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.

 

David Wilcock Admits Fraud to William Henry !!

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tatlung

Originally posted by Gab1159

A lot of people here make the mistake to disbelieve someone when he gets wrong on something. People put too much emphasis on the messenger, they should focus on the message. His latest article is nothing but a pure gem, and since he wrote on that 1.2T dollar bond fraud, we've seen 21T in bonds being seized, adding for a total of 22.2T. Let's just say he hit the nail on this one ok?
edit on 26-2-2012 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)


What that has to do with William Henry calling David Wilcock out for the fraud and plagiarizer he is, I have no idea.


I'm agreeing with the fact that Wilcock may take other people's work without giving them much credit, but that it doesn't kill his message. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159

A lot of people here make the mistake to disbelieve someone when he gets wrong on something. People put too much emphasis on the messenger, they should focus on the message. His latest article is nothing but a pure gem, and since he wrote on that 1.2T dollar bond fraud, we've seen 21T in bonds being seized, adding for a total of 22.2T. Let's just say he hit the nail on this one ok?
edit on 26-2-2012 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by Tatlung

What that has to do with William Henry calling David Wilcock out for the fraud and plagiarizer he is, I have no idea.



Originally posted by Gab1159

I'm agreeing with the fact that Wilcock may take other people's work without giving them much credit, but that it doesn't kill his message. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.


Ok.

Forgetting Wilcock's numerous prophecies and declarations that never came true, he has gotten slightly better at alluding to the fact that he compiles and regurgitates a tonne of other peeps copyrighted material. Without permission. Making Wilcockian declarations from them and often misrepresenting (partly and wholly) the original author's positions.

He rides this razor thin line which can be broadly and bizarrely interpreted by Wilcock faithful that he adequately credits the authors and that his (mis)interpretations are either human error or his opinion. Those who are not among the Deluded see it for what it is. Fraud.

There seriously is not a middle ground here unless you are new to Wilcock and have not ferreted out the data. The Faithfully Deluded will remain so, the middlers, and the rest who see him for exactly what he is.

Not saying you where you fall in this separation btw.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tatlung

Originally posted by Gab1159

A lot of people here make the mistake to disbelieve someone when he gets wrong on something. People put too much emphasis on the messenger, they should focus on the message. His latest article is nothing but a pure gem, and since he wrote on that 1.2T dollar bond fraud, we've seen 21T in bonds being seized, adding for a total of 22.2T. Let's just say he hit the nail on this one ok?
edit on 26-2-2012 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)



Originally posted by Tatlung

What that has to do with William Henry calling David Wilcock out for the fraud and plagiarizer he is, I have no idea.



Originally posted by Gab1159

I'm agreeing with the fact that Wilcock may take other people's work without giving them much credit, but that it doesn't kill his message. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.


Ok.

Forgetting Wilcock's numerous prophecies and declarations that never came true, he has gotten slightly better at alluding to the fact that he compiles and regurgitates a tonne of other peeps copyrighted material. Without permission. Making Wilcockian declarations from them and often misrepresenting (partly and wholly) the original author's positions.

He rides this razor thin line which can be broadly and bizarrely interpreted by Wilcock faithful that he adequately credits the authors and that his (mis)interpretations are either human error or his opinion. Those who are not among the Deluded see it for what it is. Fraud.

There seriously is not a middle ground here unless you are new to Wilcock and have not ferreted out the data. The Faithfully Deluded will remain so, the middlers, and the rest who see him for exactly what he is.

Not saying you where you fall in this separation btw.



Yeah I understand what you're saying. I used to take everything he would say for fact when I was younger, but you know, I grew up and realized he's just another "guru", in a way.

But I still read him, because sometimes he puts out information that I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. He has always said he was a researcher and was taking material from other people in order to find the "bigger picture". There are two things that David does:

1) Publish free material
2) Sell material

I personally have no problem with using other people's work when you don't intend to sell your product. If it is only an idea you are trying to spread, I see nothing wrong, though as a researcher I would like to get credits for my work. Maybe it is error human, as some people say, but we've got to admit David has got a big ego, so I'm not surprised he doesn't always give credits to people.

But I don't pay much attention to credits anymore, after all, all I want is information. I did lost interest in David a couple of months ago, he was too out there and it seemed like his credibility was falling. It is only not a long time ago that he got interesting once again. As I said, I give him a lot of credits for his latest article, it shows me that he's most probably more than "just a fraud", as it might be one of the best eye opener I've ever read.

That being said, I have no problems seeing how people can doubt David's credibility, I do too, but I don't think he's a hoaxer/fraudster of any sort. Once again, I might be wrong, but what is transpiring in the world right now fits hand in hand with his most recent work, so I'm still giving him a chance.

I don't stand on any side of the razor. Tomorrow I may learn something totally disgusting on David and totally change my view on him. That's what I'm trying to do, keep an open mind on everything, and yes, sometimes it sucks when you realize the people you trusted or gave credits too are just fraudsters or disinfo agents.

Though they say that's the price of truth????

EDIT: I may have gone off-topic a bit, so let me put emphasis on this: I wish David would stop stealing other people work without giving them credits for. I am not defending this behavior.
edit on 26-2-2012 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159

Yeah I understand what you're saying. I used to take everything he would say for fact when I was younger, but you know, I grew up and realized he's just another "guru", in a way.

But I still read him, because sometimes he puts out information that I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. He has always said he was a researcher and was taking material from other people in order to find the "bigger picture". There are two things that David does:

1) Publish free material
2) Sell material


Agreed.


I personally have no problem with using other people's work when you don't intend to sell your product. If it is only an idea you are trying to spread, I see nothing wrong, though as a researcher I would like to get credits for my work. Maybe it is error human, as some people say, but we've got to admit David has got a big ego, so I'm not surprised he doesn't always give credits to people.


I agree his ego matched equally with his greed = this serious lack of effort on Wilcock's part to not properly, or at all, give credit is where credit is due.

Which doesn't imo make it any less a fraud and a plagiarism.


But I don't pay much attention to credits anymore, after all, all I want is information. I did lose interest in David a couple of months ago, he was too out there and it seemed like his credibility was falling. It is only not a long time ago that he got interesting once again. As I said, I give him a lot of credits for his latest article, it shows me that he's most probably more than "just a fraud", as it might be one of the best eye opener I've ever read.

That being said, I have no problems seeing how people can doubt David's credibility, I do too, but I don't think he's a hoaxer/fraudster of any sort. Once again, I might be wrong, but what is transpiring in the world right now fits hand in hand with his most recent work, so I'm still giving him a chance.


How people take the shortcomings of a person and the evidence that mounts against Wilcock is up to each person. You know how I feel.


I don't stand on any side of the razor. Tomorrow I may learn something totally disgusting on David and totally change my view on him. That's what I'm trying to do, keep an open mind on everything, and yes, sometimes it sucks when you realize the people you trusted or gave credits too are just fraudsters or disinfo agents.

Though they say that's the price of truth????

EDIT: I may have gone off-topic a bit, so let me put emphasis on this: I wish David would stop stealing other people work without giving them credits for. I am not defending this behavior.
edit on 26-2-2012 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)


Time will tell but my bet is that he has hit a formula that works for him and he will be pressing that formula for whatever money it can make him.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Great thread.

Fraud Slain.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Perhaps people who dislike one author over another should explain why the ones they don't support are greed oriented. Do they exclude their own lists of supported writers as being non money driven but subject driven? Do they think others who are tireless and passionate about topics they don't enjoy, but even worse, would wish to deprive others of enjoying, to automatically be greed oriented and their passion faked?

Then they have wasted their skills, because they're wonderful actors and would have made an even greater fortune in Hollywood!

I don't agree with a monetary system or any form of pyramids, but when you are living in this one. Are you suggesting that authors that write books, should not expect recompense? Are you suggesting that in this world that takes money to live, that there should not writers, musicians, artists, or is it something else you are saying?

Perhaps your saying, only authors that write things you believe in, and personally endorse have a right an income, and all the rest are just greedy wanna be's.

I mean, clarify what you mean by greed!

Because I like his research and work. I'm fairly certain that many of the authors these anti David folk support are ones I would never purchase.

Do you honestly think that authors should not self promote?

Or perhaps they should spend their life interested in certain subjects, but not get paid for anything that interests them but be forced to write something they're not interested in, to earn money from that, because if they're passionate about the subject then shame on them for creating a career that brings them satisfaction?

I mean really think deeply about what you just said, because it makes ZERO SENSE.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FraudSlayer
 


Sorry, I'm on my first cup of coffee and was reading the posts not looking deeply at the names. I'm going to make the post not address anyone, which is usually best for not getting too heated anyway, but usually forget on my first couple cups of coffee. But this is a topic that is very opinionated and people need to define they think fraud and greed mean. The news media, our leaders and those knowingly suppressing truth stand in both those categories from the perspective of many.
edit on 29-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheExopolitician
 


"Maugans closed the interview with a comment to William Henry that "Gentlemen, that was certainly needed, boy!" in relation to the expositionary nature of the interview and, one can conclude, the concrete evidence, and admission, of the David Wilcock fraud-plagiarism-copyright violations."

David Wilcock is a known fraud to many, but the saying is true that a new sucker is born every minute and for Wilcock, it's a numbers game

Materialistic and egotistical, Wilcock is out for fame and profit

David Fraudcock



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I thought Wilcock admitted to all his work belonging to others?
Is not most of our research belonging to someone else? S&F for the title though, I really don't care for David and his ego.



Wilcock's ego is out of control

David Wilcock is a charlatan, Fraud, and a LIAR

Edgar Cayce's family should slap him with a galactic lawsuit!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159

Originally posted by Tatlung

Originally posted by Gab1159

A lot of people here make the mistake to disbelieve someone when he gets wrong on something. People put too much emphasis on the messenger, they should focus on the message. His latest article is nothing but a pure gem, and since he wrote on that 1.2T dollar bond fraud, we've seen 21T in bonds being seized, adding for a total of 22.2T. Let's just say he hit the nail on this one ok?
edit on 26-2-2012 by Gab1159 because: (no reason given)


What that has to do with William Henry calling David Wilcock out for the fraud and plagiarizer he is, I have no idea.


I'm agreeing with the fact that Wilcock may take other people's work without giving them much credit.


of course you agree, it is objective reality

it is fact, Wilcock is FRAUD



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by reaxi0n

Originally posted by RainbowsnUnicorns

Originally posted by reaxi0n

Well, you are a new ager. What else should I expect?
He believes he channels 'Ra'...yes it is crap.


I have been amongst David when Ra has co9me forth like a Guiding Love-Light and poured through David's Goodness to be heard within and without. To emanate like raind froma cloudless sky which enriches the deserts within us.

Lean on him, lean on me. Make your goals achievable in a reasonable timeframe, so start off with ‘baby steps like a child taking to the teat Time One.


Do you speak like this in real life?


this is like some sort of cult



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Looking at this from an occultist point of view...... I find it quite funny that people put so much faith and trust ina so called new age guru. Why do you not study for yourself and come to your own conclusions about spirituality and the universe in general. Hell you might suprise yourselves!!! Channeling RA?! Heh. Thats a new one to me. Then again just because a spirit says IM RA. Doesnt mean its true. Spirits lie and cheat just like people do. If he is being truthful then he could be talking to anything. Even his own imagination.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join