David Wilcock

[mountain_jim]

I learned alot about 'fringe science' from David's books. Torsion fields, DNA transferrence, ZPE energy. I finally got an interest in grids and sacred geometry from his works. Certain research and scientists not 'appreciated' by the mainstream were introduced to me through his writings, freely accessible online.

I am sure I will not be paying for his seminars anytime soon, but if/when his latest book and possible movie come out I will be sure and pay for them - he has put a tremendous amount of energy into these projects. I appreciated his info about the pineal gland on his videos - did not realize how often that 'pine cone' appeared in art and sculpture and at the Vatican and such before then.

I enjoy his contributions to Ancient Aliens as well.

[Jonathon]

Posted by Icecold (here)
I appreciate your sentiment Jonathan. But what you are saying is......

Challenging a belief that a human is a god, or the idea that humans are or can become gods, comes from a very deep dark place. LOL

I don't think so. In fact I would think in the sense of rational or generally accepted thought, that the opposite would be true. Don't you think?

JohnBlue:


Well John, I had read that text several times before I'd ever heard of David Wilcock.
But I understand your gratitude. Cheers.

You do know that DW had nothing whatever to do with writing that text? Although you might think he did write it, by the tendency he has to lay claim to it. I have read that he claims to have channelled RA. I wonder what the original author(Carla L. Rueckert - channeller) or the entity RA thinks of that.

Language is far from perfect - we all have our own contexts and interpretations. Probably why it's called 'language arts' as opposed to 'language science' hehe. That is central to the point here. We bring ideas into our own context and once they filter up, they generally morph into our own understanding/misunderstanding - not that of the source.... which is why when you make a judgment/challenge, you are actually challenging your own understanding - not the other way around.

To use examples from you post: "challenging a belief that a human is a god... or may become gods" is full of personal context, ripe for misunderstanding. How you define "belief", "god" and "challenge" is loaded with personal-historical-educational background and likely dissimilar from my own definitions. Challenge, in my mind, means argument - taking a contrary position. That is definitely not what I mean. Belief, in my mind, means without sufficient evidence or reason. God, in my mind, means the infinite source of all that is, in which case you in fact are OF God, evolving toward the perfection of God -- in which case "ye are gods". However, this is not David's idea. This idea transcends space, time and certainly individual belief. It's as old as consciousness. Anyway, based on my definitions and context you are saying "create an argument about something I have no personal evidence for regarding something that is infinite and beyond my understanding". Hehehe... and see, that's probably not exactly how you felt about what you wrote... that's just how I define it from my own space.

David does not lay claim to the LoO - it is, as he states many many times, his philosophical underpinning. My impression is that you are not familiar with his material at all - that you may be going along with what the contrarian 'grape vine' has said. If this is the case, of course you must realize that you simply cannot have a valid opinion until you have thoroughly covered the work. In my opinion, his work is extremely valuable - I have covered all of it myself. Does that mean he is always right? How can he be? We are all of us behind the veil - we cannot know anything. We may get glimpses from time to time, but that's about the extent of it. That's part of the journey.

But to cut to the chase, what I wanted to convey in the above response:
When you have a reaction to something, you are being given a hint. This is a valuable tool. Don't misunderstand and believe it serves to tell you that you are right or wrong about something (for truly there is no 'right' and 'wrong' from a universal perspective). It is a signpost on a path of greater understanding. Delve into that without fear or judgment and see where it leads you. In my own experience, those paths tend to lead to the realization that I am either embracing someone as myself or acting out of the fear of, consciousness of, or memory of separation. Everything seems to be built on that concept alone - unity/harmony/understanding or anything that is NOT that.

Hope that helps to better convey my response. Thanks for the time and consideration Icecold... I really appreciate the opportunity to communicate ideas.

_______________________________________________________________________

@Lee

I definitely appreciate David's perspective. I find that he at least makes a real attempt to research and put pieces together. He helps me broaden my own perspective. In my own opinion, since we are in the process of collecting information, we need to embrace as much of it as possible before we begin to eliminate pieces. We, as a point of fact, do not know much of anything. We're out here doing guess work from the bottom up. The worst thing we can do, IMO, is to start believing we know enough to call someone else outright wrong. If you have a working hypothesis, I say do exactly what David is doing - work on it! If pieces don't fit for now, set them aside until you can confirm whether they work at some later time under a different set of lights. All information is good information as the saying goes - as it either confirms what the truth is or what it is not.

[LeeEllisMusic]

Posted by Jonathon (here)
@Lee

I definitely appreciate David's perspective. I find that he at least makes a real attempt to research and put pieces together. He helps me broaden my own perspective. In my own opinion, since we are in the process of collecting information, we need to embrace as much of it as possible before we begin to eliminate pieces. We, as a point of fact, do not know much of anything. We're out here doing guess work from the bottom up. The worst thing we can do, IMO, is to start believing we know enough to call someone else outright wrong. If you have a working hypothesis, I say do exactly what David is doing - work on it! If pieces don't fit for now, set them aside until you can confirm whether they work at some later time under a different set of lights. All information is good information as the saying goes - as it either confirms what the truth is or what it is not.

Exactly, Jonathon!

I am very interested in seeing what people think of the info on David's latest blog. I don't believe I gave the impression that I was calling it wrong - quite the opposite. I'm doing exactly what you suggested! But perhaps that comment wasn't directed at me, but to the others who dismiss him?

Peace,

[str8thinker]

IMO David Willcock does a good job as a professional disinfo agent - a little truth mixed in with a lot of BS.

[Jonathon]

Posted by LeeEllisMusic (here)
Exactly, Jonathon!

I am very interested in seeing what people think of the info on David's latest blog. I don't believe I gave the impression that I was calling it wrong - quite the opposite. I'm doing exactly what you suggested! But perhaps that comment wasn't directed at me, but to the others who dismiss him?

Peace,

Hi Lee - no certainly not directed at you. I must have a real problem with my posting language. As a rule I don't direct my posts toward anyone in particular. I try to be as global and inclusive as possible (the "in general" sense). I try not to make judgments/take positions unless they are directed toward myself or are gross generalities that usually indicate a question more so than a position.

@str8 - do you have some evidence that David is a disinfo agent? Accusations are usually based in something more substantial than guesswork and opinion. What is your opinion based on?

[Fury Ra]

Posted by Templeton Peck (here)
he gives me the creeps

hA HA Templeton , why's that though?

[str8thinker]

@str8 - do you have some evidence that David is a disinfo agent? Accusations are usually based in something more substantial than guesswork and opinion. What is your opinion based on?

My view has always been that unless one can produce evidence to back one's claims, it is better to shut up than to open one's mouth and muddy the waters even more by attempting to pass off speculation as fact. Here is a bit I just grabbed out of Wilcock's blog:

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT -- STUDY THE EVIDENCE

My intuitive data has been very, very consistent in telling me the "negative elite" will not succeed. Any apparent victory they may expect to have is not part of the grander script this planet is being led through -- by high-level angelic beings, for lack of a better term.

During the last three years I have had at least 200 different dreams all saying the Old World Order will be defeated in a very obvious and dramatic fashion. These dreams continue right up to the present and have not changed -- only gotten more intense.

I have had many years of experience in how accurate this guidance can be, particularly when you get 'clusters' of data that all point in the same direction.

The dreams have always said that Disclosure won't happen until we see a clear and spectacular defeat of the Powers that Were on the world stage first. The two must work in conjunction.

This is exactly what's happening right now. Open your eyes and take a look at what you see.

What evidence?

David seems privy to all manner of "insider contacts" and "angelic beings" who tell him things we as mere mortals are not. Now it's obvious David is intelligent and has featured on shows such as Ancient Aliens as well as various radio shows. So if he is telling us this stuff deliberately, in my book this makes him a disinfo agent. The PTB must be laughing their heads off at this. Certainly David is at no risk of getting death threats since the stuff he peddles is a perfect smokescreen.

One of his pronouncements that really gets up my nose is "China's October Surprise" now into part 3. While I'm sure China does have a surprise planned for us, it won't be anything along the lines Willcock has been preaching.

Compare this with Bill Ryan's painstaking and analytic approach, one of the reasons Project Avalon enjoys high credibility.

[Jonathon]

Posted by str8thinker (here)
My view has always been that unless one can produce evidence to back one's claims, it is better to shut up than to open one's mouth and muddy the waters even more by attempting to pass off speculation as fact. Here is a bit I just grabbed out of Willcock's blog:



What evidence?

David seems privy to all manner of "insider contacts" and "angelic beings" who tell him things we as mere mortals are not. Now it's obvious David is intelligent and has featured on shows such as Ancient Aliens as well as various radio shows. So if he is telling us this stuff deliberately, in my book this makes him a disinfo agent. The PTB must be laughing their heads off at this. Certainly David is at no risk of getting death threats since the stuff he peddles is a perfect smokescreen.

One of his pronouncements that really gets up my nose is "China's October Surprise" now into part 3. While I'm sure China does have a surprise planned for us, it won't be anything along the lines Willcock has been preaching.

Compare this with Bill Ryan's painstaking and analytic approach, one of the reasons Project Avalon enjoys high credibility.

We all have our sources Str8. I have my own intuitive data, some of which I share occasionally and much of it I do not. My sharing that information and any perspective I may have (right or wrong) does not make me a disinfo agent, does it? David also makes it very clear that he is no different than anyone else - we all have the ability to receive this kind of information through various practices. I do some of that myself and I think I have some idea of where he is coming from. It's not perfect for certain - dreams and their symbols/metaphors can be extremely difficult to decipher and usually have layers of meaning. If that wasn't the case, your free will would be abridged.

Something inside of you is telling you that David is wrong. The question is, what exactly? Do you have some information that confirms your disbelief or are you simply unable to accept something outside of your own parameters of 'what is'? Important to seek these answers out IMO. In my own journey, some of these parameters have been extremely shallow and poorly constructed - based on essentially nothing. We have to test our own walls from time to time. 'Resistance' in the form of disbelief, anger, argument etc to some information or circumstance are keys to understanding/knowing the self. Follow the road and discover what your walls are built of and on... you may find that although they look thick and sturdy, they in fact are not. In my case this has been true at times.

[Icecold]

Posted by GoldenYears (here)
Actually, David has spent time with Carla and knows her well.

Undoubtedly. That just lends credence to what I said. Its quite insidious. There is a process at work with David Wilcock, which will unfortunately for some, become clearer in time.

There is no doubt that a large sector of the alternative community carries baggage into the community from the old reality. This is to the advantage of 'soothsayers'.

It will end in tears.


The very fact that this debate is occurring should be setting off alarm bells.

[str8thinker]

Well, maybe my pineal gland has ossified from all that fluoridated water I've been drinking over the years, but I see nothing at all to corroborate the conclusions David Wilcock has drawn from his "data", at least nothing that makes his conclusions stand out from the crowd of possible interpretations.

I appreciate your thoughtful response Jonathon but there are so many ways to join up the dots in this puzzle, and David's brand of optimism doesn't seem to be shared by many others. What does he know that you and I don't? He wouldn't get far working in a think tank, where several outcomes need to be entertained and ranked.

Information gained by channelling doesn't sit well with information gained from reality. I have very little time for people who channel, since each channels something different.

[Billiam]

I think if you look at the bank accounts of some of those in the alternative media and what Charles said about certain people getting funded you will see the apple does not fall far from the tree in this case...

[unplugged]

David is a brilliant, talented man with an over-inflated ego that often gets the better of him. His way of processing data is inductive, intuitive, and analytical. Bill's is more deductive, just-the-facts and analytical.

Once I got over minding how much David seems to admire himself I have found him entertaining, enjoyable and persuasive (for the most part).

[str8thinker]

David is a brilliant, talented man with an over-inflated ego that often gets the better of him.

I have to agree with you there. Actually, I don't really care how brilliant or egotistical he appears as long as he gets it right. My jury is still out on that one.

[Star Gazer]

Posted by unplugged (here)
Once I got over minding how much David seems to admire himself I have found him entertaining, enjoyable and persuasive (for the most part).

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[write4change]

Why I know god is a woman. All written dogmatic heavens are boring. Only men find the concept of heaven being we praise you, we bless you, we give you glory, etc. etc. etc. 70 virgins who can make no comparisons about what love feels like?

God is out creating the next platypus to play with and make her smile.

Cayce was a very self effacing man. Ra seems to have been very contemplative. DW is their evolved combination? I make no judgment and I do find watching both thought provoking and entertaining. It takes real courage to display mental masturbation publicly. There may even be a need for it. I understand when the Dalai Lama was trying to learn about how to teach in the West there were no words for self loathing or low self esteem. It was one of his most difficult concepts.

I have seen a lot of DW works and find it all interesting. One thing I am not clear on: does he actually say he is one of the gods? At least he is not claiming to be the only god.

[Gone002]

I have never been a big fan of david wilcock but he does come out with some interesting information that makes you think.

[Erin]

He rubs me the wrong way, to be honest.

But I guess I can't hate if a lot of people are being helped by him. I just hope they aren't being duped.

[Calz]

Posted by write4change (here)
Why I know god is a woman. All written dogmatic heavens are boring. Only men find the concept of heaven being we praise you, we bless you, we give you glory, etc. etc. etc. 70 virgins who can make no comparisons about what love feels like?

God is out creating the next platypus to play with and make her smile.

Cayce was a very self effacing man. Ra seems to have been very contemplative. DW is their evolved combination? I make no judgment and I do find watching both thought provoking and entertaining. It takes real courage to display mental masturbation publicly. There may even be a need for it. I understand when the Dalai Lama was trying to learn about how to teach in the West there were no words for self loathing or low self esteem. It was one of his most difficult concepts.

I have seen a lot of DW works and find it all interesting. One thing I am not clear on: does he actually say he is one of the gods? At least he is not claiming to be the only god.

I can provide a couple quotes from the Reincarnation book (if you have it then (re)read chapter 6) that might shed light:


"The Edgar Cayce readings detailed Cayce's incarnation as an Egyptian high priest named Ra-Ta in 10,500 B.C."

goes on to say:

"According to the Cayce readings, Ra-Ta was a hybrid birth, a cross between the "gods from that area" (perhaps the "golden" manifestations of the Ra group in human form?) and a human mother."


So by extension ... *if* Wilcock is really Cayce reincarnate then that would include Ra-Ta as a past life for him (alledgedly a demi-god).

That is as close as I can come to finding or remembering any claim close to "being god or a god".

Hope that helps?

[Calz]

Posted by Icecold (here)
Undoubtedly. That just lends credence to what I said. Its quite insidious. There is a process at work with David Wilcock, which will unfortunately for some, become clearer in time.

There is no doubt that a large sector of the alternative community carries baggage into the community from the old reality. This is to the advantage of 'soothsayers'.

It will end in tears.


The very fact that this debate is occurring should be setting off alarm bells.

Thank you ... that is an interesting choice of words (especially the "alternative community baggage" reference).

First off - hope you are not in harm's way with the cyclone.

2nd - I appreciate your ability to voice a diametrically opposing view point while still maintaining a constructive tone.

3rd - I always try to remain open minded and revisit my beliefs. My take on "reality" has been rearranged more than once and sometimes painfully so. IMO "reality" is not static so your belief system should not be either.

that said ...

"insidious" ... ouch.

"it will end in tears" ... owie.

In closing it would be interesting to hear from Bill in this thread. Yep he is *quite busy* at the moment so I don't know if that is possible. He is on record, on at least one of the video interviews Camelot did with Wilcock, that he doesn't necessarily have the same viewpoints as David. Do (or did) "alarm bells" go off in his head???

[JoshERTW]

Posted by LeeEllisMusic (here)
Exactly, Jonathon!

I am very interested in seeing what people think of the info on David's latest blog. I don't believe I gave the impression that I was calling it wrong - quite the opposite. I'm doing exactly what you suggested! But perhaps that comment wasn't directed at me, but to the others who dismiss him?

Peace,

Hey Lee,

I've had some interest in DW's material for a while now - I actually would like to see what Bill/Charles thoughts were on his latest - you might want to post it in the questions to Bill thread - Charles seems to obliquely confirm that something is indeed going down in China, and that the bird and fish deaths are related to the posturing by the factions of the 33.

I don't think DW is disinfo, at least not knowingly - I wouldn't be surprised if some of his sources are "compromised" - especially given his apparent relationship with Fulford who I can't stomach at all, that guy doesn't seem to have a shred of credibility, again, not necessarily through fault of his own, but probably because his supposed sources are leading hima round by the nose.

DW seems genuine to me and his writings usually resonate - latest blog included.