refuse to read the information, and instead just zoom in on any thread that has his name in it and immediately start bashing him, and anyone who even gives the slightest hint that they respect anything he says.

It's totally ok to disagree with him, but honestly, is the bashing necessary? If I don't like an article, or information source (*cough* Alex Jones *cough*), I never post on a thread about him to say I think he is a total idiot- I just don't post, or if I have to, give my 2 cents and leave.

Most of the Wilcock info in the article was just re-hashing a lot of the exact same stuff he has said over the last few months, i.e. "disclosure", "Rockefeller Faction", "we're in for one hell of a ride", ect.

I found his channeled section to be absolutely amazing; whether or not this was him or some light spirit, the message was incredibly positive and full of love, which is all the credibility it needs to gain my attention and respect.

I really do think that something big is going to happen in the next few months- there is a lot of tension building in the middle east, as well as in the US, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next big world event becomes the tipping point.

Hopefully I will live through it all

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by Malcram

See the vital phrase there is "that a source told him". (He has since revealed the source. Not beforehand, for obvious reasons - such as it blowing the whole thing) But he absolutely did not say or imply that is was "SURE TO HAPPEN", that is your fabrication. He said "If this occurs....", and when asked if he thought it could happen he replied "Well, I'm not going to stake my reputation on it", but that he thought it certainly could. You are trying to stake his reputation on it, in contradiction of what he actually said.

Same old blah blah blah about semantics.

Get over it.

Now you're not even responding to what Malcram is saying, blah blah blah is not sufficient.

If David actually said "Well, I'm not going to stake my reputation on it" then I don't see how you can argue with that.

Can you confirm that he said that Malcram?

reply to post by TheLaughingGod


oh snap, might be a checkmate.

Originally posted by Tifozi

So when Bush said "My sources tell me that Iraq has WMD's, we are going to war".

Who do people start not to respect? His sources?

LOL I don't think Bush lost respect for 'trusting' sources he thought were credible, so it's hardly an appropriate example.

Oh no! You see, what you do, FROM YOUR PERSONAL point of view (that you have been so hard to put forward as the real one) is to believe that the source is real and that Wilcock is fair and got his sources wrong. While from my experience, and many others, this pattern of behavior shows that he made up those sources, and there was no plan AT ALL.

I can prove that the source is real, which is to say that I can prove that your claim he has no sources and therefore must have made it up is based on ignorance and your own malice. Ask me how, if you are interested in the facts.

He is no different from past hoaxers and charlatans.

In your opinion. Prove it.

Not once, but TWICE the guy is completely wrong, and took profit from peoples beliefs.

I'm still waiting for you to substantiate this claim of multiple lies. And how does he "profit from peoples beliefs", in relation to this issue? You invoke the idea of a fraudster out to make money but can you demonstrate that he actually made any money off this talk of possible disclosure?

That is in what I base my opinion. PERIOD.

Fine, that's your opinion, but don't pretend it's factual.

No, it didn't. I made it up. See how easy it is? Amazing.

But can you prove that Wilcock made it up? Nope. But I can give evidence that a source told him. Ask me how, if you're interested in the facts.

After he got caught lying(or wrong "information", according to you)

You have no evidence he lied.

...he kept quiet for more than a month (funny how that falls close to the end of 2009) and NOW he returns with a TOTALLY different subject (2012), without giving any VALID explanation to what happened to his sources, or his 2 hour tv show, or anything else for that matter.

Are you always this monumentally misinformed and yet so arrogant in your ignorance?

divinecosmos.com...

If the source told him that, HE IS AN IDIOT. If the sources didn't told him that, HE IS A LIAR.

So, he's a liar, or he might be a liar - make your mind up. And why should he be an idiot for considering what his sources said to be a possibility?

Either way, he is not very credible.

Well seeing as you are changing your repeated claim that Wilcock is definitely a liar, to "if...he is a liar" then I don't think you're very credible either.

Oh really? Which evidence?

Ah, finally you're asking questions which might dispel your ignorance! Maybe you should have done that a dozen posts ago, before making all sorts of false accusations without knowing or caring what you were talking about.

To quote Wilcock:

"Dr. Peterson's three insider sources were told the Obama administration had planned a formal Disclosure -- in a two-hour television special -- for November 27, 2009. " - divinecosmos.com...

"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, and would come from the White House, by Obama himself, as a two-hour television address aired around the world."

"Bill and Kerry from Project Camelot, who were with me when we all heard this, both leaked the date -- whereas I maintained the secret until after it came and went. I was almost certain that giving away the secret date ensured it wouldn't -- nay, couldn't -- have happened on that particular day." - divinecosmos.com...

So, he names the source, Peterson. Peterson is real. We know he's real because he is on camera in several lengthy video interviews with Wilcock. We know he gave this information to Wilcock because Bill and Kerry of Camelot also had the date, that Peterson gave them, which they leaked publicly. And finally we know that Wilcock got this information from his source, Peterson, because he was sitting no more than three feet from him when he gave it, on video, as can be seen from the Camelot summary of the interview, which includes the following text, dated June 2009:

"Among the many things Dr Peterson spoke about at length was...that Obama is planning to disclose the reality of ET contact by the end of the year"

projectcamelot.org...

Case closed. Categorical proof that:

1. Wilcock had a source - he was not lying, not making it up, as you falsely claimed.

2. Proof that this source specifically gave him this information regarding disclosure.

You were wrong. You accuse falsely and aren't interested in the facts.

So who is the fraud?

Now, I imagine you'll simply ignore that your false accusations have been demolished and, switch issues, moving on to some other supposed crime of Wilcock's rather than admitting you were repeatedly wrong in your slander.

Or are you bigger than that?


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by rainfall

Originally posted by Tifozi

Really..?....can you provide links to all his crap that has been debunked..?....

actually I dont think a link is required. the guy said all this crap about his so called insiders, and his so called whistle blowers and went on about how lucky he is to be alive for knowing what he allegedly knows. Well he is correct. He is very lucky I dont know where he lives or*Snip*. He is a fraud and if you're too blind to look at some of the BS predictions he made.. none of which came true mind you.. then you are no better than the bored house wives looking into new age bullocks for something to do that still believe this idiot and the rest of his *Snip*

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/7/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by Monts
Thanks for the link rainfall!

I really do think that something big is going to happen in the next few months- there is a lot of tension building in the middle east, as well as in the US, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next big world event becomes the tipping point.

Hopefully I will live through it all

Hi friend.....

I listened to the radio show about 5 times......loved it.....can't get enough positive messages....

I also think something 'big' is about to happen.....I can 'feel' it.....and, yes my friend....we are all going to live through it....

reply to post by stanlee


Troll much?

you clearly don't read the posts in a thread before posting..

your just silly

reply to post by rainfall


Seriously, dude, don't even try to judge me. You're out of your league.


Since I was a kid, I love to look up and wonder what is up there. If there are aliens, if there are other civilizations, if there is another whole Universe besides ours, and so on.

I marvel to the possibilities about our Universe, life on Earth, life outside Earth... The theories, possibilities and plausible scenarios are endless.

And my comfort zone is as abroad as the Universe itself.


Having said that, I do have a brain.

And that brain of mine, is able to distinguish a obvious hoax from a amazing UFO picture.

Is also able to separate a massive, world-wide, plausible conspiracy theory...from some theory posted by a newbie here on the forum, with all sorts of failures in it.

You see, I'm a natural born believer, but that doesn't mean I run around Ufology with my mouth open, trying to swallow anything that any idiot tries to shove down my believers throat.

When I'm faced with something, I stop, and I think. And I question... And that's why many people actually see me as a skeptic, which I'm not.

To me, there are some fields in ufology that are simply...let's call things by their name, plain stupid.

But people enjoy them, and they can actually contribute to ufology indirectly. Imagine that something happens on the Moon, maybe they will be the first to tell it.

And that's fine...

ATS is a mixture of content, and you have to choose yourself what you want to consider or not.

But, there is a certain sense of union between the community.

I might not believe in what you believe, or choose your theory... But I respect it, so as you should respect mine.

BUT, there is a thing that hurts everyone around ufology, that bothers all of us, and that keeps bringing what we "love" down to the eyes of the world.

Hoaxes.

Now, in this, everyone is together, we all hate them.

From that, you try to understand what is going on in here.

There are a certain group of people who try to profit from Ufology. Not the "science" ("'s whether you consider it a science or not) itself, but the people who believe in it, or at least, are a part of it.

Now, we hear anyone that wants to speak. We watch every piece of evidence, and we stack up our "best off".

By that, it means that in the past, we actually heard what David Wilcock had to say. And may I had, he was actually highly considered in ufology. A bit "out there", but a good person.

THEN, he opened his mouth too much. He was no longer a theorizer among the others, he was starting to talk about disclosure.

In the first pieces out, there wasn't much. Things that any of us can believe, relate to, or even think of...

...but then the "sources" come in, and Wilcock gives a date.

The first mistake in the charlatans ROE. You never give a date, because you might get it wrong.

And guess what, he gave a date, he made the profit he could until then, and nothing happened. (Like it has happened through all out ufology history...like the "end of March" thing that happened in 2009)

But everyone makes mistakes, and everyone deserves a second chance.

So now what does Wilcock do? He gives ANOTHER disclosure date. Same mistake, after being warned that doesn't work in the real world.

But some people still join the boat, still go after the "end of the year" thing. Fine.

The end of the year passes, and Wilcock shuts up, with his pockets full.

You would think that it would be the last time you would hear from him, at least in recent times... And it was correct.

David stopped posting for about a month... You know, to let the obvious people forget about the two huge mistakes he made.

And now he is back.

Guess what, he isn't talking about disclosure, he isn't talking about what happened with his "secure" sources. He doesn't talk about what the government did or not do...

Hell, if I would believe in him, I would be SCARED. First I believe in this guy, he tells me not to fear, but to be ready for the unity and disclosure...and when that doesn't happen, and my expectations fall to the ground, he doesn't talk!

So here I am, trying to follow my "favorite positive thinker", and he appears, a month later, talking about the 2012.

How does that work for you?


How can you give credit to someone that manipulates this much his own beliefs, let alone yours?


His contribution is worthless to Ufology, and I'm glad that he is falling to oblivion.

eh then again. who am I to judge people for needing something to believe. IF this wilcock guy does it for you then... ok. IM not even going to crack a blissfully blind joke. if this guy and his.... organisation, fill you with poisitive energy, and the will power to quit smoking or meth, or whatever, cool. I hope he doesnt let you down.
cheers
Stan

reply to post by stanlee


It's not 'crap' about his source, I just demonstrated that.

It was the C2C host who made the comments about his life being in danger and being lucky to be alive.

Care to mention some of these unspecified 'predictions' you speak of?

And you don't think evidence is required to justify your accusations? Why don't you just blurt out "I hate Wilcock!" (you came pretty close there, I admit), rather than make accusations you can't back up.

And threats to Wilcock? Really?



[edit on 7-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Dave157
reply to post by stanlee

 

your just silly

oh darn... poop.. Im silly.. doesnt alter the fact that what I said is true but again.. read up mate

reply to post by Malcram


no dude. that was george noory on the whole "Wilcock on am c2c" interviewing David Wilcock himself who even said "I cannot tell you the exact date this is going to happen because it could put me in danger, but it will be before christmas this year" just last year. thats what started this while thing

reply to post by Malcram


Obviously Joe the billionare was an exceptionally simplistic example, the ultimate point was someone with power or pull to accomplish furthering the field moreso than the local grunts of the field...be it a millionare, politician, etc...someone in a position that can do the things most of us would love to do if we had the money.

Silence meaning his "authority" simply agreed upon that he is pure speculation for a religion not associated with the attempted science behind ufology.

the field needs to seriously push forward credible people with a careful and methodological approach to the field and put the "ET is coming with fruit baskets for everyone" types to the back of the bus with labels on them with the "listener beware, not real science, just some guys vision"

again, love what he says, but I see there is as much reality in his discussions as any episode of Dr. Who.

reply to post by Malcram


I'll give you 3 characters.


C2C.


EDIT

It was the C2C host who made the comments about his life being in danger and being lucky to be alive.

AHAHA! I rest my case.

[edit on 7/2/10 by Tifozi]

hang on there malcram.. im going to get the entire bloody interview for your viewing pleasure.. you would think with as many people who have just said the same thing.. something might click but... i guess not.. hang on

Originally posted by stanlee
hang on there malcram.. im going to get the entire bloody interview for your viewing pleasure.. you would think with as many people who have just said the same thing.. something might click but... i guess not.. hang on

It's a waste of time.

I posted the snip from the interview on C2C some pages ago, and he said "Oh, I've heard that interview several times, and debated it".

Well, it appears that he debated it too much to get it wrong.

It IS David Wilcock who talks about his life being in danger.