Originally posted by The_Seeker
Very much agree. Much like you I wanted to open the way for quite a bit of conversation and research - and when I did this and posted what I had, like
you got told to read the Rules and Regs - and even told "You have been on here for sometime you should know what the rules are now".
From there I had a gutfull and no longer visited his forum.
Unlike other forums - you do NOT have the right to question him at all! He is doing what he tells others not to do - he is not allowing for your free
thinking and right to reply and question.
He does need to get off his high horse and allow other to question his research - this will - as the OP stated, allow for a bit more credibility in
what he is presenting (Maybe)
I do hope he responds as I would like to see what his excuse is for hiding
edit on 11-8-2011 by The_Seeker because: Added last
This is precisely what I was expecting to find with this OP. Other people will naturally find there way here and say, oh, David Wilcock, yeah ... I
was ostracized from his "community" because I questioned his material and the material he aggregates.
So far no supporters have come to his aid. They will, and hopefully they engage.
What will most likely happen is the search engines will index this page, and it will become relevant to those who start to get a weird feeling about
David Wilcock, start to question, and search to see if other people have had the same experiences, they will land here, and they will see him for the
charlatan he has become (or always was, who knows).
This is not intended to be a flame thread.
I just want to make that clear.
If you are going to claim your work as scientific, which he does at every chance he gets
, then you are required to recognize scrutiny. He
simply blocks it out through censorship and moderation. Denying even the most basic forms of peer review - conversation - then you actually cannot be
doing science. Which of course, he isn't doing. He is aggregating data from other people and forcing it into his own story.
It has become painfully obvious why he does not allow intellectual conversation and debate about his work - because he knows it crumbles under
. But that leads me to a point that I've been trying to make for some time:
People like David Wilcock, could have possibly stumbled upon some gems of real merit. Unfortunately they are aggregating these gems from other people
and coercing them into their preconceived notion of the "answer," packaging it, branding it, and selling it. But, if the astute, and the fastidious
examine the gems, and debate, and scrutinize, then maybe they can come to light and bear fruit.
But people like David Wilcock will almost certainly fall to the side once these gems truly are elucidated, because they have so profusely polluted the
But, The_Seeker, he will not respond to this calling. I can guarantee that. Can you imagine? ATS would tear him to shreds ...